TRPG General Chat

The Oracle

00:39

-1

Q: Should there be a sandbox for question development?

The Worldbuilding metastack has a "Sandbox for Proposed Questions" where questions can be workshopped after a fashion to get them into a form where they will be less likely to be closed for opinion, inclarity, et cetera. More than in any of the other stacks I participate in, I see questions here...

nitsua60

00:53

Woo-hoo. $1.49 check from a settlement between a company I haven't done business with in a decade and a state I haven't lived in for a decade. Can't imagine how much time and money it took for someone to get this to me =\

doppelgreener

@nitsua60 probably at least $1.49

nitsua60

Can't help but feel like there's a huge missed chance to do some real good, there.

I mean, the company probably lost a $3M judgment to the state, or something. But with 2M customers, everyone's getting a few bucks.

Eh, whatever. I'm just cranky about having to look up my password to deposit the check via mobile.</FWP>

<FWP>Arrrgh!!! I haven't installed my bank's app on my new phone yet!</FWP>

BESW

@nitsua60 ...my "arrrgh!!!" is that my bank wants me to put my banking information on the least secure information vector I own.

nitsua60

@BESW A decal on the side of your car?

BESW

My phone is running KitKat. A car decal would probably be more secure; at least I could cover that with mud.

nitsua60

01:08

KitKat is...? (Aside from a delicious candy.)

BESW

Android OS 4.4, the oldest version to still be technically supported with security updates but hardly any phone manufacturer is still pushing the updates to phones that old.

nitsua60

Hmm... how can I tell what version of android OS I've got?

BESW

System Settings -> About Phone

Or something similar; the exact phrasing changes depending on OS and vendor.

nitsua60

7.0. I guess that's better, at least?

BESW

7.0 is the most recent.

nitsua60

01:11

Cool!

BESW

Depending on your manufacturer, you might even get a pushed upgrade to 8 when it comes out.

(7.0 is also called Nougat, because that series of OSes got candy names.)

I'm upgrading to a Nougat phone soon, myself.

nitsua60

01:36

"Giants are traditional enemies and rivals of dragons, and spent a thousand years fighting them." (From this answer.) Makes me, once again, throw up my hands in frustration at trying to make sense of fantasy worlds in which races' life spans vary by an order of magnitude. "Thousand-year war" = "aeons-long war" or "oh, yeah... my dad was there when that started" depending on whom you ask.

</FWP>

(That's "fantasy world problems" this time.)

doppelgreener

@nitsua60 for dragons, a thousand-year war might be on the timescale of "man i haven't had a decent nap in ages"

BESW

@nitsua60 This is a plot point in Dragons of the Cuyahoga.

nitsua60

@BESW Which, I forgot if I told you, I bought and read last summer. I liked it.

BESW

Yey!

It's a good book. The sequel is okay but not as great.

Shalvenay

hey there @nitsua60

nitsua60

01:40

hiya

Shalvenay

how're things going?

nitsua60

Alright. You?

I'm ~~confused~~ perplexed by this Q&A:

-1

Q: Can a Wish spell create a legendary magic item?

One of our players in the Curse of Strahd hardcover adventure (©2016) recently found a Luckblade with one wish remaining. He wants to use that wish to receive a Staff of the Magi which is a legendary item (DMG p203). According to the PHB details on the Wish spell (p 288-289) there are various gu...

dnd-5e rules-as-written magic-items dnd-adventurers-league

Shalvenay

alright here

got a game starting in a few days, so that's good

BESW

Conplexed? Perfused?

nitsua60

@Shalvenay Cool--playing/running? System? RL/OL?

Shalvenay

01:48

@nitsua60 playing and 5e

and online

nitsua60

@BESW I'd say "perflused," but I suspect that's a medical condition.

BESW

I think perfusion is what happens when you walk through the front of a department store.

...in all my snake's nest of cords and wires, I don't seem to have any headphone cords with a volume up/down control insert.

JuneShores

03:51

Yo.

BESW

Yawp!

What's new?

JuneShores

I am back in Maine. Trying to cultivate some game programming skills to hopefully get a job next year.

BESW

Ooh, shiny.

JuneShores

I got me some reading to do.

Shalvenay

hey there @JuneShores, how're things going?

JuneShores

04:03

Going okay, @Shalvenay. How's stuff?

Shalvenay

alright here, got a game starting soon which'll be nice

BESW

I'm hoping to restart some gaming soon.

The last month and a half I've been reluctant to use Skype for gaming, because my dad doesn't need any actual disembodied voices to add to his confusion.

JuneShores

I'm hoping to try Anima Prime soon, and playtest my Cortex Prime world building project.

BESW

But he's getting better and I'll have more hands on deck starting next weekend, and I'm also looking into hacking Cthulhu Confidential for non-Mythos twosies with Trogdor (whose voice is not disembodied).

JuneShores

I'm glad he's getting better, @BESW.

