Poll of the Day > A Geektivus For The Rest Of Us

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://investor.hasbro.com/news-releases/news-release-details/hasbro-reports-first-quarter-2018-financial-results

Whoo, DnD is actually making money for once.
---

shadowsword87 posted...

https://investor.hasbro.com/news-releases/news-release-details/hasbro-reports-first-quarter-2018-financial-results

Whoo, DnD is actually making money for once.

And apparently BeyBlades are still a thing? Oo I thought that fad came and went ages ago. Apparently Stretch Armstrong (back from the dead) is doing well for itself.
---

shadowsword87 posted...

Whoo, DnD is actually making money for once.

Has it not been?

I don't really follow the financials for RPGs, but just judging from peripheral awareness, I'd say it seems like they've been doing quite well since 2000 or so (with expected ups and downs at various points).

The only point where I've ever really seen the system as a whole to actually be in trouble was in the late 80s/early 90s, which is what led to the WotC/Hasbro buyout in the first place. And that was more a case of TSR being woefully inept and failing to adapt to a changing marketplace.

Granted, the RPG industry as a whole seems tanked pretty hard for years now, but D&D seems to be about the only brand that has come out of it better off than before.


---

I don't know if it's ever been directly failing, but when WoW hit in 04 it really did a number. That's why they made 4e in 08, hell, there are advertisements calling it out: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/basementelf_1280.jpg

The thing is that the RPG industry has been on the up and up since Actual Plays became a real big deal a year or so ago. Critical Role, Acquisitions Inc, The Adventure Zone, and all of the smaller games adds up and you see a lot of new people directly talking about games similar to them.

People just didn't really know what DnD/RPGs actually are are now hearing about them and... they're good and really fun with fun people.

Board games are going through a similar scale, just larger.
---

shadowsword87 posted...

I don't know if it's ever been directly failing, but when WoW hit in 04 it really did a number. That's why they made 4e in 08

I know, that's why I said "with expected ups and downs at various points".

For any given line (not just D&D), there's an expected slow-down point after the current edition has been out for a while, where most of the people who ARE going to buy the core rules have already bought the core rules, and successive releases are either incredibly niche (and thus will draw lower buy rates), or wind up screwing over the entire existing system to justify themselves (3.5 and 4.5 are good examples). This was a large part of what eventually led White Wolf to shoot themselves in the foot with the nWoD.

D&D 3e was basically screwed over in multiple ways - when it first came out the WoD was still going strong (and was the #1 system in the marketplace at the time, having passed D&D during TSR's slow dying end), and it had to overcome some of the negativity associated with TSR as a whole (and try to reintegrate and cater to both Basic D&D and AD&D audiences). As it continued its sales were weakened for anything other than the core rules because of the OGL and d20 free-for-all of books from other companies, and it ultimately hit its inherent weak-point (ie, the end of the sales cycle, when most of the important books are already out and most of the audience has already bought them) at the same time that console gaming sales and MMOs (aka, WoW) were peaking.

That being said, I'm not sure even the weakest sales period of 3e was as bad as the line under TSR towards the end. And 4e - for as much as some people hated it - DID generally accomplish its goal, bringing younger people who hadn't necessarily played P&P RPGs before but who WERE familiar with video game RPGs into the mix. A large part of the success of 5e (and, in turn, the reason WHY we're seeing so many online play-alongs and RP series) is rooted in the players that 4e brought into the fold in the first place.

Hence my impression that D&D as a whole, looked at in a big picture view and not just in minute chunks of time, hasn't really been "in trouble" since 2000 or so, and has consistently made WotC money. Maybe not as much as Magic does, but even that has its down periods and shitty cycles *cough*Homelands*cough*.


---

Did 4th Edition fulfill that role, though? Most of my current players are young enough to have started at that point, but they all either 1) started at 3.5, never mind that it had already technically run its course by then, or 2) started at Pathfinder. (There are also players in the group who have not played at all prior to 5th Edition, but those tend to be munchkins who mostly blow huge sums on Magic: The Gathering.) The failures of 4th Edition led directly to the rise of not only PF, but also all the different games of the OSR, as has been discussed here before. It also says a great deal to me that 4th Edition had such a short life span compared to the other versions of Dungeons & Dragons.
---

I_Abibde posted...

