TRPG General Chat

Delioth

18:00

@MikeQ They're certainly meant to be concurrent to a degree, since the simulation flow certainly isn't "fighter does things for 6 seconds and then stands around on-guard while the Chimera does things for 6 seconds and the ..."

DOOManiac

Thanks for the help everybody. I know what to do now.

Carcer

it's an abstraction that all just breaks down if you stop and actually go "hey, what did that round look like in real time?" in most cases

so, don't do that

Delioth

Though that's roughly what the action-abstraction ends up creating.

I tend to go with the flow: Expressly Allowed > Expressly Disallowed > Intuitively Allowed > Intuitively disallowed. Rules before intuition, intuition only when rules are silent. Developer intent and stuff comes afterwards, if it's something that could go either way intuitively

Mike Q

@Delioth I think it's supposed to be a 6-second window in which the characters act in some order

So even if there's 500 characters in the combat, and all actions happen within the same 6ish seconds, the guy at the top of the initiative will act before the guy at the end of the initiative

Carcer

you're thinking too hard! the simulation will break down!

Mike Q

18:04

It's the "MEANWHILE..." narrative device used in movies/TV when multiple characters are involved in the same action sequence, but at different places in the action

Delioth

Yeah, it's definitely meant to be that way. But the way actions and stuff are structured, it ends up being each character getting a 6-second frame to do things where no-one else does anything (besides sometimes reactions)

Carcer

initiative is a way of handling what order actions are resolved in, in order that it can actually be adjudicated by the rules. But if you treat it as more than that things get very wonky

Delioth

Even if you can run at a mile-a-minute, if my initiative comes up before yours I get to smack you three times, even if you're several hundred feet away in a split-second

Initiative breaks down in those cases, which is fine - it's a necessary abstraction.

Mike Q

Initiative still makes sense because the system is a story simulator, not a physics simulator.

Delioth

But that doesn't mean that you can't complete multiple actions concurrently. That's the other edge of the use-case of Initiative where it fails - actions must complete in sequential order for Initiative+discrete actions to work

Mike Q

18:09

I have yet to read a story with concurrent sentences

Delioth

Probably because written word isn't great at conveying more than one stream of information at a time

Mike Q

That's why I call it a story simulator. The story can switch between multiple concurrent character-POVs and scenes, but there is an order in which things are resolved from the audience's perspective.

If D&D was not turn based - for example, all characters choose their actions for the round, then the DM resolves them somehow - then yes you could have multiple actions resolve simultaneously.

Delioth

True, but why should the idea that things occur in an order preclude us from combining some things? Like the Bonus-action mage hand and the Action summoning - While casting the spell I drew a circle in blood via telekinesis.

Rubiksmoose

@Delioth (though as noted before it is probably a poor example since you can't do it anyways really)

Mike Q

By RAW, since actions have to resolve sequentially, I think you'd have to do the mage hand first. By ROC (rule of cool), as long as nothing happens in between, then I suppose you could reasonably describe them as happening together, but mechanically they do not.

Rubiksmoose

18:14

Because mage hand is not the caster's hand and the caster has to be the one doing the components of the spell.

Delioth

@MikeQ See, there's the crux of what I asked originally. Is there actually a rule that states that actions always have to resolve sequentially?

Rubiksmoose

That being said, I'd probably allow simultaneous actions if it was for flavor or something fun or clever. But if it ever got too complicated I would probably nix it.

Mike Q

Usually when a turn-based system has a mechanic for "combining" actions this way, it is the exception and not the rule, and it would explicitly say so

Delioth

Intuitively they don't always resolve sequentially, and I haven't gotten any rule or mechanics saying they must resolve sequentially; this GM would be forced to rule that actions can occur concurrently, and may resolve at the same time for combined effects.

David Coffron

@Delioth when you take an action, everything in that action occurs before you can do anything else

(Unless a specific exception is given)

Delioth

18:23

Relying on convention or "how it's usually done" doesn't actually help, since that interpretation (actions always occur perfectly sequentially) is neither intuitively correct nor backed from a RAW perspective. If there's a rule or definition that says actions must always occur perfectly sequentially, that's one thing. @DavidCoffron Literally what I'm asking is for someone to point out where that's explicit.

David Coffron

@Delioth in the section of Actions in Combat

Mike Q

Well, the rules make a number of references to "before" or "after" an action, which should imply that actions have sequential ordering

And if multiple actions can resolve concurrently, then you can end up with some weird results. Some systems support this, but I don't think 5e is one of them.

Delioth

@MikeQ Does it? Before/After have meaning in concurrent resolution as well

David Coffron

Every action states that something happens. That thing happens when you use the action. There is no space of time within which to do other things.

Delioth

@DavidCoffron Isn't there? Swinging a sword is something my rogue can do with an action. Are you implying that as the rogue swings a sword, he can't be tucking-and-rolling to Disengage past the baddie? Swinging the sword takes a measurable amount of time, in which intuitively other things can happen

Mike Q

18:30

That's applying physics and realism into a system that explicitly uses its own mechanics to determine how, when, and whether things occur

Delioth

Mind, that case has no difference between [Resolve Attack]>[Resolve Disengage] and [Resolve Attack[Resolve Disengage]]

David Coffron

@Rubiksmoose I believe I was wrong about the circle forming. The only plain english wording for form that uses "you" as the agent of the verb "form" is "bring together parts or combine to create" or "make or fashion into a certain shape". It is absurd to assume that agency is devoid of meaning

Mike Q

There is a difference. What if the rogue attacks a tempest cleric, who can zap their attacker when they're hit?

David Coffron

@Delioth per the mechanics no.

