@ACuriousMind I've been having trouble getting all my players together, next monday we are playing, and if not everyone can make it we are totally playing Roll For Shoes

I'd rather try new systems with #1, but they seem really reluctant to try other systems.

I have Fate and 7th Sea on my "to play" list since forever.

@GreySage Yeah, it's also pretty good as an alternative if the "standard" game can't be played.

@GreySage I offered my #1 party a one-shot of Fate or Apocalypse World if our GM can't finish the content for our next session by the agreed-upon time, but they didn't want it :<

Ah, yes, I've also substituted one-shots of Dungeon World if a player missed our regular TDE game. But that group is in the "if you say it's awesome we'll give it a try" camp, you can't expect everyone to be that flexible.

I guess it's the background of Deadlands:Reloaded --> DnD 5e that makes system changes seem like a lot of work for little gain. We have a sort-of consensus that our DnD game isn't going too good and something has to change, but for some reason no one has any concrete ideas except me, but usually they are about incorporating ideas or practices from other systems, which seems to be unpopular.

@kviiri Maybe you should work on investigating in more detail what it is that's not going too good, then

Them rejecting other systems suggests that they don't view the system as the problem

(They may well be wrong, but you'd need to establish consensus about that, too)

@ACuriousMind Some major bits: our Barbarian player is consistently bored in our sessions and spends all his time napping or playing Hearthstone on his mobile phone except on his own turns. Our current GM is struggling to create content (encounters, magic items, everything) between sessions. Encounters often wind up unbalanced. Everyone wants faster combat and more social interaction. I think all these are problems that could be fixed with a change of system.

@kviiri Indeed, "everyone wants faster combat and more social interaction" does sound like a change of system would be appropriate, although I can see how a change in DM style alone might also achieve that

So...what do they say when you propose your alternatives with "this will give us faster combat and more social interaction"?

Nothing. I'm lucky to get a negative response :D

When I discuss the idea face to face, everyone seems approving, but I guess they don't want it as a group.

Huh.

The problem with GM style is, it's hard to calibrate. If it was easy, we probably would have more social interaction scenes already, and more non-bashy ways to solve problems.

@ACuriousMind agreed

But one can't just say to the GM "make non-bashy solutions more appealing!" and have it come true, nor can a GM just think "I'll put in a clever non-bashy solution for my players to find" and have the game become less of a murderfest.

Sure, changing one's style as a GM is pretty hard - but not impossible. One the other hand, changing the system might affect nothing if the GM style doesn't change accordingly. The system change makes that easier, but not automatic.

@kviiri I stopped trying to talk our way out of things cause generally my dm for my last game wouldn't let us...

I mean, if the GM insists on running Apocalypse World like a D&D session, it will be worse than what you currently have :P

@ACuriousMind Well, it's a different kind of game. They'd need to read the bits on how to GM it - AW is quite forward about the intended playstyle.

@kviiri Sure, but if they can follow that advice, they could also follow that advice and apply it to D&D

@ACuriousMind DnD is a rather different game, and many of the nuances of difference have only became apparent for me after years of first playing each. I don't think it's that simple.

Eg. Apocalypse World is a thoroughly open-roll game, but doesn't make a big fuss about it. DnD is (traditionally, although individual parties vary) a closed roll-game, and I only realized how big an impact knowing the target number of each roll and the stakes involved changes my view on the game.

@kviiri My concern is that if the DM style is the major factor here, the DM might not actually get the PbtA advice. There's a non-zero number of people who read that, think "That's pretty much what I always do, just rolling works differently" and are completely wrong about that.

@ACuriousMind I see what you mean but I don't think it generalizes that well. I mean, the DnD GM's handbook doesn't really give any real advice on how to GM well - it's all "you can do this, you can do that, do what you want it's your game!" A new GM won't get anything concrete out of that even if they read it carefully and try to learn.

@BESW all fair uses yeah, I just figured that scenario would be pretty epic in it's own right

Furthermore, regarding the system change (I actually suggested just one-shotting so the others have an idea on how things are done in other systems), I was planning to GM the AW anyway :)

@kviiri Ah, sure. But this GM isn't new, so it'll work differently than to a newcomer, right?

@kviiri Ah, then the change in GM style is ensured, okay

@kviiri open/closed roll?

@ACuriousMind We rotate our GMs in #1. There's two of us who are experienced in multiple systems, one who has GM'd DnD but years ago, one who is an active 5e GM in other parties and two who have never GMd before. The one we have now is one of the completely new ones.

