« first day (2993 days earlier)      last day (2050 days later) » 

12:00 AM
@trogdor Trogdor's headcanon: Larry Bird and Dennis Rodman are the same man...!?
I mean, if you want to go to One Seven Design, or Rowan Rook and Deckard, or the 200-word RPG contest, and print off a bunch of one-pagers? Sure. But if neither the niece in question nor anyone in her social circle is of the GMly persuasion, none of them are going to do a lot of good.
@nitsua60 that's,... Not what i mean?
Significantly more people are willing to play a board/card game, usually because it winds up more restrictive.
I mean you still need to name enough people who were role-playing to prove that as least as many people were as we're not
12:03 AM
@Shalvenay I have a dear friend whose husband died unexpectedly; her daughter is the student leader of the school's RPG club. So I wrote up a game (maybe?) called "Struggling Together." A pile of chits that get passed back and forth in letters' envelopes when particular emotional notes are hit provide a win condition: making it through the game's 9 rounds without losing.
@nitsua60 that's...deep.
@Glazius once again you hit my point better than I could manage, my assumption is the neice and her friends don't want an RPG because it's honestly more work than a board game is
Like I said: definitely un-fun. Probably a co-op game, what with the rules and the possibility of losing. The roleplay--if that's what it is--is yourselves at different times after the shared difficult event.
Under that assumption a card game works just as well
@trogdor That's a sizeable fraction of the NBA players that I know anything about--does that count?
12:05 AM
@nitsua60 lol
"Pistol" Pete Maravich probably didn't actually have a gun on the court, so that must have been an act.
David "the Admiral" Robinson wasn't... oh, never mind.
The NBA now counts as role-playing, you win @nitsua60
This time gadget
@trogdor I win! (NBA fans all lose, but I win! Yay!)
We'll have to break it to them gently
Only one man, or sheep, is allowed to watch the NBA anymore
So there's the question to the room: does it "count" as roleplaying if the character is yourself? What parts of what you think of as roleplaying is that consonant with, what parts of it does it challenge?
12:09 AM
Unless everyone else acknowledges that it's an RPG now
@nitsua60 so, to in order to answer that I have another question
If you can role play as yourself does that mean we just always are?
(For a less laden example than my game, consider a Fate session that a friend of mine runs at cons where your character is you, the scenario is something shocking (alien invasion, ninja infiltration) happening in the con-hall, your possessions in-game are what you have at the table.)
@trogdor Uh, yes. Since about puberty, when self-awareness set in =)
Well let me be the first to say, it was nice playing this game but I choose to switch to the one where I fly around and breathe fire now
I just didn't know that was an option all this time :P
@trogdor Just gotta believe, man.
It's hard to believe stuff with all the racket out there in that imaginary office
With those RPG co-workers and,... One of them is watching a football game?
Nevermind this reality is still sufficiently weird enough
Maybe next week
@nitsua60 also I'll have you know I was self aware before puberty, I just wasn't quite as self conscious yet :P
12:51 AM
Question - if I award +1 Atk/Dmg, -1 AC, should I award that again for each new level of my corruption system, on top of the other features? Or is that too much work
@Ben up to a max of +3 atk/dmg, -3 AC, if I recall the system right?
@nitsua60 Yeah
What do you mean too much work? To keep track of it? I'm not clear on how often corruption levels will change, do they only ratchet up or do they recede sometimes...?
This also works with +Perception/-initiative and +1 hitpoint/-persuasion (depending on corruption type)
@nitsua60 They go up and down, how much, I'm not sure.
That's part of what I need to figure out.
What's the word I'm looking for? It's not "reluctant" but lives near there in my brain. I'm trying to describe that I haven't turned to someone for help when I really should have months ago.
"delinquent" but without the penalty-notions...
1:01 AM
@Ben +3 and -3 are big modifiers to things that don't get too many of those bonuses. That's not to say they're bad, but I'd feel like if I hit level 3 I'd better have a clear--if not easy--way to bump back down a level if I focused on that. I might not want to, depending on the choices in front of me, but it should be obvious how to. (As a game-matter; passing no judgment on how well that fits with the lore you're trying to match.)
