TRPG General Chat

kviiri

5:00 PM

@GreySage If you want armor that shows you've got jingle.

NautArch

5:12 PM

@Adam Strangely, the anti-metal is for armor only.Metal weapons are a-okay.

Adam

That seems kind of dumb

NautArch

@Adam Yes, yes it does.

and arbritrary

GreySage

@NautArch It's the same kind of thing as spell components, or Clerics not using bladed weapons. Arbitrary judgements and in-jokes that hail from the start of DnD.

NautArch

This came up because last session group got an arseload of magical armors and weapons. Thankfully, not my problem. My bard wears no armor and wields no weapons.

Adam

Plus, metal is just refined natural elements. I'm surprised druids can build houses, tan hides, or cook their food.

They really just wanted to make it so that the druid couldn't be walking around in full plate because the fantasy of a druid suggests they don't wear full plate

NautArch

5:18 PM

@Adam Seems the simpler would have been you can wear light armor or hide.

Adam

Though, I would ask the DM this question: If I were to use shocking grasp, or any other spell that gains advantage against a foe wearing metal armor, would I get advantage if they were wearing this armor right here?" If the answer is yes, then it's metal. If no, then it isn't.

Would heat metal work on this item?

NautArch

@Adam Hmm, I'd say heat metal works on studded leather, but shocking grasp does not. Mostly due to the same reasons above about the majority of the material.

Adam

That sounds inconsistent. It has to be metal for heat metal to work. If it's metal then shocking grasp gives advantage

NautArch

but heat metal works because it just needs SOME metal. Shocking Grasp needs a lot of metal to conduct.

Adam

That's really cheeky to me. heat metal explicitly says the item has to be medium or heavy metal armor. It doesn't say "medium or heavy armor with a bit of metal in it".

nitsua60

5:22 PM

@Adam Yeah, but that's because we based Druids' offensive capabilities off of Pliny, while we based their defensive capabilities off of the Celts. Don't cross streams, man.

kviiri

@Adam Isn't studded leather armor light, anyway?

NautArch

@Adam Technically it says "manufactured metal object" and lists those as examples not limitations.

Adam

@kviiri you're right! I am a fool!

NautArch

A metal stud is a manufactured metal object, as is an arrowhead or dagger. Can also do it on a weapon which is not heavy or medium armor (something someone is holding)

Adam

my last comment is besides the point

godskook

5:27 PM

@Adam You're right, in that its more or less a purely archetypal rule with no sound sense of logic behind it, but I don't think you're giving the archetype its justice. For the time D&D is set in, metal-working was a cutting edge mundane technology, especially things like full-plate and chain-mail, that'd have required dedicated craftsman to build for warriors who couldn't possibly even repair the equipment, let alone make their own replacement.

Adam

I just think consistency is important. If it were me, I would make a call on whether the armor is metal or no, and then consistently use that everywhere it calls for a metal object or not.

godskook

Druids, being self-sufficient, by archetype, would've worn armor types that they could've made themselves, which historically, is leather-based, not metal-based.

kviiri

That's a nice interpretation, in my opinion!

Adam

@godskook That's fine, I don't mind the rule itself. I just think it's inconsistent for to allow them to use metal weapons if they cant use metal armor. Though it's such a small issue that I wouldn't change the game at all around it. I'm just sort of musing

kviiri

And I don't think it really makes any less sense than the "clerics must use blunt weapons" that used to be in DnD in older editions.

@Adam Fair point. Maybe it's about "binding" oneself with metal or something?

nitsua60

5:31 PM

The scimitar thing comes from a corruption of sickles--druids may use scimitars (by rule) because they would (in practice) prune with a sickle.

Aversion to metal's the rule, sickles are the exception, scimitar's the implementation.

godskook

@Adam If we assume that a rough amount of self-sufficiency is the goal, it makes perfect sense. Metal weapons are far easier to casually procure from "city folk", far easier to maintain and repair, and serve better as practical tools, than do metal armors. A Druid with a sword only concedes enough self-sufficiency to buy the Sword, and is then enabled to be even MORE self-sufficient, whereas a Druid who buys metal-armor in that time period makes himself less self-sufficient.

nitsua60

\end{brief overview of 35 years' druidic lore}

Adam

@nitsua60 I like that. I could imagine a long standing tradition of druids changing over the course of time to reflect that. Starting with no metal, slowly allowing sickles, and then that slowly corrupting over even more time to allow scimitars.

nitsua60

53

A: Why do druids use scimitars?