Did 4th Edition fulfill that role, though?

I'd argue that it did, because just anecdotally/observationally, it seems like it brought a lot of players into the hobby who weren't roleplayers beforehand, and probably never would have come in at all if the game still ran the way 3e/Pathfinder did.

As much as older D&D players really don't like to admit it, the older rules sets tended to act as a huge barrier to more casual players. They'd take one look at the size of the rulebooks or all of the complicated references on a blank character sheet, and their eyes would glaze over. Yes, it makes sense and is easier to handle once you LEARN it, but if it's too discouraging from the start, newer players are never going to learn in the first place. Especially if there are other entertainment media constantly angling for your time.

I think 4e definitely brought new people in by virtue of being more simplified/more familiar to people already playing video game RPGs with spammable attacks and the like. And I think at least a fair number of those new people went on to be evangelists for the new edition once it came out.

Basically, I think that's a huge part of why 5e succeeded in catching on mainstream more than the game has managed in almost 40 years - because it managed to both retain the casuals they'd drawn in via 4e while also winning back older players who'd previously switched to Pathfinder but who preferred 5e's greater simplicity.



I_Abibde posted...

There are also players in the group who have not played at all prior to 5th Edition, but those tend to be munchkins who mostly blow huge sums on Magic: The Gathering.

Based on various online games, it seems like the vast majority of people currently playing 5e never played anything before 5e.

Nearly every online group seems to be based around a DM and maybe an extra player or two who have been playing since long before 3e (I don't think I've seen a single veteran say they started with 3e or Pathfinder - most of them have been playing since at least 2e), with the rest of the group filled out with players who've never RPed before their current game. And then most of those groups seem to get constant messages from people online who say "I've never RPed before, but watching you made me want to do it, so I started playing 5e."

I'm almost tempted to say that, if it were possible to poll every active or semiactive RPer in the entire world, you might actually find that more than half the people playing these days are people who started exclusively with 5e, outnumbering people who started playing in earlier systems. Certainly a large percentage of the more tech-savvy parts of the audience.


---

I_Abibde posted...

Most of my current players are young enough to have started at that point, but they all either 1) started at 3.5, never mind that it had already technically run its course by then, or 2) started at Pathfinder.

Just judging based on most of the online gaming groups I've seen, it sometimes seems like almost no one ever really started with 3e. All the old school grognards seem to be people who started with 2e or earlier, while most of the new players all seem to have started with 5e (with at least a few who picked up 4e from the Penny Arcade games).

The only group that seems to have started with Pathfinder were the Critical Role guys, but that group also had three older RPers who had started in 2e (or even 1e AD&D), and they mostly picked it because Matt Mercer was already running 3e games and was more familiar with them. And they switched to 5e almost immediately once the opportunity for them to do so was available.



I_Abibde posted...

The failures of 4th Edition led directly to the rise of not only PF

I'd argue that the success or failure of 4e had absolutely nothing to do with PF, period.

What led to PF was the fact that 4e was so radically different from earlier editions, it tended to split off people who weren't willing to change, or who didn't like the new direction of the game (to mimic MMORPG design). Those people were driven off long before 4e had a chance to succeed or fail. And their leaving didn't necessarily offset newer players brought in by the new design and more visually mapped version of the game.

But overall, I'd say that 4e almost certainly made enough money for the company, and brought in enough newer players, that they don't necessarily see it as a failure at all (even if they did want to redesign 5e to try and recapture a lot of the players who had defected to PF).

Basically, I don't think most of the people who complain about 4e would have complained at all if it was run as a separate alternative version of D&D run parallel to the main line (in the same way Basic D&D and AD&D were separate and differed in some radical ways). Had WotC released a 3.75/Pathfinder edition of their own rather than willingly giving up on that portion of the audience, those players would have had less reason to care whether or not 4e was different, and 4e still could have brought in new players.