That's true. The idea is that the corruption is meant to be somewhat enticing... Like, a player is giving the benefit and the deficit, and has that "Do I want to keep it?" reaction that they mull over for a while.
They might go looking for better equipment, to negates the downsides. That's something I only just thought of haha. But is that such a bad thing?
@Ben (disclosure: I know nothing about the game you're imitating) how does one gain corruption? Is it an interaction with the environment? Through one's actions? Is it the intent of an action, or its effect, or consuming something?
@nitsua60 All of the above
This is in a mega-dungeon setting
1:09 AM
@Ben No, though it's a predictable pattern that emerges with "I want to give this super-powered thing, so I'll just pair it with this painful detriment to keep it from getting out of hand." Players find ways to negate the malus and now they're just walking around with the bonus.
It's not necessarily a bad thing, just something you should expect.
@nitsua60 Yeah.
@nitsua60 The idea is that with this system, the players become more powerful, at a price. For those that don't want to pay the price, it can be removed, or managed. For those that don't care, well, there's a whole other reword for them coming at the end of the tunnel.
@Ben I feel the need to point out that there's something very weird about becoming better at noticing stuff while simultaneously becoming worse at reacting to stuff.
@Miniman Yeah, it's.. kinda "flavour" focussed? The idea is that the player is starting to notice things that don't technically exist.
@Miniman it's called not being able to make sense of what you're seeing :P
So, like they'll see shadows moving, the eyes in the paintings watching them, etc.
1:19 AM
Ah, wacked-out wizard eyes. Sometimes you can see the magics underlying reality! Other times, it's just crazy crazy crazy in your face all the time.
Mechanically though, perception and initiative aren't tied together, so it works haha
@nitsua60 I think I'll have to test it out, and see how it all works
The other choice I was going to make is that come a certain point, when the player gets too corrupt, they either make a save vs losing their character, or just straight up lose it (provided this whole set up is properly announced). "You've become so corrupt you've turned into a creature of hell"
@Ben uhh... save or suck much? I'd handle that the way I do death saves: I tell the player they're on their own to privately, without any of us knowing how, determine their character's life or death.
(They can roll saves, they can just decide by player fiat they're alive or dead. They just can't tell anyone what they did or how they did it.)
Also, +hp/-persuasion isn't really a tradeoff - for everyone except the face, it's crazy desirable and free, and for the face, it just sucks.
heh heh. "sucking face"
@Miniman Yeah I wasn't really sold on that either haha
@nitsua60 So no death saves? What if a plyer constantly decides they lived?
@Miniman That one is along the lines of the player developing into an empty husk. Zombie-style
1:35 AM
Hmmm...maybe -Wis saving throws?
I had an idea for a particularly nasty trap: glyph of dispel magic in a grotto
@Miniman I currently have a adv/disadv to saving throws as the next tier
2:02 AM
A duck walks into a bar, sits on a stool, and asks the barman. "Do you have any bread?"
The barman replies "no."
The duck repeats himself "Do you have any bread?"
The barman scowls "I said no, we don't"
The duck continues "Do you have any bread?"
The barman slams his hands down on the bar "No! And if you ask again I'll nail your bill to the bar!"
The duck pauses. "Do you have any nails?"
"No, why?" The barman scowls
"Do you have any bread?"
2:17 AM
@Ben Then they live. I mean, they're still out of combat while they're down. But the character lives.
I mean, at a certain point we're all adults and finding a few hours at a regular time to get together is hard enough. I'm not going to take someone's character sheet from them and rip it up. If they roll failed saves, rip up their sheet, and hand it to me, that's fine.
I'm all for that, but I feel like that's probably a house rule situation. For example if you run this system, you can run it that way too.
@Ben Sure--sounds reasonable. For me something that takes away another person's toy should be very carefully considered. (Whether that's character death for character-becomes-NPC-event.) And I've come down on the side of "you know what, I'm just not going to be the one to make that call." But everyone'll come to their own place here, and that's good.
Every situation is different :) Personally, I feel like I'm in the middle somewhere. I have one PC that was in a 50/50 TPK situation that was never resolved. I ruled that he's alive, even if the rest of the party say otherwise. It was never resolved so there's no hard proof. In other situations I've handed in my character sheet, reluctantly, maybe, but that's the luck of the dice, sometimes.
