TRPG General Chat

doppelgreener

00:00

@Metool The mithral armor question?

Metool

Yeah.

BESW

I think the whole thing is kinda missing the point; mithril armour can be abused, but it's a very minor "break" compared to the kind of shenanigans a caster can get up to with half the effort.

doppelgreener

Not sure; I haven't played Pathfinder much yet. I'm hoping it pales in comparison to the junk other people can do.

Like, it's crazy good on its own, but that's the point, and by the time you have that crazy good stuff, everyone else will be running around in Mega Damage Absorbium, or whatever

BESW

So... yeah, maybe it's letting a Dex-based character get higher AC than perhaps they "should" be able to. But Dex-based characters still have a ceiling lower than mental-stat characters, so maybe let them have their fun.

doppelgreener

@BESW Well there's also, y'know, the fighter.

Does the fighter get better armor? Or are they out-tanked by the guys who're supposed to be squishier than them, despite being in heavy, powerful armor?

Metool

00:08

I think I heard Lord_Gareth say something to the effect of "You want the tank to have a lower armour class" once.

Oblivious Sage

Do you really think anyone at Paizo cares whether fighters are beaten at their own game by other classes?

BESW

Mmm. And there's the underlying problem of "supposed to."

It's not like 4e where the fighter is explicitly labelled "defender;" 3.X is a lot looser with both role and balance assumptions.

Metool

@Lord_Gareth [summon]

BESW

I mean, the wizard is "supposed to" be easier to kill than the fighter, if you look at defences and HP.

Metool

@Lord_Gareth [fizzle]

Zachiel

00:11

Heya @Forrestfire

Forrestfire

hi

doppelgreener

@ObliviousSage No, probably not!

@Metool And yeah, maybe, but you also want them to be able to survive and take a beating.

Metool

ah, here is a recent quote from @Lord_Gareth

7:12:57 PM <Lord_Gareth> @IronHeart - AC that's too high, or significantly higher than the rest of the party, sheds aggro from you onto them

That's what hit points are for!

wax eagle

poorly scaling fighters make me sad :(

Metool

7:13:58 PM <Lord_Gareth> @IronHeart - So while SOME AC is good, JACKING your AC is not necessarily what you want
7:14:09 PM <Lord_Gareth> Because things that whiff oyu will go '[forget] it' and move onto the squishy

doppelgreener

00:14

@Metool [suddenly reminded of that answer about 4e defenders and MC Hammer...]

Zachiel

@Metool In my case it's the opposite. I stopped trying to hit the barbarian and started trying to hit the cleric that renewed those HP every time I hit him.

Forrestfire

No, that's incorrect

imho

if you're relying on low AC to draw aggro, you're doing it wrong

if your AC is lower than the rest of the party's presumably high AC, then you may as well buff it up and spend some resources on actually keeping the enemies from doing nasty stuff to the people you're protecting

Oblivious Sage

The best way to draw aggro is to be the most attractive target available. AC is just one of the factors that goes into determining target attractiveness.

Zachiel

the one who deals the most damage or imposes the worst penalties on enemy tactics draws aggro. That's it.

Forrestfire

Or both.

Or you skip drawing aggro, and go straight to lockdown

which is probably the single best way to "tank" in 3.5

(and also why conjurers make the best "tanks")

among other reasons, I guess

doppelgreener

00:18

Ouch. Well put there, Forrestfire.

Forrestfire

There is no way to answer that question nicely.

Or at least no way I can think of when brain-fried

Zachiel

aw

horrible scene

a barbarian/warrior is trying to attack the familiar of an archivist. Said familiar has 76 AC which means the warrior only hits on a 20

the barbarian player is exasperated

BESW

@Forrestfire When your brain recovers, you might try looking at some of the other questions about PF balance and seeing how they deal with the issue.

Maybe you'll find something you can just link to, or at least it'll give you some ideas for how to talk about the issue.