Delioth

@MikeQ See, I'm still not finding anything which explicitly defines mechanics to determine that the "when" of two actions can't be exactly the same time (@DavidCoffron I'm not finding anything in Actions in Combat about actions needing to be resolved before another action can be taken; though I'm relegated to online sources)

David Coffron

18:33

You do one and then the other

Mike Q

By RAW, the attack would resolve, then the tempest cleric's zap reaction (which injures the rogue), and then the rogue can choose to disengage away

David Coffron

@Delioth every action listed says something happens. You can't interject or it would say so

Mike Q

Whereas if the rogue could simultaneously attack and disengage, then a particularly argumentative player could say that they've disengaged out of melee "before" the cleric's zap reaction has resolved, and are somehow operating at a speed faster than what the system allows

Delioth

Is that RAW though? Disengage as the action doesn't imply movement, it just allows the movement you take to not provoke

David Coffron

@Delioth you could use Disengage and then Attack if you wanted

Delioth

18:35

You still use normal rules for movement, which explicitly happens after an attack resolves

Mike Q

@Delioth I'm not talking about provoking, I'm referring to abilities that say "When this creature is hit, XYZ happens."

Delioth

@MikeQ Yeah; the rogue isn't out of melee, even if they took the Disengage action during their attack

Disengage doesn't let you take any movement, it just lets your movement not provoke. You still use the exact same rules for moving as always, which already disallow you from moving while you're completing other actions

David Coffron

@Delioth they can't take it during the attack

Mike Q

Oh. I meant to refer to a combination of [Attack] -> [Move away] versus a simultaneous [Attack + Move away]. Could've sworn rogues did that.

Delioth

@DavidCoffron See, and this is the exact point that I'm asking you to define. Intuitively you could do both at once. I'm asking for a rule that says you can't do it, because explicit overrides intuition

Especially since you cited the "Actions in Combat" section but I can't find anything in there that explicitly says that an action must be resolved before you can take another

Mike Q

18:40

My point is, there are a lot of scenarios in which you can do two things, and the order in which they are resolved matters, because they would result in different outcomes. And if they were resolved simultaneously somehow, then the outcome would be ambiguous.

David Coffron

@Delioth read the rule for attack: "With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack". As soon as you take the action you arr making the attack. There is no space between taking the action and attacking

Delioth

@DavidCoffron But there is space during the action.

Mike Q

And and, sometimes ambiguity happens (example, resolving effects against multiple creatures hit by an AOE), in which case the DM makes a call

Delioth

You don't make all your attacks with e.g. the Extra Attack feature all at once. Reasonably, they resolve separately and sequentially. Unless you'd like to say that a Tempest Cleric wouldn't be able to zip-zap a Fighter who attacks them until all the Fighter's attacks are resolved (at which point the cleric could well be dead)?

Mike Q

@Delioth IIRC attacks are atomic, so a creature may react to a specific attack, even if it was part of multiple attacks

David Coffron

18:47

@Delioth there's a specific rule separating extra attacks

Mike Q

But I do see your point though. The cleric's reaction starts and resolves "in between" the start and resolution of the fighter's multiple-attack action. But maybe that's allowed because it's the reaction of another creature?

Delioth

It was just argued that full actions are atomic and can't be split though

David Coffron

@Delioth they can't unless specified otherwise is my argument

Mike Q

So maybe, if the creature could somehow cast Mage Hand as a reaction, then I guess they could cast it while using an action to cast another spell?

Delioth

And my argument is exactly the opposite, is that they can always be split if needed, unless the rules somewhere explicitly state that they can't be split

David Coffron

18:53

@Delioth do you have an example where this even matters. I can't think of one.

Mike Q

@DavidCoffron Hunter's Mark + Any number of attacks

David Coffron

@MikeQ you can cast hunters mark before you attack though and it has the same effect

Delioth

The case would be if I already have a target marked, Kill that target with my first attack, and want to use a bonus action to move the mark to another target

If I can never break actions into pieces, I don't get to move the mark to a new target until after all my attacks

But if I can resolve my actions concurrently, I can attack once>Move Mark>Attack newly-marked target N times

Mike Q

I was going for a simpler case - If actions can be concurrent, then the player can attack, and then choose whether to cast Hunter's Mark if the attack would be succesful

Delioth

That's also valid, though I tend to go with the rule that an attack roll and damage roll happen at the same time, that you probably wouldn't be able to cast Hunter's Mark after you knew you hit but before you rolled damage for the attack

Mike Q

18:57

Similarly, a valor bard attacks and misses, then "concurrently" uses their bonus action to give themselves an extra +1d6 on the attack roll, and now it's a hit. The system does not allow this because the bard's action and bonus action can't be concurrent.

Delioth

See, that's not concurrent though; that's retroactive

That'd be saying "I know the result of X thing, and want to go back and do this other thing before that happens"

Mike Q

Isn't that the result of allowing concurrent actions to resolve in an ambiguous order?

Delioth

You'd perfectly be able to use the bonus action e.g. after a first attack but before a second, since that would be actual concurrency even though they're during the same action. You wouldn't be able to rewind time a second to use it anyways

@MikeQ Not at all. Ambiguous order doesn't mean you get to rewind time to insert actions to occur before other actions that have already resolved. If it were defined, the "Roll" part of "an attack" would occur at the very end of the timeslot (e.g. the ])

kviiri

oh, we're playing DnD here :>

Delioth

So an Attack Action with 2 attacks would decompose to [[Attack][Attack]], so if you were in-between those attacks you could add the d6... to the next attack. Or you could do that during the 2nd attack( [[Attack][Bonus][Attack+d6]] or [[Attack][Attack+Bonus/d6]])

But you can't get to the middle part and then decide you want to put a bonus action inside the previous action that happened, that's reversing time

David Coffron

19:06

You choose when to do a bonus action unless a timing is specified so you could do that.

