Poll of the Day > DMed my second game of DnD yesterday.

Topic List	Page List: 1 ... 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
ParanoidObsessive 09/15/17 12:31:21 AM #253:	To be fair, once you manage to "perfect" a system, updates and new revised editions are honestly kind of a negative anyway. Especially if you're trying to "fix" something that isn't broken (see also, the New World of Darkness, a lot of people's opinions of 4e D&D, etc). That being said, I have no real opinion on the quality of C&C because I've never played it. But having nearly 20 years of products being perfectly compatible with the rule set you buy today is a nice plus (as opposed to people constantly having to update or convert older D&D books or adventures to modern rules, because you're dealing with a half-dozen different conflicting systems), especially when it means your players won't immediately devolve into edition wars before a game, arguing over which version they'd prefer to play. The real motivation behind most reworks and updates of systems isn't to make a better version of the system anyway, as much as it is to sell all new copies of the same old books to your older hardcore audience. Once a player owns the core rulebooks, they're no longer a source of income for you unless you keep putting out dozens (or hundreds) of splatbooks, "expanded/advanced systems", and "rules clarification" type books. But doing so tends to overcomplicate the game to the point where new players start being discouraged from playing, at which point you pare it all back, release a new edition, and start the entire cycle over again. In D&D's case, the only real reason they came out with AD&D and 2e was to screw Gary Gygax out of money, and the reason they came out with 3e was because 2e had grown into a bloated confusing mess (and to push the d20 idea, in an attempt to grab control of the marketplace and public awareness back from White Wolf). 4e in turn was at least partly due to the fact that 3e and 3.5 had similarly grown bloated (especially once you factored in third party support books), but also as an attempt to claw at least a few new players out of the MMO market. 5e seems to be aiming at trying to maintain a balance between being simple enough to appeal to new players while referencing enough older material to appeal to oldschool gamers, and has been doing a good job of avoiding bloat, but WotC will almost certainly come out with a 6e version of the game eventually, because you can only drip-feed out so many setting books and adventure scenarios before people stop buying new books. --- "Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76 "POwned again." --- blight family <cite>ParanoidObsessive posted [p:886630742] in DMed my se... [t:75526415]...</cite> <quote>To be fair, once you manage to "perfect" a system, updates and new revised editions are honestly kind of a negative anyway. Especially if you're trying to "fix" something that isn't broken (see also, the New World of Darkness, a lot of people's opinions of 4e D&D, etc). That being said, I have no real opinion on the quality of C&C because I've never played it. But having nearly 20 years of products being perfectly compatible with the rule set you buy today is a nice plus (as opposed to people constantly having to update or convert older D&D books or adventures to modern rules, because you're dealing with a half-dozen different conflicting systems), especially when it means your players won't immediately devolve into edition wars before a game, arguing over which version they'd prefer to play. The real motivation behind most reworks and updates of systems isn't to make a better version of the system anyway, as much as it is to sell all new copies of the same old books to your older hardcore audience. Once a player owns the core rulebooks, they're no longer a source of income for you unless you keep putting out dozens (or hundreds) of splatbooks, "expanded/advanced systems", and "rules clarification" type books. But doing so tends to overcomplicate the game to the point where new players start being discouraged from playing, at which point you pare it all back, release a new edition, and start the entire cycle over again. In D&D's case, the only real reason they came out with AD&D and 2e was to screw Gary Gygax out of money, and the reason they came out with 3e was because 2e had grown into a bloated confusing mess (and to push the d20 idea, in an attempt to grab control of the marketplace and public awareness back from White Wolf). 4e in turn was at least partly due to the fact that 3e and 3.5 had similarly grown bloated (especially once you factored in third party support books), but also as an attempt to claw at least a few new players out of the MMO market. 5e seems to be aiming at trying to maintain a balance between being simple enough to appeal to new players while referencing enough older material to appeal to oldschool gamers, and has been doing a good job of avoiding bloat, but WotC will almost certainly come out with a 6e version of the game eventually, because you can only drip-feed out so many setting books and adventure scenarios before people stop buying new books. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Lightning Bolt 09/15/17 12:56:16 AM #254:	ParanoidObsessive posted... but WotC will almost certainly come out with a 6e version of the game I hope so. Maybe they'll try something new, which is always a plus. --- One day dude, I'm just gonna get off the bus, and I'm gonna run in the woods and never come back, and when I come back I'm gonna be the knife master! -The Rev <cite>Lightning Bolt posted [p:886631806] in DMed my se... [t:75526415]...</cite> <quote><cite>ParanoidObsessive posted...</cite> <quote>but WotC will almost certainly come out with a 6e version of the game </quote> I hope so. Maybe they'll try something new, which is always a plus.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ParanoidObsessive 09/15/17 1:15:10 AM #255:	Lightning Bolt posted... I hope so. Maybe they'll try something new, which is always a plus. As I've said many, many times (usually in regards to politics, at least on this board), "new" isn't ALWAYS a plus. "Innovation" isn't always a net positive. And change solely for the sake of change can easily be a catastrophic negative. Or to put it another way, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And if it IS broke, make sure you know what the fuck you're doing before you try to fix it." If anything, at least 80% of Nintendo's peripheral history is a pretty clear example of coming up with new ideas backfiring more often than not. And if, say, they'd gone out of their way to do things like canceling support for the Game Boy to push the Virtual Boy, they wouldn't still be in business right now. For every Wii, they've had a Wii-U. --- "Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76 "POwned again." --- blight family <cite>ParanoidObsessive posted [p:886632498] in DMed my se... [t:75526415]...</cite> <quote><cite>Lightning Bolt posted...</cite> <quote>I hope so. Maybe they'll try something new, which is always a plus.</quote> As I've said many, many times (usually in regards to politics, at least on this board), "new" isn't ALWAYS a plus. "Innovation" isn't always a net positive. And change solely for the sake of change can easily be a catastrophic negative. Or to put it another way, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And if it IS broke, make sure you know what the fuck you're doing before you try to fix it." If anything, at least 80% of Nintendo's peripheral history is a pretty clear example of coming up with new ideas backfiring more often than not. And if, say, they'd gone out of their way to do things like canceling support for the Game Boy to push the Virtual Boy, they wouldn't still be in business right now. For every Wii, they've had a Wii-U. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Lightning Bolt 09/15/17 1:26:22 AM #256:	ParanoidObsessive posted... As I've said many, many times (usually in regards to politics, at least on this board), "new" isn't ALWAYS a plus. "Innovation" isn't always a net positive. And change solely for the sake of change can easily be a catastrophic negative. Depends on what you want. I want new ideas to play with and innovations to add to my repertoire, but I don't exceptionally care about the creators staying in business. New obviously wouldn't always be a plus to them, and I can respect that, but I still think it's a plus to me. And yeah, new isn't always good in politics, just "art", if you'll let me get all pretentious for a second. --- One day dude, I'm just gonna get off the bus, and I'm gonna run in the woods and never come back, and when I come back I'm gonna be the knife master! -The Rev <cite>Lightning Bolt posted [p:886632871] in DMed my se... [t:75526415]...</cite> <quote><cite>ParanoidObsessive posted...</cite> <quote>As I've said many, many times (usually in regards to politics, at least on this board), "new" isn't ALWAYS a plus. "Innovation" isn't always a net positive. And change solely for the sake of change can easily be a catastrophic negative.</quote> Depends on what you want. I want new ideas to play with and innovations to add to my repertoire, but I don't exceptionally care about the creators staying in business. New obviously wouldn't always be a plus to them, and I can respect that, but I still think it's a plus to me. And yeah, new isn't always good in politics, just "art", if you'll let me get all pretentious for a second.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ParanoidObsessive 09/15/17 2:13:21 AM #257:	Lightning Bolt posted... Depends on what you want. I want new ideas to play with and innovations to add to my repertoire, but I don't exceptionally care about the creators staying in business. New obviously wouldn't always be a plus to them, and I can respect that, but I still think it's a plus to me. It's less of an issue when you're talking about RPGs, per se (mainly because, again, the average player can buy a couple of core rulebooks and spend the next 50+ years playing that same system without ever buying another book again, so you don't NEED a company to continue succeeding), but it's still a major problem on some level. To wit, the moment 5e became D&D's "mainstream success" edition - which has also become the cornerstone to most popular streams or online games - it became the entry-point for most new gamers, and the standard by which they're going to continue to judge the system for the rest of their lives. While some rare few may eventually look back to previous editions and decide they like 4e or 3e or 3.5e or Pathfinder or even BECMI better, the vast majority never will. And if you're a fan of an older edition, and dislike the "innovations" of newer systems (like, for instance, the mass dislike for 4e that many older gamers felt due to the perception that it radically altered most of the core elements and feel of the game), you can easily be "cut off" from new players, as your favored edition slowly withers and dies. Someone who loves AD&D 2e is going to have a much harder time finding players for their games than someone who wants to run a 5e game. In that sense, constant "innovation" as a core ideal (as opposed to simply releasing optional alternate rules or alternate systems/settings) can absolutely become a detriment in and of itself, even before you consider the value of individual innovations. New ideas aren't in and of themselves automatically GOOD ideas. And a proliferation of bad ideas (or even just a moderate accumulation of bad ideas in ways that are extremely significant) can easily render a system unplayable, or at least unpleasant to people who prefer playing in a previously established way. Or at the very least, make it less worthwhile than other alternatives, rendering it a mostly shunned/ignored edition/system. In that sense, it's not an issue of whether or not the business remains in business, it's an issue of whether or not you can even continue to play the game. If anything, the desire for a business to continue existing helps FUEL innovation for the sake of innovation. Innovation solely for the sake of "art", or function, or quality, can often be detrimental to continued business. Because you need to keep churning out new content (even if it isn't really necessary, or you weren't even remotely inspired to produce something better than what you already had) in order to keep harvesting dollars. Obviously, this isn't really much of an issue if you're playing a mostly homebrewed patchwork system and have enough players to support such a game long-term, but people like that rarely need new "official release" systems to provide new ideas anyway - there are literally hundreds (if not thousands) of competing systems already out in the world, and people willing to patch in ideas from multiple editions are usually just as likely (if not more so) to just homebrew their own system entirely from scratch anyway (and potentially eventually publish it). --- "Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76 "POwned again." --- blight family <cite>ParanoidObsessive posted [p:886634371] in DMed my se... [t:75526415]...