No one is really experienced in mastering 5e, though.

@DForck42 Whether the target numbers of the rolls are known to the players or not, and the stakes (what happens for a success/fail)

@kviiri so open means they know?

@kviiri To be fair, it's not like you can practice it. Most people only master something once.

Only exceptions being amnesia and game devs remaking one of their old games.

@DForck42 In Apocalypse World, all rolls are 2d6+bonus and made by the player. 10+ is always hard success, 7-9 is always soft success, and both types of success have pre-determined effects for most moves. The GM can usually make up some fitting punishment for failed rolls, six or lower.

@kviiri ahh

Eg. if I talk to a NPC who is holding my brother prisoner to have them released. I offer them my car in exchange for my brother's releasel This triggers the Seduce/Manipulate move, so I roll 2d6 and add my Hot stat. If I score 10+, they'll release my brother but will expect to receive the car. 7-9, they will release my brother if I can give them concrete assurance (eg. giving the car up front, or having an armed guard accompany me to get it). 6-, pretty much anything might happen.

They might decide to part with my car and keep my brother, for instance. Or, if I was a GM, I'd probably spin something like "What, your trash ride? You can keep that wreck for all I care. But how about you swipe me the wheels of the gangster Dangerous McDangerousface and then I'll let your miserable scumbag brother go?"

And on a 1, they shoot your brother, you, and then all die in a turf war the next week.

Oh and they shoot your car too.

@Yuuki If you roll a 1 on 2d6, you deserve it ;)

@ACuriousMind Well, with a -1 Hot... :P

@Yuuki They shoot you and your brother and take the car to the dungeons.

@ACuriousMind You underestimate my power.

well, first you get a mommy cat and a daddy cat...

Preferably more - you don't want to inbreed your kitties, do you?

@kviiri maybe

if I'm going to use them as weapons I'm probably evil AF and don't care

Anyway, on how the Seduce/Manipulate example applies to DnD, we usually roll everything so both the stakes and the target numbers are hidden to the players. In my opinion it's no wonder people are reluctant to use their social skills more because there's absolutely no idea on whether it's even possible to succeed, or what success even means.

@kviiri I might adapt something like that for my game

Eg. trying to deceive yourself inside the Duke's party without an invitation will usually be met with a Deception roll at the gates, as the halfling spins some excellent yarn about the invitation having been stolen from them. Then they roll really well, and still don't get in. "You don't have an invitation," says the GM, "and the success is that they won't arrest you for attempting to intrude."

One of the more positively received changes I've suggested has been to have open stakes and target numbers for most rolls, but so far we've left it on "up to the GM" territory and I'm the only one who wound up using it :<

@kviiri That's a roll for an impossible task. Definitely not worth making somebody roll in that case. Personally, my two biggest gripes are usually rolling for impossible things and then being turned down no matter the result, and rolling for trivial things only to roll a 2 or something and still succeed.

@Adam I agree with those, but I feel they aren't sufficient at all times.

When doing social checks, how do you prefer to incorporate the player's actual choice of words?

Eg. instead of rolling for an impossible task, one could be rolling for something where only very limited success is possible.

@MikeQ If the player wants it, but usually I dislike forcing my players to try to be as smooth talkers as their characters are.

Right, not forcing them, but at least accounting for their roleplaying as some factor. For example, the PC bluffs. The player rolls low but RPs a pretty convincing lie; or conversely, the player rolls high but tells an unbelievable lie.

@MikeQ I usually like to get them to get the gist out, but don't require them to be at the same level of their characters. I do hold an exception though if they truly fumble what they said

@MikeQ I usually make them get their idea across in their own words, but not actually take that as what the character says. For example, on monday one of my players said "I roll charisma to try to charm him into a lower price" my response was "How? What are you saying?"

Wait, nevermind. Ignore me.

for instance, in one game I was dming in 4e, the party was facing down a huge mob, and one of the party members was attempting to persuade them that they had no choice. however, the player basically said she had it coming and then rolled really high. I said "I don't normally do this, but over f***ing ruled"

it's kinda lived on in infamy

Hmm... Maybe it depends on a scenario. Suppose I was a player and my PC attempts to bluff, and I put a ton of effort into weaving a well-crafted lie. I roll low. Maybe I'd feel like I just wasted all that work.