A bonus action to go between attacks but not in the midst of an attack

Your attack is a single point in time

Delioth

@DavidCoffron But an attack is one action, and multiple attacks are also one action, and actions are atomic. Unless actions aren't always atomic, and bonus actions can occur during other actions (which is what I'm trying to say and you've been disputing)

Mike Q

Reactions can occur and resolve during other actions. Unsure where it says bonus actions can do that.

David Coffron

@Delioth actions are atomic unless specified otherwise. Multiple attack actions are specified otherwise

Because every action describes something occurring. That thing occurs. Nothing else happens during that time (Unless specified otherwise)

Delioth

@DavidCoffron Are they though? They aren't clarified in Actions in Combat, Making an Attack, or the Fighter (and other) Descriptions. They're expressly part of one action and I've got no reference saying that this action can be split up into separate parts that resolve like separate actions

KorvinStarmast

@Rubiksmoose I can chew gum and walk, dribble a basketball and scratch my ear, all at the same time. You can indeed do two actions at once. Common sense. :)

Delioth

19:18

And there's also nothing forbidding another "something" happening during another action, as far as I can tell.

Really, the fact that Reactions can happen during another action precludes that, because clearly some things can occur while another is occurrring

David Coffron

@Delioth reactions are specific given that provision

@Delioth it's clarified in sage Advice IIRC

Rubiksmoose

@KorvinStarmast If the rules of D&D followed common sense, this site wouldn't exist ;)

(that being said, I'm really not that opposed to the idea of allowing it.)

KorvinStarmast

@Rubiksmoose There are so many things happening at once during that six second round, which includes between 4 and 15 creatures' turns, that things happening at the same time would seem to happen with some frequency ... granted, the game is turn based to try and impose a certain amount of order to the chaos ...

Rubiksmoose

@KorvinStarmast I think this was mentioned earlier in the convo (I've been out more than in) but yeah theoretically everything in a turn is simultaneous, but that is basically unworkable in reality so everything is handled sequentially.

David Coffron

@Rubiksmoose yeah we handle things sequentially in the mechanics. The world resolves simultaneously

@Delioth I think my point is that most actions are atomic because of how they are worded. It is nonsensical to do something while you gain extra movement for the turn from Dash. Bonus actions allow you to take them whenever you want (Unless specified)

KorvinStarmast

19:26

Page 30, basic rules, D&D, free download from WoTC web site. Cantrips
At 1st level, you know three cantrips of your choice from
the wizard spell list. You learn additional wizard cantrips
of your choice at higher levels, as shown in the Cantrips
Known column of the Wizard table.
Spellbook
At 1st level, you have a spellbook containing six 1st-level
wizard spells of your choice. Your spellbook is the
repository of the wizard spells you know, except your
cantrips, which are fixed in your mind.

@DOOManiac That is the explicit rule (same in the PHB) about how many spells the PC wizard starts with.

David Coffron

7

A: Shield Master - Can the shield push be taken before an attack?

The general rule for bonus actions: You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified, ... Shield Master: If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your...

Colin Gross

@Rubiksmoose I promise to call back when the lookup on how to do async returns with an answer.

David Coffron

This answer addresses a lot of what we're discussing

Colin Gross

@DavidCoffron Here's what would bake your noodle... if you could use the bonus action first... and you touch a fire elemental and die ... the action that got you the bonus action never occurred.

David Coffron

Crawford has said in a twitter post that you can take a bonus action "before or after" but never mentions during (implying a dichotomy).

Delioth

19:29

@DavidCoffron And I think my point is that actions aren't atomic because of how they must be resolved in-universe (over a [short] period of time). It's not nonsensical to do something while you're beginning to Dash because it makes sense. Bonus actions can happen whenever you want, including during the resolution of other actions unless specified.

David Coffron

@ColinGross shield master requires you to attack first. Not all bonus actions do

KorvinStarmast

@DOOManiac Here is the link to free basic rules

Colin Gross

@DavidCoffron I know. The ones that don't could result in the paradox.

David Coffron

@Delioth How can you do something during the adding of resources to your character sheet?

Zachiel

@Delioth "Including during the resolution"... depends on which player has priority (suddenly, M:tG)

Colin Gross

19:30

JC says you can shove first.

If the shove gets you killed then the attack that got you the shove didn't happen.

David Coffron

@ColinGross he changed his ruling on that

Colin Gross

@DavidCoffron I bet he shoved a fire elemental.

David Coffron

mobile.twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/994993596989300736

Zachiel

@ColinGross lol

KorvinStarmast

@DavidCoffron No it doesn't, the original ruling on that in SA was very clear that unless the BA specified timing (like the Monk flurry) it could take place either. And of courcse Crawford changed his mind a couple of years later. shrugs that leaves the WordofDev as inconsistent.

David Coffron

19:31

@KorvinStarmast either before or after yes but not DURING

Delioth

@DavidCoffron Well, "adding resources to your character sheet" isn't an action. Dashing is an action, which in-world is [getting your footing right to sprint, bounding with great speed, etc]

Colin Gross

@KorvinStarmast I'm never surprised about the inconsistency of devs... err.... humans

Delioth

We're both right, we're just on different ends of the spectrum

You're using mechanics to justify and define what's happening in the world

David Coffron

@Delioth in world everything happens concurrently. The mechanics are resolved differently. And mechanically, dash just adds resources to you char sheet

Delioth

I'm using what's happening in the world to justify and define the mechanics

KorvinStarmast

19:33

@DavidCoffron I see the point you are driving at, but I like that only one class could have an exception to that due to the unique way MageHand works for Arcane Tricksters. I really don't like the hidebound approach ... but on the other hand, for organizing actions in combat, a sequence of events mode is preferable.