BESW

04:07

Thanks.

It's not like "Oh my maybe he'll be fine some day," it doesn't work like that. He has sudden drops, then recovers and stabilizes somewhere slightly below where he was before the drop.

But it's still a big relief to reach a plateau and know what the new normal is.

trogdor

@BESW but are you sure it isn't disembodied? whooooo oooooooooo oooooooooooo

BESW

Yes.

Miniman

04:23

In case anyone paid attention to it - I'm reversing my previous recommendation for Hollow Knight. Strongly suggest avoiding this game.

JuneShores

Why is that?

Miniman

@JuneShores It betrayed my trust on a fundamental level, and has required several hours and a bunch of reading guides off the internet to reach the point of playability again.

BESW

Now I'm curious.

Miniman

Essentially, for a metroidvania game to punish you for exploring using one-way paths to force you to do areas that you can't yet, is dumb.

BESW

Aaaaah.

Miniman

04:32

Especially since all of that exploration was done without a map, because of this game's even dumber mechanic where you have to find a cartographer in each area in order to even be able to view the places you've been.

BESW

trogdor

@BESW ok, so you fell for it then :P

@Miniman ah, I am sorry for the frustration on that point

to be clear,.... I almost gave up on a few Metroid games just for needing to backtrack ever

Miniman

Lately games punishing me for exploring seems to be a theme. Maybe there's a message I'm not getting.

trogdor

I didn't realize the game punished anyone for exploring

but then again, all the playthroughs I watched, there were at least 3 seperate ones, stopped at a certain point (not the same point, but pretty close to each other overall)

so I don't know if they hit the same wall you did and gave up there (or got further or less far)

BESW

@Miniman This is something I've been enjoying with REIS; they WANT you to explore, and reward you handsomely, but there's resource-conserving strategy behind HOW you explore.

Miniman

04:42

@trogdor I mean, it's a blind metroidvania. Exploration is literally the core of the game.

trogdor

@BESW yeah I botched it that one time and it was really frustrating that I had run us into that fight we basically could not win

@Miniman that is why I am surprised to hear that this has happened

all the parts of the game I saw were cleverly designed not to force you to stay there and finish an area, especially if you didn't have the right power yet

there was even an early boss you could just escape from after starting the fight to finish him later

you had to find the wall that would break and let you leave, but you could escape that fight

he was called like, "the False Knight" I think

not that you can't like,..... just pop in, grab your shadow, and then not come back for a while anyway, but that wall broke the way you needed to go

(you still need his crest later but that is later)

if it were not for the fact that I am not quite the biggest fan of backtracking Metroid Vania games to begin with, I would think this game was right up my alley

Miniman

@trogdor The game always leaves your shadow outside boss fights or other really dangerous areas, thankfully.

trogdor

the platforming looks good, it at least looked like they designed it so the zones or areas were able to be done in many different orders, and the difficulty on normal mode at least looks like it is on my sweet spot

failure is easy enough but not punished in an irrecoverable way

@Miniman yeah exactly

Miniman

@trogdor Yeah, I'm not saying it's a bad game, or frustrating in general, or anything like that. Just that it's no longer a game I'm comfortable recommending to anyone, knowing that this might happen to them.

trogdor

@Miniman so what did happen?

Miniman

04:52

@trogdor I was exploring a new area, and, because I didn't explore the way I guess I was "supposed" to, I was forced to follow a guide for an annoyingly long time in order to get through an area that I didn't have the required ability for.

Shalvenay

hello there @Perahn

Perahn

Hello! /unlurk

BESW

[wave] What's new?

Shalvenay

how are you today?

Perahn

I'm good! Here and playing Stein;s Gate, just a lazy day

How about you guys?

Shalvenay

04:54

alright here, kinda excited to see how the 5e game that's starting up for me this week will pan out

Perahn

Always exciting

my friends and I are due for the third session of a 'morally ambiguous' campaign

Shalvenay

interesting, what system and sort of setting?

Perahn

5e, Faerun

Shalvenay

ah

sadly, I haven't really gotten my organizational act together well enough to put together and run a full campaign of any significance yet

Perahn

Waterdeep has a priestess of Tyr who wants to bring the hammer down on scum like us, and also there are murders, people running scared

Shalvenay

04:57

ah, a Tyrran tyrant :P

Perahn

but for evil people, so far all we've done is kill a shambling mound and scare a washed-up bookseller into straightening out his act

my Red Wizard is distinctly not impressed

trogdor

@Miniman ah, but you were able to get out of there right? (not saying it was cool necesarily, just that it was accomplishable)

Perahn

:P Indeed!

Miniman

@trogdor Yep. Another point for the internet.

Shalvenay

it doesn't help that both my storyline ideas for campaigns are seriously challenging to flesh out fully

Perahn

04:59

I've played a few 5e campaigns, and one Dresden Files, never DMed anything longer than a one-shot, though

Shalvenay

one of them is faced with a difficult subplot (incorporating lawfare into a campaign is hard)

Perahn

'lawfare'?

