TRPG General Chat

Hot RPG Questions

01:08

1

Q: What caster level do you need to craft a Ring of Protection +5?

I had always assumed that there was a similar requirement to creating higher tiers of rings of protection (and magic items in general), just like you need to be at least three times the enhancement bonus in caster level for magic weapon- and armor enhancement. However, a player pointed out that t...

KorvinStarmast

02:29

@Shalvenay hey, just dropped in, hope all is well at your end of the multiverse. Madness takes its toll 'round here at the moment.

Shalvenay

@KorvinStarmast clouds should start lifting here in the near future, so that's good

Adeptus

03:48

@BESW the video you linked the other day about coloured light affecting how we see things, led me to one about CED (the first videodisc system), that I'd never heard of before!

BESW

04:08

He’s got some very interesting videos on a variety of subjects! The technical explanations are sometimes a bit clumsy but he’s getting a lot better at that part.

A. B.

04:25

If there's anyone here who knows GURPS, can somebody explain to me how techniques are supposed to work? I've read the section about them in the rulebook repeatedly and I still don't understand it.

Hot RPG Questions

04:55

6

Q: Sneak attack when an ally has been swallowed?

Our delightful barbarian decided to get swallowed by a Behir, Our scout rogue decided to stick an arrow in the unfortunate beast and claimed sneak attack as the barbarian was restrained but not incapacitated and technically inside the behir's stomach is within 5 feet of it. Our DM said no chance ...

dnd-5e monsters rogue sneak-attack

Adeptus

05:49

@A.B. forums.giantitp.com/…

Carcer

08:11

@KorvinStarmast I have a soft spot for it because the Baldur's Gate games were my personal introduction to D&D but I'm certainly not going to pretend it's the platonic ideal of campaign settings

vicky_molokh- unsilence Monica

In simplified terms:
- A Technique usually mitigates a penalty to some specific action, removing one level of penalty per level of technique bought.
- Average techniques cost a flat [1/level]. Hard Techniques cost [2] for the first level and [1] per each subsequent level.
- Many Techniques are or need to be tied to specific skill, but some are not. Some Techniques not only allow mitigating penalties, but allow getting a net bonus to an action (relative to the skill level) - such as Arm Lock which starts at Skill+0 and can increase up to Skill+4 (i.e. you can buy four levels of it).

A. B.

08:56

@vicky_molokh-unsilenceMonica Thanks very much! That actually makes sense!

Unrelated question. Has anyone ever heard the expression "hurting wrong fun" before? Not "badwrongfun", "hurting wrong fun". I had never seen it before until the last few days or so, and now I'm seeing it all over the place, even in old threads.

Which is understandably starting to give me the creeps.

vicky_molokh- unsilence Monica

@A.B. Heard no, read yeah but rarely. Usually in context like 'Oh no, you used GURPS as a narrativist system, that hurts me even though I am not even playing with you' (not an actual quote, but the general example of what it was like).

BESW

PanzerLion wrote a twitter thread about how his contribution to WotC's "Candlekeep Mysteries" was edited without his input. Update and more details here. Matt Hayles wrote on twitter about how the official WotC D&D account responded.

"Physical Game Jams," a carrd maintained by MV.

Sister Escape - A Blades in the Dark Score by KTPie. A Blades in the Dark score about "rescuing" a girl from a convent to be reunited with her lover

MatzoJam Passover Jam hosted by manishtana. Welcome to the table! This is a Jam about celebrating Passover as a community.

Origin Story by Meghan Cross. A (Not So) Wretched and Alone game about the rise of a superhero

Upcoming Kickstarter: Goblin Country by Biscuit Fund Games. An GM-less RPG zine about goblins going on adventures, and the trouble that follows.

A. B.

09:16

hmm, thanks. That makes a kind of sense. (Otherwise it seemed to be a contradiction in terms, if it's fun, it's not hurting anyone).

BESW

@A.B. What some consider fun, may be harmful to others.

A. B.

Doesn't account for why I'm suddenly seeing it everywhere, maybe it's just a case of once you're looking for red cars you see them everywhere. But at least I know what it's supposed to mean now!

BESW

(It's not a term I'm familiar with, so I don't know what it's supposed to invoke. But absolutely I can think off the top of my head of multiple instances of "but it's just a game we're having fun" being used as an attempt to silence people who are speaking out about actual harm.)

A. B.

I think in this case (putting vicky_molokh's comment together with the contexts) it's more a case of similar to "badwrongfun" - doesn't hurt anyone but the feelings of onlookers who don't think that's how you should play it.

Game snobbery.

You'd need to think of a different name to refer to the thing you're talking about there!

vicky_molokh- unsilence Monica

@A.B. I think it can be much wider than mere snobbery.

Or at least, non-snobbery examples seem to be sufficiently connected to at least touch the phrasing.