David Coffron

@Delioth it is explicitly stated somewhere that the mechanics advise the world and not the other way around

KorvinStarmast

@DavidCoffron Put another way, the game doesn't break if the Arcane Trickster can do that.

Colin Gross

@DavidCoffron I concur, but resolving asynchronous simultaneous actions is a pain in the buns

Yeah, not game breaking in THIS instance.

I'm sure being able to slip in a bonus action during a single action event will create a fun corner case elsewhere

Delioth

@DavidCoffron This feels like something big enough to ask for a citation on since I'm having issues finding one myself. I mean, it's something that I definitively don't agree with on and will promptly ignore for all my home games if it's WotC actual advice, but could be valuable for reference on how the game is designed and built (and paradigms to assume)

Rubiksmoose

@ColinGross That's why I'm a big fan of allowing things if I'm pretty sure they won't break things but explicitly telling my players if things do start to break or get complicated and/or unfun I will change the ruling.

Colin Gross

19:39

@Rubiksmoose That sounds sane.

Can we summon a lesser devil of advocate so we can continue arguing on the internet?

Rubiksmoose

Keeps things flowing and fun and reduces incentives to try to break things and find loopholes since I'm very permissive in general.

David Coffron

@Delioth actually I'm quoting myself there I think. I often say "mechanics advise the story, but we can tell the story how we like as long as the outcome is justified through the mechanics"

Colin Gross

OOo.... look at you with all your happy players having fun! Nobody complaining about the beatings to improve morale or the eternity of reading source books to be sure.

David Coffron

Can't remember where I read the first part

Zachiel

@ColinGross (look at me cursing at the spell list of this cleric and losing too much time over source books)

David Coffron

19:41

So if you want to punch him 3 times per second that's fine, but it'll only deal damage equal to the number of attacks you have that hit.

Each blow hits in the narrative but the damage is described out of narrative

Colin Gross

@DavidCoffron Flavor Flav

David Coffron

In my games if you describe that you stab him with your rapier while dodging past him. Using the Disengage cunning action and then Attack action has the same mechanical effect so the narrative is fine as concurrent

Zachiel

@DavidCoffron I think even D&D 3.x authors knew that much. I can't remeber where, but I recall reading about "The number of hits you get in a round is the number of strikes that you're actually trying to connect. All other Attacks to put pressure on your enemy's defence are not included."

David Coffron

@Zachiel well yeah but I'm describing something different

If you pummel the incapacitated creature 20 times in a round, you are still going to deal damage equal to what the dice says with your 3 attacks. We can describe however you want though

Delioth

@DavidCoffron Aye, that seems like one fair interpretation. I always go with the opposite, that the story comes first and that mechanics exist to help it - if there are mechanics, use those, otherwise do what the story says should happen (like combat has clearly defined mechanics to use, so we use those). If the world says that two actions can resolve at the same time for a different effect than you'd get if they resolved separately, then the world's interpretation should hold sway over the rules.

The story describes stuff that happens, and mechanics should be chosen to define that stuff, not the other way around (I think I picked this up from Fate, but I think it's a useful viewpoint for other RPG's as well)

David Coffron

19:51

@Delioth trouble is with your interpretation there can be inconsistencies. We don't have experience with many objects, phenomena, and creatures in D&D to know how certain interactions take place which makes things ambiguous.

Delioth

@DavidCoffron People are ambiguous, worlds are ambiguous, actions are ambiguous. D&D isn't a program with perfectly-defined inputs and outputs, there's an essential human element that's very important. There's a reason D&D and similar require a GM

David Coffron

@Delioth using the mechanics as a starting point helps reduce the human element. That's how organized play tries to reduce table by table variance

25

Q: Can a Fireball, a fragile glass jar, and a lot of ball bearings make a "Claymore"-like explosive device?

My rogue has some ball bearings and of course, he wants to build Claymores. He talked to me about it beforehand since he was excited. I would like to see if he can make this work, but I told him lamp oil and the like doesn't explode, but by all means, throw that pouch of lamp oil and ball beari...

Our intuition about how things works can be very different than how things actually work (see above)

Delioth

@DavidCoffron Which is fine for organized play tables, but it oughtn't be a starting point for all games. The human element is super-important. It's the reason playing a video game DDO or Neverwinter Nights or Baldur's Gate (even with other people as your party) is different from sitting at a table and playing similar campaigns

David Coffron

I think this just comes down to our rules table. Mine is RAW ~ RAF > RACS > RAI

kviiri

I think DnD has two big strengths, one being a decent combat engine for heroic fantasy hack 'n' slash and the other being its rich lore. I'm iffy about messing with the combat engine in wild ways because I feel like tampering with one of those things that actually works is generally not a good idea unless very well thought out.

David Coffron

19:57

Yours seems to be RACS > RAW (I don't know your stance on anything else)

@Delioth which is why I ignore RAW when it's more fun to do so

kviiri

My advice is that if one doesn't care about the combat engine and would rather improvise everything, another system is probably a better fit for your needs.

Delioth

I'm of the opinion that the Human GM element is vital to the experience of playing TTRPG's. (Also I'm having issues determining what RACS stands for?)

David Coffron

But I still use RAW to advise my RAF

@Delioth rules as common sense. I.e. Real world actions can happen simultaneously so game actions can to. It's valid in many situations. I just find it too ambiguous

Colin Gross

@Delioth Royal Academy of Sturgeons. A prestigious school for fish.

kviiri

I think common sense is overrated

Delioth

20:01

@DavidCoffron Oh yeah, that's sensible.

