« first day (2868 days earlier)      last day (2141 days later) » 
00:00 - 19:0019:00 - 00:00

7:02 PM
@Carcer Just a reminder though, the question is now only asking for a quote explaining that. Nothing else.
@nitsua60 can we give a warning similar to the "This question may be opinion based" warning for not tagging a system or tagging something like [designer-intent] (is that something I should put on meta)
@DavidCoffron Do you mean the red pop-up that comes when you try to apply the tag?
@nitsua60 oh... is there a popup?
Doesn't do it on mobile
@Rubiksmoose I am aware, and I think that is fine too. "Did X really say Y" is a valid question IMO. I'm just also arguing that even if the question had been what people were reading it as before - the question that the existing answer tried to answer - that question is also fine and shouldn't be considered too broad.
@DavidCoffron there's a thing called a tag warning, which is of dubious utility (methinks).
But I just wasn't sure what you were intending.
7:05 PM
@Carcer Sure. I just wanted people to be aware that you were referencing the previous version of the question so as not to be confused.
to be honest I thought it was clearly different in the original version too, but oh well
(@DavidCoffron see meta.stackexchange.com/q/309592/311001 for my particular beef with them)
I was never confused about what he meant, but I guess I did have the context of coming to it from the other question which motivated asking this one
@nitsua60 yeah. That is pretty much what I was thinking of for designer reasons. But the lack of a system tag wouldn't be covered by that.
7:06 PM
@Carcer Well yeah I thought so as well, but it was clear that others were not reading it the same way as us.
@DavidCoffron Yeah... coding anything against a lack of a tag and having to maintain the list of what is a system tag are two difficulties that I think have some meta discussion already?
I'm not sure that other people were not reading it the same was as us. I think there was definitely an element of "we solve problems! I'm going to answer the question I think you should be asking!" in it.
maybe this is the one I'm thinking of? rpg.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5307/23970
My first Meta answer there lol
I've left this comment on that "what did the designers say" question btw:
Right now this appears to be a designer intent question, which would make it off topic. It's “how did the designers intend for this to work? please find designer quotes explaining their intent” in slightly different words, with a suggestion at least one of them had provided one particular intent, but even with that “please find quotes” request being made across the board the category of questions just didn't work. — doppelgreener ♦ 3 mins ago
(it just struck me as of this latest edit)
7:11 PM
@Rubiksmoose that could be it--thanks!
I disagree that it's strictly a designer intent question, as the criteria which defines a good answer is different
@Carcer In what way would the answer criteria be different?
Designer intent questions are usually of the nature "Rule X means that Y. Did the designers really intend that?" or "Why did the designers make rule X?" but the question is "Did the authors ever make ruling X?"
Aww... one of you (presumably) just gave me my first question badge on meta.SE. Thanks XD
I concede that an affirmative answer to the question depends on finding a quote from the designer, but it's not a question that's ONLY answered by finding a quote. If reasonable searching doesn't turn up any evidence, it's reasonable for us to just answer "No"
7:14 PM
@Carcer But the answers are the same are they not? "Here is where they said X" or no answer if there is no quote.
I think an explicit negative answer would be fine in this case.
@Rubiksmoose I was thinking more of when press submit it says "You have not tagged a system and we may not know which game you are playing. If that is information that would help us answer the question, please tag a system such as [fate-core]." With a submit anyway button or something to skip it. Not sure if S.E is designed so it's possible but was jw
It's not a strict yes/no though. It's "find out if they had this specific intent." But if they didn't have that intent, and we find evidence they have a different specific intent, a good answer will say "No, they have not said this. In fact they have said the contrary. Here is a quote with their intent." Or alternately, "Yes, Mearls said this ruling. Here it is. However, Crawford said this one. Here's another quote." Functionally the question is one asking about the designers' intent.
@DavidCoffron Yeah IIRC that was the gist of my proposal. The only problem being that SE doesn't know what are system tags and what aren't. And also not every question needs a system tag.
I feel like that's getting too deep into it
you could frame any rules question as being about the designer's intent if you try hard enough. "Does Rule X exist", on its own, seems legitimate to me
but oh well
7:17 PM
It's not asking if Rule X exists though, it's asking if a designer said their intent was for rule X to behave a certain way.