2:35 AM
I think it's important that games give the choice of risking death to the players.
I don't like save or die much anyway. I set up deadly traps, but if you got trapped by them it's your own fault. I don't set up deadly traps that have consequences on failing a spot DC or can't be detected by careful players.
For some games that's "I choose to play Great Ork Gods and I know that means I'm probably gonna go through a sixpack of characters every session."
For other games it's "I'm playing Fate and at the beginning of the campaign we talked about how character death is possible but we don't want it to be anticlimactic." And for still others it's "I'm playing Do and that means my character can't ever die."
The real gut-punch that needs to be avoided is when a player didn't choose to risk death but gets it thrown at them anyway.
@BESW "you're walking through town and a chimney randomly falls on your head"
Dogs in the Vineyard is a weird case because its mechanics explicitly ask everyone to choose "Am I willing to risk the death of someone in this scene in order to get control of what's going on?"
2:39 AM
In Dogs, every conflict is about escalating risks in order to stay in the scene and have a chance of making it turn out your way.
If you start by shouting at each other and you run out of dice, you can throw a punch in order to add your punching-related dice and stay in the scene.
But you've also just escalated the kind of fallout that will come at the end of the scene: people who've taken "damage" in a shouty scene will get their feelings and reputations hurt. People who've taken "damage" in a punchy scene will get loose teeth and concussions.
If you pull a gun, somebody's liable to die but you can't control who that is. It might be you.
So pulling a gun is saying that you're willing to risk everybody's life rather than back down on whatever's at stake in the scene.
It's the major core emotional/mechanical beat in the whole game.
I'd be surprised if 3 to 1 numbers doesn't win over the mechanic.
Not sure what you mean.
@BESW The premise should be announced, if the premise exists.
@BESW This.
@Ben Yup. That's part of where Fate's advice is so important: they explicitly advocate making the stakes of any conflict clear before the conflict begins, so everybody knows what they're playing for.
@nitsua60 That's why Dogs works, really: it's supposed to be adversarial and so having a mechanic where players can risk each other's characters is crucial to getting everyone arguing in-game, because Dogs is a Forge game that wants to blur the lines between character feelings and player feelings.
It's... a bit abusive, if you don't go in understanding the Forge objectives.
2:48 AM
I'm writing pitches for 2019 RL TTRPG season right now, and one of them mentions sudden and quick lethality as a feature of its system. Get it out there early, man.
@nitsua60 Great Ork Gods, or?
@Shalvenay Traveler. But for (mostly) D&D players the possibility of being hampered in effectiveness after one hit, down in two, and irreparably-dead in three... I figure it's worth mentioning.
GOG, Paranoia, most editions of D&D at level 1...
@nitsua60 ah yes
Most d20 System games that use wounds/vitality have accidentally incorporated an extremely anticlimactic instant-kill mechanism.
2:51 AM
But the proposal is a string of one-shots springing from the same corporate patron, so the intent is that lethality is a business cost; players will each have a stable of PCs to grab from when staffing a mission so while losing one may hurt, hopefully it's not too painful.
(Run-on sentence much!?)
@nitsua60 yeah, it's taking the Great Ork Gods approach to lethality and applying it to Traveller
with a large dollop of pregen
@Shalvenay I dunno... I think of it as taking the Traveller approach to lethality and applying it to Traveller =)
@nitsua60 heheh :)
@BESW Well, technically, even if you're just throwing punches there's a chance to kill somebody. d6 fallout is enough to make a body save or go critical, d8 fallout is enough to go critical and need medical attention, but it is only d10 fallout that can kill you outright.
You also aren't going to get killed so easily if you're the only person who pulls a gun - fallout is by blow, not by conflict arena. Punches don't suddenly get deadlier because somebody pulled a gun.
Yeah but if you pull a gun everyone else is going to do so too
You best hope pulling a gun ends things in your favor, and fast
2:57 AM
That's what I figured. Don't get into fights without superior ratios and it won't be deadly.
@trogdor Unless you're in a situation where everyone else has whips chains, baseball bats, that sort of thing. You can go the whole "So, no one has one of these?"