</cite> <quote><cite>Lightning Bolt posted...</cite> <quote>Depends on what you want. I want new ideas to play with and innovations to add to my repertoire, but I don't exceptionally care about the creators staying in business. New obviously wouldn't always be a plus to them, and I can respect that, but I still think it's a plus to me.</quote> It's less of an issue when you're talking about RPGs, per se (mainly because, again, the average player can buy a couple of core rulebooks and spend the next 50+ years playing that same system without ever buying another book again, so you don't NEED a company to continue succeeding), but it's still a major problem on some level. To wit, the moment 5e became D&D's "mainstream success" edition - which has also become the cornerstone to most popular streams or online games - it became the entry-point for most new gamers, and the standard by which they're going to continue to judge the system for the rest of their lives. While some rare few may eventually look back to previous editions and decide they like 4e or 3e or 3.5e or Pathfinder or even BECMI better, the vast majority never will. And if you're a fan of an older edition, and dislike the "innovations" of newer systems (like, for instance, the mass dislike for 4e that many older gamers felt due to the perception that it radically altered most of the core elements and feel of the game), you can easily be "cut off" from new players, as your favored edition slowly withers and dies. Someone who loves AD&D 2e is going to have a much harder time finding players for their games than someone who wants to run a 5e game. In that sense, constant "innovation" as a core ideal (as opposed to simply releasing optional alternate rules or alternate systems/settings) can absolutely become a detriment in and of itself, even before you consider the value of individual innovations. New ideas aren't in and of themselves automatically GOOD ideas. And a proliferation of bad ideas (or even just a moderate accumulation of bad ideas in ways that are extremely significant) can easily render a system unplayable, or at least unpleasant to people who prefer playing in a previously established way. Or at the very least, make it less worthwhile than other alternatives, rendering it a mostly shunned/ignored edition/system. In that sense, it's not an issue of whether or not the business remains in business, it's an issue of whether or not you can even continue to play the game. If anything, the desire for a business to continue existing helps FUEL innovation for the sake of innovation. Innovation solely for the sake of "art", or function, or quality, can often be detrimental to continued business. Because you need to keep churning out new content (even if it isn't really necessary, or you weren't even remotely inspired to produce something better than what you already had) in order to keep harvesting dollars. Obviously, this isn't really much of an issue if you're playing a mostly homebrewed patchwork system and have enough players to support such a game long-term, but people like that rarely need new "official release" systems to provide new ideas anyway - there are literally hundreds (if not thousands) of competing systems already out in the world, and people willing to patch in ideas from multiple editions are usually just as likely (if not more so) to just homebrew their own system entirely from scratch anyway (and potentially eventually publish it). </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ParanoidObsessive 09/15/17 2:13:36 AM #258:	Lightning Bolt posted... And yeah, new isn't always good in politics, just "art", if you'll let me get all pretentious for a second. New things can just as easily be terrible in "art" as well, though. And that's not even getting into a long, philosophical discussion about what "art" is in the first place, and if we even really HAVE "art" in the modern era when most artistic endeavor is powered more by financial gain or for entertainment purposes, which have their own aesthetic requirements. --- "Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76 "POwned again." --- blight family <cite>ParanoidObsessive posted [p:886634383] in DMed my se... [t:75526415]...</cite> <quote><cite>Lightning Bolt posted...</cite> <quote>And yeah, new isn't always good in politics, just "art", if you'll let me get all pretentious for a second.</quote> New things can just as easily be terrible in "art" as well, though. And that's not even getting into a long, philosophical discussion about what "art" is in the first place, and if we even really HAVE "art" in the modern era when most artistic endeavor is powered more by financial gain or for entertainment purposes, which have their own aesthetic requirements. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Lightning Bolt 09/15/17 11:09:50 AM #259:	ParanoidObsessive posted... this isn't really much of an issue if you're playing a mostly homebrewed patchwork system and have enough players to support such a game long-term Yeah I was gonna say. I run Pathfinder with a list of custom rules and 3rd party replacement content (Vancian casting is so badly executed) in a custom setting. And I still have no freaking idea how to make crafting not suck! I don't buy a ton of new games in general, and I know the market oughtn't cater to me. I just always like it when games coming out are interesting rather than "reliable". 5e gives me nothing that I couldn't do myself with a big red marker and a 3.5e book, for instance. Cutting out complexity could have been an overall improvement worth respecting, but they took it way too far for my tastes. ParanoidObsessive posted... New things can just as easily be terrible in "art" as well, though. You can still learn from them? But yeah, missteps are sort of the price of entry. If you try something new you might fail. Unfortunate. ParanoidObsessive posted... And that's not even getting into a long, philosophical discussion about what "art" is in the first place, and if we even really HAVE "art" in the modern era when most artistic endeavor is powered more by financial gain or for entertainment purposes, which have their own aesthetic requirements. Sturgeon's Law explains that one. Movies and games and such can be art, really any medium can, but 90% of it is crap. In its basest form, art is something valuable for its emotional impact. We tend to not use the word "art" on the 90% that's crap, but I think it still technically applies to entertainment. The plus side of such a wide definition being that it feels more consistent, and it lets me say I'm an artist just for running a game where we make pretend we're elves. :> --- One day dude, I'm just gonna get off the bus, and I'm gonna run in the woods and never come back, and when I come back I'm gonna be the knife master! -The Rev <cite>Lightning Bolt posted [p:886649895] in DMed my se... [t:75526415]...</cite> <quote><cite>ParanoidObsessive posted...</cite> <quote> this isn't really much of an issue if you're playing a mostly homebrewed patchwork system and have enough players to support such a game long-term</quote> Yeah I was gonna say. I run Pathfinder with a list of custom rules and 3rd party replacement content (Vancian casting is so badly executed) in a custom setting. And I still have no freaking idea how to make crafting not suck! I don't buy a ton of new games in general, and I know the market oughtn't cater to me. I just always like it when games coming out are interesting rather than "reliable". 5e gives me nothing that I couldn't do myself with a big red marker and a 3.5e book, for instance. Cutting out complexity could have been an overall improvement worth respecting, but they took it way too far for my tastes. <cite>ParanoidObsessive posted...</cite> <quote>New things can just as easily be terrible in "art" as well, though.</quote> You can still learn from them? But yeah, missteps are sort of the price of entry. If you try something new you might fail. Unfortunate. <cite>ParanoidObsessive posted...</cite> <quote>And that's not even getting into a long, philosophical discussion about what "art" is in the first place, and if we even really HAVE "art" in the modern era when most artistic endeavor is powered more by financial gain or for entertainment purposes, which have their own aesthetic requirements.</quote> Sturgeon's Law explains that one. Movies and games and such can be art, really any medium can, but 90% of it is crap. In its basest form, art is something valuable for its emotional impact. We tend to not use the word "art" on the 90% that's crap, but I think it still technically applies to entertainment. The plus side of such a wide definition being that it feels more consistent, and it lets me say I'm an artist just for running a game where we make pretend we're elves. :></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
I_Abibde 09/15/17 8:04:01 PM #260:	ParanoidObsessive posted... That being said, I have no real opinion on the quality of C&C because I've never played it. In response to your post as a whole: The C&C devs seem to make the bulk of their money from selling modules, which makes sense if you consider the 1st Edition roots of the game. Old school dungeon crawling and adventuring definitely still have their audience (... hence another game called Dungeon Crawl Classics). I do not think I have seen any C&C splatbooks, but there exists a ton of modules. --- -- I Abibde / Samuraiter Laughing at Game FAQs since 2002. <cite>I_Abibde posted [p:886677842] in DMed my se... [t:75526415]...</cite> <quote><cite>ParanoidObsessive posted...</cite> <quote>That being said, I have no real opinion on the quality of C&C because I've never played it.</quote> In response to your post as a whole: The C&C devs seem to make the bulk of their money from selling modules, which makes sense if you consider the 1st Edition roots of the game. Old school dungeon crawling and adventuring definitely still have their audience (... hence another game called Dungeon Crawl Classics). I do not think I have seen any C&C splatbooks, but there exists a ton of modules.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
KthulhuX 09/15/17 9:49:58 PM #261:	I_Abibde posted... ParanoidObsessive posted... That being said, I have no real opinion on the quality of C&C because I've never played it. In response to your post as a whole: The C&C devs seem to make the bulk of their money from selling modules, which makes sense if you consider the 1st Edition roots of the game. Old school dungeon crawling and adventuring definitely still have their audience (... hence another game called Dungeon Crawl Classics). I do not think I have seen any C&C splatbooks, but there exists a ton of modules. Honestly, I vastly prefer this style of RPG publishing. Splat upon splat upon splat bore me...I prefer settings and adventures. (Although i will admit to a weakness for monsters...the more monsters, the better). <cite>KthulhuX posted [p:886682993] in DMed my se... [t:75526415]...</cite> <quote><cite>I_Abibde posted...</cite> <quote><cite>ParanoidObsessive posted...</cite> <quote>That being said, I have no real opinion on the quality of C&C because I've never played it.</quote> In response to your post as a whole: The C&C devs seem to make the bulk of their money from selling modules, which makes sense if you consider the 1st Edition roots of the game. Old school dungeon crawling and adventuring definitely still have their audience (... hence another game called Dungeon Crawl Classics). I do not think I have seen any C&C splatbooks, but there exists a ton of modules.</quote> Honestly, I vastly prefer this style of RPG publishing. Splat upon splat upon splat bore me...I prefer settings and adventures. (Although i will admit to a weakness for monsters...the more monsters, the better).</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