It Isn't Based in History You won't find the answer to this element of your question in that form: ... rather an outside source that shows the historical connection) to show the origin of scimitar as a druid weapon in Dungeons and Dragons, and if, as I suspect, the scimitar was a substi...

NautArch

@nitsua60 frutratingly, my vote count on that horrifying visage question didn't go up until i added the crawford link :(

bread and circuses

Adam

5:36 PM

@godskook that's enough to get me from "use no metal" to "use a sickle" but I myself wouldn't take that all the way from "no metal" to "no armor, but weapons are okay"

@NautArch To be honest, until JC came up, I was ready to agree with Guildsbounty. Though I upvoted both of you before hand

NautArch

@Adam I think @kviiri may have um, nailed it, with the bit about "binding oneself with metal"

@Adam ~~you mindflaying bastage!~~ Yeah, I probably would have to :) I just liked the the idea of constant life draining.

nitsua60

@NautArch I don't think you're following this. He's not saying "may the victim choose not to succeed," he's saying "may the player choose not to attempt the saving throw?"

NautArch

@nitsua60 yeah, I realized that. But I think the "can" is whether or not they are actually able to. As in are they conscious and alive. I can't think of any example where you can choose not to make a save.

If anything, I'd say that if someone chose to not to even try to make a save it's an effective 1.

nitsua60

Funny--I'd say the opposite. Every time I see "can make a saving throw" I read it as "player may choose whether or not to attempt a save."

Adam

@NautArch Oh I do too. Which was why I was conflicted on whether or not to accept either answer. On one hand, I was sure for a few hours that Guildsbounty had the RAW answer, which is what I was originally looking for. But by the same token, I wasn't planning on using that answer in my game, I was going to keep the constant drain

nitsua60

5:41 PM

There are rare instances where one might be tempted to eschew the saving throw, to be fair.

NautArch

@nitsua60 Is there RAW that allows that?

nitsua60

But contrast with wording like "must make a saving throw" which you also see in many places.

@NautArch I don't understand that question.

I'm saying that every instance of "can make a saving throw" is the RAW that allows that.

NautArch

@nitsua60 Hmmm

I was going to argue...but I think I agree :)

nitsua60

Consider PHB p.187, "Recuperating." At the end of three days you can make a saving throw.

What does the word "can" do in that phrase, if not (pr)offer the choice?

(Again, in that case I don't know why one would choose not to make the attempt. But it seems to be right there.)

It could have been worded "at the end of three days you make a saving throw," like some other saves are specified.

(The weak point in this argument is that it relies on this-all being well-written, which falls apart the moment you look at the instances of "you make a saving throw" vs. "you must make a saving throw" which abound. What distinction is being drawn there? Hell if I know!)

NautArch

Every instance of "can X" is not a requirement. I think you're right. You can choose to keep the Frightened condition and not risk the aging failure. But I did add a caveat on metagaming.

Adam

6:07 PM

Speaking of player choice (or a lack thereof), my players also fought a succubus last session. Actually, the first two hours of the game was just them dealing with it. She managed to charm one of the fighters, and then escaped into the ethereal plane at 1/2 hp. The players were all kinds of desperate, trying to figure out how to remove the charm. It was awesome.

godskook

How bad is charming in 5e? In 3.5, its...not that bad.

NautArch

@Adam I did a similar thing with a Lamia :) Sadly, that was part of y attempt to get the players to talk to other NPCs while trapped on a ship that would have tipped them off to what was happening. They didn't and ended up with a much harder fight that killed one of them.

Adam

@godskook A regular charm isn't all that bad. A succubus charm though compels the victim to follow her commands, telepathic or verbal. They only get to repeat the save if she orders the victim to do something suicidal, or if the victim takes damage.

kviiri

It's not that bad in itself, iirc only that the charmed character cannot attack the target, but many monsters with charm abilities indeed have some special powers that carry on as long as the character is charmed.

Poison is quite similar.

Adam

@kviiri The charmer can't be targeted by an attack or harmful effect from the charmee, and the charmer has advantage on social interactions with the charmee.

So of course they eventually decided to beat the fighter into a pulp until he snapped out of it...which actually didn't happen until he hit 0 hp. His wisdom save is pretty cruddy :p

Rather he forced them to knock him out, since he kept attacking the rest of the party

godskook

6:14 PM

@Adam In 3.5, anything abnormal requires a charisma-check, and anything suicidal or obviously harmful(to their other allies, too?) simply doesn't work.