Forrestfire

I'm gonna elaborate, I think

/me goes off to edit

oh, that doesn't work here

doppelgreener

it doesn't :'(

[tends to use this notation instead]

Forrestfire

00:26

ah

wax eagle

the accepted is to use italics, it's what hte chat user scripts convert it to

does stuff

Forrestfire

ah, cool

doppelgreener

@waxeagle i dunno, i think the asterisks are pretty important to see; italics is different

wax eagle

44

Q: SE Chat Modifications -- Keyboard navigation and commands for chat

Screenshot Use /command shortcuts to perform common chat tasks: See message history inline: Easily preview replied-to messages: And much, much more... About Legends tell of a prolific Meta Stack Overflow chatter who despised using their mouse above all things. In an effort to keep t...

doppelgreener

or maybe i'm just used to people doing that in no-formatting protocols

BESW

00:28

@JonathanHobbs That's where I've seen it, yeah.

doppelgreener

here i use [this] in particular because the brackets don't disappear

BESW

I've taken to using brackets since it's universally not supported, so I can use it to identical effect everywhere I chat.

Metool

Indeed.

BESW

Carets, asterisks, /commands, and so forth, all get re-formatted or not in variable ways depending on where I'm chatting. Brackets--so far as I've found--don't.

[fist pump]

Metool

Well, there's tags.

But that's special.

BESW

00:32

Aye. Not gonna be useful on Skype or Hangouts.

doppelgreener

You need special syntax for those though

wax eagle

00:52

Have we talked about this in here yet?

it looks kind of amazing

BESW

@waxeagle Previously, on RPG General Chat.

wax eagle

@BESW ah, missed that, I like that they're playing it straight

BESW

I'm not sure what I think of the whole thing. I kinda liked that it was just dying a quiet, undignified death.

Metool

Wait, what?

Zachiel

the barbarian gal is still trying to attack. The familiar isn't even caring about her anymore and is talking with me.

What the hell, D&D!

BESW

01:04

@Metool Are you aware of Chick tracts?

Zachiel

I'm temptedd to link her "making the good decisions"

Metool

@BESW I am indeed.

BESW

@Metool Somebody's making a movie based on his anti-D&D comic.

Metool

Just wondering how Dark Dungeons is "dying a quiet, undignified death"

I'm certainly looking forward to release (unless it's already been released, in which case I'll run off to see it)

BESW

@Metool Well, it was. Chick was increasingly discredited. I dunno what a film using his comics as sincere source material will do.

wax eagle

01:06

@Metool Gencon release

Zachiel

@BESW somebody = the guys who did The Gamers

Metool

^ This is a key bit.

wax eagle

and lets be honest, it's not like this is going to hit the theaters

it's targeted at gamers, marketed to gamers

BESW

03:32

"This is not cattle rustling, this is cattle liberation! Paladins For The Ethical Treatment of Animals!" - @UrsulaV #dnd #yesreally

Tweeted by ksonney on June 3, 2014 at 2:54 AM

doppelgreener

05:14

@BESW That was a great way to put that.

I've deleted my comment.

I somehow wrote "funamdental" in my edit summary.

i am perplexed by this typo, and amused that i got 'fun' and 'dental' into the same word.

2

BESW

06:05

@JonathanHobbs I was composing a comment for Mike, but then I remembered it's better to edit info into the answer.

Would you like to see what I've got so you can decide if it should go into your answer?

doppelgreener

@BESW Sure!

BESW

> Fate gameplay is very much a conversation. There's no "last in, first out" or "I called it first" in the mechanics of invoking; instead, the players have space to discuss their choices and *everyone* gets to make equally informed decisions (whether the characters have the info or not).
> I've seen "invocation escalation" resolved with both players realising they're willing to go all out, and agreeing not to play any invokes at all because the outcome would be the same except they won't have cool things left for later on. I think most groups would be okay with that.

> In that context, who got to start the invokes doesn't matter at all.

doppelgreener

[reads!]

That sounds good. I think it would make sense under a heading along the lines of 'who invokes first?' or something, but I'll leave that up to your choices as to how you'd like to edit it in.

BESW

Bah, I was trying to abdicate editing responsibility to you.

doppelgreener

06:21

Oh!

Well, I'll do that if you like.

BESW

Just done. But it's in my voice, so fiddlewith as you like.

The Oracle

0

Q: Please destroy the [mechanicaldream] -> [mechanical-dream] tag synonym

We have a a tag synonym pointing mechanicaldream to mechanical-dream, and it's preventing me from actually recreating the mechanical-dream tag and reapplying it to one of our past questions that lost its system tag. Could this tag synonym be destroyed? Nowadays, SE has protection from creating t...

support status-completed tags

doppelgreener

@BESW I like it as is, I think. I like your writing, which makes the decision easy, and it works well enough in flow.