shadowsword87 09/16/17 12:19:31 AM #262:	Lightning Bolt posted... And I still have no freaking idea how to make crafting not suck! Because it's not interesting in any way shape or form? Also failure isn't interesting, because the timescale is so long that success or failure is just a question of how much money you spend, it's just boring as hell. What are the players trying to do that requires crafting though? Little do-dads that don't do anything should always be free, because they're flavor and fun. Large scale siege weaponry? You're playing some sort of hell of game and I want in. Crafting magic items? Just spend the gold and move on with it. <cite>shadowsword87 posted [p:886689330] in DMed my se... [t:75526415]...</cite> <quote><cite>Lightning Bolt posted...</cite> <quote>And I still have no freaking idea how to make crafting not suck!</quote> Because it's not interesting in any way shape or form? Also failure isn't interesting, because the timescale is so long that success or failure is just a question of how much money you spend, it's just boring as hell. What are the players trying to do that requires crafting though? Little do-dads that don't do anything should always be free, because they're flavor and fun. Large scale siege weaponry? You're playing some sort of hell of game and I want in. Crafting magic items? Just spend the gold and move on with it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mario_VS_DK 09/16/17 7:02:43 PM #263:	Welp. Looks like I'm playing a half naked half elf for a few sessions. --- Stupid signature! <cite>Mario_VS_DK posted [p:886728485] in DMed my se... [t:75526415]...</cite> <quote>Welp. Looks like I'm playing a half naked half elf for a few sessions.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
GhostGiblet 09/16/17 7:05:06 PM #264:	Nice... me and some friends played DnD for a few months but half of them got bored of it so we don't play anymore. Sucks because it was super fun and it was something I looked forward to. I really liked how it was more open ended, and you could use magic and attacks in creative ways that you wouldn't be able to in a video game. --- The wannabe artist formerly known as Snoopydance <cite>GhostGiblet posted [p:886728593] in DMed my se... [t:75526415]...</cite> <quote>Nice... me and some friends played DnD for a few months but half of them got bored of it so we don't play anymore. Sucks because it was super fun and it was something I looked forward to. I really liked how it was more open ended, and you could use magic and attacks in creative ways that you wouldn't be able to in a video game.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
I_Abibde 09/17/17 8:58:26 PM #265:	Had a good time trying out the Shadowrun 5th Edition battle system today. Tons of D6s! We're just making sure we get a handle on that before we start running a real session, since it can get pretty confusing for new people. Mario_VS_DK posted... Looks like I'm playing a half naked half elf for a few sessions. Better carry a torch, mate. --- -- I Abibde / Samuraiter Laughing at Game FAQs since 2002. <cite>I_Abibde posted [p:886792877] in DMed my se... [t:75526415]...</cite> <quote>Had a good time trying out the Shadowrun 5th Edition battle system today. Tons of D6s! We're just making sure we get a handle on that before we start running a real session, since it can get pretty confusing for new people. <cite>Mario_VS_DK posted...</cite> <quote>Looks like I'm playing a half naked half elf for a few sessions.</quote> Better carry a torch, mate.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Lightning Bolt 09/17/17 10:08:16 PM #266:	shadowsword87 posted... What are the players trying to do that requires crafting though? Nothing. I just don't like having no good system for something so fundamental. That and travel are just general annoyances I haven't figured out a fix for yet. GhostGiblet posted... Nice... me and some friends played DnD for a few months but half of them got bored of it so we don't play anymore. Sucks because it was super fun and it was something I looked forward to. I really liked how it was more open ended, and you could use magic and attacks in creative ways that you wouldn't be able to in a video game. You could play online! There are a bunch of neat digital tabletops, Fantasy Grounds and roll20.net come to mind as the forerunners. --- One day dude, I'm just gonna get off the bus, and I'm gonna run in the woods and never come back, and when I come back I'm gonna be the knife master! -The Rev <cite>Lightning Bolt posted [p:886796530] in DMed my se... [t:75526415]...</cite> <quote><cite>shadowsword87 posted...</cite> <quote>What are the players trying to do that requires crafting though?</quote> Nothing. I just don't like having no good system for something so fundamental. That and travel are just general annoyances I haven't figured out a fix for yet. <cite>GhostGiblet posted...</cite> <quote>Nice... me and some friends played DnD for a few months but half of them got bored of it so we don't play anymore. Sucks because it was super fun and it was something I looked forward to. I really liked how it was more open ended, and you could use magic and attacks in creative ways that you wouldn't be able to in a video game.</quote> You could play online! There are a bunch of neat digital tabletops, Fantasy Grounds and roll20.net come to mind as the forerunners.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
shadowsword87 09/17/17 10:22:43 PM #267:	Lightning Bolt posted... Nothing. I just don't like having no good system for something so fundamental. That and travel are just general annoyances I haven't figured out a fix for yet. If something is bad and nobody uses it, is it really bad? A question for the ages... Also, any time someone mentions crafting in any RPG ever, I just remember that anyone with some points in crafting can literally create infinite sticks in no time at all. Soooo, it's all kind of silly. <cite>shadowsword87 posted [p:886797279] in DMed my se... [t:75526415]...</cite> <quote><cite>Lightning Bolt posted...</cite> <quote>Nothing. I just don't like having no good system for something so fundamental. That and travel are just general annoyances I haven't figured out a fix for yet.</quote> If something is bad and nobody uses it, is it really bad? A question for the ages... Also, any time someone mentions crafting in any RPG ever, I just remember that anyone with some points in crafting can literally create infinite sticks in no time at all. Soooo, it's all kind of silly.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ParanoidObsessive 09/18/17 2:18:59 PM #268:	Lightning Bolt posted... shadowsword87 posted... What are the players trying to do that requires crafting though? Nothing. I just don't like having no good system for something so fundamental. There's an argument to be made that crafting isn't all that fundamental (or at least SHOULDN'T be), and it's really only the shittier excesses of modern indie gaming that have led people to think that complicated crafting systems should somehow be mandatory in every game ever. In D&D terms, characters are adventurers, not artisans. Improvised crafting in the field (or the dungeon, as it were) should mostly be more or less handwaved away to keep the flow of RP moving (ie, you don't need complicated rules to adjudicate simple item creation), and if they're engaging in far more complex crafting (especially of magical items) with the intent to sell them on a major basis they're probably playing the wrong game in the first place. That being said, I'm not going to pretend that the occasional story of a campaign where the players give up adventuring entirely in favor of becoming entrepreneurial merchant princes by crafting and selling magic items (or renting rooms and offering support services in an inn built directly outside the mouth of a famous local dungeon) isn't occasionally fun and interesting to read, but it's not really playing within the bounds of most existing RPGs. It's like being the crazy person who loads up Skyrim and then spends 100 straight hours avoiding fights entirely and just devoting the entirety of your time to mining, harvesting, crafting, and cooking (and inventing your own rules for paying "rent", eating meals, and sleeping regularly). shadowsword87 posted... If something is bad and nobody uses it, is it really bad? A question for the ages. Not really. If something is bad, and nobody uses it BECAUSE it is bad, then it's still bad. (See also, the rules for playing FATAL) Now, if something has a reputation for being bad, and no one uses it because of that reputation, so there is literally no one who has actually played it to know for sure that it IS bad, then yes, it's actual quality becomes a question, but it's not really a "tree falling in a forest" sort of situation here. --- "Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76 "POwned again." --- blight family <cite>ParanoidObsessive posted [p:886831100] in DMed my se... [t:75526415]...</cite> <quote><cite>Lightning Bolt posted...</cite> <quote><cite>shadowsword87 posted...</cite> <quote>What are the players trying to do that requires crafting though?</quote> Nothing. I just don't like having no good system for something so fundamental.</quote> There's an argument to be made that crafting isn't all that fundamental (or at least SHOULDN'T be), and it's really only the shittier excesses of modern indie gaming that have led people to think that complicated crafting systems should somehow be mandatory in every game ever. In D&D terms, characters are adventurers, not artisans. Improvised crafting in the field (or the dungeon, as it were) should mostly be more or less handwaved away to keep the flow of RP moving (ie, you don't need complicated rules to adjudicate simple item creation), and if they're engaging in far more complex crafting (especially of magical items) with the intent to sell them on a major basis they're probably playing the wrong game in the first place. That being said, I'm not going to pretend that the occasional story of a campaign where the players give up adventuring entirely in favor of becoming entrepreneurial merchant princes by crafting and selling magic items (or renting rooms and offering support services in an inn built directly outside the mouth of a famous local dungeon) isn't occasionally fun and interesting to read, but it's not really playing within the bounds of most existing RPGs. It's like being the crazy person who loads up Skyrim and then spends 100 straight hours avoiding fights entirely and just devoting the entirety of your time to mining, harvesting, crafting, and cooking (and inventing your own rules for paying "rent", eating meals, and sleeping regularly). <cite>shadowsword87 posted...</cite> <quote>If something is bad and nobody uses it, is it really bad? A question for the ages.</quote> Not really. If something is bad, and nobody uses it BECAUSE it is bad, then it's still bad. (See also, the rules for playing FATAL) Now, if something has a reputation for being bad, and no one uses it because of that reputation, so there is literally no one who has actually played it to know for sure that it IS bad, then yes, it's actual quality becomes a question, but it's not really a "tree falling in a forest" sort of situation here. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