@Carcer If they were asking that though it would be acceptable on that level anyways (might still be too broad but that is a nother discussion).
no, it's not asking to evaluate the designer intent behind a specific rule at all! It's a literal question "is there a generic ruling about this subject"
the fact that the ruling must have come from a designer is incidental. If it was in the books, it would have obviously come from the designers.
Ok, that might be different enough I'd be willing to see how it goes.
again I don't really see a significant functional difference between this question and the one about repeating saving throws
It is certainly a really fine line this question is walking.
7:19 PM
in both cases, it's about a specific part of the game mechanics in which some effects work one way and other effects don't say, and the question is if there's a general rule which means actually all effects do work that way
Well, not a rule, but a ruling.
yeah, sure. I should stop using those words interchangeable
It is what made all the difference for me.
(Part of the frustration with designer reasons questions were our expertise became limited to "Go Ask The Designers For Me Stack Exchange.")
[deletes above-mentioned comment]
apologies if I'm being excessively rambunctious about the subject, it seems to have worked me up a lot. I probably spent rather too long having imaginary arguments in my head about it on the bus ride home)
@Carcer is a ruling part of an RPG (a la the sites title) or part of a particular player's (albeit one with a bonus qualification) perspective
7:21 PM
sometimes both
@Yuuki LMGTFY links are in fact banned in Stack Overflow comments, probably (hopefully) elsewhere and maybe everywhere.
@Carcer I mean when it's Crawford
we consider jeremy crawford's rulings (as delivered on twitter/sage advice) to have the same standing as the rules of the game
Bc he counts as rules clarifications in some articles
@Carcer At least for my part, I appreciate the challenge to that interpretation. I would rather not wind up expanding the territory of the designer-reasons off-topic policy, its net should remain constrained to its original size and intent.
7:23 PM
sometimes he's not actually "clarifying a rule", he's just saying "yeah, I'd let you do that", and we still basically consider that to be almost a rule
@Carcer not the same standing per se
@Carcer some do. I don't.
I'll open a new meta @doppelgreener
@doppelgreener thanks. Likewise I appreciate that you were willing to hear me out and consider my interpretation
@Carcer be careful about that "we," friend.
@Carcer Officially they do not. The philosophy document suggests they're merely advisory, to be taken into consideration when evaluating the rules—even when they're Sage Advice. Crawford himself wrote that article.
@doppelgreener The polite alternative to LMGTFY would be VTC: No effort put forward.
7:25 PM
@GreySage correct, downvote and move on
@GreySage That's a downvote, though, not necessarily a closevote.
@nitsua60 okay - I'm generalising a bit - but it's still the case that if someone asks a question and an answer comes back which is basically "Jeremy Crawford said that's how he'd rule it on the twitters!" that answer is going to be generally considered a good one
Wait a second though. You can rephrase any potential designer intent question this way though. For example, the infamous "flammable" question I could just say "Has a designer clarified why attended objects are not flammable?". But it doesn't change the quesiton at all IMO. And is still designer reasons. Am I wrong here?
@Rubiksmoose that's still asking "why" the rule is what is rather than "what" the rule is
@DavidCoffron i'd suggest framing it as "is this question on topic / workable", avoid "does this count as designer reasons". (let answers point that out if they think that's the case, don't put all discussion down that route and prime people to see it that way.)
7:26 PM
Hmm... I thought no-effort questions were close-worthy, I'll have to look for where I got that idea
@Carcer I certainly consider that a weak answer, personally. I think your "generally" is rather too much generalization. (I know that at my FLGS there's, maybe, one other player out of the 30 who're there on AL nights who ever mentions Crawford's rulings.)
which is the difference IMO. Daniel's not asking why a specific ruling might be what it is, he's asking if the ruling exists at all
Myself I'm willing to let it be reopen and see how it fares. If it experiences all the same problems (people just opine about what they think the reasons were, nobody actually provides designer citation) then that's something to take into consideration in the future.
@nitsua60 I used to like and write Crawford-centric answers. Now I'm at least going to comment on an answer that only cites Crawford without any rules support at all.
we agree that questions purely about designer intent are off-topic
7:29 PM
@Rubiksmoose Yay! A convert!
@Carcer Technically so is the other one. But that is fine let us leave this be for now.
but are answers ruling a certain way backed up by evidence of designer intent so bad?