@Ben well in Dogs everyone has a gun
Pretty much
If they don't then they have an equivalent
[Roll to convince everyone else they have no ammo]
Not even every Dog has a gun!
They will be extremely insistent that you take one, but they won't force you.
And, I mean, little Patience isn't packing underneath her schooldress.
But if you pulled a gun you have one
And you escalated things
I'm just saying there are definitely consequences in that system for actions like pulling a gun
3:02 AM
Anyone in here played both CT and MGT2? I'm comfortable running CT, have picked up and flipped through MGT2, and would be interested in arguments for/against either of them.
- For CT: cheap/small pdfs on DTRPG lower barrier to entry for players who may be considering their first foray into the Travellerverse.
- For MGT2: it's probably at least marginally better in design than its forty-years-older brother.
- For MGT2 (possibly a subset of the last): lingering debility rather than death during chargen.
Yes. There are also consequences for keeping on fighting when someone else has pulled a gun, regardless of what you do in response.
3:26 AM
Any one want to add a link to the official site for this answer? cc @V2Blast
My favorite line from Classic Traveller: in chargen-->attributes, "It is possible for a player to generate a character with seemingly unsatisfactory values; nevertheless each player should use the character as it is created…. Should a player truly consider the character so poor as to be beyond help, the low survival rate of the Scout Service may make it the best career choice.”
The point of Dogs is that yes, if you work together you're basically unstoppable... but the GM's role is to present situations where the Dogs have trouble agreeing on a course of action.
It's about moral crisis amongst people with moral responsibility for a community over which they have absolute authority... but no authority over the others who share that responsibility.
Most game scenarios go: "The characters have a goal, and must overcome obstacles to achieve it." In Dogs the goal is working together to solve a problem and the obstacles are each character's individual priorities, loyalties, and hangups that get in the way of agreeing on what solution they should work together on.
3:46 AM
@Ben I mean, there's a roll20 link there, but the capitalization for "special" and "spells" is off. I'll edit the link
@V2Blast Cool :) if you feel it can use the PHB page number as well, it's 197
@nitsua60 Heh.
@nitsua60 That's almost as good as deadEarth.
> If you create a character that you don't like, you may simply throw it away and create a new one; however, you may not create more than three characters. If you throw away your first two characters, you must keep the third. Remember that part of role-playing (perhaps the best part) is dealing with less-than favorable situations.
(Unstated is the fact that characters can die during the chargen process.)
3:57 AM
I just failed a survival roll for my Army Captain's third term of service. He had such promise. All I needed to avoid was snake eyes and he'd have lived....
I'm looking for film recommendations with a plotline about someone who's being somehow pressured into sharing the beliefs of the people around him, and/or penalized for failing to do so. Preferably not a "based on real events" thing; the more fantastical the better.
67A363, you weren't very bright, or likeable, but you sure could take a hit. Execpt from those snake eyes.
@BESW Does Pleasantville fit the bill?
Hmm, maybe.
@BESW In fact, all three characters are likely to die during the chargen process!
@Glazius I'm somewhat disappointed that I've made three or four three-packs of characters and none started the game dead.
4:00 AM
@BESW Witness?
@nitsua60 Context: I want to make a double-feature with Polar Express, pairing it with a movie to watch first which helps re-frame Polar Express as a horror film. I'm thinking maybe a "belief" angle would be good.
But other angles to come at it from would be welcome.
Ahh. so Footloose isn't helpful....
(tautology alert ^^ )
@nitsua60 Well, if you assume musical numbers are an elder god imposing its worldview on humanity.
Bonus points if it's a holiday film or stars Tom Hanks.
@Glazius I think that's Xanadu.
@BESW ...*Christmas with the Kranks*?
It's not horror but it's definitely extremely "there is one correct Christmas".
4:04 AM
I haven't seen it, but doesn't that one conclude that the "only one kind of Christmas" perspective is incorrect?
Ideally I'm looking for a film that --deliberately or not-- enforces a One True Belief narrative.
(Assuming that's the horror angle to go for.)
Or maybe flip it, and find a film that's about someone holding onto a belief... hrm.
@BESW It pays lip service to the idea after spending the entire movie clowning on two people for introducing heathen and heretical Christmas activities.
@Glazius I do now!