shadowsword87 09/18/17 2:36:47 PM #269:	ParanoidObsessive posted... That being said, I'm not going to pretend that the occasional story of a campaign where the players give up adventuring entirely in favor of becoming entrepreneurial merchant princes by crafting and selling magic items (or renting rooms and offering support services in an inn built directly outside the mouth of a famous local dungeon) isn't occasionally fun and interesting to read, but it's not really playing within the bounds of most existing RPGs. Oh please, the amount of times I've thought about running a game where everyone are villagers in a stereotypical village that adventurers start in is crazy high. Just seeing what it's like on the other end of the table would be fun for at least a session or two. <cite>shadowsword87 posted [p:886832185] in DMed my se... [t:75526415]...</cite> <quote><cite>ParanoidObsessive posted...</cite> <quote>That being said, I'm not going to pretend that the occasional story of a campaign where the players give up adventuring entirely in favor of becoming entrepreneurial merchant princes by crafting and selling magic items (or renting rooms and offering support services in an inn built directly outside the mouth of a famous local dungeon) isn't occasionally fun and interesting to read, but it's not really playing within the bounds of most existing RPGs. </quote> Oh please, the amount of times I've thought about running a game where everyone are villagers in a stereotypical village that adventurers start in is crazy high. Just seeing what it's like on the other end of the table would be fun for at least a session or two.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ParanoidObsessive 09/18/17 3:46:37 PM #270:	shadowsword87 posted... Oh please, the amount of times I've thought about running a game where everyone are villagers in a stereotypical village that adventurers start in is crazy high. Just seeing what it's like on the other end of the table would be fun for at least a session or two. You can think about running that game all you like, the fact remains that there's very few systems specifically built to run it, and very few players who would be interested in playing it long-term (especially if roped in by expectations of playing a very different sort of game to start with). Generally speaking, if you're sitting down to play a murder hobo simulator, most people are going to want to play murder hobos, not accountants. That being said, if you DO want to play a game that mostly revolves around the more mundane aspects of life in a fantasy setting, there are plenty of card games and board games these days that simulate crafting and economy-type playstyles. But for the most part, players showing up expecting a session of D&D aren't going to be happy if you bait-and-switch them into playing something like Lords of Waterdeep instead. --- "Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76 "POwned again." --- blight family <cite>ParanoidObsessive posted [p:886836197] in DMed my se... [t:75526415]...</cite> <quote><cite>shadowsword87 posted...</cite> <quote>Oh please, the amount of times I've thought about running a game where everyone are villagers in a stereotypical village that adventurers start in is crazy high. Just seeing what it's like on the other end of the table would be fun for at least a session or two.</quote> You can think about running that game all you like, the fact remains that there's very few systems specifically built to run it, and very few players who would be interested in playing it long-term (especially if roped in by expectations of playing a very different sort of game to start with). Generally speaking, if you're sitting down to play a murder hobo simulator, most people are going to want to play murder hobos, not accountants. That being said, if you DO want to play a game that mostly revolves around the more mundane aspects of life in a fantasy setting, there are plenty of card games and board games these days that simulate crafting and economy-type playstyles. But for the most part, players showing up expecting a session of D&D aren't going to be happy if you bait-and-switch them into playing something like Lords of Waterdeep instead. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
shadowsword87 09/18/17 3:51:12 PM #271:	Of course it will be a different system, don't be silly. I was thinking about making a Fiasco playset actually. Maybe a FATE game just super powered down. <cite>shadowsword87 posted [p:886836450] in DMed my se... [t:75526415]...</cite> <quote>Of course it will be a different system, don't be silly. I was thinking about making a Fiasco playset actually. Maybe a FATE game just super powered down.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ParanoidObsessive 09/18/17 4:02:32 PM #272:	The point remains the same, though. Most systems are aimed at very specific types of play, and with everything else being somewhat secondary. You CAN play those systems outside of their own comfort zone, as it were, but at a certain point it's going to involve a lot of homebrew, house rules, and winging it. The fact that in your specific example you're defaulting to extremely generic systems, where you'd basically be building your specific mechanics from the ground up, just sort of underlines that. It's not just a question of D&D, because that implies that D&D itself is the problem. But in the same vein, no one goes into Call of Cthulhu with the intentions of playing a game like Toon, no one goes into a game of Risk trying to achieve a "World Peace" cultural ending, and no one is going to play Traveller from the point-of-view of a comic book super hero. Most systems that try to be everything to everyone either wind up so overly complicated and frustrating that no one wants to use them for anything, or they wind up reduced to such simplistic generic systems that the GM winds up having to do most of the work themselves anyway (which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but still). Very few games require elaborate crafting rules, because there are very few games where crafting is the core gameplay ethos. --- "Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76 "POwned again." --- blight family <cite>ParanoidObsessive posted [p:886837058] in DMed my se... [t:75526415]...</cite> <quote>The point remains the same, though. Most systems are aimed at very specific types of play, and with everything else being somewhat secondary. You CAN play those systems outside of their own comfort zone, as it were, but at a certain point it's going to involve a lot of homebrew, house rules, and winging it. The fact that in your specific example you're defaulting to extremely generic systems, where you'd basically be building your specific mechanics from the ground up, just sort of underlines that. It's not just a question of D&D, because that implies that D&D itself is the problem. But in the same vein, no one goes into Call of Cthulhu with the intentions of playing a game like Toon, no one goes into a game of Risk trying to achieve a "World Peace" cultural ending, and no one is going to play Traveller from the point-of-view of a comic book super hero. Most systems that try to be everything to everyone either wind up so overly complicated and frustrating that no one wants to use them for anything, or they wind up reduced to such simplistic generic systems that the GM winds up having to do most of the work themselves anyway (which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but still). Very few games require elaborate crafting rules, because there are very few games where crafting is the core gameplay ethos. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
shadowsword87 09/18/17 4:36:08 PM #273:	ParanoidObsessive posted... and no one is going to play Traveller from the point-of-view of a comic book super hero. You can totally become a psychic though! Just go to prison, you're more likely to become one. <cite>shadowsword87 posted [p:886838816] in DMed my se... [t:75526415]...</cite> <quote><cite>ParanoidObsessive posted...</cite> <quote>and no one is going to play Traveller from the point-of-view of a comic book super hero.</quote> You can totally become a psychic though! Just go to prison, you're more likely to become one.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
I_Abibde 09/18/17 8:25:26 PM #274:	ParanoidObsessive posted... But in the same vein, no one goes into Call of Cthulhu with the intentions of playing a game like Toon. .... That would be equal parts disturbing and amusing. --- -- I Abibde / Samuraiter Laughing at Game FAQs since 2002. <cite>I_Abibde posted [p:886851484] in DMed my se... [t:75526415]...</cite> <quote><cite>ParanoidObsessive posted...</cite> <quote>But in the same vein, no one goes into Call of Cthulhu with the intentions of playing a game like Toon.</quote> .... That would be equal parts disturbing and amusing.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Babbit55 09/19/17 4:09:21 AM #275:	Soooo my Human Rogue retired (While not planned or forced, made sense for something that happened to the chara) Thoughts on my new chara Pixie Warmage (3.5e) --- GT:- Babbit55 <cite>Babbit55 posted [p:886872344] in DMed my se... [t:75526415]...</cite> <quote>Soooo my Human Rogue retired (While not planned or forced, made sense for something that happened to the chara) Thoughts on my new chara Pixie Warmage (3.5e)</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
shadowsword87 09/20/17 7:16:54 PM #276:	Bump <cite>shadowsword87 posted [p:886976806] in DMed my se... [t:75526415]...</cite> <quote>Bump</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
KthulhuX 09/21/17 5:00:12 AM #277:	Lightning Bolt posted... ParanoidObsessive posted... Materials are a separate system which, as-written, can be replaced by a focus which is analogous to a holy symbol. I'm aware. I don't feel much need to keep track of the details. Inventory management is an unfun thing so I just use the bag as a holy symbol mechanically. Put the inventory management off on the player, with periodic checks. Spell casters are the most overpowered characters in the game, and handwaving away potential limits on their power only exasperates the problem. Despite that, I have seen GMs that strictly enforce the need to purchase, scavenge, and keep track of an archer's arrows; yet they let spellcasters purchase a spell component bag at first level and proceed to pull absolutely anything (from sand to diamonds) out of it for the entirety of that character's career. <cite>KthulhuX posted [p:887001320] in DMed my se... [t:75526415]...</cite> <quote><cite>Lightning Bolt posted...</cite> <quote><cite>ParanoidObsessive posted...</cite> <quote>Materials are a separate system which, as-written, can be replaced by a focus which is analogous to a holy symbol.</quote> I'm aware. I don't feel much need to keep track of the details. Inventory management is an unfun thing so I just use the bag as a holy symbol mechanically.</quote> Put the inventory management off on the player, with periodic checks. Spell casters are the most overpowered characters in the game, and handwaving away potential limits on their power only exasperates the problem. Despite that, I have seen GMs that strictly enforce the need to purchase, scavenge, and keep track of an archer's arrows; yet they let spellcasters purchase a spell component bag at first level and proceed to pull absolutely anything (from sand to diamonds) out of it for the entirety of that character's career.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Babbit55 09/21/17 5:13:58 AM #278:	KthulhuX posted... Lightning Bolt posted... ParanoidObsessive posted... Materials are a separate system which, as-written, can be replaced by a focus which is analogous to a holy symbol. I'm aware. I don't feel much need to keep track of the details. Inventory management is an unfun thing so I just use the bag as a holy symbol mechanically. Put the inventory management off on the player, with periodic checks. Spell casters are the most overpowered characters in the game, and handwaving away potential limits on their power only exasperates the problem. Despite that, I have seen GMs that strictly enforce the need to purchase, scavenge, and keep track of an archer's arrows; yet they let spellcasters purchase a spell component bag at first level and proceed to pull absolutely anything (from sand to diamonds) out of it for the entirety of that character's career. Generally the rule for caster comps is mundane crap needed for a lot of spells is renewed when you go town (Small cost up to the GM) Though the more defined components (100g gem for Identify) you need to pay and get. --- GT:- Babbit55 PC - i5 4670k, 16g ram, RX 480, 2tb hybrid drive. <cite>Babbit55 posted [p:887001568] in DMed my se... [t:75526415]...</cite> <quote><cite>KthulhuX posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Lightning Bolt posted...</cite> <quote><cite>ParanoidObsessive posted...</cite> <quote>Materials are a separate system which, as-written, can be replaced by a focus which is analogous to a holy symbol.</quote> I'm aware. I don't feel much need to keep track of the details. Inventory management is an unfun thing so I just use the bag as a holy symbol mechanically.</quote> Put the inventory management off on the player, with periodic checks. Spell casters are the most overpowered characters in the game, and handwaving away potential limits on their power only exasperates the problem. Despite that, I have seen GMs that strictly enforce the need to purchase, scavenge, and keep track of an archer's arrows; yet they let spellcasters purchase a spell component bag at first level and proceed to pull absolutely anything (from sand to diamonds) out of it for the entirety of that character's career.</quote> Generally the rule for caster comps is mundane crap needed for a lot of spells is renewed when you go town (Small cost up to the GM) Though the more defined components (100g gem for Identify) you need to pay and get.