AncientSwordRage

10:36

> Back in the mists of time (i.e. the very late 90s or the very early 00s), somebody on the Pyramid message boards made a post to the effect that if everybody's having fun then you're not playing the game "wrong" and nobody who's not part of your game has any reason to tell you otherwise -- you're not doing them any harm by playing the game differently than they would.

> In response, another poster (I want to say it was Chad Underkoffler, but it might have been somebody else) posted a mock-argument against this idea. Something along the lines of "No! Your wrong fun hurts me. You must be some kind of crazy, bad person with your hurting wrong fun."

> This was widely regarded as hilarious and for a while "hurting wrong fun" was used pretty much the same way rpg.net now uses "BadWrongFun" -- to mock the overly serious "one true way"-ism that can creep into gaming discussions. There was a lot of overlap in posters between Pyramid and rpg.net in those days, so I always figured that "BadWrongFun" was a memetic mutation of "hurting wrong fun." But for all I know it could be parallel evolution.

forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/what-is-badwrongfun.535974/…

(Emphasis mine)

BESW

10:48

....I think that if more TRPG consumers understood the nature of work-for-hire writing and how especially companies like WotC treat edits, there'd be a lot less tendency to do word-by-word readings of their game texts.

AncientSwordRage

@BESW thats one important change

I saw non-rpg publishers saying "Aww hell naw!" about what happened, and other RPG writers saying "Yup, thats about right for what I expected from the industry"

BESW

When somebody writes an adventure for a D&D book, they're doing work-for-hire. Legally this means that the company, not the author, has total ownership of the text. Practically speaking, this means that any vision you've ever had of writers getting notes from editors and making revisions? doesn't happen. it's not a thing. The company's in-house editors make any and all changes they see fit and publish it. The author doesn't even see the changes unless they buy a copy of the book.

Editors making notes for writers to make changes based on is part of a completely different industry model, in places that publish short stories and novels, where the author retains ownership of the text. In that world, the publisher is providing editing as a service to the author and renting the right to publish the author's text in specific ways.

So any notion that a particular author's vision is being expressed, or that creative control is being exercised, is an illusion. It only applies to people in positions of authority in the editing and development rooms.

Even setting aside the truly disgusting details about what happened to PanzerLion's Candlekeep content, and how WotC tried to pit different POC against each other in a clout contest to avoid taking responsibility, this is an opportunity for more casual consumers to realize how silly it is to interpret intent via line-for-line literalism.

AncientSwordRage

@BESW Maybe that could change a smidge

BESW

That would be nice.

Some small press publishers operate differently, to a greater or lesser extent.

Carcer

incidentally I did learn recently that copyright law in most european countries forbids the waiver of an author's moral rights to a work

BESW

11:00

But it exposes them to more legal liabilities and practical complications, to have the copyright spread around like that instead of consolidated in themselves.

Carcer

which includes the right to prohibit to alteration of their work in such a way as to be prejudicial to their interests or reputation

BESW

lit.se and sff.se gave me a lot of salt for approaches to text that ignore the reality of the author.

vicky_molokh- unsilence Monica

Moral rights seem pointless unless they're inalienable, so yeah.

Hot RPG Questions

7

Q: Are purchasable animals OP?

I have recently discovered that you can buy a large variety of rather strong creatures for very cheap amounts. A character that is moderately specialized in handle animal can easily get a +15 by level 3. And for the price of a +1 weapon, they can instead get a Mastodon. This monster of a creature...

pathfinder-1e balance equipment animals economy

AncientSwordRage

11:19

@BESW Well that's not nice

Thomas Markov

12:07

So this answer is super wrong, and was still super wrong when it was posted.

RevenantBacon

When was the sage advice compendium originally released?

Thomas Markov

2018 I think.

JC's tweets have never been considered "errata".

They have been considered official rulings, but that's not the same as an errata.

RevenantBacon

The only thing I could have potentially seen as wrong with that answer is when the compendium was slated for release.

Thomas

Thomas my friend

What do you think errata means?

Thomas Markov

"Errata" is the published document correcting errors within the texts of the sourcebooks.

JC's tweets have never been considered official corrections to the texts.

RevenantBacon

OK, fair enough. Errata is a literal document.

But that answer is still correct at time of posting

Because it says specifically that at time of writing, a rules column is slated for release in the near future.

Saying that JC is the source for official rulings and errata is and was 100% correct

Thomas Markov

12:21

JC is not the source of official rulings or errata.

He was the source of official rulings.

But not errata.

KorvinStarmast

@ThomasMarkov 2015/2016 is the first year I have a version of it, not 2018.

Thomas Markov

@KorvinStarmast Ah, okay. It was the January 2019 release that made his tweets unofficial.

KorvinStarmast

@ThomasMarkov correct, they were intended as "clarifications" or "RAI" when the first SAC came out. But it wasn't until later that the official line as "his tweets" are unofficial ... which was greeted with some relief by many

And IIRC, AL has never been bound by his tweets or even the SAC, but I'd need an AL DM to clarify that for me.