David Coffron

@Delioth agreed a good GM helps to makes the game fun and a bad one can ruin it. A GM will always have to work with the players in nuanced ways regardless of how strict they are to RAW, but I find RAW the most useful starting point since that's how the game was designed (and is closest to balanced by default)

Colin Gross

@kviiri it works well most of the time... even if half the people are below average intelligence.

kviiri

@ColinGross I dunno. My personal experience is that it's not very common when regarding things of fantasy, and especially when we're playing a genre.

David Coffron

@kviiri RACS has its place. It just needs to be advised by another ruling system imo.

Delioth

@DavidCoffron Aye. I view it more to keep the world consistent as opposed to the mechanics. I also always err on the side of permissiveness though. If RACS says that it should be allowed, then it should be allowed. But if RACS says it shouldn't be allowed but RAW says it should... then it should be allowed.

Colin Gross

20:05

@kviiri fantasy common sense? I have fantasies about that... like that everyone would start using ISO8601 dates or that they'd figure out to put the cream in first and then pour the coffee to obviate the need for a stir stick.

I have other fantasy common sense, but they're even less interesting.

Delioth

IMO, RAW is most applicable while building character sheets and less important during play; i.e. a character sheet should be valid for any person looking at it through the RAW lens, outside of houserules and such.

nitsua60

@kviiri I'd have assumed that "network effect" would be one of the two. (I.e. a lot of people play it, so it's easy to find other players.) Where would you rate that: big strength, unimportant, something else?

David Coffron

@Delioth yeah. I'm also a very lenient GM. Basically, if you want to do something that's reasonable I'll find a way to make it work

Colin Gross

@Delioth Point buy only?

kviiri

Eg. common sense says that if you get injured, you perform worse. That's why we have the abysmal wound penalties in Savage Worlds. DnD doesn't have that. 7th Sea makes you perform better when you're wounded.

David Coffron

20:06

@nitsua60 that's the biggest strength imo. There are better systems (fmpov) I want to play but can't find people

Colin Gross

@kviiri It's how it works in those Die Hard documentaries.

kviiri

@nitsua60 It keeps frustrating me to no end

Delioth

@ColinGross Not usually, but in Pathfinder (1e) the default method by the books is rolling so it's moot

Colin Gross

@Delioth All 18 all the time?

kviiri

@ColinGross 7th Sea justifies it as the "McClane effect" :)

nitsua60

20:07

@kviiri by name? That's awesome!

Colin Gross

I like this. I'm quoting you on the "McClane Effect" from now on.

kviiri

@nitsua60 Yes :D

@ColinGross Credit where credit's due, I got it from the 7th Sea 2e book and they probably got it from somewhere else :>

Zachiel

Who's this McClane one?

Colin Gross

Holy shit.... that's actually a thing. Unintentional pun on extra levels.

That's like accidentally discovering the secret cow level.

nitsua60

@Zachiel Just a guy trying to get away for the holidays

Zachiel

20:09

@ColinGross all levels are Flying very high over me right now, I hope nitsua's link will enlightne me.

kviiri

But yeah, that's one issue I have with common sense - I want a story, not a simulation, and good stories defy common sense all the time.

Depending a lot on the genre of course, but still.

Zachiel

@kviiri play some Story Now game, then

kviiri

And I'm not even talking about the obvious bits like "there's magic, magic violates common sense" but far more subtle things like "the imperial stormtroopers are super-soldier clones who spend years learning the art of warfare and then never manage to hit the heroes".

Colin Gross

@Zachiel @kviiri talked about performing better when wounded. I mentioned Die Hard, because the hero just gets tougher the more damage he takes. Turns out the "McClane Effect" after the protagonist in Die Hard is already a thing.

GreySage

@Zachiel Die Hard is a movie

Zachiel

20:12

@ColinGross Mh ok, I was thinking there were more layers.

Colin Gross

@GreySage We're in a post truth world. All movies are documentaries now :)

Zachiel

@GreySage This thing I knew.

Delioth

@kviiri That's exactly why I rule permissive first (RACS allows > RAI~RAF allows > RAW allows > RAW disallows > RAI disallows > RACS disallows)

Colin Gross

@Zachiel I'm a stack of pancakes not a parfait!

Zachiel

@ColinGross nothing wrong with multiple pancakes!

Colin Gross

20:13

@Delioth I thought the modern era was a move towards more equality.

Delioth

@ColinGross Equality is for nerds, pattern matching is where it's at

Zachiel

@ColinGross I think they overshot by quite a bit.

Colin Gross

@Delioth Truthiness ?

Zachiel

@ColinGross ===

Colin Gross

@Zachiel ***hisssssss****

kviiri

20:14

RAF is another of those reddish flags for me, because TBH I like DnD the most when it's a pretty straightforward combat game.

I think 4e got it right for once.

Colin Gross

@kviiri flat footed flanked with combat reflexes and invisible.

Delioth

@ColinGross Truthiness is irrelevant, it's just got to match the patterns as they're described. [Disclaimer: I've been playing around with Elixir a lot recently]

Colin Gross

@Delioth I monkeyed with that for a while. Definitely was not the 8d4+20 panacea that was promised.

David Coffron

@kviiri I use RAF as a method to create house rules and homebrew. If it's fun we will do it but let's create a balanced RAW for it first

kviiri

One thing I stick to is that when the GM offers improvised actions in combat, I want them to be up for player review and mechanically transparent. Can't really stand them otherwise.

David Coffron

20:18

@kviiri I usually say "let's call that a [similar action or mechanic] for now and I'll look more into it between sessions"

Yuuki

@kviiri "In the case of Monk vs. Chandelier, the jury has reached a verdict of 'not permissable' and the Monk may not use a chandelier as a monk weapon."