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ParanoidObsessive 09/21/17 7:05:41 AM #279:	KthulhuX posted... Spell casters are the most overpowered characters in the game, and handwaving away potential limits on their power only exasperates the problem. I feel like the main check on spellcaster power is that most of them have very limited HP, and an intelligent GM playing NPCs they way NPCs would actually behave can exploit that. To wit, if you're an NPC in a fantasy world where magic exists, and you KNOW magic exists, and a group of people show up to kill you, you can probably tell just by looking at them what their specialties are (the dude wearing full plate armor and holding a greatsword is pretty clearly a warrior of some kind, while the asshole in the back wearing robes and holding a staff is probably a wizard). And if you know that powerful wizards can throw fireballs or pull meteors out of the sky, the most intelligent thing you can possibly do is gank the caster first (especially since most of them are generally weak, and will go down to a few hits). Clear the field of major threats and mop up the walking tanks afterward. (And there's the added bonus of, even if you don't kill the wizard in one hit, you're still likely to break their concentration when you smack them in the face with an axe, which limits their utility a bit when it comes to prolonged spells.) In a similar vein, if you're in a fight and you see one of the enemies going around healing their allies, they should probably become priority target number 1. Being able to knock opponents down doesn't matter if you can't KEEP them down. A lot of people today sort of have the mentality (spawned by MMO design) that Tanks exist to draw aggro and take hits, so enemies should always focus on them first (allowing the back row spellcasters to do their job), but realistically speaking, NPCs should prioritize magic users as the primary threat and do everything in their power to kill them ASAP. Tanks and Defender-type characters can still lock down enemies (in D&D, mainly by getting up in their grill and forcing attacks of opportunity if they try to go after your squishier allies), but NPCs should in no way be obligated to play along with that strategy (especially if they have bonus disengage abilities or ranged attacks of their own). There's also the potential balance from the fact that, while spellcasters get insanely potent at higher levels, most of them are incredibly fragile at lower levels. So depending on how you play, they may get the whole team killed early on anyway. --- "Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76 "POwned again." --- blight family <cite>ParanoidObsessive posted [p:887003865] in DMed my se... [t:75526415]...</cite> <quote><cite>KthulhuX posted...</cite> <quote>Spell casters are the most overpowered characters in the game, and handwaving away potential limits on their power only exasperates the problem.</quote> I feel like the main check on spellcaster power is that most of them have very limited HP, and an intelligent GM playing NPCs they way NPCs would actually behave can exploit that. To wit, if you're an NPC in a fantasy world where magic exists, and you KNOW magic exists, and a group of people show up to kill you, you can probably tell just by looking at them what their specialties are (the dude wearing full plate armor and holding a greatsword is pretty clearly a warrior of some kind, while the asshole in the back wearing robes and holding a staff is probably a wizard). And if you know that powerful wizards can throw fireballs or pull meteors out of the sky, the most intelligent thing you can possibly do is gank the caster first (especially since most of them are generally weak, and will go down to a few hits). Clear the field of major threats and mop up the walking tanks afterward. (And there's the added bonus of, even if you don't kill the wizard in one hit, you're still likely to break their concentration when you smack them in the face with an axe, which limits their utility a bit when it comes to prolonged spells.) In a similar vein, if you're in a fight and you see one of the enemies going around healing their allies, they should probably become priority target number 1. Being able to knock opponents down doesn't matter if you can't KEEP them down. A lot of people today sort of have the mentality (spawned by MMO design) that Tanks exist to draw aggro and take hits, so enemies should always focus on them first (allowing the back row spellcasters to do their job), but realistically speaking, NPCs should prioritize magic users as the primary threat and do everything in their power to kill them ASAP. Tanks and Defender-type characters can still lock down enemies (in D&D, mainly by getting up in their grill and forcing attacks of opportunity if they try to go after your squishier allies), but NPCs should in no way be obligated to play along with that strategy (especially if they have bonus disengage abilities or ranged attacks of their own). There's also the potential balance from the fact that, while spellcasters get insanely potent at higher levels, most of them are incredibly fragile at lower levels. So depending on how you play, they may get the whole team killed early on anyway. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
shadowsword87 09/21/17 9:41:54 AM #280:	There's the other factor that people don't follow a lot: It's a f*ing game I play with my friends and I don't care about small things that don't impact the story. <cite>shadowsword87 posted [p:887008642] in DMed my se... [t:75526415]...</cite> <quote>There's the other factor that people don't follow a lot: It's a f*ing game I play with my friends and I don't care about small things that don't impact the story.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ParanoidObsessive 09/22/17 7:38:41 PM #281:	shadowsword87 posted... There's the other factor that people don't follow a lot: It's a f**ing game I play with my friends and I don't care about small things that don't impact the story. To be fair, balance is still important even then, because if one player at the table is playing an overpowered monster while everyone else is relatively weak, they may potentially start hogging the spotlight and ruining everyone else's fun. At least some effort needs to be put in to try and make sure that every player is getting their chance to shine both in and out of combat. That being said, you already know* I'm a huge proponent of the players having fun being the number one priority, even if that means ignoring, rewriting, or flat out shitting on the rules as written (or doing away with rules entirely). In fact, I've been pondering an idea along those lines recently. Mainly, if you're potentially playing with new players who are relatively unfamiliar with the game, or possibly just players who want less of a straight-up challenge and more the vicarious thrill of demolishing their way through everything in their path, having a sort of "easy" difficulty mode. For example, in games like Mass Effect and Dragon Age, there are multiple difficultly settings. The default option (ie, the way the developers intended to provide a challenging experience) is "Normal", but players who want more of a tactical combat challenge can up the difficulty to "Hard" (or "Insanity"/"Nightmare"), while people who don't give a shit about the combat and/or who don't feel like they need to validate themselves by beating the most hardcore of challenges coughDark Soulscough, or who just want to focus entirely on the narrative and dialogue/choice aspects of the game can always drop the difficulty down to "Easy" (or even the shameful(!) "Casual") and play the game in way more relaxed fashion. And since I almost always PLAY those types of games on Casual (because I do not give the remotest of fucks about optimal builds or trying to wrestle my way through BioWare's shitty idea of what good combat mechanics are supposed to be), it occurred to me that it might be interesting to have a sort of "Easy/Casual" mode for D&D. The way I was thinking of implementing something like that was to have a feat, ability, or artifact (mostly for flavor purposes - mechanically, it shouldn't matter how you do it) that automatically gives a player +2 to all attack rolls, +2 to all saves/checks, and +2 to AC. That way, the DM can run the game exactly the same way they normally would, but the player would have a subtle advantage, and be far likely to succeed and survive than they normally would. That way, newer players would essentially have "training wheels" that help protect them from their own beginner's mistakes (and which could be removed later, once they feel more confident and knowledgeable), while both old and new players who simply want a more epic, heroic, action-hero beatdown where they always seem to have the edge can play a more relaxed game with greater odds of success and lower odds of PK or TPK. Also, handling difficulty as a player-attached modifier rather than by rescaling the entire difficulty of all encounters/the adventure itself would even allow different players at the same table to have different levels of difficulty, assuming they don't mind the unbalancing effect, which some groups would be fine with). So you could have a game group where one player is playing on "Easy" and getting the bonuses, one player is handicapping themselves with -2 modifiers for "Hard Mode", and everyone else is just playing normally. (slightly more to come) --- "Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76 "POwned again." --- blight family <cite>ParanoidObsessive posted [p:887106095] in DMed my se... [t:75526415]...</cite> <quote><cite>shadowsword87 posted...</cite> <quote>There's the other factor that people don't follow a lot: It's a f**ing game I play with my friends and I don't care about small things that don't impact the story.</quote> To be fair, balance is still important even then, because if one player at the table is playing an overpowered monster while everyone else is relatively weak, they may potentially start hogging the spotlight and ruining everyone else's fun. At least some effort needs to be put in to try and make sure that every player is getting their chance to shine both in and out of combat. That being said, you already know I'm a huge proponent of the players having fun being the number one priority, even if that means ignoring, rewriting, or flat out shitting on the rules as written (or doing away with rules entirely). In fact, I've been pondering an idea along those lines recently. Mainly, if you're potentially playing with new players who are relatively unfamiliar with the game, or possibly just players who want less of a straight-up challenge and more the vicarious thrill of demolishing their way through everything in their path, having a sort of "easy" difficulty mode. For example, in games like Mass Effect and Dragon Age, there are multiple difficultly settings. The default option (ie, the way the developers intended to provide a challenging experience) is "Normal", but players who want more of a tactical combat challenge can up the difficulty to "Hard" (or "Insanity"/"Nightmare"), while people who don't give a shit about the combat and/or who don't feel like they need to validate themselves by beating the most hardcore of challenges coughDark Soulscough*, or who just want to focus entirely on the narrative and dialogue/choice aspects of the game can always drop the difficulty down to "Easy" (or even the shameful(!) "Casual") and play the game in way more relaxed fashion. And since I almost always PLAY those types of games on Casual (because I do not give the remotest of fucks about optimal builds or trying to wrestle my way through BioWare's shitty idea of what good combat mechanics are supposed to be), it occurred to me that it might be interesting to have a sort of "Easy/Casual" mode for D&D. The way I was thinking of implementing something like that was to have a feat, ability, or artifact (mostly for flavor purposes - mechanically, it shouldn't matter how you do it) that automatically gives a player +2 to all attack rolls, +2 to all saves/checks, and +2 to AC. That way, the DM can run the game exactly the same way they normally would, but the player would have a subtle advantage, and be far likely to succeed and survive than they normally would. That way, newer players would essentially have "training wheels" that help protect them from their own beginner's mistakes (and which could be removed later, once they feel more confident and knowledgeable), while both old and new players who simply want a more epic, heroic, action-hero beatdown where they always seem to have the edge can play a more relaxed game with greater odds of success and lower odds of PK or TPK. Also, handling difficulty as a player-attached modifier rather than by rescaling the entire difficulty of all encounters/the adventure itself would even allow different players at the same table to have different levels of difficulty, assuming they don't mind the unbalancing effect, which some groups would be fine with). So you could have a game group where one player is playing on "Easy" and getting the bonuses, one player is handicapping themselves with -2 modifiers for "Hard Mode", and everyone else is just playing normally. (slightly more to come) </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ParanoidObsessive 09/22/17 7:43:43 PM #282:	(grumbleDamned character limitgrumble) Following on from the above, my only other musings was whether or not the bonus/penalty should apply to anything else beyond attack/save/check/AC (like maybe adding to damage and/or healing rolls?), and whether or not +/- 2 was the best value to use for it (at one point I started thinking that +2 might not be enough to overcome bad RNG, so I thought about using +5 instead, but then that seemed like it might be too much). I have no idea if anyone else has ever come up with an idea like this before, so I have no idea if anyone else has ever crunched all of the numbers and ran the necessary probability charts and calculations to determine just how much of a difference it would make (I'm sure someone probably has, even if only in an unrelated context), but I do think the overall idea would be kind of interesting to apply to a game. --- "Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76 "POwned again." --- blight family <cite>ParanoidObsessive posted [p:887106343] in DMed my se... [t:75526415]...