Thomas Markov

we're up to 8 bountied questions

RevenantBacon

@ThomasMarkov He definitely is though. He absolutely has a significant hand in the SAC. I suppose the only thing you could really nitpick is that he isn't the source of errata, because he probably has a few people on his team that assist him

But he definitely is the largest contributor

Thomas Markov

12:26

When I say "source" I mean "what medium do I consult to find official rulings"

And the answer is the SAC.

Because the SAC explicitly excludes the personal rulings of JC published anywhere besides the SAC, it means that the SAC, not JC, is the source of official errata and rulings.

RevenantBacon

Right, but JC is the one who makes the SAC

KorvinStarmast

@ThomasMarkov Yep. Tweets are useful insight, but until things get vetted a bit and published, I'd treat them with caution.

RevenantBacon

No, you guys are confused

I'm not saying that his tweets are official

KorvinStarmast

@RevenantBacon Not in the least.

Thomas Markov

@RevenantBacon There is still a meaningful distinction between saying that JC is the source and the SAC is the source.

Because the SAC explicitly excludes JC as a source in all media except itself.

KorvinStarmast

12:28

@RevenantBacon Neither am I. but they were treated as 'word of dev' for a couple of years, that's for sure

RevenantBacon

@KorvinStarmast That's because, for a couple years, they were. His tweets aren't anymore, but he's still the one who produces the SAC

It's the watchamacallit principle. A is parent to B, B is parent to C, therefore, A is parent to C

Thomas Markov

And only in the context of the SAC is he a source of official rulings. Claiming that JC is the source of official rulings without explaining that it is only in the context of the SAC is obfuscatory, even if it is true.

RevenantBacon

@ThomasMarkov Just because the answer hasn't been updated with the change in stance they made upon releasing the SAC doesn't mean the answer was wrong at time of posting

Thomas Markov

The answer claimed that JC's tweets were the source of errata, which is simply false. The errata are found in a published document.

RevenantBacon

No

It claimed that JC is the source of errata and rulings

It did not state that tweets were errata

Thomas Markov

12:33

It literally cited a tweet of JC and called it errata.

KorvinStarmast

@RevenantBacon which is wrong. He was the source of rulings. I edited the answer since it was wrong.

A few of his tweets did alert people to "oops, we'll fix this" before the errata came out, but that's not errata, per se

(IIRC, the grappler feat was one such case)

Thomas Markov

Either way, Carcer's answer is complete, correct, and maintained regularly.

RevenantBacon

@KorvinStarmast when? do I need to refresh?

@KorvinStarmast Also, it's strictly not wrong

JC produces SAC, SAC is the source of official errata, therefore, JC is the source of official errata

Transient Property

I think that's what it's called

KorvinStarmast

@RevenantBacon Nope, I don't think you are using the transitive property correctly

The errata is listed, but it is published separately from Sage Advice. I do not doubt that he is involved in its collation, howeve.r

RevenantBacon

how sure are you? Because I'm pretty sure that that's correct

KorvinStarmast

12:37

@RevenantBacon They are in parallel, not in series.

Thomas Markov

Either way, it is still more clear to state where the official errata are, rather than say their primary author is the "source".

KorvinStarmast

Most important point to remember, SAC is not errata, it is a source of official rulings. Errata are Different Documents than the SAC.

The fact that it lists where the most recent errata is does not make SAC an errata document.

Thomas Markov

@NautArch we can probably just remove that footnote entirely.

It doesnt seem relevant at all.

NautArch

@ThomasMarkov i'm fine with it now if they are referencing sageadvice.eu. If we're linking directly to twitter, yeah, we can remove it.

Thomas Markov

All the tweets are direct links.

Also that user hasnt logged in for the last five years, so it would be highly irregular if they got upset about their answer being edited.

I would bounty Carcer's answer if I didnt have three bounties up already.

Medix2

13:28

@ThomasMarkov I laughed when I saw this ten seconds ago

NautArch

@Akixkisu Mind if i Update the sageadvice.eu line?

on your recent answer to be explicit that it's an unafilliated third party?

Thomas Markov

We should make a question "What is sageadvice.eu?"

NautArch

although you really do a great job clarifying. Maybe not necessary.

@ThomasMarkov It ain't scottish.

Medix2

Is "WotC publish" correct? Isn't it "publishes"?

NautArch

@Medix2 What's the rest of the sentence?

Medix2

13:41

"WotC publish errata in individual articles but compile them in the Sage Advice Compendium" and "This compendium accumulates [things] that WotC initially publish in individual articles"

Thomas Markov

It's publishes.

If the subject was "Wizards" plural, it would be publish, but "Wizards of the Coast" is a singular entity, so the subject is singular.

Medix2

It also says "his link leads to the November 2020 version and it will not update to the newest version like the Sage Advice Compendium on dndbeyond upon a new compendium release." which is just false?

Or did WotC stop making all old links lie by sending you to the most updated form?

Someone_Evil

AFAIK they just change the last link to point to the new one, which means the link for two versions ago will link to the old

Medix2

Ah, I was wrong, the 2016 articles still link to 2019 Sage Advice XD

And the 2019 links to... 2019 ???