Delioth

@kviiri 100%, I always ask the whole table if the ruling I'm thinking through makes sense or if they've got another interpretation

kviiri

I used to play 4e with a GM who kept reminding us we could do improvised actions on our turns, but he'd never tell us what any action would achieve (and of course mulligans were off the table). Given the choice between "do something where the GM can decide for absolutely anything to happen" and "stick to the option backed by established mechanics", we wound up choosing the latter almost always.

Combat is slow, and no one wants to waste their turn doing something that turns out to have a very tame effect.

David Coffron

@kviiri that's weird. A seasoned fighter would know if it was feasible to grab onto a weapon and heave from the opponents arms

(For example)

kviiri

@DavidCoffron Eeyup.

David Coffron

20:23

@Delioth something I've literally done in the past is strawpoll my idea(s) for an improvised action (online games) so no one feels bad stepping on another players toes

Delioth

@DavidCoffron Ooh, that's mine now.

kviiri

@DavidCoffron That's a concern oft-neglected, yep. Too permissive rulings can allow PCs to hog the spotlight or each others' niches.

I've repeated this whine often, but in my first DnD party, I was playing a Cleric and being interested in the themes of religion, I looked forward to playing my character's occasional doubts and overcoming them through fortitude and virtue.

David Coffron

@kviiri like if I have to use my combat maneuver to trip attack. Why can he do it as an improvised action?

Zachiel

@DavidCoffron because (4e) he needs to succeed at a hard skill check and you don't

David Coffron

@Zachiel which is why I make the strawpoll to see if people think a hard skill check is good enough to balance it

Zachiel

20:28

(I usually use improvised actions only for things that the rules don't allow, like smashing walls, dragging enemies up etc. - basically, use your power but if you want some extra, roll me a skill check.)

kviiri

Then this other player, comes in with a Ranger and says "oh and [her character] regularly communes with Sehanine and is kinda the chosen one or prophet" and our GM is just like "ok, cool" and indulges the player whenever they want to have a meeting with their god.

I don't actually remember if it was Sehanine or Melora, one of those hippie elf gods anyway :>

David Coffron

@kviiri hmph. I feel like communing with Gods would be beyond the purview of a low level adventurer...

Zachiel

@kviiri outcome: your god hates you, that's the only logical explanation

David Coffron

@Zachiel or the ranger doesn't actually see Sehanine. It's all in his head, or is a disguised demon, or Sehanine just sends a lesser cleric to dream walk in her stead

nitsua60

i like that last one

kviiri

20:33

@DavidCoffron 4e has actual rules for a character becoming the Chosen One of their deity. It's an Epic Destiny, so it kicks in at 21st level :>

David Coffron

@kviiri yeah so you should definitely not let other characters start with it

kviiri

And I was aiming for that. Or Saint, or Exarch, or... can't remember what else. There's a lot of Destinies, although many of them are rather similar flavor-wise.

David Coffron

@kviiri I mean I could see Sehanine showed herself to me once inspiring me to become her chosen (may or may not have actually happened but who cares it's player motivation) but otherwise it just seems silly

kviiri

@DavidCoffron Yeah. But I can't really blame the player

He writes fantasy as a hobby, and was super eager to pour all his ideas into this character, and of course no one of us had any idea of same paging, setting expectations or whatever. The GM wasn't too experienced either.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, experienced GMs should know to say "no" at times.

David Coffron

@kviiri agreed. But it takes a lot of system knowledge and experience to recognize when yes is okay and when no has to come out

GreySage

20:41

@DavidCoffron Be safe; say no to everything

Maximillian

I had to reign in players who are super literate and creative. While 10 pages of backstory is cool, ambushing me with it at session 0 or session 1 will not end with me dropping everything to weave in your elaborate backstory into the one I have planned. You also don't get contacts/resources that grant major advantages for doing so.

David Coffron

A novice GM won't know that this specific class gets that ability or that this specific level is around the time when those powers become available

Delioth

@kviiri Or at the very least, "yes, but" (I try to commune with my God! > Okay, but you're secretly talking to not your God but Cthulu because your God isn't available right now, with all the interesting consequences that may come from that)

Maximillian

I sort of set the expectations when I hand out the notecards and say 'Write three things on there that are true about your hero.'

That way the super creatives get to the point and the less creatives aren't pressured too hard to create.

kviiri

@Delioth tbh I'm not very fond at hijacking player backstories either... it seems a bit hostile and antagonistic.

Delioth

20:42

In my eyes, the character can try whatever they want

Whether they succeed or other interesting stuff happens is another story

Maximillian

Cthulhu's not here right now, this is Nartholyep, your Outer God operator, how may I direct your prayer?

Delioth

And I'm down for the backstory of the character to have included getting in touch with a god once or whatever. But if they keep trying to get help from their God (which is under the purview of a spell in the RPG's I play), they might start hitting some interesting consequences

Zachiel

@kviiri my current stance is "ok, bring me a backstory if you want. If there's something in my plans that fits, you'll notice it. If not, whatever, help me find ties."

Delioth

Not surprise ones, there should be some definite hints and clues and such, but interesting consequences might come

Zachiel

(Maybe that's why I feel I'm not that good at DMing for anything different than murderhoboes)

Maximillian

20:44

I like having hooks for a character, but I don't like having the expectation that I am to bend over backwards for every little nook and detail in the backstory.

I'm not keeping a detailed note file on the family tree of your cats.

Zachiel

You know, there's DMs that shape their adverntures around the characters and ones who like playing premade adventures.

kviiri

As a GM, if my player came to me with a character who directly communes with their god and is not a celestial warlock (5e) or an invoker (4e), I'll politely tell them that nah son, that's out of your league, or ask them if I can repurpose that as a form of demonic possession or things probably not originally intended by the player. But I'd never do the latter without asking.

Maximillian

When the level of creativity is uneven amongst the party, I can't shape it around the characters because they get uneven levels of investment and hooks in return.

