as a side effect, if you start a new game with the same players, they can keep using the strategies from your current game without having to refer to the stealth rules you wrote, keeping the games independent but intuitive

@waxeagle Intriguing

I feel really sorry for the GM asking the question about inter-PC arguments :(

@waxeagle Oh I didn't know it was an official rule. I just thought they set up the prereqs so that you wouldn't want to change out your (for example) mc feat.

@sillyputty nah, it's part of the retrain rules

I've honestly never quite understood groups where PvP is against the social contract.

* pulls out "have you talked to the players" banner and parades around room *

@Lord_Gareth sometimes it's necessary, some GMs don't like it etc

@Wibbs I know the reasons. I still don't get it.

:)

fair enough

The groups I've played in have always treated PvP the same way we've treated romance or in fact any other event of the game; if it's a natural outgrowth of the characters and the events of the campaign, it happens.

It's usually infrequent, but some of our most striking and memorable moments have been at each other's throats.

@Lord_Gareth then you've been lucky with your groups

@Lord_Gareth I get uncomfortable with it if it isn't intended in the game played. I'm conflict averse, and generally like cooperating with my friends to some common goal. It gets... uncomfortable for me if that gets stymied because "well I'm playing a character that wants to hurt your character" especially if that just seems unjustified somehow.

It starts to feel like one of my friends is trying to beat me at an rpg

I've seen this kind of thing degenerate into standing shouting matches and close to fist fights

Which is an uncomfortable feeling.

@sillyputty To give you an idea, the last time I experienced PvP in a campaign was in a Star Wars: Saga game where we'd started as servants of Darth Vader. On a ship alone with one of my party members, the other guy said he was defecting to the Rebellion. I wasn't.

That said, if the setting or game system or our agreement beforehand is that PvP is allowed/expected, I'm much more open ot the idea.

I lost the ensuing battle, barely, but it was fun as all hell.

Well, that does seem like quite the irreconcilable difference... =P

My games almost always have an element of PvP, sometimes significant, but I often tailor it to the players in the group as I know some can't do it or won't enjoy it

and I always, always bring it up in the first session with a new group

I suppose this stems from most of the times I've encountered PvP, it was because one player in the party was deliberately trying to undermine the goals of the group, and the game, because the character's backstory made him treacherous or some other such nonsense that does nothing to contribute to the fun.

@AlexMitan o/

@sillyputty See, that's not an issue with PvP so much as an issue with playing with an immature jerk.

That sort of arc can be fun if folks are in on it.

But you don't just spring that out of nowhere.

yep

...Though it does remind me when I pulled a reversal on one of those where I worked with a player to make it seem like she was the villain of the campaign but actually she was amnesiac Loki in a convoluted scheme to break Ragnarok by becoming a different person entirely.

Thus saving his skin and accomplishing the greatest trick he'd ever done: changing his own Legend

Also lead to this:

Hah! Nice.

Sleeping with the enemy: a fine Norse tradition :V

@Lord_Gareth ...that's eerily similar to the current Loki comics from Marvel.

@Magician This took place about five years ago in real time

And, yes, I suppose you are right. But I can even take it a step further. My SO is terribly averse to PvP to the point of not playing games that are built on it. I can play a game of Mountain Witch and have fun. I know going in that all of us are setting up to betray everyone else, fine and good. But some players can't have fun with that because they enjoy cooperation, not conflict. And find the latter boring if applied to the party.

No right or wrong about it. Groups that enjoy PvP are just as valid as groups that don't. I'm just showcasing the other point of view. =)

@sillyputty Curiosity, what about competitive board games like Betrayal on the House on the Hill?

I get too personally invested in my characters for PVP

@Aaron See, this is one of those statements that makes no sense to me. Because I am invested in my characters, sometimes PvP happens.

I, because of the setup, am fine with it and have fun. My SO, not so much. She'll play straight up competitive board games like SmashUp or Risk or what have you (Risk isn't a very good game but you get my point). But games that are ostensibly about the group overcoming an outside obstacle but then someone turns on you? She doesn't have fun with it.

Unrelated to the conversation, for @BESW -> i.imgur.com/yzPJ2MI.png

@Lord_Gareth An example then that might explain a bit.

@Lord_Gareth We were playing a game where I was playing the type I normally play. I play characters who are good but don't try to force others to do good. There are lines though. And we made a deal with a young priestess to get her out of a church where she was forced to stay. After releasing her though the rest of the party was like. "why not take her gold then sell her into slavery and make even MORE gold." My character obviously got upset and so did I in real life.

[Listens]

It almost devolved into PVP but our DM decided it was time for a break at that moment. (I was obviously upset at this point)

I guess I see my characters as an extension of myself and my personality and I just assume other's are the same so I saw this as something they would really do that. I get a little too into the RP

@Aaron This might be part of the problem. Seeing a character as an extension of the self can be a cause of issues at the table and is also one of the chief sources of My Guy Syndrome

I can't really blame you for getting upset at the prospect of selling someone off into slavery. The idea skeevs me out. Blegh.

@Lord_Gareth Right. Normally this isn't an issue in game I join but this particular game we were not on the same page. Everyone else had made either character of highly questionable morals or strait up evil character while I was the only good character. No one had told me that the tone was different and I needed to play a different character

@Aaron [Insert obligatory link to the Same Page Tool] :V But yeah, I know that feel.