Is it too cheesy for the GM to say "Well, that was a good lie, so you can roll with advantage" or "That was a good lie, it had a +20 circumstance bonus"

@MikeQ advantage, or give them an inspiration point

If a player put in a really good, really entertaining performance, I'd probably just give it to them if I felt that it's unreasonable for that not to work. I wouldn't even say anything about bonuses, I would just have it work, no roll. But I wouldn't punish anybody else for not coming up with something really intricate by making the DC higher. Aside from maybe in the one instance where the player refuses to describe at all even the idea of what they're trying to say

@MikeQ I let the lie proposed play a factor, but try not to discriminate between "I tell him I lost my invitation" vs a verbatim story describing the event.

@Adam As a player, my response to that would be "I'm trying to charm them. Do you know what the word "charm" means? I am saying charming things" anything more than that and I would be saying exactly what my character is saying, which is what you said you don't require.

@kviiri Right, I meant more like what Adam said. I'd never expect the player to say every single word of what their PC says, any more than I'd expect the wizard's player to vocalize their verbal spell components.

@MikeQ ...or a Fighter's player to start swinging an actual maul in the room? :)

@GreySage I'd disagree entirely. There are multiple ways to charm a person. All I want is a plain english description of the angle that you're going for. In this case, the player said "I try to look imposing and make him believe that we're all really tough adventurers and are saving the town, and so deserve a discount" I'm positive there is a more charming way to say that, and that more charming way is what the PC is saying, but not the player

@Adam You summarized that quite nicely

All I want from the player is the angle they're targeting, but not necessarily how the player character manipulates that angle

@Adam It depends. If what they're doing is predictable for their character, then I'd expect less detail about the "how".

@MikeQ Indeed. Context matters. But this was the first session of the game. The character doesn't have that kind of active history yet.

I like a system we tried once for outsourcing strategic thinking to our characterd too. If the characters had had time to plan and prepare before something like an assault on a bad guy's lair, they could declare "haha, I planned for this because... and that's why I prepared..." and a roll dictated on how successful the preparation was.

Usually failure meant the enemy had expected the particular measure and had an unforeseen countermeasure in place, yikes!

Interesting but I'm not sold. I try to avoid "you activated my trap card" chains.

@MikeQ There needs to be a concrete cost to it, of course. It has to be a viable option to use, not The Solution to everything.

They also decided the Fate points ought to be called NANI!? points.

@doppelgreener lol

In AW, we experimented with planning costing barter, and it worked ok.

Too bad most of my players are time linearity normative and oppose flashbacks without even a fair consideration. Down with such discrimination! :p

@doppelgreener "Frequent" is not frequent enough to describe "basically the entire premise of the show"

@MikeQ LOL. That's true...

@doppelgreener Bill and Ted born again...

I've summarized JoJo as "Angsty bodybuilders explaining why they anticipated each other's plans. There are no established rules or limitations. Whoever is the last person to explain their plan is the winner."

@MikeQ that's a pretty good baseline summary of it

Oh right, and almost everyone is named after a ransom musician or music group

@doppelgreener I'd say that JoJo's is best replicated in Mutants and Masterminds 3e, where there is a mechanic for "Your powers normally do X, but if you spend a limited resource, your power can also do Z instead"

@MikeQ I'll recommend them that one as well. :)

Example: Character has fire-shooting powers. They spend one of these points, suddenly they have the ability to heat up a stone figurine and make it move as though it was a body double. This lasts for the duration of the scene, and then their powers go back to whatever is actually on their character sheet.

And several sessions later, someone could wonder "Didn't he have that statue-animation ability a while back?" and the answer is "Yes but not anymore". In other words, the JoJo formula.

@Sosi My son's character spent any number of "long rests" tied up in a back room of whichever faction/tribe happened to have overwhelmed him that time....

@Yuuki big falls. See rpg.stackexchange.com/q/76893/23970

@kviiri not going to slowly "ease them over the edge" with DW before AW?

@nitsua60 I'm not much into DW, but I think I'll give it a shot later. But the stakes are too high for now :)

Cool =)

@nitsua60 It's amazing what barbarians can accomplish through the power of HULK SMASH and adrenaline.

Hmm... can 5e Rogues get access to teleportation?

Some limited forms of teleportation, yeah.

Arcane tricksters could learn Misty Step as one of their free wizard spells, and I believe a Thief's "use magic device" feature lets them cast spells from spell scrolls.

Spell thief, too?