With 5e, I think there was a definite desire to sort of toe the line between the two versions (in exactly the same way 3e originally tried to pick up for AD&D while not completely forsaking Basic). It's not condemning one or the other as a failure, as much as it is trying to pick out the parts of each that are successful, to make an even more successful (and profitable) version.



I_Abibde posted...

It also says a great deal to me that 4th Edition had such a short life span compared to the other versions of Dungeons & Dragons.

4e was officially supported for about 7 years. That arguably makes it one of the longer runs, when you consider 3e was only supported for about 7 years (but was also basically divided into 3e and 3.5), while the original version of the game only really existed for 3 years before they rereleased it as two separate lines (Basic and Advanced).

Meanwhile, Basic D&D wound up having like 5 different versions over 20 years, while AD&D had 2 different revisions over the same span.

AD&D 2nd is probably the edition of the line that lasted the longest, and that only lasted for about 11 years (but almost entirely unsupported for the last few years - realistically, it was probably more like 7-8 years active).


---

I'm proud of Big Cass. He actually cut a decent promo on Smackdown Tuesday.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZS1ssZv7cHM" data-time="
---

So, I think I'm seeing IW Saturday, and the NFL Draft is on.
---

CyborgSage00x0 posted...

So, I think I'm seeing IW Saturday, and the NFL Draft is on.

I just got back from seeing it.

knivesX2004 posted...

CyborgSage00x0 posted...

So, I think I'm seeing IW Saturday, and the NFL Draft is on.

I just got back from seeing it.

Non-spoiler, generic thoughts?
---

No spoiler, it was very fun.
It was also almost beat for beat what I was expecting lol.

I was really worried that they wouldn't be able to give all the different characters time to shine. The movie was actually really well... Balanced.
---

As aware as I am of the internet's fondness of spoilers, I'm waiting until the second part comes out before I go to see Infinity War. I'm considering whether or not to watch Captain Marvel in between both parts as well, for when I otherwise watch the first before heading to the theater to watch the second.
---

I am not seeing Infinity War until Sunday afternoon. So I have to avoid spoilers as well.
---

Entity13 posted...

As aware as I am of the internet's fondness of spoilers, I'm waiting until the second part comes out before I go to see Infinity War. I'm considering whether or not to watch Captain Marvel in between both parts as well, for when I otherwise watch the first before heading to the theater to watch the second.

Dunno if I could wait that long for a movie this big.
---

Metalsonic66 posted...

Entity13 posted...

As aware as I am of the internet's fondness of spoilers, I'm waiting until the second part comes out before I go to see Infinity War. I'm considering whether or not to watch Captain Marvel in between both parts as well, for when I otherwise watch the first before heading to the theater to watch the second.

Dunno if I could wait that long for a movie this big.

The wait is not for everyone.
---

I greatly enjoyed Infinity War, but I am limited in what I can say about it due to tons of spoilers.

My thanks to P.O. for turning my four-line post into a two-post explanation of the recent history of Dungeons & Dragons, and bonus points for including discussion of the divergence of the 'basic' line of the game. Related: That reminded me to go to Drive Thru RPG and investigate their collection of Known World (i.e. Mystara) supplements. Picked up several of those ($4.99 U.S. for a good, clean PDF), plus the Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun module (good content, poor maps, IMO). Once my current Greyhawk campaign wraps up (... not any time soon), I might have to see if my Monday (formerly Thursday) group wants to try classic Mystara.
---

Scarlett is asleep, as she works at night, so as soon as she has enough sleep we are going to lumber to the movie theater.