"The rules you're asking about are ambiguous, but this statement by a designer suggests that they should be interpreted this way"?
fwiw, I generally would write an answer with my own reasoning and then add in relevant commentary from authors as support for the view rather than just saying "yeah the guy said so"
@Carcer There are some who say that Crawford's word is RAW, but I now vehemently disagree with that in general. He can occasionally clarify what RAW is, but often he is giving rules as intended.
@Carcer Yeah this is what I generally do as well.
often his rules are stupid, mind you
I am still salty about "yeah you can just lose HP when you level up, shouldn't have rolled for it moron"
now I'm angry about the concept of rolling for hit points in general again. I should probably go play a game or something
But really it is the whole fanaticism behind RAW that I think is silly. Who cares what JC says? Who cares what the book says? Ask you DM and play the way that is the most fun.
7:34 PM
If I can jump on a different one of my soapboxes for a moment, this strikes me as another problematic bit that comes up when querents try to specify what answers should look like. If "Jeremy said they worded it this way to make sure X happens" is a good answer to "is there a ruling on blahblah?" then it'll also be a good answer to "I have this necromantic thing and wouldn't want the resistance to apply, can that happen?"
the weather is making me very contentious
Stating the problem still gets you the answer; stating the form of the answer just seems to cause problems.
@nitsua60 I thought about this exact thing when I was editing that clarification into the class features question. It makes so much sense.
@Carcer Afternoon thundershowers here--what's it like for you?
@nitsua60 late evening and it's just about starting to rain a little bit for the first time in days - I'm based in London and suffering a lot with the european heatwave of the last few weeks
7:36 PM
@Carcer But seriously though, who ever has a negative CON mod? Has anybody here actually encountered this problem?
(My daughter just drew a picture of a night sky with a sun and a rainbow. Calling it her "weird sky" picture. I asked her where she got the idea and she just pointed up: huge, dark clouds, rainbow to the northeast....
it's 30C indoors and air conditioning isn't really a thing which exists in the UK
@Carcer Ugh. That's like 200F, right?
Air conditioning exists in my office but in theoretical capacity only
@Rubiksmoose I agree it's a very unlikely problem, but there's enough D&D players that I'm sure it has happened to someone
7:37 PM
@doppelgreener I tried to make it as open ended as possible. Good?
@DavidCoffron works OK 👍
@Carcer I told my wife that I was re-working my task-flow for today so as not to stray more than 10' from the AC duct.
@doppelgreener My workplace has aircon, which is great when the aircon is actually working. Due to some dubious design (it's an office building from the 60s) we have network hub rooms on the same circuit as the main building aircon and if the chiller fails those things just pump hot air from the switches into the rest of the office
@Carcer More important to get it away from the switches than from the humans?
the chiller reliably fails several times every summer.
7:39 PM
Oh dear. :(
Here the aircon seems to work fine on the bottom two floors and fail on the upper three; we think the aircon just gets pushed to the bottom first then pumped upward from there.
@nitsua60 yeah, humans can run away from the heat! In dire cases it's hit 36C+ in the hub rooms themselves. I won't bore you with the drama of our department's strained relationship with the building maintenance people.
Is "aircon" the Britishism for "A/C"?
[ducks thrown tomatos]
It's like 36C here, and my house has no AC :(
@doppelgreener hot air rises and all that. My personal office in the building is generally pretty cool because we're on the ground floor and north-facing so never get the sun on our walls/windows (and we're directly next to the datacentre which has its own separate heavy duty air conditioning which is much more reliable).
7:44 PM
(My office is on the top floor of 5 which literally used to be the campus' greenhouse. It still has all the glass.... I don't go in on a day like today.)
@nitsua60 ouch, that sounds awful
It's nice in the... never. There is never a time that it's nice to be in a greenhouse in a shirt and tie, trying to work on paper and computers.
ah. Luckily I work IT so I can always get away with just wearing light T-shirts
On the other hand: I do teach about one boy each year the truth of an undershirt's capacity to keep one cooler. (I.e. about once a year a kid decides to take me at my word that it's better and ends up agreeing.) Probably one of the more-consistent lessons I deliver.
@nitsua60 wait... those can make you cooler, not just warmer!?
amazing, searches are agreeing
i'll try this
now i need to find an affordable way to buy undershirts that aren't £10 apiece <_<
7:51 PM
Yeah, I don't yet understand how they do it but they do
30 seconds of musing: could be that they wick heat away from your body via conduction (it touches) and air can flow through the cloth to help cool the cloth (air can't flow through skin too well) which then cools the body... maybe?