Shalvenay

the weaponization of the legal system

it's mostly a phenomenon in common-law, adversarial systems like the US legal system

the other just hasn't yet crystallized

it's Hobgoblins and Elves in a sort of logistics/man-vs-nature centric disaster relief sort of campaign arc

Perahn

the whole idea behind 'trial by combat was replaced by trial by lawyer because it was crueller'?

Sounds intricate

Shalvenay

yes, very -- not sure what system to run it in even

I think it could be very cool, but also not easy to run

and hard on players too due to the logistical aspects coming to the fore

Perahn

05:03

I think you'd need exactly the right sort of people for it

Shalvenay

yeah

BESW

There's a World of Adventure for Fate that's about a disaster response team, but you're looking for a more infrastructure-level approach.

Shalvenay

@BESW yeah -- disaster relief pivots to an infrastructure operation relatively quickly

I also want to wrangle my Mongol-cowboy-orc concept into a campaign that can showcase them as more than a sidenote, but that's going to be hard too

actually, I have an idea

Perahn

They must defend their cows against all those cattle-mutilating aliens?

Shalvenay

heheh, I was actually thinking elven refugees from magic gone awry in their homeland turn up in the orclands...

what's funny is the other race I really want to do a full workup for are Gnolls

Perahn

05:15

Why is that funny?

Shalvenay

@Perahn well, more odd than haha

it's hard finding a niche for them at times, even

Perahn

I take it you mean beyond free-range XP

Shalvenay

@Perahn bigtime beyond free-range XP

(I was in a 1e campaign even where I was playing a LN Gnoll monk/priestess of St. Cuthbert)

Perahn

Could always go for Gnolls vs Drow: Battle of Matriarchies

Shalvenay

LOL!

makes me want to do a version of Out of the Abyss where the PCs are Underdarkers trying to escape the watery grave the Underdark is turning into all-too-quickly...

Lake Peigneur

Lake Peigneur is located in the US state of Louisiana, 1.2 miles (1.9 km) north of Delcambre and 9.1 miles (14.6 km) west of New Iberia, near the northernmost tip of Vermilion Bay. It was a 10-foot (3 m) deep freshwater body popular with sportsmen, until an unusual man-made disaster on November 20, 1980 changed its structure and the surrounding land. == Drilling disaster == On November 20, 1980, an oil rig contracted by Texaco accidentally drilled into the Diamond Crystal Salt Company salt mine under the lake. Because of an incorrect or misinterpreted coordinate reference system (the rig...

^^ kinda like this little incident

Perahn

05:31

Well, you could tie that in to your disaster relief plans

Shalvenay

I want to keep the disaster relief stuff centered on one plotline basically

Perahn

Fair enough

BESW

05:49

Yeah, I've found that it's generally better to give each major concept or theme its own campaign, so you can give that thing due attention and have a story that reaches a satisfying conclusion.

KorvinStarmast

12:07

@kviiri Short answer: computer culture, computer programming, the way of thinking that promotes, and its effects on a great deal over the past 35 years. Not just in RPG, but in a lot of sectors of society. This goes hand in hand with a society becoming far more infused with legalism .... long topic, and a collateral point is that not everyone is the right person to be a DM.

Interestingly, Perhan has added an apposite observation in an unrelated discussion:
*the whole idea behind 'trial by combat was replaced by trial by lawyer because it was crueller* ... as author Pete Gent once observed about a divorce, *it wasn't so much of a marriage breaking up as a ritual killing*

BESW

12:25

@KorvinStarmast Most chat markdown is broken by line breaks.

KorvinStarmast

@BESW Not sure what you mean by that.

I clicked on a question to me and answered it to whom asked.

BESW

The asterisks aren't turning your text into italics because the same entry includes a line break.

KorvinStarmast

OK, I see what you mean. hello rather than with a line break

BESW

Line breaks disable pretty much all markdown except the block quote (>), but they also drastically increase the maximum character limit per entry.

KorvinStarmast

Hmmm, this informs a few of my formatting problems.

BESW

12:31

(That's how the Cool RPG Stuff pin works: it uses line breaks to increase the character limit, but when something gets pinned to the bar line breaks are turned into spaces and the markdown magically works again.)

Yeah, it's also true of comments, but obviously not questions and answers.

KorvinStarmast

Back to the questions to see what help I can give. Thanks for the tip.

BESW

No problem. Chat/comment functionality are their own special brands of esoterica.

Shalvenay

15:34

hey there @CTWind and @nitsua60

nitsua60

16:21

@Miniman looks like I"m not the only one peeking ahead. I'm tempted to watch, just to get a sense of how much of the ToA beans they'll be spilling, if any.

