tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17900304205073359532024-03-17T16:49:42.267-07:00Points of LightMostly for D&D games.David Guyllhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16299128722345607123noreply@blogger.comBlogger2122125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-31580837137643375952024-03-17T13:18:00.000-07:002024-03-17T13:18:17.274-07:00Biggus Geekus: Advancing Your Game<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/live/2SDf7HEpTFE?si=c8VxM-ecbdaYvHc5">This week's show is <i>mostly</i> about character advancement</a>, which starts around the 10 minute mark. </p><p>Regardless of edition, I've never liked how characters advance in <i>Dungeons & Dragons</i>. In 2nd Edition, while you <i>could</i> sometimes make decisions, such as adding the odd non-weapon proficiency here and there, pick a weapon to specialize in, and allocation points for thief skills, for the most part, you got what the game gave you, at a given level.</p><p>3rd Edition broke away from this a bit with feats and a more sensible multiclassing system, but class features were often still granted a given level, many feats sucked, as did many multiclassing combinations and prestige classes, and these latter issues were only exacerbated as more books came out with even more classes, feats, and prestige classes. </p><p>Additionally, some options and abilities would become less useful over time. Spells were a big one: really on <i>magic missile</i> might have been useful, but over time due to the way it barely scales and eventually caps, it's just not worth it due to hit point inflation and other options.</p><p>4th Edition did it the best in that you got to make choices at every level, most were at least functional (and when they weren't you generally had plenty of other "powers", anyway), but it still failed by a wide margin due to--among other issues--multiclassing inflexibility, terrible feats, clearly inferior power options, and powers becoming obsolete as you gained levels (they could be replaced, but even the new ones would become less useful over time).</p><p>Another issue was power complexity (I recall more than a few eating up nearly a half page), which coupled with power <i>replacement</i> meant that you might gain something, use it a few times, and by the time you found your groove with it and possibly other powers that synced up well, you might end up retiring it in favor of something mechanically superior.</p><p>These are all issues we managed to avoid with <i>Dungeons & Delvers</i>. Most of the time you get to make a decision at every level, though sometimes you get a class feature that is so good that we really couldn't justify both it and a Talent choice (such as a fighter's extra attack). There are no level requirements, though many have Talent requirements so you have various trees you can work toward, but you're never locked into anything, unlike 5th Edition and it's godawful subclass system.</p><p>For spells, pretty much all of them can be scaled up (if you're willing to spend additional magic points), and you can also pick Talents that build on them, allowing them to do more.</p><p>Now, Randy doesn't want a "giant menu" of options. I'm inclined to agree as this can lead to choice paralysis, as well as unintended combinations that can "break" the game. However, I think that there should be at <i>least</i> twice as many options as there are assumed levels, to avoid characters either being the same, or ending up being the same down the road because they end up having to grab everything because that's all they could take.</p><p>In <i>Dungeons & Delvers</i>, we did this for every level in which you can choose a Talent. For example, here's the fighter class:</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVOiaN5z0kuViwiwyKOD-RhhWMz9Wj7nO1Hm1e46wyfBlICu9fCMJLv4ZyldQRmjADQ9BzHoIIfXf_AuV4kzdxiB9TWODlJm8FrP2dp-C7FR_tHi9i76MmNyrA2UZanI2J-yWvQQH8CcwW3FoRuD7WIxfBFIwwpWNgjUK04uoeQAA3HqyduW_mQmYwi8k/s3300/fighter%20table.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3300" data-original-width="2550" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVOiaN5z0kuViwiwyKOD-RhhWMz9Wj7nO1Hm1e46wyfBlICu9fCMJLv4ZyldQRmjADQ9BzHoIIfXf_AuV4kzdxiB9TWODlJm8FrP2dp-C7FR_tHi9i76MmNyrA2UZanI2J-yWvQQH8CcwW3FoRuD7WIxfBFIwwpWNgjUK04uoeQAA3HqyduW_mQmYwi8k/s16000/fighter%20table.png" /></a></div><br /><p>And here are the tables listing every fighter Talent:</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghviGoPyvA4qensTbRRSHtJ4WGX_twB9PArgfQi9u3G4-F5ZwHXh7LJXSyy4XyaHyXnTb-SHzFQhxdfXxcyNzBdRmdKah0_527x9m-41NqnWPcBix4g5FYWSvG1DVWDGm_zu7MOJ_BMktZY01p5MI06JYk0gfeNhmXwokiA-CchwmVuiFfgjOk27y9BBM/s5100/fighter%20talents.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3300" data-original-width="5100" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghviGoPyvA4qensTbRRSHtJ4WGX_twB9PArgfQi9u3G4-F5ZwHXh7LJXSyy4XyaHyXnTb-SHzFQhxdfXxcyNzBdRmdKah0_527x9m-41NqnWPcBix4g5FYWSvG1DVWDGm_zu7MOJ_BMktZY01p5MI06JYk0gfeNhmXwokiA-CchwmVuiFfgjOk27y9BBM/s16000/fighter%20talents.png" /></a></div><div><br /></div>Over a twenty level spread you'll get fourteen Talents, and there are over fifty Talents to choose from. This well exceeds our formula, but this is because we're also fans of being able to focus on a character concept. So, if you want to play a fighter with a big-ass weapon, you can focus on the Two-Handed Weapon section. While this "only" has eight Talents, it's still enough to see you past 10th-level.<div><br /></div><div>However, there are other Talents that also work with the two-hander concept: Charger, Cleave, Dangerous Reach, Improved Critical, as well as many Exploits, so two fighters going this route <i>might</i> start similar (I imagine many will pick up Slayer at the least), but probably won't remain the same as they develop and grow. Many Talents are also passive modifiers that you can pick, note, and forget about, so it's not like you'll have to necessarily memorizse complex rules, or devote large sections of your character sheet to reminding you what they do.<br /><div><p>So, I think a lot of options can be good. It depends on how you organize it and what they do. I<i>also </i> think it's important to ensure that characters can realize specific concepts, and don't all end up looking the same.</p><p>Around 13 minutes Ryan David suggests incremental advancement, no gimmick needed. I'm fine with this for stuff like attack bonuses and skills, things that would likely improve gradually, less so for meaningful class features and abilities like special attacks and spells.</p><p>A minute later Randy again criticizes 3rd Edition for its feats, or rather I <i>think</i> he was about to before his train of thought was interrupted. The issue with 3rd Edition feats is that many were garbage or essentially modifier "taxes", stuff like Weapon Focus, Skill Focus, Spell Focus, etc that you almost <i>had</i> to take in order to keep your numbers up, and the constantly scaling monster math was yet <i>another</i> issue that we addressed in our game and I might get to later.</p><p>He mentions how <i><a href="https://biggeekemporium.com/product/dungeons-delvers-core-rulebook/">Dungeons & Delvers</a></i> was looking a lot like 3rd Edition, and I can see why someone would think that at a first glance, but a major difference besides all of the math and how classes work is that you have a <i>lot</i> of control over character growth. Additionally, while there is something like "trees" for certain classes, such as fighters being able to focus on special attacks, ranged weapons, one-handed weapons, and two-handed weapons, you're <i>never</i> locked into anything.</p><p>For example, you can roll up a fighter and pick up Slayer for the damage bonus, but then if you discover a magic arming sword and prefer that, you can later pick up Defender and go down the sword and shield path. And then later when you get more comfortable, you can also pick up special attacks. Even better, <i>none</i> of these Talents are designed around any sort of expectation that they will be gained and used at a given level, so it's not even like your character is "underpowered" for having started down a given road at a given level.</p><p>At 24 minutes someone brings up skill points--specifically spending XP to improve them--something Joe isn't a fan of due to how high the skill ranks could get in 3rd Edition. The solution is to cap skill ranks, and/or reduce the number of skill points you get each level.</p><p>Starting with spending XP to improve skills, this is an interesting idea in theory, and something we've considered doing for <i>Dungeons & Delvers</i> 2nd Edition, but a main issue is that having played <i>Shadowrun</i> and <i>Star Wars</i> I find that players will typically only focus on a few key skills. Use guns to shoot stuff? Whelp, you're going to improve guns a lot. Use dodge to dodge stuff? Whelp, you're going to improve that, too.</p><p>And I know this because this is what I did, and it got so insane that I could nearly one-shot kill virtually anything the GM threw at us, and if he threw something that challenged <i>my</i> character? Basically none of the other players could scratch it. I do think that this could potentially be mitigated or even resolved through clever design, but the question is do I want to go through all that hassle, as well as work out XP costs for all of the various talents?</p><p>Eh...maybe, we'll see.</p><p>Currently in <i>Dungeons & Delvers</i>, most classes get 1 skill point each level, and skills cap at a +5 proficiency bonus (race and other modifiers can exceed this). Bards, rogues, and I think rangers get bonus skill points here and there. The upside is that skill bonuses remain low, the downside is that characters essentially "master" skills very early on, though this might be fine if you consider that characters <i>probably </i>aren't overly focusing on those skills, anyway. So, I guess the characters aren't really mastering anything, just getting really good at something.</p><p>And while Joe thinks that even if you reduce skill points and reduce the overall cap it'll still get out of control, I want to point out that in our <i>Dungeons & Delvers</i> playtest campaign, by 17th-level Melissa's rogue/ranger/wizard had a total Stealth modifier of something like +11: +5 proficiency in Stealth (the max), +5 Dexterity after maxing it out, and +1 from being an elf.</p><p>In a 3rd Edition game she could have <i>easily</i> had something like +25, and depending on the skill wouldn't even have to wait very long: I recall some method using skill synergies in 3rd Edition, where a half-elf bard could easily have a Diplomacy modifier of over +20 by like 3rd-level or somesuch.</p><p>Now, in <i>Dungeons & Delvers </i>2nd Edition we're dividing skills into Primary, Secondary, and Other. The original idea was that you pick Primary skills at 1st-level, and these automatically improve by 1 each time you level up. You also get 2 Skill Points at each level: Secondary skills improve by +1 for each skill point spent, Other skills need 2 points to improve.</p><p>The potential downside is that you can again get high modifiers, though if you don't have lots of items, magic items, racial mods, synergies, and other effects you can keep the potential modifier limited to something like +25 at 20th-level, assuming a relevant ability score is also maxed out at +5.</p><p><i>However</i>, a big change to this is to have it so that <i>only</i> at even levels, Primary Skills are increased by +1, and at odd levels you spend Skill Points, but cannot improve Primary Skills. This is <i>slightly</i> more complicated but does restrict the modifier to 11 + ability score mod at 20th-level, and other skills are stuck at 10 + modifier, assuming you keep a select few maxed out. So, less than half as much, and makes sense given that characters are adventuring and not just practicing a given skill all the time.</p><p>Non-Weapon Proficiencies bother me because, while you can get more of them as you gain levels, you can't improve them. Also some were very hyper-focused, like firebuilding, which I assume most any adventurer would know how to do without needing to invest a precious NWP slot.</p><p>Around the 33 minute mark, Joe again rolls back to skill points and clarifies that he doesn't like spending all the points every level for little to no payoff, and this I <i>absolutely</i> agree with, as 3rd Edition had a <i>lot</i> of skills, many could only be used if you had at least one skill point invested (or two if a cross-class skill), and many would <i>never</i> see use (like most of the Craft and Profession stuff, many Knowledges, and Rope Use). Worse, there were a lot of instances where, if you didn't have a skill at least <i>mostly</i> maxed out, chances were it wasn't going to work, anyway.</p><p>In <i>Dungeons & Delvers</i> this isn't much of an issue because there aren't as many skills, the cap is +5, so even if you only invest a few points you're still good, and the game doesn't assume that a skill will be maxed out at any given point in time. In 2nd Edition we're expanding the list quite a bit, but you get 2-3 skills that autoscale, and there's <i>still </i>no assumption of a skill being at a certain point in order to succeed, so you can invent a handful of points in, say, lockpicking, and still be likely to succeed (though it'll probably take a lot longer than expected).</p><p>We're also changing monster stats by removing levels and Hit Dice, so even against a classically high Hit Die monster like a giant, you still won't need really high skills in order to succeed at various tasks (since their HD/level values are more an assumption of inherent toughness than combat skill or life experience).</p><p>At 35 minutes Randy claims that the more options that exist, the more likely unforeseen combinations can crop up. This is mostly true, but depends on how things can be combined. Again, in <i>Dungeons & Delvers</i> there are many options, and while some Talents have others as requirements most don't interact with each other. I think something that helps is that there isn't a list of "general" Talents: they are <i>mostly</i> class specific, the exception being some classes like the barbarian and paladin allowing you to also choose fighter Talents where and there.</p><p>But these are easy to reference and ensure that you don't run into any "broken" combos. I could potentially see an issue with numerous splatbooks, but the solution is to focus on writing adventures and settings as opposed to lots of character options because it's easier and/or you just want money.</p><p>Around 42 minutes they start talking about superhero games and how it's odd for a superhero to "level up". I think it can work, though I'd definitely provide a way to "rank up" certain abilities so you don't <i>need</i> to keep getting more and more stuff. So, for example, a telekinetic character would be able to, say, use his power more quickly, increase the weight cap (if there is one), and affect more objects at once. It could also still require more energy or whatever to use, it's just that these upgrades allow you to exceed current limitations.</p><p>About 47 minutes in someone mentioned XP for gold, <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2023/02/experience-for-gold-and-vice-versa.html">which is a retarded nonsense mechanic that should never be used</a>.</p><p>At 48 minutes they talk briefly about medieval prices, and yeah <i>Dungeons & Dragons</i> is so far off the mark it's insane. For example, daggers cost something like 2 gold pieces, but a more accurate price would be something like 3 copper pieces. And I'm not even saying that anyone should bend over backwards trying to make the prices super accurate (which would be incredibly difficult or even impossible for many items), just try not to make things like a hundred times more expensive.</p><p>At 53 minutes Joe asks about making everything skill-based. I think this <i>could</i> work, however you run into an issue if weapons and/or defense are skills that must be increased on their own. If you're playing a fighter-type, then you'll basically just keep upping these forever, and it becomes a sort of "skill tax". It could be mitigated if players knew about what they needed to be good at fighting, so they could at some point stop, or even slow down.</p><p>This is one reason I prefer class-based systems: you level up, all of your necessary abilities and numbers increment automatically, without you having to invest anything at all. So, fighters get an increased attack and defense bonus, because that's central to the class, and can then spend points and Talents on other stuff as desired.</p><p>Randy mentions a wound system, <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2023/02/wound-level-mechanics-for-d20-games-and.html">which I've developed for d20 games over here</a>. It works, and works pretty well, I just don't want to go through the hassle of reworking everything to fit with it.</p><p>On the topic of hit point bloat, I comment in the video that one way to mitigate this is to have Constitution apply only to the HP total, and not each time, which is how we're doing it in <i>Dungeons & Delvers</i> 2nd Edition. Constitution has other benefits, such as resisting fatigue and healing, which now requires a roll instead of occurring at a set rate (and mending potions trigger a healing check as well).</p><p>We're also reducing HP all around. Currently, wizards get +1 each level, rogues +2, and fighters +4. Monks and rangers would probably get +3, and barbarians <i>might</i> get +5. However, barbarians get quite a bit of other stuff so we might also set them at +4, instead of giving them the most HP "just because". </p><p>Joe suggests having HP just be equal to your Constitution score and no modifier at all. I'd also be fine with this as a baseline, and then modified by class. However in our game it wouldn't change anything since ability scores aren't values that return a modifier, just the modifier (ie, you don't have a Con of 12 with a +1 modifier, you'd just have Constitution +1).</p><p>At the 54 minute mark Joe comments about leveling up and getting a bunch of stuff. I don't have much of an issue with this, as it makes it easier to eyeball a character and get a general sense of "power". A possible workaround is to spread things out over many levels, and then make it easier to level up.</p><p>For example, a 2nd-level fighter might only gain +1 HP. Then at level 3 he gets +1 HP and maybe +1 to attack. And then at 4th-level he gets +1 HP and maybe +1 Defense. At 5th-level he gets +1 HP, and perhaps +1 Damage to all attacks. Something like that. The table would be stretched out over like 100 levels, with minor benefits gained each time, and the XP requirements would be drastically reduced. Maybe something like 50 per level instead of 100 or 1,000.</p><p>55 minutes in Joe mentions a video where a guy suggested using Strength to determine HP. I could see this, with Con being used to determine recovery. Interesting idea.</p><p>For HP on a level up, Randy states that you'll gain some but is leaning towards a die type. I used to be for this, probably just due to nostalgia, not so much anymore. A static value I think would also make it easier to keep HP on the low side if that's your aim. He's also leaning towards a classless system, which I am also for and have a number of thoughts on how to accomplish this, but that needs its own blog post.</p><p>Joe thinks it's silly that, say, a wizard can never learn to use a sword. I agree, and would go further to say that it's <i>also</i> silly that wizards can't wear armor. In <i>Dungeons & Delvers</i> we resolved <i>all</i> of this, and with different math, so your wizard can learn to use a sword and actually be useful with it, though he'll never be as good as the actual fighter. It'll be even better in 2nd Edition.</p><p>They both think it's silly to have single-digit hit points at 1st-level. Perhaps, though if armor reduces damage it's not such a big deal. In <i>Dungeons & Delvers</i> 2nd Edition DR from armor is much higher, plus with <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2022/03/dungeons-delvers-2nd-edition-dead-man.html">the "dead man walking" rule</a> you don't just immediately go from perfectly functional to immediately dead.</p><p>I don't mind slow leveling up, so long as in-game events are interesting. It's also not so bad if you give players neat abilities earlier on. In <i>Dungeons & Delvers</i> a lot of the really cool stuff is attainable around 9th-level or so. For example, wizards can get meteor swarm early on, and monks focusing on the kirin fighting style can get an attack that lets them teleport and deal lightning damage to everything near where they appear.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvkxdABqbvAKPW7GL4OWCJuNV6tzhQmj25RQQjacjKpj2jKpDdTUWi9rB8d6a02GOA4mOfGxHTLHSjIsGwrcK3sDQfMYo_C23HD8tU0uI38q57ynrj43e-YxzKzKoe2PvhQ49Ca2NnRbFPhPKeE9UPV5b_8ErQWliNsflmAOn8ESaybEKnJUvF56Uz218/s3685/female%20human%20fighter%202.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3685" data-original-width="1818" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvkxdABqbvAKPW7GL4OWCJuNV6tzhQmj25RQQjacjKpj2jKpDdTUWi9rB8d6a02GOA4mOfGxHTLHSjIsGwrcK3sDQfMYo_C23HD8tU0uI38q57ynrj43e-YxzKzKoe2PvhQ49Ca2NnRbFPhPKeE9UPV5b_8ErQWliNsflmAOn8ESaybEKnJUvF56Uz218/s16000/female%20human%20fighter%202.png" /></a></div><br /><p></p></div></div>David Guyllhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16299128722345607123noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-40558113210444446702024-03-14T16:31:00.000-07:002024-03-14T16:31:30.176-07:00ShadowDark: A Half-Assed Name For A Half-Assed Game<p>I saw this Tweet a few days ago:</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg74rg8IihBZp5nQ0TNGR2m6WttDqm70B5xA6281Y05KeLiJup7TFLpSXhHMTwNbF72HaT0ZpKeyONuSf0J3nhMtf3prIWbdZ79u_OI5Ae2Q-CfIxmD1eXObqsnEVXvNPc0BCPlKu2batLP-f2g9uzjIeeqVihVDFQScN-0-5ImOg_ZGNSsL0VyKJnPJdw/s591/shadowdork%2001.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="169" data-original-width="591" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg74rg8IihBZp5nQ0TNGR2m6WttDqm70B5xA6281Y05KeLiJup7TFLpSXhHMTwNbF72HaT0ZpKeyONuSf0J3nhMtf3prIWbdZ79u_OI5Ae2Q-CfIxmD1eXObqsnEVXvNPc0BCPlKu2batLP-f2g9uzjIeeqVihVDFQScN-0-5ImOg_ZGNSsL0VyKJnPJdw/s16000/shadowdork%2001.png" /></a></div><p>Oh, if only Geeky--and many others, it seems--read <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2023/03/the-curious-case-of-shadowdark-simps.html">my DoubleDark review</a> first, they could have saved themselves, at the least, pissing away <i>thirty</i> fucking dollars on an incomplete, ill-conceived hack. Ah, well, live, learn, and support people that <a href="https://biggeekemporium.com/product/dungeons-delvers-core-rulebook/">actually give even the </a><a href="https://biggeekemporium.com/product/dungeons-delvers-core-rulebook/"><i>slightest</i> fuck about making something even remotely resembling a complete game</a>, as opposed to attention-starved narcissists who merely pinch out vapidware trash for underserved money, praise, and/or influence.</p><p>Now, the amount of races and classes I'd consider to be the bare minimum depends entirely on how they are presented and their overall depth, and while I'm more forgiving of races being on the shallower end content-wise this is <i>beyond</i> pathetic (yet entirely on brand for these sorts of post-modern "games"):</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhysRcYdJBL2_sT24xGGPz9dKpE1tmEyFB7o3DxkDamdbELpj4BVL42SFI8BRTV6e3RzIWQNGfUOHucoUxL0tyJSFZEzB-_w4SiQag_OdRn11W4pf1CPPrIQCEceibHZOBsENYzOzxQ_Z0QXbqMmqPNvfEPDS9EUwYBPgNHWiNoD6bEt7_mlUwqLa7z6Pk/s2421/Shadowdark_RPG_-_V1-20.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2421" data-original-width="1748" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhysRcYdJBL2_sT24xGGPz9dKpE1tmEyFB7o3DxkDamdbELpj4BVL42SFI8BRTV6e3RzIWQNGfUOHucoUxL0tyJSFZEzB-_w4SiQag_OdRn11W4pf1CPPrIQCEceibHZOBsENYzOzxQ_Z0QXbqMmqPNvfEPDS9EUwYBPgNHWiNoD6bEt7_mlUwqLa7z6Pk/s16000/Shadowdark_RPG_-_V1-20.png" /></a></div><br /><p><i>Wow</i>. Good on Kelsey for going the extra millimeter and giving each race all of like three sentences worth of content. You're certainly getting anywhere near your money's worth, here, as I'm so very sure no one else but her could have possibly taken decades' worth of existing material and concepts and water down classic races down to but <i>one</i> benefit. </p><p>Classes aren't much better. Here's the entirely of the fighter:</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEho0ZhiENJUjui4-OjHOFtDZWXgFwr6LKi4uJVeL6dSPbQKDBvAf0VCoEq73y0i9HIQ_N3p-I0drcClydnWCCNTPe_m8mdofS6wrW6Kw58E-4Wk5qaKvb77zaHvq3lM8Uy7bhEYyzqBlrB6T2z5EgLrkRJMsIYtnvna9tEGrJhP8y4geFh8B1MWspYZgLs/s2421/Shadowdark_RPG_-_V1-22.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2421" data-original-width="1748" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEho0ZhiENJUjui4-OjHOFtDZWXgFwr6LKi4uJVeL6dSPbQKDBvAf0VCoEq73y0i9HIQ_N3p-I0drcClydnWCCNTPe_m8mdofS6wrW6Kw58E-4Wk5qaKvb77zaHvq3lM8Uy7bhEYyzqBlrB6T2z5EgLrkRJMsIYtnvna9tEGrJhP8y4geFh8B1MWspYZgLs/s16000/Shadowdark_RPG_-_V1-22.png" /></a></div><br /><p>Yep, <i>one</i> page. And Kelsey can't even be bothered to do anything interesting with it, and I almost can't blame her because her emotionally and intellectually challenged simps not only don't give a fuck (or get one from her, despite their desperate and doomed hopes), but actually <i>defend</i> her laziness and ineptitude:</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinBM6F93uIUfA7fvIkv2p3fxx-iaOKcBqqU582Qe1TWVa9lok3pHTpi8T4AJfxxtXXyttCHcGrvY1IRIolMTKpptuP5Z2b1UY8Pb6vJEJfCRc5ADw1Jir2ARYKfhNlkqXJvqb7Ld02NiZu6YHdg7Pmw8-8x7294tMC66woR0lpfDTKYKWk2wT_ARoLKVM/s589/shadowdork%2002.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="158" data-original-width="589" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinBM6F93uIUfA7fvIkv2p3fxx-iaOKcBqqU582Qe1TWVa9lok3pHTpi8T4AJfxxtXXyttCHcGrvY1IRIolMTKpptuP5Z2b1UY8Pb6vJEJfCRc5ADw1Jir2ARYKfhNlkqXJvqb7Ld02NiZu6YHdg7Pmw8-8x7294tMC66woR0lpfDTKYKWk2wT_ARoLKVM/s16000/shadowdork%2002.png" /></a></div><p><br /></p><p>Not that anyone needs to homebrew an economy, ever, but everyone I've ever played any edition of <i>Dungeons & Dragons</i> with just runs the prices out of the book as is, and the game operates just fine. Fortunately, though naive, or perhaps overly curious about overhyped postmodern trash, Geeky is at the least <i>not</i> a simp:</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhuVs6kRWjvvzCj0v_LA8OrvJeqo6GELcQNF6NYYWB1vvf3UsXDrcfdRq5E4XqB2nIj63OQMC8jmSM0Up1afxSk7Rdqhumc453aSM1ekLWyOC_u1uFMrtRfgBpxpTZoV_KZHDNzUsVDFLqsbiJ1txB7l-S_wu6fHZHa0EZA64_ZujDRzFKMJTWYb7c3Q2U/s590/shadowdork%2003.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="102" data-original-width="590" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhuVs6kRWjvvzCj0v_LA8OrvJeqo6GELcQNF6NYYWB1vvf3UsXDrcfdRq5E4XqB2nIj63OQMC8jmSM0Up1afxSk7Rdqhumc453aSM1ekLWyOC_u1uFMrtRfgBpxpTZoV_KZHDNzUsVDFLqsbiJ1txB7l-S_wu6fHZHa0EZA64_ZujDRzFKMJTWYb7c3Q2U/s16000/shadowdork%2003.png" /></a></div><p>And he's right. Kelsey is fine lifting material from other games, some of them even decent or at the least complete, but couldn't be bothered <i>here</i> because she doesn't care, and her simple-minded simps don't ask or even expect anything more of her. She's like a retard that people praise for failing to accomplish even the bare minimum because it somehow makes them feel better.</p><p>I responded to the thread with a link to my review. Too late for Geeky but maybe I can still save others from buyer's remorse:</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6ZxT7lCIFX1u_Sr8XU2YjRvjTzAH4OQoT-jcgmx-KvUGpx8RmeUFbp_tNPc5XfE6DZQX7wXUZpUCIVEqZKvDuFGOiech6PIIKD4z7l3Ra1B4RnnLeclOiBeILyMGeyC0VohIEks8erXo04cMr0E_flRGaYDMw7eO2zrvQyZuyBeL1Xp1MFDrvNbFb5tE/s601/shadowdork%2004.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="601" data-original-width="589" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6ZxT7lCIFX1u_Sr8XU2YjRvjTzAH4OQoT-jcgmx-KvUGpx8RmeUFbp_tNPc5XfE6DZQX7wXUZpUCIVEqZKvDuFGOiech6PIIKD4z7l3Ra1B4RnnLeclOiBeILyMGeyC0VohIEks8erXo04cMr0E_flRGaYDMw7eO2zrvQyZuyBeL1Xp1MFDrvNbFb5tE/s16000/shadowdork%2004.png" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div>I wouldn't call DarkityDarkDark an innovation: it's about a fifth of 5th Edition with random rules lifted from other games and shoehorned in, which is an absurdly low hurdle that anyone can overcome, even when they don't merely just copy an existing game whole-cloth and slap a new name on it. Kelsey couldn't even be bothered to copy-paste <i>good</i> versions of rules, expand on them in any meaningful way, or include <i>most</i> of the necessary rules.</div><div><br /></div><div>For example, there's no rules for starvation or thirst, or foraging for food, and instead of conditions you barely get <i>two</i> examples. Would it have been so hard to just pull the list from 5E? It's what she basically did for weapons and the mornic Advantage/Disadvantage rules. Maybe she was afraid that she was <i>already</i> cribbing too much from that version.</div><div><br /></div><div>Instead, you get half-assed rules that are essentially half (at <i>best</i>) of a barely-tweaked, bog standard d20 core, terrible advice, asinine additions like kinda-sorta but not <i>really</i> real-time torches, tables that are as shallow and useless as they are uninspired, monsters that are <i>technically</i> usable but as shallow and uninspired as the tables, and godawful art, all smeared across a 332 page PDF.</div><div><br /></div><div>For <i>thirty</i> dollars.</div><div><br /></div><div>You could get a similar-yet-superior experience by rummaging through the d20srd and just ignoring like half of the material, and it wouldn't cost you a dime.</div><div><br /></div><div>Alternatively, <i><a href="https://biggeekemporium.com/product/dungeons-delvers-core-rulebook/">Dungeons & Delvers</a></i> is over 500 pages, full-color, with reimagined races and classes that actually make sense and have a bunch of options (as opposed to rolling on a barebones table with lackluster modifier increases), and prices for things that aren't weapons, armor, and adventuring gear: you got mounts, vehicles, trade goods, hirelings, livestock, maybe some other stuff I'm forgetting.</div><div><br /></div><div>The monsters also aren't just <i>D&D</i> monsters without barely any description and "modernized" statblocks, and most of the classic <i>D&D</i> stuff has different lore and/or abilities, so even if the name is familiar its place in the world and behavior probably differs in some way. I guess a downside is that it doesn't use retarded item slots, and we didn't bother nostalgia pandering with a nonsense table of alignment-based class titles.</div>David Guyllhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16299128722345607123noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-37684180399423232662024-03-10T08:57:00.000-07:002024-03-10T08:57:42.457-07:00Biggus Geekus: Aberrations<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYHng3ZreIQ&t=2210s&ab_channel=BiggusGeekus">Last week's Biggus Geekus show was largely about aberrations</a>, a monster category that is near and dear to my heart: most of the adventures I run have a horror influence, which is often rooted in the cosmic variety (and I vaguely recall a campaign I ran well over a decade ago that gave one of the players nightmares due to body horror elements so we had to stop). Not that all aberrations need be lifted from a Lovecraftian tale, or even inspired by one, but when it comes to eldritch horrors it's typically the most suitable classification.</p><p>21 minutes into the show the aboleth is briefly brought up, which is a monster that I can only recall making a <i>very </i>brief appearance in the original 4th Edition <i>Sundered World</i> campaign, and while I can't recall why I never used or encountered it "back in the day", looking at it now I can safely say that I'd never use it as written: it's essentially a goofy fish monster with seemingly random abilities tacked on and no real motivation beyond "evil".</p><p>While aboleths made their debut in 1st Edition <i>AD&D</i>, I <i>mostly</i> got my start in 2nd Edition. There they had middling combat efficacy, with an average of 36 hit points and four tentacle attacks that inflicted a mere 1d6 damage. The only real danger was that each tentacle strike forced a save versus spell (for some reason) to avoid your skin turning translucent. This could be prevented with cure disease, but once the process was complete required a cure serious wounds spell. If you couldn't prevent or remove it, you had to keep your skin damp or suffer 1d12 damage every 10 minutes.</p><p>It could also generate very convincing illusions, which had no specified range or other limitations, but would only use these to lure creatures close enough for it to smack or enslave them. It could only try to enslave three creatures per day, because everything must abide by pseudo-Vancian nonsense, though if it managed to pull it off the creatures wouldn't fight for it. Instead, enslaved victims were <i>possibly</i> used to build underwater cities, which I'll get to in a bit.</p><p>Oh, I almost forgot the mucous cloud: this would appear around it when underwater, and if you inhaled it you could only breathe while underwater for 1d3 hours. I'm guessing this contrivance was included so that it's slaves could hang out with it underwater, maybe build stuff, and having to routinely take hits from the cloud in order to avoid dying.</p><p>I suppose I should mention its psionic powers. It had some. However, if you didn't own the psionics handbook you had no clue what the heck they did so couldn't use them, and if you <i>did</i> own it you probably thought they were "broken" and didn't use them, anyway.</p><p>The aboleth's motivation is that it is evil and hates "most" land-dwellers and seeks to enslave them. For what purpose? No definitive answer is given. Instead, there's only a rumor that they are used to build "huge underwater cities". Of course, none of them have been found but I do wonder why the hell aboleths would even bother: they can live just fine in underwater caves, and it's not a fucking <i>Spongebob</i> episode so it's not like they'd be bustling with people and have anything resembling a society or economy.</p><p><i>Another</i> rumor is that they are said to know "ancient, horrible secrets that predate the existence of man", but apparently no one has bothered using something like contact other plane to confirm this. Something that <i>is</i> known, somehow, is that aboleth offspring not only know what their parent does, but if one eats an intelligent creature it also learns everything it knew.</p><p>As with most monsters, its transition to 3rd Edition provided it with a considerable boost in combat, which average hit points nearly doubling, and its tentacles inflicting a much more reasonable 1d6+8 damage. Most of its abilities aren't changed much, though enslaved targets get to make a save every day, and moving more than a mile immediately ends it. The biggest change is that while it still has powers labeled psionics, these are just normal wizard spells so you don't need to buy a supplement in order to use them.</p><p>However, its motivation remains just as shallow as it ever was: it hates all nonaquatic creatures for no particular reason and attempts to kill on sight. On the upside, there's no mention of building pointless underwater cities, and it's confirmed that they <i>do</i> in fact know many ancient and terrible secrets.</p><p>Adventure-wise I think aboleths have several clear uses: they know secrets so, barring a myriad of other methods and opportunities, characters could be forced to hunt one down and extort it for information (it could have even devoured someone that knew what the players need to know). Or, perhaps perform some sort of service for it, though in either case you'll just have to hope it's telling the truth.</p><p>It hoards treasure for no discernible purpose, so another option is that the characters need an item and it just so happens it's buried under aboleth shit underwater somewhere (though as a player I would want to know <i>why</i> it has them in the first place), and I suppose you could also just throw it at the party as a generic evil monster doing generic evil things, eating people and/or enslaving them or whatever.</p><p>It's <i>technically</i> usable, just...random and boring.</p><p>To be fair, in <i>Dungeons & Delvers</i> we didn't change much about them, but in watching this episode and analyzing it more critically I think it needs a major overhaul in 2nd Edition. For starters, given their inherent magical powers, penchant for enslaving others, and the ability to learn information from devoured creatures, I think it makes sense to tie their origins/habitat closely to mind flayers, a monstrous race that <i>also</i> has inherent magical powers, enjoys enslaving others, and at the least devours the brains of intelligent creatures.</p><p>What I find odd about the 2nd Edition mind flayer is that, despite how puny its tentacles appear they inflict a consistent 2 points of damage, which is absurd when compared to the considerably larger aboleth's 1d6 (though I also think that is far too low). However, its primary method of attack is a mind blast, which affects everyone in a cone, stunning them for 3d4 round on a failed save. And it should be noted that these are 2E rounds, which last an entire minute, meaning that on average if you fail a save the mind flayer will have around 10 minutes to do whatever the hell it wants to you.</p><p>Which, assuming there's no one to stop him, <i>probably </i>means that he'll latch on to your head and extract your brain.</p><p>This makes mind flayers far more dangerous than aboleths, and even better, they have a more cohesive theme going on, with their magical abilities allowing them to manipulate and read the minds of others, though they can also float, astrally project, and teleport to other planes of existence (which makes it pretty hard to pin down). There's a psionic mind flayer variant, which is fine since if you didn't own the book or didn't like psionics, you could just stick with the standard model and nothing is lost.</p><p>While mind flayers can't just magically <i>enslave</i> anyone, with an at-will charm they can use it to supplement managing slaves the good ol' fashioned way, and while this might not still be foolproof--especially given that the target will likely get to make a new save every few weeks or so--it would certainly make the job much easier.</p><p>Though they are typically found underground, at east they are encountered on land and I think this plus the fact that they can operate in communities makes it much easier to utilize them in not just individual adventures but entire campaigns: you can start with the party running into charmed minions, then a lone mind flayer (which will probably planeshift away to safety), then maybe they finally take a recurring mind flayer down, then have to content with a small group, and finally you can have them venture into a mind flayer city to defeat an elder brain.</p><p>A city that the mind flayers would actually need to, among other things, house each other, perform experiments, store supplies and other items, secure their elder brain and tadpole pools, torture captives, and observe their version of gladiatorial fights.</p><p>Unfortunately, mind flayers are one of a handful of monsters that WokeC won't let you use as-is, so even though I think they are on much more solid ground both literally and conceptually when compared to aboleths, we had to change them up in <i>Dungeons & Delvers</i>.</p><p>For starters we renamed them thulids. Thulids have an inherent fly speed, essentially able to use telekinesis on themselves. Their tentacles inflict a bunch of acid damage, which would make the job easier dissolving flesh and bone to get at a target's brain. Their primary form of attack is a single-target mind bolt, which inflicts a bunch of psychic damage and penalizes a target's Wisdom saves, making it more likely that he'll succumb to the thulid's powers on the following round.</p><p>I still think they need more changes. Not just to further distance them from mind flayers, but because I think it would make them far more interesting if they could, for starters, use telekinesis on other creatures and objects, absorb memories from creatures they eat, and modify and erase the memories of living creatures, which could be use to create full-on slaves that don't need to be spam-charmed.</p><p>Something we <i>did</i> change up quite a bit even though we didn't need to are mimics. In <i>Dungeons & Dragons </i>they are pretty straightforward ambush monsters, capable of physically transforming into various objects. Treasure chessts are the classic option, but 2nd Edition mentions a door frame as another example, and 3rd Edition also suggests a large bed.</p><p>In <i>Dungeons & Delvers</i> the role remains the same. However, mimics in our game can only mimic the color and texture of objects that they regularly consume. So, if a mimic wants to, well, <i>mimic</i> a wooden object, it needs to ingest and dissolve wood. Additionally, they must remain completely immobile when mimicking an object: any moving parts revert to the mimic's natural color and texture, which is pale and waxy (not the entire mimic, just the part that is moving).</p><p>To help with digestion of inorganic materials, mimics can produce acid anywhere on their bodies. In combat, they can add acid damage to their attacks. Worse, they can secrete it reflexively, so if you attack one with a melee weapon you might have to make a Dex save to avoid damage.</p><p>Fledging mimics lack precise control, and so cannot appear as detailed objects <i>or</i> one made of multiple materials. So, oddly shaped or composed objects might clue in characters to young mimics in the vicinity, as can partially dissolved objects. Oh, mimics of any age cannot adjust their weight, and regardless of appearance will always <i>feel</i> warm and rubbery to the touch. Though, by the time you touch a mimic it's probably too late.</p><p>Another thing we added that I don't recall seeing in <i>Dungeons & Dragons</i>, is that our mimics can stretch out and essentially "flow" through small openings, and can use their adhesive to quickly and easily scale walls and move across ceilings. This makes it easier to sneak around, as well as mimic objects you might find on a ceiling. Or even just as part of a ceiling, if you want to give it a lurker above vibe.</p><p>We didn't include <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2018/04/dungeons-delvers-boatload-of-mimics.html">a mimic queen in the monster section</a>, but will in 2nd Edition. Otherwise I think they're in a good place and don't need much if any additional adjustments.</p><p>I'm assuming that beholders are brought up at some point in the show, but don't remember when. These were another monster that we <i>had</i> to change in <i>Dungeons & Delvers</i>. In our game we call them argons, and they were originally wizards that ended up getting transformed and fused with each other due to an overuse and reliance on transmutation magic. </p><p>Each of their eyes features a different spell (which you can randomly generate using the spell tables in the back of the book), and they can swap out eyes as desired (eyes are gripped by hands, attached to telescoping limbs). They also use eyes as a sort of currency, and can even implant them in other creatures (something Melissa was tempted to do when she ran into one in our <i>Age of Worms</i> playtest campaign).</p><p>For 2nd Edition, we're going to remove the anti-magic central eye as a baked in option, as it doesn't make sense for every argon to have that. We're also going to give them inherent fleshsculpting abilities, which would be necessary to remove and replace eyes with other creatures. Should also put in some hard rules on having an implanted magical eye.</p><p>I vaguely recall gibbering mouthers getting a call out. We have one in <i>Dugneons & Delvers</i> as well, but someone mentioned the variants in 4th Edition, so we're going to look at those for additional inspiration.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnfDxUNCGN6AmMzwiu0pqPcSa8mu_nYZqUKGMI6d-MmbqLKVDtf4Wf69SxUxJIeLBFYjW15FUWSFFaoU6gU3Ac2VRhXkRSd80YpqWaVPpzhQGp_K3gqD3nwzuJaVgcb-R6_bVHMQ0Z1WO20cZSeEm7s0dYw9RCSsD4D6LFZifgDsPv8GJvvCicIw5nMhY/s3900/color_thulid%20with%20white%20background.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3900" data-original-width="2754" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnfDxUNCGN6AmMzwiu0pqPcSa8mu_nYZqUKGMI6d-MmbqLKVDtf4Wf69SxUxJIeLBFYjW15FUWSFFaoU6gU3Ac2VRhXkRSd80YpqWaVPpzhQGp_K3gqD3nwzuJaVgcb-R6_bVHMQ0Z1WO20cZSeEm7s0dYw9RCSsD4D6LFZifgDsPv8GJvvCicIw5nMhY/s16000/color_thulid%20with%20white%20background.png" /></a></div><br /><p><br /></p>David Guyllhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16299128722345607123noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-57723190794151421152024-03-02T22:10:00.000-08:002024-03-02T22:10:25.839-08:00Biggus Geekus: Fixing D&D, Part 2<p>Didn't know there was going to be a second part, which you can <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_FvLsttBSY&t=2497s&ab_channel=BiggusGeekus">watch here for full context</a> (<a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2024/02/biggus-geekus-fixing-d.html">part one is here</a>), and while I was able to catch it live this time, I neglected to keep notes so I had to mostly watch it again, anyway.</p><p>At around the 32 minute mark Joe brings up a topic that is apparently making the rounds but I've as of yet been blissfully unaware of, which is to remove the attack roll and/or hit points from what I assume are D&D and/or D&D-like games.</p><p>Starting with the attack roll nonsense, Joe mentions Matt Colville and his latest vapidware trash grift, but it actually reminded me of a conversation that was so long ago it might have been on G+, where a guy was talking about <i>his</i> particular brand of vapidware trash grift: instead of rolling to determine success or failure, you always did whatever you were doing, the roll was merely to determine how "awesome" you were. It essentially turns the game into a participation award circle jerk, which sounds very much on-brand for Colville and the simpettes.</p><p>So it's not only <i>not </i>original, it's not even particularly interesting or useful, but this is the guy that pinched out a beneath the bottom-of-the-barrel "stronghold" book so what did you expect? It's the best he guy can do, perhaps because no one expects or asks for anything even approaching baseline quality, so he panders to the lower than the lowest common denominator, recycles existing ideas and pretends that he's some sort of talented and innovative game designer. He's making a bunch of money, which won't make him happy, and in exchange he <i>might</i> one day toss his mentally deficient supporters yet another under-produced incomplete vapidware trash derivative which also won't make them happy.</p><p>Frankly, they all deserve each other and I'm glad he's lured them off into one of <i>many</i> shadowy corners of the hobby. Good riddance, I say.</p><p>Joe states that one reason "these people" want to remove attack rolls is to speed up combat, which sounds absurd (not his reasoning but the concept). Yeah, he's right that you can roll your attack and damage dice at the same time, but how much time is <i>actually being consumed</i> by rolling to hit, calculating the results, and <i>then </i>rolling a damage die? Because even if you roll both at once you <i>still</i> need to take time to determine whether it was successful or not.</p><p>So, what's the time it takes to just pick up and roll the damage die? Well, I timed it and it took like three seconds. But, even rounding it up to five this means that over the course of a dozen combat rounds you'll save <i>maybe</i> a minute, and over the course of over seven <i>hundred</i> rounds you'll save an hour. This sounds like a lot, but the people whining about speeding up combat in this regard would just piss it and many more hours away watching crap on Netflix and/or Amazon, and pretending to be outraged on social media, because not only do they not even really care about or play games, they don't have jobs or even anything remotely resembling responsibilities.</p><p>Another nonargument that Joe heard that makes <i>much</i> more sense was that it's "not fun to miss", and while this is <i>technically</i> true what these participation award beneficiaries who are the mental, emotional, and if we're being honest probably even <i>physical</i> inferiors to children fail to grasp is that failure <i>will</i> make your successes more rewarding because, and I'm sure there are a variety of equally applicable quotes but this is the one that sticks out the most for me, the sweet is never as sweet without the sour.</p><p>It's what makes it feel so rewarding in a game like, say, <i>Monster Hunter World</i>, where after a half dozen or so tries against, say, raging brachydios, you <i>finally</i> manage to slay him (which, assuming you want his armor and/or weapons will be the first of like a dozen times). But then these people are lazy, entitled, pretentious and <i>pathetic </i>narcissists who want to reap the rewards without putting in <i>any</i> amount of effort. which is why you see innumerable vapidware trash games like <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/search/max-results=7?q=Mork+Borg">Mork Borg</a>, <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2021/12/troika-is-trash.html">Troika</a>, <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2021/12/shill-reviewer-thinks-terrible-fake-rpg.html">Index Card</a>, <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2023/03/the-curious-case-of-shadowdark-simps.html">DarkityDarkDark</a> and, in all likelihood, whatever the fuck Matt is working on, assuming he even bothers to push anything out.</p><p>And while removing the attack roll is utterly and objectively retarded, because it's a game and a major factor of what makes games enjoyable is at least the <i>possibility</i> of failure, removing hit points isn't something I take much issue with, so long as you aren't just removing them so that in addition to being unable to fail at anything, ever, that characters will <i>also</i> be unable to die (which wouldn't surprise me). We actually developed <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/search/max-results=7?q=wound+levels">a functional wound level system</a> last year, but probably won't utilize it for <i>Delvers</i> 2nd Edition for the following reasons:</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>We don't want to readjust most everything. It works fine with more or less normal attacks, even against something like an ogre, but I'm concerned how it will hold up against spells that inflict a lot of damage. It could easily turn into a one-shot kill, or at least cripple a monster to the point where it would be trivial to wrap up the fight. This means that I'd need to reduce the damage spells inflict, increase the cost, or both.</li><li>Healing might be tricky. Clerics aren't an adventuring class, and mending potions now trigger a healing check to determine WP recovery, but that might still play odd with the system.</li><li>It's more complex, which will be more apparent and annoying against lots of monsters, since you have to check for damage and then make a Constitution save to determine Wound Level loss. Since there's also an associated penalty, it would also be more annoying with lots of enemies because you would need to track which enemy suffers from which penalty.</li></ul>For now, we're content with reducing the overall WP (it's not only lower overall and accumulates more slowly, but your Constitution only modifies the total and is not applied at every level), the new healing check, and a simple injury penalty that kicks in when you're at half WP or less.<div><p>Around 44 minutes Joe mentions one reason for replacing hit points is that they aren't well defined. However, despite any "official" explanations, even by Gygax, hit points <i>are</i> in fact quite well defined: simply put they're "meat" points. This is because the only thing that restores them are healing magic and rest, and in most editions the latter would replenish them <i>very</i> slowly. The only exception was oddly in 4th Edition, where the warlod's Inspiring World exploit would restore hit points (the idea being a sudden boost in morale or somesuch). Otherwise, nope, they can <i>only </i>represent physical injury.</p><p>Patrick's statement about a game where you just roll a die to defeat a bad guy reminds me of <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2022/04/dicedream-ii-disjointed-derivative.html">DiceDream</a>, which is an incomplete vapidware trash game with other nonsense mechanics like magically completely healing merely by stepping a single foot out of the dungeon environment, which can be done an unlimited number of times whenever you please. Unsurprisingly it was written by a guy pretending to be neither male nor female, and who associates with RPG Pundit and <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2022/03/hit-point-hate.html">likes to attempt to play the -ist and/or -ism card in order to deflect well-deserved criticism</a>.</p><p>At 53 minutes Joe asks what's so hard about subtracting whole numbers. The answer is <i>nothing</i>, it's just you have a bunch of lazy hobby tourists who simultaneously want to keep dumbing things down yet don't even really play. This is partially why you have a deluge of vapidware trash games that utilize post-modern, <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2023/08/encumbrance-isnt-hard.html">tourist-tier mechanics like item slots</a> (with other contributing factors that include incompetence, greed, and narcissism): for them, it's "too hard" to say that a character can carry 50 pounds of stuff, and then tally up basic gear to see if you exceed this amount.