</cite> <quote>(grumbleDamned character limitgrumble) Following on from the above, my only other musings was whether or not the bonus/penalty should apply to anything else beyond attack/save/check/AC (like maybe adding to damage and/or healing rolls?), and whether or not +/- 2 was the best value to use for it (at one point I started thinking that +2 might not be enough to overcome bad RNG, so I thought about using +5 instead, but then that seemed like it might be too much). I have no idea if anyone else has ever come up with an idea like this before, so I have no idea if anyone else has ever crunched all of the numbers and ran the necessary probability charts and calculations to determine just how much of a difference it would make (I'm sure someone probably has, even if only in an unrelated context), but I do think the overall idea would be kind of interesting to apply to a game. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Lightning Bolt 09/23/17 12:10:07 AM #283:	Honestly, at that point I'd start removing mechanics before I nerf them to oblivion. Why even play lip service to challenges if none of them require any decision-making to overcome? It's the equivalent of "why does this game have combat if it's just mashing the A button forever?" I guess you could just say "You win!" over and over and over, but at that point it's not far from porn. Indulgence is an acceptable feeling, but it's not long-lasting. You could get away with the party roflstomping everything for a session or two, but if it happens over and over then I'd rather you move on to more interesting events and just skip the combat. To clarify, I do believe it's possible to make a fun game without challenge. And dropping the difficulty of a game to Easy because you don't want the challenge is fine. But leaving in the elements that only served challenge ends up awkward, like an undelivered promise, once they're no longer challenging. As for direct feedback on whether your idea would do what it says... as a powergamer (I frequently have to change my build and nerf myself after a few sessions when I'm a player :D) your feat thing doesn't work at all for me. It's a cooperative game, where me getting a +2 to damage and the other guy getting a -2 ends up averaging out to null. It doesn't make my job acceptably hard, nor his job any easier. I find that differentiating player difficulty in a cooperative setting is best done through roles. For instance, in an MMO, the tank has the job of going in first, marking targets, and ensuring that enemies are in the optimal positions for DPS to do their job. Since this semi-easy job takes on a sense of leadership (the tank is the one who decides the terms of any engagement), they're also generally given the difficult role of leader. They have to strategize and organize most groups, deal with scheduling and loot distribution in more formal groups (necessary for high-end play), and control the pacing of literally every group they run with. Odd jobs make any role much more difficult than originally designed, and provide a neat way for players to manage their own difficulty. I mean, only one person really needs to manage loot. Give that job to the guy who wishes the game were more mathy. --- One day dude, I'm just gonna get off the bus, and I'm gonna run in the woods and never come back, and when I come back I'm gonna be the knife master! -The Rev <cite>Lightning Bolt posted [p:887119329] in DMed my se... [t:75526415]...</cite> <quote>Honestly, at that point I'd start removing mechanics before I nerf them to oblivion. Why even play lip service to challenges if none of them require any decision-making to overcome? It's the equivalent of "why does this game have combat if it's just mashing the A button forever?" I guess you could just say "You win!" over and over and over, but at that point it's not far from porn. Indulgence is an acceptable feeling, but it's not long-lasting. You could get away with the party roflstomping everything for a session or two, but if it happens over and over then I'd rather you move on to more interesting events and just skip the combat. To clarify, I do believe it's possible to make a fun game without challenge. And dropping the difficulty of a game to Easy because you don't want the challenge is fine. But leaving in the elements that only served challenge ends up awkward, like an undelivered promise, once they're no longer challenging. As for direct feedback on whether your idea would do what it says... as a powergamer (I frequently have to change my build and nerf myself after a few sessions when I'm a player :D) your feat thing doesn't work at all for me. It's a cooperative game, where me getting a +2 to damage and the other guy getting a -2 ends up averaging out to null. It doesn't make my job acceptably hard, nor his job any easier. I find that differentiating player difficulty in a cooperative setting is best done through roles. For instance, in an MMO, the tank has the job of going in first, marking targets, and ensuring that enemies are in the optimal positions for DPS to do their job. Since this semi-easy job takes on a sense of leadership (the tank is the one who decides the terms of any engagement), they're also generally given the difficult role of leader. They have to strategize and organize most groups, deal with scheduling and loot distribution in more formal groups (necessary for high-end play), and control the pacing of literally every group they run with. Odd jobs make any role much more difficult than originally designed, and provide a neat way for players to manage their own difficulty. I mean, only one person really needs to manage loot. Give that job to the guy who wishes the game were more mathy.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ParanoidObsessive 09/24/17 12:41:24 PM #285:	Two deleted posts? Interesting. ~also bumping topic~ --- "Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76 "POwned again." --- blight family <cite>ParanoidObsessive posted [p:887197494] in DMed my se... [t:75526415]...</cite> <quote>Two deleted posts? Interesting. ~also bumping topic~ </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
shadowsword87 09/24/17 12:51:29 PM #286:	I think that was lightning, but I'm not sure. <cite>shadowsword87 posted [p:887198032] in DMed my se... [t:75526415]...</cite> <quote>I think that was lightning, but I'm not sure.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Lightning Bolt 09/24/17 1:06:54 PM #287:	It was. I wasn't feeling well and it came out kinda gibberish. --- One day dude, I'm just gonna get off the bus, and I'm gonna run in the woods and never come back, and when I come back I'm gonna be the knife master! -The Rev <cite>Lightning Bolt posted [p:887198832] in DMed my se... [t:75526415]...</cite> <quote>It was. I wasn't feeling well and it came out kinda gibberish.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
I_Abibde 09/24/17 7:00:16 PM #288:	ponders Might as well get the cheap joke out of the way: Easy / Casual Mode for D&D is not 5th Edition? --- -- I Abibde / Samuraiter Laughing at Game FAQs since 2002. <cite>I_Abibde posted [p:887219575] in DMed my se... [t:75526415]...</cite> <quote>ponders Might as well get the cheap joke out of the way: Easy / Casual Mode for D&D is not 5th Edition?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
shadowsword87 09/24/17 7:02:33 PM #289:	I guess you could go with 4e. Everything else is hell on wheels for learning the system. <cite>shadowsword87 posted [p:887219731] in DMed my se... [t:75526415]...</cite> <quote>I guess you could go with 4e. Everything else is hell on wheels for learning the system.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
synth_real 09/24/17 7:18:02 PM #290:	ParanoidObsessive posted... if they're engaging in far more complex crafting (especially of magical items) with the intent to sell them on a major basis they're probably playing the wrong game in the first place. What if they're doing it to bankroll their grand adventures? Gear, transportation, food, and allies aren't cheap, you know --- "I'm the straightest guy on this board. I'm so straight that I watch gay porn." - Smarkil <cite>synth_real posted [p:887220686] in DMed my se... [t:75526415]...</cite> <quote><cite>ParanoidObsessive posted...</cite> <quote>if they're engaging in far more complex crafting (especially of magical items) with the intent to sell them on a major basis they're probably playing the wrong game in the first place.</quote> What if they're doing it to bankroll their grand adventures? Gear, transportation, food, and allies aren't cheap, you know</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mario_VS_DK 09/25/17 8:37:23 AM #291:	Aw, I'm sad now. My next character was nerfed into nonexistence before I even had a chance to use them. Thanks Paizo... :( Unless maybe I get my current character killed next session and bring them in before the the changes go up on the SRDs... Tempting... Either that or beg my DM to use the old version. :/ --- Stupid signature! <cite>Mario_VS_DK posted [p:887250833] in DMed my se... [t:75526415]...</cite> <quote>Aw, I'm sad now. My next character was nerfed into nonexistence before I even had a chance to use them. Thanks Paizo... :( Unless maybe I get my current character killed next session and bring them in before the the changes go up on the SRDs... Tempting... Either that or beg my DM to use the old version. :/</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
I_Abibde 09/25/17 8:57:18 AM #292:	Mario_VS_DK posted... My next character was nerfed into nonexistence before I even had a chance to use them. Thanks Paizo. Details, Mario. What build were you trying to use, and what nerfed it? --- -- I Abibde / Samuraiter Laughing at Game FAQs since 2002. <cite>I_Abibde posted [p:887251395] in DMed my se... [t:75526415]...</cite> <quote><cite>Mario_VS_DK posted...</cite> <quote>My next character was nerfed into nonexistence before I even had a chance to use them. Thanks Paizo.</quote> Details, Mario. What build were you trying to use, and what nerfed it?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mario_VS_DK 09/25/17 9:43:44 AM #293:	I guess I should start by saying it's Pathfinder. I was going to be going Kensai Magus with a whip, using mostly debuff spells and intimidate. At level 6 I was going to take 6 levels in Souldrinker and get the Conductive enchantment on my whip. The Souldrinker gets an ability that allows them to, as a melee touch attack, apply 1 negative level to a target (or 2 at 6 levels of Souldrinker) and give you 5 temp HP and give you a point in your soul pool for each negative level it applies. The conductive enchantment lets me apply a touch ability with the hit of a melee weapon. That would effectively let me apply negative levels to anyone I hit and heal me a little bit once per round in addition to the other debuffs I'm applying. And I could use the soul pool points to recharge my spells, staffs (if for some reason I have one), or for crafting at 100gp per point. Also, I would get a cacodaemon which can once per day suck up someone's soul and put it in a soul gem worth 100+gp for me. Now... Instead of a melee touch attack, it's just Enervation (which is a ranged spell that applies a few negative levels) as a spell-like ability, which means it's not compatible with the conductive enchantment, and it's also only usable a certain amount of times per day. On the bright side (I think) it allows you to gain points in your soul pool whenever you apply a negative level. Unfortunately, magi don't really have any tools for doing that. In addition, soul gems only last for a few days, so you can't stockpile them for healing or crafting. I'm not sure of the exact details since I don't have the book yet, but that's what I've been told. Now the character has literally no reason to take levels in the souldrinker class, and not taking the levels makes them your typical kensai magus with a whip and absolutely nothing special about them. It was already a pretty suboptimal prestige class too since you need to be a caster to take levels in it, and it takes away 2 of your caster levels, slowing your spell progression. --- Stupid signature! <cite>Mario_VS_DK posted [p:887252864] in DMed my se... [t:75526415]...