NautArch

@Adam that seems...dangerous. Any party members go down?

Adam

@NautArch Wizard was almost knocked out, but somebody managed to get a grapple on the fighter, so the wizard could disengage without the fighter following him, after that the rogue got a super solid non-lethal sneak attack in there which knocked out the fighter. There was some associated scuffling in there. Fighter ended up eating 3 or 4 attacks, only managing to save on the last one.

kviiri

On the theme of manipulation or mind control on PCs, Apocalypse World allows Seduce/Manipulate to be used on PCs as well as NPCs. On a soft hit, the manipulated party receives experience if they follow the request or lose a stat highlight (source of experience) if they don't at the manipulator's choice, and on a hard hit, both.

Adam

They were going to long rest, but they had just started the day, so I had the ghost enter the room and threaten them so they would leave, which they did. They spent a few hours before the ghost arrived though, so they got all the treasure in that room, and a short rest.

NautArch

@Adam Hence the horrifying visage question?

Adam

6:22 PM

@NautArch Yup. They promised to help put the ghost to rest by clearing out the level above them in the dungeon (which they had basically skipped over). They then spent an hour or two searching a bunch of rooms on the floor they were currently on instead of doing that. Then they insulted the ghost a little too hard, when he pestered them to get a move on, and thus ghost combat began. Then one PC became a 30 year old in about 15 seconds.

NautArch

so with the last bit of my answer on that - how would you play that at your table. Ask the player if they want to try and break the frightened?

Adam

@NautArch To be honest, I always glossed over the idea that the ghost's repeat save could be optional, I had assumed it was mandatory, like other saves, so I just told the people who failed it to repeat it at the start of their turn. I'll keep an eye out for stuff like that in the future and ask questions like "Do you attempt to steel your resolve? Or do you cower?"

Basically I'd just ask them "do you repeat your save" but in a more...in-world way. Describing what their characters would do instead of what we at the table are doing to represent that.

And of course, any consequence of repeating or not repeating said save would be made apparent to them if it's obvious to their character

NautArch

6:42 PM

@Adam and of course if they choose not to repeat it you must go "What, are you chicken? BOk bok bok bok bkok!"

and then have a caster pop out and polymorph them into a chicken.

Zachiel

Until lawyers from Blizzards show up and bok you in the head with WarCraft copies.

Adam

@NautArch I would do the former for sure, not the latter :p I'd actually probably have the ghost say that, not me. It's a very fine line that I'm trying to make sure I stay on the right side of. I want the players to make sure that they can trust the things that I as the DM say and understand that I'm not trying to ruin them, but that they can't trust the people in the world, and it's their enemies that want to ruin them

NautArch

heh, just posted my first question on another stack site and earned 100 reputation from here and from there just for doing because i'm "trusted" :P

Adam

Who am I kidding actually, I would totally call the player a chicken :p

@NautArch Nice, what stack?

NautArch

@Adam software engineering

wow, and an immediate downvote to it :(

Adam

6:53 PM

Stack sites can be so mean :(

NautArch

i mean, i'm a new user there. at least tell me WHY my question is bad.

Zachiel

@NautArch New user? Which new users have 101 rep already? We don't buy that but hey, nice try. :P

NautArch

@Zachiel Hey, they gave me 100 just for joining it and trusting me!

Zachiel

We trusted you to write a good question. And you failed us! (Still joking)

NautArch

sucker

Zachiel

7:02 PM

Anyway, good luck with that question. A non-sarcastic good luck.

NautArch

@Zachiel thanks! my hunch is that the development is pretty simple so experience in js and some experience in react is probably enough.

godskook

@NautArch I don't see your js question being answerable in a "Stack" way.

NautArch

@godskook No? Is it because the details of the project aren't known?

GreySage

@godskook If it's not answerable then it should be closed, not downvoted

godskook

7:21 PM

@GreySage 1. I don't have rep over there sufficient to close the question. 2. I didn't downvote the question, I upvoted it.

@NautArch Its because I couldn't possibly tell a correct answer from an incorrect but better-worded answer, based on your question.

NautArch

@godskook I was worried about that, but I thought there'd be at least a minimum bar of entry. Maybe not.

godskook

@Zachiel I cleaned up that answer to be a bit clearer.

nitsua60

8:14 PM

[dnd, WotC-era] Okay, so tell me about this gestalt thing. Is the notion that every level-up a character takes two levels split across two classes? Is one class "main" and the other "secondary" in some way? What's the sales pitch for it?