WotC please

Akixkisu

13:54

@NautArch sure

NautArch

@Akixkisu I'm not sure it's needed. YOu're really explicit :)

Akixkisu

@NautArch is that grammar edit that you did correct?

English can be so weird.

NautArch

@Akixkisu which edit? I just added the full url to the sageadvice.

Akixkisu

@NautArch wotc publish/publishes

Which seems to be correct, but to a non-native speaker that seems unituitive.

NautArch

@Akixkisu Ah, that one wasn't me...but scroll up :)

Akixkisu

14:04

@NautArch It seems weird because it is a conglomerate instead of an entity except viewing from a business law perspective.

RevenantBacon

@NautArch I mean, it could be argued that while Wizards of the Coast is a single entity, it is an entity comprised of many individual wizards, and is therefore plural :p

Medix2

The same way NASA makes spaceships

Someone_Evil

@Akixkisu English distinguishes continuous present (if I remember the name of it correctly), german (nor norwegian for that matter) doesn't, which may be why it sounds odd

Remember your negatives everyone, they impact the meaning a fair bit

Medix2

English makes it more clear in that we can say "The WotC company publishes..."

Akixkisu

That seems less clear and imprecise to a degree, but it is what it is.

Someone_Evil

14:10

Who or what is publishing doesn't matter here does it? It would still be "Richard publishes..."

Akixkisu

If it was Richard who publishes.

But ut is Richard et al. who publish.

Not that it matters ¯_(ツ)_/¯

doppelgreener

15

Q: Will there be Community Promotion Ads in 2021, if so when?

(title stolen from Will there be Community Promotion Ads in 2020, if so when?) Community promotion ads were usually posted in January, but this didn't happen in 2021 yet. It's not urgent but I've just advised a user on Writing about them, and I don't think it would be a good idea to let them crea...

support status-review advertising community-promotion-ads

i'm glad someone asked, it's getting pretty late into 2021 for community ads!

Thomas Markov

OP reverted my edit on this answer.

doppelgreener

At the time that was correct. Might be worth a different approach to that edit.

actually, I think it's still correct?

Yeah, that answer looks fine.

It's not a "Jeremy Crawford made this ruling and it's official" answer, it's a "Jeremy Crawford made an official statement." And he did! He still can do that.

NautArch

@doppelgreener In this case, though, saying it is 'still' official is incorrect. It's a tweet that is no longer considered official, isn't it?

'once official' would be more accurate, but just a tweet is the most accurate now.

doppelgreener

14:20

@NautArch No, it is not no longer considered official.

NautArch

@doppelgreener It isn't?

Thomas Markov

@doppelgreener what did someone evil say about minding your negatives?

doppelgreener

Jeremy Crawford isn't making defacto rulings anymore, but this is not that.

@ThomasMarkov They didn't say not to never not do it? [reads back, counts on fingers]

Medix2

I think we should avoid calling things Crawford says "official" because people will assume "official" means "making rules/rulings" ?

Someone_Evil

@ThomasMarkov Hey, there's plenty in there :)

doppelgreener

14:22

But it's not rules or a ruling.

NautArch

I think we're being pretty loose with 'official'. Yeah, whatever I say is also official. But I don't think Jeremy's tweets are official statements from WoTC, are they?

doppelgreener

Nobody's saying it's an official statement from WotC. It's an official statement from Jeremy Crawford.

NautArch

So yes, Jeremy officially tweeted that, but not necessarily officially tweeted it as a WoTC representative?

@doppelgreener And what does that mean?

doppelgreener

It means there's nothing wrong with the answer.

NautArch

I can post a tweet from Jeremy Cawford as an official statement, too.

Yes, it is technically correct, but not helpfully correct.

I prefer to go with helpful rather than technical.

Thomas Markov

14:23

Yeah, it's officially from JC, but that's not what is being implied, and that's not what a reasonable reader will infer.

Medix2

I'm confused how it's "official" now...

NautArch

The more we reinforce Tweets as official for Jeremy Crawford, the more we'll have to fight that.

@Medix2 Because Jeremy Crawford is a real person and what he says represents him.

So he officially said it as a verified twitter user.

Medix2

Oh so like... this is Medix2 officially making a statement as well

NautArch

But it is not an official WoTC statement - which I think is what Derek means.

@Medix2 bingo

doppelgreener

Well, what is or isn't an official statement? Usually it's a statement from someone official, and he was still a lead designer.

NautArch

14:25

BUt if he really does mean Jeremy officially said it because he said it, then that seems less than useful.

doppelgreener

It's a wibbly wobbly phrase, but at this point we're bikeshedding. The answer is fine. The author is not saying anything that is incorrect, misleading, or otherwise wrong to say.

NautArch

I don't know what bikeshedding is, but I don't think putting officially in there is helpful in any way whatsoever.

Thomas Markov

It is misleading though.

NautArch

Can you explain why you think it's better to have it than not?