So I just don't deal with it and set a rather simple guideline.

kviiri

Alternatively, if we're playing something like Apocalypse World, I'd say "cool, so you're probably a Hocus then?" and the character can both actually be communing with their god and totally mad with a ton of demons in their head.

@Maximillian Good points all around

Maximillian

For less crunchy games that are more narrative driven, I'd love a chance to just work off story elements, but I've never had a group that was interested in playing those.

Unfortunately the demand/interest that rolls across my group is almost always a D&D/d20 or derivative.

I don't mind it, it's what they want. They just don't branch out and find out there are other kinds of RPGs

kviiri

20:48

I also think personal backstories are usually rather boring. People seldom read and memorize them, and they don't come up very often because they're about just one character. Make a shared backstory that tells about the party members' previous interactions instead, that's where da money at.

Maximillian

Stuff like Fate where they suggest making hooks to the players to your left and right at chargen are great, you don't even have to go into great detail.

Delioth

Yeah, I'm a fan of using parts of Fate in other systems. Character Creation is one of them (or at least parts of character creation, like including others in your backstory)

Maximillian

But Pathfinder is my bread and butter and I'm not going to spend a week making sheets for the gypsy cult that haunts your family, their heiarchy, their homelands, their caravans, etc. What I will do is make /one/ character on the fly that may pop up to be interesting, but it won't deviate the story I've already prepared.

I would love to, but the other players will glare and roll eyes as we spend another session in /your/ story and not theirs.

Delioth

@Maximillian See, that's my secret. I don't prepare much story.

Maximillian

As much as I'd love to run freeform sandbox, it's already hard to schedule people to meet as 30-something adults. They want to see incremental progress as a group each week and /all/ feel accomplishment. So I have to direct my game to that goal over individual goals. I will get one in there if I see an opportunity, but I'm not rewriting the game for it. Maybe if I could DM full time, but nobody gets paid to do it.

kviiri

20:52

That's what worries me in 7th Sea. It actually encourages players to come up with a "your" (singular) Story and progressing that Story is important for character advancement.

Maximillian

Let me clarify, I am not saying it is /wrong/ to do it differently. I am saying in my experience, this is what I have to do for a whole table to be happy at the end of the night.

kviiri

I'm going to try it by the book, but I'm not really convinced yet.

Delioth

I like organizing some stuff into stages, where a stage should probably be 1-4 sessions' worth of content. Only ever prep 1 stage in advance, but maybe prep a few parallel stages in case they go off to different stuff. Unused stages can be repurposed

Maximillian

It's been a decade since I played 7th Sea. the GM put us all on a boat and decided we were there for various crime related reasons, but we could choose to be innocent or guilty of the crimes.

I tend to prepare some random encounters the party never expects when they have extended travel over land/sea/etc. Pull a few monsters from an entirely different setting. Keeps even the power/meta gamers on their toes.

kviiri

@Maximillian I think the Story thing is new to 2e though

Maximillian

20:55

I haven't seen 2E, so that's probably why.

I'm glad it got a 2E! It's a rather rich setting.

One of my favorite things to pull to keep a party on their toes are thralls from Iron Kingdoms. Skeletons that instead of DR 5/B, they're AC 20, usually with a great weapon like a greataxe or two handed sword. Few hitpoints, horrible to-hit value. Hard to hit, damages like a tank if they somehow connect.

kviiri

Aaanyway. I very much prefer improvisational gaming, but I don't really enjoy it in DnD where I enjoy the tactical combat aspects the most. In games likes Apocalypse World though, it's so simple to change the situation using the GM moves and in response to player rolls that it feels almost effortless for me to improv.

Maximillian

Each system has their advantages. It's in your best interest to play to them.

kviiri

Yep

Maximillian

Dungeon World is a variant of Apocalypse World, right?

kviiri

Yeah. It changes a lot of things, but retains a lot of the core philosophy and the 2d6 roll mechanic.

Maximillian

20:58

Got the PDFs for it from Bundle of Holding, been meaning to read up on it.

For the first time in four years I managed to get a seat on the player side of the table. I've never played Shadowrun 5E, but I'm enthusiastic so far.

kviiri

I never really got DW though

David Coffron

@Maximillian or play exactly opposite to them. I was in a very strange entirely non-combat dnd campaign and we appropriated the combat rules to social situations. Damage types converted to social tactics. I.e. piercing to a jab at their insecurities. It was a lot of fun but is fundamentally different than D&D lol

Maximillian

When you completely bend the system away from what it was designed for, it becomes your own thing with new pros/cons. Again, this is not a bad thing. Some people are great at rules-on-the-fly without blowing up play balance.

My group however, if you bend or flex something to work differently or house-rule something, they will check, poke, and test every word of it's limits to see what they can get out of it.

David Coffron

@Maximillian oh play balance blew up in that variant but that wasn't the point at that stage. We were just having a good time

3

It was one of those "what if we did this!" Moments

kviiri

DW feels, to me, a lot like AW except it lacks some of the charming grit and brutally quick combat resolution and drama triggers... and a lot like DnD except instead of interesting combat you only have the big six stats, hp and trappings.

So I kinda got the worst of both worlds out of it.

One difficulty is also that I've so internalized the hack and slash as a part of heroic high fantasy that I have a hard time coming up with other stuff for the heroes to do :>

David Coffron

21:04

@kviiri AW is on my short list of games to try. Fate, AW, CoC, and PF2 are there rn

kviiri

It's less of a problem in AW where many playbooks are clearly not intended to solve problems with violence. You have the Angel, the Skinner, the Maestro'd, the Hocus... and I guess even the Hardholder, who is pretty good at beating things up but is even better at taking an army to them.