Well, you have to be predisposed to the idea that their miseries are the result of a vengeful higher power, such as a scriptwriter.
@nitsua60 This is also the conceit for one of the better episodes of Buffy.
Q: How to show the most recent community consensus in meta?

VylixThis meta: What to do when an edit guesses the system being used rather than waiting for the querent to clarify? is an old post that has received faq tag. However, there is an attempt to revisit the policy: Revisiting our "never guess the game system" policy which is newer. The answer is still ...

4:12 AM
I mean, if you wanted a recent horror film which kind of leans into the idea of "shared delusions", you could try Hereditary. How much connective material is in this double feature?
He isn't looking for a horror movie though
He's looking for a Holliday movie that tries to reinforce an idea that only one way of celebrating is right
It could be a horror film. But the point is that it's a film which re-frames Polar Express to be more horrific.
Fair enough
5:05 AM
@BESW Now I have to listen to the soundtrack again... :)
@V2Blast They got... the mustard... OOOOUUUUUT!
I've recently been hooked on The Night Begins to Shine, thanks to Teen Titans Go
2 hours later…
6:39 AM
Thanks for the recommendations everyone.
@Zachiel I pitched Sorcery at one of my groups. They were only interested if each of their characters could banish their personal demon and become redeemed. Is it possible to play it that way? Thanks in advance.
5 hours later…
12:02 PM
@Zachiel Sorry, I should have said that they eventually want to banish their demon and be redeemed.
1 hour later…
1:11 PM
1:22 PM
morning morning
All day has been morning to me
The solstice is almost upon us and with a thick layer of clouds over the land, the entire day has been rather dark
aw, yea. that'll happen
do you go to a solstice party?
2:00 PM
Ah man, my poor grapple-move answer is not popular lol
I'm honestly not quite sure why though.
2:13 PM
@Rubiksmoose I didn't vote, but I personally am sitll unsure as to the 'changing' speeds during a turn.
@NautArch If you cast hast on yourself, would you allow yourself to use that movement?
If not, when would that effect kick in?
after i already moved?
Honestly, I'd just retcon the haste casting to before i moved. Is tehre ar eason you'd do your full move, then cast haste other than this particular exercise?
@NautArch Move out of a AMF or something like that possibly. There are reasons. But does it matter? Either way you start your turn with one speed and then you change it.
Same if you get hit with slow (via a trap or readied action)
@Rubiksmoose It kinda does (to me), because it feels like we're artificially creating edge cases
@Rubiksmoose Let's play with that edge case (slow)
@NautArch Hm. Well you said your concern was changing speeds during that turn. Isn't haste an example of that unequivocally happening?
2:19 PM
let's say you have a move of 30. You move 30 and hit the spell glyph trap and now have Slow. WOuld you have to retcon that move back to 15?
Regardless of whether you have moved or not, your speed still changes, right?
@Rubiksmoose except in the vast majority of cases, the haste is cast at the beginning of your turn.
@NautArch Sure, but still a speed change nonetheless.
@NautArch Nope, you just stop moving.
Okay, soin the opposite case of gaining movement, why would you allow adding that to your current turn?
@NautArch Because of the rules: movementLeft=currentSpeed−movementUsed
In the case of slow you are left with <0 movement left.
In the case of haste you are left with >0 movement
2:22 PM
So what you're saying is you have 15 movement at the start of your turn because you're grappling.
You use your 15 movement, which is your full movement.
But then you release the grapple, giving you 30 move once again. And that change speed overrides the fact that you've already completed your movement?
@NautArch Where in the rules is this "completing your movement" mechanic?
I guess it comes down to "i don't think you're wrong, but I don't like how that all works out so I'm not ruling that way"
It's that you can move your maximum speed in your turn. But how that interacts when your speed changes mid-turn is wonky.
Listen, I agree that the rules here do not really get us a intuitive answer. But I don't know how you can argue that they don' say this.
There are lots of reasonable houserules, but I feel like my answer should be based on whether it inteprets the rules correctly and not whether the rules are written well.
@Rubiksmoose I think it is because of the mysterious "completing your movement" mechanic. It just feels wrong that you can use your full move, then change your speed to give you more.