Zachiel

@nitsua60 I'm not completely sure about it, but I seem to recall that only one of the two classes can be a PrC

GreySage

@nitsua60 As far as I know, you get 2 levels to use. And I think the sales pitch is just that you get a lot of cool toys to play with, so you have really high-powered games

nitsua60

@GreySage So you could just go double-fast up a single class's ladder?

GreySage

@nitsua60 I don't really know

nitsua60

Also, whoever just upvoted the answer I just edited to say is no longer correct, I'm removing you from my Christmas card list.

Zachiel

8:19 PM

@nitsua60 I'm pretty sure you must take different levels.

nitsua60

Same two classes for the whole career? I.e. "once a ftr/th, always a ftr/th?"

NautArch

@nitsua60 fabulous tyrannosaurus rex/tuna helper?

Zachiel

No, you can multiclass. You just take two different levels at once (only one of which can be a prestige class) and you take the best features of each (e.g. if taking Wizard and Fighter at level 1 you'd get a d10 HD, +2 Fort +2 Will, spellcasting, fighter feat, fighter and wizard weapon competence, +1 BAB and I think scribe scroll too.

But for example let's say you level up both rogue and assassin at tre same time and you'd get +1d6 sneak attack from each, you only get it once. So you carefully plan your build to take the assassin levels that grant SA at the same level where rogue gives you no SA.

nitsua60

@Zachiel Okay, so things that would normally index to overall class level (#HD, BAB, &c.) grow at the "slow" rate. But features come along doubled.

Zachiel

yes, but the "slow" rate is somewhat augmented: you can end up with a full BAB with ftr1/wiz19||sor20

(was it all "fast", you'd be just leveling up twice as fast)

nitsua60

8:28 PM

Right. Thanks!

(Pondering it for E6/5e, as a setting detail.)

Zachiel

@godskook plays an E6 gestalt (in a previous D&D edition, IIRC)

godskook

@nitsua60 Yay, I've been on your christmas card list!

@Zachiel I do.

Zachiel

Oh, also note that I've never played, DMed or read about gestalt except in discussions and forums. So I might be wrong on so many levels.

godskook

E6 and Gestalt are both concepts with dubious value to be porting to 5e. I'm not sure how either would work there, as 5e fixes many of the issues either was intended to solve.

@Zachiel Your description is fairly accurate for this chat's purposes, I'd say.

diego

@Zachiel I'm pretty sure that gestalt recommends using fractional BAB so you can't do this, but I could be remembering since it has been a while since I've looked at the rules for it

godskook

8:42 PM

@diego Gestalt is not a very well-fleshed ruleset in the UA, but the giantitp community widely does make this suggestion with BAB/Saves, yes.

Although I don't remember for sure if the ruleset handled that case.

@nitsua60 Why are you wanting to run a 5e+E6 game?

Out of curiosity?

nitsua60

8:58 PM

@godskook I don't know if I do--just pondering.

@godskook My (vague) thought would be: let's play a gestalt game, and we're all gestalt into [class], because [narrative reasons].

godskook

@nitsua60 the question I'd have about 5e+E6 is this: Are 5e feats sufficiently interesting, on the high-side, to warrant "I gained a feat" feeling like an advancement on its own?

Oh, uhm, E6+Gestalt or just Gestalt?

nitsua60

@godskook Probably not--after three or four you start to run out of ones that "make sense" with your character, IME.

@godskook Gestalt generally. I don't quite recall what I was thinking when I threw "E6" in up there.

godskook

Ok, that's different. (For those playing at home, E6 means "epic at 6", and you don't level past level 6). How many classes are there in 5e?

nitsua60

12, not counting UA.

So let's say we're playing characters all associated with a certain army unit--no matter our race or chosen class, we're also all gestalting into champion fighter. Or we're in an urban intrigue hive-of-villainy game, and everyone's gestalted into rogue.

(As a table-level decision.)

godskook

@nitsua60 Or as a DM decision in session 0, whatever's clever, really. Sure. That's one of the appeals in 3.5 for DMs, as it gives a set of shared tools.

I don't know how Gestalt would feel in 5e, with its increased balancing between casters and mundanes, which would make doing double-caster gestalts feel suckier in 5e.