</p><p>No, instead you need to assign everything an abstract item slot value, and give each character an item slot cap. It's basically the same thing, except that the item slot values and caps never make any fucking sense. It's always something weird like 10 slots + Strength, with heavy armor only taking up something like 2-3 slots, but daggers somehow only take up 1, meaning that the so-called designer suffers from many delusions, one of which is that a dagger apparently weighs something like 20 pounds. Or, maybe that plate armor weighs like 3 pounds.</p><p>Something to point out is that my kids have been gaming for years (my oldest daughter starting when she was around 8), and neither have <i>never</i> had an issue tracking equipment using at least somewhat accurate weights, as well as a more gradual encumbrance system in which you can be lightly or heavily encumbered, both with their own associated penalties. Even better, it is structured in a way where characters cannot easily carry an absurd amount of weight without being hindered in any way (no, not even fighters). But then my kids are <i>actual</i> gamers that not only enjoy the challenge but create their own content as well.</p><p>Finally, at about an an hour and a half in Joe reveals more of their game. I didn't find it as interesting as last week's because it's mostly about the <i>flavor</i> behind their races as opposed to mechanics. Every race but human has one or more "restricted" classes, but I'm not sure if this means that they can <i>only</i> pick from those, or if those are in addition to more standardized options.</p><p>I'm not a fan of this, because last time this was brought up someone mentioned Adventurer, Conquerer, King, and in that system none of the race-specific classes made any sense. But maybe they will do something interesting with the concept. For <i>Dungeons & Delvers</i> we just use racial classes, which allows you to say, play a dwarf and take levels in a "dwarf" class in order to expand on your racial abilities (such as by having your skin harden and being able to craft items without using tools or a forge).</p><p>There was also mention about having races live about as long as humans do as a way to explain a lack of numbers or something. Another option is to have it so that most races don't even reproduce like humans. There could even be a set number, having been created through some other, more unusual means. For example, a specific number of dwarves might have been fashioned from the corpse of a giant, so there's only so many, and once they run out, that's that (and maybe in their world they're very close to finally running out).</p><p>Similarly, in <i>Dungeons & Delvers</i> kobolds are a spirit form: they don't reproduce like mortals do. Instead, they manifest spontaneously when certain conditions are met. Elves are an odd one, since the idea of half-elves exist, though their rarity could be explained by them tending to not want to travel to the mortal realm for some reason. Perhaps it causes a significant degree of discomfort or even causes them to gradually waste away, so they can only linger for so long before having to return home for a period of time.</p><p>In any case, it has given us something to think about for <i>Delvers</i> 2nd Edition.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhG4UCQwcN8MkBLHwkDpgVyVLwIM44RqdRmZko6-vNZ_aYNV2M9mswYqKiTu3sp-FL7rqjkeryJ_1R8rYf0pbPuBIzyYUysCwTv2lSI2bCoGY-M1R7CcAh0gWUaPWxRxWQFwlx1MtkQBOSCWMrt0TfAzZqNIjci8IHHwK1aB85ApuL1UR-H8zmY6AF6k24/s3300/dungeons%20and%20delvers%20core%20rulebook%20v2.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3300" data-original-width="2550" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhG4UCQwcN8MkBLHwkDpgVyVLwIM44RqdRmZko6-vNZ_aYNV2M9mswYqKiTu3sp-FL7rqjkeryJ_1R8rYf0pbPuBIzyYUysCwTv2lSI2bCoGY-M1R7CcAh0gWUaPWxRxWQFwlx1MtkQBOSCWMrt0TfAzZqNIjci8IHHwK1aB85ApuL1UR-H8zmY6AF6k24/s16000/dungeons%20and%20delvers%20core%20rulebook%20v2.png" /></a></div><br /><p><br /></p></div>David Guyllhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16299128722345607123noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-83913588264599920682024-02-25T10:22:00.000-08:002024-02-25T10:22:41.124-08:00Biggus Geekus: Fixing D&D<p>I <i>really</i> wish I could have made <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-3_Jc-t5d8&ab_channel=BiggusGeekus">this episode</a> live, as I would have had quite a bit to say. Though, I still would have wanted to blog about it in order to make my thoughts easier to find and reference, so I guess if there’s a silver lining here it’s that I ultimately saved some time.</p><p>Around the 12 minute mark Bruce Lombardo imparts essentially the same wisdom I always do whenever Randy–or anyone else, really–brings up the subject of making his own game, and that is: </p><p>Make the game you want to play. </p><p>I would add to this that you should do so, so long as there isn’t <i>already</i> a game that does what you want, or at least close enough that any deviations or issues don’t bother you much and/or aren’t easily resolved. It doesn’t matter if it’s “just another d20 game”, though <i>ideally</i> it will be unique enough to justify its own existence.</p><p>A caveat is if your primary motivators are attention and money: in this case don’t bother pinching out <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2021/05/mork-borg-modern-rpg.html">yet another vapidware trash game</a>, as there’s already a considerable amount of <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2023/03/the-curious-case-of-shadowdark-simps.html">shallow rehashes</a> that <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2021/12/troika-is-trash.html">don’t add anything meaningful or even interesting</a> to the <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2021/12/shill-reviewer-thinks-terrible-fake-rpg.html">existing heap of literary excrement</a>.</p><p>They then talk for a bit about the idea of weaving characters into the overarching story. This sounds like something Randy initially desired but is no longer interested, stating that it's "kinda storygamey". It is, which also means that as with every other storygame mechanic it’s bad, because while I can live with certain abstractions like hit points, storygame mechanics are somehow more overt reminders that you’re merely playing a game.</p><p>For example, in Dungeon World if you attack an enemy and roll too low, which means a total of 9 or less on a 2d6+modifier roll, then you deal damage but the GM makes something happen, which can be wholly unrelated to anything to do with your attack. Typically it means that the enemy does something to you, which isn’t <i>that</i> bad but if you get a 6 or less then <i>anything</i> is on the table: the enemy can retaliate, reinforcements can show up, something can go awry with the environment, etc.</p><p>Similarly, if you’re traveling and roll a 9 or less this can mean that you get lost, but it can <i>also</i> mean that your wagon breaks, your horse explodes, your food spoils, and/or the weather gets worse, none of which have <i>anything</i> to do with avoiding getting lost. Now, I don’t have a problem with any of these events occurring, just not as a result of in the context of a d20 game failing your Survival check. </p><p>While not necessarily a storygame mechanic, I should also point out that for all Dungeon World prattles on about “following the fiction”, you can get torn to shreds by a dragon but fully heal up by merely wrapping your character in bandages, which sounds dumber than 5E’s full heal on a rest. I guess sometimes "the fiction" is Looney Tunes logic.</p><p>Fortunately, he now says that he's a fan of just bringing a character and seeing what happens, and this is the best way to play for a variety of reasons:</p><p>First, it doesn't burden the DM with having to read numerous pages of bad fanfic that he then has to mix together and squeeze something resembling a story out of. When I played in a campaign that was run by two DMs, they wanted us to write up elaborate backstories, which was the first and only time I’ve done so. It was an…interesting idea, but they had to somehow tie everything together, and it was clear that the only reason this or that event happened was because it was in our background and given that we wrote it there <i>had</i> to be some sort of payoff.</p><p>It would be like obtaining a holy avenger +5, not because you happened to find one, or learned about the location of one and went on a quest to retrieve it yourself, but because you stated in your background that your father possessed one and intended for you to inherit it all along.</p><p>Second, you avoid wasting a bunch of time if the character dies, the player grows tired of playing it, the player can no longer play at all, or the campaign fizzles out. </p><p>Going back to the co-DM campaign, one of the players at one point wanted to stop playing his character, and both DMs had to convince him to keep trudging along because they put in all this time and effort weaving his backstory elements into the overarching campaign narrative. They also admitted that from levels 1-3, they were pulling their punches and fudging every roll possible to ensure that no one died (which cleared up several strange occurrences, like how we killed an ogre at 2nd-level that just kept “missing” us).</p><p>Of course, the campaign eventually fizzled out–in large part due to, surprising no one, DM burn out–so all of that unnecessary work on both sides of the screen <i>still</i> ended up getting wasted, anyway.</p><p>Randy states that his bad guys will still have "plots", but that he won't worry about where the characters fit in. This is <i>also</i> good because you avoid having to structure the events as if it were a story. Even better, it makes the game world feel more realistic and alive, because events happen beyond the characters’ collective bubbles: they can’t count on something not going wrong just because they aren’t present, or even opted to ignore it or get around to it "later".</p><p>Ultimately it sounds like Randy is just going to play and run his games normally, which is great to hear. More people should just play the game normally, instead of trying to distort it into something it was never intended to be, not that so-called storygames are any better at doing what they’re allegedly intended for, and frankly, if you want to tell a story, just write a novel.</p><p>Around 15 minutes and they bring up an anecdote about how when they were kids they talked about fixing <i>Dungeons & Dragons</i>. Given everything wrong with the game–which varies by edition–it’s a lofty goal to be sure, but still doable.</p><p>Someone makes a comment about "fixing" 5E by playing Pathfinder, but given that 3rd Edition came out many years before that I don't see the point purchasing and playing a woke rehash.</p><p>Randy says that there is no version of Dungeons & Dragons that does what he wants, which I think should be the primary impetus to create your own game, again, so long as there is no other roleplaying game that already does what you want, or does it well and/or closely enough that it's not that much of a bother.</p><p>"Perfect is the enemy of good."</p><p>Agreed, which is why I think you should only create your own game if no other games are good or close enough. <i>Dungeons & Dragons</i> clearly wasn’t for us.</p><p>Around 19 minutes Randy begins to go through his desired criteria (ie, wanting it to run smoothly), but then quickly deviates into the supposed necessity of strategy in 3rd Edition.</p><p>In 3rd Edition not only do you <i>not</i> have to consider strategy, you shouldn't, especially when it comes to heated and chaotic combat where time doesn't really stand still and monsters cannot telepathically relay their plans to each other to execute an unnaturally coordinated attack. This is one of <i>many</i> issues I had with the <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2022/12/the-monsters-know-what-they-are-doing.html">pretentious, overhyped, and <i>deeply</i> flawed strategy guide that is Monsters Know What They’re Doing</a>, as it treats the game like a turned-based video game where everyone can take all the time in the world to plan and execute the most optimized stratagems possible, even though combat would be too chaotic and unpredictable.</p><p>And you don't have to be mechanically sound, either. Barely anyone I played with even had the books, and if we didn't know a rule and didn't want to waste time trying to figure it out, would just bullshit something or change it because many rules in 3E were so badly written--ie, grapple--that you wouldn't ever use it as written, anyway, so it was better to houserule it, or come up with your own rules to resolve that sort of thing.</p><p>I find the comment about older editions encouraging homebrew material moreso than new ones…strange, because 3E had a <i>bunch</i> of rules and guidelines on creating your own stuff. It might have been more complex, assuming you bothered adhering rigidly to the rules (we sure didn’t), but people made their own monsters, classes, races, adventures, etc all the time. Heck, back in the day when WotC at least somewhat gave a fuck, on the was a specific part of their official forum specifically for posting homebrew content.</p><p>While Randy would opt to play BECMI if he were forced to play one version of D&D forever, even though I mostly grew up on 2E I'd still go with 3rd Edition because it's more intuitive and makes more sense than everything else. Sure, there are still many parts that don't make sense, like pseudo-Vancian magic, but it's also not burdened with other nonsense mechanics like XP for gold and training to level up.</p><p>At 27 minutes Ryan David states that he hates hit points. I don't think they are necessary, but also that they are very simple and can make quite a bit of sense, it depends on implementation. That said, we did divise a Wound Level mechanic that held up in playtesting, though this would require a major overhaul of spells and monsters so I’m not sure if we’re going to use it. In any case, we are reducing the about of WP everything has, removing levels and Hit Dice from monsters, and are overhauling the healing mechanic so that it makes more sense.</p><p>Full Metal Dragon chimes in, stating that, "ugh, there are like over a hundred OSR games that use B/X and 1E as their foundation". Maybe, but I'm guessing most are vapidware trash games that either don't meaningfully or interestingly transform the game, or are something like Old School Essentials and merely a repackaged, existing game. In any case, who cares? None of them do what I want, and it sounds like none of them are good enough for Joe and Randy.</p><p>If Randy wants to take a stab at something that is at least conceptually similar, I say go for it: make the game you want to play. Even if no one else likes it, they can keep playing the game(s) that they were playing beforehand.</p><p>I find the criticism about too many actions in 3E strange because most of them you rarely used, if ever. Really the only thing you needed to know was that you could move and attack or cast a spell, or move twice. Sometimes you might use a potion mid-combat, if you had one and the cleric either was out of spells or couldn't get to you, but I can't think of a single time I had to, say, fiddle with a lever during a combat encounter.</p><p>On a side note, in Dungeons & Delvers 2nd Edition we are removing the move+action/move+move action economy. You’ll get to do (mostly) <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2023/04/dungeons-delvers-2nd-edition-everyone.html">one thing</a>, though you can Charge (move+attack but your Defense is penalized), and if you just move you move up to double your Speed (which can be increased with some Talents and Athletics Skill Perks). </p><p>One way to maintain the flexibility of 3rd Edition but cut down on complexity and the "build" mentality is to remove feats and rework them into talents, like we did in <i>Dungeons & Delvers</i>. Each class has its own set of Talents, and while there might be trees you don't have to worry about various criteria such as minimum level and modifiers, such as attack bonus, skills, saves, etc. Plus, most “trees” have at most like 3-4 Talents in total.</p><p>This also keeps things simpler: playing a fighter? Just look in the fighter section. No need to reference the fighter section and then some other section for additional or “general” character options. The exceptions were the barbarian and paladin classes, which could pick Talents from the fighter class since we didn’t want to reprint those in multiple places. But it's still better than having <i>every</i> class have to flip to one or more other sections.</p><p>On the topic of round-by-round initiative, you can do this quickly by having both sides roll a d20 (ignore Dexterity mods and whatever), highest side goes first in whatever order desired (ie, how the DM typically acts anyway in most editions). Only takes a few seconds each time.</p><p>Oooh at 43 minutes we get a sneak peak at what they are cooking up. My thoughts:</p><p><b>Combat:</b> As mentioned before, side-based initiative isn't as realistic but considerably faster. It also makes it easier to re-roll round-by-round if desired.</p><p>Sacrifice: I'm biased towards this because in Dungeons & Delvers fighters can take a Bodyguard Talent, which lets you move up to your Speed and intercept and attack. I think this would also work as a Reaction, though restrict it to an adjacent target. Also, instead of attack hitting you, you become the target so an attack roll must be rolled against you. This avoids a character being auto-struck, even if the attack would have missed anyway.</p><p>I <i>do </i>like this as a general action, though, but would restructure it like this: </p><p><b>Shield Other (Reaction)</b> When an adjacent creature or object is targeted by an attack, before any dice are rolled the character can interpose himself between the attacker and the intended target. He becomes the new target, with the attack resolved against him as normal. This action provokes Opportunity Attacks, except from the attacking creature.</p><p>At the GM's discretion, this Action can also be used on a creature or object that would be subjected to a save (so long as he believes that the character could feasibly protect the intended target). If the effect targets a single creature (such as a line of acid or electrical discharge), the character becomes the new target. If it affects an area (such as from a fireflask or dragon's breath), then the shielded creature's save is Assisted.</p><p>In either case, until the end of the character's next turn, he suffers a -1 Impairment Penalty.</p><p>(The Impairment Penalty is something we created for Delvers 2E. It’s basically -1 to all d20 rolls. Many conditions impose those, as does fatigue. This was easier than repeating that this or that condition imposes a -1 penalty to your rolls. We just describe the penalty in one place, have everything else reference it, and also clarify that is stacks.)</p><p>And then the fighter's Bodyguard Talent would let him move up to his Speed, and possibly even gain some sort of bonus, such as reducing the damage a bit or even ignoring the Impairment Penalty entirely.</p><p>Now, before they get to the Magic System part, Randy talks about readied actions. He isn't opposed to them, which is good because you <i>need</i> readied actions for some things to make sense. Otherwise you'd get situations where a character is watching a door, and is prepared to loose an arrow. If readied actions aren't a thing, then a monster could feasibly emerge from the door and book it 60 feet across the room while the character just stands there, unable to act because it's "not his turn".</p><p>You also need Opportunity Attacks for similar reasons, such as avoiding absurd situations where a fighter just stands there and lets an orc run directly past him to go clobber the wizard. Though, in <i>Dungeons & Delvers</i> we clarify that you cannot take an Opportunity Attack while already engaged with an opponent, as your attention is focused elsewhere. This avoids <i>similarly</i> absurd situations where a fighter can be fighting someone, but then his opponent just lets him start attacking other nearby creatures.</p><p><b>Magic System:</b> We also use a spell point system for every spellcasting class, though the type of point and how they are spent and replenished can vary. For wizards it’s Willpower, the total of which is modified by INT, though in 2nd Edition <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2023/06/dungeons-delvers-2nd-swapping.html">we're having it modified by Wisdom since that stat makes more sense</a>. Wisdom also modifies spell saves and such.</p><p>The issue with spell point systems as implemented in Dungeons & Dragons isn't really too many points but many of the lower level spells don’t scale well and eventually become useless. In a pseudo-Vancian system you have x slots per level, and while you aren’t required to use the lower end stuff you’re for some reason unable to add them together to cast higher level stuff. However, in a spell point system, while you’ll still have useless spells you won’t be further burdened with useless <i>slots</i>, meaning that you'll have access to more higher level options than otherwise expected.</p><p>The solution is to set it up so that spells can scale and be useful at <i>any</i> level, and avoid having spells like burning hands, and then some other spell that is like burning hands but strictly better. Instead, burning hands is you're "fire-cone spell", find a way to have its area of effect and damage increased when desired, and make it the only fire spell that affects a cone. Then have another spell that is a fire spell that affects a sphere (ie, fireball), make it the only spell that does that, and adjust its spell point cost accordingly.</p><p>This has the added advantage of also avoiding spell bloat: you don't need burning hands (level 1), burnier hands (level 3), and burniest hands (level 5). Even better, since burning hands can now scale up as high as you want, spell points permitting, you won’t use it for a bit and then figuratively or perhaps literally relegate it to your spellbook dust bin.</p><p>Pro-tip for fixing the sorcerer: give it a severely limited and thematic list of spells to choose from. It can still have more spell points, but if the wizard has way more options, gets to accumulate them more quickly, and/or has potential access to stuff like summoning monsters and teleportation (which a sorcerer would not have unless it was thematically appropriate), it's not such an easy choice.</p><p>If the default Invisibility spells has a slight outline (which I would change to a Predator-like shimmer), I would include an option to spend more points or something to remove that. You could even take the Dungeons & Delvers approach, where before you can pick up Invisibility you first have to pick the Illusionist Talent (opens access to illusion spells in general), and then the Veil Talent (lets you use Intelligence instead of Dexterity on Stealth checks). So, it's a three Talent investment.</p><p>An hour in and the magic concept they are talking about is basically how it works in <i>Dungeons & Delvers</i>, which they should <i>really</i> look at for some suggestions. The only difference is that in our game spell point costs are largely randomized, so your burning hands spell costs 1d4 points each time, and you can also expend hit points to cast spells when you run out of Willpower (both mechanics make wizard magic unpredictable and dangerous).</p><p>Something I had thought of but didn't include in 1E due to a lack of space and playtesting were places of power, which would be used to explain why a wizard's tower (ie, a massive staff) might have persistent magical effects: such places would essentially grant the wizard x number of points, which could be invested in various magical effects, such as magically locked doors that open at his command, various traps, alarms, scrying, ambulatory furniture, control nearby weather, illusions, and being able to teleport from one room to another (or from one tower to another).</p><p>Joe states that there might be a spell or two that auto-scales in some way. I wouldn't bother, just have the character spend more spell points. Alternatively, you can force the wizard to make some sort of spellcasting check, and exceeding the DC gives him free enhancements (and a failure could require that he spends more spell points). I also wouldn't bother with a piddling little magic missile: give it some oomph, even if it needs more points to scale up.</p><p>For limiting spells, in <i>Dungeons & Delvers</i> we restrict total damage dice by your wizard level, which is partially done since it also features multiclassing and we didn't want wizard/fighters being able to throw out more damaging spells in a single casting than a full on wizard (especially since the wizard/fighter could dip into his HP in order to enhance spells). Some spells restrict other factors by level, such as picking individual targets, the levels of intended targets, duration, area of effect, etc.</p><p>You can also add in Talents or something like that, that lets you combine other classes to determine your total effective wizard level. For example, the Arcane Trickster rogue Talent lets you combine your wizard and rogue levels to determine your effective wizard level. </p><p>Spellcasters <i>should</i> be equal from an overall power perspective, just not equal in spell points, spell options, hit points, capabilities, etc. For example, in <i>Dungeons & Delvers</i> wizards gain access to the most spell options of any class, accumulate spells very quickly, <i>and </i>can also research new spells and utilize magic focuses. Sorcerers have more spell points and hit points, which also lets them cast more spells, but their spell acquisition is slower and retrained to a thematic list (ie, red dragon sorcerers can't teleport and summon monsters).</p><p>I wouldn't restrict other spellcasters to minimal effects. Just give players a reason to choose the wizard and you're good.</p><p>Something to consider with specific types of wounds is that you'll need to provide at least one option for each damage type, and likely more to avoid every injury from a piercing or bladed weapon being a "sucking chest wound". </p><p>As for triggering wounds, I would base it on an attack roll exceeding the target's Defense or Target Number or whatever. The reason to avoid a hit point threshold is that hit point damage means different things depending on the target's nature and total number of HP. For example, dealing 3 damage to a level 1 fighter with 10 HP is a pretty nasty injury, while dealing 3 damage to a level 10 fighter with something like 60 is far less severe.</p><p>Additionally, you can give fighters Talents or abilities that make them more likely to inflict injuries, such as by reducing the threshold by 1 or more points. They could also enhance them, such as by making the sucking chest wound instead impose a -4 penalty.</p><p>A simpler method could be how we handled venoms in<i> Dungeons & Delvers</i>. Initially we were going to create lists of symptoms with associated penalties, including tables that determined which impacted your character, but in the end settled on a general, somewhat abstracted "Sickened" penalty that collectively represents these symptoms interfering with your character.</p><p>You could do something similar, here, with "wounds" imposing a penalty to actions and perhaps Speed. Maybe beating the target's Defense by 5 points is an arrow lodged in the chest, which is -1, but beating it by 10 increases the wound penalty to -2, and so one and so forth. The only thing to consider is how or if you want to represent a target bleeding out.</p><p>In our game exceeding the target's Defense gives you a cumulative +1 bonus to damage, so that rewards lucky rolls. For crits I think we're just doing maximum damage, and a nat 20 plus other mods will likely result in bonus damage and avoid the target's DR from armor, unless it has steadfast DR. I hadn't considered setting it up so that you crit if you roll really well, but I also think that could suck for other classes that won't have the same attack bonus as a fighter.</p><p>At the least, reducing crits to a max damage roll doesn't make them super swingy, anyway.</p><p>At an hour and thirteen Omenowl asks if spell points would affect range, damage, duration, etc. Joe's response is that you'd spend points to affect a single parameter, which is <i>also</i> how it works in <i>Dungeons & Delvers</i>: you suffer the base Drain to cast the spell, and can also select other options such as increased damage, expanded area of effect, extended range, etc. Here's an example from 2nd Edition:</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiMPxBQ45qi04ui0oLEYWP2tuU7VvMEzec1e2ifoNqlJmt9OJGMPeZgpnord6lCn6ObzkregiNyzd91tJrq7z-ljPFhfRSrRh6IqrmKPTZ4nklZ25199PJvX2TuRw86LZVTrQ_abfvaC-t3wzy8WLUV2xxCO1hJdmTy7eunu4-Htt5IO1b2x8CtDYjspF8/s760/2e%20fireball.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="760" data-original-width="516" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiMPxBQ45qi04ui0oLEYWP2tuU7VvMEzec1e2ifoNqlJmt9OJGMPeZgpnord6lCn6ObzkregiNyzd91tJrq7z-ljPFhfRSrRh6IqrmKPTZ4nklZ25199PJvX2TuRw86LZVTrQ_abfvaC-t3wzy8WLUV2xxCO1hJdmTy7eunu4-Htt5IO1b2x8CtDYjspF8/s16000/2e%20fireball.png" /></a></div><div><br /></div>(Burning 1+ means that if you fail, you're Burning 1, but for every 5 points you fail by the Burning damage is increased by 1. So, if you fail by 5 points you're Burning 2, and if you fail by 10 points you're Burning 3. Burning damage is inflicted at the start of each turn, ignores armor that doesn't also grant fire resistance, and increases by 1 until you extinguish it.)<br /><p>In regards to Randy's concerns about players finding exploits, for the Evard's Black Tentacles example you'd first figure out how much damage it can affect, if any. Maybe it only grabs creatures and restrains them. So you find a similar spell like Hold Person, which effectively paralyzes a creature. Web is also a area-effect good comparison.</p><p>Anyway, how I would structure it is something like this:</p><p>You cast the spell, maybe for 1d4 spell points, conjuring a tentacle within, say, 30 feet. This tentacle then tries to grab an adjacent creature. For each additional 1d4 spell points you spend, you can conjure another tentacle within 30 feet, which can try to grab another creature. The limit here would be that you cannot conjure and maintain more than one tentacle per wizard level. If a tentacle misses, you can direct it to try again if the creature is still within range. You can direct as many tentacles as desired during your turn.</p><p>Now, you could set it up so that during your turn, if a tentacle has a creature grabbed you can command it to squeeze the target, forcing a save to avoid taking damage. </p><p>Further ways to enhance the spell would be to let you conjure tentacles within 60 feet, and if you spend even more spell points the tentacles could act on their own, letting you do something else instead of having to command them during your turn. Another enhancement could also increase their length, so they can grab creatures further away, up the squeeze damage, the tentacle's attack bonus to grab something, and/or the DC required to escape.</p><p>Again they talk about making some parameters level dependant, and again I say don't bother. In Delvers 2E Duration is now set to something like 1 minute, 10 minutes, an hour, etc, and you can spend more points to increase it.</p><p>(Something to consider is giving the wizard access to exceptional focuses, similar to a fighter's masterwork weapons, which lets it get around these limitations or do other things.)</p><p>Randy wants spellcasters to get better at casting spells in some way at higher levels without simply expending more spell points. One way to handle this is to give each spell some sort of boost for every, say, five wizard levels. So a 1st-level a fireball might deal 3d6 damage, and you can boost it via spell points, but at 5th-level it's range, area of effect, and damage all gets enhanced in some way, but this does add complexity to most every spell.</p><p>In <i>Dungeons & Delvers</i> wizards get a Magic Bonus at 1st-level. While in 1st Edition this just ups the save DC, in 2nd Edition it also determines how many Drain dice you can re-roll with each casting, and different staffs let you do more. Additionally, there are Talents that let you reclaim some expended energy, and use these dice re-rolls for other things, such as damage. Some spells also have Spell Secrets, which modify what a spell does and/or can do.</p><p>Combine this all and you have higher level wizards being much better at casting spells than lower level ones, without having <i>any</i> of the parameters automatically scale.</p><p>Randy is intrigued by the idea of no spell levels. They aren't necessary at all, just adjust what the spell does and its cost. In <i>Dungeons & Delvers</i> you can get Meteor Swarm at like level 2 or 3, it just doesn't do very much at all. As you level up you can deal more damage with it, and also have the spell points to make it really destructive. But at lower levels it'll still be effective.</p><p>Having race and sex-based caps on stats is something we also considered, though where we would have imposed a penalty Joe's method is to instead restrict your options based on what you've rolled. This is an interesting idea though I'm curious what the male caps would be.</p><p>The race and class restrictions are stupid because they don't make any sense. If you want to restrict a race from a class, then there needs to be some actual, in-game reason. You can't say that dwarves can't be clerics when there are dwarven gods. You can't say that a dwarf can't be a rogue when there's no physical or cognitive limitation preventing a dwarf from learning to hide and steal.</p><p>The difference in race should be the race's inherent abilities, though you don't have to stick to old style Dungeons & Dragons. In <i>Dungeons & Delvers</i>, we changed kobolds to be more like Germanic spirits, with their own unique abilities. Something we worked on in 1st Edition but are doing in 2nd Edition is giving races a "racial class" option, which lets you further develop a character's racial abilities and powers.</p><p>For example, a mine kobold can take "mine kobold" levels, granting it the ability to move through stone walls, instantly create tunnels or cause them to collapses, and exhale toxic gases. Dwarves can gain more HP, recover HP more quickly, gain inherent damage reduction, and work metal and stone with their bare hands.</p><p>I disagree with Omenowl's comment about races needing their own classes. Adventurer, Conquerer, King was mentioned but when I look at, say, the dwarven vaultguard it just sounds like a fighter with some different flavor. Unless an entire class hinges on some sort of specific racial ability, I don't see the purpose. I would much rather give races abilities or talents that play off of existing classes, such as an elf being able to combine "elf levels" with wizard or something to that effect.</p><p>An easy way to avoid a "hodge-podge" of different races is to require players to roll on a table to determine what race or races they can play as, and you can create tables for different regions (or have regions provide modifiers to the default table). In our games this means the party is mostly human, which is fine because humans have very useful and flexible abilities, with the occasional dwarf or elf in the mix. In our current campaign it's the "craziest", with the party consisting of a human, dwarf, and kobold.</p><p>Back to class restrictions by race, there again needs to be an in-game reason. Elves can't be clerics? Then if elves have gods I want to know why. Dwarves can't be rogues? Again, what is stopping them from learning those necessary skills? These need to be addressed, otherwise it'll be just as stupid as it was in older editions.</p><p>For Randy's example, that perhaps elves are too frivolous to become paladins...except with a player at the helm he could roleplay the elf in such a way that he could become a paladin. Also, if he can't "focus enough" to be a paladin, how can he become a wizard? How can he even focus long enough to finish an adventure? I think these restrictions are best explained from a more physical level as opposed to mental or social, such as dwarves being unable to be spellcasters due to an inherent magical resistance that prevents them from harnessing and channeling mana or whatever.</p><p>If you want to give the humans something, give them useful racial traits. In <i>Dungeons & Delvers</i> they get a bonus Skill Points and an extra Talent, which are incredibly flexible and useful, and one reason why, even we weren't using the race tables, players preferred humans anyway. Sure, if you want to be super tough you could pick a dwarf, but their features are more specialized against poisons and stonework and such, not always suited for your character concept, class, whatever. With human you can pick something that will more likely be directly useful.</p><p>Randy expresses a desire to have the game be somewhat divided into "tiers", with low-level being more grimy, mid-level heroic, and high-level "domain play". I'm not a fan of this, and never have been, because it comes across as gamey and arbitrary. Why not permit domain play at any level? If the characters can obtain a castle at 1st-level, what's stopping the shift to domain play? Are all lords, including NPCs, high-level characters? And if so, why?</p><p>Also, what's stopping you from doing heroic things at low-level? If anything, a lack of hit point security and various means of magical healing and even resurrecrtion would make your character's exploits even more heroic!</p><p>Randy mentions that even though spells go up to 9th-level, but you never seem to get to use them. This is also something we easily solved in <i>Dungeons & Delvers</i>: make those normally high level spells and even abilities attainable at lower levels. Again, Meteor Swarm can be picked up at 4th-level, tops. Fireball you can get at 1st-level if you go human (extra Talent). By 7th- or maybe 9th-level, monks can get a teleporting lightning attack, though it uses up a bunch of Ki.</p><p>You make these awesome things available sooner, but give them room to grow by spending extra points, and then at least the baseline versions will get used much more often.</p><p>On a similar note, everything Randy envisions doing beyond 14th-level, I can envision doing at any level. Also, it makes no sense that you only get followers at 9th-level. This could feasibly happen at any level, depending on your character's exploits. So, I wouldn't arbitrarily try and divide these opportunities and themes by level. Just include rules, guidelines, tables, etc, and let them happen organically.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhG4UCQwcN8MkBLHwkDpgVyVLwIM44RqdRmZko6-vNZ_aYNV2M9mswYqKiTu3sp-FL7rqjkeryJ_1R8rYf0pbPuBIzyYUysCwTv2lSI2bCoGY-M1R7CcAh0gWUaPWxRxWQFwlx1MtkQBOSCWMrt0TfAzZqNIjci8IHHwK1aB85ApuL1UR-H8zmY6AF6k24/s3300/dungeons%20and%20delvers%20core%20rulebook%20v2.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3300" data-original-width="2550" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhG4UCQwcN8MkBLHwkDpgVyVLwIM44RqdRmZko6-vNZ_aYNV2M9mswYqKiTu3sp-FL7rqjkeryJ_1R8rYf0pbPuBIzyYUysCwTv2lSI2bCoGY-M1R7CcAh0gWUaPWxRxWQFwlx1MtkQBOSCWMrt0TfAzZqNIjci8IHHwK1aB85ApuL1UR-H8zmY6AF6k24/s16000/dungeons%20and%20delvers%20core%20rulebook%20v2.png" /></a></div><br /><p><br /></p>David Guyllhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16299128722345607123noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-11753414499075529562024-02-14T20:19:00.000-08:002024-02-14T20:19:52.343-08:00Bros Are STILL Trying to Defend A Retarded Recommendation<p>Nearly a week ago I happened across this tweet:</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiP__YhKmyKbzFZHv77FaHciRnqST03z6QxDqCM-5z_HVrRlDMNpyFuj_kfG8PgwcYXVIXxy_WmOz63yWyHRZMn6NzNRFSITbuo3UWbT5npINCFhoVWMDMbVJsg_8IXqCXVhGcrgLZf11lrK2JsqMQio5egYJqGL8GRAh6ZMZDB5wp2w0TaK6pwY-lHkaQ/s593/11%20timekeeping%2001.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="211" data-original-width="593" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiP__YhKmyKbzFZHv77FaHciRnqST03z6QxDqCM-5z_HVrRlDMNpyFuj_kfG8PgwcYXVIXxy_WmOz63yWyHRZMn6NzNRFSITbuo3UWbT5npINCFhoVWMDMbVJsg_8IXqCXVhGcrgLZf11lrK2JsqMQio5egYJqGL8GRAh6ZMZDB5wp2w0TaK6pwY-lHkaQ/s16000/11%20timekeeping%2001.png" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">In the <i>very</i> likely case that you don't know what "west marches" is, it's essentially a sandbox campaign for groups with an overabundance of players and free time, and little to no concern for a sense of cohesion. I did a bit of digging and the only mention I could find of ending a session in town was a guy on stackexchange stating that ending in town is something that is to him <i>implied</i>, but not mandatory.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">And I think that answers the question: the blog post of the guy that I'm pretty sure invented the whole thing didn't outright state or even mention it, so it was never contested. Other possibilities are that no one gave a shit, and/or the people that would champion the idea of a "west marches" campaign were retarded. Of course, <i>this</i> whole thing started <i>waaay </i>back in 2007, so it's <i>also</i> possible that people <i>did</i> point out how stupid it was but those particular nerd fights have been lost to time.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">I find the shift in defense amusing. Normally when <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2023/06/11-time-doesnt-make-sense-is.html">arbitrary kinda sorta but not really 1:1 timekeeping</a> is brought up, <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2023/08/galetinous-rube-lives-up-to-his-name-in.html">the Brody Bunch tries to disingenuously defend</a> it by <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2023/07/a-chat-with-basic-expert.html">pretending that it's an actual rule</a>, so you point out how it's at <i>best </i>a <i>recommendation</i>, and maybe ask for some unique benefits. Unable to provide any they sperg out, and then accuse you of playing the game wrong because you aren't a retard that thinks rules are recommendations.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Here clerics is trying something different albeit equally moronic because, even <i>if</i> it was championed back in the day, so what? This is like someone criticizing bloodletting as not being necessary or effective, and its defenders declaring, yeah, well, you didn't say something over ten years ago so...yeah, now what? Fortunately, there isn't a statute of limitations on bad ideas, so it's fine pointing them out whenever you happen to notice them.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Anyway, let's check some of the responses:</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjL-G77ho6I2AE9wqkC2uDY4oIdF6D1BspzvtnYvRXt0BSdYeZUAcKeJWVQLN2t1mkI0nXrn_IK3wtKNLpblNkJKqw0axLXhtL2CqL4yxGHJ72ubO5pPY0dQbMY2Ch-xGwFUnqg1vnPYxOguGf-nP91UFLuB2yjNlQbTV8rKE7qqoN3VHb4x-7oRpi7yzY/s591/11%20timekeeping%2002.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="137" data-original-width="591" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjL-G77ho6I2AE9wqkC2uDY4oIdF6D1BspzvtnYvRXt0BSdYeZUAcKeJWVQLN2t1mkI0nXrn_IK3wtKNLpblNkJKqw0axLXhtL2CqL4yxGHJ72ubO5pPY0dQbMY2Ch-xGwFUnqg1vnPYxOguGf-nP91UFLuB2yjNlQbTV8rKE7qqoN3VHb4x-7oRpi7yzY/s16000/11%20timekeeping%2002.png" /></a></div><br /><p>While the Bordy Bunch made more people aware of arbitrary kinda sorta but not really 1:1 timekeeping (by which I mean they tried to force it down everyone's throats and berate them for merely asking questions or pointing out how absurd it is), it ultimately is the recommendation itself that is the problem: it doesn't make any sense, is arbitrary, and provides no unique benefits over simply playing the game normally.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggngmzf893AW145R_fwlIR0yT0x6PF-R507ijtwO-P-klGuSeJkn7o-f3PatnAhp5TZnew2uZ5zceU0kmgP7jut5srJNYYJaPKHgEoyUywdj5xxokTgM6z-LhcyicSE7wAx0myP7yBdhSCkKZc-_fHgYZXPv3mbJk3YvUT-znznYC0yGpYZdbjHDS13Fg/s590/11%20timekeeping%2004.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="117" data-original-width="590" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggngmzf893AW145R_fwlIR0yT0x6PF-R507ijtwO-P-klGuSeJkn7o-f3PatnAhp5TZnew2uZ5zceU0kmgP7jut5srJNYYJaPKHgEoyUywdj5xxokTgM6z-LhcyicSE7wAx0myP7yBdhSCkKZc-_fHgYZXPv3mbJk3YvUT-znznYC0yGpYZdbjHDS13Fg/s16000/11%20timekeeping%2004.png" /></a></div><p>What's super funny is that the only ones getting mad are the Brody Bunch tourists. They <i>reaaally</i> don't like it when you reject their doctrine, and/or point out how it's all bullshit.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgiMJV4XP0ddlQhm-EViJ1VOV0nWnFDctE4xejAMxvHJRB_T_ms_QuLKQnupNDgFevWylquQjcXEE7BA87mBUTRU4rnoEcj5BebAHRdWtoZlZfiylznIkKbA7bka9Mi5KJIiGEN1aSc5JER-PMJQBVeuza-bs09ah1ePzdw4kbvmXCjPpS-wNcnMRv3T9U/s610/11%20timekeeping%2005.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="610" data-original-width="590" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgiMJV4XP0ddlQhm-EViJ1VOV0nWnFDctE4xejAMxvHJRB_T_ms_QuLKQnupNDgFevWylquQjcXEE7BA87mBUTRU4rnoEcj5BebAHRdWtoZlZfiylznIkKbA7bka9Mi5KJIiGEN1aSc5JER-PMJQBVeuza-bs09ah1ePzdw4kbvmXCjPpS-wNcnMRv3T9U/s16000/11%20timekeeping%2005.png" /></a></div><br /><p>Eric asks some obvious questions and ClericsWearRingmail can't even be bothered to answer most, which I find strange because the Brody Bunch has been banging on about this retarded recommendation for <i>years</i>, so you think they'd have some sort of response, even if it's something like "the game is the most important thing, period, so never <i>ever</i> cut your sessions short".</p><p>But cutting a session short <i>is</i> a major issue for normal people with priorities and responsibilities because it could result in a session where the characters could saunter all the way to the dungeon, something comes up, and then the characters <i>immediately</i> return to town. Not for any in-game reason, mind you, but because the controlling player(s) have to leave.</p><p>Just imagine NPCs bidding the group farewell on their quest to go slay a necromancer or whatever, but then they just come back a day or two later, maybe even the <i>same day</i>. A peasant is shocked, "Did you kill him <i>already</i>?"</p><p>Now the controlling players aren't present, so cannot act in any way (again, as per arbitrary kinda sorta but not really 1:1 timekeeping if the DM so desired they could be killed by a handful of mildly hungry rats), but if they <i>could</i> I imagine one would sheepishly shrug and say no. Even sillier, if pressed as to <i>why</i> they returned the PCs would have no reasonable explanation.</p><p>And then, because in arbitrary kinda sorta but not really 1:1 timekeeping land, while the players wait for next week their characters will stand around in town doing fuckall, while the necromancer is free to advance his plans. Even though the characters <i>wouldn't </i>just stand around doing nothing and try to thwart him in some fashion.</p><p>But, no, we're operating on MMO logic. So the server keeps running, and everyone else keeps doing stuff, except the characters because the players have essentially logged out for the week.</p><p>And this is why playing the game normally is superior: the group is prepared to head out, but something comes up? Whelp, we'll stop for now, and next week pick up with the characters heading off to the necromancer's lair. Or, if it's not too urgent, have the characters travel there and pick up at the entrance. In any case, the necromancer won't get a free week to do whatever, and the characters won't stand around and get devoured by rabid squirrels or whatever.</p><p>It's also silly to have every dungeon have multiple entrances <i>solely</i> to accommodate arbitrary kinda sorta but not really 1:1; timekeeping. It makes the world feel even more artificial, something I didn't think was possible using a recommendation that has characters standing around doing nothing while everyone else gets to act.</p><p>But, can't log out in town? Just hire mercenaries, as they aren't characters and can still act if you log out in the dungeon. Because that makes sense, right? The NPCs will defend themselves, but your character won't lift a finger to help himself in any way. It reminds me of RPG Pundit's they/themming purse puppy's <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2022/04/dicedream-ii-disjointed-derivative.html">vapidware trash game</a>, where mercenaries will never <i>eve</i>r no matter what carry any of your gear, even if it would ensure their survival.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKcyH35TpPQN8aj5-OWc3HQlt-0LIw8H_BlbymlCNlQ1U-21-Y6gmLQhYngl22y_1n9bo4jQSU1pdr1zU9ezt3UUSnr2J0odUuImzvgoTL1ewI4Qh4EdVmX0j4QhhTmk9XAlGi7TjPu-RYAuwjmE-CVzJ7_KUnwvota0gkksBf7SHmWFMVyH6p-7AorAo/s584/11%20timekeeping%2006.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="394" data-original-width="584" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKcyH35TpPQN8aj5-OWc3HQlt-0LIw8H_BlbymlCNlQ1U-21-Y6gmLQhYngl22y_1n9bo4jQSU1pdr1zU9ezt3UUSnr2J0odUuImzvgoTL1ewI4Qh4EdVmX0j4QhhTmk9XAlGi7TjPu-RYAuwjmE-CVzJ7_KUnwvota0gkksBf7SHmWFMVyH6p-7AorAo/s16000/11%20timekeeping%2006.png" /></a></div><br /><p>Heh, this reminds me of the alphabet people making up cisgender in an attempt to criticize and mock normal people. "Pause timing", aka playing the game normally, is great because then characters <i>behave</i> normally, as opposed to standing around and getting killed and/or not reacting to events they otherwise would have <i>solely </i>because the controlling player went "away from table" or essentially "logged out".</p><p>No one is "defending it so hard": we're simply asking what the unique benefits of arbitrary kinda sorta but not really 1:1 timekeeping are, to which the Brody Bunch has no answer. Because, if arbitrary kinda sorta but not really 1:1 timekeeping was better than playing the game normally, everyone would just do that. I just don't want to play in a game where the world keeps on turning any my character does fuckall for no reason.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgq-nkJhsyZSTKQrCJt680TslODDOS1p2HQAoUnyfOMbHus9iSgRsyHTsdvIGGWk0NZMZwU1krwPoSCEVdMry2QDfHkR4RbIZdazALBtNtZ3SkDXiiyfuzjk_VpJPCggwrWw5YHx-NDfgtZjRk_frsVP8Cl6UbBi8C_QSJhbKBQBJGLx88Cgt3YYr4PhKk/s585/11%20timekeeping%2007.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="345" data-original-width="585" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgq-nkJhsyZSTKQrCJt680TslODDOS1p2HQAoUnyfOMbHus9iSgRsyHTsdvIGGWk0NZMZwU1krwPoSCEVdMry2QDfHkR4RbIZdazALBtNtZ3SkDXiiyfuzjk_VpJPCggwrWw5YHx-NDfgtZjRk_frsVP8Cl6UbBi8C_QSJhbKBQBJGLx88Cgt3YYr4PhKk/s16000/11%20timekeeping%2007.png" /></a></div><br /><p>"What do you do if you end in the dungeon?"</p><p>Well, if you play the game normally you just stop for the night. If you're in the middle of something like a combat encounter, try and wrap it up. Just find a good stopping point so no one is confused next week whose turn it is, who was doing what, what's precisely going on, etc.</p><p><i>Much</i> better than having to fast track the group back to town for no in-game reason, all so they can stand around doing nothing until the next session, and reacting to nothing. Or hire mercenaries, because they aren't characters and so can defend your characters, who will just remain motionless when combat breaks out. And then next session, assuming you survive, the mercenaries won't even bother asking why the fuck you stood around while they fended off a group of orcs.</p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBrN826u3CTkyqbKBLw54yJjstWgCYj_Y61JeJFXYkM9ZlBtqR29aQeCStDxtwS7a7Re5gg-8R3pQAbLfCzP6PieI2J9I3vddXnTrsbaNvyk88VrHHhbriM5e9K1EdqEhyphenhyphenENysj-T-FgvzuUHPb0zbHfALciBf5vKoavt_csq4TBYRf4ld9lMfhoVjK-A/s594/11%20timekeeping%2008.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="198" data-original-width="594" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBrN826u3CTkyqbKBLw54yJjstWgCYj_Y61JeJFXYkM9ZlBtqR29aQeCStDxtwS7a7Re5gg-8R3pQAbLfCzP6PieI2J9I3vddXnTrsbaNvyk88VrHHhbriM5e9K1EdqEhyphenhyphenENysj-T-FgvzuUHPb0zbHfALciBf5vKoavt_csq4TBYRf4ld9lMfhoVjK-A/s16000/11%20timekeeping%2008.png" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"></td></tr></tbody></table><p>Later rulebooks wisely scrapped a <i>lot</i> of really retarded stuff, including <i>actual</i> rules such as <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2022/06/training-to-level-up-is-unnecessary-and.html">training</a> <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2024/01/training-to-level-up-is-still-retarded.html">times</a> and <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2023/02/experience-for-gold-and-vice-versa.html">XP for gold</a>.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiArcgBzTpyY4KdE8dDAWV_ETjDhHeNPWlUvMPrStFesXHJDs9ByLUFUIR5hn2_EsXL2PUNVc_crOw-OXEAyOspO_yrdYWJFXobX23R9Sxjg4z-3HNRHmjMHGdQDnk1hDkJD488T8vUwkUikfjLtJz6dG8c73mq96P8mD7-FM86ZeWzJMO0IROhYvyB5GM/s591/11%20timekeeping%2009.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="75" data-original-width="591" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiArcgBzTpyY4KdE8dDAWV_ETjDhHeNPWlUvMPrStFesXHJDs9ByLUFUIR5hn2_EsXL2PUNVc_crOw-OXEAyOspO_yrdYWJFXobX23R9Sxjg4z-3HNRHmjMHGdQDnk1hDkJD488T8vUwkUikfjLtJz6dG8c73mq96P8mD7-FM86ZeWzJMO0IROhYvyB5GM/s16000/11%20timekeeping%2009.png" /></a></div><p>The rules don't even require you to rely on arbitrary kinda sorta but not really 1:1 timekeeping. It was merely a (terrible) recommendation.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKIVgwttxy-w_Ta_jeIBmPrRBdfCdp2qKAdQTEgKQ5Tt78Zo-G7008nrrImI0gfZ80gRvyHcp3A5PzDHokBJfWNy9guaUzQ2Ssb4ztUnfgSiNO3ePALIwXRepz4fpMV4-Z7_IiRdR2Bmr2oruKm5BlVlfMMC3PG7xQ1waRpg3O1dbmGf2JuLaH6FICOtQ/s589/11%20timekeeping%2010.