I'm going to get my large popcorn, my Hi-C, and my secret sammich in her purse, just in case, and I'm going to enjoy the hell out of this movie.
---

Who knew Power Rangers was worth half a billion dollars?

http://deadline.com/2018/05/hasbro-acquires-power-rangers-haim-saban-deal-1202380227/
---

Stopped at Toys R Us today. They still aren't marking stuff down by much, although it seems more like 20-40% storewide (excluding consoles and Lego). I picked up a large Metroid figure (which is going to need a flight stand of some sort) that I plan to display with my figma Samus. (Again, still kicking myself for not getting a Bowser years ago from that same line.) Otherwise I picked up Diablo 3 for $3.50.... although I'm not sure whether or not I previously bought the game (and, if I did, it might have been even cheaper), which is a problem with queues.

And I picked up some Mystery Minis on clearance from Gamestop. Got a movie Aquaman (thought it was going to be something else but actually kinda liking the look of it and a Thor 3 Valkyrie (which I'm also kinda liking the look -- in general, really wanted the Hulk but pulled a Thor the first time I tried). Almost wound up getting a LoL MM or two, but then figured I don't even care about that franchise and the odds of me getting something I might like are next to nil.

The Wave Master posted...

Who knew Power Rangers was worth half a billion dollars?

http://deadline.com/2018/05/hasbro-acquires-power-rangers-haim-saban-deal-1202380227/

Uh, everybody? Just look at the amount of merch they're *still* able to sell, and a lot of it isn't terribly great. The one downside is that it probably kills their deal with Bandai. (Then again, I never bought a full set of *any* of the Rangers so I can't build any of the BAFs--- for which I largely blame Bandai for its shitty practice of breaking up BAFs between waves. Really kicking myself in general, although I guess I could overpay for some of the stuff.)

The only real surprise that they had the rights to My Pet Monster. Although it's mentioned by name, I doubt we're going to see a resurgence any time soon so children of the world will be limited to what they can find used on ebay, etc.
---

I still have not convinced my wife to let me get "Dad of Boy" or "God of Boy" which ever you prefer.

Nevertheless, I soldier on.

I liked Infinity War a lot. A few surprises, but until I get to see part 2, it's really hard to put a final grade on the assignment. It's incomplete and we will see the final completed project next May.
---

I, too, enjoyed IW quite a bit.
---

It's pretty complete if you consider Thanos the main character, which he kinda was.

It really is the Empire Strikes Back of superhero movies.
---

I am now getting "Dad of Boy" for my birthday next month. So yay!
---

Going to probably wait for IW2 then watch both at the same time. In no real hurry there.

Been thinking about getting one of those giant Voltrons I saw at TRU. I *think* that the box set is a compilation of the lions sold individually for $20~ each with all of the same stuff, so I'd be saving money vs eventually buying them individually (assuming I go that route). The only downside is... well, not sure if I want another over-sized collectible around.
---

Tales of Berseria on the ps4 is $20. Hmm... How do I feel about what I've seen of the game?

For one, since the lead protagonist is a woman, they really try to push womanly stereotypes from the female characters in a way that makes even me gag. Then again, when I was in high school and early college maybe the majority girls I encountered had a habit of making me gag with their actual personalities. So... *shrugs* ...it's still kinda crap for that aspect of characterization.

The story is rather "Take it or leave it." I'd rate it higher than Graces' story, and maybe higher than Eternia, but well behind that of Phantasia, Symphonia, or Abyss.

Gameplay seems fine from what I saw on Youtube but I need to experience that for myself.
---

Might have to pre-order the Mordenkainen book that is happening for 5th Edition this month. Also managed to overcome my misgivings about Pathfinder 2nd Edition, and I am now curious as to how it will play. *shakes head* But, in the short term, I am contemplating what to do with my Game Stop coupons (i.e. my Power Up Rewards points). Most likely going to feed the Vita (again), but I am also looking at the PS3 version of Persona 5 (because it had a big price drop and both my wife and I have played the bejeezus out of the PS4 version).
---

I have been sneezing nonstop today. It's just the worst.
---

Hmm... No sign of @Raganork yet to respond to my Tales related post. Has he just been busy, or what?
---

Quick Berseria rundown:

Gameplay: Graces done right. Rather than being locked to predefined combos, you can create your own. Every arte can chain into one another. Plus, the movement speed is nice and quick, free running doesn't blow ass, and the other characters are quite fun to mess with this time around. Same problem as Xillia 2 in that the MC is insanely overpowered. Play on hard; it's a bit easy.