@Shalvenay hiya

Shalvenay

@nitsua60 how're things going?

nitsua60

Alright. Need to tackle the project of re-jiggering discarded phones for kids' usage. A little daunted....

nitsua60

17:52

@CTWind that's true, but trawling through ENworld's not the sort of pointer I'm likely to throw out there--I find their search really clunky and who knows the provenance of what you'll find! (As opposed to SRD or Beyond, which are unimpeachable sources.)

eimyr

18:32

hello everyone

Anaphory

Hey everyone of you!

eimyr

Well, I only saw BESW as active, and it's well known they are a collective

anyway

I have a question!

What do you say, should I ask?

Shalvenay

hey there @eimyr, how're things going?

eimyr

@Shalvenay Good, thanks! I'm doing well at work as well as socially, my RPG design ideas are pushed forward and I consider myself fairly fortunate lately.

Shalvenay

I'm OK here. been trying to wrangle my room under control. small parts, BIG PROBLEM!

eimyr

18:44

Animals are sick though, as there is never a rose without thorns

You?

kviiri

19:28

@KorvinStarmast I think you're arguing against a position I don't promote, there. I like games with rules, but that doesn't equate to "CRPGs" and I think it's a sort of a straw man in this. Quite the contrary, I prefer RPGs with a heavy narrative element, something the CRPGs often lack.

I just like that narrative based around rules that empower the players, because I want to be an author too. I'm not very happy with DnD, because its rules only empower the players during combat.

That said, combat is still my favorite part of DnD because it at least has rules I can lean on, and know my character can have an impact in the game. Few GMs will argue against a natural crit, a powerful fireball or a ferocious axe strike, but many keep the power to decide everything that happens out of combat.

But in out-of-combat situations, it's all too reliant on the GM for my tastes. Any ability check I make, I roll, then the GM gets to decide whether it succeeds or not and also what happens on each result. The rolling might as well be just for show if the player doesn't know the stakes and the TN, and it bugs me. Unlike combat, I can't guarantee the desired result to be even possible.

Eg. I try to scale a wall the GM doesn't want me to scale with a Strength (Athletics) check. I don't know the TN of the roll, so the GM can decide whether I succeed after I roll - even nat 20 isn't an automatic success.

godskook

19:49

@kviiri your description of DnD combat is mindbogglingly empowering for PCs, moreso than my experience running the subject.

kviiri

Even assuming the GM sets the TN in a reasonable manner, the stakes are entirely theirs: what does success or fail mean? Maybe success is that I climb far enough to realize the wall is impossible to scale, and make it down safely. Maybe success means I fall but take less damage. Maybe success means I get up and can drag the rest of my party along. There's no way to know unless the GM decides to spill the beans, and usually they won't.

godskook

Also, "TN"?

kviiri

@godskook My GMs, who are usually in to this whole secrecy thing, are pretty fair when it comes to the combat engine.

@godskook Target Number (the number you have to roll, at least, to succeed)

godskook

Ah. I'm 3.5, so I would've expect "DC". Is TN another edition or another system?

kviiri

More commonly DC in DnD.

godskook

19:52

@kviiri Let's avoid the word "fair" in the context of discussing hard-values in a gaming system. The term is loaded and nobody agrees on the definition to be used.

Shalvenay

@kviiri ah. I tend to prefer a very open style of DMing even in D&D -- I don't use a DM screen at all, for one

kviiri

@godskook I think I picked up TN from Savage Worlds, but I think it's used fairly commonly between systems. DC is the correct term for DnD 5e, at least for saving throws and ability checks. I'm not sure if it's ever used for attack rolls where the target is AC.

godskook

@kviiri Well, DC is generic in 3.5 at least, so "The DC of an attack roll is the target's AC" makes sense in that parlance.

kviiri

@godskook Okay, in more literal terms: they don't take away anything promised to the players in the source materials, at least lightly (hasn't happened to me a single time during our games).

godskook

@kviiri "promised to the players in the source materials"??? What combat thing is promised to the players in the source materials in D&D?

kviiri

19:56

Of course that's only halfway there: we still don't know the enemies' ACs, to-hits or resistances. We do see their attack rolls since my character is a Lore Bard. I haven't at least caught any "cheating" where a monster's to-hit, AC or other parameter is changed by the GM during action to make the encounter easier or harder.

@godskook The entire combat engine is promises to the player. One makes an attack, they roll an attack roll, and if the attack is at least the enemy's AC, the enemy takes the attack's damage.

Of course, that's still subject to the usual "but your GM could fiat it away", but heck, that's true for everything in DnD yet this is the part my GMs haven't ever touched in 5e, at least.

godskook

@kviiri Ok, then I flat out disagree with idea that its a good thing that "[DMs] don't take away anything promised to the players in the source materials"

kviiri

@godskook Ok, why?