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="136" data-original-width="589" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKIVgwttxy-w_Ta_jeIBmPrRBdfCdp2qKAdQTEgKQ5Tt78Zo-G7008nrrImI0gfZ80gRvyHcp3A5PzDHokBJfWNy9guaUzQ2Ssb4ztUnfgSiNO3ePALIwXRepz4fpMV4-Z7_IiRdR2Bmr2oruKm5BlVlfMMC3PG7xQ1waRpg3O1dbmGf2JuLaH6FICOtQ/s16000/11%20timekeeping%2010.png" /></a></div><p>That's not the only issue, or even the biggest one. That honor goes to the fact that characters will behave irrationally: monsters show up? They won't fight back or even flee. Just stand there and get massacred. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrCO6-uuY1bAmOQ0sAolaiGlX5zHxEj0J8Tj4TLgsWAhco1NnzEZUC8zBFnJfT2mXXE0trP1gVt8ED4BHI-B2aMzggQwfsOOIg4-JnhJkSYrIB1B3cjARpqvCjwCfgIp2N-ExJLwou2CY02nAVk4bdfp1GZBiSgeftDs14zWLhFEtkBYs9PFbqVYZUo-w/s591/11%20timekeeping%2011.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="99" data-original-width="591" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrCO6-uuY1bAmOQ0sAolaiGlX5zHxEj0J8Tj4TLgsWAhco1NnzEZUC8zBFnJfT2mXXE0trP1gVt8ED4BHI-B2aMzggQwfsOOIg4-JnhJkSYrIB1B3cjARpqvCjwCfgIp2N-ExJLwou2CY02nAVk4bdfp1GZBiSgeftDs14zWLhFEtkBYs9PFbqVYZUo-w/s16000/11%20timekeeping%2011.png" /></a></div><p>It's a terrible recommendation, partially because characters won't do anything at all, partially because everyone else <i>will</i>. This makes it especially terrible for games with other groups, because they can adventure and do stuff while the other groups remain static (even if they wouldn't). Ditto for games with any sort of time-sensitive issues and goals, because days, weeks, or even months will be squandered, even if the characters would have been adventuring the entire time.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-213wNT6qKsGWr8uiP3B6tyIuIR4_P4cT9SDfT2swksgPY4_P-g1FTMcWy6oBEjJAu1thu35gcOjHHbEH4M-49yDVgW6dc5MYygZf87hFeltm-Q8pI_CzBi3MASgB4H1V9-l1UZnhg1Qd6ZZSXjZtJspLtEkv_-C39syWa5AvDrWZA1Dy84XyS3mr7Fw/s585/11%20timekeeping%2013.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="155" data-original-width="585" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-213wNT6qKsGWr8uiP3B6tyIuIR4_P4cT9SDfT2swksgPY4_P-g1FTMcWy6oBEjJAu1thu35gcOjHHbEH4M-49yDVgW6dc5MYygZf87hFeltm-Q8pI_CzBi3MASgB4H1V9-l1UZnhg1Qd6ZZSXjZtJspLtEkv_-C39syWa5AvDrWZA1Dy84XyS3mr7Fw/s16000/11%20timekeeping%2013.png" /></a></div><p>It amazes me that you think people would need to bother with such a godawful recommendation just to see all of their valid observations realized. I don't need to play with arbitrary kinda sorta but not really 1:1 timekeeping to know it will add nothing to my game, or that my kids and wife will be annoyed that a week passed in-game and so NPC agendas have similarly advanced, even though they would have been able to hinder or even thwart them.</p><p>Or to end a session in a dungeon and tell them that, sorry, they got eaten by a couple of wolves even though their characters could have easily slain or even driven them off.</p></div>David Guyllhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16299128722345607123noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-4079093913685984232024-02-06T21:12:00.000-08:002024-02-06T21:13:15.869-08:00The Worst People I HAVE Met<p>Late to the party, but I only indirectly became aware of an article via Twitter several days ago, where a fat lesbian pretending to be a scientist wasted four years of her overly abundant free time interviewing incompetent, greedy, untalented, unimaginative, unmotivated, moronic, malicious, manipulative, misanthropic sociopaths--aka people <i>just</i> like her--and is somehow surprised to discover that they are incompetent, greedy, untalented, unimaginative, unmotivated, moronic, malicious, manipulative, misanthropic sociopaths.</p><p>The original was deleted pretty quickly for unknown reasons, but in case you want to read it yourself there's <a href="https://medium.com/@volkcolopatrion4/the-worst-people-you-have-never-met-or-what-i-learned-during-a-four-year-academic-study-of-online-fb93bb63870b">a backup of it here</a> and someone also had the foresight to <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMhLa8lZMsk&ab_channel=VolkColopatrion">record the audio clips</a>.</p><p>It opens with a quote from <a href="https://cannibalhalflinggaming.com/author/shimmeringroses49/">Maria Fanning</a>, a mentally ill man poorly cosplaying as a woman--one of many trends, you'll notice--who was likely looking for an excuse to quit a hobby that either didn't know who he was or was happy to see him go, pretending that by merely walking away from an industry that he didn't even meaningfully participate in is somehow the equivalent to not only taking responsibility for his deliberately terrible behavior, but <i>also</i> assumes it's sufficient for everyone he wronged. </p><p>Clio plays up what she considers to be qualifications and credentials, which in her words "needs" to include that she is gay (I'm sure she hoped would suffice as a shield from well-deserved criticism). Besides the absence of more than a few names, this was the only part of the article that surprised me, that Clio was able to restrain herself until the very end of the very first paragraph before bringing up her predictable and wholly irrelevant sexuality, and it was at this point I largely checked out and just began skimming the article, assuming it would offer nothing of value.</p><p>I was correct because nothing Clio states is new or even exactly obscure information. Did you interact with <i>any</i> of the people she mentions, and/or their supporters, for <i>any</i> amount of time? Then you already knew all of this, or are hopelessly naïve and/or monumentally retarded.</p><p>I suppose it might be useful for people just getting into the hobby and/or industry, just be warned that the article is ridiculously long, partially because Clio spends far too many words trying to depict herself as some determined, brave, and even somewhat competent woman who is somehow risking her life or what could generously be termed a career. And I'm not kidding, the second paragraph starts with:</p><p><i>"For the last year I was afraid to publish this article, for fear of retaliation."</i></p><p>Like what, mean tweets? I don't think Clio is actively or even consistently employed, and I'm sure her parents are already well aware of what a disappointment she is so, exactly what sort of retaliation could she <i>possibly</i> fear? Well, the next paragraph offers some insight:</p><p><i>"I am a psychotherapist and social research scientist who has worked in maximum security prisons with violent offenders and with at-risk youth, I have interviewed, studied, and interacted with a very wide variety of multiple-felons close-up for years, and right now I am studying Dungeons and Dragons drama and what studying it tells me about people frightens me more than any of that work ever has."</i></p><p>Yes, Clio is honestly claiming to be more terrified of unemployed and delusional losers, some of whom may, gasp, churn out the occasional incomplete vapidware trash game in between bouts of posting envious tweets and begging for rent money on social media because their parents stopped paying their bills, than she is of <i>actual criminals</i>. Of course, she isn't in any <i>actual</i> danger, and I'm not sure who she is trying to convince otherwise: herself, or her meager audience.</p><p>As with her "credentials", she misrepresents the history of the hobby, depicting it as "not always welcoming to outsiders", a place mostly for "boys, teenagers, and eventually men". An odd choice of words, as teenagers can mean boys or girls, but she also follows it up with "...played with as many people as they could find." So, which is it Clio? A place not welcoming to outsiders or a place where boys, girls, men and women played with as many people as they could find?</p><p>Those of us that game know it's the latter. Groups that play instead of sitting around staring at smart phones and occasionally engaging in thinly-veiled fetish narration don't care as long as you are there to <i>play</i>, and are even tolerant and/or desperate enough to accept an obnoxious asshole or two, so long as you don't disrupt the game <i>too much, </i>which says a <i>lot</i> about people like Clio who can't keep or even find a group willing to put up with their shit.</p><p>And this trend of deliberate misrepresentation doesn't stop there: in the section titled Ringing the Bell, Clio ignores any and all evidence and nuance so she can attempt to chalk up "incels" writing "shitty messages on Twitter" being solely due to a new <i>Star Wars </i>character being black, and ends by disingenuously declaring that she knows "...why right-wingers want to hurt diverse groups of creative people". What evidence or explanation does she provide, you ask? Why, none whatsoever, because there isn't any (though there <i>is</i> evidence for the reverse).</p><p>She <i>also</i> feigns ignorance as to why "...diverse groups of creative people hurt each other". First off, they aren't creative. Second, their so-called "diversity" is <i>occasionally</i> skin-deep at best. Third, the "why" is obvious: as I said at the start they are all. without exception, very simply put, misanthropic sociopaths. They despise <i>everyone</i> that they even <i>perceive</i> as happier, smarter, more attractive, and/or more successful than they are. And I say perceive because while I suppose it is <i>technically </i>possible that a potential target fails to meet <i>any</i> of the above criteria, unless he <i>also</i> happens to waste his time wallowing in the same virtual cesspools they do it's pretty much a guarantee that he's better and/or better off.</p><p>She eventually gets around to posting a clip from one of the people she interviewed, who unlike so many of the others opted to remain anonymous (you can listen via the YouTube link, but there's a transcript in the linked article). Probably for the best given his unhinged justification for harassing people:</p><p><i>"It’s so easy and, like, you know; it feels good. Like, the horrible thing that people don’t like to admit is that fuckin’ being justified and getting stuck in, it feels good. You know, like, it’s like you’re some sort of, like, you’re charged with some sort of, uh, duty to, like, remove the bad person or whatever. And like, you know, anyone who says that doesn’t feel good’s fucking lying."</i></p><p><i>"Or they’ve got something else on their mind. Like, it’s the same reason like, you know, young men like fighting or whatever, like, it feels good to get stuck in. And, like, if you’re doing it, and you’ve — you’re justified, so many dudes are just waiting for that, you know?"</i></p><p>He not only feels good about harassing people (shocking, I'm sure), but likens it to some sort of calling or duty. The bit about anyone saying that they don't experience some sort of pleasure for doing so is lying is also telling: it's like he knows it's wrong on some level, but is trying to convince <i>himself</i> that it's fine because "everyone else would also do it <i>and</i> enjoy it". He's of course wrong: people that aren't misanthropic sociopaths <i>don't</i> experience some sort of high, merely because they managed to ruin someone's life over made-up and/or trivial bullshit.</p><p>And then we start getting some names, most of which are familiar to me from back when G+ was still around. I've never heard of Brian Yaksha, or at least the name doesn't ring any bells, but given his behavior I'm not surprised that he worked on <i><a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2021/05/mork-borg-modern-rpg.html">Mork Borg</a></i> (so did <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2021/09/a-dco-review-with-right-details-and.html">Patrick Stuart</a>, which does a lot to explain its shortcomings). Fiona Maeve Geist is a name I <i>do</i> recall, and would you be surprised to find that he's yet another man pretending to be a woman. What about if I told you he worked on <i><a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2021/12/troika-is-trash.html">Troika</a></i>?</p><p>He's of course not the only member of the troon squad: you've got the aforementioned Maria Fanning, then there's Olivia Hill, Emmy Allen, and <a href="https://twitter.com/icequeenerika">Erika Muse</a> (he took a bit of effort to confirm, somehow less known than the others). I don't know if Shoe Skogen is a guy pretending to be a girl, or vice versa, but he certainly seems to "present" a certain way and is also a they/themming pronouner. In either case whoo boy if he's actually a woman he got utterly clobbered by a ranger dual-wielding <i>+5 ugly clubs</i>.</p><p>I'm sensing a pattern here, of mentally ill degenerate losers producing at best incomplete vapidware trash games, and then backstabbing and shit-talking each other because they are for some reason envious of some other loser's incomplete vapidware trash game, as well as their grossly exaggerated fame and fortune. And this isn't a theory, as if you hung around these people on G+ you saw it firsthand, but it doesn't matter because another anonymous guy outright admits it:</p><p><i>"…conflict is common because, um, right, like, on some level, and we all don’t like admitting to this, a lot of our ideological conflicts are over resources. And we don’t like talking about that because really, the reason that a lot of us think that certain people are bad is that they make money that we think should be in our pocket. It’s not the most noble reason."</i></p><p>What makes his fucked up mentality even more fucked up is that it's not even over a meaningful amount of money. These people would make far more merely working a part-time job, but they don't want to work. They mooch off their parents, beg for money on social media, throw the occasional low-effort turd-party offering up on DriveThru and obviously aren't even content with this lifestyle given their perpetual sadness and anger, which is only exacerbated when they see other people actually <i>doing</i> something with their lives, creating even halfway decent content, and being self-sufficient and happy.</p><p>But this requires a modicum of effort, dedication, and discipline so, instead, they blame their myriad failures and shortcomings on self-diagnosed mental illnesses, imaginary problems, and even other people who might not even be aware of their existence (which to them is some sort of transgression, I'm sure). It's not <i>their</i> fault, you see. They would <i>totally</i> make the next <i>Dungeons & Dragons</i> and be rich, which they believe would make them happy (it won't), if only it weren't for their (entirely self-inflicted) depression, anxiety, a lack of time, whatever.</p><p>There's always something, some excuse, but the most important thing you must know is that it's <i>never their fault</i>. And this is why I don't feel sorry for them, not in the slightest: not only are they utterly insufferable, but they are also the architects of their own misery.</p><p>The second part, Lesson One: Trust No-One, opens with:</p><p><i>"The first problem here is that if the most influential voices in tabletop RPGs are to be believed then, well…the most influential voices in tabletop RPGs are all charlatans or harassers who cannot be believed."</i></p><p>Not that I consider <i>any</i> of them to be influential in the slightest, but have you seen the <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2021/12/shill-reviewer-thinks-terrible-fake-rpg.html">pretentious</a> <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2023/03/the-curious-case-of-shadowdark-simps.html">vapidware</a> <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2021/10/sharp-swords-sinister-spells-another.html">trash</a> they try to pass off as even partially complete and slightly interesting games? This isn't exactly a shocker. Neither is the fact that they all despise each other:</p><p><i>"While in A’s interview he says only that Patrick Stuart is “a bit of a prick”, Stuart says Olivia Hill (formerly at the company that did popular ’90s goth horror game Vampire: The Masquerade) “sounds insane”, while when Olivia Hill’s girlfriend (and employee) Francita Soto claimed Hill was an abuser and that Hill’s game-designer wife Filamena Young was as well, Robert Bohl (author of punk-teen simulator RPG Misspent Youth) sympathized with Soto saying he had secretly had issues with Hill for years, Shoe Skogen (former moderator of the largest and most influential OSR Discord forum) accuses Hill of sketchy sexual behavior in role-play chat and sending mentally-ill people to harass her, while Skogen’s ex-, Emmy Allen, also known as “Cavegirl” and “Emily Allen” (author of the game Dungeon Bitches), claims Skogen abused her (Cavegirl ) during their relationship — though Skogen and Cavegirl have never physically met, Skogen in turn says Erika Muse (currently a moderator at the OSR Discord that Skogen used to moderate) outed Cavegirl as trans, while Fiona Maeve Geist (who is also trans) claims that Cavegirl falsely accused her, Geist, of outing Cavegirl as trans, while Brian Yaksha concurs in his interview that Cavegirl is a “a piece of work” and “racist”, Yaksha also says Chris McDowall (founder of the OSR Discord forum, as well as author of indie games Into the Odd and Electric Bastionland) is an “egotistical jackass”, and further says that two of early indie darling PH Lee’s games (Bliss Stage and Hot Guy’s Making Out) promote child abuse, but Ash Kreider (author of Our Traveling Home “A Ghibli-inspired fantasy tabletop RPG about queer romance, found family, and finding healing through belonging”), in their interview (in addition to attacking two creators behind the ten million dollar Avatar: Legends Kickstarter respectively as “soulless and toxic” and a “tenderqueer” who made a name for herself by being “nice” but not “kind”), claims PH Lee’s enemies used “GamerGate-level harassment tactics” against Lee including contacting mutuals on Twitter and asking them to unfollow Lee, which, however, is a tactic PH Lee’s ally Whitney Beltrán (who formerly worked on official D&D’s recent Ravenloft supplement with her partner Ajit George and who, last I checked was working on an official triple-A Dungeons and Dragons video game) definitely did to yet another designer."</i></p><p>Not only are they emotionally and intellectually on par with children, but they hate each other almost as much as they hate themselves, and it's even more pathetic when you realize that it's because they are jealous of the piddling amounts of money and attention that each <i>thinks</i> the other is receiving.</p><p><i>"Morally, politically, even emotionally, these game designers have almost everything in common, but there are no spaces in the RPG community with rules that encourage them to talk to each other like healthy adults or with social norms that suggest they should."</i></p><p>Even if <i>the</i> "RPG community" existed, it's not anyone's responsibility to impose rules in order to force adults to behave like adults. This will likely come as a shock to Clio, but normal people <i>don't</i> behave in the manner described above, and don't need to be encouraged or instructed to do otherwise. Everyone you've interviewed needs professional help for a <i>myriad</i> of reasons. But of course they won't go, partially because they are broke, and partially because they would never admit that they need help: in their diseased and underdeveloped minds, every woe that befalls them is because of someone else, or circumstances beyond their control, which <i>somehow </i>means they shouldn't have to do anything to improve themselves.</p><p>The article then devolves into a "study" and defense Zak Smith, and given how much is devoted to him more than one person has wondered if he had a part to play in its publication. I don't really care one way or another, though it always confused me as to why, if people understandably hated Zak so much, didn't they simply criticize all of the terrible material he's pinched out? Sounds a <i>lot</i> more straightforward than perhaps lying or even exaggerating his behavior and actions. Yeah, he's a disingenuous, dishonest asshole: so what? Everyone already knows that. Instead, review <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/search/max-results=7?q=pleasant+land">his crap and point out why it's grossly overhyped postmodern crap</a>.</p><p>And that goes for <i>everyone</i> mentioned in the article, really, because by almost every metric they're <i>all</i> just as bad as he is (<i>maybe</i> even worse), and are equally incapable of producing anything of merit. Don't want to stoop to their level? Don't want to boycott them? Not that I think merely presenting evidence of their misconduct or refusing to spend money on people that demonstrably despise you is "bad" but, okay, just point out why none of them even have anything worth boycotting in the first place.</p>David Guyllhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16299128722345607123noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-29369261434419339772024-01-26T09:09:00.000-08:002024-01-26T09:09:18.052-08:00Biggus Geekus: A Hobby Divided<p>In regards to <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1v6tKLdp2o&t=2590s&ab_channel=BiggusGeekus">the title of the show</a>—Divide, Divide, Divide the Hobby!—the first thing that needs to be said is that there is no "community". This is something grifters like to push in order to manipulate and exploit people that are lonely, obnoxious, and/or retarded, convincing them that they are part of something, that someone actually gives a fuck about them, even if they don't participate or even contribute (buying some dice and watching hacks pretend to play on Youtube doesn't count).</p><p>Now, the grifters <i>do</i> care, sort of, so long as your actions and behavior contribute to their social standing and/or income. It depends on how much of an impact you have on them: give the greedy narcissists enough money and attention and they <i>might </i>return the favor, so long as it's still lucrative for them in some way. However, they <i>are</i> greedy narcissists after all, so be prepared for them to throw you under the bus at the earliest opportunity: it all hinges on whether defending you or not will ultimately be of greater benefit.</p><p>Again, there's no overarching community. There's the...illusion of one, but it primarily serves to benefit privileged narcissists. There are however numerous smaller ones, but these tend to be insular, largely comprised of people with similar beliefs (with perhaps the odd troll or contrarian). And while you could say there is "a" or "the" <i>hobby</i> it is similarly divided, has been from the start, and always will be, so as with communities it's best to just embrace the division and find the camp (or camps) that best align with your wants and needs.</p><p>One of the topics was about something referred to as 4D roleplaying, something I'd heard mention of here and there but didn't pay it any mind because it sounded pretentious and pointless. This belief was confirmed when I found a video where a guy talks about it, initially defining 2D gaming as essentially playing a board game, perhaps with some roleplaying layered on top. He uses <i>The Fantasy Trip</i> as an example, as well as Matt Colville's latest grift, but since I've played neither I have no idea what he's talking about.</p><p>Really, the closest thing that matches this initial criteria would be <i>Index Card</i>, or for something with actual production value, depth and innovation maybe <i>Mansions of Madness</i>. But he later conflates asking the GM questions about the environment as 2D roleplaying behavior (ie, are there any rocks I can pick up). This activity doesn't require minis or a map at all, and to make it even more confusing states that in "3D" roleplaying you would instead say that you're looking for rocks and wait for the GM to give you the okay.</p><p>So, asking the GM if there are any rocks is "bad", but saying that you are looking for rocks and waiting for the GM to say that there are rocks is "better".</p><p>This reminds me of one of the times I played <i>Dungeon World</i>, and the guy running it got annoyed that I just said I'm going to hit a monster with whatever weapon my character had, or I might have just said "I'm going to use Hack & Slash" on it (which is the name of the melee attack move, similar to saying "I attack" in a normal RPG). What he <i>expected </i>me to do was describe what my character was doing in-game, just so he could tell me to roll Hack & Slash.</p><p>In other words, take more time going through unnecessary descriptions just to arrive at the conclusion that we both knew I wanted in the first place. And I get it: adding description to your character's actions can help paint a more vivid mental picture (not that everyone needs to be on the same page), but when everyone is describing <i>every</i> action it bogs the age down and becomes tedious, like watching an overly long summoning animation in a <i>Final Fantasy</i> game.</p><p>What we typically do is describe things at first, and then just resort to stating the action, though we often will state the intent ("I attack"), and use the die results to describe what really happens. This makes much more sense than a player describing his totally awesome attack, but then botching the whole thing and failing spectacularly.</p><p>4D roleplaying is just the worst elements of storygaming, where players can define reality without even having to spend any sort of nonsense metacurrency like Fate Points. Here the player declares that he looks for a rock and then finds one automatically, though the GM can <i>still</i> intervene and declare that, no, there aren't any rocks. This sounds like 3D roleplaying, just players are encouraged to narrate whatever they want because, why not? The worst the GM can do is shoot you down.</p><p>The whole thing is weird and pretentious, and I don't see any particular benefit. It reminds me of<a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2023/07/a-chat-with-basic-expert.html"> the Brody Bunch pretending a rule exists</a> just so they could then <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2023/08/galetinous-rube-lives-up-to-his-name-in.html">pretend that they discovered it</a> and <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2023/06/11-time-doesnt-make-sense-is.html">give what they consider to be purpose to their otherwise uneventful and meaningless existences</a>.</p><p>I see no problem running the game normally, with me describing an environment, players telling me what they are doing, ask questions, etc, and then I either decide on the outcome or make a roll if I'm not certain. I don't know where this would fall on this arbitrary scale, as we aren't playing a board game with roleplaying elements, and the players often have to ask for clarification about the environment. Maybe 2.5D? 2.75D? 2.8758943759476952D? Playing the game normally?</p><p>Who knows and, more importantly, who cares? Run the game you want, and if your players are enjoying themselves keep at it. You could perhaps <i>try</i> these strange, alien ways of gaming because maybe you'll like it more for some reason, but if not then no biggie. It's not like the way you run your game affects the other 99.999999999% of gamers out there, anyway.</p><p>Eventually they get to talking about whether there are too many stand-alone games, and there aren't so long as there isn't an existing game that does everything or <i>nearly</i> everything you want. Case in point, I know there are a bajillion <i>D&D</i>ish games out there, but most are <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2022/04/dicedream-ii-disjointed-derivative.html">incomplete vapidware</a> <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2021/05/mork-borg-modern-rpg.html">trash with gimmicky</a> <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2021/12/troika-is-trash.html">nonsense rules</a>, <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2023/03/the-curious-case-of-shadowdark-simps.html">an existing addition with a few houserules shoehorned in</a>, an exisitng edition but rearranged, and/or <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2021/12/shill-reviewer-thinks-terrible-fake-rpg.html">not even a proper roleplaying game</a>.</p><p>Since none of those or any of the official editions—including the skinsuit rehashes that happen to share the name—were sufficient, my wife and I decided to do our own thing, which involved discarding almost all of the material and building it back up from scratch (not just mechanics, but also flavor material). We have a number of settings that we're going to publish (also adventures), but want to finish our even more wildly divergent 2nd Edition, first.</p><p>I just hope that when it's released, I won't suddenly have a bunch of issues with <i>that</i> version as well.</p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3Oz7x3ZnHC6HeWBRKh9PYl77e9rXZU8tmBGVzDsRFDxJ-LddlOY2d-XW21fhNqkctSqtQBtNWKwe5eq4Dd1kpF3708y91gTKLWmNQa2vdnLuUCm96RGt3Euu5ufriSliP0fqXsTS5dJd0Z2vKa9DOymiUOTb3FAoelehvsknodkntPgWtEpnfTyTEvb8/s1700/ddcdgzf-a4ea4869-17f9-46eb-8d28-de312bf4ac25.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1700" data-original-width="1700" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3Oz7x3ZnHC6HeWBRKh9PYl77e9rXZU8tmBGVzDsRFDxJ-LddlOY2d-XW21fhNqkctSqtQBtNWKwe5eq4Dd1kpF3708y91gTKLWmNQa2vdnLuUCm96RGt3Euu5ufriSliP0fqXsTS5dJd0Z2vKa9DOymiUOTb3FAoelehvsknodkntPgWtEpnfTyTEvb8/s16000/ddcdgzf-a4ea4869-17f9-46eb-8d28-de312bf4ac25.jpg" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p><br /></p>David Guyllhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16299128722345607123noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-9306302587687501022024-01-21T13:51:00.000-08:002024-01-21T13:51:20.008-08:00Dungeons & Delvers 2E: Expanded Arcane Focuses<p>While running <i>Age of Worms</i> yet again for long-term playtesting purposes, I was a bit disappointed in that the encounter with the necroturgist ended without him getting a single spell off (not for a lack of trying, just how the dice fell). Initially, I thought that, okay, maybe we should keep Sustain spells so that he could at least have some defensive buffs, but then several days ago I had another thought. But first, an explanation.</p><p>Sustain spells and talents in 1st Edition allow a wizard to have certain magical effects active all the time, at the cost of reducing his total Willpower pool. For example, the Enchanter Talent is required to take any Enchantment Spell (it's essentially a gateway Talent for that school). It also has a Sustain effect, which lets the wizard use Intelligence instead of Charisma for social skills (reflecting him subtly using magic to influence others), but reduces his maximum Willpower by 2 while active.</p><p>(It should be noted that a bit of Willpower can be recovered via periods of rest (1 per wizard level), but generally a wizard will not quickly or easily be able to just activate a Sustain spell, drop it, and then rest to get it back, especially given that the more rests you take, the longer you have to rest to see any benefit, and there's a cap of three times per day. However Sustain spells reduce your maximum Willpower, so you can't rest to get these back without first dropping the Sustain effect.)</p><p>Abjurer is another Talent, which is required to take Abjuration spells. It also has a Sustain cost of 2, and while active you can use Intelligenc instead of Dexterity to determine Armor Class. Mage Armor builds on Abjurer, granting you an additional +1 bonus to Armor Class and 1 DR, but it ups the total Sustain cost by 2, for a total of 4.</p><p>Since your total Willpower is only 4 per wizard level, if you use both at the start of the game you basically have to dip into hit points in order to cast spells, of which you have precious few compared to most other classes.</p><p>Animate Dead is from the Necromancy school, and lets you have 1 Hit Die worth of undead follow you around for every 2 Sustain invested (up to your wizard level), and there are Talents that let you animate larger creatures at an increased Sustain cost, so you could have, say, a 6 HD owlbear skeleton under your command, so long as you were willing to reduce your Willpower by 18.</p><p>Mechanically I think this is fine, and even justifiable from a certain flavor perspective, but I'm personally not a fan of having always active magical effects, at least not so easily. So what I'm thinking of is building on the wizard's staff and focuses, as well as monk implements from 1st Edition.</p><p>The wizard's staff is a <i>Delvers</i> innovation. Normally in <i>Dungeons & Dragons</i> you'll see wizards with staffs in some of the art, even though they don't serve any particular purpose except as a pitiful weapon reliant on the wizard's pitiful martial prowess. Sure, you <i>can</i> obtain magical staffs, which basically let you spam a specific spell until it runs out of charges. Useful for a time, sure, but also boring.</p><p>In <i>Dungeons & Delvers</i>, wizards have a Magic Bonus, which starts out at +1 and increases every five levels. This is added to a spell's save DC, but only applies if the wizard has his staff. This gives a wizard some incentive to pack one around, but in 2nd Edition we're making it much more useful: in addition to upping save DCs, it <i>also</i> lets you re-roll Drain dice when casting spells (and if you don't have it, every spell costs another 1d4 Drain).</p><p>This addition makes it useful for <i>every</i> spell, and not <i>just</i> the ones that impose a saving throw. Furthermore, there are numerous wizard Talents that let you do other things, so long as you have your staff. For example, Blaster Caster lets you also re-roll damage dice, and there's another that gives you a Defense bonus equal to your Magic Bonus, but only after casting certain spells while you have your staff.</p><p>Wizard focuses and monk implements are other <i>Delvers</i> innovations, which give wizards and monks something to spend their money on given a lack of reliance on mundane weapons and armor. Wizard focuses can provide varied benefits, such as increasing spell range, DC, damage, etc, though are typically restricted to a single school of magic. Monk implements on the other hand provide access to monk Talents, or enhance a specific Talent if you already possess it.</p><p>In 2nd Edition many spells require more than 1 Action to cast, plus you can't move at all when casting a spell that requires 1 or more Actions (Swift and Free Action spells are fine). In most cases you can suffer more Drain to speed it up, which can be mitigated by Drain re-rolls. With our magic focus idea, however, a wizard can craft an item that is keyed to a specific spell and makes it easier to cast, or just plain better.</p><p>So, a wizard could have an amulet that lets him cast a Barrier spell as a Free Action. He could also have a sword that can be enchanted with a Flametongue spell as a Free Action, or a Swift Action. Or one or both could let him re-roll additional Drain dice when the wizard casts the spell, which would make it more likely that he rolls a 1 on the Drain die even should be suffer more to speed up the casting process.</p><p>Focuses could also enhance the save DC, increase the wizard's level for the purposes of enhancing it (many effects are limited by the wizard's level), and for really powerful focuses they could just reduce the Drain cost entirely, to a minimum of 1. Finally, similar to monk implements, a focus could grant access to a specific spell, perhaps with an increased Drain cost and/or reducing the wizard's effective level when using it (so he can't enhance it as much).</p><p>The wizard can craft these items and give them to other people, and with an investiture of Willpower turn them into one-use magic items that the wizard has to recharge later (Willpower can only be regained once per day, now, so it's a bigger deal). This <i>also</i> opens the door for characters to find focuses made by other wizards, and to make them more flexible you could let non-wizards activate them by spending hit points (since they lack Willpower).</p><p>Our daughter is playing a wizard in the current campaign, and I've already got some prices for various effects based on how much Drain will likely be saved over time, so we'll see how it goes.</p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5P9sy7DWLDcJO7rJikmOG4r5nadpgNOn25_NtDrSjU_OL5wZBKTSVh1j2MQiMYJlIekgyVEHaFSkbgMFiwKiEOXTtS3YrsCu_uR2c_d472LKGSUx4_v8ZsrLvStL15k2e4SnQhcJ8Pl_9aNeDSkB8f8qmSkQo5tH_Nxoymb8GqXjY1-JuZEPqpbrgXZE/s3612/female%20human%20wizard%202.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3612" data-original-width="1590" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5P9sy7DWLDcJO7rJikmOG4r5nadpgNOn25_NtDrSjU_OL5wZBKTSVh1j2MQiMYJlIekgyVEHaFSkbgMFiwKiEOXTtS3YrsCu_uR2c_d472LKGSUx4_v8ZsrLvStL15k2e4SnQhcJ8Pl_9aNeDSkB8f8qmSkQo5tH_Nxoymb8GqXjY1-JuZEPqpbrgXZE/s16000/female%20human%20wizard%202.png" /></a></div><br /><p><br /></p>David Guyllhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16299128722345607123noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-10755844577813585952024-01-20T13:52:00.000-08:002024-01-20T13:52:15.885-08:00Biggus Geekus and the OSR<p>The topic of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UXa-q8RIFY&t=752s&ab_channel=BiggusGeekus">this week's Biggus Geekus show</a> was about the OSR, its origin, definitions, versions and variants. </p><p>Even though I got started on the "easy to master" black box and played a lot of 2nd Edition AD&D I don't particularly care about the OSR: virtually every game I've seen billed as OSR is essentially an existing version of <i>Dungeons & Dragons</i>, perhaps with a few odd houserules shoehorned into it or bolted on almost as an afterthought (or perhaps as a lamentable attempt to justify its existence), and/or an incomplete vapidware trash game.</p><p>Besides the one time we tried playing <i>OD&D</i> as best we could just to see what it was like (and it was terrible), I haven't played an older edition of <i>Dungeons & Dragons</i> for over twenty years. While I have looked at many of the older books (including <i>Dungeon and Dragon</i> magazines) for inspiration, given that I've already made the version of <i>D&D</i> that mostly does what I want I have no interest. In other words I don't really have a dog in this fight, but I also don't think it matters if your game or a game you play meets the vague and/or arbitrary criteria to be classified by this or that group of people that you don't know and whose opinions you also aren't aware of--and should probably ignore, anyway--as OSR.</p><p>Whatever that even means, of course.</p><p>During the show they looked at or at least referenced various documents and blog posts, such as an old school primer. I didn't see any links crop up in chat, but luckily afterwards they compiled everything in the video description. One of them is an old school primer by Matt Finch, who is a guy I don't know, and wrote or rehashed a game I don't play.</p><p>It talks about rulings, not rules, which is a bizarre statement that I've heard parroted for well over a decade at this point and something I feel many lazy hacks rely on as a way to ideally excuse their shallow, incomplete vapidware trash games. In the document, Matt claims that <i>most</i> of the time in old-style gaming you didn't use a rule. Instead, you made a ruling, which sounds completely alien to how I recall playing the black box and 2nd Edition, where we referenced the rules all the time.</p><p>Make an attack? Cast a spell? Use a thief skill? There are rules for all of that, and I find it amusing that Matt refers to disarming a trap as a "die roll" challenge found only in modern games, when in 1st Edition AD&D thieves have a find/remove traps skill that they can use to "die roll" their way past it. His strawman examples are even sillier, more so because he frames the "icky bad modern" playstyle as boring and mechanical. Worse, he even <i>admits</i> that it's not how a "good modern-style GM usually runs his game" but does it anyway.</p><p>Basically, the character declares that he is checking for traps, GM has him roll, gets a good enough result to find a pit trap, makes a roll to disarm it, and then they move on. It's about as exciting as I'd imagine finding a pit trap to be, assuming it wasn't because you blundered into it.</p><p>The "old style" example is given more character, technically, but it's also strange. The players somehow forget that their 10-foot pole was eaten by a stone idol for some reason (lolsorandom), but think there's something in a corridor. Not having a spare 10-foot pole, or wanting to go back to get one, or using a spear or sword or hammer or something else to probe the floor, and also unable to just make a thief skill roll that any normal DM would let you do (assuming John the Rogueish is in fact a thief), just so happens to pour water on the floor where the pit trap is, causing it to pool into a square shape. I guess despite the limited light and angle they couldn't discern the shape.</p><p>And then, assuming that he found the trap, John wants to disarm it but again the DM won't let him roll a skill that exists specifically for that purpose, and none of them bother to just stomp on the floor, throw a rock on it, probe it with a weapon, etc to trigger it, which is precisely what would have happened had they been able to use a 10-foot pole in the first place.</p><p>If Matt were honest he would have described the "modern" example in the same way, because even in the reviled 3rd and 4th Edition a player could probe floors with 10-foot poles and trigger pit traps. They could also pour water on the floor to reveal the pit trap. I have no idea why he and others like him are so disingenuous, pretending that only in "modern" systems levers, cracks, hinges, etc are invisible to characters unless they happen to roll a high Search skill or whatever.</p><p>Both scenarios would have played out the same way in any edition, except if the DM was playing normally the player would have been able to also make a skill check to find and/or disarm the trap (if possible, because the DM could also declare that the characters lack the materials and ability to disarm it).</p><p>The ninja jump example is just as flawed. Player wants to jump on a monster 10-feet below him?</p><p>In my game, easy: make an attack roll, plus a charge bonus and a damage bonus from the impact. You'd probably take some damage as well, unless you make a decent skill check because, again, you're falling from 10 feet. A nat 1 on the attack roll would just be you miss and take full damage. Matt only thinks there's some kind of surprise jump feat or whatever because he's never played "modern" editions, listened to people that never played "modern" editions, or is just lying.</p><p>The "old style" example is completely ridiculous and does nothing to sell me on it being better in any way. The same character wants to jump attack, rolls a 2, so the DM rules that he somehow tripped while attempting to jump, got tangled up in his sword, landed on the goblin (which somehow didn't injure it in any way), and stabbed himself. I could maybe see something this disastrous on a natural 1, but a 2? What, is the DM going to rule similarly on that in the future?</p><p>No, just leap attacks, because it's all arbitrary nonsense.</p><p>In the next part Matt boasts about how <i>OD&D</i> and his game are games of skill, albeit in only a "few areas where modern games just rely on the character sheet". He then talks about game mechanics that simultaneously make sense in context but somehow fails to grasp.</p><p>The first is a "spot" mechanic, which in more recent editions is a sensible and intuitive mechanic that gives your character the chance to notice something, without having to constantly tell the DM that you're moving down the hallway, slowly, closely inspecting every nook, cranny, crack and crevice for signs of danger. It is functionally similar to random checks in older editions that could be used to determine if the characters happen to notice a secret door, concealed passage, or ambush. </p><p>But since it's different and in a "modern" game that somehow makes it bad.</p><p>He also cites the use of a bluff skill as a method of "automatically" fooling a suspicious guardsman. This check would only be automatic <i>if</i> the DM allowed you to take 10 <i>and</i> your Bluff skill was high enough that it beat out the target's Sense Motive modifier, assuming that the DM let you make the check in the first place.</p><p>Normally it's simply a modifier to determine if what you are saying or doing is sufficient, but only so long as the DM doesn't determine that what you're doing has no chance of working, or would be an automatic success. Again, this sounds precisely how it would work in any edition: player says he wants to do something, DM determines if it's a success, failure, or needs a roll to find out. It's jut that here Matt doesn't like it.</p><p>He states that unlike in "modern" games you have to <i>tell</i> the DM that you're looking for traps and what buttons you're pushing, as if in 3E there was a "push correct button" skill. Spot is used to randomly determine if your character happens to notice anything awry, again, similar to checks for noticing secret doors and ambushes, and the DC for those is generally quite high (20 or more). If you want to actively search for traps, that's a Search check, and in 3E only rogues and classes with the trapfinding class feature could do it.</p><p>Which is, you know, similar to how in older games you had to make a find/remove traps check.</p><p>As for buttons, yeah, there's no check to just magically push the right buttons. For the guard, you still have to tell the DM what you're telling the guard. From there the DM determines that it works, doesn't work, but if he's not sure he assigns a DC based on believability and then you make a Bluff check. If someone's lying the DM can have the NPC make a Bluff check opposed by your Sense Motive, or just give it a DC, but I am fine with this because depending on how well the DM can even act and how gullible you are in real life it would make more sense to have that sort of thing depend on the character's ability scores (much like how much your character can carry depends on his Strength as opposed to your own).</p><p>Matt tries to handwaive this dissociation away by chalking up your retarded character's unusually intelligent plans and problem solving capabilities as luck or intuition. Intelligence of 3? Just ignore it and do whatever you want, because otherwise, to Matt, this is a "suicide pact" with your character. One wonders why even have mental and social ability scores at all, if they have no mechanical impact (especially when compared to the others). I'm being serious: if they provide no penalties or benefits, and you are just going to play the character however you want, then just remove them and stick with only physical stats.</p><p>You can even ditch Intelligence and just make a stat that reflects magical aptitude.</p><p>But normal players are interested in playing a roleplaying game, so these stats should have an impact. And just like jumping off a cliff, landing a goblin, inflicting no damage, and stabbing yourself can be the result of a bad attack roll despite how cool it would have been how it worked, then I see no issue with a player trying to bluff past a guard, coming up with a decent lie, getting a bonus because of how good it is, but botching the roll anyway.</p><p>Assuming the DM even decides a roll is required. A good DM can just say, you know what, that's an excellent lie, so it works.</p><p>For his third point Matt compares older editions to games that don't exist, where apparently your 1st-level guy can fight off ten club-wielding peasants at once. It's an...odd example, as peasants aren't monsters and so aren't typically the sort of thing a character would fight, but even in 3rd Edition your fighter will have perhaps around 11 hit points, assuming the DM gives you max HP and you have a Constitution of 12-13.</p><p>Your AC is likely 14-16, so let's say 15, and the typical peasant will have +0 or +1 to hit. However if they are mobbing you all of them will get a flanking bonus, which bumps it up to +2 or +3 to hit. Even f you manage to slay one, another will just step up, and they can take a 5-foot step so others can move in, meaning that if we're being generous you will get subjected to nine melee attacks per round. At an average damage of 3.5, it's going to take four hits to bring you down, assuming none of the peasants have a Strength modifier</p><p>This <i>also</i> assumes that none of the peasants just try grabbing the fighter and knocking him to the ground in order to beat him to death that way.</p><p>His <i>other </i>comical example is that in an older game you can't beat a dragon by strangling it to death, which is perhaps something that a very high level character could achieve with some sort of obscure build and specific magic items. Though he doesn't specify the size or type of dragon, and I gotta say that I can't imagine your average, non-super optimized character with no magical powers defeating a dragon with equal Hit Dice, much less "strangling it to death" due to the insane difference in Strength and size.</p><p>Frankly I can't even imagine a character strangling a smaller dragon to death, unless he was of a considerably higher level, and that's just so he can absorb the damage while waiting for the dragon to fail saves or checks or whatever whilst holding its breath. Also, <i>no one</i> becomes Superman in any edition of <i>D&D</i>. You might be able to use magic to temporarily buff yourself up to the point where you can perform superhuman feats for a period of time, but it's never a constant. </p><p>Matt eventually gets to game balance. Or rather, the lie of game balance in newer editions.</p><p>Way back when I ran <i>Age of Worms</i> using 3rd Edition, the characters ran into the wolf encounter, which was three wolves against the four of them. Though they killed the wolves they nearly died, having to spend a few days resting so the cleric could heal them up before going back. The next encounter was against a swarm of acid beetles and something called a mad slasher.</p><p>This <i>also</i> nearly killed them.</p><p>Then they found a ghoul underwater, which nearly killed them. Then more acid beetle swarms and some giant beetles. Then a water elemental. Then an earth elemental. The easiest part of the adventure was when they had to confront a necromancer, and that's only because he had more normal monsters at his disposal, like skeletons and zombies, and they had a cleric who could turn those.</p><p>Later in the adventure path there was a trap that required an absurdly high Will save to resist (so high that the cleric only just barely resisted it). Failure would have meant that he would have been killed instantly, and his soul essentially devoured, preventing him from being revived. Then during a fight against lower level NPCs the fighter got confused due to his low Will save, and he almost massacred the party in the process.</p><p>The list goes on and on and it wasn't unique to those adventures. There are numerous monsters that are much easier and more difficult than their CR would indicate, not that you are even supposed to stick to that in the first place (adventure design recommends deviating the value by around 3-5 points in both directions, creating a mixture of easier and more difficult fights <i>precisely</i> to avoid players thinking that everything will be beatable).</p><p>As bad as this primer was, the second one linked is even worse. But then what do you expect when it is co-authored by Ben Milton, praises <i>Powered by the Apocalypse</i> games for any reson, and attempts to justify the nonsense game mechanic of awarding XP for the unrelated act of moving treasure from one location to another. This is already far more commentary and attention than it deserves, so I'm just going to skip it.</p><p>A link about the different flavors of OSR takes us to a blog post that attempts to describe what the author considers the four distinct groups of self-proclaimed OSR games. The criteria for each depends on how compatible that game is with earlier versions of <i>D&D</i>, as well I guess how similar the style and concepts are. I don't find this categorization particularly useful, especially given the examples included in each: knowing if a game has the "vague feel" or another game doesn't matter when the rehashed vapidware trash is inferior to the original.</p><p>For example, in OSR Adjacent he includes <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2021/08/5e-hardcore-is-hard-pass.html">5E Hardcore Mode</a>, and why? 5th Edition is about as far from an older "feel" as you can get, and a shallow set of houserules which is really just a mix of normal rules from other editions chased with utterly retarded ideas of the author's own design, which isn't surprising given that he's <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2021/12/shill-reviewer-thinks-terrible-fake-rpg.html">a poser that doesn't even design roleplaying games</a>. You know, like a magic save point candle that a wizard only gives to adventurers for free.</p><p>So not only is it vapidware trash but it's also not old school at all.</p><p>The next category down is NSR, which not only includes garbage like <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2021/10/sharp-swords-sinister-spells-another.html">Sharp Swords & Sinister Spells</a>, <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2021/12/troika-is-trash.html">Troika</a>, and <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2021/05/mork-borg-modern-rpg.html">Mork Borg</a>, but Dungeon World and Torchbearer as well, so now I'm dubious as what the hell the author considers to be old school. The last category is Commercial OSR, which he defines as the realm of the grifters and the lazy, shitty shovelware on DriveThruRPG, and products by people that do not get it. I'm not sure if he's being a coward, disingenuous, a dumbass, or all of the above, but there's nothing mentioned despite this being <i>precisely</i> where <i>everything</i> in the NSR category, plus most of the stuff in the other categories should have gone!