@doppelgreener Get them in like packs of 5.
@Delioth Maybe they just confuse the heat into attacking a different target?
Ooh, if it's that then could it help to also have a decoy shirt? So that your current undershirt can be a decoy, and then you also have a decoy for your decoy to maximize redirection
Eventually the heat might get confused and just go away
Q: Are questions asking for references tangential to rules on topic?

David CoffronA recent question asks: Was there [a specific statement] made by [a designer with special ruling privileges in the game] or other official sources? I am only looking for this quote, I am not interested in logic/quotes from the books since I know they do not explicitly answer this. This...

Q: 1 party too many: Should we burninate [3rd-party]?

Rubiksmoose3rd-party just seems to be a reincarnation of 3PP, a tag that was previously burned. This tag seems to be used in the exact same way and have the exact same issues as the previously burned tag. Should we get rid of this one as well?

I got you a decoy for your decoy so you can cool off while you cool off
7:56 PM
@doppelgreener Oh, absolutely! Teenage years spent as a tennis teacher also agree! (I'd wear them under the required uniform-polo.)
@nitsua60 wonderful.
@LukeSommers so far those have been hard to find, but i'll try harder now that i have a serious reason to try to find them. :P
The key is to get nice, cheap, thin ones. Like Luke said, 5-packs from Hanes/Fruit of the Loom are clutch. (Protip: they only get better with age, too. When they're so worn and thin from washing that small (5mm) holes are starting to develop... oh, they're golden. Sadly, they've only got four or five more wearings at that point.)
Random question: what is the most off topic question someone's seen here? (Use your own metric of most)
@DavidCoffron In this chat?
nothing is too off-topic for the chat
8:01 PM
@doppelgreener I feel like the 10-pound undershirt isn't a functional undershirt, just a cultural one. Like, it's a shirt that has a similar cut to an undershirt, but is actually intended to be worn as one's visible garment.
@LukeSommers on RPG.SE. this chat is always off topic
@DavidCoffron Oh, makes more sense.
@DavidCoffron Does a post whose sole content is the same expletive repeated a hundred times count?
I think you have to assume a legitimate question asked in good faith
8:02 PM
@nitsua60 yeah I guess that would. And did we find out why?
At least for this chat, going by its history, the most off-topic thing anyone's probably asked in here was a tabletop RPG question.
Greener wins chat for the day =)
my money would be that question from the guy who was asking about what stretching/exercise routine you'd use to minimise joint popping/cracking/etc. while trying to be stealthy
@Carcer the mostly I'm looking for questions asked that are not even close to RPG (or video game since we get those by accident sometimes) related
it was RPG related only in that he was thinking about it because it was something his rogue would do
but that's the least relevant one I can actually remember
8:03 PM
@Carcer that's a good one. Was the top answer "be twenty-something"?
I'm sure there've been others
nah, we closed it pretty quickly before anyone could answer I think
@Carcer was it self answered with spam?
@DavidCoffron All of my joints crack due to the same thing that causes my hyperflexibility, I'd be a horrible rogue.
I feel like the "drinking a potion underwater" one deserves a mention, since it got its answer from an off-site HNQ tourist and a lot of reddit-popularity.
@nitsua60 :D
8:05 PM
A: Can you drink a potion one-handed underwater?

EikreI am a huge dumb nerd so I just went and proved this for myself with a bathtub and a bottle of Red Guitar. By pulling the cork with my teeth and immediately folding my thumb over the lips of the bottle, I managed to leak only the merest iota of wine. If I had the clearance to stand upright instea...

(In case nobody's seen it.)
I mean, for the ratio of votes:rpg expertise, that's got to be up there =)
credit to the fellow for sure
Found it here too.
Are the upvotes because it's humorous or because people think it's valid? AFAIK the approach of "If it works in real life, then it works in the mechanics of any tabletop game" doesn't seem quite right.
it's kind perfectly wrong in the opposite way to Sean K Reynolds trying to throw knives at a target and making rules about what monks are capable of based on that
Also: "You may be wondering, "Eikre. Did you seriously get up and run a bath just to have citational highground over the armchair theorists?" All I have to say for myself is that there is a distinct possibility that the sangria I drank in the course of the experiment was not exactly the first sip of the day."