(I haven't used my voice enough in that writing to make it distinctly different from your voice.)

BESW

Spsh. Your voice is very clear there.

doppelgreener

@BESW well, yes, but you're familiar with it, and it's basically 50/50 mine/yours now, so between the two of us we just have one post with multiple personality disorder.

BESW

06:34

Fair enough. [grin]

@JonathanHobbs Speaking of voice.... [Storium nudge]

doppelgreener

06:49

@BESW I'll be home in roughly an hour and a half, I'll write something then. :)

The Oracle

1

Q: Please fix the spacing for our header styles; it's backwards

This is a somewhat trivial request, but it's about a typographical pet peeve I've been noticing for a few months. I figure I might as well make a request about it. Our heading spacing is off. Headings are meant to have a gap above to separate a new section from the previous one, and then be snug...

feature-request design

BESW

07:43

@JonathanHobbs Yeah, there are a few fiddly bits about the site's typography that rub me the wrong way, but it's overall so much better than most SE sites, and I know that my own ideas about typography are based on print rather than web philosophies...

doppelgreener

08:05

There's the x in our game rec notices too ;)

But this site has made me like serif fonts, contrast to Times New Roman having the opposite effect

doppelgreener

09:04

@BESW Would you care to propose a wiki for do-potft?

It is a solo system tag without a wiki, so it's currently doomed.

BESW

I'll hit it up later tonight.

doppelgreener

pizza is in oven. in a few minutes i will have energy levels beginning to be restored and will take to writing a storium post.

(tonight was shopping night. shopping night is not cooking night.)

BESW

09:19

@JonathanHobbs Ditto here. Shopping night is "We brought take-out!"

BESW

09:54

@JonathanHobbs Tag wiki!

doppelgreener

@BESW Woohoo! Very well written, too.

BESW

Whoops, missed a word.

There we go.

GMNoob

10:27

Has the latest escapist magazine interview been posted here about 5e?

The wealth of information is really helpful

BESW

I haven't seen it!

GMNoob

escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/tabletop/…

BESW

Is there anything you found especially interesting or noteworthy?

GMNoob

Yes

:P

Whats in the PHB, whats in the DMG

but I haven't finished reading yet :P

Character history in the starter set, tied to the adventure

Convention play stuff is sort of interesting, but will never apply to me

BESW

10:44

I'm skeptical about their visions for maintaining monster viability at various levels of play, based on previous outings, but all they're giving us is a sketch of intent so there's nothing to get my teeth into.

GMNoob

previous outings of what?

BESW

D&D; 3.x and 4e had chronic problems with accurately predicting how monsters would interact with players at various character levels and in different sized groups.

GMNoob

Ah

Cause I've been happy with 15 2hp kobolds nearly destroying level 5 chars so far :P

BESW

3.5's challenge rating system was just barely useful, and 4e never did figure out that a monster 4 levels above the party was a bad idea.

GMNoob

@BESW The rules specifically say to not use a monster that is more than 2 levels above the party unless you plan to kill them

BESW

10:49

I... think the "Levels of Individual Threats" entry in the "Step-by-Step Encounters" sidebar on DMG 56 says that "Threats in a hard encounter can be as many as three to five levels above the party’s level." My experience with WotC-published adventures throughout the system's run is consistent with their believing that statement.

My experience on the battlefield says that anything more than one or two levels above or below the group makes combat either trivial or a boring slog.

GMNoob

@BESW Ah, I never read those books. I heard they got errated as soon as they were printed, and that's why they are staggering the release this time. But in the Essentials book, it says player level -2 to player level +2

BESW

@GMNoob The adventures say that the team didn't all get the memo.

GMNoob

After reading the escapist interview, I'm not surprised. Mearls talks about that problem.

BESW

I'm also uncertain how to take his assertion that monsters won't follow consistent generalised rules.

GMNoob

wha?

BESW

10:54

"in the [Monster Manual] there aren't too many hard and fast general rules." That could be cool (like 4e's monsters with individualised powers which stayed within firm parameters but were totally customised within them), or devastating (if I have to learn totally new rules for every monster I put on the field, I'm not going to put many different monsters together in a fight).