Because I've got good reasons for not.

doppelgreener

There is nothing wrong with including it

NautArch

14:26

But is it actually helpful to others and the site by having it in there? Or would it be more helpful for further discourse to not have it?

As I said, I agree it is technically correct, but I don't think it's helpfully correct.

Thomas Markov

Is bikeshedding where you're outside after dark, it's 30 seconds before curfew and you speed into the yard and jump off your bike and run to the door while your bike cruises through the garden and hits the house?

Akixkisu

@doppelgreener I disagree rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/53972/…

NautArch

@ThomasMarkov before the monsters get you?

doppelgreener

@NautArch Bikeshedding is the tendency to focus a disproportionate amount of time and energy on small details. It references the fact an entire highway might be approved as-is in one meeting, but a bikeshed might take multiple subcomittee meetings to decide the paint color, shape, etc as people request changes to it.

NautArch

@doppelgreener Given our issues regarding tweets, I don't think this is a small detail.

doppelgreener

14:27

It's not a ruling!

NautArch

That's not my point.

Akixkisu

@doppelgreener correct, but it implicates a ruling.

NautArch

But if you can show somewhere that WoTC has given Jeremy permission to use his twitter handle to make official statements about the business and their pans, then that would help.

Not every company employee gets that ability. And just being an employee doesn't give it to you.

Thomas Markov

I did call it a ruling in my initial edit, but it should be called an unofficial statement.

doppelgreener

It cannot even implicate a ruling, because it's not even in the space of rulings. It's just someone saying "hey, we just haven't done this thing yet."

NautArch

14:28

Usually that's received for PR account of a business.

@ThomasMarkov An unofficial statement from the official Jeremy Crawford

doppelgreener

@NautArch This is reading a heck of a lot into what is/isn't allowed to be an "official statement" that isn't actually in the definition of "official statement".

And Jeremy Crawford is doing none of that

He is just saying, and I quote: "It simply hasn't happened. Story drives our race design, not filling in an ability score spreadsheet."

None of this even close to resembles anything that could be mistaken for a ruling by anybody

NautArch

@doppelgreener Correct, it is only him that is saying that. Not WoTC. Clarifying that the official statement is NOT from WoTC would go a long way here.

Akixkisu

I guess ruling is misleading.

doppelgreener

@NautArch The answer literally says it's from Jeremy Crawford.

NautArch

@doppelgreener Why do you keep bringing up rulings? I don't think any of us have taken that tack.

Akixkisu

14:31

Corrected to: The framing of this answer tries to exert its authority by false advertising implications. The reader will think that it is about a WotC sanctioned reply, but it is not. Downvoted.

NautArch

@doppelgreener My reading was that it implied it was from WoTC. Maybe that implication is wrong, or maybe it's better to clarify so that implication doesn't happen?

doppelgreener

@NautArch In what other circumstance would we be worried about tweets being "official"?

Thomas Markov

@doppelgreener this one

doppelgreener

@NautArch I think the answer is clear on its face, and that's a misreading.

NautArch

I don't think we're going to change our minds here and I feel like we're going in circles. I"m stepping out. Have fun y'all.

doppelgreener

14:31

@ThomasMarkov What one? The one saying the lead designer made a statement which he did in fact make?

The "this could be misinterpreted" concerns expressed here have all been speculative or reading bad faith into the author.

The fact is we are perfectly capable of interpreting it for exactly what it is saying: Jeremy Crawford said this thing.

Akixkisu

Which is an offical statement....

doppelgreener

Yes, I happen to believe it's reasonable to say it is.

NautArch

One last thing to consider: Given that there are several of us reading this way, saying it was in bad faith reading or pure misreading I don't think is fair. We are all expert users and fairly intelligent, our reading of it is equally valid to yours.

doppelgreener

@NautArch I think it's unfair to read bad faith into someone using the term "official statement from [the lead designer]"

Thomas Markov

@NautArch And further, our suggested change doesnt change your reading of it, doppel, but it hedges against misreadings.

Akixkisu

14:34

You are reading lead designer.

I'm reading WotC

NautArch

@doppelgreener Okay, Now that we're accusing each other of bad faith, I'm definitely out and I"d like to warn everyone not to do that.

doppelgreener

Well, why are you reading WotC? The answer does not say WotC.

Akixkisu

It is based on assumptions.

doppelgreener

@NautArch I am not accusing you of bad faith, I am saying the accusations of bad faith are unwarranted.

Akixkisu

You can remove any ambiguity.

Thomas Markov

14:35

@doppelgreener It says "official", which, Im pretty sure JC has an office at Wizards.

Akixkisu

No need for that.

doppelgreener

@ThomasMarkov Yes, I agree.

Akixkisu

If you remove "There is an official statement regarding this." and let everything else stand, then it is a better answer.

Then it actually says JC said this thing.

Thomas Markov

@Akixkisu Aye.