I mean, I sort of agree in the event that it's agreed on around the table and ruled beforehand, instead of decided by the GM in the heat of the action.

godskook

Because the DM's job isn't one of sticking a box of pre-made RPG into the microwave, then pulling it out for PCs to enjoy.

kviiri

I don't understand that metaphor.

Or how it relates to what I'm saying.

godskook

@kviiri can I ask what experience base you're speaking from?

BESW

20:03

mmm. Game systems are an agreement between participants that mechanics will interact with each other within particular parameters, and so a player's interaction with a game mechanic comes with assurance they know the range of potential outcomes. This can be bent or broken, obviously, but it's the base state of the game. Deviations are significant and memorable, and if they get too frequent and/or unjustified then the question arises: why are we pretending to use this game system?

Shalvenay

hey there @KorvinStarmast

godskook

Is your only DnD experience 5e?

KorvinStarmast

@kviiri You've got to be kidding me

kviiri

@godskook No, I played a dozen or so sessions of 4e.

KorvinStarmast

I just like that narrative based around rules that empower the players, because I want to be an author too. I'm not very happy with DnD, because its rules only empower the players during combat

kviiri

20:04

@KorvinStarmast I can assure you I'm not.

KorvinStarmast

Uh, I am sorry to report that your table isn't quite getting D&D. Not sure what is going on

Or wasn't.

kviiri

@KorvinStarmast What do you think it is we're not getting?

BESW

@KorvinStarmast Please don't open a conversation with the assertion that something you don't understand/agree with must necessarily be insincere.

KorvinStarmast

That said, there are so many other games out now that one that fits your particular preference has got to be out there.

@kviiri It isn't just about combat. seriously.

That's what made the game different in the first place.

kviiri

@KorvinStarmast I play Apocalypse World regularly. But I have a lot of friends who play 5e too, and I like playing with them even if I dislike the system.

KorvinStarmast

20:06

@BESW any who claims that D&D only empowers players during combat has a table that isn't doing it right. Sorry, I am not going to back down from that.

Shalvenay

@KorvinStarmast -- I think @kviiri's experiences are with DMs who tend to override the non-combat rules that D&D does provide vs using them "straight up"

kviiri

@KorvinStarmast Oh, I'm sure it isn't meant to be all about combat, but it always wind up looking like that to me, because there are no real non-combat mechanics in 5e at least.

KorvinStarmast

@kviiri As I said, the table has missed a few of the points ...

BESW

@KorvinStarmast And I'm not gonna back down from contradicting the idea that out of multiple decades and editions of D&D there's only one possible way to do it "right," especially given your own assertions that the human factor's ability to adapt to each group is so crucial.

kviiri

@Shalvenay Are there any?

@KorvinStarmast What points?

Shalvenay

20:08

@kviiri -- I take it your table does not roll skills like Intimidate or Persuade at all?

KorvinStarmast

@BESW That's not what I said, and that is you putting words into my mouth. That kind of dishonesty will not open a conversation to further discourse. Don't be insulting.

Good day to you all.

kviiri

@Shalvenay We do, but might as well not to in my opinion. Since the GMs like their secrecy, I know neither the target number nor the stakes.

godskook

@kviiri 5e(and from what I've seen, 4e too) is brittle, to the point where its quite difficult to change much, if anything about the combat engine without BREAKING it. Compared to 3.5, where the system has an absurd number of options, to the point where banlists are a casual and normal part of how 3.5 runs.

kviiri

So for any roll, I can't know whether the success or failure was a result of what my character did or just a spur of the moment decision of the GM.

Shalvenay

@kviiri ah. have you considered that the social family, if you will, of skills can be repurposed as reaction rolls?

(that's how I employ things like Persuade myself)

you RP out what your character does, I make the Persuade roll with your char's bonus and from that determine the NPCs reaction on what's basically a gradient scale from "yippiekiyay" through various degrees of "uh...." to "NO WAY!"

kviiri

20:10

@godskook Oh, I'm totally fine with banlists. What I meant more by taking away promises are spur of the moment decisions by the GM that something contradicts the usual mechanics.

godskook

@kviiri Perhaps an example of what you mean would be helpful?

KorvinStarmast

@BESW Funny, we never needed mechanics to role play. Why do people require it now? What is wrong, an aggregate failure of imagination? I can't believe that, quite frankly.

kviiri

But banlists are agreed upon in advance, not during individual combats. At least I hope!

godskook

@BESW Just because there's more than one way to play a system doesn't mean there aren't wrong ways to play that system. The idea that "multiple right ways" == "no wrong way" is fallacious.

BESW

@KorvinStarmast If I'm misunderstanding you, please help me understand what you really mean. I'm just going by the things you've said about peoples' personal experiences of a multi-decade, multi-edition game being inadmissible in a conversation about playstyles.

@KorvinStarmast That's also a straw man.