GMNoob

". We tried whenever possible that within the stat block we give you everything you need to run the monster. So when you're referring to it you don't have to do much flipping back and forth. ... but when it's a unique ability it's faster for us to say "This creature can hurl an area attack that is a burst of fire" instead of saying "This creature can cast fireball."

What you quoted was in response to this question here: " For example, in 3rd Edition there were lots of rules in the Monster Manual that simply didn't ever apply to players. "

BESW

Actively tracking a dozen monster abilities mid-battle was always one of my weaknesses, even after I learned ways to have all the relevant info at my fingertips. It doesn't matter so much whether the rules are in front of me as whether I have to learn new ones all the time.

GMNoob

He then says there are special monster rules for legendary monsters, but that otherwise the rules are not in the monster manual. Least that is how I read it.

Ah, well that's one thing I prefer in 4e modules over 3e modules. I can see it's a blast 5 d6+8 damage, and I don't have to flip through the rulebook to find the "thorn armor" spell, or whatever

3

BESW

Exactly.

...And [sigh] Wizards still thinks D&D is the bog-standard definition of fantasy.

GMNoob

Do they think that, or do they want you to think that? :P

BESW

11:00

They make the claim, whatever their intent.

GMNoob

Did you see the front cover of the books? :P

I think it says something like, the best fantasy game ever created, or something not much more modest than that.

Zachiel

@BESW [HR] being too near to the above text?

BESW

An argument could be made for D&D defining the fantasy RPG experience, but to claim D&D is even close to "standard" fantasy as a non-medium-specific genre is either laughably near-sighted or appallingly bold.

@Zachiel That meta post is the context, yes.

Zachiel

@BESW No, I mean, is the --------------- line another thing that bugs you? Because it bugs me. Also, I can't have a list if I don't create a space between it and the previous text.

BESW

@Zachiel Oh. Yes, especially to the second. I don't use --- often enough to have noticed it specifically.

GMNoob

11:05

"World's greatest roleplaying game" is what it says on the starter set :P

BESW

The whole quote/spoiler markdown is kinda messed up.

But that's a markdown issue, not a site-specific problem.

Magician

@GMNoob quick question: does that interview say rules modules will be in DMG (or anywhere else, for that matter)? The topic seems to have disappeared.

GMNoob

The phrase "rules modules" is not used, but otherwise yes

Magician

Well, whatever they call it. Tactical combat, expanded skill system, whatever else.

GMNoob

Warning ... long text

The DMG is, well - going back to Basic D&D as a starting point - if you think of the Player's Handbook as for the player who is looking at character classes and played a couple of them and wants more options or wants to fine-tune what their character is, or who says "I want to play a paladin." The DMG serves the same role for the DM. Basic D&D hits core fantasy, it's stereotypical fantasy adventuring. If you're the DM and you want to do something more exotic, you say "I want to add technology to my game" or "I want to have more detailed rules for a grim and grittier game, more of a horror g…

Zachiel

11:10

Mmmmmh 3.5e, is high touch AC enough to shut completely down a fighter who spent his feats on dealing more damage and maybe tripping?

BESW

@Zachiel The answer to "is X enough to shut down a 3.5 fighter?" is usually "yes." More so when he's not focusing on to-hit.

Zachiel

@BESW focusing on to-hit against AC 76 is not this useful. A +47 is hard to get, let alone more.

Magician

@GMNoob Interesting, thanks.

BESW

@Magician I think the answer is "Yes, but they've changed the scope of what it means."

Zachiel

then it's true, there's a gap in levels between the two guys but I guess +7 to hit from BAB wouldn't have solved anything

Magician

11:13

@BESW Does look that way. Though given how tight-lipped they are, we'll just have to wait and see.

BESW

I am glad for the Basic thing, because it means I can look into it without giving them any money sight unseen.

GMNoob

I don't think so. Mearls has specifically said that the DMG will contain an alternate magic casting, point buy system

Though I have not heard them mention "tactical combat" specifically.

But they do mention this about the fighter: "Fighter is a funny one because there are three or four options, but one opens up a huge set of maneuvers you can choose from, so it's only one fighter option but from within it you can build lots of different fighters."