Which could potentially backlash into having mundanes feel overpowered if the shared class was another mundane.

Zachiel

9:13 PM

@godskook Because mundanes apply bonuses from both classes to the same attacks, while casters just increased versatility, but they still have the old actionb economy?

godskook

@Zachiel That's the concern I'm having, yeah. Most gestalt combinations in 3.5 were of the active/passive paradigm already, or if you tristalted, per-day/passive/at-will. Double-caster wasn't ever considered a strong option, that I know of, because even in 3.5, action-economy and base-stats were good enough reasons to diversify.

(Unless your DM allowed theurges, but then, things got ridiculous)

Zachiel

Well I've always played buffer casters in 3.5e, so more spells meant... more spells, regardless of action economy, and until dispelled.

godskook

@Zachiel Ish? Depends on which buffs and what was allowed. If you're absorbing combat actions, such as casting haste on Round 1, action-economy matters very much.

Zachiel

9:36 PM

@godskook I'm usually casting 10-minutes-per level spells before the exploration starts, and the plan is to have a ring of spell storing with an extended time stop on it for quick buffs, summons and then swapping the ring.

I don't really like the plan, but I want my character to survive.

godskook

200kgp items? That's.....nigh-epic, ain't it?

@Zachiel nigh-epic counts as "usual"?

Zachiel

@godskook Yeah I'm level 20 now, but I usually plan all characters to high level.

I'm not buying a decent weapon/armor/shield yet because I could buy better ones after becoming epic.

godskook

@Zachiel Depends on how easy it is to get your stuff upgraded?

nitsua60

@Zachiel ??? I'm wondering what kind of bonuses you'll imagine being applied in a way that stack?

Zachiel

@nitsua60 I'm thinking 3.x here, mind you, but for example sneak attack and bonus feats, making it viable to dual wield

Or barbarian rage to the high levels plus bonus feats

nitsua60

9:51 PM

@godskook This is a way I've always preferred running homebrew: the table comes together and makes some fairly-constraining set of choices about setting until it "clicks" for me. "Everyone's an entertainer (background)" or "everything's going to happen in this 500-person town" or "there are only three races" or "no [arcane|divine] magic" or "everyone's got 2 cantrips and a daily L1 spell." Wondering if "everyone's gestalt [class]" would work in that toolbox.

godskook

I can only do two things for you:

1. Say that it works exactly like that in 3.5

2. Point you at concerns I would have in 5e that someone with more knowledge of 5e would have to check for accuracy about.

nitsua60

2 interests me =)

godskook

@nitsua60 See....this discussion really :P

CTWind

10:09 PM

My main concern would mostly just be that you'll have to play balance by ear; power growth isn't very linear in 5e, with big spikes at proficiency jumps, ASIs, and level 5/11/17, and you're going to have to deal with handling 2 of those jumps simultaneously with two classes leveling at the same time.

And it's going to be a bit weird, because something like fighter 3/paladin 3 is not in the same tier of strength of either of its classes as paladin 6 is.

godskook

@CTWind add ASIs to the list of things that "don't stack" and are "gained fractionally".

Zachiel

Ah, no, on the contrary, you'd have to mix classes so to avoid levelling them at the same time or you'd get the increase only once.

godskook

I.e., if class A gains ASIs every 4 levels, and class B gets ASIs every 5 levels, the resultant character gains ASIs every 4 levels.

CTWind

It's a bit weirder than that; everyone gains one at 4, 8, 12, 16, 19. Fighters gain an extra at 6 &... 10? And rogues get an extra at 10.

In 5e, anyways.

So it's more arbitrary than formulaic :-P

But I think I get what you mean anyways. So the 4/4 would have 1 ASI rather than 2?

godskook

That read like: "Its the same for everyone, except Fighter/Rogue, who get 1-2 extra as class features"

At which point, you tie it to HD except for the ones that are REALLY class features.

Zachiel

10:16 PM

@godskook I guess they're tied to class levels and not to character levels to sort-of guide multiclassing

godskook

@CTWind That's how I'd adjudicate it.

@Zachiel So a Sorcerer 3/Wizard 3/Fighter 3 has -0- ASIs?

Miniman

@nitsua60 The sales pitch is that players often want to play character concepts that don't really work. "I want to be a priest of Mask, so I'll be a sneaky rogue/cleric!" "That's cool, but you suck." Gestalt makes that sort of thing suck a lot less.

@godskook Yep.