Shalvenay

20:13

@KorvinStarmast freeform RP can get pretty bloody awkward at times (and I speak from way too much experience)

BESW

I'm saying that when a group chooses a game system, it forms an implied agreement within that group about how the game will play.

kviiri

@godskook Eg. the party's fighting a Kraken in its undersea lair, and Tonttu the Wizard casts a fireball at it. The GM rules, despite the spell description not stating so, that the fireball spell won't work underwater, and that Tonttu just wasted a spell slot on a hot stream of ineffective bubbles.

godskook

@kviiri Sounds perfectly reasonable.

kviiri

@KorvinStarmast If you don't need mechanics, why play DnD at all? Just freeform and let me do my thing.

@godskook Sounds really nasty to me.

godskook

@kviiri As has been said before, the map is not the territory.

kviiri

20:15

@godskook I fail to understand you again.

godskook

The Map Is Not The Territory

►

kviiri

Could you summarize how that relates here?

godskook

I'm trying

I type slow.

@kviiri your example is of a fireball working underwater. Yes, the ruleset doesn't cover how that works explicitly. But the ruleset is not the game-engine. The ruleset is a map for the game-engine.

In this case, the DM is making a perfectly reasonable call that fireballs don't work underwater.

kviiri

@godskook I don't see how that changes the nastiness of the GM's decision.

@godskook How is it reasonable?

godskook

How is it not? Other than "that's not what the rules say"?

kviiri

20:18

@godskook Because it boils down to "Your spell doesn't work 'cause I said so".

godskook

Ok, based on your example, no it doesn't.

It boils down to the DM making a judgement call on an interaction between fire spells and water.

kviiri

1) It is not common sense that a magical fireball wouldn't work underwater, and even if it was 2) surely Tonttu the wizard would know it and it would be reasonable for the GM to tell it before Tonttu the wizard attempts it.

godskook

@ #1, its common sense to question if magical fire works under water.

Shalvenay

@kviiri or at a bare minimum, if that has to be declared as a ruling and not an upfront rule, don't make the player burn a limited resource to find out something their character should darn well already know

godskook

@ #2, well maybe? I'd usually call for a roll if I think a Character would know an interaction better than a player of a relevant skill.

kviiri

20:21

Ultimately it boils down to the player thinking that magical fire works under water and wanting to use it, and the GM just deciding it doesn't - I fail to see what purpose this ban achieves.

godskook

But otoh, @ #2, if a certain table ran that players had to figure such interactions out themselves, that's fine too. Not how I'd advise it, but w/e.

BESW

@KorvinStarmast To say that choosing a game system implies an agreement about how the game will be played is not to say that a game system must be chosen, nor that such an agreement can't be explicitly waived by a group.

kviiri

Yeah, who am I to judge if someone else likes to play that way, but it's just something I personally detest in the games I play.

godskook

@kviiri It is INCREDIBLY important to be able to separate personal preferences in gaming etiquette from forms of gaming etiquette that have definitively right/wrong answers.

2

Shalvenay

@kviiri -- what level do you see the guarantees of the system extending to? your example was first-order, if you will: the system is saying or not saying something that directly touches on the world's metaphysics

kviiri

20:26

@godskook Well, my entire objection is to this style of GM fiat -heavy gaming being a norm. To the point where I was literally asked whether I was kidding half an hour ago when I expressed my distaste for it.

Shalvenay

whereas, there are higher-order things that some would say are guaranteed by a choice of game system, like "how is X intended to be used?" or "how does Y monster behave?"

godskook

@kviiri Well, let's be clear, you were essentially describing the style you don't personally like as "unfair" when our tangent broke off. You weren't just saying you dislike it, you were describing what it is (unfair).

kviiri

@godskook The particular example still strikes me as unfair, though. As a player, I've been led to believe the game works in one way, and then the GM makes a snap decision that contradicts this belief. What is it if not unfair?

With explicit agreements that "everything in the book is just a guideline", the situation might be different.

godskook

@kviiri How have you been led to beleive that fireballs work underwater?

kviiri

@godskook By playing dozens of sessions where spell descriptions were always used as-is, without question from the GM.

godskook

20:32

@kviiri Then no, you have not been led to believe that fireballs work underwater.

If that's as specific as your "leading" gets.

kviiri

@godskook Yes, I have. When a spell has restrictions or side-effects, they're stated in the text.

Vicious Mockery doesn't work if the target can't hear me, for example.

godskook

@kviiri the map is not hte territory. The rules don't say what the fireball does underwater.

kviiri

@godskook The rules say what a fireball does.

godskook

You're making an ASSUMPTION that the fireball violates our general understanding of fire and water nad the fact that they generally don't mix.

kviiri

@godskook My general understanding of fire and water doesn't include magic.

So that argument is invalid.

godskook

20:35

@kviiri No, its not.

You have two facts, the spell's description and your general understanding.

You can choose to believe that one dominates the other ENTIRELY, but that's an assumption on your part.

Nothing in the spell's description leads me to that conclusion.