And here is the meat question that most people want to know about the Phb
Warning long text

Mearls: For classes, I think everything that showed up in the public playtest at one point or another. We've got the four core [Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard], the Monk, Ranger, Paladin, Barbarian, then we have Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, and the... now I'm forgetting one, and I always forget one. Oh, the Druid!

For races, it's basically 3rd Edition plus 4th Edition. Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling from the basic set. Then Half-Orc, Half-Elf, Gnome, Tiefling, and Dragonborn. And for Elves, since in the game when you pick a race you also pick a subtype, there's also Drow in the Player's Handb…

BESW

"There's never been a hacker's guide to D&D" aside from Unearthed Arcana? What do they call Savage Species and the whole "spellseed" debacle in Epic Level Handbook?

Magician

Bolding: So it sounds like you're almost doing some heading off at the pass. You're answering the first common questions people take to a forum because they're confused about. Is that true?

Mearls: Yeah, exactly. That's a good way to think of it. We have a lot of information to draw from. Its been fourteen years since 3rd Edition came out. You get a sense of what people are doing with the system with the open playtest

Um. Ummmm. So 4e officially didn't happen, nothing to learn there?

GMNoob

huh? How do you get from A to B?

BESW

11:19

@Magician Oh, yes. They learned "people like playing Dragonborn."

GMNoob

3rd edition = first edition that WoTC made.

BESW

@GMNoob A lot of the 5e playtest has been basically re-learning things that 4e already taught them, and when they talk about their experience with D&D they regularly gloss over its lessons. So when he says that thing about "a lot of information to draw from" and glosses over 4e again... it's not a big leap.

GMNoob

WTF?

Jumping over the grand canyon would be a smaller leap

How exactly did they learn what people consider iconic to D&D and its feel from 4e?

And how did they learn what people do with the system, from 4e? Who were they watching play the game?

Magician

I'm confused. Your last two questions seem to indicate you don't believe they could have learned anything from 4e. Or am I misreading them?

GMNoob

You are missreading them. I don't think they learned anything from 4e that they learned specifically and only from the playtests

Magician

11:26

As for rediscovering 4e, the interview itself has an example, which was even quoted here: "Whenever possible though we tried to give creatures unique abilities. When you look back at 3rd Edition it tried to default to spells. I don't want to say we're doing the opposite, but when it's a unique ability it's faster for us to say "This creature can hurl an area attack that is a burst of fire" instead of saying "This creature can cast fireball.""

GMNoob

i.e. the playtest was not re-learning what they learned from 4e, it was asking a new set of questions

Magician

Which is exactly what 4e did.

GMNoob

As for specifcally mentioning 4e in public articles... I find this twitter thread relevant.
https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/469997834805075968

@Magician 4e also instantly came to my mind, but I guess some are then wondering why he didn't say, "I don't want to say we're doing the opposite, but when it's a unique ability it's easier for us to do what we did in 4e"

I skipped a step in the conversation before linking to the twitter thread :P

Magician

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be looking at in that thread, tbh. Mearls saying sarcastically about the influence of 4e on 5e "hard to believe, but I think it happened once"? I'm sure there was some influence.

@GMNoob I don't want to read too much into specific phrasing in a random interview, but the general tone of WotC has been evident basically since Next/5e was announced: downplay 4e in favor of "returning to the roots."

GMNoob

@Magician The part where people are overly sensitive to past versions.

Magician

11:33

In this context presenting a 4e innovation as something different from 3e that they're doing is a perfect fit. As is saying they've learned from 14 years of 3.x without mentioning 8(?) years of 4e. And so on.

@GMNoob Eh, edition wars are unavoidable, it seems. And 5e wanted to fix them by saying "all are equal", and rule modules were a huge part of that initial promise. But, it seems, they're a tweaking thing now, and some editions are more equal than others.

Which is perfectly within their right, but as someone who vastly preferred 4e to 3.x, I find it leaves me very lukewarm towards 5e.

GMNoob

They don't have 14 years of 3.x. They have 8 years of 3.x and 6 years of 4.x. I honestly don't get the over sensitivity.

but they do have 14 years of customer service experience.. but they don't have 40 years.

Magician

@GMNoob But that's not what he says! It's a tiny thing. It just goes onto a huge pile of tiny things.

BESW

24 years of customer service experience, actually--if we're talking about Wizards. But if we're being oversensitive then that's that, and there's no point in further discussion of our irrational butt-hurt.