Akixkisu

I prefer further contextualisation, but still, this removes that whole problematic angle.

bobble

14:39

As a person who didn't know who Jeremy Crawford was an hour ago, I read the answer as "There is an official statement, from some guy who is acting in an official capacity as a mouthpiece of official information." If you want the slightly confused outsider angle.

doppelgreener

@bobble I think, given him being the lead designer, that's a completely reasonable and not incorrect reading.

Thomas Markov

@bobble Yes, that is how I read it as well, and that reading is not reflective of the truth.

doppelgreener

It doesn't have to be a sanctioned, letterheaded, legally approved press statement for those criteria to be accurate.

@ThomasMarkov In fact, I believe it is completely accurately reflecting the truth.

Thomas Markov

@doppelgreener Except this is exactly how Wizards makes official statements.

Glazius

Jeremy Crawford is a sandwich. Unless he's beneath the surface of the earth, then he's inferring.

doppelgreener

14:44

@ThomasMarkov If we're running with "only the things Wizards itself considers to be official statements can be considered and described by anybody as an official statement by anyone in any context that's in the vicinity of Wizards"... well, I'm not.

Jeremy Crawford can make official statements that have nothing to do with Wizards letterhead.

Thomas Markov

@doppelgreener ...but isn't it up to Wizards to make that decision?

doppelgreener

And he can do that because he's literally the guy making the game

@ThomasMarkov No, absolutely not. Proximity to Wizards does not rob any other variety of statement of its capacity to be official statements. They are not official Wizards of the Coast statements, of course.

But when the guy who made the game comes out and makes a statement sharing information about how the game he made was made, that's a pretty official statement.

Akixkisu

What value does "There is an official statement regarding this." add that the following sentence doesn't add?

doppelgreener

@Akixkisu What incorrectness does it contain?

Thomas Markov

@doppelgreener That they are official WotC statements is exactly what is implied though. The change we are proposing doesn't change your reading of the answer in any way, but it makes the answer more clear and less likely to be misinterpreted.

Akixkisu

14:48

@doppelgreener it contains problematic ambiguity that we can remove easily.

Thomas Markov

@doppelgreener Correctness is not the only metric we use in determining whether an answer is or can be improved upon.

doppelgreener

@ThomasMarkov Nor am I suggesting it is, but if we're going to be chopping parts of an answer out we'd better be sure we're actually improving things, and I am not convinced we are.

Thomas Markov

Removing that sentence doesnt change the substance of the answer at all. It is still correct, no essential information is lost, but now I wont read it and misunderstand it as being the official position of Wizards of the Coast.

doppelgreener

I'm going to revise to clarify who JC actually is regarding the game.

Thomas Markov

Your edit is totally agreeable.

doppelgreener

14:52

@ThomasMarkov I don't see how it could possibly be read that way, given it was not even expressing a position.

Akixkisu

I agree, like I said further contextualisation is better.

doppelgreener

It was expressing the game design process. It was acknowledging what factually hadn't happened.

Thomas Markov

@doppelgreener Bobble just told us they read it that way, coming from a totally neutral position on this.

doppelgreener

No, sorry, I am specifically responding to the entirety of the phrase "the official position of Wizards of the Coast".

Akixkisu

@doppelgreener but it did not, you need context for that as an onlooker - now there is context with your edit.

RevenantBacon

14:56

So RE: whether "An official statement was made". Whether the statement was official or not is irrelevant. It's a simple fact. [X] has not happened. Classifying it as "official" is superfluous and irrelevant.

doppelgreener

Let me be frank: this sounds like the kind of conversation we could only possibly have had in D&D 5e specifically. I think hairs got split in this conversation that did not warrant being split. I am also deeply concerned that the author got accused of intending to mislead anybody in the comments, but I am thankful that comment is now deleted.

Akixkisu

@doppelgreener Intended? I made no such statement.

doppelgreener

"The framing of this answer is misleading", I guess.

I don't remember the exact phrasing but it sure did cast a shadow on the author.

Thomas Markov

...you can be misleading on accident

doppelgreener

Yes, well, it's gone now, so I can't show you why I believed it to be casting doubt on the author's intent.

Akixkisu

14:58

Precisly.

doppelgreener

I am seriously at a disconnect with this community today.

I don't like that this has happened, and I don't understand right now what to do to bridge it for myself.

Akixkisu

JC's Twitter used as a bludgeon is one of the most frustrating aspects that I encountered when hired to host organised play sessions. So it is a sore spot for me.

doppelgreener

"this" being me being at this disconnect and having this much communication at odds with everyone. I am used to being able to get on the same page and communicate my ideas and understand where people are coming from, but I was completely unable to do that today.

@Akixkisu this experience may in fact be a context I needed to have in this conversation and did not have

NautArch

The second link in this answer goes to a dead photobucket. Should we just remove the link?

But then it's kind of an unsourced statement (which probably should have been embedded in the first place.)

doppelgreener

@NautArch It might be citing a distribution graph. Is there an alternative source we could cite?