Solution from Pathfinder: Potion Sponge
Source PZO1121

This egg-sized sponge is covered in a layer of waterproof edible wax, designed to absorb 1 dose of a potion. Chewing a potion sponge and swallowing its liquid contents is a full-round action. A creature of at least Large size can swallow the sponge in its entirely; other creatures must spit out the sponge once it’s depleted (a free action). Unlike a potion that is drunk from a vial, a potion sponge can be used underwater. A potion can be poured from a vial into a sponge potion (or squeezed from a sponge into a vial) as a full-round act
8:10 PM
@MikeQ the rules themselves try to go by day-to-day reality. at least it's not invoking physics.
@MikeQ Probably a bit of column A, a bit of column B. But for D&D 5e where the rules are silent, something being trivial in real life is pretty good backing to allow it
@MikeQ I concur about the it works IRL means it works in game is a poor standard... but that was entertaining.
I mean, if I can demonstrate 15 or so decent punches within a 6 second time span, does that mean I should argue that a monk can make that many attacks per round?
the thing about that specifically is that it's trivial in real life for him to ... drink a little bit from a flask, in perfectly still water, having spent quite a while preparing for what he's going to do
which is a very long way from what the conditions will be like for any actual D&D character who is trying to drink a potion underwater
Yeah. Checks are required when doing normal things under duress... like being attacked by merfolk, sharks, etc...
8:11 PM
@MikeQ next hit rpg system. In order to do something you must demonstrate at least d100% proficiency for that thing IRL. You roll that 1 you can do anything. If you hit that hundy you better be able to benchpres a whale or your getting squished
(and you usually have to drink an entire potion for it to be effective, so just being able to take "a couple of sips" in a few seconds doesn't actually count as drinking a potion anyway)
isn't that just LARPing?
Again, potion sponge.
@DavidCoffron This is how a lot of tables do social tasks already.
This forum answers larping questions... a bit of crossover could be expected.
@Carcer nah. The d100 makes way more things possible. What percentage does jumping high count as flying?
8:13 PM
@MikeQ Only if you're playing a system that models reality to that extent. d20 systems don't assume you make exactly as many swings (et al) as rolls, they just assume you'll make roughly an attack's worth of effort (and higher-level characters have more effective attacks worth of effort due to skill)
@DavidCoffron Roll for jump to Mun.
@BESW that annoys me so much
@ColinGross But Minmus is so much more fun
Gotta get that mint ice cream
@Delioth Just doesn't sound as epic.
Although, you could just make that a spell. Jumpicus Minmus!
Minmus is like twice as far though
8:14 PM
@BESW at my table if a player doesn't want to talk for his charactee in social settings for Deception and stuff (someone shy or not well spoken) I'll let them just roll and tell them what the character says. But most of the time you're right
And it's a trick spell that just blows you up on the launch pad.
@Delioth If I recall there's actually a great description to that effect in, of all things, the manuals for Baldur's Gate (or maybe BGII)
@DavidCoffron I like the option to play the role or role the play.
which states to the effect that "you'll see your character making lots of swings and animations, but not every swing is an actual attack! It represents the normal parrying and manoeuvring which takes place in combat"
contrast to Neverwinter Nights, where your characters literally do just stand there and swing a sword once every few seconds.
@ColinGross yeah on some of my heavy roleplay tables I'll just set DCs for Insight vs deception based on what the players say rather than make them roll (give a higher DC for proficiency and stuff though). That why I don't have to interrupt their fun with a dice roll.
8:17 PM
@Carcer And it severely limits the zooming functionality of the group, too!
@Carcer Wait I actually have the BG manual somewhere. I don't recall if it's at home or packed away somewhere. I can confirm that there's a setting in Baldur's Gate that turns off cosmetic attacks
@DavidCoffron That sounds like a good system.
(and another setting that'll show you the die rolls for every attack you make)
hah, there was even a setting for it?
I remember the combat information verboseness settings
verbosity -vvv
8:18 PM
Yeah, so that you can know which one of the attacks you saw were real ones
"No, DM, I'm making my attack verbosely this time, so I can see what his armour class is."
"Whoops, you mixed up -v and -V! You have no idea if you hit him but you know you've got a +1 sword"
There was a session I ran once where I let someone maneuver/win a social confrontation purely via their roleplay, rather than going through the mechanics to see if their character managed the situation well (with the possible fun outcomes of them not), and I consider that to have been a mistake. There was stuff at stake and rolls would've been pretty useful.