GMNoob

A huge pile of tiny things that people who love each edition keep complaining about. I love it. 3e players say 2e is the first class citizens, 2e say 4e has too much influence, 4e players say it takes a back seat to 3e.

Magician

@BESW And then Mearls himself only has the 4e customer service experience, as that's what he worked on.

@GMNoob Ok, question for you as someone who plays 5e. Can it be used to achieve play experience at all similar to that of 4e? From reading the playtest rules, I have a strong feeling that it can't be, but perhaps I'm wrong.

lisardggY

11:42

(Trying to catch up on the conversation. Processing...)

GMNoob

@Magician Not sure what you mean. I loved 4e, because it allowed me to play a 2 hour game at encounters. 5e excels in that area as well. But there was an aspect of 4e I did not like, and that was people focusing on their character sheets and picking powers and not talking about their character outside of those mechanics, and that aspects of 4e is gone.

Oh and minimal GM prep time.

lisardggY

@GMNoob That aspect existed in 3.5 and 3.0 (and 2 and 1). The archetype of the "munchkin" or powergamer was always part of the hobby.

GMNoob

Now, the two times I played 5e with a grid (two battles, not two games) the grid and movement felt alot like I was playing a game of 4e in PbP. Which is a different feel than playing 4e live.

@lisardggY I'm not talking about munchkins or powergamers, I'm talking about everybody at the table. I'm talking about my own relationship with my char sheet.

@Magician so what experience of 4e are you asking about? (I'm sure it wasn't either of the two I mentioned)

Magician

@GMNoob Hm. Lets go with diverse and interesting combat, in which all characters participate equally. 4e combat is its purpose. Characters are heroes, and they're here to be awesome.

GMNoob

5e feels the same way, except for the archer ranger, who only feels awesome when they use the hail of thorns spell.

however, one thing that is different, is that the diverse and interesting combat is spread out over multiple encounters, rather than focused in one encounter. I have yet to engage in an encounter which takes more than 3 rounds.

Magician

11:55

@GMNoob Really? That seems short. Is that the new standard, I wonder.

GMNoob

And in those 3 rounds, both players and monsters have died.

@Magician I have yet to play past level 6. But fights last 5-10 minutes. It's what allows us to get so much done in a gaming session.

It's possible that at higher levels it lasts more than 3 rounds.

I'm also about to have my first pbp fight which has more than 10 monsters in it, so that might change the duration of the battle as well.

Magician

Hmmmmm. But can you do much of anything in 5 minutes and 3 rounds? That's quick, and that's awesome. But do you do more than use basic attack 3 times? As that was my impression of test combat I ran with one of the playtests: we ran up to the bad guy and whacked it until it died. It was fast, but extremely unsatisfying.

Aaron

Good morning

GMNoob

It normally goes like this. The wizard debates using a limited spell or one of 2 or 3 cantrips. The monk debates to use a ki point or not, the rogue sets up a creative use of sneak attack, the barbarian works out if they need to rage or not, the fighter gets creative with their attacks,...

and maybe surges, the ranger shoots the arrow, or chooses to use a limited spell, same as the paladin (but with divine smite) and the cleric decides if they want to go melee, cast a spell, or use a cantrip. (did I leave anyone out?)

But most of the decision making comes before each combat, or inbetween the combats.

Once a plan of attack is chosen, it tends to go quick, and the plan either works (no injuries) or it fails (somebody got knocked out)

Joshua Aslan Smith

You guys talking about 5e?

GMNoob

12:04

5e doesn't set itself up well for simulations or test combats, it works as a full RPG game, not as skirmishes

Joshua Aslan Smith

Ive had plenty of success with the encounters the last 2 seasons run in 5e with the tactical grid combat

GMNoob

@JoshuaAslanSmith We are discussing this: escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/tabletop/…

Joshua Aslan Smith

I will read before contributing any further then

GMNoob

might be easier to read the backlog, the article is 5 "pages" :P

lisardggY

Reading it now. It's no surprise that the Starter Set feels like the red box - it was literally modeled on it.

Oh, wait, no. The Basic D&D PDF is like the Red Box.