NautArch

15:09

@doppelgreener I'm not sure, I don't know what it was originally.

doppelgreener

Oh, I found the picture!

Turns out the image comes from the first link. I'll update.

NautArch

Was discussing the d100 with some friends and was looking for th einfo that it wasn't as 'fair' as 2d10s theoretically.

@doppelgreener oh, nice!

thank you!

RevenantBacon

@NautArch How do they figure that?

doppelgreener

@NautArch updated

NautArch

25

A: When rolling percentages, do 1d100 and two d10s (percentiles) share the same probabilities?

No, they do not yield the same probabilities. A d100, trademarked as a Zocchihedron, is not perfectly symmetrical. An article from White Dwarf 85 (Jan 1987) apparently ran some tests with the Zocchihedron and concluded it is not a fair die, with some numbers turning up with a much higher frequenc...

However, for fun: golfball>2d10

Akixkisu

15:16

@NautArch In some games, it is more fun when the dice are unfair in a way that makes both the top and bottom end more unlikely.

RevenantBacon

Ah, I see, I was unaware that d100's were not fully spherical

NautArch

@Akixkisu We've used the golfball a lot, and I can tell you, we've rolled high 90s quite a bit. Damn stupid fumble rule. grumble grumble.

doppelgreener

I updated the lead-in line of that answer a little more to distinguish theory (they're the same) from practice (they're not the same).

Does that read well?

Akixkisu

@doppelgreener yes.

doppelgreener

noice

Y'all, I'll be level with you: I want to remain in touch with this community and what's going on with it, and I super do not want to become some grumpy out-of-touch old-timer.

(... that's all really, I just needed to say that.)

Safe to say I want to do the work to not become like that.

Although I guess that'll be difficult for things specifically concerning the experience of asking for D&D 5e.

NautArch

15:22

All of us care about this community, but we can all care differently. If we can all remember that all of us are acting in good faith and try to understand an opposite viewpoint - or at least accept it as an alternate and perfectly viable method - then that'll go a long way to improving our community.

bobble

I'm new to this chat and want to figure out some way to join it smoothly :) Hopefully I'm not being too annoying.

NautArch

I think a lot of us have been backing into comfortable corners for what works with us without accepting that someone else' view is just as reasonable and we can have multiple curatorial practices here.

@bobble Not at all!

doppelgreener

@bobble you are doing just fine, I think

NautArch

@doppelgreener @bobble I think so, too! We're fairly chill here...except when we're not :P

But it is because we care.

bobble

(also, not sure it will ever come up here, but I use she/her pronouns)

Thomas Markov

15:24

@bobble We're mostly just whining about insignificant stuff, please feel free to interrupt :P

NautArch

I see you've got in your bio...and now I'm paranoid about you watching me. Thanks.

hehehe

Medix2

@ThomasMarkov "mostly"???

bobble

Heh, the bobblies are a running joke over in Puzzling's chat

Mithical

they're terrifying

NautArch

@Medix2 I miss Jeff.

AncientSwordRage

15:25

@NautArch I think she'll fit in just fine

doppelgreener

@NautArch I agree

bobble

in The Sphinx's Lair, Nov 29 '20 at 4:53, by Sciborg

look at 'em, not terrifying at all

NautArch

@doppelgreener This is probably a better way of what I was trying to say in Dragons last week.

bobble

in The Sphinx's Lair, Nov 14 '20 at 0:27, by Sciborg

not at all

doppelgreener

I think I got wires crossed here between being concerned about interpretations of rpg.se rules being too black and white and not loosey goosey enough, and brought them into this conversation thinking it was an extension of the same issue, when in fact it appears to have been an instance of a completely different issue (JC used as a mallet)

Safe to say designers should never be employed as blunt instruments unless they're wearing the proper safety gear and signed the waivers, and the frustration is one I can get behind as valid and a valid problem.

3

AncientSwordRage

15:30

Aren't bobblies those little bits of fabric that pile up from overwashing clothes?

bobble

they're sentient crowns who can drain puzzling ability by latching on to your head

AncientSwordRage

@bobble Oh that! I thought that was just my hair

Akixkisu

It is all good if we live our lives in such a way that our tambourine can never experience utilisation by a court of law to convict us.

Thomas Markov

@doppelgreener This is why Im bountying the questions with tweet only answers I find. The querent (and the community) have often been deprived of thorough answers dealing with the rules text because finding a tweet was the quick and easy way to answer.

doppelgreener

@ThomasMarkov That's a good cause

RevenantBacon

15:34

@NautArch Listen, I can accept that people can have different curative practices, but you cannot convince me that Asmodeus' views are just as reasonable as yours or mine. :p

Thomas Markov

As I find more I'll link them in here for others to throw some points on, cuz Im out of spell slots, i mean bounty slots.

NautArch

@RevenantBacon Who's to say I'm not Asmodeus?