Yea. After that game, if it isn't stated, I always ask the tone of the game

I have found that cutting against tone can work if you know what the tone is beforehand and make a deliberate move instead of just flailing at it with your face.

@Lord_Gareth Right if I knew the tone beforehand I wouldn't have felt betrayed because I would have expected it and wouldn't have gotten upset.

Do you read looking for group?

Like, I joined a campaign full of morally bankrupt people as a character concerned with ethics, but I knew beforehand that their problems weren't "BWAHAHAHA THIS BABY IS DELICIOUS" but rather being raised in an environment that combined: absolute political power, frequent danger, and being raised by a being with no conscience.

I do.

(Not that my character doesn't have issues. She's got a goddess trying to murder her and she's desperate to survive)

(If she thinks something can help her in her fight against the divinity that's hunting her, she gets vicious, and she gets vicious fast)

I would love to play a character like that who starts out trying to do the right thing the right way everytime. Winds up joining a group of... morally questionable people (Or psychotic in Richards case) and having to adventure with them and learn about the "dark" side of the world and adjust his worldview accordingly.

@Aaron sums up the zombie apoc. game I ran :)

@Lord_Gareth I fail to see how "this baby is delicious" is a problem. The worst I can imagine is "this baby is delicious but I'm trying to cut down on carbs."

@Magician Don't worry babies are low carb

I mean. What?

@Aaron Well, that's a load off my shoulders and onto my plate.

@Magician Good-aligned characters are never willing to listen to the science behind the All Baby Diet and have trouble integrating into fitness-aware parties.

It's sad but true.

@Magician Sounds more like a toddler. You do have to watch out too many of those and you might be in trouble.

Teach the controversy?

"Some say eating babies is wrong. Others claim they are a vital source of nutrients in an increasingly busy life. Today, we're going to eat a couple and discuss it afterwards."

[citation needed]

I love this chat

lol

What have I just walked in on? Baby eaters anonymous?

I don't think what they're saying is that audacious.

In fact, I'd even call it... modest.

sunglasses

What a swift reply!

tautology question is a tautology...

indeed

I feel like the real question there is more like "Why doesn't the implied D&D economy make any sense", based on the comparison between a whip and a goat.

@DuckTapeAl I think he's undervaluing a nice whip...or overvaluing goats

IRL, a goat costs around 200$, and a whip costs around 10$, based on a few minutes of googling.

more importantly though, it's a complete and utter command economy, so things are worth what the designers say it's worth

Exactly. The real reason that the economy doesn't make any sense is that making a sensible economy hasn't ever been a design goal of D&D.

added another graph indicating that trying to make heads or tails of economic system in D&D is feudal...

i wish upvotes on comments were worth rep

might be worth pointing out that the final prices of items are determined by the dm

so a goat might be worth more than a whip somewhere like a frozen tundra, but it'd be the dm's say as to how much and if that's even true

right, and settings vary too.

clearly in a modern setting, a goat and a whip have very different values

(200gp vs 10gp for instance)

@DuckTapeAl Livestock is worth more in a modern economy than goods that can be factory-made. Today, a hand-made whip actually goes for about $400.

if we're converting $ -> gp 1:1

@SevenSidedDie yeah, I was thinking that. hand made vs machine, and livestock in more ag economy might be far cheaper

@SevenSidedDie Or more like 80$, depending on where you go: cowboyprops.com/bullwhips.html

@DuckTapeAl Exactly. :) Split the difference and it's pretty close to the $200 for that goat.

So, dude can probably buy a whip for less than 1gp if they haggle or shop around. But so too for the goat.

a whip costs anywhere between $10 and $400 depending on your Knowledge (google) check

I think the takeaway here is that economics are complicated, and D&D basically ignores them, outside of magic items.

I was going to make the same point but decided not to go hunting for hand made bullwhips at work...

@DuckTapeAl 5e even ignores economy for magic items.

@waxeagle Probably wise.

Entire question could be rephrased as "What is money worth?"

Answer: Whatever everyone decides.

@sillyputty sort of. Though it could be "Why doesn't money make sense"...which we kind of just proved that even in today's economy the example actually makes at least some sense

@waxeagle Even in today's economy, money often doesn't make sense. (If it did, inflation wouldn't be a thing.) We just expect it to, generally.

@SevenSidedDie agree with that. I can think of several things that don't make sense (either by importance or function)

Clap your hands if you believe in the free hand of the market!

@sillyputty Some people would like to believe in the market's free hand, but unless they're anarchists, what they're thinking of is not really "free" in the sense being implied.

ooh hey, 60k!

@SevenSidedDie Yea I'm just being silly.

Try MAX(B1:B3)

That did it, or rather a variant

=MAX(B1;B3)

Tried the colon first and got an error lol

You could try =MAX(B1,B2). I think the comma syntax is how you select multiple specific cells.

I'm more of an Excel guy, so I don't know if the syntax is significantly different.

It's just different enough to be confusing.

One more rep cap to 50....

:O

Wow. :D

Those Fate questions I answered last night were popular--especially the one about diceless scenes.

Oh, Greener: it looks like I'll be in the States from roughly 27 May to 18 June. Still waiting to confirm exact travel dates.