I always turn off aesthetic attacks, because then my TWF kensai/swashbuckler/mage actually looks like they make more attacks than Minsc
but minsc will lead with blade and boot, Delioth
does his furious swinging not inspire you?
@Carcer Now I'm thinking of Wushu.
8:20 PM
I need someone to set me up with a flimsy pretext to mention the clean wood shavings.
@Carcer I invert some roles such that a 1 is a 20 and visa versa for some skill checks to disable that meta stuff.
(A TTRPG in which the more descriptive you are about your action, the more chance you have of succeeding.)
@doppelgreener Yeah, this is always the crux. Someone can be actually really good at talking, but their character can barely put 2 words together. If one allows RP without rolls to lead in social encounters then you can freely dump Charisma... because you'll just RP through it and don't need the modifier
I know wushu. I have to admit that I found its mechanics a bit abstract for me. I tend to prefer more grounded stuff
Magic is impressive. But now, Minsc leads. Swords, for everyone!
8:22 PM
I do sometimes miss that space hamster.
the first thing I would always do at the start of BGII is slap that ring of charisma on him and put him in front
You can always go and play Baldur's gate again. Both of them have enhanced editions on Steam and GOG, often on sale (and not particularly pricey even when not on sale)
"Give a man fish, he eats for a day. But give him a sword, and he can chow down on the meaty marrow of evil!"
@Delioth That can be funny though... the player has an eloquent response or dialog and the narrative for it becomes something offensive due to low charisma.
Or annoying or obtuse... etc.
Baldur's Gate will always occupy a very special place in my heart. Those were the games that got me into D&D and RPGs in general in the first place
Minsc is still my favourite character from pretty much any game I've ever played
8:24 PM
@ColinGross Yeah, and (as in rolls and roleplay) is a good method to go by. Can lead to interesting consequences, like meaning one of the words you used is bad in the culture you're talking to or something
I remember playing BGII, going and filching my dad's old 1e monster manual so I could figure out why the hell I couldn't hurt the clay golems ("oh, I need BLUNT magical weapons...")
@Carcer What's the nutritional value of the meaty marrow of evil?
@doppelgreener 100% DV of Justice
@doppelgreener I don't have the numbers to hand, but it appears to Minsc's primary diet and he's a strapping fellow, so it must be good
@Delioth On the other hand... if it's a particularly apropos response in the theme of the character, full marks.
8:25 PM
@Delioth "Yes, And" is a super important part of improv and it's great for RPGs.
@ColinGross Yeah. I usually have the rolls lean more towards judging the target's response to the statements rather than the statements themselves (the dwarves are convinced by your arguments, rather than your arguments being any better or worse)
@Carcer I consider it the RPG equivalent of what McCloud calls aspect-to-aspect panels.
@Delioth In my experience, the common pitfall of persuasive players in groups that use table-level social skills for game-level resolutions, is that they're persuading the GM rather than the NPC.
@BESW Yeah, that's why I roll for NPC reaction. Possibly with a bonus or penalty ad-hoc if they have actual good or bad points they specifically say they want to push
@BESW Please elaborate. I have this problem with my games and would like to get insight from more experienced GMs
But since character skill should factor in, the NPC reaction roll is actually a set DC (adjustable for arguments) for a Bluff/Persuasion/etc check
@MikeQ Solution: do the rolls if they should be done. If the players are trying to persuade someone, don't let them just RP their case and then accept (or reject) their attempts based on your opinion. If you do that, then you're letting the player's social skills overtake the game-level skills.
8:37 PM
Right, and I understand having the players roll for anything difficult or uncertain. What about NPCs rolling for reaction? Is that redundant?
I think what they mean it's technically a skill check made by the player, but the random factor is representative of the NPC's mood/reception rather than the quality of the argument made by the character?
There should probably only be 1 roll - the NPC's reaction is rolled into the DC of the skill check
so, rolling poorly doesn't necessarily mean you made a bad argument, but maybe this guy just doesn't like your face.