Someone_Evil

@NautArch Not been officially verified

bobble

My causes tend to be editing-related - so far this month I have 130 edits on Puzzling and 143 on Literature. Y'all probably don't want me to spend too much time on RPG.SE mainsite, I'll clog up the Suggested Edits queue :P

RevenantBacon

@Someone_Evil I've heard of these guys down in Vegas that can check the certification for authenticity

NautArch

15:40

This is a weird question. I guess it's asking if those dice are in theory fair and not if actual dice are fair?

doppelgreener

@NautArch "perfectly formed" yep

NautArch

Took me a bit to get that.

Akixkisu

@bobble please do that :)

RevenantBacon

Yeah, because in theory a d6 is a fair die, but in practice, the number and depth of cut for the pips/numbers and any bubbles, occlusions, or other such imperfections can alter its actual fairness.

Someone_Evil

Fair enough

Thomas Markov

15:49

This is the best answer imo.

Akixkisu

Sometimes you read an answer to a question, and you know by the halfway mark who the querent is.

Thomas Markov

@Akixkisu link it, i wanna try

Akixkisu

70

A: Why do we assume that PHB rules apply to monsters?

If monsters don't follow the "you" rules in the PHB, then many things become undefined. You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach. Can monsters make opportunity attacks? You can avoid provoking an opportunity attack by taking the Diseng...

Mithical

@bobble my pet SFF project

Thomas Markov

@Akixkisu Yep, I got it.

RevenantBacon

15:54

@Akixkisu Yup, just one more in a series of regular attempts at munchkinry

Akixkisu

Should we have a mtg tag?

doppelgreener

16:14

@Akixkisu i suggest not an exact magic-the-gathering tag or we might start seeing some off topic questions, would this be for stuff like planeswalkers guides?

AncientSwordRage

@Akixkisu To what end?

Akixkisu

1

Q: How do Summon Monster spells work from lore perspective?

Context: I plan on GM'ing a long campaign in MtG universe. Most of my players will become planeswalkers at some point (full-progression casters rules-wise) and will travel throughout universe a lot. This is when I realized that I completely lack knowledge on how the bread-and-butter part of MtG u...

dungeons-and-dragons summoning mtg

I looked at other lore questions, there are some that could profit from a tag.

Usually what I would do is quetly untag and let 30 days pass if the opportunity arises because editing happens anyway.

doppelgreener

"a comprehensive, detailed description of how Summon Monster spells work in D&D or MtG or both" they're definitely not going to get this here

they're starting from a false assumption there's even overlap—folks i've spoken to about the planeswalker guides say they're presenting a slightly alternate version of the MTG unvierse that works slightly differently, because, you know, D&D works differently

Akixkisu

@doppelgreener yup, but it is what prompted me to look at other questions that use the string "Magic The Gathering" and there is a reasonable amount of lore questions that we could answer.

doppelgreener

mtg-multiverse? mtg-lore?

Akixkisu

16:20

mtg-lore as relating to dnd as a setting.

One of those edge case where I ask instead of quietly removing a tag because there might be some merit.

RevenantBacon

17:09

One thing to keep in mind is that the Forgotten Realms and the MtG setting aren't intended to be used together. Many 5e products have been written from the point of view of existing in the Forgotten Realms setting, but in other settings must by necessity function differently

Like the aforementioned summoning spells

This is going to be rather tricky to tag as well, because so many of the mechanics for MtG get tied into the games lore. Plansewalkers are a prime example of this

AncientSwordRage

17:30

> Forgotten Realms and the MtG aren't intended to be used together.

Oh boy, do I have a product for you this summer

Thomas Markov

@AncientSwordRage what is it

AncientSwordRage

@ThomasMarkov mtg.fandom.com/wiki/…

Carcer

an MtG set based on FR, innit?

Thomas Markov

Would you look at that

AncientSwordRage

> Dungeons & Dragons: Adventures in the Forgotten Realms is a Dungeons & Dragons crossover Magic: The Gathering set which replaces the core set of the 2021-2022 standard rotation.

bobble

17:33

@RevenantBacon ah yes, "Plansewalkers"

NautArch

@RevenantBacon can't AL combine?

RevenantBacon

@NautArch Hmmm, I suppose so. AFAIK, they're AL legal. But then, you aren't in the MtG universe at that point, and the lore is irrelevant, you're just using the character stats.

@AncientSwordRage Yes, I am aware. They're also putting out a 40K set as well.

AncientSwordRage

@RevenantBacon I don't think the FR one is under the Universes Beyond umbrella

RevenantBacon

Yeah, but that hardly matters. The D&D set is going to be a crossover, but it's also going to be non-canon. There isn't going to be lore interactions

AncientSwordRage

@RevenantBacon ::shrug:: maybe there will? Who's to say

RevenantBacon

17:49

Really, I'm expecting both the D&D and 40K sets to get similar treatment to the Godzilla-Themed set. A bunch of cards with alternate art/flavor text to represent famous characters/locations in the source material lore

NautArch

Honestly, I know little enough lore that we are just character stats

AncientSwordRage

@RevenantBacon they've explicitly said they aren't doing that

Transcript for