</p><p>But, hey, found a bunch of stuff to add to my review list.</p><p>The last set of links I could maybe care about pertains to <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/search/max-results=7?q=brosr">the Brody Bunch</a>, a group of people that pretend to play <i>D&D</i> the right way and insult anyone that points out how retarded they are. Someone had sent me one of the articles on Twitter already. It's pretty insane even by Brody Bunch standards, and I intend to get to it at some point.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEUsPFHlN0Kz6_DAbK1RENNGA1hq4ZLn-1815f91TPNa6E3IDevqrnjuZAtqyqaL-qTrmiFXQiHv6StQHrdBwTyPEbhilUB8HIt699e_o5WF1BVdy07w0IdRFydofI_qXqd-jBNYvsULZIod1yt4IGaPo_3FsAX1evFJ7PUfjLPFbJV4ESHZIIc5C9jtc/s2730/osr%20logo%20blue%20stamp.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1320" data-original-width="2730" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEUsPFHlN0Kz6_DAbK1RENNGA1hq4ZLn-1815f91TPNa6E3IDevqrnjuZAtqyqaL-qTrmiFXQiHv6StQHrdBwTyPEbhilUB8HIt699e_o5WF1BVdy07w0IdRFydofI_qXqd-jBNYvsULZIod1yt4IGaPo_3FsAX1evFJ7PUfjLPFbJV4ESHZIIc5C9jtc/s16000/osr%20logo%20blue%20stamp.png" /></a></div><br /><p><br /></p>David Guyllhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16299128722345607123noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-59164187411060410902024-01-13T09:06:00.000-08:002024-01-13T09:06:04.110-08:00Biggus Geekus & Retarded BrosI'm not sure whether I should be surprised that, after all this time, the Brody Bunch are <i>still</i> peddling their lies and/or misconceptions about <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2023/06/11-time-doesnt-make-sense-is.html">arbitrary kinda sorta but not really 1:1 timekeeping</a>. Biggus Geekus did a video <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tNlBkSFeSY&t=3137s&ab_channel=BiggusGeekus">partially about them this week</a>, and I wish I could have been on stream to talk about it given my experience dealing with both <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2023/08/galetinous-rube-lives-up-to-his-name-in.html">brosr tourists</a> and <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2023/07/a-chat-with-basic-expert.html">their simple-minded simps</a>.<div><br /></div><div>To reiterate: arbitrary kinda sorta but not really 1:1 timekeeping, aka "bro time" isn't merely stupid, it's bullshit. The rules don't even tell you to play that way, and <i>if</i> you happen to run multiple groups and <i>if</i> they happen to all play in the same setting, at the same in-game time, in the same region, players with an Intelligence of 3 and up will quickly realize some destriments that are obvious as they are absurd (and there come straight from the tourist's trap):</div><div><br /></div><div>The first is that if you end session in a dungeon your character just up and dies, because for no particular reason when you <i>stop</i> playing time "in-game" not only continues ticking away, it ticks away in "real time". So for each day you <i>aren't</i> even playing, where no dice are roll and your character is given no direction at all, a day <i>still</i> passes in-game.</div><div><br /></div><div>Your character, having just finished a combat encounter and picked the bodies clean of a suspicious amount of gold, gems, and likely even magic items, will now just stand there for days or even weeks. Normal players accustomed to playing normal games would think this strange, as no sane person would do that, but when you're playing with "bro time" not only will your character remain stationary for however long it takes for you to return to the table, he will also not bother to defend himself.</div><div><br /></div><div>Level? Resources? Capabilities? None of that matters: when you're playing by made up nonsense bro rules, a level 10 fighter can get gnawed apart by rats.</div><div><br /></div><div>This is of course contradicted by brosr tourists, because if you instead stop playing in town you are then permitted to tell your DM what your character is doing in the controlling player's absence. This can range from a variety of likely unnecessary activities, such as gathering information that you for some reason didn't bother doing <i>before</i> heading off to the dungeon, or forging a sword that you don't need because you can just buy one (assuming you made it back to town with your suspicious amount of treasure before "logging" away from the table).</div><div><br /></div><div>But, according to them and their made up rules, you apparently can't tell the DM that your character is going to keep exploring the dungeon, killing monsters, looking for traps, solving puzzles, and finding loot. You know, the things your character <i>would </i>be doing and only stopped because out of character you the player know that if you dare leave that table his life is arbitrarily forfeit.</div><div><br /></div><div>It gets worse if you just so happen to be part of one of these weird bro-games with multiple groups playing in a shared world, because despite what Gelatinous Retard says everyone doesn't have the same amount of time to invest in an elfgame. This means that if you can only play once every other week, the guys that can play every week will be able to crawl circles around your group, exploring, slaying, and looting more.</div><div><br /></div><div>And part of the bro cult's dogma is competitive play. So imagine you find a dungeon, clear out a few rooms and have to stop, then you come back a few weeks later only to find that another group cleaned the entire thing out. Or worse: they could also leave traps and lure in monsters so you waste even more limited time and resources.</div><div><br /></div><div>As I've said before there are no unique benefits to retard bro time. You can reap them all while playing the game normally, and as an added bonus you won't be mired in absurd bullshit.</div><div><br /></div><div>As for the actual video:</div><div><br /></div><div>Around 8 minutes in Joe says that "they" claim to play RAW (referring to brosr tourists). He follows this by saying you can't, and whether or not it's true the fact is they <i>aren't</i>. They read the rules, misinterpreted at the least this one, and due to inflated egos and narcissism keep trying to convince everyone that they are playing the game as Gygax intended...even though neither the rules nor Gary himself support their claims.</div><div><br /></div><div>Around 13 minutes Randy talks about just letting things go. Yes, and part of this involves not supporting companies that hate you, even if they hate you "just a little bit", or you're just curious about some new product they're shoving out. I forget where I heard this quote before, but it's something like the opposite of love isn't hate, it's <i>apathy</i>.</div><div><br /></div><div>At 16 minutes Randy expresses his desire to boot the tourists out of the hobby. You can't, at least their section that's geared around suffering from the delusion that gaming is a lifestyle, and pissing away their miserable lives merely watching others pretend to play and thinking that they're part of some "community" that doesn't give two shits about them.</div><div><br /></div><div>Your only recourse is to gatekeep. Create quality entertainment, and support quality entertainment, and <i>never</i> apologize or cave to their demands. That's how you can <i>really</i> sock it to the mentally ill narcissists: have fun and tell them to piss off.</div><div><br /></div><div>At 17 minutes Joe admits that the video title is a little "click-baity", but it's also what he thinks. I'm of the same opinion: every brosr tourist I've interacted with can't explain any sort of benefit to arbitrary kinda sorta but not really 1:1 timekeeping, nor can they reconcile the issues of characters just standing around doing nothing, while other players with more free time run around advancing events.</div><div><br /></div><div>A couple minutes later they talk briefly about the OSR. My admittedly limited experience with the OSR is that it's largely <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2022/04/dicedream-ii-disjointed-derivative.html">lazy hacks slapping the label on their vapidware trash</a>, as well as people like brosr tourists pretending that they're playing the game correctly. Like racism, sexism, nazi, etc, it's been watered down to the point where I don't think it really means anything besides <i>maybe</i> "this game uses a d20".</div><div><br /></div><div>Right after that they start talking about tracking time and precision. You don't really <i>need</i> to track combat rounds beyond the context of the fight. Most fights might last ten rounds, or a minute, which in the bigger picture is barely anything. In the fight it only really matters for the purposes of effect duration, but if the duration is a minute or more than you can expect it to last the entire fight, anyway.</div><div><br /></div><div>(This is somewhat how we determine item and spell effects in <i>Delvers</i>, assigning a duration based on whether we want it to last a little bit or an entire fight. Since you probably won't go from one fight to the next within 10 minutes, it's not really worthwhile to have an offensive/defensive/utilitarian buff last more than a minute but less than an hour.)</div><div><br /></div><div>For exploration, you also don't need to be really precise. The players wander around, checking for traps, and you just kind of estimate the passage of time to determine how long light sources will last, when they need to stop and rest for a bit, random encounters, etc. You can't do this in "real time" (<a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2023/03/the-curious-case-of-shadowdark-simps.html">despite what some vapidware trash games might pretend</a>), as it's possible for players to say "we leave the dungeon" and then unless something happens they're just outside.</div><div><br /></div><div>It's also possible for them to say, "we go back to town", and they're either there or you roll random encounters based on the number of days.</div><div><br /></div><div>For our games we track 10 minute units, as torches last 30 minutes, lanterns an hour per oil flask, many spell and item effects end within 10 minutes, gotta check for fatigue every hour (or 10 minutes for really strenuous activities), thorough searching of an area can take 10 minutes, etc. But these aren't super precise. There's a lot of estimation.</div><div><br /></div><div>Days are also important: the characters hunker down for the night, day is over, eat food, drink water, check for diseases, disease and venom duration (because in <i>Delvers</i> both have lingering effects that can persist for days), wound recovery I(it's randomized now), etc (unless you're playing a casual game that uses item slots and/or usage dice). Also our campaigns actually feature holidays and such.</div><div><br /></div><div>In the live chat, at 25 minutes Paddy's Parlor says the following:</div><div><br /></div><div><i>"I think a lot of people don’t like 1:1 on their character’s downtime because they want their character to be the hero rather than the setting being more important."</i></div><div><br /></div><div>What does wanting to be in control of your character when he is awake and capable of doing things have to do with setting importance? <i>How</i> would that even detract from the setting? Time still advances. Events can still happen. A player wanting to have reasonable control over his own character's behavior doesn't and <i>cannot</i> detract from the setting.</div><div><br /></div><div>I responded to him with this:</div><div><br /></div><div><i>"@Paddy’s Parlor I don't like kinda sorta 1:1 time because I don't want my character doing nothing for an entire week when he WOULD be doing something."</i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div>He replied with:</div><div><br /></div><div><i>"That’s how it works though David, when you’re not “playing” you send a text to your dm saying, yeah my character is crafting a sword or researching a spell."</i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div>Also:</div><div><br /></div><div><i>"Perhaps he’s spending the week collecting evidence or shopping. Stuff that can be done when you’re not at the table rather than taking time when you could be delving"</i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div>The flaw in this reasoning is that my character probably won't have any downtime activities to engage in. How many characters bother crafting swords? In <i>Delvers</i> there's a function to it because you can craft masterwork weapons that are not immediately eclipsed by magical ones, as well as craft them out of unusual materials (and in 2nd Edition you can do even more than this).</div><div><br /></div><div>But in older editions this wasn't the case, so why bother? Researching a spell has some merit, but that can be easily done at the table by telling the DM what you want to do, he fast forwards time and makes a check or whatever you had to do in editions past. Same goes for gathering information: make a check and move on. Going shopping? This should take a few minutes at most.</div><div><br /></div><div>But then the players stating that they want to return to town and engage in these activities makes sense. They aren't doing it because, whelp, we have to pack it in for a week otherwise our characters will auto-die, so guess we'd better find <i>something</i> to do so our characters won't be standing around for a week for no reason.</div><div><br /></div><div>His response is:</div><div><br /></div><div><i>"I don’t know David, if you’re not at the table, does it matter?"</i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div>I could be just as dismissive and say that, if it doesn't matter, then why bother with arbitrary kinda sorta but not really 1:1 timekeeping? Why kill off characters just because they're in a dungeon and for no reason will stand there and do nothing?</div><div><br /></div><div>But the obvious answer is because it makes no fucking sense. There's no logic behind it. No in-game consistency. Additionally, some adventures and campaigns have time limitations. Some people like to run adventures and campaigns where events happen beyond the bubble of the party, such as wars breaking out, bad guys advancing plans, monsters showing up in a dungeon, existing monsters bolstering defenses, etc.</div><div><br /></div><div>If I played in a game where we found a ruin filled with, say, orcs. We go in, slaughter a bunch, but end up retreating. Our characters rest up a bit, down some mending potions, and prepare to head back in. But, oh no! End of session! If we go in we'll be automatically slain, so we're stuck outside, giving the orcs a week to act, even though our characters would be able to try and observe their behavior, see what's going on, and even act in response.</div><div><br /></div><div>But, nope, we're on bro-time, so they get an entire week, or more if we have to cancel the session.</div><div><br /></div><div>Even sillier, if you're doing the multiparty thing, another group could show up, murder your characters because they magically can't defend themselves, and then clear out the dungeon. All because you had actual responsibilities, or were maybe exhausted playing so much.</div><div><i><br /></i></div><div>KraftyMatt chimed in:</div><div><br /></div><div><i>"If in the session, you travelled for 2 days, adventured 3 days, and travelled back 2 days, then your PC would be adventuring for that week."</i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div>I like how he just invents travel times that perfectly sync up with the schedulek. I guess in his games all the dungeons are at a convenient distance. Not in my game, though we play it normally so when you need to travel for a few weeks we just skip forward, and when we have to stop playing we just pause it wherever. This isn't the only time he tries to justify it, however:</div><div><br /></div><div><i>"Going back to the 3 week sailing between ports. If the group meets once a month, and the adventure takes 1 week + 3 weeks sailing time, then the calendar would catch up to the game by next session."</i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div>And what if the group meets once a week? Every other week? What if the trip doesn't take precisely four weeks? What if it takes 13 or 17 or 22 days? So the group shows up in port and dicks around for another few <i>weeks</i> because you for no reason have to wait for the calendar to "catch up".</div><div><br /></div><div>Or you just play the game normally, fast forward past the week (or to a nautical encounter if you have one planned or one is randomly generated), and then the game keeps going. No one has to worry that they won't be able to play for who knows how long. Or that they'll have to play other characters who will be stuck in limbo for who knows how long while you play the main party.</div><div><br />Something I will give Krafty credit for is at the least stating that it's only something you should bother with if the table agrees to it. Not that anyone needed his permission, but it's nice to see someone that for some reason actually advocates for this nonsense but isn't trying to convince anyone that it is the correct way to play.</div><div><br /></div><div>Joe mentions something about patron play around 43 minutes in. I've heard of this before, and someone on Twitter brought it up, so I'll be looking into that and probably writing an article about it.</div><div><br /></div><div>Randy proposes a time-sensitive scenario, where if something isn't resolved within x days that a dungeon explodes and destroys a town. His suggestion is that this would be useful for that, but it's those sorts of adventures where it would be <i>worse</i> because, and I mention this in chat, the dungeon only explodes because the party does nothing, even though they would.</div><div><br /></div><div>At 48 minutes Joe mentions his experience dealing with one of the "bros". He states that it was mostly pleasant at first, but once Joe <i>disagreed</i> with something apparently Jeffro went off about Gary and TSR, apparently unfamiliar with the appeal to authority fallacy.</div><div><br /></div><div>This is similar to my xperience as well, though they aren't very polite. A brosr tourist tries to convince you that it's the one true way to play (despite not being a rule), that it provides benefits that they are unable to describe or are not unique to that style of play. You point out how retarded they sound, or that they're wrong, and they flip their shit. It's what happened thus far with Leaky Brain, The Basic Expert, and Gelatinous Rube.</div><div><br /></div><div>And Joe is correct: trolling or not, they aren't helping their case. Not that I think it matters much: the whole arbitrary kinda sorta but not really 1:1 timekeeping thing isn't official and doesn't make sense no matter how you look at it.</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDifyKvsNYWYrwOPGGJ_cm0pMKhMq17Hrx6j2sJtJx9spv0SzCgbT2gaH4wqweJ8wU2e-Ieo2HEqYZ1VfSxYd7Jhdi5Mw1U19iElDF5OtGXvV3eD58ivcVMshLrGCXU2qaQuTDVFzqPC9N7LZz6EzcJ5z5jg-BKAzioGKDSyolDVNmiWTZTa_wNvrVVZo/s664/context.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="476" data-original-width="664" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDifyKvsNYWYrwOPGGJ_cm0pMKhMq17Hrx6j2sJtJx9spv0SzCgbT2gaH4wqweJ8wU2e-Ieo2HEqYZ1VfSxYd7Jhdi5Mw1U19iElDF5OtGXvV3eD58ivcVMshLrGCXU2qaQuTDVFzqPC9N7LZz6EzcJ5z5jg-BKAzioGKDSyolDVNmiWTZTa_wNvrVVZo/s16000/context.png" /></a></div><br /><div><br /></div>David Guyllhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16299128722345607123noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-68694948821391285082024-01-07T14:06:00.000-08:002024-01-07T14:06:45.145-08:00D&D2E Age of Wormsish Playtest Campaign, Session 2<p>Since the fighter was still recovering in town, the rogue and wizard approached the observatory on their own. This proved to be a nearly fatal mistake when the rogue opened the front door and took two crossbow bolts to the chest. The wizard was able to stabilize him, and they staggered back to town so he could take his turn healing over the course of several days.</p><p>Once everyone was back on their feet, the trio hired another warrior before returning to the observatory. This time the fighter took point, and her shield managed to deflect a few bolts, though one founds its mark and severely injured her. The rogue and other warrior returned fire, picking off a few skeletons with their own crossbows before the wizard incinerated the rest with a Fireblast.</p><p>After extinguishing the flames, the party continued exploring the observatory. Much of the first floor was of little interest, though the rogue discovered a few coins here and there. They had nearly finished when they came across a dining area, with a large table surrounded by corpses in various stages of decay. Though none of them moved they safely assumed it was some sort of trap, so the fighter began hacking them apart one by one.</p><p>She was nearly done with one side of the table when one of the "corpses" leapt up and shouted for his minions to attack. This prompted four of them to produce polearms from beneath the table and begin hacking at the fighter (she was the closest). Fortunately, they were clumsy and slow, but unfortunately one <i>still</i> managed to land a successful blow.</p><p>The rogue and other fighter loosed crossbow bolts, though both shots missed. The wizard expended the last of her Willpower and a bit of Wound Points in order to unleash another Fireblast, destroying most of the zombies and severely injuring the "corpse", which turned out to be a necroturgist named Filge. With all of his minions destroyed, Filge opted to at least offer up the pretense of surrender, and during their conversation, the party learned that he was engaged in some secretive research for Balabar Smenk.</p><p>When the party attempted to capture him he fled, sprinting all the way up to the uppermost level. Filge then produced a bottle, which contained a small, green worm suspended within a sickly green fluid, and threatened to pour on a corpse he had been operating on prior to their arrival. He claimed that it would create an unstoppable undead horror, and </p><p>The party wasn't sure whether to believe him, but while trying to convince him to stop the rogue managed to reload his crossbow without Filge noticing. The other fighter had lagged behind a bit during the chase, stopping to reload his as well: he managed to sneak up the stairs, and when he had a clear shot both him and the rogue loosed bolts, killing Filge. The bottle clattered to the floor, but fortunately remained intact.</p><p>Realizing that they had neglected to extinguish the flames in the dining area, the party quickly looted both the operating room and Filge's bedroom, and collecting the skeletal remains before leaving (Filge confirmed that those were the remains taken from the farm, which was really what they had come here for in the first place).</p><p><b>BEHIND THE SCREEN</b></p><p>Combat begins and ends pretty quickly. With the skeletons, they got their shots off during the second encounter but were almost immediately taken out. Which I'm fine with given that they did 7 damage to the fighter, who "only" has 11 WP at her best. Really at 2d6 damage (AP 2) it would only take two shots on average to Critically Injure her.</p><p>The extended healing is great, and with a lack of adventuring clerics this actually means something (unlike older editions where he can just spam healing, pray the next day, and everyone is good to go). The party has a reason to eat well and go to a decent inn, as it gives them a considerable bonus to their Wound Recovery check: couple that with resting all day and the rogue and fighter were regaining around 4 WP at a time.</p><p>I think I mentioned this before, but mending potions now trigger a Wound Recovery check, and the standard ones grant a +5 bonus. This might seem like a lot but you don't get the benefit of healing supplies and such, and it ends up equaling around an additional WP recovered. But it also only takes a minute instead of multiple hours of rest.</p><p>Poor Filge didn't have time to cast <i>any </i>of his spells, and I think this makes the case for keeping Sustain spells in the game: the encounter would have been more memorable if he'd had Ectoplasmic Armor and Ectoplasmic Weapon active. The party announced their presence ahead of time, but even if he cast them in advance depending on how long they spent exploring the first set of rooms the spells could have worn off by the time they got there.</p><p>But they got his spellbook, so now I get to see what they'll do with some of the necroturgy spells. Our son wants to at least learn some, and might multiclass into wizard. Melissa is of course going to multiclass into ranger again in order to pick up Animal Companion for the owlbear cub.</p><p>The adventure is almost concluded--they just need to bury the bodies and return to the tomb--and <i>then</i> it's on to a heavily modified <i>Three Face of Evil</i>, by which I mean almost none of it is retained except for the basic concept of exploring an underground temple.</p><p>I'd created a table for randomized WP and VP generation, but since we're dropping VP it's no longer needed. The other upside was that for determining random monster WP and VP it was a bit complicated. However we're also removing randomized WP, and sticking with 1E's static amounts each level. Also Constitution only applies to the total, so the fighter went from 11 WP to 16, the wizard went from 5 to 8, and the rogue from 7 to 11. </p><p>Our daughter doesn't like not being able to move at all in order to cast a spell, so for her 2nd-level Talent will probably go with Walkantation, which lets you suffer more Drain in order to move while casting spells. It's not a big deal given how many Talents wizards get (nearly twice as many as everyone else). She also gets to Master a spell she has Learned, and is taking Fire Trap in order to drastically reduce the casting time and Drain cost.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHikkdz8XokNSNOSroiRVedSEgCFbl8tfKmfd0k-Ci4GqMfWDRD4w0ZSqluVrZXgRKX3ze0UXaru2lqZvxCa-ZfGsDlP3V6Y-cehMRIkqNfHGcNNdHYZHwKorKzUUzVnLEhs5Ee42gYHYX8F4xz79wxIrU1boSUyMyRP2WUG6WAjTGtc27NYRIf8taAEI/s592/tumblr_inline_pn1p7c4zAr1rkapbx_500.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="592" data-original-width="455" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHikkdz8XokNSNOSroiRVedSEgCFbl8tfKmfd0k-Ci4GqMfWDRD4w0ZSqluVrZXgRKX3ze0UXaru2lqZvxCa-ZfGsDlP3V6Y-cehMRIkqNfHGcNNdHYZHwKorKzUUzVnLEhs5Ee42gYHYX8F4xz79wxIrU1boSUyMyRP2WUG6WAjTGtc27NYRIf8taAEI/s16000/tumblr_inline_pn1p7c4zAr1rkapbx_500.jpg" /></a></div>David Guyllhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16299128722345607123noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-91292741391007670172024-01-06T13:55:00.000-08:002024-01-07T13:33:19.573-08:00Training to Level Up is STILL Retarded<p>About a year and a half ago I wrote an article explaining in great detail <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2022/06/training-to-level-up-is-unnecessary-and.html">why requiring a character to train under someone else in order to level up is absolutely retarded</a>, but then several days ago someone on Twitter posted his woefully misinformed opinion, which prompted a reasonable and enlightened response from myself:</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUMbGrYMKqYlheJcckdBuNp790ONqTUDTqIeF4ncQdPkSkDbMZgAby_n5BmRMhgJ12gB9GpyGnGPHB82fBdoztTsgST-PzOiVnZb7QBfQ8rmljkIVdGj_J2gMDTDFoU0T8dJkp11xDMzOX2bE1Z8pqa_OL7pULD1jucik_MaYBHWrPtCYN6OlwIu6wM2I/s679/an%20enlightened%20response.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="679" data-original-width="581" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUMbGrYMKqYlheJcckdBuNp790ONqTUDTqIeF4ncQdPkSkDbMZgAby_n5BmRMhgJ12gB9GpyGnGPHB82fBdoztTsgST-PzOiVnZb7QBfQ8rmljkIVdGj_J2gMDTDFoU0T8dJkp11xDMzOX2bE1Z8pqa_OL7pULD1jucik_MaYBHWrPtCYN6OlwIu6wM2I/s16000/an%20enlightened%20response.png" /></a></div><p>I would have been more than happy to leave it at that, but then numerous, equally intellectually challenged tourists waddled out of the woodwork, hoping that their deluge of flawed analogies, moronic musings, and bizarre comparisons would prove some sort of point. Here are but some of the highlights:</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiu1BwfjwXcdmsiGSBfXTHLOUEcB5QPN2Y2ZnGLcZEXoZlZPOTCVnBEQkyYJVF7DKyRh8QYXYX9aL9ZzXLkOc7JdotxFBZrYxEuUjc2yyh31xiPtI9Be3OAwV2_fACvoXRggO62zjl9tJ15klVmQhOenysHbGpQ4F_wbxz4jq88Vn89yoO_CKpUMkvsdwU/s583/training%20retards.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="173" data-original-width="583" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiu1BwfjwXcdmsiGSBfXTHLOUEcB5QPN2Y2ZnGLcZEXoZlZPOTCVnBEQkyYJVF7DKyRh8QYXYX9aL9ZzXLkOc7JdotxFBZrYxEuUjc2yyh31xiPtI9Be3OAwV2_fACvoXRggO62zjl9tJ15klVmQhOenysHbGpQ4F_wbxz4jq88Vn89yoO_CKpUMkvsdwU/s16000/training%20retards.png" /></a></div><p>Obviously, this has absolutely nothing to do with training, but how XP is acquired and awarded. </p><p>You can easily extend this flawed analogy to the absurd notion that a fighter could do precisely the same thing, and somehow <i>that</i> entitles him to seek out a trainer to punt him all the way to 4th-level despite never have even lifting a sword. Because not just anyone can go seek out a trainer to level up, oh no, only those that do nothing but scream at mountains to bury enemies under heaps of snow are awarded this privilege.</p><p>Seriously, this is an issue with XP that I would like to solve, though I think the bookkeeping would be more of a headache than it's worth. I think the simplest solution is to award additional XP based on class for certain activities. So, wizards gain bonus XP for casting spells, fighters gain bonus XP for killing monsters, and rogues gain bonus XP for skill usage. The only issue would be how it conflicts with multiclassed characters, as well as other classes like barbarians and rangers.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi6l1qb2hUMfKabrlJX2EVHt0EX4r_fvlHAIzQtWfzsZLZ60o9FlzohUIbXgcZ4VPyC45XEWQEESmPxx2FJhSmUz2glPzU0rWEogth8orXChxEUQNoh-8Kcb0ruVqf4TQBo8vwBZKhokJjetw9JQKJSq9uFDMAxtBlWlvFHhzNbjbiBU6MMLSdEiOp_a8s/s582/training%20retards%203.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="119" data-original-width="582" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi6l1qb2hUMfKabrlJX2EVHt0EX4r_fvlHAIzQtWfzsZLZ60o9FlzohUIbXgcZ4VPyC45XEWQEESmPxx2FJhSmUz2glPzU0rWEogth8orXChxEUQNoh-8Kcb0ruVqf4TQBo8vwBZKhokJjetw9JQKJSq9uFDMAxtBlWlvFHhzNbjbiBU6MMLSdEiOp_a8s/s16000/training%20retards%203.png" /></a></div><div><br /></div>One reason would be that the character is actively adventuring enough to the point where training is no longer necessary merely to keep in shape. But then I never say that training has no purpose or benefit, just that it shouldn't be necessary <i>to level up</i>. I don't know if these people are retarded, disingenuous or both. Or are they just somehow imagining that I said something completely different and are arguing against that, like some sort of strawman variant?<div><br /></div><div>This guy does the same thing:<br /><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgRHdrcVZczdaQqBniQevFp6NIS9R90B_undqc93jsjKJE-IzeEUt5GUNuw2O4xEZqUufnv5JUgefsXYsElZIN6flW-a71oPzoz0znO-P5MKQmSbDYJHsiYURnNfncgKJJJYTjIuNlZXRWU6KUZqOTIOw0FFoAWVbLAsK1MAThtvYXaTnGgISKdW2k8NrA/s587/training%20retards%205.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="582" data-original-width="587" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgRHdrcVZczdaQqBniQevFp6NIS9R90B_undqc93jsjKJE-IzeEUt5GUNuw2O4xEZqUufnv5JUgefsXYsElZIN6flW-a71oPzoz0znO-P5MKQmSbDYJHsiYURnNfncgKJJJYTjIuNlZXRWU6KUZqOTIOw0FFoAWVbLAsK1MAThtvYXaTnGgISKdW2k8NrA/s16000/training%20retards%205.png" /></a></div><br /><div>Except he not only shows what I said, which isn't what he <i>thinks</i> I said, but then double-downs on it. Very generous of him to do the legwork proving himself wrong.</div><div><br /></div><div>I'm not sure if that's better or worse than others who, through a combination of apathy and stupidity, just resort to the classic strawman fallacy:</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdGNL3wQO3esfWaIBF4ShjsGRWp0qsee7VdLw30lPdapY5FZ0uSxfBHjoRu5Q6cyezncEkRiYbK144pW8cKQfPTQrvJ0PcPmfazcQzNslsOij5Ar6mmNstMyk7h2bGZuk4cXHi98qvopIkMtTzyXui-81-mmgbhr23xq_IuKEnBgIWPnCWjr8sD4fmooA/s587/training%20retards%206.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="334" data-original-width="587" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdGNL3wQO3esfWaIBF4ShjsGRWp0qsee7VdLw30lPdapY5FZ0uSxfBHjoRu5Q6cyezncEkRiYbK144pW8cKQfPTQrvJ0PcPmfazcQzNslsOij5Ar6mmNstMyk7h2bGZuk4cXHi98qvopIkMtTzyXui-81-mmgbhr23xq_IuKEnBgIWPnCWjr8sD4fmooA/s16000/training%20retards%206.png" /></a></div><br /><div>You'll note that nowhere did I say or even imply that a glorified pest exterminator should be anywhere on par with a "master swordsman" (especially so early on), but smoothbrain's gotta smoothbrain.</div><div><br /></div><div>Here's another:</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-yKaAe2cW0m3VpQh0zcDIlCxj35UyLl6sDmiaBxIY4YtB4Ihl8BC8jZ1ZF4yFNw9b20MNICKiNCDVcyt0_sz-TwZyKNDFnwQj8LWKzXAX7cUh6WNY1SKEp_oyxFPDRa1acUsWMXpqBq8niXtGbeaPhX54UWxE3cOiYp6I1IGpp0jBruupUFuEsx1og_w/s589/training%20retards%207.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="195" data-original-width="589" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-yKaAe2cW0m3VpQh0zcDIlCxj35UyLl6sDmiaBxIY4YtB4Ihl8BC8jZ1ZF4yFNw9b20MNICKiNCDVcyt0_sz-TwZyKNDFnwQj8LWKzXAX7cUh6WNY1SKEp_oyxFPDRa1acUsWMXpqBq8niXtGbeaPhX54UWxE3cOiYp6I1IGpp0jBruupUFuEsx1og_w/s16000/training%20retards%207.png" /></a></div><br /><div>Note that none of them use what would be considered even remotely normal examples of actual play. Characters don't routinely confront vermin or "nobodies", but mobs of goblins, kobolds, orcs, gnolls, skeletons, etc. They explore dangerous environments, overcome obstacles, slay monsters, and get whittled down to near death regularly.</div><div><br /><div>To these people, none of that matters (because it would refute their inane stance): a fighter can spend days or weeks or even <i>months</i> systematically slaughtering the horrific denizens infesting a multilevel dungeon, yet his skill with a sword remains <i>precisely</i> the same as it was when he started.</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUfrSqFQvBSfCSmMAdN0P7CeJWldzKeP1qnhV46h_Xe_r3zZ9qPT29nYmo3CGePxF3F_DqORRva8zWIDaWAhd1CsyS9HkIZ1wshv9c71gztTKF-E_toEoMVLOuhFb9uWFh-J-zspwcvaVXnf5eCsvTQYd-1IODfaKfxXdOtTfxBrAzqVsz-hQso6MNi08/s592/training%20retards%208.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="141" data-original-width="592" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUfrSqFQvBSfCSmMAdN0P7CeJWldzKeP1qnhV46h_Xe_r3zZ9qPT29nYmo3CGePxF3F_DqORRva8zWIDaWAhd1CsyS9HkIZ1wshv9c71gztTKF-E_toEoMVLOuhFb9uWFh-J-zspwcvaVXnf5eCsvTQYd-1IODfaKfxXdOtTfxBrAzqVsz-hQso6MNi08/s16000/training%20retards%208.png" /></a></div><div><br /></div>Not that this was said or even implied (I'd ask what sorts of games these weirdos run, but I don't think most of them even play, and if they do I don't really want to know), but I find it hilarious that by Urrej's particular brand of logic you <i>can</i> go beat up an animal, then talk to a trainer, and <i>that</i> will magically make you stronger.</div><div><br /></div><div>Again, you can't just go to the trainer and train up. No, you for some reason first need to beat up animals. Only then can the trainer unlock your potential, because only the best of the best can ever train themselves over the course of many weeks (which also <i>still </i>somehow costs thousands of gold pieces).</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBSUts06LUenFXRWScyaa_dlm-oFMQ53Oh1oJEU-SUBCNLVFt9ngAsTEYPXaLSe0wmwMhL_JTIFrjvTzkcPuEdIWzwePJ3oXE7FAOrVTmogD_PyxF-nx7vgsygZkbU84_cjkwfAlDWweokRhY0xdmcDEzXY7rWLtLrCNFCrXH8xfWQp5llFpqH3AkYMo4/s589/training%20retards%209.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="54" data-original-width="589" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBSUts06LUenFXRWScyaa_dlm-oFMQ53Oh1oJEU-SUBCNLVFt9ngAsTEYPXaLSe0wmwMhL_JTIFrjvTzkcPuEdIWzwePJ3oXE7FAOrVTmogD_PyxF-nx7vgsygZkbU84_cjkwfAlDWweokRhY0xdmcDEzXY7rWLtLrCNFCrXH8xfWQp5llFpqH3AkYMo4/s16000/training%20retards%209.png" /></a></div><br /><div>Coaches was another flawed explanation that people kept trotting out, because according to them a boxer can never <i>ever</i> improve on his own. He <i>needs</i> a coach to do...something. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that boxers train to remain in peak physical condition, since they aren't constantly fighting and engaging in adventuring activities.</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNA7mOlgX1AqR_B8cCh3tYHao0exoZ2S5bNL4uTcIuJJcbTSTpQCpw9rjFr49hBY6zi-RYHT43_2xjsr2edbPA-SyoaG8QMzMd0-WH0IBExE4MPp39ylUIEmDZm9I8lXyKRPmKLyJA6_bO8FbS8iJtPJ5da-jVVtlA96Od3BM8WGtzfiOpZQ1HXlOez0o/s587/training%20retards%2010.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="584" data-original-width="587" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNA7mOlgX1AqR_B8cCh3tYHao0exoZ2S5bNL4uTcIuJJcbTSTpQCpw9rjFr49hBY6zi-RYHT43_2xjsr2edbPA-SyoaG8QMzMd0-WH0IBExE4MPp39ylUIEmDZm9I8lXyKRPmKLyJA6_bO8FbS8iJtPJ5da-jVVtlA96Od3BM8WGtzfiOpZQ1HXlOez0o/s16000/training%20retards%2010.png" /></a></div><br /><div>It's not, but then Luke wasn't a fully-fledged Jedi Knight at this point, so really it's more like him learning skills and abilities to hit 1st-level in that class.</div><div><br /></div><div>Also, when I asked the smoothbrain how he learned telekinesis, which was used earlier in the movie, all he could muster was a flippant response about an off-screen training montage with a different muppet. I still found the exchange amusing because his very example was disproven by the same movie. But then maybe he skipped the beginning?</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgs-Sfj-kFopPHHNdb7TV-zHPdX4cibKF2CSKmnX5Gpephr5h3KhybFXSgZvJtNDTzpW7V2_JV4lf1QetfBQZWReIzzdE6HWL6KMLX2WZooqGLvf2Ukkriv2HWxeJ9PBhzMykx81ZYNi41yU9v4ExyzKGtvHL0MXHxHVOF6Nl-bEriv9NgRQqzVK4oD7Pg/s586/training%20retards%2011.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="96" data-original-width="586" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgs-Sfj-kFopPHHNdb7TV-zHPdX4cibKF2CSKmnX5Gpephr5h3KhybFXSgZvJtNDTzpW7V2_JV4lf1QetfBQZWReIzzdE6HWL6KMLX2WZooqGLvf2Ukkriv2HWxeJ9PBhzMykx81ZYNi41yU9v4ExyzKGtvHL0MXHxHVOF6Nl-bEriv9NgRQqzVK4oD7Pg/s16000/training%20retards%2011.png" /></a></div><br /><div>Right, because "UFC guys" are constantly going out adventuring and fighting monsters. I'm sure that they would <i>still</i> need to train after a hard few weeks of trekking across the land, exploring ruins, and slaying monsters, and not at all due to the fact that they <i>don't</i> fight all the time and are merely training to remain in peak physical condition.</div><div><br /></div><div>I'm starting to think that these smoothbrains can't actually defend their intellectually bankrupt position. Take this guy, who is so desperate and/or dumb that he attempts to assert that you cannot learn any skill without being instructed:</div><div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhM7L6R9EhTujWkIw8y9_nHx2nESriq9Ceqgd9FhtakjyJO5iYlSX4kchrIsZ0c4EGbrcQllMW_sqpSCfWZ0npIbGCXJ4kbBD_1R5mokDYflULkPNqAErs3aQ5-sTalUHt6KGlHy7i1TfT6DJfU-6gywFuVDGl4Ccg06tNlRVuEBk52HYirxqu2iAYKxIE/s687/training%20retards%2013.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="687" data-original-width="587" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhM7L6R9EhTujWkIw8y9_nHx2nESriq9Ceqgd9FhtakjyJO5iYlSX4kchrIsZ0c4EGbrcQllMW_sqpSCfWZ0npIbGCXJ4kbBD_1R5mokDYflULkPNqAErs3aQ5-sTalUHt6KGlHy7i1TfT6DJfU-6gywFuVDGl4Ccg06tNlRVuEBk52HYirxqu2iAYKxIE/s16000/training%20retards%2013.png" /></a></div><br /><div>We're not even talking about complex subjects such as science and medicine, but a warrior becoming more skilled with the blade by engaging in and surviving actual combat.</div></div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAntV-NtiaoC2fJBgPgrDXoDIaFZoL7_aAyoEKUxrt8ecS4DfhRoi3mAaAk38S9c5koE02_SC4haiAEX0d24MR2oPQT5cwBTP356S6jDRYIuYbLpHPcuhrUrXUr8riSFr9wTkcd9hUklt_hOM64tIqSWUyj9kBuRhYhRTCWT9mu0FB7kPk2hb98hsBB5k/s580/training%20retards%2012.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="505" data-original-width="580" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAntV-NtiaoC2fJBgPgrDXoDIaFZoL7_aAyoEKUxrt8ecS4DfhRoi3mAaAk38S9c5koE02_SC4haiAEX0d24MR2oPQT5cwBTP356S6jDRYIuYbLpHPcuhrUrXUr8riSFr9wTkcd9hUklt_hOM64tIqSWUyj9kBuRhYhRTCWT9mu0FB7kPk2hb98hsBB5k/s16000/training%20retards%2012.png" /></a></div><br /><div>It is separate in that training should grant XP towards leveling up, or make it quicker and/or easier to learn something new. But this is not something I argued against. What I <i>did</i> argue against was <i>requiring a trainer in order to level up</i>.</div><div><br /></div><div>The examples imply that Rocky would never, <i>ever</i> improve as a boxer <i>unles</i>s he fought a bunch of fights and <i>then</i> engaged in routine exercise under the supervision of someone else. That Luke could never, <i>ever</i> improve his force powers without someone telling him what to do (even though in that same movie he demonstrated force powers that he did not have in the first).</div><div><br /></div><div>The Harry Potter one is...odd, because those are children in a school learning magic and related skills, and this seems like a reasonable background for a wizard character (he attended a wizard school). However, it <i>also</i> implies that this is the only way wizards can learn new skills and spells: not by hitting the books and practicing on their own (I learned a lot in school without needing teachers), but <i>solely</i> by having an instructor tell them what to do.</div><div><br /></div><div>I'm not a Harry Potter fan by any stretch, but would curious if that's the case: can no wizard learn new spells or skills without a teacher telling him what to do? Are there no self-taught wizards, or even wizards who learned certain skills and spells all on their own?</div><div><br /></div><div>The Avatar one is slightly better but still deeply flawed, as Aang doesn't require a teacher to improve in general, but specifically to learn bending techniques from completely separate elements. He doesn't <i>need</i> Zuko to instruct him on being a better warrior, or to refine his other bending skills, he only needs Zuko to help him to learn the basics of <i>fire</i>bending.</div><div><br /></div><div>As with Star Wars, this is <i>also</i> funny because Katara not only learns the basics of waterbending on her own, but was able to get Aang started on waterbending, they both learned a few new techniques on the way to the North Pole, and even the master waterbender acknowledged her talents. All without an instructor.</div></div><div><br /></div><div>These people think that Gygax is gospel, that AD&D is a perfect system that <i>cannot</i> be improved upon, period, and boy oh boy will they sperg out if you dare criticize their most holy text in any way. And I think that's what angers them the most: they<i> know</i> on some level it doesn't make sense, that it serves no purpose, and when you point it out there's a flash of awareness, and if only briefly they realize how fucking stupid they are.</div><div><br /></div><div>But instead of admitting it and, gasp, changing the rule, they lash out. Some claim that you just don't understand, man, even though they can't explain it. Others twist your words into a 1/2 Hit Die strawman so they can pretend to be victorious to other morons, or throw up their hands and declare that the game isn't for you, as if you were playing it in the first place. The whole thing It reminded me of <i>The Emperor's New Clothes</i>, just with game mechanics. </div><div><br /></div><div>Anyway, <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2023/02/experience-for-gold-and-vice-versa.html">XP for gold is also retarded</a>.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>UPDATE</b></div><div><br /></div><div>I almost forgot about this guy:</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuW67LABY5D53ctcvHFTrNI-ovvlAqoydVKnoeouXvDSKtDhyIqmBgfs-DXCpYGg4rM9KKhkT1BCl2qkMXwxk-7TrjZUUWHxitMZJRvm0dwu2afnlQX87UMMamZbC66tTfvf59EvehDWlhghNahiOY1vpJfCXxCenpbnN1MxrkcNbJx1kniw8Nug4k9Uk/s585/training%20retards%2015.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="424" data-original-width="585" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuW67LABY5D53ctcvHFTrNI-ovvlAqoydVKnoeouXvDSKtDhyIqmBgfs-DXCpYGg4rM9KKhkT1BCl2qkMXwxk-7TrjZUUWHxitMZJRvm0dwu2afnlQX87UMMamZbC66tTfvf59EvehDWlhghNahiOY1vpJfCXxCenpbnN1MxrkcNbJx1kniw8Nug4k9Uk/s16000/training%20retards%2015.png" /></a></div><br /><div>He for some reason responded to a different thread, claiming that a guy who didn't answer a question <i>did</i> answer a question, but this isn't the only time he demonstrates his inability to read (or write). Note that I ask him a simple question, which he refuses to answer:</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPxGxiUlgWQGqYB5SH6p5n8YdJc5JumiJrrr3ulnmQI2wN8H2L4xv0GeAD982qOAyfAQSp-Atu19MrzPy9nVoYF_inFtVpmcMQ7kub7HB27fzfLiLBseg70UgOftQ0W3BqwTsH5w3ejODttX0HLEdoi-7aJrjqyr0dPA2gkMqIziSo5nlezlbtlkobJpg/s589/training%20retards%2016.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="156" data-original-width="589" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPxGxiUlgWQGqYB5SH6p5n8YdJc5JumiJrrr3ulnmQI2wN8H2L4xv0GeAD982qOAyfAQSp-Atu19MrzPy9nVoYF_inFtVpmcMQ7kub7HB27fzfLiLBseg70UgOftQ0W3BqwTsH5w3ejODttX0HLEdoi-7aJrjqyr0dPA2gkMqIziSo5nlezlbtlkobJpg/s16000/training%20retards%2016.png" /></a></div><br /><div>Now, he never mentioned these skills, and I certainly never criticized him for not knowing any particular skills, and given how defensive he is I'm skeptical as to how proficient he actually is. But at least he admits he is a dumbass (not that his admission is needed).</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhB6s-1fped3YtYHoWF9sq2xZjsF0mCba2gthI42mgMKWLLgvqTex8kXQEyqKK2Glgfl-9xWL3Fodty6P_Gwo158qfE9M8AThUarBPLxDEx_Va-M2yZ1YYOqUBHUd8kNzGuuCHfyn8ky8uaF9mW3XmDZDG7Gjs7v_AxmJ7_24cdSqcYpfu5PNRg0T3infA/s585/training%20retards%2017.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="388" data-original-width="585" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhB6s-1fped3YtYHoWF9sq2xZjsF0mCba2gthI42mgMKWLLgvqTex8kXQEyqKK2Glgfl-9xWL3Fodty6P_Gwo158qfE9M8AThUarBPLxDEx_Va-M2yZ1YYOqUBHUd8kNzGuuCHfyn8ky8uaF9mW3XmDZDG7Gjs7v_AxmJ7_24cdSqcYpfu5PNRg0T3infA/s16000/training%20retards%2017.png" /></a></div><br /><div>As with many others, he resorts to a strawman, though it's confusing because he went on about all these skills he claims to possess without undergoing training by someone else, which is what I'm advocating for characters being able to do, so...why?</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiakgKVGONCPD-g1rFYvMREJk424LwmgAEpuR2icCO-Y7zIyWzwk-QhwdnWf7piETlTDVkJWE4qQBG1a1SXVdFjuAWk7V1lckbMyGtnszkvO7u67J7uMWIYyHvjmdaLXh5nWKOVG5QR2ec-5GG1K35kwyN9BMTt5qsRTLGjhj6ZUeQzAYaS8_RE2ac0Y9w/s722/training%20retards%2019.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="722" data-original-width="588" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiakgKVGONCPD-g1rFYvMREJk424LwmgAEpuR2icCO-Y7zIyWzwk-QhwdnWf7piETlTDVkJWE4qQBG1a1SXVdFjuAWk7V1lckbMyGtnszkvO7u67J7uMWIYyHvjmdaLXh5nWKOVG5QR2ec-5GG1K35kwyN9BMTt5qsRTLGjhj6ZUeQzAYaS8_RE2ac0Y9w/s16000/training%20retards%2019.png" /></a></div><br /><div>The entire time I've been arguing that people should be able to learn and improve at skills without requiring someone to train them, and somehow he translated that to me being opposed to training in any capacity. I think it's at this point he <i>finally </i>realizes how retarded he is, so of course switches gears to claiming that I of all people am somehow woke.</div><div><br /></div><div>Apparently expressing an opinion is an "attack" and a "typical woke marketing tactic", as if I have been marketing anything in the thread.</div><div><br /></div><div>Now, what Crimzon8Numbers is doing <i>is</i> a woke strategy. It's really a strategy of retards in general, but woke people are generally retarded so there's plenty of overlap (some do it for attention and money). My opinion is an attack, not because it is any sort of attack but because he doesn't agree with it. Neither her nor the other retards can refute it, so he needs to depict me as a "bad guy". It's a way to make him feel better for losing and being a loser in general.</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpbzIhh3l8IX6R8z4XHA5dgNXwRIJKGpDK6LxHY8vaH7UuFiaqV98ShGodW7Eymbb-Vekv4gpnV2oxjcLZf2SmENXC7R0h3rSwS9HIe051x-Li3FWDBVDhJHbajMvYK9uYWqwGP61026zjk_UoeDx7h1vXaa0xexEkGmgTE2KXwb1kDaeQXr2XT7ZVADU/s585/training%20retards%2021.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="195" data-original-width="585" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpbzIhh3l8IX6R8z4XHA5dgNXwRIJKGpDK6LxHY8vaH7UuFiaqV98ShGodW7Eymbb-Vekv4gpnV2oxjcLZf2SmENXC7R0h3rSwS9HIe051x-Li3FWDBVDhJHbajMvYK9uYWqwGP61026zjk_UoeDx7h1vXaa0xexEkGmgTE2KXwb1kDaeQXr2XT7ZVADU/s16000/training%20retards%2021.png" /></a></div><br /><div>He again has no defense. I explained <i>why </i>he is behaving like a "wokie" and this is the best he has to offer:</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjACF9IYe3vSyGfNpq5vLLIquVhhVx0HLCUMidU7xyCu4K4wr6PF0yLXUneBsDTz_G5mJSN60o61h1uXlVxJgIIIoJROfbuCcmQ7842tv1Sq1HGfRj_ApsQ9fuymlX8sN1hzZltQIC4R1HeWutTnVR-U1pvRiDEoNqaG9rr6n2wNeU80wtpCyk91C_mptw/s590/training%20retards%2020.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="497" data-original-width="590" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjACF9IYe3vSyGfNpq5vLLIquVhhVx0HLCUMidU7xyCu4K4wr6PF0yLXUneBsDTz_G5mJSN60o61h1uXlVxJgIIIoJROfbuCcmQ7842tv1Sq1HGfRj_ApsQ9fuymlX8sN1hzZltQIC4R1HeWutTnVR-U1pvRiDEoNqaG9rr6n2wNeU80wtpCyk91C_mptw/s16000/training%20retards%2020.png" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">The guy has a <i>very</i> unhealthy obsession with me, so he had to have known that, among other things, child grooming and mutilation is something I'm adamantly <i>and</i> openly opposed to.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">And he <i>still</i> describes it as woke.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Consistently.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Disturbing implications.</div>David Guyllhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16299128722345607123noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-19429732266432929752024-01-03T13:35:00.000-08:002024-01-03T13:35:38.719-08:00D&D2E Age of Wormsish Playtest Campaign<p>I've never finished <i>Age of Worms</i>, despite about a dozen attempts at this point, and I'm fine with that because after all these years I've realized that it's not well-written <i>or</i> designed (which I'll touch on in a bit). When I tried running it as a way to playtest 1st Edition <i>Dungeons & Delvers</i>, I initially ran it mostly as written, with a few tweaks here and there. But as the campaign went on, I found myself making more drastic changes, and near the end was only really using some of the adventures as a sort of plot concept that I would build on.</p><p>For example, in <i>A Gathering of Winds</i> (the sixth or seventh adventure in the series), the players normally go into another Wind Duke tomb, which is basically just a tomb with more or less normal tomb stuff for a mid-level party. It's about as disappointing as the first adventure, <i>The Whispering Cairn, </i>where the players also go to a Wind Duke tomb but there's just stuff like beetles, a fire and water elemental (but no air elemental), and a ghoul.</p><p>You don't even fight anything vaguely wind-based until the end, and it's basically a set of magical flying armor. The treasure is equally mundane, mostly old armor, a magical suit of chainmail, magic goggles, some non-magical silver rings worth seventy-fucking-five gold pieces, coins, etc. I scrapped almost all of that, having the players go to the Elemental Plane of Air, changing the dungeon layout so that it took place mostly on floating islands, and created different monsters and treasure that felt more thematically appropriate.</p><p>For 2nd Edition <i>Dungeons & Delvers</i> I am again running it for long-term playtesting purposes, and this go around I'm doing that sort of thing from the start, taking the core idea of the adventure path, removing all the bizarre nonsense and often absurd amount of valuables, and making it more interesting.</p><p>For example, there's no reason for the Whispering Cairn to have readily available, easily destroyed magical portals. There's no reason to have the seven lanterns, especially since each of them being present stops the wind-trap that you find after scaling one of the chains, which means that in the cairn's default state (which magically resets over time) it won't do anything, anyway.</p><p>There's no reason to have an underground floor be the "lair" of the guy who built it, as well as the crew, who for no reason went through all of the trouble to build an entire basement level to live in, and then the tomb on top. They could have just as easily built simpler, smaller shelters, which could then be dismantled later or even simply abandoned. Or, if they can build magic portal technology, just go home for the day.</p><p>There's also no reason to have a magical food generator, a room that makes you feel sleepy (as well as a magical statue that kills you if you do). There's also no reason to have the ghost kid show up and try to be all scary, especially if he wants people to help him. In fact, it would have made more sense for him to actually <i>help</i> the characters during the fight against a random grell that has somehow been skulking around in a ball pit with infinite ammo and not dying of starvation and.or dehydration.