Maximillian

@DavidCoffron This. If you've blown up game balance but you're having a good time, great. I'm so glad you have a table that enjoys this. I can't say all tables work that way, but I wish I had one that did.

kviiri

@DavidCoffron I've had terribly good fun with it, and recommend it wholeheartedly :)

I want to play so many different guys in AW. The Hardholder is next on my to-do list: they run a stronghold complete with a working population, an armed posse to keep the peace, and some combat-ready and utility vehicles. And all the problems that come with that: raiders, rivals, agitators, crime, disease...

Anyway, I'm off to bed now

@DavidCoffron and others, feel free to hit me up or not whenever you want to discuss AW :>

g'nite!

BESW

@DavidCoffron I think ToC is preferable to CoC for actually paying out on most of the common expectations about the CoC experience.

David Coffron

@BESW ToC?

BESW

21:16

Trail of Cthulhu.

It uses the Gumshoe engine, rather than Call of Cthulhu's BRP (Basic Role Playing) engine, and Gumshoe was designed specifically in response to recurring problems with using BRP for cosmic fear mystery-solving games.

It also happens to be a really solid engine for mystery-solving games in general, and Bubblegumshoe is one of my favorite systems full stop.

See also Gumshoe One-2-One for one of the only systems that has let me play twosies successfully with Trogdor.

Trail of Cthulhu has special investigative rules that serve to push the story forward by increasing tension through revelation, where BRP relies on the standard pass/fail skill mechanics for investigation which leads to the story withering on the vine if the dice roll badly.

ToC also has a competency resource currency that helps increase the sense that investigators are competent but limited. It puts the choice to succeed in the players' hands, but makes that choice significant and tactical as currency expenditure can become a kind of countdown clock to getting in over your head.

Maximillian

@BESW I've read this sentence and I'm picturing Trogdor the Burninator in a one armed trenchcoat and fedora, engaging in mysteries and burniating cultists.

BESW

(I'm not a fan of Lovecraft, but I do enjoy occasional cosmic fear games. Trail of Cthulhu isn't my first choice for such games because I prefer one-shots to long-form campaigns, but for a long-form campaign ToC is probably one of the better choices and the best compromise between getting the "classic" experience of a CoC game and picking a game that's actually going to use its mechanics to push the "cosmic fear investigation" experience.)

@Maximillian ....not entirely wrong.

Maximillian

This reminds me. The Trogdor boardgame is on it's last two days on kickstarter.

Zachiel

@BESW ToC with Pulp rules?

BESW

@Zachiel Cthulhu Confidential isn't very pulpy, but there were trenchcoats and things exploded.

DOOManiac

21:34

Thanks @KorvinStarmast.

Zachiel

@BESW I mean, I have seen "if using the pulp style, you can shoot with both guns at once" printed on the character sheet.

BESW

Yeah, just--we weren't using Trail of Cthulhu (Gumshoe), we were playing Cthulhu Confidential (Gumshoe One-2-One).

Zachiel

@BESW Oooh, I didn't know One-2-One was a Cthulhu game by design and name.

BESW

Yeah, just like Gumshoe, the first actual game published using the engine is a Mythos game, but the engine can be used for other kinds of games as well.

Gumshoe was invented for Trail of Cthulhu and then later got used for other kinds of investigative games like Mutant City Blues and Bubblegumshoe. Gumshoe One-2-One was invented for Cthulhu Confidential and will hopefully get other games that use it soon because I need that please.

Someone please write a collection of Bubblegumshoe-One-2-One scenarios yes.

KorvinStarmast

@DOOManiac It's got a lot of good basic stuff in it. If you have questions, just ring. A lot of the basics are answered somewhere on the site.

Shalvenay

23:02

magic item idea: Can of Wyrms

spawns/summons dragons when opened, single use only.

nitsua60

hey there, @shalv

Shalvenay

@nitsua60 how're things going?

nitsua60

Alright over here. Have an interesting weekend coming up: our town hosts an annual weekend event that's explicitly trying to be an East Coast competitor to the Aspen Institute. And I get backstage passes =)

How's the midland?

Looking forward to hearing from Preet Bharara and Jeh Johnson, particularly.

Shalvenay

@nitsua60 ah. I wouldn't be looking too terribly forward to either of those folks

@nitsua60 fine, ate lunch with the CEO in the cafeteria @ work today (not even a pre-arranged thing)

nitsua60

@Shalvenay Cool--who joined whom?

Shalvenay

23:16

thinking about what a Can of Wyrms would be like in a D&D game XD

@nitsua60 I joined them, actually :)

nitsua60

@Shalvenay Pre-measured portions for your Diet of Wyrms, no doubt?

[groan]

Shalvenay

@nitsua60 what.thedailywtf.com/post/1394809

I was thinking of making it a single-use artefact that summoned a bunch of dragons when it was opened

David Coffron

23:32

@Shalvenay Hm? Single used artifacts seem counter purpose. Artifacts should be the centerpiece for a campaign. Not a one off

Shalvenay

@DavidCoffron maybe not artefact as in the specific D&D 5e term of art, "magic item" would be a better word

David Coffron

are you designing it for 5e?

Shalvenay

@DavidCoffron not necessarily :)

David Coffron

Cuz 5e seriously limited magic item power levels. That’s a bit much in that game

Shalvenay

@DavidCoffron indeed. it would definitely be a high-level/high-power item

David Coffron

23:42

I mean the orb of dragon kind which is an artifact in 5e only lets you call the dragons to you

Shalvenay

@DavidCoffron it could call them, or summon them

nitsua60

23:56

@DavidCoffron What else would you have it do? (Keep in mind, I've never used/seen statted one in-game, so I'm just going off of Dragonlance's palantir descriptions.)

Transcript for