Story: Standard revenge tale. A somewhat more mature tone by Tales standards. All of the characters are shady, which is an amusing deviation from the usual band of boring nerds that usually tag along. The middle act drags, as per typical Tales fashion.

Characters: Velvet is a rather strong protagonist, and follows the traditional Tales arc of overconfident hero learns to rely on friends to accomplish her mission. I feel like her motivations here are very strong. Villains are also great for once in many many years. Sidekicks consist of a bubbly witch (think Pascal, Rita, and Leia, except this one is my favorite), a pirate cursed with everlasting badluck, and other characters that all remained fun and interesting throughout. Really strong cast.

It's the strongest entry since Vesperia. I really enjoyed it. Typical Tales problems are all present and accounted for, but hey, Tales fans are used to them by now.

Also, hey guys! I haven't been busy. I skim the front page about once a day and leave. Forgot about this topic is all.

I_Abibde posted...

Might have to pre-order the Mordenkainen book that is happening for 5th Edition this month.

I'm definitely picking it up, though I have a pathological incapability for buying anything via pre-order. I'm just waiting until June to order it straight up.

In related news, I've been looking at the FFG's Genesys System lately, and I think I dislike it strongly.


---

TY for responding, Kanagaroo. =)
---

Ok PO, I was wondering something that I don't know if you could help out or not.

I want to run a More Traditional Dungeons and Dragons game, but with the twist that players decide when to level up, not the GM.

The best thing that I can think of, at least theoretically, is handing players exclusively gold and saying gold is XP (or you pay someone to train you to level X+1). Then they can buy magic items that they want, and choose to level up that way.

There are a few problems I'm having with this, one of which being meta-narrative. I don't know if that it's actually a good way to keep up with a flow of the game. Also because I, as the GM, just hand players gold and tell them to figure it out, it's basically me leveling them up anyway, and who cares. It wouldn't be really be a big enough deal.

The other problem being a more base thing: what the hell is worth it to a player that isn't a level? The only reasonable thing I could think of magic items, but even then, it's just sort of minor. I could make it so that as they get more powerful, things get worse around them sorta like Dark Sun, but let's be honest, nobody really cares about that sort of thing.

The more and more I think about it just seems awful in execution on a bunch of different levels, but I want your thoughts on it.
---

Well, I'm not PO, but it seems to me like you could just add a new item type and tie it into the lore. Maybe have a campaign take place on a continent created from the body of a dead god where, to some extent, all things were born from its essence. Therefore killing stronger monsters will release some of the essence which can be stored to enhance skills, spells, weapons/armor, and levels. And you could have different types of essence which are more efficient for certain activities (ie, green essence might count as 50% more when trying to buy a new level)
---

Ya do know leveling up includes buffing skills and spells?
---

shadowsword87 posted...

Ya do know leveling up includes buffing skills and spells?

tbh, it's been so long since I tried anything with D&D that I'm not sure (or conversely don't remember) to what extent the generic level-up impacts the individual aspects of a character. If it is the sole determining factor for learning/upgrading spells and abilities then just amend my possibly-terrible suggestion so it only impacts levels and gear upgrades.
---

My point being that you just recommended the idea that what I wasn't a fan of.
---

Last night I learned Wolverine: The Long Night was a thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolverine:_The_Long_Night

From the clips played, it sounds pretty interesting... but it's paywalled behind some service I don't care about. I guess there's a free trial option but I should probably hold off on that just in case they do more of these so I can binge everything in the same month.

shadowsword87 posted...

My point being that you just recommended the idea that what I wasn't a fan of.

Wasn't entirely sure what you were looking for, given the details. The suggestion that it could also pay for generic levels was an attempt to fit what I thought you were going for. Then again, given that my experience with P&P D&D was limited (to say the least) and it's been at least a decade since I played any of the video games, I suppose no matter what I suggest might inadvertently come close to something in D&D whether I'm pushing the idea of skill trees, an elemental magic system where spells unlock when you have the right combination of elements, or anything else I can think of to gate content.