</p><p><i>Sooo</i> much of the adventure seems like random elements just slapped together, but then it was approved by Paizo so what did you expect?</p><p>Anyway, we ran a session a few days ago. The party consisted of a human fighter, human wizard, and kobold wizard (everything was randomly generated, besides class). They went into the burial mound and were soon set upon by wolves. After a string of ominously bad rolls, the human wizard was dragged off and presumably torn to pieces. Given that the fighter was also severely injured and the kobold out of Willpower, they both retreated.</p><p>They returned a few days later with a dwarven rogue in tow. This time they kept a wide berth from the passage where the wolves apparently dwelled, and eventually arrived at a large chamber with a dais at the center. Seven shorter passages branches away, each featuring a smaller dais. A thorough inspection revealed a mechanism in the central dais which, when activated, caused a staircase encircling the dais to appear.</p><p>Descending underground, they noticed that the walls had changed. Before they looked to be made of unworked stones haphazardly stacked atop each other. Here, they looked to be at least somewhat shaped, and there was some semblance of order, suggesting more recent and/or advanced construction.</p><p>They found a small room that featured an unremarkable sarcophagus, as well as a wooden door banded in iron. Multiple strips of paper hung loosely across it, fixed to the adjacent walls with wax. They were each covered in writing, though the language was unfamiliar to them. Reluctantly opening the sarcophagus, they were somewhat relieved to see that it only contained a sword. It was plain, with a hilt that looked to be made of something resembling ivory, but otherwise looked to be in pristine condition.</p><p>The fighter picked it up and gave it a few test swings. It felt slightly more balanced than the one she carried but was otherwise unremarkable. Even so, she held onto it, assuming that there must be something to it given its location. They debated for a time about removing the paper strips, eventually having the kobold incinerate them. The door was stuck but not locked, and beyond the air was heavy with the stench of decay.</p><p>Once they were finished retching they pressed on. The first room featured a stack of yellowed skulls. Undeterred the fighter and dwarf rifled through them, finding a few with golden coins pressed deeply into the eye sockets. The halls were lined with burial alcoves, though the skeletal remains within were dark and spongy, and none of them possessed any heads. </p><p>They reasonably assumed that that accounted for the skull pile, but were soon proven wrong when a tall, gangly creature emerged from the darkness, wearing nothing but a cloak fashioned out of countless skulls lashed together. Its discolored flesh clung tightly to its bones, and it grinned widely at them as it muttered something about food. Since the fighter was in the lead (and carrying a light source), it lunged for her first: she stabbed at it frantically, just barely missing its clawed hand, which easily enveloped her entire head.</p><p>Despite its frail appearance it was unnaturally strong, casually lifting the fighter off the ground and battering her against a wall. The dwarf rushed forward, hacking frantically at its legs, and though he sliced off narrow strips of dried flesh and muscle the creature didn't seem to notice. Propelling herself on jets of flame, the kobold blasted the creature as she rocketed past. Its arm now alight, the creature struck and rubbed it against a nearby wall in an attempt to extinguish the flames.</p><p>Stones shook loose as it cried out to its "servants" for aid, and pits formed in the stomachs of both the dwarf and the kobold. Pinpoints of light illuminated the eye sockets of the skulls that formed its cloak, and they began to chatter noisily.</p><p>The dwarf heard clattering behind him. Turning to look, he could see the skeletons had emerged from their alcoves and were clumsily crawling towards them. He tried hacking at the larger creature's arm, hoping to free the fighter: she was doing likewise and with their combined effort managed to slice its hand off. Meanwhile, the kobold repeatedly blasted it with jets of fire: the creature was quickly engulfed in flames, and soon crumpled to the ground.</p><p>At this the skeletons also ceased moving, and once the flames died out the party checked the remains for any valuables: though it possessed none, elsewhere the party <i>did</i> discover several golden holy symbols still hanging from skeletal torsos.</p><p>Before they left the dwarf found a secret passage, though the mechanism to open it seemed to be stuck or damaged. While trying to force it open the ghost of a child approached. He was killed by the creature after he discovered the underground area long ago (how long, he could not say, as there was no way to track time down here). He claimed to be able to open the door from the other side, but would only do so if the party took his remains home and buried them.</p><p>The party agreed and received directions, but upon arriving at the farm, they found the house mostly collapsed and abandoned. Four open graves, piles of dirt, and a shovel nearby caught their attention. As they investigated the house, an owlbear emerged and attacked. Despite its severe injuries, the owlbear nearly killed the fighter in a single hit. The party managed to defeat it, and despite any prior misgivings between her and the mother, the fighter decided to take care of the now orphaned cub.</p><p>Though they couldn't be sure, it was safe to assume that the names on the gravestones referred to the child's parents and siblings and that he wouldn't be happy being buried there alone. There were footprints and tracks, along with a somewhat fresh arm featuring a tattoo that the dwarf recognized as belonging to a local gang from Diamond Lake (the starting town of the adventure).</p><p>The dwarf knew better than to mess with the gang, and after several days of the fighter resting and everyone else trying to figure out indirectly <i>why </i>they might be digging up bodies, returned to the scene of the crime and tried following the tracks. Despite all odds this actually worked, and after several hours of tracking and backtracking, they found themselves at an old observatory, and this is where we stopped for the night.</p><p><b>BEHIND THE SCREEN</b></p><p>A big change is that the tomb no longer has anything to do with the Wind Dukes, not that it really mattered in the original adventure or even adventure path. Instead, the tomb serves another, more direct function that might become apparent later depending on what the characters do. Otherwise its conceptually the same: the party goes to the tomb, finds a barrier they cannot bypass, help the ghost in exchange for its help, and learn a bit about the Kyuss zombies and worms in the process.</p><p>I will say that the party <i>could</i> feasibly bypass the barrier, anyway, they would just need the right tools to bash the wall in. They would just miss out on XP, treasure, and additional information in the process.</p><p>In 2nd Edition there are no longer Vitality Points. Instead, there is a more elaborate and meaningful Fatigue system, which interlocks with being Encumbered, conditions, and other mechanics. Healing has also been changed, which Melissa initially didn't like due to how long she had to spend healing, but quickly turned around because it made a lot of sense that, after being clobbered by a massive owlbear, her character would need multiple days to fully recover.</p><p>How healing now works is:</p><p>Each time you rest (ie, 6+ hours at a time), you make a Constitution check. This is modified by your character's Constitution saving throw bonus, level, and many other variables such as where you are resting, Medicine checks, healing supplies used, etc.</p><p>You regain 1 WP point, but if your Constitution check is 10, you regain another. You also regain another for every 5 points you exceed this result by. If you fail you still regain 1, but the amount goes down by 1 if you get a 5-2, and by 2 if you roll a natural 1. This normally cannot reduce the WP you recover less than 0, though some conditions might, so an injured character could actually get worse.</p><p>At level 5, 10, 15 and 20, the base WP regained is increased by 1. This is because an increase in WP doesn't mean your character becomes magically more durable, it's all relative: when you have 5 WP and take 3 damage, that's a pretty nasty injury. If you have 10, it's not so bad but still pretty bad. If you have 50, it's a minor injury. So, having healing scale like this makes sense, and also makes things a bit unpredictable. It also makes tougher characters heal faster, and gives you an incentive to sleep in better quality inns, eat healthy food, and rest all day.</p><p>Mending potions are also different. Instead of recovering, say, 1d6 WP, you drink it and make a Wound Recovery check with an added bonus based on its quality. You also have to make checks when drinking too many potions to avoid being Sickened, which can also result in you effectively poisoning yourself if you're really unlucky and/or been knocking them back in rapid succession (so dwarves are great for this due to poison resistance).</p><p>All told the party has found around 60sp worth of treasure, which might not sound like a lot until you see the revised prices, which were all reduced in some way (mending potions went from 25sp to like 7). If you were to compare it to normal <i>Dungeons & Dragons</i>, it would be the equivalent of around 400-500gp. This is because we want to keep prices more "realistic", something peasants could actually afford, but also keep all coins relevant and avoid PCs becoming absurdly rich after a few days of adventuring.</p><p>As for the monster, it was a sort of ghoul, but it had the ability to control a corpse so long as it possessed its skull. The skeletons wouldn't have been too bad: only level 1 and with maybe 4-5 WP a pop. Something anyone could have taken out pretty easily. The only concern was the number of them (the guy had a <i>lot</i> of skulls), but then the kobold wizard could have incinerated quite a few with Fireblast or even Firestride.</p><p>Melissa's armor has been pretty helpful (DR 4 because she didn't roll all that well on her gear table), and being able to use her shield to Hinder an attack has kept it useful without making her character invincible. I just realized that I forgot to check for a lingering injury, but then she rested for three days so it might have gone away, anyway.</p><p>The Dead Man Walking rule is still great. No routinely going from perfectly functional to unconscious or dead. Melissa was able to keep on fighting at -3 (at -11 she passes out), and despite a -2 to everything was able to hurt the owlbear a bit. Then it was just a matter of bandaging her up so she could hobble back to town and take it easy for a while (the Con check is Assisted if you rest all day).</p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1hz15jzCYzdBKV-i1dHtKpii4t3PlcfP2ETm2TAMgJhyGkOoaXcpdWalI8juO3hSz35J7actko4F2Aui7Tsgs7wdRZrIvyKDClZJfSNJLAcYYfDSRP2Haw466o4eTzA-s9qGkAEGgNfxWwBQjNECxEha5NVAPCuDJ_I70kjWnkmYtNptQ-tk3U9MBEGo/s592/tumblr_inline_pn1p7c4zAr1rkapbx_500.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="592" data-original-width="455" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1hz15jzCYzdBKV-i1dHtKpii4t3PlcfP2ETm2TAMgJhyGkOoaXcpdWalI8juO3hSz35J7actko4F2Aui7Tsgs7wdRZrIvyKDClZJfSNJLAcYYfDSRP2Haw466o4eTzA-s9qGkAEGgNfxWwBQjNECxEha5NVAPCuDJ_I70kjWnkmYtNptQ-tk3U9MBEGo/s16000/tumblr_inline_pn1p7c4zAr1rkapbx_500.jpg" /></a></div><br /><p><br /></p>David Guyllhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16299128722345607123noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-1452109426060031692023-12-29T21:10:00.000-08:002023-12-29T21:10:33.478-08:00Biggus Geekus Game Design Livestream<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWR-jm5VsUU&t=12s&ab_channel=BiggusGeekus">I guest-starred on Biggus Geekus the day after Christmas</a>, but for some reason wasn't able to see any comments via streamlab or whatever it's called, except for those that Joe and Randy highlighted on the screen. I <i>can</i> see them while rewatching the video via YouTube, and felt bad that people were thanking me for showing up so decided to respond to those, as well as a few others. </p><p>There won't be any time stamps, because I didn't think to do that while writing this, and some responses might be made out of order, but if you watch the video and read the comments that should be plenty of context. For starters: no problem, I'm thankful that Joe and Randy even bothered to have me on, hopefully people enjoyed it, and I'm always up for talking about games, game design, and helping people with their own works.</p><p>Rolling back mostly to the start, Patrick Demo observes that the art for the Dice Pool version of <i>Dungeons & Delvers </i>is reminiscent of<i> Super Dungeon Explore</i>. This is because while playtesting it with our daughter we used <i>Super Dungeon Explore</i> minis, as well as Dwarven Forge terrain because she was 7 or 8 I think at the time we started designing and playtesting it, and she really liked playing with them (she still plays with the Dwarven Forge stuff, but has since transitioned to Reaper minis and 40k).</p><p>A caveat of making the game you want to play is to also make sure that the game even needs to exist. If all you are doing is taking an existing game and tweaking a few rules, then you can probably get away with just adding that houserule and calling it good. This is partially why I don't care for <i>Old School Essentials</i>: from what I've heard it doesn't meaningfully transform the game, it's just <i>AD&D</i> cleaned up and maybe better organized.</p><p>(The other, more important reason is that having largely grown up on 2nd Edition <i>AD&D</i> I don't care for 1st Edition.)</p><p>Sustain Talents in 1E <i>Dungeons & Delvers</i> were in part inspired by the first <i>Dragon Age</i> computer game, though derived from warrior classes or archetypes or whatever they were called. In that game using special moves consumed stamina, I think, and if you wear heavy armor it reduced your overall stamina. Something like that, it's been quite some time.</p><p>So I had the idea that, instead of wizards casting something like mage armor and hoping that it mattered before the duration expired, you could instead "cast" it and it remains active as long as you are conscious but reduces your overall Willpower points. These created compelling choices for wizard players, where they had to balance layering lots of Sustain spells at the cost of not having very much Willpower to cast other spells.</p><p>Fladey really likes this, and I do too (our high-level necromancer had a lot of fun Sustaining an undead horde), so maybe we'll keep them, but make them Spell Secrets that require Mastered Spells, first. So you can have a spell that creates a kind of force field, and then a shield Spell Secret that lets you keep a smaller barrier active, as opposed to just picking Sustain spells right from the start, so there's another trade-off.</p><p>On the topic of spells, instead of classic <i>D&D</i> schools we're dividing them into elements and other themes, such as Pyrooturgy, Terraturgy, Necroturgy, and Astrallurgy. Some spells can belong to two or more categories, such as Stone Slurry being both a Hydroturgy and Terraturgy spell. These categories primarily matter for Spell Secrets and Talents that essentially mutate the wizard, such as one that gives you passive DR based on the amount of Terraturgy spells you've Mastered.</p><p>Mac Thompson took issue with a lack of clerics as an adventuring class option. </p><p>As mentioned a few times in the video, clerics as an adventuring class don't make sense, and this became abundantly clear while trying to write a table of class-based backgrounds and motivations. I realized that fighters, rogues, and even wizards were pretty easy (money is an obvious motivator), but when it came to clerics, what, you were chosen by a god as a mortal conduit for his power, and you're using these divine gifts to root around in caves and ruins for gold?</p><p>Worse, nothing in the rules implies that any of your findings need to be donated to a church or temple, not that there are any incentives for doing so (or spreading the faith and converting others). So basically a god just grants you this power for no particular reason, with perhaps the implication that if you <i>maybe</i> violate an unspoken rule you <i>might</i> lose access to it, and maybe then only temporarily.</p><p><i>Dungeons & Delvers </i>started out as 4th Edition <i>D&D</i> by the books, and we discarded everything we didn't like, which was almost all of it beyond the core d20 mechanic. We then took a flavor-first approach on classes, abilities, monsters, etc. This meant abandoning the nonsense pseudo-Vancian system, among other things, and 2nd Edition is just another step in that direction: since clerics don't make sense as an adventuring class, they're going to have to mostly stay home.</p><p>And I say mostly because I <i>can</i> see a cleric going on very specific adventures (cleansing evil, finding a holy relic, etc), though this would be on a very limited basis and so would make more sense for an NPC to tag along. But even for those sorts of adventures the cleric needn't necessarily risk his life and largely unique abilities: unless the use of one more miracles are required, he could play it safe and simply hire the PCs to do the job.</p><p>This also opens the door for non-cleric characters to be religious. They almost never are (I've seen it maybe a handful of times as a footnote at best), as there are no associated benefits except for perhaps determining what happens to your imaginary character's soul, which is likely of little concern as you begin rolling up a new guy, and this is strange in a world where it's obvious that gods exist and due to the implication that they are fueled by faith you <i>think</i> there would be a chance for them to intervene even for non-clerics.</p><p>Now, you could argue a case for their existence purely from a game design perspective. Most of the time characters heal slowly, at around a hit point a day, which oddly isn't affected by Constitution, nor does it scale as you gain more. So whether you have 10 hit points or 100, that 3 damage dagger swipe is going to take three days to recover from, even though for the 10 hit point guy it would be a far more grievous injury.</p><p><i>But</i>, if you don't want characters to get injured and spend days or even weeks recovering (regardless of hit point total), as well as reduce the lethality of combat, there needs a way for characters to recover hit points more quickly, sometimes <i>immediately</i>. <i>However</i> clerics needn't be the answer, and they aren't even a particularly elegant one, because god-be-damned they can all have access to healing, and there surely isn't a better use for these miraculous gifts than being a heals-on-wheels for a band of thrill-seeking, often self-serving treasure hunters.</p><p>Right?</p><p>Worse, this unnecessary overreliance on healing magic is what resulted in the 5-minute adventuring day, where the party would go into a dungeon, maybe clean out a few rooms, and then head back to heal. In my experience, however, the cleric would burn through his spells healing everyone as much as possible, which would sometimes require another day spent just dicking around waiting for the chance to "memorize" more healing spells, and then a third day to get those back so we could go back in the dungeon, leveled spell slots brimming with nonsense pseudo-Vancian potential.</p><p>In <i>Dungeons & Delvers</i>, thanks to Vitality Points and mending potions you don't need a cleric at all, and we know this because we've playtested up to level 17, and while one of the characters was a cleric she didn't resort to using healing very much, primarily focusing on the War Domain and multiclassing into druid for Circle of Oak talents (part of her backstory was belonging to a paladin/druid Order of Thorns). Clerics with access to the Healing Domain are still quite useful since WP recovers so slowly on its own, we just found a nice balance between that and being essentially mandatory.</p><p>Plus, most aspects of a spell do not automatically scale by level. Baseline healing is something like 1 Favor for 1d6 Wound Points, with each additional Favor restoring another 2d6, but you're also capped at a number of dice equal to your cleric level (so a 4th-level cleric can only restore 4d6 per use). And at 1 Favor per level, with the total modified by your Wisdom, you don't have a lot of Favor to play with, though sacrifices can give you some more, and at higher levels you can essentially "borrow" some in advance.</p><p>Adding to <i>all</i> of that is increased armor DR in 2nd Edition. Where in 1E heavy and heavy reinforced armor granted DR 3, in 2E light armor <i>starts</i> at 3, and it scales <i>all</i> the way up to 10. It can still be overcome by armor penetration, as well as by sufficiently exceeding a target's Defense (though heavy reinforced armor requires that you exceed the target's Defense by at least 10 points in order to knock the DR down to 3, and 15 to overcome it entirely).</p><p>Then there's auto-scaling Defense and the fact that no one is arbitrarily restricted from wearing armor (so even wizards will wear at the least light armor, Strength permitting), which means we're <i>pretty</i> sure we can get away with also removing Vitality Points (we're still playtesting to make sure).</p><p>As for healing on the go, that's where mending potions come in. These are in 1E and aren't terribly expensive. The only downside is that they only restore 1 WP per round, up to however many WP you've rolled. The upside is that you can buy improved versions, which not only restore more WP, but restore them <i>faster</i>. Even better, these are alchemical potions, not magical, so you don't have to worry about magic item markets.</p><p>He also made a comment about contracting a disease, which I found a little amusing since in 3rd Edition and up diseases are largely minor setbacks. In <i>Delvers</i> they can be quite debilitating and fatal (and we included some more unusual diseases with supernatural origins, such as celestial scotoma), but you can bring along panacea potions, or even just fall back on the Herbalism and Medicine skills (cleric's need to specifically choose the Cleansing Touch miracle to remove diseases, anyway).</p><p>As for conjuring water, I'm not a fan of spells just conjuring food and water, especially early on, as like bags of holding and continual light spells it removes the need to bother planning and managing your inventory: just use magic to solve all your problems, even if you worship a god of fire and so it's strange that he would miraculously conjure food and water at your behest. We might have if anyone complained about it, but no one did, though Hydroturgy wizards can create water since it makes sense.</p><p>Of course, you can also fall back on the Hunting and Survival skills, which my wife and kids do all the time in order to save money, and eating freshly gathered/killed food ups your Wound Recovery (and more if you have the Cooking skill).</p><p>Mac also makes a comment about not playing fantasy RPGs for the realism, and I agree There are plenty of abstractions that I think are necessary either to make the game work in general, or at least work smoothly. However if things become too abstract or don't function the way they should (for example, being able to punch a guy in plate armor and 15% of the time completely ignoring it), it can hinder enjoyment. This is why we went from an AC system to armor as DR: it doesn't make any sense for, say, padded armor to completely deflect an ogre's club.</p><p>This is also why sleeping in dungeons penalizes your Wound Recovery for most classes (druids and rangers start with a Talent that negates this), and why poisons and diseases are much more lethal: it's silly that you can get poisoned and have it barely do anything, or even result in instant death like in 2nd Edition <i>AD&D</i>.</p><p>So, at least when it doesn't come to magic and magical effects, try to keep things as realistic as possible without bogging the game down with a bunch of rolls to resolve minor things that won't really be an issue in the bigger picture. For example, a goblin has like 4 hit points and is typically encountered in a large group: is it <i>really</i> worthwhile to implement a hit location and/or injury tracking mechanic?</p><p>People talking about our chickens and unfortunately my wife and our daughter incubate eggs randomly, then our daughter not only names all of them, but takes the time to hold each of them at least once a day so while I like the idea of very fresh chicken--we had some <i>very</i> fresh beef once that tasted considerably better than store-bought--she would, ahem, not appreciate that.</p><p>On the topic of combat and action points, the reason for giving each action an incrementing cost as opposed to spending points from a base amount is that the latter method breaks down when you try to account for magic, multiple attacks, etc. I think it would also encourage players to try and spend each point possible to avoid the perception of wasting any, which was an issue in 4E where players would try to spend their minor action even if there was no real point.</p><p>If you increment the cost players would instead try to be as efficient as possible, so that they would get to act sooner. You can also provide very granular point costs for everything. For example, getting a potion out of your pack could have a cost of 7, but if it's just on a belt it might only have a cost of 2 or 3. Drawng a sword form a scabbard could have a cost of 2, while pulling an axe or mace out of a weapon frog might be 3-4.</p><p>Bruce popped in to tell everyone to buy <i>Dungeons & Delvers</i>, and if it intrigues you it's 25% off until the New Year. If you aren't sure, go to Bruce's channel because he has <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4fS-aYWvwQ&list=PL_WqpL5UO_9upfYkm3fTRaN1gfjMJ-BmK&ab_channel=BruceLombardoofDixDivision">a playlist where he has been going through most of the book page-by-page</a>, thus far only skipping the sorcerer and warlock classes because he hates them (not our implementation specifically, but in general).</p><p>I agree with Bruce: don't level up monsters, except when it might make sense. For example, a lowly goblin should remain level 1 or 2, but a veteran warrior would be level 4 or 5. But then you don't make all goblins veterans or whatever because the party hit 5th-level: they should <i>still</i> contend with the normal ones. The trick here is to keep the math in a range where if a level 5 or even 10 party goes into a goblin lair, that there's <i>still</i> a chance they can get slaughtered.</p><p>I'm not sure what to make of his comment about clerics and band-aids (a lack of tone makes it difficult to determine if he is joking or what), as clerics were never needed in <i>Delvers</i>. Everyone can just rest to get some VP back or downs a mending potion now and then when WP gets really low. Bards are nice in this regard since they can grant extra VP with Song of Rest.</p><p>I have no idea what to make of the yogurt comment, but I will say that I hate yogurt (yes, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogMXBuI7PJ4&ab_channel=JCH007">even with strawberries</a>).</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4qL-4ba0H-0UsL7FCAew-04xhuWLIDkSRw3Fqwjb9FIVcZDOVfr54XvcbhadVYlij9FsWitkGctAgLSQ07nItlQW3y4Op_ALm1tOTncPBhTxvdRw1i-rzkidfyrn34oVpr4MteXDJoytHzDZB6ELZptSJhjclXY08uTEm8gaIHaa4b9_QTppFEMsrZX0/s1050/3c07954c81bb4e41cde5a0fefc797723_original.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1050" data-original-width="700" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4qL-4ba0H-0UsL7FCAew-04xhuWLIDkSRw3Fqwjb9FIVcZDOVfr54XvcbhadVYlij9FsWitkGctAgLSQ07nItlQW3y4Op_ALm1tOTncPBhTxvdRw1i-rzkidfyrn34oVpr4MteXDJoytHzDZB6ELZptSJhjclXY08uTEm8gaIHaa4b9_QTppFEMsrZX0/s16000/3c07954c81bb4e41cde5a0fefc797723_original.jpg" /></a></div><br /><p><br /></p>David Guyllhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16299128722345607123noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-11576844917525546192023-12-21T08:30:00.000-08:002023-12-21T08:30:49.784-08:00Red Book Christmas SaleFrom now until the New Year, or whenever I remember to change it back after that, we're marking down <a href="https://biggeekemporium.com/product/dungeons-delvers-core-rulebook/">the PDF version of <i>Dungeons & Delvers</i> by 25%</a>.<div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4ynoByg-2xGyGUHRHk3LaVhhKaNh-C6VMDauxnLO9cIhsf-QV9aFxy7A_FlFrfs50NgN-jHcQ3dhXXfI9YUXqUbKzSamXl-HXiB0vXdU3t0rkewH-5Lj9b-R3KLIjWx-kiIkrc5hm5MI_6Ii1dyJ-dNvH2yxoUXHNayHsQPwj58PuG2SW1Gwaxc2Tf7M/s2048/letter-sized%20red%20book%20cover.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2048" data-original-width="1583" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4ynoByg-2xGyGUHRHk3LaVhhKaNh-C6VMDauxnLO9cIhsf-QV9aFxy7A_FlFrfs50NgN-jHcQ3dhXXfI9YUXqUbKzSamXl-HXiB0vXdU3t0rkewH-5Lj9b-R3KLIjWx-kiIkrc5hm5MI_6Ii1dyJ-dNvH2yxoUXHNayHsQPwj58PuG2SW1Gwaxc2Tf7M/s16000/letter-sized%20red%20book%20cover.png" /></a></div><br /><div><br /></div>David Guyllhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16299128722345607123noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-77392090756434815152023-12-16T21:19:00.000-08:002023-12-16T21:19:07.610-08:00Fuck "Sensitive" Language And Sensitivity Grifters<p>In yet another stunningly brainless maneuver, instead of simply reading the room, hiring competent writers, and focusing on making an even somewhat entertaining product of even middling quality, the gaggle of woefully underqualified, mentally ill, attention-starved narcissists at the helm of the long-since derailed train that is <i>Dungeons & Dragons</i> (in name only) have decided to continue signaling their degenerate interpretation of virtue in the desperate hope that it will simultaneously attract more moronic tourists <i>and</i> distract from the smoldering wreckage that they claim stewardship over.</p><p><i>This</i> time they are somehow garnering hollow-yet-still-undeserved praise from <a href="https://alphastream.org/index.php/2023/11/17/what-we-can-learn-from-wotcs-core-book-sensitivity-and-inclusivity-changes/">the handful of irrelevant self-hating, soy-swilling hangers-on</a> who are content to continue milling about in their orbit in exchange for occasional scraps of hollow validation, in part due to their ongoing and cowardly campaign of stealth censorship. Though from the looks of all the people they had to let go this year, I'm guessing this strategy has yet again failed to meet their wildly optimistic expectations.</p><p>WotC is no stranger to Orwellian revisionism. For all their pretense of being diverse and inclusive, they resent white people, and straight men most of all, and the fact that the very foundation of tabletop roleplaying games was laid out decades ago by the only demographic that is not only <i>acceptable</i> to discriminate against, but who you are <i>expected</i> to by their core audience of hate-filled projecting hypocrites is an inconvenient truth they would <i>love</i> to memory hole.</p><p>And the sooner the better, because given the amount of box-office bombs that would make Obama jealous, time's running out to get Netflix to greenlight a <i>D&D</i> documentary where Gary is a black disabled transbian with a mental illness haircut. What's her name can stay a white woman, because she'll of course be the villain of the piece, but the villain of <a href="https://alphastream.org/index.php/2023/11/17/what-we-can-learn-from-wotcs-core-book-sensitivity-and-inclusivity-changes/"><i>this</i> piece</a> is a nobody-among-nobodies who goes by Alphastream:</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8NiCR-oUYt-3mIEPHhopRfssayZ849KW3_2YqXn9nifBwYbrmM1YUiuygDqz3YyacMt2XNLYtUnRa8l1YVvY19-_WMvp6XQqFi3OtRAAFl_L75y6GHbW-r1SnwIx8JXzaSf__mYCP4CuqC0jW7MVzJOEe_jmc_UAGUwR4uOmK6AbkF3yrRyyKlv6jlCI/s586/betastream%20bio.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="344" data-original-width="586" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8NiCR-oUYt-3mIEPHhopRfssayZ849KW3_2YqXn9nifBwYbrmM1YUiuygDqz3YyacMt2XNLYtUnRa8l1YVvY19-_WMvp6XQqFi3OtRAAFl_L75y6GHbW-r1SnwIx8JXzaSf__mYCP4CuqC0jW7MVzJOEe_jmc_UAGUwR4uOmK6AbkF3yrRyyKlv6jlCI/s16000/betastream%20bio.png" /></a></div><div><br /></div>He also uploaded <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAMM7ERuf30&ab_channel=Alphastream">a video</a>, in case the bio left you with any doubt as to whether you'd leave your kids alone with him for any amount of time (he does his best imitation of what he <i>thinks</i> a human face looks like when smiling whilst promoting WotCs perfunctory doubleplus performance, but I think he took lessons from Zuckerberg).<br /><p>Skipping past the fallacious-and-misleading preamble (terms which in all fairness apply to the <i>entire article</i>), he claims that, despite these wholly unnecessary changes having been in digital versions of the books for <i>months</i>, he hasn't heard anyone mention them. Amusingly he chalks this up to "most of us" just not noticing "the problems", but I think it's equal parts lazy tourists pissing away their excessive free time watching others pretend to play on YouTube and pretending that they're part of anything, and insincere opportunists only bothering to feign concern when it's something they think can capitalize on socially, financially, or (ideally) both.</p><p>Because if Betascream <i>actually</i> gave a fuck about <i>any</i> of this, that his misguided, self-serving slacktivism somehow improves the world in <i>any</i> capacity, he would have <i>long</i> ago just used CTRL+F to search the text for words that I can only assume he keeps in a text file <i>precisely</i> so he can refer to it while rummaging through PDFs in hopes he'll find something to coerce cowardly companies into caving to his morally bankrupt sensibilities.</p><p>And while there are other odious motivations that I'll get to in a bit, this is <i>largely</i> what it's about: attempting to justify and normalize the sensitivity reader grift. To guilt you into believing that one harmless word is superior to another harmless word based entirely on the arbitrary criteria that whatever untalented, feckless, parasitic cancel piggy at the time happens to consider it less offensive (because words are added/removed on a whim).</p><p>Of course you'll need to pay zey/zim for the privilege, give they/them/touristself a credit in your book so they can trick their parents, followers, fellow media Marxists, and maybe even themselves into thinking they've done anything constructive with zir lives, and oh if you <i>don't </i>comply? Well, they can always try to cancel you. But then that'll happen down the road, anyway. </p><p>Could be you say a word that they suddenly declare taboo. Could be that, from their perspective at least, you've grown more popular. Could be that you're more creative. Could be you make more money. Could be you didn't participate in that hour's Two Minutes of Hate. Could even be that you merely follow a guy on Twitter that follows someone you weren't supposed to. Could be that you <i>eeever</i> so slightly disagree on a subject that's completely unrelated to gaming.</p><p>These egocentric psychopaths invariably eat their own, they're just looking for a time and excuse.</p><p>Anyway, the first on the chopping block—so long as we're ignoring children's genitalia—are savage and civilization, and it just gets sillier from there.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0W_o8Or2a9c-adpo2uIjffepnUhIj6QJdWtXE-4ATVt_BHzCsg21jriP3Jok3D4LrYTpZdsqZmLC9xkwKe-nCCzb9YyZ_7LZRjGxkvCRFiV9zkOPaT_ro39CODj33YggshgtXZOQCATxqPd-yJIwbsb2TA-JKpxA_bLN4augBjageIu8m-jKpWMp86W4/s702/betastream2.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="399" data-original-width="702" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0W_o8Or2a9c-adpo2uIjffepnUhIj6QJdWtXE-4ATVt_BHzCsg21jriP3Jok3D4LrYTpZdsqZmLC9xkwKe-nCCzb9YyZ_7LZRjGxkvCRFiV9zkOPaT_ro39CODj33YggshgtXZOQCATxqPd-yJIwbsb2TA-JKpxA_bLN4augBjageIu8m-jKpWMp86W4/s16000/betastream2.png" /></a></div><p>Savage and brutal mean different things, and so convey different things. Brutal is fine if you want to emphasize that the creature is cruel, but cruelty doesn't mean uncivilized, and if the creature also lacks an advanced civilization you need a word to convey that. Savage fits the bill, but Betacream is opposed to it solely because he and other mentally ill tourists like him cannot help but associate a primitive society with evil, which requires outright denying the numerous examples of good-aligned barbarians and even entire barbarian tribes, not just in <i>D&D</i> both other media as well.</p><p>(But then the tourists also ignore the numerous examples of female heroes in even classic games and media, and consider every new female action lead the first female action lead, so did you honestly expect anything else?)</p><p>This pattern of what could generously be considered thought also extends to how they "analyze" inherently evil races. Note how "savage orcs" was changed to "ruthless bandits": this is due in no small part to a deluge of low-effot-and-IQ articles churned out by the lazy, power-hungry race hustlers of the time—which would have been way back in, oh, 2019, I think—claiming that orcs were merely blacks...just, you know, with a different name, appearance, origin, mannerisms, and the fact that they aren't fucking real.</p><p>Despite cropping up at least once a year—along with other absurd lies—I've yet to hear an explanation as to how even the most devout racists in their cult could possibly look at an orc and see a black person. The best theory is that they see the many-but-not-all (or even most) blacks going around looting, raping, and killing people for the sheer pleasure of it, and while this <i>is</i> certainly orc behavior you just have to engage in the esoteric art of reading and understand how time works to realize that orcs were doing this in a fantasy context <i>well</i> before it blossomed into a less benign "urban minority" stereotype.</p><p>But even so it doesn't mean that orcs are stand-ins for blacks, but that <i>that</i> particular group of blacks are appropriating orc culture:</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQ7K_W3Vz8JpbPpuhej_2PHVJNhcnBlbl0Do5Ynl8YDWcfPdIH1Ldq9N_QAB_iWSa4PdxIsiv7Y-gWOMQpjTYeCNVLFi-fncsPDqmY7xpy8XLoUvEf7GtPcwbu0LbYxrD5imz_n6BIFnjsd2WYmSIXwU96SXiDPFbSSki_5JuUmIcIyHuHkf4bxQ3nkJk/s940/orcs%20and%20sheit.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="940" data-original-width="740" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQ7K_W3Vz8JpbPpuhej_2PHVJNhcnBlbl0Do5Ynl8YDWcfPdIH1Ldq9N_QAB_iWSa4PdxIsiv7Y-gWOMQpjTYeCNVLFi-fncsPDqmY7xpy8XLoUvEf7GtPcwbu0LbYxrD5imz_n6BIFnjsd2WYmSIXwU96SXiDPFbSSki_5JuUmIcIyHuHkf4bxQ3nkJk/s16000/orcs%20and%20sheit.png" /></a></div><p>One of the woke's key squawking points that they like to parrot is that using certain words and featuring inherently evil races will somehow dehumanize real-world races, cultures, women, cripples, etc.</p><p>For example, describing monsters as fat or even ugly will cause you to regard fat and/or ugly people (ie, liberals) as less than human, and once you start the way they/zir tell it you're just one step away from murdering them in real life. It's similar to the fallacious argument that playing violent video games will make you violent, just lazily repackaged, and I wonder whether this is merely a pathetic attempt to fearmonger, or if it's projection of their racist beliefs.</p><p>What I mean is no sane person looks at an orc and sees a black person. Nor do they kill orcs in a fantasy game and then at some point decide that it must <i>obviously </i>be acceptable to kill black people in real life. Now people like Betascream will make this claim—and many others like it—and I'm curious as to whether this holds true for <i>them</i>. As in, has playing elfgames <i>made</i> them more racist. They're all mentally ill one way or another, so it wouldn't surprise me if some lobby for these changes because they think that their depraved beliefs are the norm (they do love their echo chambers, after all), or that with enough censorship it might "cure" them.</p><p>Whether or not this is the case, normal people who play games aren't burdened with such a consistently malicious mindset. We don't play half-naked dudes or dudettes partially clothed in animal skins as part of some pretentious commentary on the "moral fiber of primitive cultures" or whatever, we play it because the barbarian is a well-known and harmless archetype, with a recognizable and inoffensive aesthetic, and we like some combination of that and the class features. That's it. That's as deep as it goes.</p><p>However, it doesn't help their (head)case when madness, insanity, and crazy make the no-no list, in part because you're not "supposed" to apply them to evil creatures, even if the evil creature just so happens to be insane:</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjaq8L1qvAUf_Ops8MmwYcuxD1RJzP6RokAos6H-yxNkRkECCYNDRsezJae3oiONKkPzyEUeGS7IhdbudDJUDREbkczX4bGj2G6zy6vw9CjP0MAwA8y39uwN5xKwAOvU3bsqR39qyb-kdqgUUaH6lPToh1-DBPre6FDjPsPhvYe8OBzgQfnM2RNQJL9hCk/s716/betastream3.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="273" data-original-width="716" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjaq8L1qvAUf_Ops8MmwYcuxD1RJzP6RokAos6H-yxNkRkECCYNDRsezJae3oiONKkPzyEUeGS7IhdbudDJUDREbkczX4bGj2G6zy6vw9CjP0MAwA8y39uwN5xKwAOvU3bsqR39qyb-kdqgUUaH6lPToh1-DBPre6FDjPsPhvYe8OBzgQfnM2RNQJL9hCk/s16000/betastream3.png" /></a></div><p>Not only are you not "allowed" to have insane spellcasters, you can't even describe a <i>place</i> as "mad" because some officious, hypersensitive tourist (ie, your typical 5E engager) without any real problems somewhere <i>might</i> be offended. And this is "bad" because their unhinged, infantile insecurities? Well, it's apparently everyone's responsibility but theirs to keep their emotions in check, and if you step out of whatever unspoken and arbitrary lines they happen to have established at that point in time? If you happen to violate an unspoken contract that you would have no reason to believe even existed?</p><p>Whelp, you're a bigot, racist, sexist, nazi, whatever exaggerated and ultimately inapplicable labels they decide to throw at you, which frankly aren't even that big a deal anymore because their definitions have long since been watered down to "I don't like you". This is insane. These people are insane. And I am using this in a literal sense. They do not think clearly. Their minds are not functioning normally. They are the linguistic equivalent to a home owner association, just somehow more obnoxious and useless.</p><p>So you can't have crazy people unless they are depicted however the hell Betascream or some other self-appointed minitruther deems is appropriate (God knows what one is supposed to do when they don't all unanimously agree to a singular vision), but that's fine: just stick to the <i>sane</i> villains, right? Well, sure, just don't let them engage in certain villainous behaviors. Or <i>thoughts</i>:</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyfqZ_Yph7tEUtjvFedETSifU3bQR2fn_KZhInKRSBwgu-ExMNCe32hqoWQWW1iZhOf5ENxkwFUBQURc9ad4wZ7UPYKV_Voab4K5WYHjZhUvT80o96JSm5g9waPFn2ZTMC9SOCJFmoIgiZSff8tL3zrZ1Mq8EWyWNH4nwv6a-4bm-pvSE0OLTRtor7UxM/s705/betastream4.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="374" data-original-width="705" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyfqZ_Yph7tEUtjvFedETSifU3bQR2fn_KZhInKRSBwgu-ExMNCe32hqoWQWW1iZhOf5ENxkwFUBQURc9ad4wZ7UPYKV_Voab4K5WYHjZhUvT80o96JSm5g9waPFn2ZTMC9SOCJFmoIgiZSff8tL3zrZ1Mq8EWyWNH4nwv6a-4bm-pvSE0OLTRtor7UxM/s16000/betastream4.png" /></a></div><p>That's right, they are even opposed to <i>villainous</i> creatures having the mere <i>belief </i>that others are "lesser" than they are. I'm waiting for them to whine about imaginary villains insulting their imaginary characters (or "misgender" them), and then about suffering imaginary damage, and then just phase out villains entirely because all these sex-obsessed weirdosreally want to do is work at fantasy Starbucks in between awkward bouts of "roleplaying" their bizarre fetishes.</p><p>Actually, this tells you where Betascream's priorities lie: he pretends to care more about what an evil imaginary creature <i>thinks</i>, than about its actions or even statements. In other words, he doesn't want imaginary enemies engaging in imaginary <i>thoughtcrime</i>. But murder is okay, just don't make him fat. Well, he can be fat, I think, you just can't <i>call</i> him fat. Instead, you have to tiptoe around it using something like "well-fed", because as we all know everyone well-fed is also fat:</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcKHzyUwtAgFVyrT4eQg4jfR_WBiZidJyBVaXDdISU6jYgwhjZ3toNxgco4nt1uEfPdvPtMqCBy_mlTju500I_QAY2Ci01uYpaYCbVanyW13WKl_SPdrP6aYzMRv1T6YfcxVgKmCTxbVEaEx_wsOJ_KxqiJk2xPtJ746OTjBPtRMq2th5uoh0K320oEdk/s712/betastream5.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="244" data-original-width="712" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcKHzyUwtAgFVyrT4eQg4jfR_WBiZidJyBVaXDdISU6jYgwhjZ3toNxgco4nt1uEfPdvPtMqCBy_mlTju500I_QAY2Ci01uYpaYCbVanyW13WKl_SPdrP6aYzMRv1T6YfcxVgKmCTxbVEaEx_wsOJ_KxqiJk2xPtJ746OTjBPtRMq2th5uoh0K320oEdk/s16000/betastream5.png" /></a></div><p>Referring to something as fat always adds meaning. In fact, it adds meaning in a way that "biggest" does not, as being bigger can imply a number of things. If you say one dog is bigger than the other, I don't automatically think fatter, I think taller, or perhaps its overall volume is greater, but f you say that one of the blue-haired ma'amatees covered in piercings is bigger, well now <i>that's</i> another story.</p><p>Now Betascream doesn't outright say <i>why</i> fat is somehow "bad", but since the only examples so far are part of monster descriptions, as well as the retarded rationale for changing savage, barbarian, insane, etc we can safely intuit that it's <i>again</i> due to fearmongering and/or projecting their own dehumanizing and violent beliefs, and while writing and re-writing this I realized something that lends credence to the latter.</p><p>Consider how they regard everyone outside their little digital dens of degenerate hedonism. For starters, they <i>love</i> to frivolously assert that anyone that even momentarily lapses out of line or decries their dogma is a Nazi or bigot or some combination of -ists and -phobes. It doesn't matter what or why, not that any of the labels do or ever have applied (except to themselves). It's like a literary version threat display, like when a cat arches its back to look bigger, just way more over the top and wholly ineffective, and if they didn't routinely demonstrate their dumbassery you'd wonder why they even bother.</p><p>Their opposition, ie normal people, don't do that. Since we aren't the mental and emotional equivalents or inferiors of retarded children we understand context and nuance. We can separate the art from the artist, up to a point at least. We are capable of having mature conversations with people that we don't agree with, even those we vehemently disagree with. They hate us for our ability to create and maintain civility and understanding, to forgive or even not give a shit, which is why they project their innumerable shortcomings and insecurities onto us: they wish they were like us, and despise us because they aren't.</p><p>And it's this consistent pattern of engaging in projection that makes me lean further towards the belief that, for some of them at least, harming and killing imaginary creatures is causing <i>them</i> to dehumanize real people who just so happen to share even just a handful of the most meaningless characteristics of one's character. And if there's one thing these people are known for, besides narcissism, arrogance, victim mentality, retardation (either mentally, emotionally, or both), laziness, obesity, high estrogen levels, dyed hair, substance abuse, envy, societal parasitism, grooming children, being overly privileged, poor impulse control, perpetual anger, apathy, and a lack of creativity and talent, it's cognitive dissonance.</p><p>So you know they aren't going to get the psychological help they desperately need, not that I think they would change or their parents could even afford it, anyway. Now, I'm not saying that this is <i>definitive</i> proof that some of these guys are losing their already tenuous grip on reality, but they already project so many of their own heinous behaviors and thoughts onto everyone else that if we find out that some unemployed pronouner (an oxymoron, I know) with half his hot-pink hair shaved off went on a killing spree and then blamed it all on no-no words that some careless author neglected to modify or remove?</p><p>Let's just say I'm not going to be surprised. I also won't be surprised when the media either downplays it, blames the book's author (if he's a white guy, anyway), and/or tries to cover it up entirely.</p><p>Now, what <i>did </i>surprise me was not that blindness is verboten. No, I expected that and am frankly disappointed in Betascream for taking so long to get to it (as well as for <i>many</i> other reasons). What surprised me was <i>why</i> it made the list:</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkNyVMKmQPmuI_0HgKGmq437CDGJS-KBx9OEivxtjbbDtBDMEn09oBO_BEO23lIRJUCy4ZGuO-adF3lbYSkTJNj4btjBbw9T3y5af3DtGmKkvu50qgbk212FWmhMxfXhTU9fD-dqKnfgRz1M0qX8sheVE6ujfen-QJQqDg9wK2CzstEQ-w-I1KWwHDbig/s703/betastream7.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="258" data-original-width="703" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkNyVMKmQPmuI_0HgKGmq437CDGJS-KBx9OEivxtjbbDtBDMEn09oBO_BEO23lIRJUCy4ZGuO-adF3lbYSkTJNj4btjBbw9T3y5af3DtGmKkvu50qgbk212FWmhMxfXhTU9fD-dqKnfgRz1M0qX8sheVE6ujfen-QJQqDg9wK2CzstEQ-w-I1KWwHDbig/s16000/betastream7.png" /></a></div><p>Yep, the word itself is fine (<i>for now</i>), so long as you <i>only</i> use it when referring to the actual condition of being blind. I just want to say that my youngest daughter is deaf and that Betascream is deaf to reason.</p><p>Skimming the rest, there's something about using honor in relation to asian culture, Betascream unsurprisingly buys into <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2021/04/d-has-lot-of-problems-but-hating-jews.html">the phylactery lie</a> and he thinks you should<i> never</i> even <i>mention</i> slaves, because I'm guessing he suffers from the delusion that only blacks were ever enslaved <i>and</i> it was only done by the evil huwhyte man. Related: this is why he thinks you need to remove dark from your vocabulary, because, and I'm not kidding these are his words, "...can be problematic for its association with skin color".</p><p>It's not even just in the context of a dark ritual, but dark <i>places. </i>I can imagine him walking into a room. None of the lights are on. As he fumbles for a light switch he mutters something about the room being dark. Too late to check his privilege and appalled at the violent hate crime he's just committed, Betascream emits an oddly effeminate gasp before collapsing into a quivering ball on the floor, verbally castigating himself between obnoxiously loud sobs for what he has been convinced is externalized racism.</p><p>I'm kidding. I don't think he buys into any of this. He's just in it to virtue signal, so that he can perhaps one day convince himself that he's a good person. Also the delusion of power. Like a forum moderator.</p><p>Betascream thinks that by revising history, eliminating words, and exchanging one word for another word that doesn't even have to mean the same thing "we" can create a better hobby. I wonder if he has even skimmed the Wikipedia entry on 1984, and if so, did he fail to understand its key message? Did he not realize the parallels between his behavior and that of the baddies? Does he interpret it as a prescriptive document, as opposed to a warning?</p><p>He should really pull his head of his own ass, take even a brief look around, and see how much worse it's gotten. Specifically, how much worse people like <i>him</i> have made it. But then, part of me thinks this is what he and those like him wanted all along. Rubble to rule from, pretend that everything before the Current Year was a dark age (er...a not-good age), best forgotten, and we should be thankful that Betascream and the rest have deigned to even bother attempting to enlighten us.</p><p>If you—as in, everyone <i>but</i> Betascream and the other grifting tourists—<i>really</i> want to make a better hobby? Fuck these people. Figuratively of course. I wouldn't touch these self-righteous retards with a 100-foot pole. I wouldn't even want to be in the room <i>adjacent</i> to the one they're wallowing or pissing themselves in: I've seen their Twitter bios, what makes them cheer, and read far too many stories merely <i>hinting</i> at the horroric behavior of male so-called feminists. They don't want to improve anything, not that they would even if they <i>could</i>. They just want your blind obedience, empty praise, and money, but the only thing they truly deserve is your derision.</p><p>Look at all the other hobbies and properties they've tanked. Get woke go broke isn't merely a mantra but a stark reality. They bring nothing but ruin to everything they touch, and while this may not necessarily be a <i>primary</i> motivator for all—though many openly express this intention—it's still a side effect of their toxic behavior and cancerous presence. So fuck 'em. Mock them, block them, and make what <i>you</i> want to make. It may not be great, or even good (and certainly won't net you a participation award from one of their gay ass ceremonies), but as long as you refuse to listen to them there's a chance.