</cite> <quote>I guess I should start by saying it's Pathfinder. I was going to be going Kensai Magus with a whip, using mostly debuff spells and intimidate. At level 6 I was going to take 6 levels in Souldrinker and get the Conductive enchantment on my whip. The Souldrinker gets an ability that allows them to, as a melee touch attack, apply 1 negative level to a target (or 2 at 6 levels of Souldrinker) and give you 5 temp HP and give you a point in your soul pool for each negative level it applies. The conductive enchantment lets me apply a touch ability with the hit of a melee weapon. That would effectively let me apply negative levels to anyone I hit and heal me a little bit once per round in addition to the other debuffs I'm applying. And I could use the soul pool points to recharge my spells, staffs (if for some reason I have one), or for crafting at 100gp per point. Also, I would get a cacodaemon which can once per day suck up someone's soul and put it in a soul gem worth 100+gp for me. Now... Instead of a melee touch attack, it's just Enervation (which is a ranged spell that applies a few negative levels) as a spell-like ability, which means it's not compatible with the conductive enchantment, and it's also only usable a certain amount of times per day. On the bright side (I think) it allows you to gain points in your soul pool whenever you apply a negative level. Unfortunately, magi don't really have any tools for doing that. In addition, soul gems only last for a few days, so you can't stockpile them for healing or crafting. I'm not sure of the exact details since I don't have the book yet, but that's what I've been told. Now the character has literally no reason to take levels in the souldrinker class, and not taking the levels makes them your typical kensai magus with a whip and absolutely nothing special about them. It was already a pretty suboptimal prestige class too since you need to be a caster to take levels in it, and it takes away 2 of your caster levels, slowing your spell progression.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
shadowsword87 09/25/17 9:44:48 AM #294:	Ugh, negative levels, just thinking about that for a PC gives me a headache. <cite>shadowsword87 posted [p:887252908] in DMed my se... [t:75526415]...</cite> <quote>Ugh, negative levels, just thinking about that for a PC gives me a headache.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mario_VS_DK 09/25/17 9:49:51 AM #295:	Negative levels aren't really too difficult to deal with. (I mean from a recalculation perspective. They can be kind of annoying to remove, but since I'd be applying them to NPCs that'd never be an issue.) It's basically -5 HP and -1 on all d20 rolls per negative level. --- Stupid signature! <cite>Mario_VS_DK posted [p:887253086] in DMed my se... [t:75526415]...</cite> <quote>Negative levels aren't really too difficult to deal with. (I mean from a recalculation perspective. They can be kind of annoying to remove, but since I'd be applying them to NPCs that'd never be an issue.) It's basically -5 HP and -1 on all d20 rolls per negative level.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
I_Abibde 09/26/17 5:45:16 AM #296:	looks at that description I can see why they changed it, but it feels a bit like your build had one too many Jenga blocks stacked up, anyway. --- -- I Abibde / Samuraiter Laughing at Game FAQs since 2002. <cite>I_Abibde posted [p:887309930] in DMed my se... [t:75526415]...</cite> <quote>looks at that description I can see why they changed it, but it feels a bit like your build had one too many Jenga blocks stacked up, anyway.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mario_VS_DK 09/26/17 7:14:10 AM #297:	Eh. It would be a lot more efficient to just stay as a magus actually. Pathfinder really encourages staying as your base class. Assuming the character hits level 20, they would lose effectively 3 feats, 3 class abilities, 2 BAB and have d6 hit dice for 6 levels as a front liner in addition to a few of your abilities being 6 levels behind. Mostly just for just an extra 10 damage and 10 temp HP per round, if you can hit, and some extra cash. --- In other news, the game I'm DMing is starting back up after about 5 weeks hiatus this weekend. I probably should have used those 5 weeks to get everything ready in advance. --- Stupid signature! <cite>Mario_VS_DK posted [p:887311516] in DMed my se... [t:75526415]...</cite> <quote>Eh. It would be a lot more efficient to just stay as a magus actually. Pathfinder really encourages staying as your base class. Assuming the character hits level 20, they would lose effectively 3 feats, 3 class abilities, 2 BAB and have d6 hit dice for 6 levels as a front liner in addition to a few of your abilities being 6 levels behind. Mostly just for just an extra 10 damage and 10 temp HP per round, if you can hit, and some extra cash. --- In other news, the game I'm DMing is starting back up after about 5 weeks hiatus this weekend. I probably should have used those 5 weeks to get everything ready in advance.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ParanoidObsessive 09/26/17 11:51:26 AM #298:	synth_real posted... ParanoidObsessive posted... if they're engaging in far more complex crafting (especially of magical items) with the intent to sell them on a major basis they're probably playing the wrong game in the first place. What if they're doing it to bankroll their grand adventures? Gear, transportation, food, and allies aren't cheap, you know That can easily be handled with a simplistic system, or handwaved away as a downtime activity (okay, roll one d20 to see how well you craft, the quality of your goods will determine how much GP you can generate over a specific span of time between adventuring). Crafting as adventuring support doesn't really require robust crafting rules. Robust crafting rules are really only necessary if you're playing a game where the PCs are planning to be full-time merchants. shadowsword87 posted... Ugh, negative levels, just thinking about that for a PC gives me a headache. I loathe level drain as a mechanic. Especially versions where you don't get those levels/XP back after a long rest/Restoration, and they're pretty much lost forever. I lump it in with a number of older 1st edition rules as part of Gygax's "I hate my players and want to kill their PCs" mentality of running the game. There are WAY too many insta-kill or "Welp, you're straight up fucked" mechanics in the earlier editions, some of which have lasted way, way longer than they have any right to. --- "Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76 "POwned again." --- blight family <cite>ParanoidObsessive posted [p:887322127] in DMed my se... [t:75526415]...</cite> <quote><cite>synth_real posted...</cite> <quote><cite>ParanoidObsessive posted...</cite> <quote>if they're engaging in far more complex crafting (especially of magical items) with the intent to sell them on a major basis they're probably playing the wrong game in the first place.</quote> What if they're doing it to bankroll their grand adventures? Gear, transportation, food, and allies aren't cheap, you know</quote> That can easily be handled with a simplistic system, or handwaved away as a downtime activity (okay, roll one d20 to see how well you craft, the quality of your goods will determine how much GP you can generate over a specific span of time between adventuring). Crafting as adventuring support doesn't really require robust crafting rules. Robust crafting rules are really only necessary if you're playing a game where the PCs are planning to be full-time merchants. <cite>shadowsword87 posted...</cite> <quote>Ugh, negative levels, just thinking about that for a PC gives me a headache.</quote> I loathe level drain as a mechanic. Especially versions where you don't get those levels/XP back after a long rest/Restoration, and they're pretty much lost forever. I lump it in with a number of older 1st edition rules as part of Gygax's "I hate my players and want to kill their PCs" mentality of running the game. There are WAY too many insta-kill or "Welp, you're straight up fucked" mechanics in the earlier editions, some of which have lasted way, way longer than they have any right to. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ParanoidObsessive 09/26/17 12:11:00 PM #299:	Also, here's another side-question (speaking of playing as merchants): What would you consider the wealth thresholds to be in the average D&D/fantasy world? To explain a bit better, we can assume the average peasant farmer owns very little of value other than their land (if they even own that, since they wouldn't in feudal systems), their tools, and maybe a extremely small number of fluid coins. Meanwhile, someone who lives in a village or town likely has a significantly higher level of net worth, while merchants would have even more. Nobles are tricky (because you can technically be a titled noble but basically be penniless - which is the origin story of a LOT of adventurers), but in general a wealthy "old money" noble family is going to have a ton of assets and liquidity available. This essentially creates a bit of a class system (if not a straight-up caste system), where there is little to no upward mobility, because most people can't earn enough money in their lifetime to ever really "move up" in the world. Which, in and of itself, implies that there are relatively recognizable differences between what people in that world would see as "rich" versus what they would see as "comfortable" or "poor". Adventurers break most of these rules, but that's the entire point of adventurers - they're the ones who step outside of the existing socioeconomic structure and leapfrog across social boundaries. It's why they're often treated as a class all their own in many settings, and why even NPCs tend to immediately acknowledge that there's a difference between "average soldier" and "Fighter". Adventurers are also the ones most likely to find massive caches of ancient gold or legendary treasures that turn them from being hand-to-mouth hobos to affluent merchant princes in the span of an afternoon, which is sort of why I'm asking this question in the first place. The average adventurer usually starts with almost nothing (other than maybe the shirt on their back or an old sword passed down through their family for generations), and winds up being one of the richest and most influential people in their entire world (assuming they survive to "retirement"). So I was wondering, say the average peasant (but NOT a PC adventurer) somehow found a chest of gold coins. How much would there need to be for him to really lift himself up to the next level (presumably via investments and at least some business savvy), rather than simply having enough to live the good life for a few months before going back to the previous status quo? Just how much gold WOULD the stereotypical fairy tale pauper need to discover in order to become a merchant prince or establish themselves as nobility (via wealth rather than political acknowledgement)? If an adventurer retired with about 10,000 gold worth of net value, what would that parley into in the grand scheme of things? Would they still mostly be hand-to-mouth, just staying in better inns, eating better food, and drinking better booze? Would they be able to set themselves up as minor nobles in a really nice manorhouse somewhere and live out the rest of their lives relatively comfortably? Or would they have to go out of their way to invest that income in order to maintain anything resembling a stable lifestyle? What if they retired with 50,000 instead? Or 100,000? I know most systems have rules for living at various means (subsistence/comfortable/wealthy/etc) between adventures, but that tends to assume active adventurers still doing minor jobs or crafting to support themselves. I'm thinking more in terms of someone with a specific amount of value basically using that value to try and buy themselves a static place in society rather than still maintaining a mostly nomadic or flexible lifestyle. --- "Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76 "POwned again." --- blight family <cite>ParanoidObsessive posted [p:887323163] in DMed my se... [t:75526415]...