Granted, no matter what my ideas are likely to be a great extent derivative because much of my basis is around video games where they don't necessarily have the same flexibility as P&P RPGs. In short, sorry to be of no help! =(
---

shadowsword87 posted...

I want to run a More Traditional Dungeons and Dragons game, but with the twist that players decide when to level up, not the GM.

An interesting concept, but in some ways it feels like trying to be different for the sake of being different rather than something that makes total sense from a gameplay perspective.

I could probably come up with a few scenarios, though.



shadowsword87 posted...

The best thing that I can think of, at least theoretically, is handing players exclusively gold and saying gold is XP (or you pay someone to train you to level X+1). Then they can buy magic items that they want, and choose to level up that way.

So bordering on the original recipe rules, where treasure you collected literally equated to XP, so you could essentially "buy" your way up after recovering a particularly sizeable hoard.



shadowsword87 posted...

There are a few problems I'm having with this, one of which being meta-narrative.

You mean justifying that type of leveling via the setting itself?

You could always say that gold expenditure represents the tangible benefits gained from buying better equipment and training, above and beyond the more concrete gains from buying specific armor pieces (ie, assume the adventurers are buying better leather straps for armor, better rations, etc). Or take into account that level gains aren't JUST personal improvement but also include more intangible things (like more favor with your god or local influence), and assume gold is being spent to increase the level of influence and equipment the heroes have within a specific region (ie, sort of combining leveling with stronghold style mechanics, where you spend to level up the base, and leveling up the base levels up the heroes).


---

shadowsword87 posted...

I don't know if that it's actually a good way to keep up with a flow of the game. Also because I, as the GM, just hand players gold and tell them to figure it out, it's basically me leveling them up anyway, and who cares. It wouldn't be really be a big enough deal.

I have no idea whether or not it would be really detrimental to game flow, and I can definitely see it not really being all that innovative or interesting to players since it probably would still feel like the DM is trickle-feeding them gold rewards at precisely the rate the DM wants them to level at (meaning you might as well do away with "gold XP" or even straight XP and just do milestone-based leveling). But your players might be into it, especially if you can come up with an innovative and effective way to run it.

The only way I can think of to remove the mechanic entirely from DM fiat is to pull a Final Fantasy VIII (and it hurts me so much to suggest this, considering how much I loathe FFVIII), and have players able to choose to level up whenever they want, but every time they level up they're empowering the enemies in some way, making leveling up somewhat counter-intuitive, where they have motivation to try and hoard leveling for future use rather than just taking it the moment its available.

The downside there is that a game where leveling is more punished than rewarded can annoy the fuck out of players (see also, one of the 437 reasons why I hate FFVIII as much as I do). Especially since it kind of shits all over the power fantasy, and removes a lot of the tactical benefits of leveling up (and thus the joy of getting new powers and abilities).

Conversely, have players automatically gain 1 "XP" per game session (or some other set value), and have every aspect of leveling up reduced to a point-buy system - so, say, players can spend 1 XP whenever they want to buy a new ability point, or 2 XP to buy a new spell, or 3 XP to buy a new class ability, and so on (but that would require a LOT of prep-work on your part).



shadowsword87 posted...

The other problem being a more base thing: what the hell is worth it to a player that isn't a level? The only reasonable thing I could think of magic items, but even then, it's just sort of minor.

Feats, ability boosts, taking advantage, extra skill proficiencies, extra dice drop/keep roll mechanics, anything that gives a tangible numerical benefit?

Magic item rewards are nice, but because the game is designed to limit magic item abuse for purposes of balance (ie, you can only attune so many things), you'd need to provide attunement-free magic items. And as you suggest, they'd probably have to be minor in power because otherwise the boons would start to stack and become too overpowered.