</p><p>And don't forget to gatekeep your communities, hobbies, and tables, otherwise they'll waddle in and shit all over it (ie, give it the California treatment).</p>David Guyllhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16299128722345607123noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-83010747215040100422023-12-06T17:10:00.000-08:002023-12-06T17:10:27.212-08:00Taking the Class Out of Classic d20 Mechanics<p>During <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsunI1K7c00">the Biggus Geekus show this week</a>, I think Randy suggested the idea of making a game without classes, and maybe even without levels. Among many games, I'm sure, <i>Shadowrun</i>, the WEG version of <i>Star Wars</i>, <i>GURPS</i>, <i>Dragonball Z</i>, <i>Bubblegum Crisis</i>, <i>BESM</i>, and every White Wolf game I've bothered to read all operate this way: you get some form of currency and just build the character however you want.</p><p>One upside is that you aren't hindered by arbitrary restrictions, such as fighters not being able to have access to "thief" skills, or wizards unable to meaningfully wield weapons. Another is that can create and develop your character organically: did your fighter (or fighter-oriented character) spend a lot of time sneaking around? Well, during downtime or whenever you can spend points to buy into or improve his sneaking skill.</p><p>Mind you this isn't <i>always</i> the case in class systems, it's just a <i>lot</i> of d20 derivatives seem to be allergic to this idea for some reason.</p><p>For example, in 3rd Edition <i>Dungeons & Dragons</i> you can buy into "cross-class" skills, which cost twice as many points to improve and have a reduced cap compared to "class" skills. And this would be fine if the math wasn't so borked that a fighter who managed to max out either Hide or Move Silently (due to piddlingly poor skill points) would <i>still </i>be spotted about half the time against a monster with half his Hit Dice, even if you were to waive the absurd armor check penalty.</p><p>So it's <i>somewhat</i> organic but the end result is a character that can at best do what the core archetype allows, but barring a specialized build sucks at everything else.</p><p>4th Edition throttled this initially by only allowing you to spend feats to pick up automatically incrementing skills, and purchasing a pittance of powers from another class. So, yeah, you <i>could</i> have a fighter that learned a few wizard spells, but that's it. There was no way to officially shift gears into something else. Later they introduced some system where you could cobble a new class out of two others, but most of these didn't work as conceptualized.</p><p>5th Edition is degenerate trash with a thin veneer of <i>Dungeons & Dragons</i> smeared over the top, a lazy cash-grab churned out by a company of pretentious, self-hating narcissists that despise beauty and normalcy, so we'll just skip it. It's mostly just 3rd Edition with some rehashed 4th Editionisms tucked in, because the mentally ill diversity hires are incapable of creating, only destroying.</p><p>In <i>Dungeons & Delvers</i> we retained 3rd Edition style multiclassing, though it's not <i>nearly </i>as silly: if you multiclass into fighter, you don't spontaneously become proficient with all weapons and armor, and if you multiclass into wizard you don't figuratively or perhaps literally, <i>magically</i> gain a spellbook with <i>every </i>cantrip and a bunch of 1st-level spells.</p><p>Instead, you gain some key parts of the class and maybe a Talent or two. Nothing worse than if you started as that class and gained a level. Additionally, skill points can be spent on any skill, no matter what class you leveled up in. This means that a fighter can have the same skill bonus in Arcana as a wizard, though the wizard is probably smarter and can better utilize it. Similarly, while a wizard can have the same skill bonus with Thievery as a rogue, but the rogue has Talents that make it better.</p><p>Also in 1st Edition you only normally get 1 Skill Point per level, so a fighter upping Arcana means he isn't upping Athletics or Perception, skills that will probably be more useful. Plus there are also Skill Perks, which let you do more with a skill: these require a Skill to be at a minimum Proficiency Bonus and cost a Skill Point, so it's not an easy choice.</p><p>Melissa inadvertently playtested our version of multiclassing quite extensively, starting as a rogue before multiclassing into ranger when they found a baby owlbear. She wanted it as a pet, I mentioned that ranger had an Animal Companion Talent that would cause it to level up with her, so she picked that up asap. Much later she wanted to be able to see in the dark, so went into wizard for the Darkvision spell, which could be Sustained at the cost of most of her Willpower points.</p><p>In the end her character was something like rogue 7/ranger 6/wizard 4, and there was never a point where you could say her character was "underpowered" or even incompetent.</p><p>This design process made me consider on more than a few occasions going with a classless system, and I ended up writing a sort of campaign setting where everything was dead or dying, and killing things would leave lingering souls that the characters could absorb/consume. These souls would be linked to the warrior, rogue, or wizard archetype (clerics in this setting didn't exist, but I would leave them out anyway as adventuring clerics don't generally make sense), and when you absorbed enough would be able to choose a Talent from that archetype.</p><p>Each time you chose a Talent, or chose enough from a given archetype, you would be awarded a Skill Point, which could only be spent on a skill thematically tied to that archetype (ie, warrior lets you choose stuff like Melee, Ranged, Endurance, etc). These choices would also help determine when you received additional Wond Points and/or Vitality Points, as well as how many.</p><p>This system won't work for <i>most</i> settings--and while I think it's interesting <i>in theory</i> it's also way more bookkeeping--but you can adjust it so that performing and completing certain actions and tasks grants XP for a given archetype. For example, killing monsters grants warrior XP, sneaking around awards rogue XP (as would using many other skills), and learning/casting spells nets you wizard XP.</p><p>I would award XP on successful completion of something, as opposed for each skill use (which is something I initially considered), because in combat you'll be making attack rolls frequently, and I would expect most characters to rack up warrior XP quickly, plus it could be tedious to constantly track XP gains in this manner. However, if you want to award XP for a successful use, or some on a failure and a different amount on a success, just reduce the amount gained.</p><p>The other change is that you wouldn't gain Skill Points through Talent selection. Instead, you'd have to spend XP to improve them, with the amount required being based on either the current bonus or the bonus you are trying to increase it to (ie, standard procedure for these sorts of mechanics). Here I think you could tie skills to more than one archetype, with some archetypes having a different ratio. For example, when improving Melee, warrior XP counts on a 1:1 basis, but rogue would be 2:1, or even 3:1.</p><p>Wound Points and Vitality Points I'd have improve based on total archetype XP spent, not on Talents purchased and Skills improved. This way you avoid gaining a bunch of WP/VP by picking up cheaper skills and Talents. Something like, every 100 warrior XP spent is +3 WP/+1 VP, every 200 rogue XP is +2 WP/+1 VP, and every 300 wizard XP is +1 WP/+1 VP. You could also make it a Hit Die roll if you prefer randomness.</p><p>Saving throws would work similarly: the more XP spent for an archetype, the more specific ones improve (ie, warrior XP ends up boosting Strength and Constitution saves). Defense would either effectively be a skill, or it would improve based on archetype XP spent. Probably the latter, as it would just be a modifier, not a skill you roll. Oh, this could also eventually lead to stat boosts, and you could make the XP requirement higher if you want to reduce the rate. Perhaps every 5,000 XP from a specific archetype, so when you spend 5,000 warrior XP you can boost Strength or Constitution.</p><p>While this system is more complicated than just earning XP and gaining a level, it does resolve several potential issues (and I say "potential" because you might consider these to be features, not bugs, or issues where the solution isn't worth the effort):</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>First, it helps ensure that a character acquires new abilities and skills based on the character's actions. For example, a fighter can't go around killing monsters and then suddenly learn to cast spells.</li><li>Second, there's no need to worry about "balancing" Skills or Talents. If a Skill has a narrow use, the XP required to improve it is just lower than others. The same goes for Talents. Instead of trying to ensure that all Talents are relatively balanced and compelling, you can just make some of them cheaper.</li><li>Third, it avoids a character suddenly growing in power, gaining more hit points and skill points, as well as an improved attack bonus, defense, saves, class features and/or Talents, all at once.</li></ul><p></p><p>One reason I haven't attempted this for <i>Dungeons & Delvers </i>is because our multiclassing system is <i>very</i> organic (another big one is the amount of work this would take). We don't rely on <i>D&D</i> math, so a wizard can multiclass into fighter and be competent in melee. A fighter can multiclass into wizard in order to learn a few spells, and they'll be useful, because monsters and challenges aren't built around the assumption that by x level the characters will have y bonuses or values to a given statistic.</p><p>So you can easily get away without maxed-out skills and attack bonuses and spell save DCs. You'd be better off if you had them, the game would be easier, but they aren't <i>necessary</i>.</p><p>The only reason I would bother implementing such a system is to address characters gaining a bunch of new stuff at all once, which like hit point inflation is something that bothers me <i>but I can ultimately live with</i>. Leveling up is easier to track, removes some choice paralysis (players don't have to fret about upping a skill, choosing a Talent, <i>or</i> purchasing/improving something else), and it also makes it easier to essentially eyeball a character's overall degree of competence.</p><p>Were I do implement a classless system, I wouldn't employ multiple XP tracks. Instead, it would all get pooled together, and players would just spend it on whatever they want. This greatly reduces complexity and bookkeeping, and while not as "realistic" still resolves the issue of gaining a bunch of stuff all at once. I think this is worth it if that's something that bothers you, and like <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2023/11/dungeons-design-development.html">the Initiative system I proposed a few weeks ago</a>, it would not only help our d20 game stand out even more, it would have an actual purpose, as opposed to absurd gimmick mechanics that don't make any sense (like <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2022/04/dicedream-ii-disjointed-derivative.html">usage</a> <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2021/10/sharp-swords-sinister-spells-another.html">dice</a>, <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2023/03/the-curious-case-of-shadowdark-simps.html">item</a> <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2021/12/troika-is-trash.html">slots</a>, and <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2021/12/shill-reviewer-thinks-terrible-fake-rpg.html">letting the player declare that his character's shield breaks to completely avoid a hit</a>).</p><p>The only hurdle is playtesting and assigning XP values to everything.</p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHKKxmPL88ZA1KNtYCpU-rjqI_ufKBEK0d_3OuqdE_YnzDAu4G_sr6M3z_YGYdJki4wqOQfAl65Kl2KGg5BGK5ayBEy5TYYK_ZFH9xS4C3b0QBy5U0IisGx755CnrfnPvto56wLY07tQSU0tj_c-Zb6e7TOK4CsfSnnwpgoo4aFqtbNDkBBW2J4aRUhUc/s3634/character%20comp.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3081" data-original-width="3634" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHKKxmPL88ZA1KNtYCpU-rjqI_ufKBEK0d_3OuqdE_YnzDAu4G_sr6M3z_YGYdJki4wqOQfAl65Kl2KGg5BGK5ayBEy5TYYK_ZFH9xS4C3b0QBy5U0IisGx755CnrfnPvto56wLY07tQSU0tj_c-Zb6e7TOK4CsfSnnwpgoo4aFqtbNDkBBW2J4aRUhUc/s16000/character%20comp.png" /></a></div><br /><p><br /></p>David Guyllhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16299128722345607123noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-36014254058508475072023-11-30T15:28:00.000-08:002023-11-30T15:28:44.532-08:00Dungeons & Delvers: Bugbear<p>A bugbear in <i>Dungeons & Dragons </i>is a sort of cousin of goblin-kind, which of course means that it is simply a humanoid with somewhat bestial features, and stands at the higher end of the Medium scale (while consigned to the lower end of the level/Hit Die scale). Aesthetically and conceptually they've remained pretty consistent throughout editions, having a mechanical edge of one sort or another that makes it easier for them to sneak about.</p><p>Given other human-sized-and-shaped threats, this isn't particularly interesting: you can just give humans another Hit Die or two, a Stealth bonus/surprise penalty, and they would pose precisely the same style and severity of threat. Hell, you could easily justify a decent Stealth modifier for gnolls, given that you would expect them to require such skills in order to successfully hunt and ambush prey.</p><p>What makes this worse is the bugbear's vague-and-varied mythological roots. While I don't think <i>D&D</i> <i>needs</i> to cleave to folklore and mythology (especially when impractical to adapt to a game), if the end result is merely a hairy, tall humanoid I think it needs to go back to the drawing board, at least figuratively, especially given that you don't need to dig too deep to discover interesting ideas and abilities.</p><p>Bugbears are at least conceptually related to goblins and boogeymen, and as with both no definitive appearance or specific abilities are attributed to them. However given that goblins have the goblin angle covered (and "tall goblin" isn't interesting), for <i>Dungeons & Delvers</i> we're going with the creepy/demonic bear description:</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyLnkXZqY97mX5wDZbO9iRhWttC5MpOdGPjfDcL2BLwBsXQTGEhV-qa6UWPybt1ZIkZ-sXNCazq7YSsWVpYUaYz8VlBipNGbrkp_tHjmnhzZljSN4OKmdIoHyPL6JGC1Rr4yiFHKzDjn34FInh94Hy21HCKQF63dG2xGos5G6p4DlWFC1_5nX3TMx_7Ak/s2398/bugbear%202.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2398" data-original-width="2280" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyLnkXZqY97mX5wDZbO9iRhWttC5MpOdGPjfDcL2BLwBsXQTGEhV-qa6UWPybt1ZIkZ-sXNCazq7YSsWVpYUaYz8VlBipNGbrkp_tHjmnhzZljSN4OKmdIoHyPL6JGC1Rr4yiFHKzDjn34FInh94Hy21HCKQF63dG2xGos5G6p4DlWFC1_5nX3TMx_7Ak/s16000/bugbear%202.png" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div>Flavor-wise bugbears would tend to be found alone, each initially generated by the fear instilled in children by their ironically well-meaning parents, but quickly sustained by blood and horror wrought by their actions. Weaker bugbears wouldn't dare confront a typical party, preferring to ambush individuals, but a more powerful one would possess both the size and strength necessary to tackle an entire group of adventurers.</div><p>They would start out as Medium-sized and grow in size and power the longer they live, the more people they devour (with a preference for disobedient children), and the more fear they inspire. This of course creates the possibility of a Huge or even Gargantuan bugbear, though I'd imagine such a creature would need to devour hundreds, even thousands of victims.</p><p>Additionally, in <i>Dungeons & Delvers</i> sunlight is generated by a god and so isn't a mere nuisance to many monstrous creatures, but something that weakens, harms, and even kills them: a bugbear needs to remain hidden during the day, and the bigger it is, the harder it is to find a suitable lair. </p><p>Bugbears would be quite strong: a newly generated bugbear would possess something like a base Strength of +3, while a Large one would be around +8. They would have a good Stealth check, and can also blend in with foliage (represented by an ability to hide in plain sight and/or Assistance on the check). More powerful bugbears would simply be able to turn invisible for a period of time.</p><p>This coupled with its newfound diet and sunlight vulnerabilities would <i>technically</i> differentiate it more from a bear than a "classic" bugbear is from a human, but I think we can do better.</p><p>For starters, a fear effect makes sense given its boogeyman archetype (possibly also inflict psychic damage, Dazed, Stunned, etc), though at first this might only work on children. Actually, a level/Hit Die cap would also work: start out at 1, and then scale up as the bugbear becomes more powerful. Save DC to resist would also increase.</p><p>Something else would be the ability to mimic the voice of anyone it has devoured, which would have obvious applications of luring more people to their doom. Maybe the voice is initially quite clear, but as the victim is digested it becomes more distorted, so the bugbear can't do this forever. Oh, and advanced bugbears would be able to generate this voice at a different point, similar to a ventriloquist or ghost sound spell. This way people aware of what the bugbear can do won't just expect to follow the voice right to it.</p><p>Lastly, it would be able to extend an arm from its mouth. The initial length would be something like 30 feet, which it would use to snatch a victim from a distance. It is quite flexible and the bugbear would have full control over it, so it could also be used to trip or strangle someone. The more powerful a bugbear becomes, the longer this limb gets, and at some point could even extend multiple limbs at once.</p><p>I think all of this is more than enough to make bugbears distinct from pretty much any other monster I can think of. They'd have access to a number of these abilities, but I think this is fine given that it's intended to be a solitary threat.</p>David Guyllhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16299128722345607123noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-83729050040256876482023-11-24T15:30:00.000-08:002023-11-24T15:30:59.509-08:00Dungeons & Design & Development: Incrementing Initiative<p>While listening to <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57o1lkHC1Mw">this week's Biggus Geekus episode on combat</a>, one or more people suggested an Action Point system, where you get points and spend them to perform actions. This is something we've worked on before, in the vein of <i>Fallout</i> and <i>Fallout 2</i>, but while listening it made me think of something different (<a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2023/11/biggus-geekus-combat.html">among many other things</a>).</p><p>My idea is that you'd roll initiative as normal, but it would only be something like 1d6 per side. This serves as everyone's base initiative value. Everyone declares actions, with your action adding to this value. Initiative then starts at 1 and increments: when it reaches a combatant's value, the action is resolved and then it declares a new action or waits. When a new action is declared it is added to the current initiative value, and then the creature resolves the action when the count reaches this new value.</p><p>For this example, let's assign some more or less arbitrary costs for various commonplace combat actions:</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Move (up to Speed) 3</li><li>Dash (double Speed but -2 Defense) 5</li><li>Charge 5 (but you are -2 Defense)</li><li>Attack 5</li><li>Spell 7</li></ul><p></p><p>You can wait, but initiative continues to increment until you make a decision. There could also be a way to combine actions, such as by drawing a weapon and attacking, which would add +1 to the action's cost. It could be a separate action entirely with a cost of 1 or 2, but for now let's just focus on some of the more commonplace options.</p><p>For our combatants, let's say a party consisting of a fighter, rogue, and wizard runs into three skeletons. Initiative is rolled for each side, with the party getting a 3 and the skeletons getting a 4.</p><p>The skeletons are mindless so will just be Charging the nearest character, giving each of them a total initiative count of 9 (4 + the action's cost of 5 = 9). The fighter also wants to Charge, giving him a count of 8. The rogue is just going to fire his crossbow, also giving him a count of 8. The wizard is going to use Earth Grasp on one of the skeletons, giving her a count of 11.</p><p>The count starts at 1, and when it gets to 8 both the fighter and rogue resolve their attacks. Now, before the count continues both declare new actions: the fighter is going to make another attack, giving him a new count of 13. The rogue draws his arming sword, which we'll say gives him a count of 9: he draws his weapon just as each skeleton makes an attack against the fighter. The skeletons will simply attack again at 14, though the rogue will be within melee range at 12.</p><p>The wizard acts on 11, crushing a skeleton between a few slabs of conjured stone. The skeletons don't seem to be much of a threat, so she decides to draw her own arming sword and move in (this is <i>Dungeons & Delvers</i> so wizards can wear armor and use weapons, albeit not nearly as well as a fighter): both of these actions will be resolved on 14.</p><p>At 12 the rogue is next to a skeleton (and declares an attack that will resolve at 17), at 13 the fighter makes another attack, destroying a skeleton in the process. He prepares his next attack, which will resolve at 18. At initiative count of 14 the wizard is up close and personal, but her attack won't resolve until 19. The skeleton also gets to act at 14, attacking the fighter because it is mindless so why not. It's next attack won't trigger until 19, but by then the fighter and rogue have finished it off.</p><p>In this system initiative is never re-rolled (though it is rolled at the start of combat), and just counts upward until combat is over. The main draw is that it provides a clear opportunity to disrupt spellcasters who are in the middle of casting spells, and also allows for more granular action types. For example, an aimed shot with a bow would grant a bonus to hit, but have a higher count. A rapid shot would have a lower count, but an attack penalty.</p><p>Weapons could also have different types of attacks with their own counts and effects. An example I used in my blog post response to the combat video pertained to the longsword, which could have a profile like this:</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><b>Swing:</b> Reach 4, 2d6 slashing, cost 5</li><li><b>Thrust:</b> Reach 5, 1d6 piercing (AP 1), cost 5</li><li><b>Stab:</b> Reach 2, 1d6 piercing (AP 1), cost 4</li><li><b>Club:</b> Reach 3, 1d6 bludgeoning (AP 1), cost 5</li></ul>Reach is used to determine who strikes first in melee, so it might be beneficial to use a thrust attack even though the damage is lower in order to get a hit in first (or avoiding getting hit first by a Reach 5+ weapon). Stabs would be faster but if you <i>also</i> use rules where opponents with longer weapons are at a disadvantage against those with smaller weapons when in close quarters it's a way to also avoid an attack penalty. Club is mainly just something you use against enemies that are resistant to slashing attacks.<div><br /></div><div>A potential downside is that if you're making attacks as expected that it could result in fairly cyclical combat, anyway (ie, you go, they go, you go, they go, etc), so part of me wonders if assigning some actions a variable amount would make for a more unpredictable fight. Say, moving is 1d4, attacks are 1d6, and spells are 1d10. Or giving weapons a speed modifier (though nothing major, as the difference in weight between a dagger and longsword is typically only a few pounds).</div><div><br /></div><div>I'd imagine that classes would have ways to reduce the action cost of certain actions, such as fighters and weapons, rogues and mobility, wizards and spells (wizards I think can just burn extra Willpower to reduce the cost). Initially, I was concerned that this could result in fighters making multiple attacks in a row, but then that's what Multiattack already does so it's not a big deal.</div><div><br /></div><div>A definite downside is complexity, as everyone needs to track their initiative count, as opposed to more abstract combat where you get a turn and can do x, y and/or z. Something that might be tricky is reworking Swift Actions, as there are a number of monsters and races that can, for example, make an extra attack as a Swift Action after making a normal attack (such as the nekobito in <i>Oriental Dungeons & Delvers</i>).</div><div><br /></div><div>While these could have lower action costs, if it just adds to your count a player might not want to do this because it's just going to delay his normal attacks. Maybe something like, after resolving an attack action this other attack can be resolved at an action cost of 1. That might be a way to handle multiple attacks as well: once the fighter makes a melee attack, his next one has its cost reduced by 2 or 3 or 4, to a minimum of 1, but after that it costs the normal amount.</div><div><br /></div><div>This way it's more like he gets a quick flurry of strikes in, and then has to pull back a bit. Even better, if a monster can make multiple attacks in this manner, it would be possible for a character to try and interrupt one of them.</div><div><br /></div><div>Other things to consider refocusing an action and what are currently Reactions.</div><div><br /></div><div>For example, say you want to attack a goblin, but someone else manages to pick it off before you go. There should be a way to change targets without having to wait an entirely new count, <i>especially</i> if another target is nearby (or even right next to you).</div><div><br /></div><div>As for Reactions, these I could see delaying your current action by a bit, or essentially letting you take an action earlier than expected, also with a delay. So you might declare an attack, but if someone provokes an Opportunity Attack you can do that right away, but then your initiative count gets pushed back a bit, more so if you decide to also refocus your target (assuming whoever provoked the attack wasn't your initiate target, anyway).</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAPlPBExnnHOtaFmVCuVkeEGkKy_BZCpP8Fpt0uP7IjuystVS9MPWHMfj8MV5V_cnyrrsQQ23uWI7UQnfxx5FjBzCqavTsFzJITO9vkkW09zLauRllR1cWGOdcCXn9gSq4dMh5pluqQFOct0X8IpThmy8Dhkarz8zCVqvq6pLm_ROfrB2uS7jhYFQZPOg/s3685/female%20human%20fighter%202.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3685" data-original-width="1818" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAPlPBExnnHOtaFmVCuVkeEGkKy_BZCpP8Fpt0uP7IjuystVS9MPWHMfj8MV5V_cnyrrsQQ23uWI7UQnfxx5FjBzCqavTsFzJITO9vkkW09zLauRllR1cWGOdcCXn9gSq4dMh5pluqQFOct0X8IpThmy8Dhkarz8zCVqvq6pLm_ROfrB2uS7jhYFQZPOg/s16000/female%20human%20fighter%202.png" /></a></div><br /><div><br /></div>David Guyllhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16299128722345607123noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-15684876012049650422023-11-23T21:43:00.000-08:002023-11-23T21:43:10.378-08:00Biggus Geekus: Combat<p>This week <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57o1lkHC1Mw&t=2417s">Joe and Randy talk about combat mechanics</a>, which is something we've been focusing on quite a bit <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2021/12/dungeons-delvers-2nd-edition-combat.html">in an attempt to get the numbers for Defense, Armor Class, and Damage Resistance line up in a satisfactory manner</a>. The topic doesn't get rolling until around the 20 minute mark, in case you want to skip the preamble.</p><p>The purpose for these posts is that I rarely get a chance to listen to a live episode. There are numerous parts where I would have liked to comment, but I tend to either miss them entirely, or only catch fragments live, so I figured I'd just blog my responses.</p><p>While I try to keep my comments in chronologically, I often rewind the video and get pulled away from my PC for potentially hours at a time, so it's possible some parts are out of order, and there might be some repetition (sometimes topics in the video are brought up multiple times and/or revisited).</p><p>My apologies for that.</p><p>It starts out with Joe talking about the process of designing a <i>D&D</i>ish game, taking a preferred version of <i>D&D</i> and then adding, removing, and changing parts of it. This was our approach with <i>Dungeons & Delvers</i>, though <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/search/label/frankenfourth?updated-max=2015-11-04T18%3A47%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=7#PageNo=23">we started with 4th Edition and over the process of a few months discarded pretty much all of it</a>.</p><p><i>"...mold it into something hopefully new, instead of being just another clone, because I don't think either one of us wants to just make an OSR clone."</i></p><p>An admirable goal. There are already too many <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2021/05/mork-borg-modern-rpg.html">vapidware trash offerings</a>, some OSR (at least technically), <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2021/12/troika-is-trash.html">many pretenders</a>, that either just straight up copy an existing edition or <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2022/04/dicedream-ii-disjointed-derivative.html">tack on bizarre rules</a> in <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2023/03/the-curious-case-of-shadowdark-simps.html">an attempt to be different for its own sake</a>. I can only hope that they don't utilize item slots and usage dice.</p><p><i>"There's already so many..."</i></p><p>There are so many <i>bad</i> games. Make the game you want, even if it's similar to an existing game, because if an existing game did what you wanted then you would just play that game, or houserule it. The only other reason would be attention and/or money, or to pretend to be a game designer, which I do not believe is the primary motivation for either Joe or Randy.</p><p>I lean towards emulation over simulation. We did change mechanics to make armor function in a more realistic manner, but we recognize that it's a game so plate armor isn't nearly as impenetrable or inconvenient to wear as it <i>should</i> be so as to avoid bogging things down (it's DR is only 10 and there's basically a flat 5% chance at minimum that an attack will bypass it).</p><p>I wouldn't consider 3rd Edition to be simulationism.</p><p>I've <i>never</i> liked how combat worked in Palladium games. The idea that every attack hits on, what, a 5 or higher is absurd. Plus you have to actively decide to try and block, dodge or parry the attack, as if that's not what you would be constantly trying to do, anyway. </p><p>Also not a fan of Hero Points (or Fate Points), as they don't make any sense in-game.</p><p>Having more options <i>can</i> be good, so long as those other options are comparable to an attack. Otherwise you end up in situations where the players look at the list, see that they <i>can</i> try to trip or grab the creature, but it's so convoluted and/or the benefits aren't worthwhile, so they just resort to attacking.</p><p>In <i>Dungeons & Delvers</i> we mostly solved this not only by making some conditions fairly potent, but allowing warrior-type classes to fold in these special attacks with a normal attack via Exploit Talents. If the fighter chooses an Exploit like Trip Attack, whenever his attack exceeds the target's Defense by a certain amount he can make a free trip attempt.</p><p>There is also a Ganging Up bonus, where each subsequent attack made against the same target during the course of a round gains a cumulative +1 bonus to hit. This attack doesn't need to hit, or even be a melee attack, so even wizards can automatically contribute. This can also influence the characters' attack order: fighters get the highest bonus, so they can strike first, then the wizard, and finally the rogue can slip in and get a +2 bonus to hit along with Sneak Attack damage.</p><p>This bonus also effectively penalizes a creatures saves (as well as some skill checks), so the wizard might want for the fighter and rogue to go, before dropping a spell on it so it's less likely to resist his magic.</p><p>I don't want <i>any </i>combat to drag on. I dealt with that crap plenty during 4th Edition. It was <i>not</i> fun pissing away my day off going through <i>maybe</i> 2-3 combat encounters before we had to pack it in for the night. I remember more than one session where we basically fought some wolves and then time was up. Worse, because combat takes so long it made players want to engage in social roleplay less.</p><p>Combat <i>should</i> be fast, because in real life the combat would be fast. It takes you out of it spending several minutes resolving the effects of a single sword swing or loosed arrow. It's even worse when that's several minutes on top of another batch of several minutes of a player hemming and hawing over what he's going to do.</p><p>You can avoid a player wasting time by removing lots of extraneous tactical elements. In 4th Edition you could eat up a lot of time fretting about positioning, how to best weave through combat whilst avoiding opportunity attacks. Wondering what the next player is going to do so you can synchronize your attacks in an optimal manner. Making sure you're not too close to avoid getting blasted by an attack or spell or miracle that affects everyone (not <i>just</i> enemies).</p><p>And having played 4th Edition for years? There wasn't much of a benefit to any of this. It made combat more dynamic I suppose, but in hindsight, I don't think it added to the enjoyment. Maybe some aspects were more realistic, like Opportunity Attacks, but the idea of a character counting spaces and trying to stay out of threatened areas? Not so much. While 3rd Edition had Opportunity Attacks, there wasn't much mobility, and monsters didn't all have weird schticks that you had to also account for so it ran faster and smoother.</p><p>I'm also not a fan of having a bunch of opposed rolls. We tried this for our Dice Pool version of <i>Dungeons & Delvers</i>, but it made things <i>really</i> swingy and bogged down combat. In the end we kept the Dice Pool mechanic, but had you roll against a target number. Much better.</p><p>Interrupts are fine. Even in 3rd and 4th Edition they didn't bog things down as the only one people really had access to was an Opportunity Attack, but then everyone just did stuff to avoid triggering one in the first place so it rarely mattered. 4E would have been worse, as there were Interrupt powers, but they weren't too common and you had to actively choose them.</p><p>I think Opportunity Attacks are necessary to avoid issues where a monster can just run right part the fighter to attack the wizard, or a guy just stands there while you aim a crossbow at him and pull the trigger, or a wizard begins chanting and waggling his fingers right in front of you.</p><p>I don't think spellcasters should ever have access to every spell of a given level. There really isn't any spellcasting class (or effectively a spellcasting class) where this makes sense to me. Even clerics, as I envision it more that his god grants him access to specific miracles. Always felt odd that he just got blanket access to everything, on top of everything else. It also felt odd that he pretty much always used these pseudo-Vancian miraculous powers for personal gain.</p><p>But if you restrict a spellcasting class to a handful of abilities at the start, and require him to gradually pick up new stuff as he levels up, there is less to memorize, and the player can get a better handle on his capabilities at each level (this is also made easier if it takes longer to gain a level).</p><p>Players doing "the optimal thing" is an issue, which is another reason why having too many options is bad, especially if many of those options suck or only useful in very specific situations, and/or only when the character is built a specific way (I seem to recall in 3E there were builds that made grappling useful, which says a lot about how useless it was).</p><p>At around 33 minutes initiative gets brought up. Back in my <i>Dungeons & Dragons</i> days we'd generally have each player roll, and then the GM would roll for his entire side, or perhaps by grouping (ie, goblins would roll, then the goblin leader would roll his own, and if they had worgs maybe they'd get a roll). Even if each player rolled and the GM just rolled for his <i>entire side</i>, this would grind the game to a halt.</p><p>What I ended up doing at one point was rolling four columns of iniaitive results, factoring in a character's Dexterity and feats and such, and then just roll a d4 each time combat broke out. Made things slightly predictable (I'd make a new set each session), but drastically sped things up.</p><p>What we do <i>now</i> is initiative per side and let players act in the order desired. This keeps things fair with the GM, who would basically be doing the exact same thing. There's never been any arguing, even among our kids. At most one player will say let me go first, then you so you get Sneak Attack or something to that effect. It's ridiculously fast and if you wanted to add a bit of chaos you could re-roll initiative every round (by side), that way it won't always be side 1, then 2, then 1, then 2, etc.</p><p>The only thing I'd change about this is <i>maybe</i> set it up so that characters that are moving must act first, then characters making ranged attacks, then melee attacks, and finally spells. If more than one character is performing the same type of action, they decide who goes first. Really though I'd love to do phased combat so that there's a better chance of spellcasters getting interrupted (I explain phased combat in more detail further down).</p><p>Rolling against a target number <i>is</i> how <i>Dungeons & Dragons</i> handles it and is the fastest way to resolve an attack. I think it's also perfectly fine, as the target number is influenced by Dexterity and shields, and in 3rd Edition by size as well. The only drawback is that it is further affected by armor, which results in bizarre results where an ogre smacks a guy in padded armor with a club and somehow the armor can effectively nullify the attack.</p><p>You don't need to add in actions or interrupts for dodging and blocking: you would logically assume that a character is already trying to do everything in his power to avoid harm. What we did in <i>Dungeons & Delvers</i> is give some classes Talents which allow you to use your Reaction to force the attacker to roll twice and take the lower result. Even better, these Talents are part of trees, which can allow you to suffer less damage even if hit, run away, or even make a counter attack if the attack misses.</p><p>If anything, I would put in an option that makes you <i>easier</i> to hit in exchange for a benefit. Such as suffering a penalty to Defense or just outright taking the hit, but you can try to grab the target, or even make an attack.</p><p><a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2021/08/game-design-action-points.html">We've tinkered with Action Points before</a> (read that post Randy). We have a system pretty much good to go, just haven't properly playtested it and don't really want to go through all the effort of overhauling everything with a point cost. But the foundation is that everyone has 6 Action Points, and a 5-foot step costs 1. Weapon attacks are 4, and you get +1 Action Point every 5 levels.</p><p>Fighters can reduce the AP cost of weapon attacks by 1 now and then, which replaces the Multiattack option. Wizards would be able to choose Talents or abilities that reduce the AP cost of spells, or a category of spells.</p><p>There were issues trying to structure it in a way where it functioned mostly like it does now, where you can make one attack at levels 1-4, two at levels 5-9, etc. And then you'd have issues where wizards might get to cast 2-3 spells per round, especially at higher levels. I think it could still work but it's definitively more convoluted than just saying "you get one action per round".</p><p>A better AP system is one I mentioned in a previous BG post, where you roll initiative to determine when you start on a "count", and then your action adds to your count, and you don't act until then (the die would be a d6 or something pretty small, a d20 would have people waiting for quite some time).</p><p>For example, let's say you have a fighter, rogue, wizard, and some orcs. Players roll a 3 on initiative, orcs roll a 5. This means that the characters all act on 3, while the orcs act on 4. However, the fighter wants to charge, which has a cost of, say, 3. The rogue wants to use his crossbow, which has a cost of 2, and the wizard wants to use fireblast, which has a cost of 6. All of the orcs just want to hit people with an axe, which has a cost of 4. </p><p>So, at count 5 the rogue fires his crossbow, hitting an orc. The fighter then charges in at 6. No one acts on 7, but on 8 the orcs get to go, and finally the wizard at 9. Everyone keeps their current count, and the new action pushes them back. They also get to declare actions right after acting, so it would be possible for a character to act twice before the monsters get to go, assuming using fast actions.</p><p>In this system characters would have Talents or options to reduce the cost of actions. For fighters their weapon attacks would get reduced, while wizards would be able to reduce their action cost for spells. This I think is still pretty fast and makes a lot of sense, while avoiding combat being too predictable. Hell, you could even set it up so that after a character acts, he has to roll an initiative die add to his count (probably 1d6 or something small, and you could say that each count is a second). </p><p>One commenter said that during a turn everyone should get a move and attack, or two moves. I used to think this way but not anymore. The superior method is everyone gets <i>one</i> action, with the following structure:</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Attack: You make an attack.</li><li>Charge: You move up to your Speed and attack, but are -2 Defense until start of next turn.</li><li>Move: You move up to twice your Speed (or move up to your Speed at a lower cost)</li><li>Spell: You cast a spell.</li></ul><p></p><p>You cannot normally move while making an attack or casting a spell. The exception to this is charging, which lets you move but you are penalized for doing so. There would be other options, such as drinking potions and using items, but these would generally also require you to remain stationary.</p><p>This avoids the issue my group had since 3rd Edition (at the latest), where you can make a single melee attack, and then walk around your opponent (assuming Medium-sized or smaller). Forcing a charge in order to move makes it more likely players will bother in the first place (as you can otherwise just walk up to the enemy and attack), and prevents situation where characters might move towards an enemy, enemy moves away, characters move again, enemies move again, etc.</p><p>I've never understood the mother-may-I thing for combat, as being able to move 30 feet and still do something in your typical dungeon environment virtually guarantees that you'd be able to close the distance. We've used a lot of maps, and with my kids we've also used minis and Dwarven Forge, and there's never been a situation where we were like, damn, if only you could move 5 more feet. Usually it's 10-15 feet and then attack.</p><p>Or you are using a missile weapon with a range of 200+ feet, or a spell with a range of 30-60 feet so the only question is whether you have a clear shot or not.</p><p>I guess Action Points are brought up again 40 minutes in, or maybe I got confused outlining this, but I have a note about tracking and spending points, and this is another reason I'd be opposed to it: in 4E I had players trying to figure out how to spend their Minor Action of all things, which generally had no purpose unless you specifically chose a power that could be activated via a Minor Action, and I can only imagine the logistical nightmare of players trying to figure out how far they can move while still having enough AP to do this or that, or trying to otherwise optimize AP expenditures on a round-by-round basis.</p><p>The target number [to hit something] <i>should</i> vary depending on what you are facing. It doesn't make any sense to have equal odds hitting a goblin, bandit, orc champion, ogre, skilled assassin, and a dragon. Unless whatever modifiers are used to determine the difficulty just so happen to add up the same.</p><p>A commenter mentions something about blow-by-blow attacks and DR for armor, with a chance to ignore it. This is precisely how it works in <i>Dungeons & Delvers </i>2nd Edtiion: every armor has a DR and AC value. DR is what gets reduced, AC is added to your Defense to get a total AC value. If you are hit, your armor absorbs some damage, but if the attack rolls meets-or-beats your total AC, it manages to bypass the armor and nothing is absorbed.</p><p>Example:</p><p>A 1st-level fighter has a base Defense of 12. If his Dexterity is +1 and he is using a shield (+2 Defense), his total Defense is 15. This is what a monster has to roll in order to strike him. Light armor is DR 3 and AC +3, so if he is wearing that then his statline would look like this:</p><p><b>Defense</b> 15 <b>DR</b> 3 <b>AC</b> 18 (DR 0)</p><p>When attacked, and attack roll of 15-17 scores a hit, but its damage is reduced by 3, while an attack roll of 18+ inflicts full damage.</p><p>Heavier armor grants more DR and has a higher AC modifier, with plate being the best at DR 10 and AC +10. This might sound extreme, but nat 20s automatically bypass armor, and there is a Ganging Up bonus where you get a cumulative +1 to hit by ganging up on the same target, so while still very useful it's not as impenetrable as it might seem.</p><p>(We've considered reducing DR all around and categories to light, medium, and heavy, but the idea of an arming sword being able to reliably penetrate plate armor rubs me wrong. But I understand it's a game and might have to make a concession, there. We'll see.)</p><p>Also weapons have can have Armor Penetration, which allows them to effectively reduce the amount of DR absorbed. It's usually only a point or two, with class-based Talents granting AP or increasing existing DR values (ie, a rogue's Chink in the Armor and a fighter's Sundering Strikes).</p><p>While I think that even with six-second rounds an attack roll can reflect more than one attack attempt in the game narrative, the minute-long round doesn't make any sense.</p><p>46 minutes in Randy brings up Index Card, <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2021/12/shill-reviewer-thinks-terrible-fake-rpg.html">a terrible game by any and every metric</a> that offers less than even board games like <i>Zombicide</i> (even there you can level up). Specifically he brings up the godawful mechanic where a given scene has a DC that is kinda-sorta-but-not-really static and universal, as you can on a whim give it a +3 or -3 modifier, and can even just change the kinda-sorta-but-not-really universal DC whenever you feel like it.</p><p>So, like kinda-sorta-but-not-really real-time torches in DarkityDark, it's a gimmick mechanic without any real teeth or purpose.</p><p>Randy thinks that's not a bad way to do it, but it's horrible because A) it lets the players know <i>precisely</i> how hard anything is, except when the GM changes things on a whim, and B) it makes no sense. Is hitting a goblin <i>really</i> the same difficulty as trying to seal an unstable magical portal? Is trying to pick a lock the same difficulty as evading a dragon's breath weapon? Is hitting a goblin the same difficulty as hitting a dragon?</p><p>Of course not.</p><p>I've written a blog post addressing THAC0. It isn't fine. It's functional, sure, but less intuitive and elegant than just comparing your attack roll to what amounts to a DC. Previously when THAC0 was mentioned Joe said that you can use it to determine what AC you hit, but you can even more easily determine what AC you hit by using ascending AC: roll, add your modifiers, and that's the best AC you hit.</p><p>Is it hard? No. But ascending AC is easier.</p><p>At 49 minutes Joe asks Randy if he wants to go really old school and have each attack inflict d6 damage. Not that either actually advocated for it, but this doesn't make any sense, especially when weapons have no other statistics or properties beyond weight. I might as well just use a rock. Or a spoon. Doesn't matter, right?</p><p>Weapon speed factor is also pretty dumb. I actually argued with a retard on Twitter for awhile about two weeks ago I think, but don't have any links to it. The only edition I'm familiar with was 2nd Edition, and I don't think we ever used it. But from the book it's a measure of the weapon's...clumsiness, and a lower number means the weapon is quicker and easier to use.</p><p>So daggers have a Speed Factor of 2, while a longsword (referred to as a two-handed sword) has a whopping Speed Factor of 10. But then it the book also states that a longsword weighs 15 pounds even though real longsword only had an average weight of around 3.5 pounds, relegates weapon speed to an optional rule, and in the sidebar describes a warhammer as heavy, even though the book only gives it a weight of 6 pounds (realistically it would have weighed about half as much), and its Speed Factor is a measly 4.</p><p>A better measure of who gets to strike first in melee is the weapon's reach. Doesn't matter who wins the initiative roll: if you're packing a dagger or arming sword and rush a guy with a longsword? And assuming he's paying attention and ready to go? He's going to get the first swing in. Ditto for a guy with a spear or poleaxe.</p><p>This is yet another mechanic we've introduced in <i>Dungeons & Delvers</i> 2nd Edition, and a way to use up your Reaction: when a creature strikes to attack another in melee, you compare the weapon's Reach values. If the defender's is higher (not equal to, but <i>higher</i>), then he can use his Reaction to make what is essentially an Opportunity Attack.</p><p>This makes some overlooked weapons such as spears more useful, especially since they have Armor Penetration 1 and Impale, which grants a bonus when used while charging and when enemies provoke Opportunity Attacks.</p><p>How you can get around this is by distracting the enemy: when engaged by another melee combatant, you cannot make Opportunity Attacks. So if you're fighting a guy with a spear or weapon with a high Reach value, have the fighter rush in first (ideally one with a shield to mitigate the chance of being struck), then everyone else can flank and backstab without worrying about getting smacked around.</p><p>(This also provides some very simple tactical options for players to consider.)</p><p>Phases is something we've tried, and created a system that worked but was more complex than what we would have liked. Basically combat is divided into Missile, Move, Melee and Magic (just realized that they are all M's, heh).</p><p>At the start of the round everyone declares actions and rolls initiative (this assumes you are using initiative per side). Whoever wins resolves Missile attacks first. Then the other side resolves theirs. Then the first side resolves Move actions, which can include Charge attacks (these still impose penalties, but since you can otherwise only Move or attack still useful). Then the other side resolves Move actions, etc.</p><p style="text-align: left;">This resolves a few issues, the first being that one side won't just stand there while the other completes a series of actions. This is especially true for those armed with missile weapons and would have probably lossed an arrow at a guy just meandering about. You also avoid the fighter just standing there while an orc or goblin runs right past him to beat up the wizard.</p><p style="text-align: left;">Finally, this structure provides a clear opportunity to interrupt spellcasters, as all magical effects only trigger at the end of the round. Since actions must be declared at the start, characters can see the enemy prepping a spell and attempt to do something to stop him.</p><p style="text-align: left;">Another benefit is that this provides opportunities for class abilities to mess with when certain actions are resolved. For example, you could have goblins being able to resolve Move actions during the Missile phase, giving them a chance to duck out of sight. Wizards could also burn Willpower to finish casting a spell in the Missile or Melee phase. Fighters could have a Spring Attack Talent that lets them resolve Charges in the Missile phase. Stuff like that.</p><p style="text-align: left;">The downside? Pretty complicated and would greatly benefit from a battle mat. I guess it depends on the group if the benefits are worth it.</p><p style="text-align: left;">At 51 minutes Randy mentions weapons versus armor. Again armor as DR is the best system, and here you could make things slightly granular by having different armor materials and types have added DR against certain damage types.