</cite> <quote>Also, here's another side-question (speaking of playing as merchants): What would you consider the wealth thresholds to be in the average D&D/fantasy world? To explain a bit better, we can assume the average peasant farmer owns very little of value other than their land (if they even own that, since they wouldn't in feudal systems), their tools, and maybe a extremely small number of fluid coins. Meanwhile, someone who lives in a village or town likely has a significantly higher level of net worth, while merchants would have even more. Nobles are tricky (because you can technically be a titled noble but basically be penniless - which is the origin story of a LOT of adventurers), but in general a wealthy "old money" noble family is going to have a ton of assets and liquidity available. This essentially creates a bit of a class system (if not a straight-up caste system), where there is little to no upward mobility, because most people can't earn enough money in their lifetime to ever really "move up" in the world. Which, in and of itself, implies that there are relatively recognizable differences between what people in that world would see as "rich" versus what they would see as "comfortable" or "poor". Adventurers break most of these rules, but that's the entire point of adventurers - they're the ones who step outside of the existing socioeconomic structure and leapfrog across social boundaries. It's why they're often treated as a class all their own in many settings, and why even NPCs tend to immediately acknowledge that there's a difference between "average soldier" and "Fighter". Adventurers are also the ones most likely to find massive caches of ancient gold or legendary treasures that turn them from being hand-to-mouth hobos to affluent merchant princes in the span of an afternoon, which is sort of why I'm asking this question in the first place. The average adventurer usually starts with almost nothing (other than maybe the shirt on their back or an old sword passed down through their family for generations), and winds up being one of the richest and most influential people in their entire world (assuming they survive to "retirement"). So I was wondering, say the average peasant (but NOT a PC adventurer) somehow found a chest of gold coins. How much would there need to be for him to really lift himself up to the next level (presumably via investments and at least some business savvy), rather than simply having enough to live the good life for a few months before going back to the previous status quo? Just how much gold WOULD the stereotypical fairy tale pauper need to discover in order to become a merchant prince or establish themselves as nobility (via wealth rather than political acknowledgement)? If an adventurer retired with about 10,000 gold worth of net value, what would that parley into in the grand scheme of things? Would they still mostly be hand-to-mouth, just staying in better inns, eating better food, and drinking better booze? Would they be able to set themselves up as minor nobles in a really nice manorhouse somewhere and live out the rest of their lives relatively comfortably? Or would they have to go out of their way to invest that income in order to maintain anything resembling a stable lifestyle? What if they retired with 50,000 instead? Or 100,000? I know most systems have rules for living at various means (subsistence/comfortable/wealthy/etc) between adventures, but that tends to assume active adventurers still doing minor jobs or crafting to support themselves. I'm thinking more in terms of someone with a specific amount of value basically using that value to try and buy themselves a static place in society rather than still maintaining a mostly nomadic or flexible lifestyle. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
shadowsword87 09/26/17 2:03:16 PM #300:	I'm not sure what the relevance is for any sort of game tbh. Are you figuring out how NPCs act when PCs wave around PC money? Because beyond that it's not really relevant. <cite>shadowsword87 posted [p:887329285] in DMed my se... [t:75526415]...</cite> <quote>I'm not sure what the relevance is for any sort of game tbh. Are you figuring out how NPCs act when PCs wave around PC money? Because beyond that it's not really relevant.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ParanoidObsessive 09/26/17 7:36:32 PM #301:	shadowsword87 posted... I'm not sure what the relevance is for any sort of game tbh. Who said that any question I ask ever is meant to be relevant for any game at any point? I like to brainstorm. Throwing out tons of ideas can help with inspiration. --- "Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76 "POwned again." --- blight family <cite>ParanoidObsessive posted [p:887349528] in DMed my se... [t:75526415]...</cite> <quote><cite>shadowsword87 posted...</cite> <quote>I'm not sure what the relevance is for any sort of game tbh.</quote> Who said that any question I ask ever is meant to be relevant for any game at any point? I like to brainstorm. Throwing out tons of ideas can help with inspiration. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
I_Abibde 09/26/17 8:48:45 PM #302:	Considering that a subsistence lifestyle is measured in coppers and silvers, a single gold piece can make a big difference to a peasant, but that is only one threshold. --- -- I Abibde / Samuraiter Laughing at Game FAQs since 2002. <cite>I_Abibde posted [p:887353602] in DMed my se... [t:75526415]...</cite> <quote>Considering that a subsistence lifestyle is measured in coppers and silvers, a single gold piece can make a big difference to a peasant, but that is only one threshold.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mario_VS_DK 09/26/17 10:44:50 PM #303:	Knowing that sort of stuff can also go a long ways toward making your world a lot more believable to the players too. You can actually learn a lot from the world by knowing how much money is in it and how much of that money any specific person would have. One thing that inspired me to do the calculations for how much money is in my world (all of which I never saved and have since forgotten) was someone's world where they just broke it all down into what is the logical way the people of the world would use the magic to improve their lives. And the biggest factor in that was teleportation circles (also also wish traps that continuously pop out money, food, and other resources). I don't have the link anymore, but it went something like this: Farming towns die off first, due to easy access to spells like create food and water. Then cities start making teleportation circles to transport resources. This means a lot of the smaller towns along the roads no longer get traffic and have difficulty staying alive until they finally move off to the cities or die. So we've lost farming towns and resting/touristy towns, so what's left apart from the big cities? Well, there's mining towns, but not for much longer. Once they start figuring out that wish exists and can create other resources, once they figure out how to do this, those towns die off too. So what's left? Just a bunch of big cities. The way the author had it however was that the cities start going to war using teleportation circles as the primary attack method. As the author said, you could immediately, with no warning, teleport an army into the middle of the enemy city deal damage and then get out. However, I feel as though this wouldn't happen even in this situation as the cities (which are basically nations at this point) are no longer competing over resources. They have zero reason to attack each other. (Maybe apart from maybe religion.) So why didn't any of this happen in my world? Well, I decided that it's extremely rare for anyone to actually be able to create teleportation circles (let alone automatic wish creation), and those that do are either too quirky, smart, or have other reasons to not sell them to cities. (There's currently no one in my world a high enough level to do so.) In addition, I also decided that an overuse of magic has a tendency to draw monsters to the location, potentially destroying it. And I've been slowly hinting this to my players by having a mage (mentioned in the OP) trying to create an infinite source of food and having increased monster activity in the area as a result. The reason I did the math for the money in the world was actually to see how feasible it was to create those teleportation circles and how many cities would have them, or if smaller towns could create them. Like I said, I can't remember my math, but I vaguely recall them being relatively cheap compared to the amount of money a city would have. Darn. I can't remember the reason I started writing this post... I had an opening statement and an ending statement in mind, and I can't remember how it was supposed to end. Well, I guess I might have got a little sidetracked and now this post is somewhat irrelevant to the topic at hand. But the point is, that just knowing why everything is why it is can go a long way to making your world feel more real. --- Stupid signature! <cite>Mario_VS_DK posted [p:887360635] in DMed my se... [t:75526415]...</cite> <quote>Knowing that sort of stuff can also go a long ways toward making your world a lot more believable to the players too. You can actually learn a lot from the world by knowing how much money is in it and how much of that money any specific person would have. One thing that inspired me to do the calculations for how much money is in my world (all of which I never saved and have since forgotten) was someone's world where they just broke it all down into what is the logical way the people of the world would use the magic to improve their lives. And the biggest factor in that was teleportation circles (also also wish traps that continuously pop out money, food, and other resources). I don't have the link anymore, but it went something like this: Farming towns die off first, due to easy access to spells like create food and water. Then cities start making teleportation circles to transport resources. This means a lot of the smaller towns along the roads no longer get traffic and have difficulty staying alive until they finally move off to the cities or die. So we've lost farming towns and resting/touristy towns, so what's left apart from the big cities? Well, there's mining towns, but not for much longer. Once they start figuring out that wish exists and can create other resources, once they figure out how to do this, those towns die off too. So what's left? Just a bunch of big cities. The way the author had it however was that the cities start going to war using teleportation circles as the primary attack method. As the author said, you could immediately, with no warning, teleport an army into the middle of the enemy city deal damage and then get out. However, I feel as though this wouldn't happen even in this situation as the cities (which are basically nations at this point) are no longer competing over resources. They have zero reason to attack each other. (Maybe apart from maybe religion.) So why didn't any of this happen in my world? Well, I decided that it's extremely rare for anyone to actually be able to create teleportation circles (let alone automatic wish creation), and those that do are either too quirky, smart, or have other reasons to not sell them to cities. (There's currently no one in my world a high enough level to do so.) In addition, I also decided that an overuse of magic has a tendency to draw monsters to the location, potentially destroying it. And I've been slowly hinting this to my players by having a mage (mentioned in the OP) trying to create an infinite source of food and having increased monster activity in the area as a result. The reason I did the math for the money in the world was actually to see how feasible it was to create those teleportation circles and how many cities would have them, or if smaller towns could create them. Like I said, I can't remember my math, but I vaguely recall them being relatively cheap compared to the amount of money a city would have. Darn. I can't remember the reason I started writing this post... I had an opening statement and an ending statement in mind, and I can't remember how it was supposed to end. Well, I guess I might have got a little sidetracked and now this post is somewhat irrelevant to the topic at hand. But the point is, that just knowing why everything is why it is can go a long way to making your world feel more real.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1 ... 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Poll of the Day > DMed my second game of DnD yesterday. (+) Yeah! (+)

Poll of the Day > DMed my second game of DnD yesterday.