Powerdork

@nitsua60 So nothing changes between a 3.5e game and a gestalt 3.5e game except for the following things: At each level, a character gains the benefits and drawbacks of two class levels. They must be different classes, and in cases where classes have the same thing (base attack bonus, base save bonuses, Hit Dice, skill points, class skills, and class features like Sneak Attack), the character gets the best of each.

So, for instance, a gestalt barbarian 1//wizard 1 would rage and cast spells as if a normal multiclass barbarian 1/wizard 1, but would have only (for things worth noting) the proficiencies, hit points, attack bonus, Fortitude save, and fast movement of a 1st-level barbarian, plus the Will save and bonus Scribe Scroll feat of a wizard.

daze413

10:39 PM

@kviiri added for reference: Miniman - 2 PCs, Shalvenay - 1 PC and nitsua60 -2 PCs vs The Shambler, and Miniman and nitsua60 - 2 PCs each vs The Swine Prince

Shalvenay

@Miniman yeah, gestalt is a kludge around 3.5e having so many trap options re: cdlasses

hey there @Powerdork and @daze413

daze413

@Shalvenay hiya! just thought I'd pop in now or else i'd never be able to get on chat for the rest of the day

Shalvenay

how're things going?

daze413

been pretty busy

nothing gets worker ants busier than a top management feud :p

anyway, I gots to go. See ya!

JuneShores

Hi hi.

Shalvenay

10:47 PM

hey there @JuneShores, how're things going?

nitsua60

@CTWind Right, but that's not an apt comparison. Because we're not talking about traditional multiclassing, we're table-level gestalting. So the comparison's Ftr3/Pa3 vs. Ftr3/So3 or Ftr3/Dr3 (or whatever was chosen).

Zachiel

@Powerdork Hey Pony! How are things going?

JuneShores

Going alright. How's stuff.

Shalvenay

alright here

the 5e game that was supposed to kick off this summer finally started up

nitsua60

@CTWind I'd think so? Maybe? Will have to play around with.

Powerdork

10:54 PM

@Zachiel Miserably! You?

Shalvenay

@JuneShores also, wondering how much of a problem my DMing (well, more worldbuilding even) style actually would be if I tried to apply it to a PbtA game -- maybe it'd be best if I DMed some 5e or whatnot for you so you got the chance to see me in action, then could answer the question?

doppelgreener

First review I've come across of Starfinder (it's lukewarm from what I've glanced through)

JuneShores

What parts of your GMing style do you think would be a problem, @Shalvenay?

@doppelgreener Is it bad that my only reaction to Starfinder is intense disinterest?

Shalvenay

@JuneShores mostly, some of the twisting of genre expectations I do, especially in regards to monster behavior

@doppelgreener what is Starfinder? A SF-reskin of PF?

doppelgreener

@JuneShores it's mine as well, but i thought i'd share the review anyway

@Shalvenay pathfinder in space, yes. the review suggests they hardly go beyond that.

which is part of why it's lukewarm.

JuneShores

11:00 PM

@Shalvenay Can you describe how you do that sort of thing?

@Shalvenay Like, and example.

Shalvenay

@doppelgreener yeah, then they probably would get...rules indigestion over trying to deal with my lines of stuff-in-space thinking

doppelgreener

it's an artifact of 2000, reskinned and re-released in 2017, without having taken lessons from all that intervening time or even redevelopments in Pathfinder. at least that's their summary.

> Starfinder is very Pathfindery. If Pathfinder-type games are your jam or it’s your system of choice, you’ll probably quite like Starfinder. If you got tired or 3.X or dislike games with high amounts of crunch, then you’ll dislike Starfinder. While there are some subtle rule changes, the majority of the game seems pretty identical. To me, my personal switch from Pathfinder to 5th Edition is recent enough that the changes seem minor in comparison.

(first 2 paragraphs from The Good)

Shalvenay

@JuneShores sure! taken from a 1-on-1 with nitsua -- he was playing a half-orc druid in a random-gen underground dungeon I had whipped up, and the random gen called for giant bats. taking a page from bat reality though, I made them giant fruit bats, and had one go after the fresh fruit in his pack.

hey there @Ben

Ben

o/

Shalvenay

how're things going?

Ben

11:04 PM

Definitely looking up! After about 12 months, we finally have our foot in the door for selling our DMS.

JuneShores

@Shalvenay Oh, that's completely supported by PbtA games. Like, that sort of subversion of expectations is baked into the assumptions of how the GM plays.