</p><p style="text-align: left;">For example, a gambeson is DR 3, and while they weren't as effective against blunt and piercing attacks, you could just instead give them +1 DR against slashing and call it good. I forget what chain ideal against (probably blunt and slashing), but for plate you could up its DR against slashing and piercing weapons. You could do something similar for natural defenses as well, which would provide yet another tactical element for players to consider, but not really break anything if they bring the "wrong" weapon along.</p><p style="text-align: left;">Ah, Joe mentions that without weapons versus armor and speed factor that weapons don't really differentiate from one another. I agree, which is why we added Reach and weapon properties: swords get +1 to hit, axes, spears and hammers get AP 1. Daggers get +2 to hit when grappling someone. Spears deal bonus damage when charging or attacking someone charging you. Stuff like that.</p><p>At 52 minutes weapon reach is brought up, which I've already addressed a few times but yes you should consider it because it's trivially easy to implement without overly bogging the game down. The only other thing I <i>might</i> do that <i>could</i> bog the game down is impose attack penalties when you are using a weapon with a high Reach against someone with a lower Reach, because while a spear will get the first hit in against a guy with a dagger, if the dagger guy closes the distance you will have a harder time hitting him with your spear, especially if you are doing so one-handed.</p><p>But I'm having a hard time thinking of a simple way to do this. Perhaps by every 3 points you get a -1 to hit? 2? Arming swords have a Reach of 3 so if the difference required is 3+ that would guarantee that you don't have problems and would add yet another tactical layer: bring a spear and sword, and drop the spear if you get locked in combat. But then when you are factoring this in with Reach and Ganging Up and all these other mechanics, does it become overwhelming? Does it overtly punish spear users, when spears only have a few situational benefits?</p><p>(I don't really care to make daggers a viable primary weapon. They weren't and shouldn't be, but a fallback or something you use against a guy in plate so you can try to jam it in a weak point, which is reflected by its Close Quarters bonus.)</p><p>I find it amusing that around 54 minutes Joe brings up two combatants, one wielding a dagger and the other an arming sword or long sword and I've already addressed all this. But dagger versus a stone giant? Depends on its inherent DR (I'd give it 2-3 points <i>at the least</i>, probably 5+), but I give them AP 1 so that helps bypass it to a degree. And if you let a high roll bypass DR the dagger's Close Quarters would also make it useful in that regard. But it's <i>probably</i> going to be better just smacking the giant with a poleaxe, which in our game inflicts 1d12 damage and has AP 1.</p><p>In an Action Point system, a commenter suggest 2 points to swing, 1 for light weapons. My issue is that I've seen people wield longswords and they can do it pretty damned fast. Maybe for something like polearms, but then you don't need to do a wide swing for it to work, and I'm guessing there are combat techniques for dealing with guys using arming swords and the like (plus you could just half-sword, effectively changing your longsword into something akin to a dagger).</p><p><i>However</i>, going back to my idea for having action types increase your initiative count, you could give weapons different damage values and types, with different Action Point costs.</p><p>For example, a longsword could have the following profile:</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Swing: Reach 4, 2d6 slashing, cost 4</li><li>Thrust: Reach 5, 1d6 piercing (AP 1), cost 4</li><li>Stab: Reach 2, 1d6 piercing (AP 1), cost 3</li><li>Club: Reach 3, 1d6 bludgeoning (AP 1), cost 5</li></ul>Swing is a normal swing that you probably think of, just not a "video game" one where you wind back and leave yourself wide open. Thrust is when you hold it by the handle with both hands and jab forward. Good reach but less damage. Stab is where you hold it by the handle with one hand, end of the blade with the other, so you have a nice, strong stab. Lower reach but fast, and if you're fighting a guy with a dagger this helps avoid an attack penalty if you're doing that. Club is where you hold it by the blade, and try to bash a guy with the crossguard.<p></p><p>Different damage types might be more effective against an enemy. Fighting skeletons? Whelp, if its DR versus slashing and blunt weapons is high enough, this could be worthwhile. Ditto if the enemy is made of stone, or has a hard shell like a giant crab, maybe a spider. You could also use a different attack method due to the lower cost, so you act sooner/more often. Could be handy against an enemy with slower attacks, like a stone golem, zombie, or ogre.</p><p>You could also give weapons a heavier swing profile, so the action cost is higher (and there is maybe a penalty to Defense or something) but so is the damage, which could also be useful when fighting slower enemies, or something that you think you could just pulverize or cut in half with one attack so there's little risk.</p><p>At 57 minutes someone suggests having damage be based on character, and give weapons properties. I like the latter but not the former, as it doesn't make any sense why a dagger inflicts the same amount of damage as, say, a two-handed axe. Instead, you give weapons properties to help differentiate them, and give classes scaling damage bonuses.</p><p>In <i>Dungeons & Delvers</i> fighters get damage bonuses at various levels. This coupled with their scaling attack bonus and possible weapon Talents means that while any character can be competent with a weapon, fighters will be the best.</p><p>Around an hour and change in the talk shifts to lethality, and I feel that I should clarify the game we play with our kids:</p><p><i>Dungeons & Delvers </i>is quite lethal. Think 3rd Edition, but your Constitution modifier is only added to hit points one time and clerics aren't an adventuring class. Instead, you have to rely on alchemical potions, which we're considering bringing back a mechanic I used before 1st Edition was published where you have to make Constitution saves when drinking too many potions to avoid poisoning yourself.</p><p>The only things that make the game easier are you can short rest to get a handful of hit points back three times per day, and you don't fall unconscious at negative hit points, though you start bleeding out, recover far more slowly, and suffer ongoing penalties the whole time. So while not dead you're not going to be much of a help until you rest for a few days (some classes have Talents that let them ignore these penalties and bleed out more slowly).</p><p>Melissa and I game with our kids to see if the <i>mechanics</i> are too difficult or complex to remember and understand. If they can follow along, then so can an adult. The game isn't easy, and they've learned in a very short time that adventuring is dangerous and to tread carefully. </p><p>A few minute later and a commenter asks if wounds should affect your ability to fight. In theory, yes. In practice...well, <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2023/02/wound-level-mechanics-for-d20-games-and.html">we <i>did</i> devise a Wound Level system that worked <i>really</i> well</a>. Pretty much perfectly. The issue is having to use it in a game where characters can fight many monsters. I can't imagine a GM trying to track wound penalties on a half dozen or so enemies, even after removing clerics as an adventuring class so it's unlikely characters and monsters will be healing in the course of the fight.</p><p>I'm even opposed to setting it up so that when you are missing a Wound Point, or Wound Points based on Constitution or some such (this I hadn't considered but reflects high Con characters being able to ignore the pain longer), you just suffer a penalty like -1, because this will only really impact the characters. Sure, you <i>might</i> just injure an orc to where it gets the -1, but then it's going to die. Your fighter missing half his WP or whatever? He's going to have to deal with that for <i>awhile</i>.</p><p>But then this wouldn't be terribly difficult to implement, just punishing to one side of the screen. Doable if your group is fine with it. Actually, we'll give it a shot. I'll set it up like 4E: at half Wound Points, modified by Constitution and Constitution save modifier, you get a -1 penalty. The Endurance skill could also modify this, and then a class Talent could just let you ignore it. Oh, and barbarians could have a Talent or feature where when they are suffering from the penalty, it not only doesn't apply to attacks or damage, but <i>adds</i> to it.</p><p>Another idea that adds the dice rolling and bookkeeping is when you suffer WP damage, you have to make a DC 10 + WP lost Constitution save (which could benefit from an Endurance skill), and on a failure you suffer a penalty from the pain based on how much you fail by. The modifier would tick down by 1 each round, but could be increased by suffering more damage and failing the save or check.</p><p>Upside is that this would help deal with higher armor DR, as you can overcome it by a high attack roll, downside is that it might affect characters more than anything. But have to give this a shot as well. Helps avoid the death spiral Joe mentioned, because when combat ends you can wait until the pain modifier goes away before proceeding. You could also have a prolonged pain penalty, something that lasts until your WP are recovered, though this could get out of control.</p><p>But that's what playtesting is for.</p><p>In any case I should note that these streams have been <i>great </i>for brainstorming mechanics.</p><p>A minute after <i>that</i> a commenter states that he likes the idea that a single hit can kill you. I have no problem with this up to a point. Level 1 character with 10 hit points gets hit for something like 20 and gets splattered? Eh, okay. But not like the optional 3E rule where two or three nat 20s in a row means instant death.</p><p>At an hour and five someone brings up critical hit charts. Even though <i>Dungeons & Delvers</i> 1st Edition has a pretty extensive critical chart by damage type that spans across multiple pages, these I'm less enamored with because these can have results that don't make any sense, and also don't fully account for a creature's physiology.</p><p>For example, what if you critically hit a zombie? It doesn't bleed, so a bleeding effect doesn't mean anything. What if you critically hit a dragon and get a result where you sever a limb? Or a giant and you can't even reach its arm? Would severing a spider's leg make much of a difference? What if you roll a severed limb on a snake? But then what if the creature has a bunch of tentacles, or wings, or a tail, and those aren't even on the chart?</p><p>Our game also has options to let characters impose various conditions such as stunned and bleeding, so we're just going to make it so that critical hits inflict max damage and ignore DR from armor, and perhaps other effects based on weapon and class (so fighters might add their level to crit damage). This makes things easier and less swingy, which is good for characters since they're the ones that suffer from critical hits the most.</p><p>Ran than have it so that two nat 20s is an instant kill, which wouldn't always make sense, just do it like this: nat 20 is max damage, and every nat 20 just adds the max damage again. In other words, two nat 20s doubles your damage, three triples it, etc.</p><p>At an hour and thirteen Wound (levels) get brought up, specifically how many Wounds a given character should have based on class or archetype. <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2023/02/wound-level-mechanics-for-d20-games-and.html">Here's a link to where we playtested our Wound Level mechanic, which was specifically intended for d20 games</a>, but in case you don't want to read that after reading all of this, basically everyone has seven as a baseline, but the first is being perfectly fine and the last is being dead, so you can really only take six "damage". Though, one is unconscious and dying, and another is critically injured where you have to keep making checks to fall unconscious, so it's probably better to imagine it as being able to suffer four "damage".</p><p>Anyway, the levels are based on size, so smaller things get less, while bigger things get more. Warrior types also get bonus levels. The levels penalize you -1, -2, -3, and -5 (and then dying, and then dead). Smaller things lose the lower modifiers first, so goblins would have -2, -3, -5, dying, dead while bigger things gain added levels at the lower end first, so an ogre would have something like -1, -2, -2, -3, -3, -5, dying, dead (you even out the -1 to -3 levels before adding more).</p><p>Humans would have -1, -2, -3, -5, dying, dead, so a fighter would have -1, -2, -3, -3, -5, dying, dead.</p><p>Constitution doesn't add levels. Instead, when you get hit, you reduce damage from armor, and then the leftover forces a Con save equal to 10 + damage suffered. If you succeed, you're fine. If you fail, you lose a wound, plus another wound for every 5 points you fail by. So if you're a fighter with a Con modifier of +1 and a +1 to Con saves due to class, you'd roll a +2. If a goblin stabs you for 6 damage, and your armor absorbs 4, you have to make a DC 12 Con save.</p><p>If you get a 12+, you're fine, but if you fail you suffer 1 Wound, or 2 Wounds if you roll a 3-7 (since you failed by 5 points), and 3 if you roll a 1 or 2 (since you would have failed by 10 points). I think there's a rule where a nat 1 is +1 Wound, so if you natural 1'd this save you'd suffer a whopping 4 Wounds, which would immediately knock the fighter down to -3 penalties.</p><p>I ran a bunch of playtests and in the end the results were similar to how it would have played out using AC and hit points, which was nice. The only downside was healing: creatures with more Wound levels would take longer to heal, though I suppose this could be resolved by having all wounds of the same penalty being restored at once (so if you had two -3 wounds, healing one would restore both). Though this is a similar issue in hit point systems, so if you don't mind that then this should also be fine.</p><p>The only other potential issue is restructuring spells and other effects that inflict high damage, as they could be far more devastating than intended. I <i>think</i> I ran more playtests using spells but can't remember. Some monster damage would definitely need to be adjusted, to avoid them either not doing anything or doing too much.</p><p>But do answer Joe's question: level wouldn't need to influence wounds, though if you wanted it to I would so so sparingly. I think with the right numbers my Wound Level system would avoid having to add new Wound Levels at all. Constitution doesn't need to adjust Wounds, instead your ability to shrug off damage and recover (you could do a Con check when resting to see how much you recover).</p><p>I wouldn't have magic or magic items add more Wounds, but help resist damage and recover from them. Oh, some magic items could add something like buffer wounds, like a force field or somesuch, with its own value to check when resisting damage.</p><p>Something else I just thought of is that since you wouldn't use Vitality Points in this system, some characters would be able to ignore the penalties of Wounds. Maybe fighters reduce the penalty by -1 or something. Could definitely see barbarians doing this. Though...I guess you could have something like Vitality Levels to give you a buffer as well. Might be necessary since in my game you wouldn't have clerics healing people all the time.</p><p>At the hour and sixteen mark we're back to actions. If you're using actions this is how we do it: you get one action, a swift action, and a reaction. Your action lets you move, attack, cast a spell, most things you want to do. If you move you can't do anything else unless you are charging. Swift Action is used by specific abilities, but you can do a 5-foot reposition before doing anything else. Reaction is for when it isn't your turn.</p><p>If using action points I would only do that with the method I described before, where you roll initiative and actions add to your count. Sounds better than spending points.</p><p>Randy mentions getting one action and then at a higher level you get multiple attacks. Check out <i>Delvers</i> man: you get two attacks at level 5, three at 10, and then four at 20th (and all warrior types can choose Talents to do neat stuff with their weapons). Bards and rogues can spend a Talent to get multiple attacks at certain levels, for a maximum of three I think at like 17th-level.</p><p>Alternatively, if you think multiple attacks are too much (we've playtested Delvers up to 17th-level and never had an issue), you can instead let the fighter roll multiple d20s and pick the best result. So at level 5 he rolls 2d20, 3d20 and 10th-level, and 4d20 at 20th-level. Virtually guarantees a high roll (and a crit), but at lest throttles him to one attack and damage roll per round.</p><p>Randy expresses concern that he won't be able to "fix" analysis paralysis, or choice paralysis. I think you can and this was a design goal in <i>Dungeons & Delvers</i>. In our game you get to choose Talents fairly often in order to organically grow your character in a desired fashion, but we implemented something that I referred to as controlled complexity.</p><p>In <i>Dungeons & Dragons</i> you could end up with many complicated abilities that you might not want or don't really use. In <i>Dungeons & Delvers</i> if you don't want to think too much you can just pick simple passive Talents that just add modifiers to rolls and forget about them. For example, a fighter <i>can</i> choose special maneuver Talents, but if you don't want them you can just ignore them. Or take simple stuff at first, and then Exploits later when you're more comfortable.</p><p>So I think this is possible, just give players simple and complex options to choose from so they can better tailor their characters. Magic might pose an issue, but it depends on how spells are structured.</p><p>Joe references Champions, a game I've heard of but never played, and how it that game if you attack you can't move. This does sound silly, though I'd also question why I can't attack twice if I don't want to move. As for consequences from moving away from your target, that's easy: opportunity attack!</p><p>Of course I'd also just restrict everyone to a single action.</p><p>Grabbing something off of your belt and dropping stuff is where Swift and Free Actions come into play. I think drawing a weapon from a scabbard is something, but not "full action" worthy, so Swift fits. Dropping something should probably be Free. If you have a potion on a belt, that should also be Swift, but rummaging through a pack would be your normal action. This would require players to determine what they are carrying out in the open, which would make it vulnerable to theft and destruction.</p><p>I'm with Joe on spell duration. Not a fan of things lasting for "scenes", because that can technically mean a few seconds to a minute to ten minutes to an hour or more. I don't think spells need to be meticulously tracked, but it would break immersion for a spell to last until a fight is over and then just arbitrarily shut down, even if was only for a few seconds, but then later it lasts several minutes.</p><p>Having spells take multiple actions is something we're doing in 2nd Edition. This way they <i>can </i>be interrupted, though wizards can funnel more Willpower into them to speed it up. The only "balancing" that needs to be done is ensure that damage wise it's better than the wizard simply stabbing something for several rounds, which generally isn't the case for most spells.</p><p>Of course opportunity attacks could interrupt a spell, as could a creature readying an action to shoot or rush the wizard when he gets going.</p><p>At an hour and thirty-three minutes we're talking about armor and who can wear it. Easy answer: anyone.</p><p>Even wizards.</p><p>The limitation here is Strength: are you strong enough to wear it? Then I don't see why not. I also don't see why it would impede a wizard's spellcasting abilities given that properly made armor doesn't restrict much at all, and metal doesn't have any adverse effect on magic. In <i>Dungeons & Delvers</i> 1st Edition armor would adversely affect some spellcasting and throttle Dexterity, but in 2nd Edition there won't be any penalties at all, so long as you're strong enough (otherwise there are encumbrance penalties).</p><p>I also agree with Joe about the idea of wizards wearing robes everywhere as being a tiresome trope, especially since there is no benefit to any of it. There isn't even a benefit to having a staff, which makes you wonder why wizards are depicted the way they are in <i>Dungeons & Dragons</i>. Now in <i>Dungeons & Delvers</i> there <i>is</i> a benefit to having a staff, so that makes sense, but not so for robes so expect to see our wizards rocking gambesons at the least.</p><p>I also see no reason to restrict weapons, though in <i>Dungeons & Delvers</i> you have to be proficient with a weapon to add your attack bonus (otherwise it's just +Dexterity), but this only takes a skill point so a wizard <i>could</i> easily use a longsword, and with some wizard-specific Talents be pretty good at it (though not as good or as tough as the fighter, at least not without certain Terraturgy spells and Talents).</p><p>Someone mentions armor imposing a spell failure chance, and I'm with Joe: I don't see how that makes any sense at all, unless the wizard isn't strong enough to properly move in the armor being worn in the first place.</p><p>Randy: reject tradition <i>in this case</i>, embrace armored wizards!</p><p>At an hour and forty minutes someone comments on that "full" plate is incredibly restrictive. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9gzWttjDz4">No it's not.</a> At least, not when properly made and fitted. Also, being unable to quickly and easily don plate armor by yourself isn't due to a lack of flexibility but <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQCbxGjUfZg">difficulty securing straps and aligning pins</a> without another pair of hands and eyes.</p><p>Really the only restriction on armor is the weight, and what makes plate even better is that it's only 60 or so pounds distributed all over your body. It's not like you're carrying it all in your arms or on your back.</p><p>At one hour and forty four minutes they bring up classes using skills that you normally wouldn't expect them to. I see no reason to restrict skills by class, you just make certain classes better. Fighter wants to sneak? Let him (<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVCS_iatpXw&t=2s">and armor isn't as impactful as you might think</a> so long as you move slowly enough). Cleric wants to pick pockets? Let him. You just give rogues Talents and other options to make him <i>better</i> at both tasks.</p><p>You can resolve the issue if characters stepping out of their niche at lower levels, and getting knocked into them at higher levels by adjusting how monster math scales. This way wizards can wear plate armor and step into melee, and still contribute (though not nearly as well as fighters). A way we improved this was making it so that for every 5 points you exceed the monster's Defense, you deal +1 damage. This way fighters still see some benefit even when their attack bonus is absurdly high.</p><p>Hard lanes doesn't get you much except for seemingly arbitrary restrictions and a lot of questions. Restricting wizards from wearing armor and using weapons artificially reinforces an archetype of a guy in robes with a staff that, again, doesn't actually have any functional purpose.</p><p>Now in our game the staff has a mechanical function, helping the wizard harness and focus magical energies. But this is no reason for him to not wear armor if he has the strength. There's also no reason for him not to use an actual weapon, so he isn't entirely relying on magic or being a worthless liability. Saying that the fighter cannot learn how to pick locks is absurd when even modern locks are trivially easy to pick, as is saying that he cannot know anything about magic even though all he would need to do is read a book.</p><p>Lines are fine when they make sense, but <i>Dungeons & Dragons</i> is filled with nonsense restrictions, like armor somehow <i>magically</i> limiting his ability to use magic, or only thieves being able to climb walls or try to sneak around. Except in 3rd Edition, where you could cross-class but the bonuses ended up being so crappy why bother? 4th Edition ended up fixing this to a point: you just had to burn a feat to get a new skill, and you'd be about as good as anyone else since the only modifier that really mattered was the half-level one that everyone got.</p><p>In <i>Dungeons & Delvers</i> skills aren't class-locked or throttled. A fighter can start out with a proficiency in Stealth and Thievery, it's just that the rogue has options that make him better, and throughout all our playtesting and campaigns there's never been an issue.</p><p>Can a wizard stack armor? Depends on if you even have an armor spell, or if you instead have a spell that generates a barrier that absorbs damage. Easy workaround, I think.</p><p>Armor causing fatigue is a good idea, though it could be an issue over time purely due to tedious bookkeeping. I think instead you just have it so that the characters must rest after a period of time (10 minutes for every hour, something like that), and armor can impose a penalty to Con checks in order to resist fatigue. Also a penalty to resisting heatstroke if in a warm area.</p><p>You don't give armor a Strength requirement. Strength determines what you can carry, and that's your weight limit. Able to carry 60 pounds without a fuss? Then you can wear plate, but not anything else without some sort of encumbrance penalty. Though, maybe plate's <i>effective</i> weight needs to be reduced since its being distributed all over your body.</p><p>Over time Constitution <i>can</i> come into play, but it depends on how long a fight goes on, what you're doing, what you're wearing, etc. I think you should just have it so that every minute of prolonged combat you make a slowly scaling Con check to avoid fatigue, but afterwards you can rest to reduce and remove the penalty. Heavy armor would obviously penalize this.</p><p>I've tinkered with the idea of suffering Vitality damage due to fatigue, or imposing a fatigue penalty when your VP runs out, but in <i>Delvers</i> at least VP is typically low enough to the point where it'll get whittled away pretty quickly (generally 1-4 points at 1st-level, and only goes up by 1-2 points each level after that). So either it won't matter or you'll have a near-constant fatigue penalty. I've considered instead setting it up so that fatigue penalties <i>reduce</i> your maximum VP, which would matter more so long as you can't easily rest to remove it.</p><p>I will point out again that you <i>can</i> sneak in plate armor, just gotta move slow and avoid moving your arms too much. If you want to be a stickler though go with brigandine, which is incredibly durable and almost completely silent. As for group sneak, there's a rogue Talent in <i>Delvers</i> called Stay Close and Keep Quiet, which lets the rogue roll a Stealth check, and <i>everyone</i> can just use it so long as they remain within 30 feet of him and move slowly.</p><p>Another way to circumvent this is letting everyone Take 10: so long as you don't unfairly punish the fighter with a penalty that he wouldn't normally have, and even let him take Stealth, which is a skill I imagine most adventurers would have, it wouldn't be so wonky. Really the issue is the absurd penalties and forcing <i>everyone</i> to roll: the more dice get rolled, the more likely someone is going to botch and ruin everyone's good time.</p><p>At one hour and fifty-three minutes someone comments that any adventurer should be able to hide, pick locks, check for traps, etc. Yep, and in <i>Dungeons & Delvers</i> anyone can spend the skill points and do so competently. Even if you're a wizard who spends his time studying tomes and such, doesn't mean he didn't learn how to pick locks before, during, or after his studies (again, modern locks are relatively easy to pick, and most medieval locks just needed a pick or a skeleton key, if that).</p><p>Near the end Randy summarizes his wants, and hit points come up. One way you can keep hit points low is have Constitution only modify the total, not every level. Wound Points should also recover slowly (we're doing a kind of Recovery check mechanic, so the amount regained isn't even consistent), and you should incorporate a disease mechanic when characters get injured. </p><p>You can of course have them trickle in slowly instead of rolling a d10 or whatever, perhaps something like:</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Wizards 2 WP, 1 VP (so WP exceeds VP)</li><li>Rogues 3 WP, 1 VP</li><li>Fighters 4 WP, 2 VP</li></ul>This keeps inline with average Hit Die results, rounded up (ie, a d4 is 2.5, rounded up to 3 in total). Prevents players from rolling low, but also keeps them from rolling high. Again, Con only applies to the WP total, not every level. Now, if you don't care to have VP higher than WP, you can also do this:<div><div><ul><li>Wizards 1 WP, 1 VP</li><li>Rogues 2 WP, 1 VP</li><li>Fighters 3 WP, 2 VP</li></ul></div><p></p><div>Clerics aren't on the list because they shouldn't even be adventurers, anyway. Make characters go to temples and donate for miracles and blessings. Heck, let characters make prayer checks to try and get minor blessings.</div><div><br /></div><div>I already posted this art but since it's very relevant here is a wizard in a gambeson:</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5iI3jvVyTyv-oTO7UnWR0-IUSVnrKdF-8QJnYsLo2uLOmebMhO8LoOLQt8JKBuyg-vsm7ACR4EpFA_CDwZ_0VkA7CytJHWphM5aXFwhDBtapqDjSMbLVuyqeFslIizQFkNKnIzhHFZNdHgumedfRY2dSPnvfPFDl2Br4KN8rejVvF-mwfpZt9gGIifFQ/s3612/female%20human%20wizard%202.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3612" data-original-width="1590" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5iI3jvVyTyv-oTO7UnWR0-IUSVnrKdF-8QJnYsLo2uLOmebMhO8LoOLQt8JKBuyg-vsm7ACR4EpFA_CDwZ_0VkA7CytJHWphM5aXFwhDBtapqDjSMbLVuyqeFslIizQFkNKnIzhHFZNdHgumedfRY2dSPnvfPFDl2Br4KN8rejVvF-mwfpZt9gGIifFQ/s16000/female%20human%20wizard%202.png" /></a></div><br /><div><br /></div></div>David Guyllhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16299128722345607123noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-3925925821340098802023-11-19T17:03:00.000-08:002023-11-19T17:03:29.427-08:00Biggus Geekus: Settings<div>I either miss the Biggus Geekus shows, or only catch bits of it here and there. In either case, I watch them after the fact and there are often parts that I wish I could have commented on while it was live. But since I can't I've decided to just blog my thoughts and responses. This post pertains to their episode mostly about settings, which can be watched <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0v_RLqSXDbs">here</a> in case you want more context.</div><div><br /></div><div>The first segment kicks off around 25 minutes, though they do talk about not caring about specific individuals in the industry. An example given is when attention-starved narcissistic tourists prattle on about various invented -isms. Their response is, "Who cares?"</div><div><br /></div><div>While I agree that they <i>should</i> stop caring about, say, WokeC--and should have stopped nearly 10 years ago--I <i>do</i> think it is important to at least contest false narratives like <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2021/04/d-has-lot-of-problems-but-hating-jews.html">Gary Gygax secretly hating Jews</a>. You don't need to overly focus on it; just bring it up, refute it (ideally with some mockery in the mix), and move on.</div><div><br /></div><div>As for longsword and shortsword damage, really the better question is why do people keep referring to an arming sword as a longsword, and a longsword as a greatsword? On a more serious note, the obvious answer is that an arming sword is longer, and so should possess some sort of advantage, though I wonder if it should be increased accuracy.</div><div><br /></div><div>In any case, in <i>Dungeons & Delvers</i> 2nd Edition weapons have a Reach value, which determines who strikes first in melee combat.</div><div><br /></div><div>Joe then brings up the horse girl fetish...thing, I guess you could call it, as it's not even a game (you just randomly determine events so you can pretend to be someone suffering from the delusion that with enough manipulation and mutilation, you will somehow become a horse). Again I don't think an entire episode or even a meaningful length of time need be devoted to it, but simply bring it up, mock it, and move on.</div><div><br /></div><div>Half an hour in and Joe brings up a good point: published settings publish too much, though I would add to this that they can also feature a bunch of useless information, something akin to entertainment for DMs that will never use the setting, anyway, and this is ignoring all the splatbook clutter that could accumulate for a given setting.</div><div><br /></div><div>While I don't hate <i>Forgotten Realms</i>, I certainly don't like it. I got started on it in 2nd Edition and ran it a bit into 3rd Edition, but abandoned it due to the prevalence of high-level characters and bizarre ecologies. For example, I recall reading a region in which the forests were filled with, among many other monsters, green dragons, which begs the question: how the hell does anything there survive?</div><div><br /></div><div>Given that I've never found a setting that I would run even mostly as-is, I agree with Randy that you should just run your own. While a setting may possess some material or ideas that could inspire you, I think you'll avoid confusion<i> and</i> hone your skills in creating your own. That said, most tabletop material shoved out in the last couple of decades are <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2021/12/troika-is-trash.html">largely</a> <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2021/09/a-dco-review-with-right-details-and.html">vapidware</a> <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/search/max-results=7?q=red+and+pleasant">trash</a> <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2023/03/the-curious-case-of-shadowdark-simps.html">efforts</a>, so you'll <i>also</i> save money and are virtually guaranteed to come up with something vastly superior.</div><div><br /></div><div>In response to Randy's question of changing a setting if it's really good the way it was, as with adventures I look at campaign settings as foundations that you are <i>expected</i> to build on and modify (assuming you are using a published setting in the first place). I find it strange that people are fully willing to modify an adventure for their table, perhaps extensively, but not a campaign setting, even though they both serve similar time-saving functions. </div><div><br /></div><div>Randy: "I got a lot of homework to do."</div><div><br /></div><div>Yep. This is why I think campaign settings need to be organized in a manner that makes it clear what the GM and players each need to individually know <i>at minimum </i>in order to properly evoke the setting's default tone and feel, what sets it apart from your bog-standard pseudo-European world.</div><div><br /></div><div>It can have an elaborate history and an extensive roster of NPCs, but if I don't <i>need</i> to know that to run the setting, I don't want it front and center: tell me what is <i>necessary</i> to start running in that world as soon as possible, and I can learn additional information later. This could also le me know what can be easily changed or ignored without adversely affecting everything else, in case I want to change something.</div><div><br /></div><div>Around 35 minutes we get a question intended to help establish the foundation of your setting: what sort of adventures do you want to run there. I think this is useful, though perhaps more so for game mechanics, as I can run domain play in pretty much any setting I can think of, but if the game doesn't even have vague costs for fortresses and castles then I'll have to do all that legwork myself before I can even get the ball rolling. </div><div><br /></div><div>I think these questions also help guide the GM in adventure and campaign design: if you want to do a bunch of exploration, then you'll want to create places to explore. If you're only interested in dungeon crawling, then you won't need to go into a lot of detail as to what the characters might discover en route to various dungeon environments.</div><div><br /></div><div>A few minutes later Randy states that he rarely runs dungeon crawls, and won't run a campaign where you tackle "400,000 encounters in Undermountain".</div><div><br /></div><div>I've <i>tried</i> to at least read through Undermountain, but cannot get past the first few pages of rooms. Undermountain to me exemplifies the worst stereotypes of dungeon crawls: there is easy access to the entrance, yet somehow still treasure in the first few rooms. There are also somehow still monsters infesting these rooms despite no readily available food source. On top of that, there's no rhyme or reason to the layout or room contents.</div><div><br /></div><div>(I'm going to go into more detail here, so feel free to skip down if you don't care.)</div><div><br /></div><div>For example, the first room is the Hall of Many Pillars. Here's the description:</div><div><br /></div><div><div><i>Two broad steps lead down into a widening room crowded with a forest of stone pillars. Archways can be seen in its northern, western, and southern walls. Something metallic glints on the floor, among the many stone pillars.</i></div></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div>One pillar has a hidden alcove, but it just contains three mundane wooden sticks (yawn). There is also a brass key, but it has no purpose, here (it is stated to open anything the DM wants it to in another adventure).</div><div><br /></div><div>There could have been an elaborate puzzle involving the pillars, something that opens a hidden passage or disables a trap elsewhere. Instructions could and by now <i>should</i> have been written in the pillars, indicating what sorts of rooms and threats might be found further within, or even in the next room over.</div><div><br /></div><div>But, nope! There is no purpose to this room other than a time sink. Waste time, maybe find some useless trinkets, pick a random passage and on you go.</div><div><br /></div><div>The next room (in numerical order, anyway) is the Hall of Mirrors, which is a long hall featuring sixteen mirrors. This room is technically more interesting in that you can remove the mirrors and find some storage niches that for some reason contain healing potions, and a brass cauldron with 40 gp. Except for one niche, which is empty.</div><div><br /></div><div>Bizarrely, you can use the cauldron do deal damage as a mace, but <i>only</i> while filled with coins, but each attack causes the coins to scatter, so I guess it's only good for one hit before having to scoop all the coins back in for another go. This sounds <i>stupidly </i>arbitrary and I have no idea why anyone would bother doing so.</div><div><br /></div><div>Oh, and one mirror is a mirror of opposition, which creates a double of whoever looks at it that you have to fight.</div><div><br /></div><div>There's no way to tell the mirrors apart, and no hint as to what's to come. New players unfamiliar that such a mirror exists will probably just walk down the hall, maybe checking and/or smashing mirrors as they go, until they stumble on the trap. Veterans will probably just smash all the mirrors because that's precisely the sort of banal gotchas they've come to expect.</div><div><br /></div><div>I'm just left wondering why the crazy wizard made such a lame gimmick hall in the first place? Did he <i>really</i> need sixteen mirrors? Why are the niches there? Did he <i>really</i> not have a better way of hiding/storing his coin-filled brass cauldron and some healing potions?</div><div><br /></div><div>It's a crazy wizard dungeon and you don't even have it setup so that the mirrors distort the characters, twisting them into a Junji Ito-esque carnival of horrors. Like one could temporary enlarge a character, inflicting damage in the process or imposing a Dexterity penalty because he's lop-sided. One could force a save to avoid being squished down, suffering damage and reducing speed. </div><div><br /></div><div>Of course, to avoid it being merely a series of "make saves to avoid bad things", the mirrors could unleash horroric versions of the characters to fight. The mirrors could also be removed and used against monsters, up until they are broken by a stray attack or effect (or maybe the effect only lasts while the creature can see itself).</div><div><br /></div><div>One more room before getting back on track: Nimwraith's Rest. This is basically a nondescript room with a skeleton in it, carrying among other things an ivory tube containing a map and some cure light wounds scrolls that miraculously no one has found by now. The skeleton isn't undead, but its helm is described as both containing "nothing of value" and as the "sleeping-place of a thirsty stirge".</div><div><br /></div><div>How the stirge is still alive despite a dearth of dungeon denizens for it to easily feed on, as well as the adventurers and bugbears that recently <i>very</i> recently massacered each other nearby.</div><div><br /></div><div>This guy has been dead in here for quite some time, and I'm guessing there would be a pretty strong odor that would have attracted <i>something</i> at some point. So why are his remains intact? And again, why is the ivory tube still there? Did no other adventurer stumble across this place (despite the odor), and if so, did none of them bother looting the corpse?</div><div><br /></div><div>Also, what was the original purpose of the room? It's just an empty 10 x 15 foot room, the source of much derision in my 4th Edition days, but is <i>apparently</i> standard procedure here.</div><div><br /></div><div>I can't imagine who would want to run 400,000 encounters of this. Or even four. They have seemingly random themes, determined by what I can only assume was throwing darts at a wall, all chaotically strung together by senselessly meandering passages. This is all easily solved by instilling some background and purpose to the dungeon, beyond a crawling ground where players just select doors and halls on a whim solely to bear witness to its contrived contents.</div><div><br /></div><div>On switching up campaigns from something like building/owning a castle and/or running some sort of organization, or just dungeon crawling to level x before abandoning the whole thing, I feel like those goals go hand-in-hand. Want to get that castle? Go adventuring to either find one, get the money to buy or have one built for you, or save up enough money to renovate an existing castle. Or attract the attention and favor of nobility to grant you one.</div><div><br /></div><div>Exploring the world also tends to lead to the discovery of "dungeons" (ie, any suitable adventuring environment not limited to subterranean catacombs and ruins), which in turn leads to the discovery of interesting things to interact with and treasure (assuming the GM isn't stingy on the latter).</div><div><br /></div><div>Joe states something similar to these playstyles playing off each other, and had I watched the video before writing this post instead of listening, pausing, responding to it bit-by-bit, it would have been more succinct to just say that about 38 minutes in I agree with him. But then this post would be a lot of that or I would probably forget what I was going to say at any given point in time.</div><div><br /></div><div>Joe uses a cliche example of rats in a cellar, something I've often heard but outside of the Playstation 2 version of <i>The Bard's Tale</i> never experienced, though I do have an idea of how to write a rat-based intro adventure. Could be a good learn-as-you-play scenario for <i>Dungeons & Delvers</i>.</div><div><br /></div><div>Randy follows this up by claiming that for new DMs at the least dungeons are a good place to start. Personally, I think they are ideal for a DM of any experience, as they make it easier for parties on both sides of the screen: the DM doesn't have to concern himself with every possible variable, and the players don't suffer from choice paralysis (and benevolent players don't have to worry if they are going to "waste" what the DM has prepared by going in the "wrong" direction).</div><div><br /></div><div>This is something that Melissa has learned during her last adventure, where we had to escape from a druid's lair in a forest. While there was an obvious path and destination (light in the distance), a lack of barriers meant that we could see obvious encounters well in advance, and being 0-level commoners would just take a wider route to avoid them all. She has since learned that forest crawls are better when we are trying to find something, and would therefore be more inclined to investigate strange sites.</div><div><br /></div><div>Joe thinks that when you're in a dungeon the setting doesn't matter, and I don't think this is completely true. It really depends on the nature of the setting and whether or not specific elements can even be notably incorporated into the dungeon.</div><div><br /></div><div>If your setting is stock pseudo-European, there's probably not a whole lot that can be done, but if it is something like <i>Ravenloft</i>, you can include all manner of horrific content to remind the players where they are. For our in-house setting <i>Sundered World </i>(which I'll go into more detail about near the end), you often explore ruined heavenly domains, which can have their own laws of physics, and the corpses of gods and primordial, so there's plenty of opportunity for the setting to influence the location, layout, encounters, etc.</div><div><br /></div><div>For a video game example, if you were to run something in the vein of <i>Phantasy Star IV</i>, many dungeons could take place in high-tech facilities, or even on other planets if you grant your players access to shuttles. It can also help to include dungeons that aren't located underground: in Melissa's faery tale-themed campaign setting, we used a magic bean to grow a beanstalk in order to gain access to a castle atop some clouds.</div><div><br /></div><div>A commenter mentioned that whenever he offers something other than dungeon crawls, most players don't seem interested. I am curious what he has offered his players, as I've run a variety of adventures that <i>weren't</i> dungeon crawls and the players enjoyed them all. The <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2018/06/ashes-after-ragnarok-shattered-ships-in.html">first session for <i>Ashes After Ragnarok</i></a> took place in a dried out lake, and I also ran a sort of <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2018/02/dungeons-delvers-dryad-adventure-pilot.html">dryad-murder mystery</a>. Oh, and then there was the time I ran an adventure that took place mostly in a city, where <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2018/04/dungeons-delvers-boatload-of-mimics.html">the party had to deal with a boatload of mimics</a>.</div><div><br /></div><div>Another commenter mentions starting off with three kingdoms, at least one of which is a potential enemy. I think you can get away with just one, at least for the start of the game, though having two or three could be useful for prolonged play, or even if you start a new campaign: the players could kick off somewhere else, give the world a sense of depth.</div><div><br /></div><div>I know some players and even GMs balk at the idea of being able to go to a tavern or whatever to get an adventure hook or dungeon destination, but I think this is fine as it keeps the game moving forward. Due to a 2 and 4 year old we have <i>severely </i>limited time to play, not counting work and other hobbies such as painting and playing <i>Warhammer 40k</i>, and I'd rather not spend an hour or so trying to "roleplay" my way towards the fun part of the game.</div><div><br /></div><div>Whenever we start a new game, we typically just summarize the goal or how we go to the dungeon, and then just start right at the front door. Saves a bunch of time. We <i>never</i> waste time trying to get the party together, instead assuming that they started adventuring together awhile back. Kind of like how in <i>Firefly</i> most of the crew starts the show together, and you don't really find out why until later (not that you ever have to explain their origins).</div><div><br /></div><div>54 minutes in the idea of having magic essentially replace technology comes up. This I'm not a fan of at all, as it not only takes the magic out of magic, but is never utilized to its full extent. Instead, you get magical airships and trains, even elevators, a sort of instant messaging service, but then most people are still using bows and swords. </div><div><br /></div><div>A prehistoric setting is briefly mentioned. This is something I've entertained and would be trivially easy to do in a d20 system, you'd really only need to change up how magic is learned. They begin talking about dark ages and having magic be something "man was not meant to know", and I think this could concept would also work in a prehistoric game, with sorcerers learning magic from lovecraftian entities.</div><div><br /></div><div>You could also change it up so that no one can learn what would be considered arcane magic (or at least not easily and at great risk/cost), it becoming largely the purview of malevolent sorcerers who must engage in blood sacrifices and other complex rituals in exchange or power. Would provide an easy and ideal villain.</div><div><br /></div><div>I imagine such a world infested by cosmic horrors that lurk in the darkness, risen dead that crave flesh and warmth due to dying from starvation and exposure, and dinosaurs and other prehistoric beasts (some mutated by alien presences or likewise undead).</div><div><br /></div><div>They kind of circle back to commonplace magic, where wizards could be "a dime a dozen" and no one would really react or notice when a wizard teleports in. <i>Eberron </i>is brought up and this is what I was hinting at a few paragraphs up: you make magic trivial and it's no longer magical. The world would be viable, sure, but it wouldn't be as interesting.</div><div><br /></div><div>Low magic I think would be much more interesting, so long as it can still have a meaningful impact, even if there are greater risks, costs, and/or prerequisites to wielding it. As for Randy's comment about not having seventeen magic items per character, if the items have interesting effects and the math bonuses aren't essentially necessary just to play, I think players would treasure their treasure all the more.</div><div><br /></div><div>In regards to worrying about the weapon and armor arms race, not really. For a time I fretted about plate armor, whether it was something one could reasonably wear for hours at a time while adventuring. I even considered selecting a time period as a cut-off point to determine how far weapons and armor would have advanced due to available technology (including means of production), but then came to three realizations:</div><div><br /></div><div>The arms race in a fantasy world would be largely driven by the existence of monstrous creatures, accelerating the development of weapons and armor. People would also be more likely to be better armed and trained, and the demand could reduce costs for many forms of equipment. This would also have other effects, such as how defenses are constructed and laws prohibiting carrying weapons in towns and cities (or, rather, the lack thereof). </div><div><br /></div><div>Given that non-magical alchemy exists in our game, this could be used to circumvent technological limitations and/or assist in the production of materials and armor, making plate armor available earlier than would normally be expected (not that I run my games on Earth), and also easier to produce. </div><div><br /></div><div>There are also races renowned for their smithing skills such as dwarves, so even if alchemy is not an option I'm just going to assume they would have learned these methods much sooner than expected and would have shared these secrets with humans. Or the humans would have figured it out as well. Or would have learned it via divine insight from a forge god. Or whatever.</div><div><br /></div><div>Point is, you don't need to and probably shouldn't bother cleaving to real-world history. The people, history, resources, and land are different, and likely includes supernatural forces and intervention. Then you add in magic, monsters, fantasy races with their own histories and capabilities. And then the fact that most people don't even know how medieval societies were structured or operated (some people think peasants only bathed once a year if that) and do you <i>really</i> want to waste God knows how many hours doing homework and addressing anachronisms of your pseudo-European game world that the players won't even know or care about?</div><div><br /></div><div>It's a fantasy game where you explore dungeons that somehow remain undiscovered and unlooted despite existing for hundreds or even thousands of years and within relative proximity to various points of civilization, fight monsters that would realistically pulverize or tear them to pieces, and bring back such an absurd amount of wealth that the only reason your character would need to continue adventuring or work is because the prices are absolutely bonkers (seriously, why the hell is a longsword 15 entire gold pieces?).