And I'm not sure the rules support that because I feel that it isn't really covered.
I don't think your logic is wrong, I'm just not sure it's fully supported. Much in the same way that the other ruling isn't fully supported.
But I think the difference is you're making the logical leap of "you are giving yourself more even though you've used your full movement" vs "you can't give yourself more because you've moved your full based on the grapple+move rules"
@NautArch It is the logical extension of what we do have though right? 1) speed can change during a turn, haste and slow are examples of this. 2) movement is based on your current speed.
2:26 PM
@Rubiksmoose Right, but haste and slow are generally not changing your speed mid-turn.
The rules don't really seem to apply to mid-turn changes.
@NautArch I don't see how that matters though? Using haste at the beginning and end of your turn has the same effect.
OoOoOooOOooh! I'm a neccromancer today....
@nitsua60 eeeevvvviiiillllll
Here's the thing though: there is no such thing as "using your full movement" in the sense that it is irrevokable. That is jsut not something that is supported by the rules.
You can also choose to dash part of the way through your turn and gain additional movement that way.
@Rubiksmoose again, i'm not saying you're wrong - I'm saying I don't think it's 100% clear in the way you do.
2:29 PM
@NautArch Right, it just kind of bothers me that the top answer seems to be based on literally nothing.
Well, I'm not arguing for the top answer with you :)
but why did you ask another question in comments rather than the chat room for it?
@NautArch because I wanted encryptor to see it and I don't think they were active in that room.
@Rubiksmoose is there a difference between pinging someone in the room vs pinging someone in the comment? I think it works the same and it keeps the question clean rather than kicking back up a discussion in comments.
Also, I think that suggestions can still go outside of comments right? Just no discussion.
@NautArch You can't ping someone in a room they have not joined.
@Rubiksmoose ah, testing that theory.
let me know if you have an inbox mesasge
2:33 PM
@NautArch I did get a ping. But I had already joined that room.
@Rubiksmoose and so had they. BUt you aren't currently in it. I think as long as they are a user in the room, they can be pinged.
@NautArch When comments are moved I don't think it counts actually
Regardless you are correct because they posted after me.
@Rubiksmoose hmm, i'll try it
So I was mistaken about not being able to ping them.
@NautArch They will get the ping, you know because the name autofills.
but back to the matter at hand, I think I agree with enkryptor that this edge case the rules don't really cover this particular edge case completely.
You have good supporting logic for it, but I also think Enkryptor does.
ultimately, it's an ask your DM.
2:36 PM
@NautArch I would agree with that if their answer actually said that. As is, it basically says things as fact when that is not the case.
But the way I'm thinking about it is: I can move X amount. If I drag someone I can move X/2. If I"ve used X/2 dragging them, then I've used my movement for that turn. Letting them go after X/2, does not give me back the remainder of my X because I spent my 6 seconds of the turn dragging them X/2.
@NautArch But then getting into time-based arguments is super messy.
@Rubiksmoose Okay, I think we're discussing different things. You are moving the discussion from arguing FOR your point to arguing AGAINST enkryptor's.
@NautArch Fair point.
@Rubiksmoose Sure, but that's how I'm looking at it. You aren't artifically 'increasing' your movement like with Haste, you have used your full available movement in dragging to the maximum you can.
Dragging to the max you can and letting go doesn't give you more.
You'v spent your movement dragging to the max.
2:40 PM
@NautArch What about if you dash afterwards though?
@Rubiksmoose Then you've got your full 30 for the dash.
You're spending an action to give you more.
why the heck did I get a downvote for that simulacrum answer?
@goodguy5 Obviously it was me because I downvote your answers habitually and without reading. :P
@goodguy5 because your answer is bad, you're bad, and you should feel bad?
@Rubiksmoose oh, right. that makes sense. thanks for clearing that up ;)
2:43 PM
@goodguy5 I think the reason is that they are using wish, not casting simulacrum.
that has nothing to do with the question in the title.

Simulacrum can be twinned
@Rubiksmoose @goodguy5 Yeah, metamagic would be on Wish, not on the spell Wish is casting.
But also, I don't think simulacrum can be twinned. The target isn't a creature.