I, personally, am lead to have an open-ended question on how that interacts.

Requiring DM intervention.

kviiri

@godskook My general understanding is that you can't make assumptions about magic using common sense.

godskook

Then why are you making an assumption?

kviiri

@godskook How is "the spell works as described" an assumption?

Well, I guess it is, but it's a perfectly valid one when every other spell used before has worked that way.

The spell doesn't say it doesn't work in underwater environments, or that it requires oxygen at all. It just does what it says.

If a GM rules otherwise, that's fine, but it is uncanny as a first such ruling after every other spell has done its job as stated in the text.

And as a player, when I encounter such a ruling out of the blue, it feels unfair because usually we only have to deal with the restrictions that are in the book.

BESW

@godskook All on its own, I agree that Korvin's statement above was not implying that. I was associating it with other, more absolutist statements about the nature of D&D being singular and unchanging.

godskook

@kviiri I agree that it would certainly FEEL unfair, but we need to always remember that not everything is how it feels to be.

Shalvenay

20:41

@kviiri -- did you catch my question about level/order of assumptions?

kviiri

@godskook But if a game feels unfair to the player, something is wrong with the social contract.

3

godskook

@BESW This mega-string of topics is EXCEEDINGLY passion-filled by several people on both "sides". It'd be well to isolate individual conversations from as much external baggage as we can.

kviiri

@Shalvenay Nah, I didn't quite understand what you meant.

BESW

@godskook I'm not sure "the conversation I had a few days ago with the same person in the same chat" is external baggage.

kviiri

@godskook It's not necessarily the GM's fault if the player has different idea on what is fair play and what is not, but it's something that ought to be sorted out so everyone has a good time.

godskook

20:45

@kviiri Not necessarily. Somethings are unavoidably unfair-feeling. Others are the fault of the player. The idea that your feelings couldn't possibly be your fault is incredibly shocking to me.

BESW

@godskook I'm guessing there's an implied "and this goes unresolved or is dismissed as unimportant" there.

godskook

@BESW I...thought that "other, more absolutist statements about the nature of D&D" was external baggage. Less pronoun-ish?

kviiri

@godskook What things are unavoidably unfair-feeling?

Shalvenay

@kviiri ah. basically, that there's a hierarchy of assumptions/rules/rulings -- you can have a rule that says something directly about the metaphysics of the world, which is the lowest level. you can have higher order assumptions, rules, or rulings as well, such as behavior of creatures in the world, or the scope of application of game features

BESW

@godskook Right, put a "Korvin's own" between "with" and "other."

kviiri

20:48

@Shalvenay I don't have a complete answer to that right off the bat, but I like it when PCs have a degree of control over NPCs or other creatures in the world. Like a successful axe strike is guaranteed to wound, a successful manipulation roll is guaranteed to make the NPC reconsider something important, for example.

(see Apocalypse World's Seduce/Manipulate move, for example)

anyway, I need to get going, it's almost midnight in here. See you!

godskook

@kviiri I will think on that for an example. I've certainly run across that sort of thing in the past, but usually, they're highly contextual.

Shalvenay

@kviiri to which I ask "what is 'important' when there is no singular story thread that is the focus of the campaign?"

godskook

@kviiri In 3.5, in a balanced situation, a successful axe strike is not guaranteed to wound.

Shalvenay

@godskook yeah, it might knock some points off a spell granting DR for instance

godskook

@BESW Well...that successfully kills this tangent outside the #Pronoun-ishBeDangerousYo warning.

@Shalvenay Well, Werewolves have DR 10/Silver. A perfectly successful Axe attack won't necessarily get through that.

Shalvenay

20:55

@godskook yeah

godskook

And werewolves are CR 3. Level 1 PCs can fight one of them, as CR appropriate.

A bit boss-level for CR, but not outside their capabilities.

Shalvenay

whereas, with higher order rules/assumptions, I'm talking about "traps are always meant to be adversarial to the party" (function/role of a game mechanic) or "werewolves are bloodthirsty people-eaters" (behavior of a creature)

godskook

Hell, in 3.5 Core with PHB races and Elite Array, PCs have NO CHANCE of penetrating Werewolf DR with the vast majority of available weapons, including most of the PHB axes(2H Martial Axe can do it, on a good damage roll).

godskook

22:06

@NautArch(or anyone, really), you ever run RHoD?

Shalvenay

@godskook mind expanding the acronym?

godskook

Red Hand of Doom

Shalvenay

ah.

godskook

Very popular 3.5 module

That also fits my setting exceedingly well.

nitsua60

Random non-scientific poll: two schemes, which would you prefer?
(a) three d20 checks per adventuring day: on an 18-20 you trigger a random encounter during morning (first check), afternoon (second), nighttime (third);
(b) single d100 roll: 1-60=no encounter, 61-71=morning encounter only, 72-82=afternoon only; 83-93=nighttime only, 94-95=morning+afternoon encounters, 96-97=morning+night, 98-99=afternoon+night, 100=all three encounters.
(Assume my math's correct and all probabilities match to the nearest 1%.)