Joshua Aslan Smith

12:09

@GMNoob Im a quick enough read and the primacy of source/1st hand material should never be doubted in comparison to 2nd hand reports

lol 15 people being too big for agile makes me laugh, a lot

GMNoob

@JoshuaAslanSmith I was thinking the same thing. I wonder if all other RPGs are made with 1-4 people.

lisardggY

They still have monks. I never really liked monks. :)

Magician

@GMNoob it's good that it's enjoyable. Thank you for answering!

GMNoob

@lisardggY Prefer boxer, or that it gets rolled into fighter?

lisardggY

@GMNoob It never really fit into the fantasy worlds I liked.

Joshua Aslan Smith

12:12

easy way to play, ban monks

lol

they were pretty OP in the playtest

you could also refluff monk as a "Mage knight" or something or other and itd probably still work

lisardggY

OP/UP doesn't really bother me. It's mostly their flavor I disliked. Martial arts never really clicked for me in most medieval-inspired fantasy settings.

Joshua Aslan Smith

good to hear the basic D&D rules will get updated throughout the releases to reflect errata

GMNoob

I never liked the name monk, it always confused me. But on the otherhand, like ninjas, they are in every setting, you just can't see them.

@JoshuaAslanSmith Not just errata. At first, the "basic" will ONLY be char creation, then when the phb comes out, you will get the "basic rules", then when the DMG comes out you will get the full "basic rules".

Joshua Aslan Smith

oooh looks like they are actually pushing the flaws, bonds, & traits system from the playtest, I liked that a lot, felt very dungeonworld/fate

lisardggY

Mearls' Legends & Lore column on the flaws/bonds/traits was a bit snarky.

GMNoob

12:16

@JoshuaAslanSmith What do you think of this? docs.google.com/file/d/0B9743jkQd9NbUVdpQVNhUXQtN2c/edit

lisardggY

All in all it seems very nice, though compared to any system other than older D&D, hardly anything new or interesting. Literally every system I've played that wasn't D&D derived had a flaw system in place and usually more prominently.

Joshua Aslan Smith

@lisardggY havent read that one

lisardggY

Not surprised he brings up the Mind Flayer and Beholder as iconic MM monsters. They're the ones WotC traditionally defended as intellectual property.

Joshua Aslan Smith

@lisardggY Its a heavy feature in a lot of RPGs, I think gurps was my first exposure to it, but thats like, here take this thing and get more starting XP, whereas the new system for 5e felt very fate in its outlay

lisardggY

And he's right, of course. Both are iconic and awesome. The beholder, though, I feel hasn't been getting the respect owed.

BESW

12:19

@lisardggY Oh, was that the one where he said that D&D hadn't used RP mechanics because D&D assumed its players didn't need role-playing aids, but that new gamers need them because computer games make you dumb?

lisardggY

@BESW Exactly.

Here's the L&L column

GMNoob

@BESW blink Not how I read it at all... I read him saying that D&D needs a clear and obvious indicator which makes RPGs stand out against computer games. (it's not like computer games lack indepth stories)

Joshua Aslan Smith

hmmm a lot of steering of the conversation to how 5e relates to 3e (by both sides)

lisardggY

@GMNoob When 90% of non-D&D RPGs have some sort of story- or RP-related flaw mechanics, he's either being obtuse or snarky.

(I like the word obtuse)

BESW

mmm. He starts with "RPGs used to assume players would do that on their own." Then he says "video games don't teach those skills." His conclusion is that "nowadays RPGs need to show players how it's done because computer games teach them not to do it."

Of course, he then goes on to say they aren't interested in mechanics, followed immediately by a chart to roll on. I'm generally unimpressed by these articles--I think they're under pressure to say something too often to be able to say it well, or sometimes even to have much content with which to fill the necessary lines.

Joshua Aslan Smith

12:28

I would agree with that

I think because they are so mum about the big stuff they are using legends and lore and rule of 3 as a pressure release valve for the communithy

so they're just trying to throw bones

@GMNoob makes me laugh but in a good way. I like the style of it but its completely impractical

BESW

Though I approve of their policy of not saying much until it's well-fleshed-out, they seem to have missed that this means they have to reduce the frequency/regularity of their communication. It makes them look foolish and airheaded even when it doesn't create outright contradictions in message.

Joshua Aslan Smith

Im glad Mearls is emphasizing the need to have the team on the same page with regards to PHB when the work on the other books to prevent conflicting rules or poor wording confusion.