@goodguy5 Well the title has changed :P
it's not a creature until after the spell has been cast
well shiz
@Rubiksmoose fiiiine
2:46 PM
@goodguy5 It was changed by me to be fair.
doesn't that change make it a duplicate of this?
yea, @Rubiksmoose
either "using wish" in which case "no" and it's a dupe
or "twinned at all", in which case.... "yes" and we need to revert the title
or more accurately "I say yes because I believe the target is the creature being duplicated"
I suppose that a sub-question of this question is "what is the target to be touched when casting simulacrum?"
@goodguy5 THat is the question that needs to be asked - and i'm not sure it's clear.
@NautArch I disagree, but that's the whole point of this
are you pulling the life into the object, or are you sending life force to the object.
the spell isn't clear
Pretty sure I don't agree with wizards on this one
but I kinda see it, so meh.
3:00 PM
personally, I'd allow it.

Wish says that you duplicate the spell sans components. which to me says all aspects of the spell.
@goodguy5 edited the question
thanks, boo
@Rubiksmoose now for me to downvote your edit on principle
@goodguy5 yeah, wish is weird. I'd probably allow it as well at that point. Just seems kinda weird, but hey, it's wish.
@goodguy5 I think you should quote the first line of the simulacrum spell in your answer. I think it strongly imples that the target is the copied creature. It might even be explicit.
@NautArch Weird is a different 9th level spell.
@Rubiksmoose will do, thanks
3:03 PM
@goodguy5 :P
For one thing, you can't touch-target the creature that doesn't exist yet.
@Rubiksmoose implicitly explicit
weird actually seems UP for a 9th level spell
3:20 PM
Isn't printed Sage Advice RAW?
@NautArch "printed" like irl with a printer?
@goodguy5 printed as in published, smartguy.
@NautArch I would say a strong no.
honestly was a legitimate question about your intent
For me: RAW is the books and errata.
3:22 PM
@NautArch that's a tricky question. like if they put updates in Dragon magazine that's not officially errata....
@Rubiksmoose I'm inclined to agree, but what if they put a rule/ruling in an official source?
@goodguy5 The only source of rules is the books IMO.
@Rubiksmoose I think I agree. THey're pretty clear that Sage Advice (and this appears to be either printed or on twitter) made by JC is an official interpretation/ruling - but is not RAW,
@Rubiksmoose So, not dragon magazine?
JC can create rules all he wants, but if he wants them to be considered new rules he has to actually put them in a book.
@Rubiksmoose or as Errata.
3:24 PM
@goodguy5 Well I am speaking from a 5e perspective. But yeah I would not consider dragon mag to be a source for rules.
SA definitely has a place in clearing up potential rules confusions and looking for rulings, but no new rules.
Now, if a new paradigm emerged where they deicded to release a bunch of official new rules through a magazine or other official source I would have to reevaluate my dichotemy. But I don't believe that is the case currently.
@Rubiksmoose But I don't think he's 'creating rules', he's just showing how he'd rule. And while his ruling are 'official' they do not replace RAW or even how a DM might rule. They're official guidance as intepreted by JC, but they aren't the rules.
WHicn now is pretty annoying how much we rely on them in answers here, amirite @nitsua60?
@NautArch For sure, I was more responding to gg5 when they said: "I'm inclined to agree, but what if they put a rule/ruling in an official source?"
@Rubiksmoose But again, those are clarifications on how he'd rule - not on the RAW itself. They really aren't any more meaningful for anything other than 'intent' where intent is how he'd rule.
Well, JC rulings are slightly more meaningful than merls rulings.
@NautArch That is unclear. JC does say that he clarifies RAW explicitly sometimes.
But the thing is, RAW are words. And words are complicated and open to interpretation. There can be multiple valid RAW interpretations.
@goodguy5 I think they are much more meaningful personally.
Merls is a good DM, but sometimes he fails at reading the rules. Even more than JC does.
3:31 PM
I mean like...
JC is "I represent the opinions of Wizards of the Coast."
Merls is "I am a DM at Wizards of the coast and these are my opinions."
All of Merl's stuff is a very very slightly more "official" (though a word I use reluctantly) opinion than any of us here.
@Rubiksmoose The text in Sage Advice seems to contradict that.