Shalvenay

22:11

I think a) is probably more manageable/flexible

nitsua60

what do you mean by "flexible?"

Shalvenay

if you need to toss an extra encounter in or drop one, it's easier to do so spur-of-the-moment

BESW

Does the first scheme mean rolling 3d20 at the beginning of the day, or rolling 1d20 three times at each point in the day?

nitsua60

@Shalvenay Ok, I see. For context, I'm looking at a published adventure that uses scheme (a), so I won't be adding or dropping--just running it as written.

godskook

A). It responds better to some relatively common-sense multipliers, such as +X chance of encounter during Y time of day.

BESW

22:16

(As a GM I'd prefer a scheme which helps me see the broad outline of the day so I can improvise within the structure and the random encounters from feeling too much like MMO style "suddenly a thing!")

godskook

@BESW As outlined, the first scheme can be used both ways. The second scheme must be used once per day.

nitsua60

@BESW I suppose that's a table-time call. I'd probably roll all three at the begininng of the day, 'cause I'd want to basically narrate/play out overland travel in 1-day chunks.

@godskook You mean like if there were a 20% greater chance of encounters during the night, or something?

BESW

@godskook That's a good point; in a d20 System game it'd be more intuitive to use the first, while in a BRP game the second would feel more natural.

godskook

@nitsua60 Essentially, yeah. For instance, if your players just attacked a vampire keep, scattering nosferatu around the nearby area, there'd be an uptick in random encounters at night until they were dealt with.

nitsua60

Makes sense. I'll have to keep my eye open for that sort of thing as I keep going on my first read-through.

godskook

22:25

@BESW BRP?

@BESW also, I'm not sure if system really matters for this?

NautArch

@godskook have not. Never played anything published :)

BESW

@godskook Basic Role-Playing. It's a d%-based system best known as the Call of Cthulhu engine.

I'm saying that "common-sense multipliers" are intuitively +X on a d20 in a d20 system because that's how rolls are modified in that system, but in BRP the "common-sense" way to increase a probability is to shift the percentages on a d% roll because that's how rolls are modified in that system.

There's a certain amount of uphill code-switching in using the d20 version in a d% system, and vice versa.

Using the second option in BRP, and the first in D&D 3.5, 4e, or 5e, reduces the amount of edge-case mechanical exceptions the GM needs to juggle.

godskook

@BESW well, even with d100s, interpreting "additional monsters at this time of day" using system B is nasty because you have to divide your increase into non-uniform groups, and then add, which is more math than I find most people willing to do. Otoh, you can run systam A with 1d100 for each time-section.

BESW

So, sure, it doesn't technically matter what system you're tacking the new mechanic onto, but in practice it's useful to consider which is going to cause the most friction.

If you find that the d% style is always going to cause more friction, then the 3d20 option will probably always be better for you.

But folks who cut their teeth on percentile systems may find their mental shark-skin rubs smooth in a different direction.

(In my admittedly limited experience, CoC tends to lead to eyeballing percentages anyway.)

godskook

Other than the d20vs.d100 distinction(which is artificial, and thus, something I dismiss), I don't see anything about system A) that'd be a problem in BRP from what you're explaining.

BESW

22:36

BRP doesn't use die-roll modifiers with flat target numbers.

godskook

As far as I understand things, that's rather irrelevant?

I don't think either system cares about if the modifiers hit the die-roll or the TN.

BESW

I'm basing this on your suggestion of using die-roll modifiers to simulate dynamically changing probabilities.

That's not "common-sense" for a BRP context.

godskook

@BESW My suggestion wasn't "to use die-roll modifiers", it was to change probability.

BESW

I must be misreading this.

My point is that A) only responds "better" to probability changes if that kind of probability change is what the group's used to. d% groups are used to d% style probability, so B) would respond better for them.

godskook

What I meant by that, in terms of d100s, is imagine that the % of getting a random encounter at night is normally (20%, 81-100, etc, etc, pick one), and nights get more dangerous, such that 5 more nights out of 100 result in an encounter. That'd mean that the check is now (25%, 76-100, etc, etc).

Compare that to system B), where I'd have to figure out how much of an increase +5% had on the "nighttime only" case, the "morning+night" case, the "afternoon+night" case, and the "all 3" case.

BESW

22:49

Yeah, I mean, there's a reason I don't use BRP. But for folks who are comfortable with a system, "objectively more work" is often okay if it also means "uses the same mechanics we're already used to."

[shrug] YMMV, is all.

godskook

Is what I just described for system A not what BRP people use for a singular check?

BESW

Oooh, I think I see what you're saying now.

Sorry, got a phone call from a doctor in the middle of that.

Transcript for