Shalvenay

@Ben nice

Ben

You?

Shalvenay

@JuneShores oh? XD the impedance mismatches I was having on the player side with DW's druid and the strictures PbtA does place on the GM had me concerned that esp. in DW in particular, I'd get into hot water with non-monstrous monsters, traps that don't, and suchnot

alright here

nitsua60

@doppelgreener I've heard it described as Path Wars (as opposed to Pathjammer or Patheller or Pathpunk).

Shalvenay

11:07 PM

@nitsua60 yeah, then it'll be a complete impedance mismatch for anything I'd want to do with stuff-in-space xD

Ben

@nitsua60 there's gotta be a "high road-low road" joke in there somewhere

doppelgreener

@nitsua60 i'm okay with that if i can mentally connect it to the prequels and not the sequels.

JuneShores

@Shalvenay Not at all. I've played plenty of Dungeon World with non-monstrous monsters and traps that don't. The game rules say to give monsters moves, but moves can be non-monstrous and monsters can be people.

nitsua60

@doppelgreener Perhaps? I'm going sight-unseen, just chatting with a friend who was at GenCon.

Shalvenay

@JuneShores yeah -- I think I'm beginning to see it now -- "Find Food" is a legit monster move :D

JuneShores

11:11 PM

@Shalvenay Check out Dark Heart of the Dreamer. It gives you more tools to push the game into exactly that direction. drivethrurpg.com/product/110283/…

doppelgreener

@nitsua60 i don't much like starfinder myself, is part of the connection there. :D but i also think it'd have more in common with the prequels anyway. star wars sequels aren't action-and-combat so they're probably better as Fate or *World games.

Shalvenay

@JuneShores interesting -- if I ever get seriously into PbtA, I'll have to look at that

JuneShores

@Shalvenay Both it and Dungeon World are available for free, too.

Shalvenay

but I'm still not sure what I really want/need out of a system other than some sort of framework around arbitrating conflict if you will (Fate's conflict arbitration tools I find fine -- I just have trouble using the narrative-management tools because my worldview flips the relationship between world and story on its head)

Ben

@nitsua60 actually, isn't that what Catan is (Path Wars)?

GreySage

11:15 PM

@Ben As in Settlers of?

Ben

I mean, it's all about getting resources, and building your empire etc, but effectively it's all about building your roads

@GreySage yeah lol

JuneShores

@Shalvenay Would you like some suggestions for finding that out?

Shalvenay

@JuneShores sure

Zachiel

@Powerdork well, I should be miserable technically but I don't really want to spread word of why around the Internet. Otherwise, I'm fine.

@Ben Carcassonne. If there's a game about making paths, Carcassonne is that game.

JuneShores

brb, starting dinner.

Ben

11:26 PM

@Zachiel haha yup I get that

godskook

@Miniman Would it hurt 5e much if that wasn't the case?

JuneShores

@Shalvenay OK. My advice would be to run a few short adventures, each in a different system. Spend a few sessions trying to prep and run it exactly as it says to, as close to RAW as possible while also doing the things that you find fun.

The games I'd suggest to play would be Dungeon World, Blades in the Dark, and Golden Sky Stories. Dungeon World, because it keys into exactly what you described. Blades in the Dark, because it's an incredibly robust system of GM support. Golden Sky Stories, because it's a very different kind of game that uses very different tools to support its premise, wh…

Miniman

@godskook As much as removing arbitrary restrictions on player options ever hurts a system ;)

Shalvenay

@JuneShores mind describing the genres of the latter two?

JuneShores

@Shalvenay Blades in the Dark is a gothic heist game, where the party plays a gang at the bottom of the food chain working their way up to the big leagues.

Zachiel

11:40 PM

Golden Sky Stories is the cutest game I've ever played.

JuneShores

@Shalvenay Golden Sky Stories is a modern fantasy set in a small, rural town where the party plays shapeshifting animal spirits who help their town and make it a better place, by solving problems and making friends.

Shalvenay

@JuneShores hrm...not sure how well that'd play with the kinds of problems I tend to think of

JuneShores

@Shalvenay Can you unpack that a bit, please?

Shalvenay

@JuneShores ah, sure -- I mean, especially in a modern setting, my problems lean towards the technical rather than the societal

JuneShores

11:53 PM

Ah, yeah. Then GSS may not be the best for you.

Transcript for