GMNoob

@BESW used to: in the 70s, "nowadays: all other rpgs do this"

BESW

@GMNoob I don't actually see him giving any other tabletop RPG credit for having thought of it--D&D is very late to this party, so his talking about how a game "releasing in 2014" needs to provide RP mechanics is kind of disingenuous when other major systems were doing it 20 years ago--nor do I see how that would mitigate my annoyed amusement at his implication that computer games ruined people for "real" role-playing.

Again, they're being pressured to say a lot about very little, and it leads to poorly written articles that maybe don't say what they want to say, but do reveal some interesting things about various thought processes.

Zachiel

I think D&D has the worst RP mechanics ever. Mental scores. Which you also need to cast spells.

BESW

12:46

@Zachiel There is something to be said for a system where it's totally plausible by mechanics that my character manipulates the very fabric of reality with his dashing good looks.

6

wax eagle

@JoshuaAslanSmith yeah, that was a good call

Joshua Aslan Smith

@BESW Now Im thinking of gambit as a sorcerer

Zachiel

@BESW maybe it's good at a table where you're not supposed to immersion-RP your character. When you're asked to be believable, having a high Charisma on you sheet is just recipe for disaster.

GMNoob

13:03

@BESW Yeah, he doesn't talk about other products in the Legend and lore articles. They are a company afterall, but he does talk about how D&D needs to catch up with the rest of the industry in his talk at one of the conventions during the first year of the playtest.

@BESW Mearls has said that he is terrible at writing articles, I think no matter how much time they gave him, the articles would sound rushed.

BESW

mmm. "Rushed" is a little kind. The blogs are a form of PR, ultimately. In the hands of a good writer they'd be much more palatable without giving away any more of their hand.

As it is, the articles they publish about 5e make me increasingly skeptical of whether they actually know what they're doing.

GMNoob

Sometimes I think he writes poorly on purpose to give us a false sense of "insider info"

Joshua Aslan Smith

lol

BESW

13:18

Anyone who's following my Atlantean Destiny game on Storium, we just finished the pirate battle and started a new scene.

Joshua Aslan Smith

crap totally forgot about storium

BESW

@JoshuaAslanSmith You've got one card left to play, I think, and there are two challenges which each need two more cards.

Joshua Aslan Smith

correct

gonna throw this one at the puzzle of the ruins

BESW

I think Operafloozy's running a little too subtle on the malign influence of the statues, but we'll see where she goes with it.

Joshua Aslan Smith

yeah

I was going to make my wild strength seige-craft because I mistakenly remembered there to be a building at the center of them, but now I re read the description I need ot think of something better

BESW

13:29

The Atlantean Destiny is getting seriously out of hand in the best possible way.

Two scenes of "I say, sir!" and "My gears are all wobbly," and then BAM EXPLOSIONS AND SKY PIRATES AND FULL RAMMING SPEED.

Joshua Aslan Smith

hahaha

that sounds so over the top

BESW

I kid you not, this is a line from our last scene:

Joshua Aslan Smith

having just watched another poirot episode last night though, I can always do with more "I say"

BESW

> Major gunned the thruster, heading towards trouble. “YEEHAW! RAMMIN' SPEED!”

Followed shortly by:

> “Maydayyyyyyyyyyyy!” Major shouted, mostly to himself.

trogdor

lol

BESW

13:41

Oh, and I decided in a fit of sleeplessness that the goblins should sound like Sean Connery.

> “The navikation'sh gone haywire, shir! All egshternal inputsh are givingk ush junk!”

Joshua Aslan Smith

that is a good decision

another antagonist race should should sound like michael caine

BESW

Someone is going to wind up sounding like BRIAN BLESSED.

Joshua Aslan Smith

haha

So now Im thinking about famous actor voices/roles that should be transposed over D&D characters

BESW

I do that regularly.

I'm not very good at actual imitations, but if I have a familiar voice in mind then at least the character's going to sound consistent.

Joshua Aslan Smith

Tom Hardy's bane will now be my go to for drow

BESW

13:45

You know how Dame Judy Dench tightens up her mouth when she talks for some roles? I do that for some of my characters.

GMNoob

13:58

Has anyone ever heard Monty python's "always look on the bright side of life" played on the radio?

BESW

I think I heard it sampled as a show intro once, locally.

Transcript for