You could also play around with something like the Vestiges that Critical Role used in their campaign (basically artifacts that "level up" based on the actions of the characters/what level the characters are, similar to how D&D handles artifact concordance in 4e), where players can sort of deliberately level up their weapons (or armor, or enchanted jewelry, etc) in ways that grant them tangible benefits themselves.


---

On a semi-related RPG note:

If you were making a new character (either PC or NPC), as a relatively beginning-level adventure person in a generic fantasy setting, and wanted to give them some item or piece of equipment that wasn't strictly utilitarian (like the standard rope, torch, spyglass, etc) solely for the purposes of giving their personality a bit of flavor or quirk, what sort of thing might you give them?

I've thought of things like alcohol flasks or water canteens, musical instruments, gambling stuff like cards or dice, little carved figurines or animal claws, and stuff like combs or dolls, but I was curious what other people might come up with.


---

*thinks*

The Dwarf in one of my parties (where I do not DM) wanted horns for his helmet, so my ranger had a go at hunting down a ram for said horns. No game mechanic consequences (aside from appropriate rolls for crafting), but good fun for flavor and party interaction.
---

Giving the topic a nudge.


---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

On a semi-related RPG note:

If you were making a new character (either PC or NPC), as a relatively beginning-level adventure person in a generic fantasy setting, and wanted to give them some item or piece of equipment that wasn't strictly utilitarian (like the standard rope, torch, spyglass, etc) solely for the purposes of giving their personality a bit of flavor or quirk, what sort of thing might you give them?

I've thought of things like alcohol flasks or water canteens, musical instruments, gambling stuff like cards or dice, little carved figurines or animal claws, and stuff like combs or dolls, but I was curious what other people might come up with.

You mean people can survive without dice? =p
---

Oh yeah, I recommend a dream catcher, the equivalent in whatever fantasy setting is there (with the modern perception that it's a silly thing that only silly people are into).

But the NPC is completely serious otherwise.
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

On a semi-related RPG note:

If you were making a new character (either PC or NPC), as a relatively beginning-level adventure person in a generic fantasy setting, and wanted to give them some item or piece of equipment that wasn't strictly utilitarian (like the standard rope, torch, spyglass, etc) solely for the purposes of giving their personality a bit of flavor or quirk, what sort of thing might you give them?

I've thought of things like alcohol flasks or water canteens, musical instruments, gambling stuff like cards or dice, little carved figurines or animal claws, and stuff like combs or dolls, but I was curious what other people might come up with.

What is your opinion on sentient items?
Also I think there's a random trinket generator somewhere. I've used it before and got things like "a brass bird statue that has incredible sentimental value". The player kept it with them the whole game and even went back to get it when they dropped it down a bottomless pit lol.

knivesX2004 posted...

What is your opinion on sentient items?

Depends. As a powerful artifact with powers and backstory (and potentially evil)? Sure.

As something that's a zero-value knick-knack keepsake sort of thing? Ehh. At best maybe something like a little clockwork nightingale that chirps/sings, but isn't really consciously aware in any realistic way. But once you start getting into inanimate objects with personalities, it feels like it needs to be way more substantial. Or actively treated like a full NPC rather than an object (like, say, Morte in Planescape:Torment).



knivesX2004 posted...

Also I think there's a random trinket generator somewhere. I've used it before and got things like "a brass bird statue that has incredible sentimental value". The player kept it with them the whole game and even went back to get it when they dropped it down a bottomless pit lol.

There's also a d100 chart in the 5e rulebook (I forget if it's the PG or DMG) with a long list of odd little things, like a necklace with fingers on it or a pair of dice with skulls carved on them for the "1". But they tend to lean more towards the creepy/weird side of things.


---

Looking forward to Deadpool 2 this weekend.

Physical therapy is going well, and I get a new robot leg on Friday.

The first leg had a Spider-Man design. This smaller one will have Goku and Vegeta on it, and it walks a lot better because it properly fits now.

As my stump has gotten smaller the old leg just doesn't fit anymore, and thus leg number 2 is needed.
---