Spell thief feature too, as long as you have the spell slots to fuel whatever you steal

@nitsua60 Spell thief isn't nearly as hard as spell rogue, for some reason.

The moment when you realize the reason nothing is working is just because IE is terrible and doesn't implement a basic feature that is so integral that other browsers have had it for so long that you take it for granted

@GreySage oh? which thing?

and which version of ie?

IE11 and older doesn't allow default values for function arguments

like function derf (a = true, b = "eleven){}

@GreySage odd

although, I remember a day when javascript didn't support 2d arrays, so...

And of course every large business in the world still uses IE like it's still 1995, so I have to make my code work on it.

@GreySage yeah, we're still using IE11...

we're just NOW working on upgrading to windows 10

but I guess that's the state for you

@DForck42 Doesn't just happen in the Windows world. My uni upgraded their Ubuntu from 12.04 to 16.04 mid this year, that is after 5-year long-term support had completely run out.

@Anaphory oh I know

(Or maybe the reason is that it is the Windows world, because if anyone were using their Linux installation, they would be more in the loop how to maintain and update their Linuxen…)

@GreySage I mean, Edge has some advantages over Chrome and Firefox.

a coworker of mine is in charge of the testing ot make sure nothing breaks

or those that do break can either get fixed or have a replacement or are no longer needed

But yeah, people still using old, old versions of IE make me tear my hair out.

So many things I can't do because they weren't in older versions. Or rather, so many things I'll have to spend hours/days/weeks on instead of a few minutes.

at my old job we still had a system running windows 98, cause they had a proprietary piece of software to run in the lab that had no real replacement, so they kept it off the network

@Yuuki Edge is one thing, I can understand using it although I wouldn't, but I'm talking about Internet Explorer

@DForck42 There are legit reasons, and that is one!

@GreySage I'd pretty much only use it for Netflix.

Chrome and Firefox still don't support 1080p.

@Yuuki really?

Yeah.

wow

I mean, if you're using Netflix on a small computer monitor, you'll barely notice it.

Yeeeeah. Netflix doesn't do 1080p on OS X except on its native browser (Safari), too.

@Yuuki Most of the time when I watch netflix it's on my other monitor while gaming, so I don't even look at the screen half the time

But on a Mac, you can't use Netflix in full-screen on any monitor unless all the monitors you're hooked up to are Official Macintosh Monitors--or if you use something other than Safari.

@BESW That... is just weird

I think it's an attempt to keep me from casting Netflix to a projector.

Yesterday I learned that Netflix won't work if you have a VPN connected

@doppelgreener I've seen that somewhere before.

@BESW Apple has never liked people using not-Apple stuff.

@nitsua60 It's an argument I've seen before - you presented it a lot better, but ultimately I still disagree with it.

@BESW I get that's partially the point, but the title "Curse of Fatal Death" always makes me chuckle.

DOOMY DOOM.

@Yuuki It still amazes me to no end how much Moffat's tenure on Doctor Who has been spent going down the checklist of everything he wrote as a joke in "Curse" and making it actually happen in the show.

@BESW Good god, is Doctor Who turning into Marvel/DC?

Inmates running the asylum is perhaps one of the worst things about long-running series.

Moffat's definitely writing with a long-time fan's perspective.

And, well, that's not all bad.

I mean, I guess he hasn't had a Quesada moment yet.

So there's that?

Some of the best stories since Classic Who was cancelled were in the expanded material--audio shows, novels, even Flash animation.

And those are all almost definitionally ascended fan material.

The biggest problem, I think, is that Marvel, DC, Trek, etc, have all become shackled to continuity.

Doctor Who... has more in-built ability to shrug off continuity at a whim. Moffat isn't very good at doing that, sadly.

hey there @Yuuki

He tends to ignore continuity or adhere to it semi-randomly.

Continuity is the reason I WATCH Marvel.

eg, what was great about Legion was possible specifically because it could do whatever it wanted without concern for stepping on the toes of other franchise products.

@BESW Marvel and DC are anything but shackled to continuity. Heck, the degrees to which they'll flaunt continuity annoys me.

That's a conversation for another day. I gotta go teach a class.

The thing about Doctor Who is that the Doctor has some consistent overarching character traits that Marvel/DC seems perfectly fine with completely ignoring or overemphasizing at times with their own characters.

@Yuuki does that include MCU as much, or mostly other properties?

Cause I'm mostly on about MCU with the continuity thing.

Also: youtube.com/watch?v=IyPh8aIdR-4