Exactly that
@doppelgreener lol
8:41 PM
It also means that if you're a table that roleplays the whole encounter (e.g. trying to persuade the dwarf king to lend his armies), you aren't necessarily rolling to formulate how well the character made an argument (you already roleplayed all of that down to a T)... you may just be rolling to see if the target of the check agreed with you. Thus you aren't allowing real-life social skills to affect the characters' social skills
In the example, your players might give stellar arguments as to why the dwarven armies should help them - they need the aid to keep back the orc hordes and save the mountainhomes, but only if they get the armies now (and no-one else is close enough to send aid). Those could be very persuasive as a GM. But the players being that smart and charismatic isn't the same as the characters, so you require a roll.
@MikeQ Early in my time as a player rather than a GM (I'd been GMing for at least six months first), I found that often I was making choices based on what I knew about the GM and their style and preferences. This was particularly easy in social roleplaying because that table didn't really use dice at all, so I had free reign to be amusing, or logical, or whatever would make the GM most likely to give me the outcome I wanted.
Low roll doesn't mean you make a bad argument (your characters made the same argument you did, which was great): it means the dwarf king didn't agree with it. Whether he didn't agree because he thinks they can hold back the hordes at their own walls, or he doesn't think the hordes exist, or he just wants to lead them himself because he doesn't trust some young hooligans.
@BESW will admit, I probably definitely look more favourably on player antics that make me laugh than is reasonably fair
My character wasn't making choices based on what how they'd interact with the in-game situation, it was purely me interfacing with the GM. Which isn't inherently bad, but it put me at an advantage over most of the other people at the table who didn't have those skills, and it de-valued the characters and the story.
Sometimes I wonder why people make these answers. Another answer already says the same thing (minus the much as I love it).
8:47 PM
@Carcer There are games where this is built into the rules! But also games where it makes the rules sort of pointless.
@DavidCoffron New user, thinks this is like a traditional forum.
@BESW Yeah. Note new user with no other SE history
@BESW oh. Didn't notice that. Makes sense
Thought I recognized the username
yeah, generally I think more established users refrain from making an answer when an existing answer already says the same thing, though that doesn't always seem to hold true
@Carcer For example, in Golden Sky Stories anyone at the table can award "Dreams" (kinda like XP currency) to someone who did something cute or helpful. This helps enforce the kind of story that the game is trying to tell, and gives a constructive way to reward that behavior without cross the narrative/metanarrative lines.
@Carcer I mean a lot of time two or three users post at the same time. I'll only add a "same-y" answer If I have a different way of thinking about it or want to add something that doesn't fit into the other answer.
8:51 PM
Yeah, answers with the same solution aren't bad, because it can be good to have multiple ways to think about the same thing.
@BESW It's fine if the answers use meaningfully different reasoning or references to arrive at the same conclusion
That answer is poor because it's incomplete, not because it's repeating.
@Carcer Let voting sort that out.
oh, I'm not suggesting there ought to be rules about it or anything
I'm just going to look down my nose and feel superior
@BESW yeah. That answer could have been good elaborating on why he (and others) loves Critical Role or why many people watch it and how that gives a level of fame for the homebrew that goes beyond standard homebrew would make it a "good" answer.
why do many people watch it
it's definitely not to learn from the player's incredible tactical decision-making skills
8:58 PM
@Carcer Like v2Blasts recent answer it says the same thing as Grosscol's but adds other context.
yeah, and I upvoted that
@Carcer because it's fun. It's entertainment. Some GMs try to learn from Matt's style, but most viewers just like watching the story develop [EDIT: and make fan art. Lots of fan art.]
@DavidCoffron [in case it wasn't obvious from my followup comment, I watch critical role]
@Carcer Fair enough. I actually don't. I see the appeal and have watched a few episodes to see why people like it, but don't really have time since I can't part with my other forms of entertainment rn (mostly video games and YouTube)
it's definitely entertaining though often frustrating. In some episodes I spend so long getting aggravated by poor decision-making that my partner gets genuinely upset with me
critrole counts as youtube, really
9:02 PM
@Carcer I mean they're just having fun for the most part but I get the frustration.
critrole counts as youtube, really
if you think it's the kind of thing that you would enjoy, now is pretty much the best time you could get into it, what with the second campaign having started recently
my partner mainlined the vast majority of campaign 1 in a few weeks which I definitely did not have time for personally but I am able to keep up with 1 ep a week watching campaign 2
@Carcer I barely have time for what I do now, but I'll take a look :)
Although didn't someone die a couple weeks ago?