</div><div><br /></div><div>Related: <i>Dungeons & Delvers</i> 2nd Edition has some primitive firearms, and these work perfectly well with armor due to our DR mechanic and Armor Penetration. We also have a sort of fire shotgun, but you have to load it with a fireflask each time, changing its blast radius to a cone.</div><div><br /></div><div>Randy makes a comment about how in combat you wouldn't have 5,000 orcs lining up Lord of the Rings style, using ladders to scale walls due to the existence of wizards and clerics, but this entirely depends on the prevalence of either, as well as their expected capabilities. Wizards might exist, but if they are rare and can only be expected to sling one fireball-tier attack in a given battle, then yeah, I would expect those orcs to resort to ladders to scale the walls.</div><div><br /></div><div>Sure, you might obliterate 20 or so (depends on organization, damage and Dex-saves), but if that's the only wad the wizard has to blow he's barely made a dent in both the opposition and his XP required to level up. If mid-level wizards are a more prominent feature and/or have 5th Edition-esque access to what it considers to be magic, then I can see fighting strategies being shaken up in a more meaningful manner.</div><div><br /></div><div>But then I would imagine that wizards would be trained for assassination, more like a special forces unit. Instead of dropping fireballs on the other army, they would use stealth and teleportation spells to locate and capture, incapacitate, or kill. Alternatively, they could use their magic to manipulate and/or spy on the enemy, charming a general, implanting suggestions or false memories, demoralize or frighten off enemy units.</div><div><br /></div><div>This could of course result in arcane countermeasures, though this depends on what if any limitations magic has. See Invisibility could detect invisible wizards, but is it feasible to have a wizard spamming this spell essentially all day? What about antimagic shell, which is a high level spell and I cannot imagine an army having constant access to it.</div><div><br /></div><div>But I'm not a fan of ubiquitous, risk free magic (especially when it relies on nonsense pseudo-Vancian mechanics), so while an interesting mental exercise this doesn't really concern me. Likewise, I don't like the idea of every city having one or more powerful wizards, magic colleges, and magic stores, which contributes to the issue of characters treating magic items like mundane commodities.</div><div><br /></div><div>Since Randy brings up non-magical alchemical potions, this gives me yet <i>another</i> opportunity to direct him towards <i>Dungeons & Delvers</i>: there's a bunch there, starting on page 264, and in 2nd Edition there's going to be even more, including a panacea to help deal with diseases, partially because clerics won't be an adventuring class so there won't be easy access to Cleansing Touch.</div><div><br /></div><div>The idea of magic not working if people don't believe isn't as silly as it might seem. This is how it works, or rather doesn't in <i>Mage: the Ascension</i>: reality is shaped by belief, and since most people don't believe in magic, the mage is essentially working against the majority to create magic. This not only makes it quite difficult but dangerous, as using magic to generate obviously magical effects (I think this was referred to as vulgar in the books), it also generates paradox, which accumulates and creates backlashes that can harm or kill the wizard.</div><div><br /></div><div>In the game's history or flavor or fluff or whatever you want to call it, the Technocracy did this on purpose, teaching people science (something anyone could do, not just the relatively privileged few with avatars) and convincing them that magic isn't real. From what I can recall the Technocracy still used magic, but dressed it up as high-tech science so that the masses would buy into it. </div><div><br /></div><div>That said I see no reason why magic would be less effective in a city, especially if magic is predictable and safe like in <i>Dungeons & Dragons</i>, where it's really more of a science since it always does precisely what is expected. I would think people would actually appreciate magic, since it could quickly and easily resolve many issues, and in a big city it would be much easier to pay the wizard what he wants.</div><div><br /></div><div>Now, I could see a wizard not wanting to live in a city because people would badger him constantly, even threaten or rob him. I could also see this in a game where magic is <i>actually</i> dangerous and unpredictable, where a bad spellcheck could have disastrous results. </div><div><br /></div><div>I see a place for both magic and science. Science can be taught and replicated by pretty much anyone, while depending on the type of magic requires something more, maybe a knack or gift but also a different sort of discipline, meditation to try and properly orient your mind. Because if was as easy as science then pretty much anyone could do it.</div><div><br /></div><div>For magical creatures like faeries I don't see them performing magic like mortals do. I know in <i>Dungeons & Dragons</i> everything relies on the same nonsense pseudo-Vancian system, but I think a creature with innate magic shouldn't necessarily be burdened with the same restrictions. But if you want to say that faeries derive their power from nature, then I could see it being less potent in cities, but again I don't think that that limitation should apply to all forms of magic.</div><div><br /></div><div>What's funny is that in the end of <i>Wizards</i> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cZqRzHnI8s">the good guy just shoots the bad guy with a gun</a>.</div><div><br /></div><div>At an hour and ten minutes, the topic of xenophobia is brought up. How people react to various non-human races depends entirely on the race in question and the setting. Are people leery about elves? Maybe. Depends on how elves think and act in your world. People might instead be in awe of them, especially if they tend to be benevolent.</div><div><br /></div><div>You could also mix it up, having groups of elves behave differently: maybe in one region you can easily locate and visit their cities, and they are more or less welcoming, and in another they are reclusive so no one knows much about them, giving rise to all manner of legends that might be true or false or at least exaggerated. And maybe a third group is not only reclusive but murders any humans who venture too close or deeply into their territory.</div><div><br /></div><div>Orcs are of course an exception to all of this: those are <i>always</i> evil, savage, and stupid.</div><div><br /></div><div>When you have a group with a half-dragon, tiefling, sprite, and a normal dude, you have a circus freak party without any sense of cohesion, and while you would normally expect them to be run out of town or at least briefly scrutinized, those sorts of parties are the purview of post-modern vapidware rehashes with Seattle demographics and what could loosely be considered sensibilities, so of <i>course</i> not only is no one going to bat an eye, regardless of location and settlement size <i>every</i> race will be improbably represented.</div><div><br /></div><div>Randy isn't sure he is going to keep halflings in his Mudsword game. I not only support this, but recommend he check out kobolds from <i>Dungeons & Delvers</i>: same size and shape, but more than just "short humans with perhaps some sort of banal luck mechanic". I'm also not a fan of gnomes, preferring to portray them as a type of earth elemental, though for an optional <i>Delvers</i> supplement I <i>did</i> include both halflings and gnomes in a way that makes them more interesting.</div><div><br /></div><div>As for a giantish race, it depends on how big they are. Too big and they have a hard time engaging in the typical <i>Dungeons & Dragons</i> activity of delving into dungeons, as well as making use of magic items and treasure manufactured by humans and human-sized entities <i>and </i>must also be worn to be used. </div><div><br /></div><div>I am skeptical of a setting without humans, as I feel like they would just be lazily replaced with something else that would essentially act human (with human societies, architecture, etc), just with a different appearance and perhaps some abilities. Like replacing dwarves with some sort of fungus person, which looks different but has the same flavor, personality and racial traits: good for you, I guess, but that's not particularly creative or innovative.</div><div><br /></div><div>I agree with Randy about "grounding", which is why I would probably not enjoy a setting and/or game where everything is too alien or different for its own sake. Having a lot of similarities makes it easier to keep everyone on the same page without having to have everyone read a sort of setting primer, first (and then memorize all of that information). I think it's best to keep the civilized world/starting area mostly normal (it can have some weirdness to it), and relegate the really bizarre content to dungeons and distant lands.</div><div><br /></div><div>I am curious where the idea of elves coming from pods stems from, as during my fairly extensive research on elves I never came across anything like that.</div><div><br /></div><div>I'm not sure if someone else thought of this, but dwarves turning to stone as they age was something I came up with in <i>Sundered World</i>, which would have been over ten years ago and carried forward into <i>Dungeons & Delvers</i>. Not only do dwarves in my settings gradually petrify, they also begin resting for longer and longer periods of time, and even when unable to move can still communicate by vibrations or dwarves using their "speak with stone" ability.</div><div><br /></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3pfx5WeNYByEOgKcTg7XxynZX9wKTKtW4uDxsurgGY1REHW9Hf5ItTpkddBZMqTHPYmjUGvkqhaH7muzXSuxgQjfU7qDI2c5V3sLJy9-RaOnUb0vgUDwdHNI887I1flGtb8ghKPKris5Ww58ape1QkfaG1QHqo9uE5mm8A4wV99SQBrrO0HPWv-utzAY/s2700/color_dwarfLingeringSoul.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2700" data-original-width="1800" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3pfx5WeNYByEOgKcTg7XxynZX9wKTKtW4uDxsurgGY1REHW9Hf5ItTpkddBZMqTHPYmjUGvkqhaH7muzXSuxgQjfU7qDI2c5V3sLJy9-RaOnUb0vgUDwdHNI887I1flGtb8ghKPKris5Ww58ape1QkfaG1QHqo9uE5mm8A4wV99SQBrrO0HPWv-utzAY/s16000/color_dwarfLingeringSoul.png" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Apologies for the terrible art. Six or so years ago from my Mignola phase.</td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /></div><div>Around the hour and a half mark they bring up a setting called Sundered Skies and Discworld. I was actually present for this part, and because of the description of Sundered Skies (something to do with floating islands) mentioned our <i>Sundered World</i> setting:</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_1dqC3vNid-4QIQVH5IQZ0y950_DPyrzYC0gkSulpatOtlhejVawmeXlaj3lYFwJfM3-U1opdnXKAoWf4hd_A7Ymxgf2ju1PjAENrlTeJn5QCWlZPyesFiZipvReIc8r5NytDneIzJY451w7Ekf6sjtSmKYx-rLexcKyUGEW11Rtbajvl0YTzRofXwRk/s2700/aSunderedWorld_cover.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2700" data-original-width="1800" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_1dqC3vNid-4QIQVH5IQZ0y950_DPyrzYC0gkSulpatOtlhejVawmeXlaj3lYFwJfM3-U1opdnXKAoWf4hd_A7Ymxgf2ju1PjAENrlTeJn5QCWlZPyesFiZipvReIc8r5NytDneIzJY451w7Ekf6sjtSmKYx-rLexcKyUGEW11Rtbajvl0YTzRofXwRk/s16000/aSunderedWorld_cover.png" /></a></div><br /><div>This was something that I originally created for 4th Edition <i>Dungeons & Dragons</i>. It was a twist on the 4E Dawn War lore, which was inspired by Greek mythology: the gods and primordials fought, the gods won, and either killed or imprisoned the primordials. In <i>Sundered World</i> no one won, and the war shattered the barriers between the planes and caused all realities to collapse in on each other.</div><div><br /></div><div>So everything is suspended in astral space: you have chunks of the worlds floating about alongside corpses of gods and primordials, as well as their slowly decaying dominions. Here characters sail about the "world" in ships and other vessels exploring ruins and remains.</div><div><br /></div><div>There are humans, though they were spawned from the blood of gods. There are also elves and dwarves, which operated more or less normally. This is where I devised our version of the kobold, and made distinct versions of dragonborn (tarchons), tieflings (cambions), and a race formed entirely of astral essence bound together by thought (t'pual).</div><div><br /></div><div>We also created new classes, such as the battlemind (uses psychic powers to transform into weapons and armor), invoker (possesses a tiny sliver of a god's power), and shaman (your body is host to a powerful nature spirit). Some of these were necessary due to a lack of clerics and paladins, as there are no gods to worship.</div><div><br /></div><div>For armor versus weapons, this is pretty easy to handle: you give armor DR, and if you want to get more granular you make certain types more resistant to certain damage types (ie, plate would be more resistant to slashing weapons). You can also give weapons an Armor Penetration value, which we mostly do for weapons where the impact is concentrated, such as with spears and warhammers.</div><div><br /></div><div>You can just do that, though if you want to get realistic armor would have pretty high DR, especially once you get to plate, which would be at a point where normal weapons have little to no chance of harming the wearer.</div><div><br /></div><div>To work around this we gave armor an Armor Class, and if you exceed this you effectively bypass the target's armor and avoid its DR. This is similar to how it works in <i>Dungeons & Dragons</i>, except you can still fail to beat the AC and hit the target, it's just that unless you deal a lot of damage most or all of it will get absorbed. </div><div><br /></div><div>In regards to psionics, if you can make it meaningfully different from other magic systems, I say go for it. I should note that in <i>Dungeons & Delvers</i> the magic systems for bards, clerics, druids, monks, sorcerers, warlocks, and wizards are all meaningfully different. We didn't include psionic classes in 1st Edition, but those are also different. Finally, paladins don't have an elaborate magic system but inherent powers, which also stands out from the rest.</div><div><br /></div><div>I hated bards until we made our own bard class, which is actually good at what it's supposed to do and again is distinct from other classes. Rather than go into detail, just <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nrSer59G-w&list=PL_WqpL5UO_9upfYkm3fTRaN1gfjMJ-BmK&index=4">watch Bruce's in-depth video about it</a>.</div><div><br /></div><div>Clerics are weird because you are granted divine powers and rather than use them to spread the word of your god (which by the rules would provide no benefit, anyway), you muck about in dungeons for personal gain. This is why we're removing clerics as an adventuring class. Characters will be able to pray for divine aid though. This requires a Prayer check which can be modified by donations and other actions, meaning that you'd have a mechanical reason to convert others.</div>David Guyllhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16299128722345607123noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-79320870451683286702023-11-11T21:54:00.000-08:002023-11-15T07:43:15.174-08:00Biggus Geekus: Magic Systems<p>Since I tend to miss most or all of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4feGnjrDS54">the Biggus Geekus shows</a>, I'm just going to put my thoughts here.</p><p>Around the 13 minute mark I make a comment about how creating a new magic system is good, because pseudo-Vancian magic doesn't make any sense. Joe responds that if you actually read The Dying Earth you see that it doesn't have that structure, and he's correct: in <i>The Dying Earth</i> the system isn't explained in any great detail, but from reading the actual stories you see that not only does it not seem to take a long time, but the way it's described you don't get the impression that Turjan is "memorizing" the spell.</p><p>Instead, it's almost like the spell is sentient and wants to leave the confines of the book. Here's the passage:</p><p><i>Turjan found a musty portfolio, turned the heavy pages to the spell the Sage had shown him, the Call to the Violet Cloud. He stared down at the characters and they burned with an urgent power, pressing off the page as if frantic to leave the dark solitude of the book. Turjan closed the book, forcing the spell back into oblivion.</i></p><p>I'd devised a "true" Vancian spell system years ago while working on <i><a href="https://biggeekemporium.com/product/dungeons-delvers-core-rulebook/">Dungeons & Delvers</a></i>, which I'll explain in detail later as the idea of making spells into something that could be replenished after each encounter comes up.</p><p>Joe is also correct about the maximum number of spells a wizard could contain in his mind at a time (in the book, even Turjan could only "know but four at a time", and I seem to recall a statement about the most powerful wizards being able to retain all of six). This I don't think is especially important to retain, but if you wanted to just reduce the preparation time and/or adjust the effects of each spell. Again I'll get into this later.</p><p>While rewatching the video at some point Randy asks if people would be okay playing just fighters and rogues. Personally I would, though for such a game I would just go classless and make a series of fighting and skill-based Talents and skills, and let players organically develop their characters as desired. You could then of course develop an optional series of arcane Talents and skills, in case you want to permit characters to learn spellcasting abilities, or even impose more stringent restrictions so that players have to work harder to acquire them.</p><p>Around the 15 minute mark Randy asks that if there is no magic system what makes a setting fantastic. My answer would be monsters and the existence of magic items and magic, even if the characters cannot meaningfully or reliably utilize it. Conan is mentioned and I could see a setting where magic is quite powerful, but takes a long time to utilize, is dangerous, and/or other requirements that makes it generally ill-suited for use in many circumstances.</p><p>About half an hour in, both Joe and Randy express the belief that the monsters should be able to do stuff that the players cannot, and I <i>completely disagree</i> with this sentiment. Mind you I'm not talking about obvious things such as being unable to fly without wings or magical aid, despite a monster with wings or magical aid being able to fly. </p><p>I'm talking about the sort of thing I used to read on forums, where GMs would have something like an evil sorcerer performing some ritual, or being able to break or ignore some game mechanic, and then preventing the players from doing so, even if the circumstances were the same, <i>solely</i> because of their player character status is completely arbitrary and ruins any sense of immersion.</p><p>For example, if an NPC can build a temple and sacrifice a bunch of people to eclipse the sun, if that's all he had to do then the players should be able to do the same. If an NPC can go through whatever process to become a lich, then assuming the players can go through he same motions they should also be able to enjoy the numerous benefits of lichdom.</p><p>Six minutes later and 4th Edition crops up. I can't even say that from a cursory read through you might believe that every class is the same, because every one of them plays differently, even those that shared the same role.</p><p>For example, both the rogue and warlock were strikers, which was the 4E term for a damage-dealer. Rogues inflicted bonus damage on anything they flanked, while warlocks had to first curse a target, which took a Swift Action. The greater difference was the fact that warlocks had spells, and so could hit things from a distance, banish creatures to Hell for a period of time, transform into a demonic form, and even drop some area of effect attacks.</p><p>This doesn't mean the rogue was worse, far from it: I honestly can't recall any particular class being meaningfully worse than the others, except for perhaps if you were heavy into optimization and focused on builds. But for casual play you could take any race and mash it with any class and it would work more or less as expected.</p><p>Really 4E's major shortcoming was the math: if you didn't have your stats at a certain point (at least a 16 for your "primary attack stat" and 14 for your secondary), and pick the various "tax" feats asap (ie, whatever gets you a +x to hit), the game would take even longer than it already did due to the insane amount of hit points everything had. But, if you at least halve the hit points and reduce the math all around it plays much better and faster.</p><p>Alternatively, just buy a better game.</p><p>I'm inclined to agree with Joe about 4E's presentation. It was too sterile and besides the Wayne Reynolds pics that art wasn't very good. Not that the presentation would have made the game itself any better.</p><p>Around 38 minutes they get into wizards learning spells and not wanting to share spells, and Randy pitches the idea of not having wizard schools and such. I can understand this from the perspective of knowledge being power, but in every edition of <i>Dungeons & Dragons</i> you're either a wizard and so can learn spells, or aren't which makes them useless beyond selling them to other wizards (though in later editions you could multiclass into a wizard, so they <i>might</i> be usable later).</p><p>Now in <i><a href="https://biggeekemporium.com/product/dungeons-delvers-core-rulebook/">Dungeons & Delvers</a></i> guarding arcane knowledge makes more sense because <i>anyone</i> can try to learn a spell and cast it, it's just that if you aren't a wizard it takes much longer (10 times as long), Drain costs are automatically maxed out and increased by 4, and you cannot enhance it. You also don't have a magic staff so the save DCs won't be as high.</p><p>That said, the greater issue in <i>Dungeons & Dragons</i> is how you can copy spells from a spellbook without destroying anything, but copying from a scroll into a spellbook destroys it for some reason. The whole thing feels so arbitrary, along with the absurd cost due to having to buy special paper and inks and such, as if copying a spell using normal ink will somehow make it unreadable.</p><p>46 minutes in and there's a comment about why adventurers would go on an adventure if the rewards won't benefit them. Randy's immediate response is how would they know, and this is valid: in virtually every adventure I've read and written, while the characters <i>may</i> be seeking a McGuffin for whatever reason, there are <i>numerous</i> secondary rewards that they discover along the way.</p><p>Should wizards be able to copy spells from another wizard's spellbook? Maybe. It depends on what sort of arcane language/symbols/structure both wizards are utilizing. But presuming both rely on the same or similar enough structure, then sure. Should this be the only way to gain access to new spells? Of course not: someone had to figure this stuff out at some point, and if he did then so can someone else.</p><p>This is where spell research comes into play, but I'm a fan of giving wizards access to a new spell every level to reflect study and growing mastery, similar to how other classes improve statistics during a level up, even if they were rarely or never used throughout the previous level.</p><p>Turning away a +4 kukri because the character doesn't use kukris: this stems not only from the issue of making mechanics and effects that apply to specific weapons, as opposed to, say, weapon categories, but then also including a million weapons in the first place where they weren't needed (it also begs the question of who the hell invested all that cash and XP into making a magic kukri).</p><p>This could first be solved by grouping weapons into categories, something we might do for<i> <a href="https://biggeekemporium.com/product/dungeons-delvers-core-rulebook/">Dungeons & Delvers</a></i> 2nd Edition, though the only mechanic that I can recall which applies to a specific weapon is the fighter's Weapon Specialization, but it only costs a skill point to add another weapon.</p><p>Another way to solve or at least mitigate the issue is game math. If a +4 bonus isn't essentially required to hit whatever it is you are fighting at that point in time, then it's not as important. You could also just say that a magic weapon is a magic weapon, which might mean that it never breaks, never needs to be sharpened, and can harm enemies that are immune or highly resistant to mundane weaponry.</p><p>Finally, you can give the weapon special properties that are far more interesting than bonuses to hit and damage. A magic sword that grants a +1 to hit and damage ie mechanically useful, sure, but a sword that is essentially the ghost of a destroyed intelligent sword, which is completely weightless, ignores physical armor and shields, <i>and</i> can harm ghosts? That's not only <i>also</i> mechanically useful but sounds <i>way</i> more badass.</p><p>(It's also one of many original magic items in <i><a href="https://biggeekemporium.com/product/dungeons-delvers-core-rulebook/">Dungeons & Delvers</a></i>, the shattered echo.)</p><p>Nearly an hour in and they get to talking about magic systems, starting off with pseudo-Vancian magic.</p><p>What makes pseudo-Vancian bad is that nothing about it makes any sense. And I don't mean that it's difficult to understand, I mean if you analyze it from an in-game perspective nothing about it holds up (and I've written <a href="https://daegames.blogspot.com/2014/12/5-problems-with-magic-in-dungeons.html">a blog post addressing some of these issues</a>).</p><p>It's been a long time since I've even read Arcana Unearthed, but based on Randy's description the wizard class from that game sounds like the 3rd Edition sorcerer with some pseudo-Vancian mixed in (ie, the 5th Edition wizard), and so it is not only worse but also doesn't make any sense.</p><p>Spell points work perfectly so long as you properly design the rest of the system. In <i><a href="https://biggeekemporium.com/product/dungeons-delvers-core-rulebook/">Dungeons & Delvers</a></i> there are a variety of spell point systems for spellcasting classes, though wizards and sorcerers have to often randomly determine how much is spent (which makes their magic unpredictable and dangerous).</p><p>Sleep is a spell wizards can learn, though they have to first take Enchanter, then learn the Command and Suggestion spells. It has a Drain cost of 1d4, so nothing major, but it only affects a single creature of your level or lower (higher level creatures are instead Dazed). You can burn more Willpower to affect more creatures, but can't use it on more than one creature per wizard level.</p><p>Almost all of our spells operate similarly: they have a baseline function, and you can burn more Willpower to boost them (damage, duration, area of effect, range, etc). This helps ensure that they remain useful at higher levels, but a wizard can also gamble a bunch of Willpower (and damage, since he has to pay in hit points if he doesn't have enough Willpower) to unleash an incredibly powerful attack.</p><p>Two minutes later Randy mentions powers per encounter and says that it's kind of like 4th Edition. Encounter-powers-by-another-term really got going in 3rd Edition, though I recall something in <i>Rules Cyclopedia</i> about fighters being able to try and frighten enemies once per battle, and I wouldn't be surprised if there were similar abilities lurking in 2nd Edition. Maybe the Brosr tourists can pretend to discover that, next?</p><p>The only issues I've had with encounter-based powers are how they are rationalized in-game (if at all). As in, <i>why</i> just once per encounter? Same for daily powers, which I should also point out have existed for martial/non-magical characters since 3rd Edition (see the rogue's Defensive Roll for just one example).</p><p>But I have devised a magic system that functions like this, a way to make a Vancian magic system that actually reflects how magic works in <i>The Dying Earth</i>. Basically, wizards have spell slots based on level, which are not oddly divided up <i>by</i> level. Each spell eats up one or more slots, and during a short rest or 10-minute turn, you can store spells up to your slots, and then cast them later.</p><p>You can further tweak this by allowing the wizard to let a spell take up more slots to increase its power, reduce the total number of slots (which would likely require further adjusting spells), and even set it up so that the wizard can retain x number of slots per day, but when he goes beyond that has to start making Wisdom checks to avoid suffering penalties due to the mental stress.</p><p>So, a 5th-level wizard would have 5 slots, which could be modified by Intelligence or Wisdom, and he could cast 5 slots worth of spells per day without any sort of issue. Once he starts retaining spells beyond that, he has to start making checks.</p><p>An hour and thirteen minutes in Randy states that he thinks spell points are easier on newer players. I don't think they are necessarily easier than using pseudo-Vancian magic, especially if in <i><a href="https://biggeekemporium.com/product/dungeons-delvers-core-rulebook/">Dungeons & Delvers</a></i> where you can spend more Willpower to modify a spell. They certainly make more sense, however, or sense at all, which pseudo-Vancian magic does not.</p><p>Spell checks are an interesting idea and something I've also tinkered with. In <i>Cowboys & Cthulhu</i> we tried giving preachers and sorcerers a spell check mechanic. However there needs to be a limiting factor, otherwise you can just cast spells forever. We know in some games you can "lose" spells on a failed check, but this doesn't make sense from an in-game perspective, especially for preachers: what, you try to heal someone and God gets mad or decides to cut you off or whatever, but <i>only</i> for the healing Miracle?</p><p>The more sensible option was to have the character use a spell point resource coupled with a spellcasting check, so the preacher would spend Favor and make a check to determine just how effective it was. This adds complications, not only to the game but also to every spell. Something to consider, and here's a barebones method of how I'd do it:</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Roll d20 + Wisdom (for wizards) + maybe relevant class level + arcane focus bonus + an Occultism skill</li><li>Each spell has its own DC, but this can be modified depending on if you want to make it more powerful, cast faster, cast slower, etc.</li><li>If you meet the DC the spell goes off. If you exceed the DC the spell gets upgraded in various ways.</li><li>If you fail you can either suck it up and let it go, or suffer more Drain to add a bonus to your check until it succeeds (or you die trying).</li><li>Natural 1 could be an auto-fail and cause random effects to go off based on spell category.</li></ul>Another issue with applying upgrades after the fact is that whatever options are available might be pointless. For attack spells damage is obvious (but might be overkill, especially if you've already done that when determining the DC), utility spells less so. If you conjure a light spell, an upgrade could be to make it brighter or last longer, but if you don't really need it brighter (or want it brighter) or to last a long time then it won't be as exciting or particularly rewarding.<div><br /></div><div>I suppose a way around this is to make it so that you can "take 10" on some spells, primarily when out of combat, so that you don't have to risk anything besides a random Drain cost and goddamn it now I'm seriously thinking about incorporating this into my game. Ah, well, we've already removed clerics as an adventuring class so that's one less hassle.<br /><div><br />Randy's idea of a spell adversely affecting you is interesting but I've considered that and think it would be more work than it's worth. Perhaps basing side effects off category, so too many Terratury spells could transform the ground or partially petrify the wizard for awhile and goddamn it now I'm <i>also</i> reconsidering this.<p></p><p>Wild magic isn't as retarded as it sounds, it's just not very interesting or "wild", at least in 4th Edition. In 4th Edition a wild magic sorcerer primarily granted random bonuses and modified thematically appropriate spells you chose. The only potentially drawback si that if you rolled a natural 1 on an attack roll you had to push every creature within 25 feet of you 5 feet away. </p><p>Since you controlled the direction of the push chances were good that nothing meaningful would change, or you could move allies and enemies into better positions.</p><p>5th Edition is <i>technically</i> wild but is completely arbitrary, up to the DM's whim whether he has you even bother to roll to see if you need to roll again. Worse, the wild surge table is chock full of lolsorandom bullshit that is virtually guaranteed to result in something wholly unrelated to whatever spell you just cast.</p><p>Try to charm someone? Whelp, DM decides to make you roll, you get a nat 1, roll on the table and...a modron appears! Why? What does accidentally conjuring a modron of all things have to do with charming someone? Or you cast burning hands and then your skin turns blue. Or a random creature is poisoned. Or you can't get drunk for 5d6 days. These are the sorts of tables I despise, some lazy hack pretending to be a game designer just shoehorns in whatever vapid idea pops into zim/zirs/zippity-do-da's head.</p><p>It would have been much better to create a more focused concept for the sorcerer and then develop a table around that. I know it mentions the elemental planes, Limbo, and Far Realm, but stick with <i>one</i> for now, create a series of effects thematically tied to it, and then in another book or as a free download add in tables for other places, but require the player to pick an origin and just stick with one table.</p><p>Of course, it would have <i>also</i> been better to create thematic spell lists, but that would mean WokeC would have had to put in some actual work instead of merely recycling 3rd Edition with some renamed 4th Editionisms thrown in the mix.</p><p>For freeform systems I remember enjoying the <i>idea</i> of Mage: the Ascension, just not the actual game itself. Mostly it was due to the flavor supporting it, how everything interacted, but you also played a wizard who mostly wasn't supposed to use magic. Kind of defeats the purpose. The downside is that due to the freeform nature a lot of it game down to player creativity and what the GM would let you get away with. <i>Dresden Files </i>was in a similar boat, but you could also pregenerate "rote" spells that I think were easier to cast.</p><p>There was also a d20 game with a sort of freeform magic system. In that one you basically built spells on the fly and that determined how long the spell took to cast or something like that. Better, because you had hard rules determining what you could do and any related costs and drawbacks, but it could drag the game to a halt if you tried to essentially min/max a spell during combat or other tense situations.</p><p>An hour and twenty-three minutes in a fatigue system is brought up. <i><a href="https://biggeekemporium.com/product/dungeons-delvers-core-rulebook/">Dungeons & Delvers</a></i> has something similar to this, where you can Drain Vitality Points, which is supposed to represent the fatigue side of things and recovers very quickly and easily. Willpower for wizards recovers somewhat quickly, 1 per level during a short rest (which you can only take three times per day).</p><p>Someone mentions not liking Numenera, and I'm right there with him. Unlike Randy I think the cyphers are incredibly stupid, both in terms of effects (none of them did anything particularly innovative) and the very gamey, arbitrary cap that is never adequately explained in-game. The setting was also incredibly shallow, and didn't at all feel like a strange world however many years into the future. It just felt like bland fantasy world but with a few somewhat futuristic trappings tacked on here and there.</p><p>Oh and the whole spending points to get a bonus, but then three reduces the difficulty, which you have to triple to get your target number was phenomenally retarded. It would have worked better to just say +1 per point, and make target numbers the fucking target number but then Monte Cook is a pretentious hack that hires equally unqualified diversity hires and some chick whose entire personality is going on about being into bondage.</p><p>On the topic of spell access, Joe considers the cleric to be an oddity in <i>Dungeons & Dragons</i>, following it up the belief that it should just be the paladin. Really the cleric is an oddity because it shouldn't be an adventuring class at all. What, your god grants you the gift of being able to channel miracles, which you use to...slum around in ruins looking for loot? Loot that you probably won't even donate to your church or whatever?</p><p>Paladins make a <i>bit</i> more sense in that they are expected to donate most of their swag, so you could at least justify that to a degree. But then they don't have access to all the clerical magic and are warriors, so you'd expect them to go out and about smiting evil as well.</p><p>Joe also thinks that the cleric should be renamed healer, but then I think <i>Dungeons & Dragons</i> should just be reworked so you don't need all that healing, anyway. This is why in <i><a href="https://biggeekemporium.com/product/dungeons-delvers-core-rulebook/">Dungeons & Delvers</a></i> we split hit points into Wound Points and Vitality Points, and why mending potions exist. That and because not all clerics had access to healing miracles by default (you had to specifically choose the Healing Domain, first).</p><p>This would also be more inline with all of the media that <i>Dungeons & Dragons</i> was allegedly inspired by, where you didn't have clerics following around heal-poking everyone and utilizing the gifts of the gods largely or even solely for personal gain.</p><p>So, axe the cleric and rework hit points and recovery so magical healing isn't necessary much of the time. Make it so that characters have to instead donate to temples for access to healing. This would also solve the issue of easy resurrection: if the characters don't have access to it, period, and temples won't usually do it just for cash, makes death more impactful.</p><p>Rolling back to paladins, I wouldn't give them cleric-type spells, anyway. I'd just give them largely passive blessings and call it good. Maybe some sort of ability where they could make a round-by-round prayer check for minor buffs, similar to how we handled cleric Hymns in <i><a href="https://biggeekemporium.com/product/dungeons-delvers-core-rulebook/">Dungeons & Delvers</a></i>. </p><p>A commenter thinks that wizards should get free spells at level up. Again, I agree. I do think that it should require that the character have constant access to his spellbook, and <i>also</i> eat up random pages (for <i>Delvers</i> I'd probably make this a roll equal to the spell's base Drain cost). This would also make it more likely that the wizard fills up his spellbook and needs a new one (or at least have access to sheets of paper).</p><p>Vampires draining levels is stupid as hell. Just have them drain blood and reduce maximum hp for a period of time. In <i>Delvers</i> they can reduce maximum Wound Points, which recovers a bit each day. I'm more okay with mummies and mummy rot. You could argue that there's at least some tenuous connection between the two, though I'd add on some other abilities and curse effects.</p><p>Shortly after Randy starts talking about his homebrew game called Mudsword and gets into initiative, expressing the desire to have it so that spells can be reliably interrupted. This is difficult to do in later iterations of <i>Dungeons & Dragons</i>, though in 3rd Edition if you were adjacent to a wizard you could hit him with an opportunity attack to disrupt his spell.</p><p>Some things I've devised while working on <i><a href="https://biggeekemporium.com/product/dungeons-delvers-core-rulebook/">Dungeons & Delvers</a> </i>are:</p><p style="text-align: left;">Keep Opportunity Attacks in the game, and make them work similar to 3rd Edition so you can attack someone that tries to run away and cast spells.</p><p style="text-align: left;">Make it so that many spells take more than 1 action to cast, but you can suffer more Drain to speed it up. This works well with the fact that between recovering up to 75% of spent Willpower throughout the day (assuming three Short Rests) and randomized Drain means that a wizard can cast more spells than expected.<br /></p><p style="text-align: left;">Break up combat into phases (Movement, Missile, Melee, and Magic) and go back and forth between both sides. So both sides roll initiative: the winner Moves, then the other side. Then the winner resolves Missile attacks, then the other side, etc. Players must declare actions first, so a wizard casting a spell declares this before the round starts, meaning that he begins casting and finishes during the Magic phase. However, this means that he can be struck during the Missile and Melee phases, potentially disrupting his spell.<br /></p><p style="text-align: left;">(This is something we tried doing but ultimately bogged things down too much and it wasn't worth the benefits.)</p><p style="text-align: left;">Everyone rolls a d10 or d20 or whatever (depends on how much potential deviating you want). They declare actions, and each action has a point cost that is added to his. The count starts at 1 and goes up, with actions being resolved at their initiative total. At that point, they can declare another action, which adds to this, and so one and so forth. So more complex actions take longer to resolve, and initiative is rolled only once per fight.</p><p style="text-align: left;">For example, a fighter rolls a 9 and an orc rolls a 7. The fighter's attacks cost 5 AP, while the orc is using a big axe that costs 6 AP. So the fighter acts when the initiative count ticks up to 14, but the orc gets to go at 12. At that point they declare actions and things tick up again. You could also give things randomized point values, so an arming sword might have a modifier of 1d6, while a bow has a count of 1d8. Warrior classes could reduce these amounts (replacing multiple attacks), or roll twice and use the lower value.</p><p style="text-align: left;">However you do it, wizards start casting when actions are declared, and during that time the spell can be interrupted. I actually like this idea and might run with it, though not sure if I want to give specific spells an AP value. Might be a bit too granular.</p><p style="text-align: left;">Downside is that if the AP costs are too low and the initiative die is a d20 or something, some characters might get multiple attacks, which is fine if that's what you intend. I think it's better to keep the die lower however and the AP costs narrower so that this is possible but not too commonplace.</p><p style="text-align: left;">Going back to spells, a commenter around an hour and fifty-three minutes suggests learning only a handful of spells but being able to alter them as you level up. This is something we did in <i>Dungeons & Delvers</i>, and are doing more in 2nd Edition.</p><p style="text-align: left;">For example, you can take Scorching Ray, which is a high-ranged, high base damage, single target fire spell, and can then take a Talent later called Scattered Rays, which lets you divvy up the damage dice between multiple targets. Another example is the Cloud of Fog spell, which can be modified in a number of ways via the Solid Fog and Corrosive Mist Talents.</p><p style="text-align: left;">It was suggested that Randy approach it by developing the setting, then combat, then magic. I disagree. While setting can help inform various elements of the game, it doesn't need to be front and foremost. For <i><a href="https://biggeekemporium.com/product/dungeons-delvers-core-rulebook/">Dungeons & Delvers</a></i> we focused primarily on the combat aspect, as that's mostly where you can make and break the game.</p><p style="text-align: left;">Because of this magic should also be tackled, so that you avoid wizards doing more or less than you anticipated, and any related mechanics such as spell point costs, recovery, spell mishaps, etc are working as intended.</p><p style="text-align: left;">Lastly, spell reagants. I don't think these should be necessary to cast spells but enhance them. This was something that was featured in <i>Dungeons & Delvers: Black Book</i>, where you could use power components to enhance spells. It didn't make it into "Red Book", but will be featured in 2nd Edition.</p><p style="text-align: left;">Related, some more art for <i>Dungeons & Delvers </i>2nd Edition: a wizard rocking a gambeson, because there's no logical reason why wizards can't wear armor.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifvfAY7QpS5LEnFZ2MgcBso1NltCnRTf3ppWBFg9a1KW4Ht6CP09GSxal83zbbHqANKYzqID6CcKoGvVsMtm3davnVmU6R0yy-64ag6HLOcjZn2zr9z1VBlp4w3hdYLTXwJTfqVgVKPBsjo6ahMabwLbJ4Oh0WbsX1GkvntHeGxlIvZAB9wbR3kcYZTv8/s3612/female%20human%20wizard%202.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3612" data-original-width="1590" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifvfAY7QpS5LEnFZ2MgcBso1NltCnRTf3ppWBFg9a1KW4Ht6CP09GSxal83zbbHqANKYzqID6CcKoGvVsMtm3davnVmU6R0yy-64ag6HLOcjZn2zr9z1VBlp4w3hdYLTXwJTfqVgVKPBsjo6ahMabwLbJ4Oh0WbsX1GkvntHeGxlIvZAB9wbR3kcYZTv8/s16000/female%20human%20wizard%202.png" /></a></div><br /><p style="text-align: left;"><br /></p></div></div>David Guyllhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16299128722345607123noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-47843113479466781592023-11-05T15:55:00.004-08:002023-11-05T15:55:49.745-08:00Human Fighter Art<p>In <i>Dungeons & Delvers</i> 2nd Edition most of the oddball races like cthon and kytherans won't be assumed (they'll be relegated to an optional race book). This means we needed some new art to fill in gaps, and today I just wrapped up the line art for a human fighter:</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiq3j48ngqDc9__t77WXHdhSDx5pq-A6HWsTzT6ID9hgZK8lRz7VBfMk9vlCY4yc63Jmht4pZdjDCV30HZMjRASaY4sQ5XkfuN5GE7jkazS16DJjRCR0cViDPSw9XOzx9qUx5mM8eQpCc4XTrEOtKZ6_VuMxNW2vw0-qAPqZpYe76SUYcOh-buHA7OpTuA/s3685/female%20human%20fighter%202.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3685" data-original-width="1818" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiq3j48ngqDc9__t77WXHdhSDx5pq-A6HWsTzT6ID9hgZK8lRz7VBfMk9vlCY4yc63Jmht4pZdjDCV30HZMjRASaY4sQ5XkfuN5GE7jkazS16DJjRCR0cViDPSw9XOzx9qUx5mM8eQpCc4XTrEOtKZ6_VuMxNW2vw0-qAPqZpYe76SUYcOh-buHA7OpTuA/s16000/female%20human%20fighter%202.png" /></a></div><br /><p>Can't wait for Melissa to color it, but until then I'm going to get working on a wizard or maybe our (superior) version of a bugbear.</p>David Guyllhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16299128722345607123noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-47285149279468409762023-10-20T21:24:00.000-07:002023-10-20T21:24:16.527-07:00Mentally Ill Narcissists Think D&D Is Therapy<p>Here's the shot:</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixdLcbAqoXfq8RIY-gqBdcAJGA6OEruqa3myEQidZ4Ie9DyS2XO0kri73anVFC_LGEk4clPgs1ItET0FtxnbrHrdxDKuF_yrko_hGEljt161kLvXS9PmxWfRwps5CwI6KTObNe9WzS7ADn2AZtqN54D9HzhCXaC2Uhq_vPNm3nbyVp6rZA4DHi7BuPzZc/s588/what%20a%20train%20wreck.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="277" data-original-width="588" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixdLcbAqoXfq8RIY-gqBdcAJGA6OEruqa3myEQidZ4Ie9DyS2XO0kri73anVFC_LGEk4clPgs1ItET0FtxnbrHrdxDKuF_yrko_hGEljt161kLvXS9PmxWfRwps5CwI6KTObNe9WzS7ADn2AZtqN54D9HzhCXaC2Uhq_vPNm3nbyVp6rZA4DHi7BuPzZc/s16000/what%20a%20train%20wreck.png" /></a></div><div><br /></div>He thinks he's somehow simultaneously a woman and neither at the same time, or maybe just "switches" on a whim, but <i>also</i> claims to be queer and trans (why not?), so I'm just going to assume James is a man. At least technically: it's one pathetic strategy employed by failed men, resorting to a string of nonsense and contradictory labels that they believe will excuse their inadequacies. <div><br /></div><div>Unfortunately for them, it merely highlights and magnifies them.<br /><p>Anyway, here's the chaser:</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiItVNks7VHLfItz4zrnCD-oUBSZZE8zWx4VrOqeDBhP69iY7dHECmBZX2e1GBUCAMIWetwjsNXgph-zWPL7OvmLwg0kHQ5eB-C6xgMWKv4xVVomAebcA8I2loCHYgRV4ugWlPmCNdZDh0mOXqgH8fhJBUBuy1SojoxKMP-KAskwE3v7wlYcnine2BtQ6s/s586/man%20thinks%20gay%20is%20a%20personality.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="194" data-original-width="586" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiItVNks7VHLfItz4zrnCD-oUBSZZE8zWx4VrOqeDBhP69iY7dHECmBZX2e1GBUCAMIWetwjsNXgph-zWPL7OvmLwg0kHQ5eB-C6xgMWKv4xVVomAebcA8I2loCHYgRV4ugWlPmCNdZDh0mOXqgH8fhJBUBuy1SojoxKMP-KAskwE3v7wlYcnine2BtQ6s/s16000/man%20thinks%20gay%20is%20a%20personality.png" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div>In other words, James, a guy pretending to both be a woman and somehow neither man nor woman, who clings to a "best GM" award that's somehow less relevant than an Ennie, is criticizing normal people because they play <i>Dungeons & Dragons</i> normally. As opposed to manlettes like him, who merely create shallow self-inserts of their shallow selves, and convince themselves that they are deriving what they misinterpret as joy from what they misinterpret as love from other mentally ill narcissists, who aren't even capable of experiencing happiness or love in the first place, nor even tolerating themselves.<div><br /></div><div>Hence, the nonsense string of invented labels. They suffer from many delusions, one of which is that if they pile enough on themselves it will substitute for a lack of personality.</div></div><div><br /></div><div>While I'm convinced most people play a character whose personality at least partially mirrors their own, this is not in the vain service of self-acceptance or external validation (no matter how insincere), but rather convenience: it's easier and more consistent to play a character that's like you, or mostly like you, with perhaps some twist in personality. A quirk or trait easily noted on your character sheet that, if you happen to briefly or even permanently forget won't be <i>that</i> big a deal, anyway.</div><div><br /></div><div>What I find almost as amusing as his garbled bio is James's dishonest or at the least disingenuous and unfounded assumption that not only do<i> all</i> "queer" people play—at least how he arbitrarily defines it—the once hallowed and now hollowed-out skinsuit version of <i>Dungeons & Dragons</i> WokeC lazily and ineptly shoved out identically, but that a core aspect of it is somehow "accidentally" imbuing gay blue-skinned tiefling warlock #789321230975 with made up pronuns and one or more elements from their degenerate and toxic personalities.</div><div><br /></div><div>It's intentional, because in between inhaling handfuls of meds for depression and anxiety, and bouts of drumming up attention on social media to briefly stroke their egos they like to fantasize about what they <i>think</i> their lives would be like were they a gay, blue-skinned tiefling warlock in a fantasy world. With a better body. And some sort of useful talent or skill. And friends. This probably explains why all they can aspire to is a barista at the fantasy equivalent of Starbucks. Though, I suppose for them having even a semi-stable part-time job or going grocery shopping is a herculean feat in itself.</div><div><br /></div><div>But the fact that James states being a queer tabletop tourist that watches other people pretend to play and YouTube tutorials on how to make a character means that you base an entire character around your deeply flawed personality that you can't imagine <i>anyone</i> loving? It's almost like he knows on some level that he's a horrible person. But, rather than make even the slightest attempt to change himself, apparently hopes that by playing a horrible <i>character</i> maybe, just maybe <i>other</i> horrible people will tell him that he's smart, interesting, and/or attractive.</div><div><br /></div><div>And maybe<i>, </i>just <i>maybe<u>,</u> </i>if he hears the lies enough he'll eventually start to believe them.</div><div><br /></div><div>But <i>Dungeons & Dragons</i> isn't therapy, and even if it was these mentally ill narcissists don't <i>really </i>play anyway. For everyone else? It's a game. Something you play to have fun. People like James obviously need <i>actual</i> therapy. The problem is that a good therapist, someone interested in actually helping James won't just sit there and tell him everything he wants to hear. Perhaps James knows this, perhaps from experience, so instead he'd rather hang out on Twitter and pretend to be content with other mentally ill liars pretending to tolerate him (and vice versa).</div><div><br /></div><div>James might sit there and deride normal people for playing a better version of the game he only pretends to care about because it's popular in the manner in which it was intended <i>and</i> enjoying it, but don't let it get to you: there's not a single person he loathes more than himself.</div>David Guyllhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16299128722345607123noreply@blogger.com1