@goodguy5 FWIW media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf states that the rulings embodied in the SA compendium ... These are the official rulings of Jeremy Crawford, the game’s lead rules developer
"Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here
in the Sage Advice Compendium. The public statements
of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast,
are not official rulings; they are advice. One exception:
the game’s lead rules developer, Jeremy Crawford
(@JeremyECrawford on Twitter), can make official rulings
and does so in this document and on Twitter.
A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines
whether to use an official ruling in play."
@NautArch Even so, he definitely does. And I'm not sure I see a contradiction there.
3:36 PM
@Rubiksmoose Where does he say his rulings are RAWable?
@NautArch Check the above link.
I think that what he's saying is that in this case his RAI does not differ from the RAW.
But not that his twitter rulings are RAW. They might overlap.
@NautArch Which case? There's a whole bunch of posts there.
@kviiri Diplomacy. I started playing when I was 10 or 11. It works for all ages ... if the person is reasonably intelligent
@NautArch Sure that is what I'm saying. Some of his answers are intended to clarify RAW.
Not that they are considered RAW themselves.
3:38 PM
@Rubiksmoose So clarifying RAW is not RAW?
@Rubiksmoose BUt his 'RAW clarifications" are not raw. THey are his interpretation and I think that's where it ends.
@NautArch Are JC tweets RAI then?
@ColinGross RAW is text. Anything beyond hte text is interpretation. He can have an interpretetation of RAW that is different but still valid from someone else's
@NautArch We are in complete agreement here and have been this entire discussion. :)
@Rubiksmoose no, we're wrong!
@NautArch XD
3:41 PM
@Rubiksmoose bingo
@NautArch I disagree.
which then loops back to why are we supporting answers here with tweets beyond RAI.
@ColinGross perfect! You're in.
Probably should update the raw tag description to make it clear that it's just the words in the published books.
Currently it just says "game's rules" which is kind of nebulous, and might include UA
@ColinGross well, kindasorta. That RAW tag has it's own issues.
It always seemed weird and pointless to me that Mage Armor is cancelled/doesn't work on someone who is wearing armor.
Just use the highest value.
3:44 PM
IT's more that using his tweets to support an answer and saying they are equivalent to the rules is disingenous.
brb, have to put on my electrician hat.
@NautArch that seems dangerous
@goodguy5 Don't worry. NautArch is a very grounded person.
@Rubiksmoose what a shock
@kviiri Slugfest games Red Dragon Inn ... only downside being that the point of the game is to get the other characters drunk, so it might not be right for the age group.
@goodguy5 Don't buy into all this static.
3:48 PM
@Rubiksmoose re: your comment on my simulacrum answer.

The question quotes the twinned text. do you really think I need the clause about not applying to the same creature twice??
@NautArch Not just issues, the whole subscription. ;p
@goodguy5 Just the one line would help yeah. The question cites the entire text (which isn't that useful really) but you would just need to point to it. Either quote or point to the line IMO would help.
@NautArch I don't rely on them =D
Fwiw I was confused about how you made that leap before I went back and read. So if I was confused other people could be as well.
3:50 PM
@nitsua60 And your players appreciate that. My tier 3 Dm doesn't either; we go on a case by case basis. He keeps what he likes and dumps the rest.
@Rubiksmoose how about now?
@NautArch The way I look at all of those rulings, with each iteration of SAC, all twitters and twatters not folded into the compendium are rendered mooot, albeit of interest to GM's seeking advice. Compiled Answers: Sage Advice answers that are relevant to the current state of the rules are compiled here But that's my take, I understand that others will see it differently given the text you cited.
@KorvinStarmast I'm not seeing it like that. It seems like all his rulings, whether printed as Sage Advice Compendium or left in the twitterverse are equal. Do you have something else that says otherwise?
also, still alive :P.
@goodguy5 Looks good! I made a tweak, what do you think?
@NautArch I can kinda see the point that if rulings lifted from twitter into SAC are valid, then rulings not lifted are implicitly not (or they would've been ascended into ruledom too)
However, I don't really care at all what JC thinks anymore, since I think his rulings often seem more like spur-of-the-moment hunches than sagely advice.

« first day (2993 days earlier)      last day (2050 days later) »