(I saw lots of Twitter drama. Positive and negative)
do you care much about being spoiled?
there was a character death, yes. Negative drama was mostly about people blaming that death on the actions of the guest star who was with them that week
I used to listen to Adventure Zone. That was really good IMO.
Podcasts make driving bearable for me.
@Carcer that can be rough. But I try never to blame guest stars on popular shows for almost anything. It's always a lot of pressure
(I speak from experience a little, it's a lot of pressure even on non-popoular shows)
9:17 PM
@DavidCoffron yeah. In context, she deliberately made suboptimal decisions because she was keeping true to her character, which is the kind of thing that really upsets a certain class of neckbeard, but it is kind of what critical role is all about, so totally appropriate for that game
@Rubiksmoose I listen to Not Another D&D Podcast.
NADDPOD is great if you like D&D but also things that are stupid.
10:12 PM
@Carcer I think part of the problem is the degree of suboptimality that that's used to justify relative to the degree of suboptimality certain tables are able to tolerate -- there are games and tables where who cares if your character is a walking gaffe, or useless in a fight, because it'll still work out in the end, but in other games, it's hard-mode enough that being say 10-20% away from optimal is still crippling...
10:25 PM
@Shalvenay it wasn't a "suboptimal character design" thing, it was a "ran away from the fight because the player decided the character was scared" type deal
there's definitely games where that kind of behaviour is breaching the implicit social contract, but it is very much in keeping with Critical Role's style.
"My guy syndrome" is definitely a thing, but it's always about the table context.
@BESW Yeah, definitely. MGS is about justifying behaviour that ruins the game for the other players, not about behaviour which is totally in keeping with the playstyle of the group
Yes, but for people who've been burned by it, it can be hard to differentiate when they're seeing it happen in someone else's group.
@Carcer yeah -- the table in Critical Role is on the "who cares" end of the spectrum :)
So lets not impugn folks' grooming habits because they're objecting to something they've found to be harmful.
10:51 PM
I'm not used to someone taking a literal interpretation of the term
@Carcer I'd simply have said "certain class of player" instead -- because GTFO was definitely part of the vocabulary back in the AD&D/2e days for many folks
I'm calling attention to how the term isn't actually a useful description of actors, just an off-handed insult.
So, I'm hoping I did the right thing, asking two separate questions about effects and whether they count as magical for overcoming resistances. They may have the same answer in which case it seems kind of silly, but I don't know if they'll have the same answer until somebody answers them, so I asked them separately.
Sounds reasonable to me.
@PeterCooperJr. They could reasonably have been one question, but it's entirely correct for you to separate them, as the answers might have been different
though even if the answers were the same, that doesn't make them necessarily the same question.
11:01 PM
Thanks. I just appreciate the reassurance.
I also have another question in mind, about how when a player casts Conjure Animals, as DM how do I "choose creatures that are appropriate for the campaign and that will be fun to introduce in a scene" as Sage Advice Compendium suggests. But I'm not really sure what I'd specifically want to be asking.
And I need to go have dinner now anyway. Thanks for your help!
@PeterCooperJr. Let them pick, Sage Advice is dumb.
11:41 PM
Yeah I feel like taking the choice away from the person who casted the spell is a little silly
@trogdor Especially with the "will be fun" clause
Heck, even beyond questions of agency and investment and fun, letting the player pick means that's something I don't have to keep track of. Yey!
I also think that advice comes from a corner of D&D which encourages too much DM control over a game
When the game already has a looot of that
You don't need to finagle more DM control in D&D
I have spent too much time on SE today
Ooh you get bonus miles for that
11:48 PM
What type of bonus are bonus miles?
Miles of unrecoverable spent time of course
I am finding myself sad at the 200 rep daily cap
which is a good indication I should find something else to do
Oh no
like sleeping
that'd be a good idea
@trogdor Nah, they added it specifically to address the players' ability to summon 8 vastly overpowered pixies.
11:50 PM
It's SE'itus
Rather than just admitting that the CR on pixies is way under what it should be.
Speaking of unrecoverable spent time, I managed to put together some quickbuild tables so that I can plan an encounter in 10 minutes rather than 10 hours. It's like I've achieved some kind of GM preparation zen state.
@Miniman oh well,... That's just shifting it to an entirely different D&D problem
00:00 - 19:0019:00 - 00:00

« first day (2868 days earlier)      last day (2141 days later) »