Lianodel @ Lianodel @ttrpg.network

Posts

0

Comments

236

Joined

2 yr. ago

He commented on the YouTube upload that he's on a D&D podcast called Dragon Friends! I'm gonna have to check that out.

IMO, yes. When I want a modern D&D-type game (i.e., heroic high fantasy, somewhat crunchy, focused on set piece encounters) I'd reach for PF2e over D&D5e any day. It works as intended, give players more interesting choices, it's way easier to GM, and despite seeming way crunchier at first blush, the rules are much smoother in play. Plus, all the rules are available for free online, with the express permission of Paizo. It's ultimately a matter of personal preference, so you may or may not like it, but I'm at least confident saying it's a well-made system that's worth checking out.

Like StarPupil said, there's a new revision coming out soon, so I'd wait until then. It's still 2e, and will still be compatible with everything, but they're making some minor tweaks, including some errata, and scrubbing any little bits that might still depend on the OGL. If you like PDFs (which Paizo actually makes and sells, unlike 5e!), you can also keep an eye out for Humble Bundles. There are occasionally some great Pathfinder 2e bundles, which tend to include the core rulebooks and a ton of other stuff, including full adventure paths.

I'm sorry, but you're just coming across very standoffish. I already explained that tracking ammo creates interesting choices, and I already explained that players and DMs can come to a compromise. I also explained that no one is obligated to play with anyone else, which is a clear difference from your comparison to your son. If you're going to gloss over what I have to say, I don't feel particularly inclined to keep saying anything.

But I'll give a little more benefit of the doubt.

Let's say I want to run a gritty, low-powered game. The players are down-on-their-luck, going into dangerous wilds and deep into forgotten ruins, in search of treasure to at least eke out a living, with a glimmer of hope that one day they'll strike it big and make their fortune. I want players to begin poor, where every bit of coin counts, and I want survivalism to be a big deal, so it's important what they buy and bring with them. Ammo would naturally be a part of that, and the tension of potentially running out—or what to do after actually running out!—is compelling. You think that's boring. And... okay. Infinite ammo would be kind of antithetical to the vibe I'm going for. Plus, if you have an issue with arrows, I don't expect you'd take kindly to tracking food, water, light sources... I doubt we'd see eye-to-eye. And that's it. I'm not willing to compromise on the kind of game I'm trying to start, and you're not willing to play in this one. Both are valid. I've been on both sides of this situation. And no one owes anyone a justification for their personal preferences.

And if you want to look at how other people manage inventory, look at "slot-based" solutions. A bundle of arrows would contain however many arrows, and take up one slot. No need to calculate the weight of each, just tick them off as you use them. Simpler, while still making inventory matter. And if some people like the bean counting of tracking individual weights... that's it. It's enough to understand that they like it, even if you don't.

Finally, if you truly want to understand other people's positions, you can't take such an aggressive stance, because that creates a framework where you're rewarding yourself for being obtuse. The less you're willing to consider another perspective, the stronger your position feels, and the better you think you're doing. That obviously falls apart when we're dealing with issues that have no objective answer and don't require a compromise, but even outside of that, you'll have a firmer grasp of any issue when you truly try to understand what other people believe and why. Repeatedly challenging people and not accepting their answers doesn't do anything but cause resentment as you appear hostile. A debate doesn't have to be a competition, it can be two people trying to understand, rather than win.

I already did. It's the experience they want to create at the table. Just like how lots of video games track ammo. That is a completely sufficient answer.

Why does it bother you so much that DMs who would never run a game for you are running those games a certain way? It's hard to believe you actually value the DM's fun, when the DM running a game that makes them happy causes you such confusion and consternation.

Preach. It's an attitude from top to bottom, from WotC to an unfortunate number of players.

People complain about a DM shortage, and that is a purely 5e problem. Outside of 5e, you've got lots of people eager to run games, because running a game isn't as difficult and thankless.

Again, and I cannot stress this enough: my main point is that the DM is also playing the game. They're not obligated to run the kind of game they don't want to run.

If you don't want to play in a game where you track ammo, that's fine. By the same token, the DM isn't obligated to play with you, so they don't have to change their game to suit your tastes—or anyone's. If the DM and players are willing to compromise on some things, great. If they aren't, and that means a game doesn't happen, so it goes.

The feeling I got from your comments—feel free to correct me—is that you think the DM should put their own enjoyment aside to just do what the players want. That's my issue. The DM isn't a servant, in the same way they aren't a social superior. To return to my first comment, they're just another player at the table, albeit in a different role, whose enjoyment matters just as much as anyone else's.

I guess I have a two part answer.

Firstly, why don't all video games give you unlimited ammo with no need to reload? Because that's part of the game. You may not like it, and you can have a good game without it, but that doesn't mean there's no value to it for certain people looking for a certain experience.

Secondly... you don't really have to understand it. It's a matter of personal preference. It doesn't affect you even a little bit that other people enjoy a different kind of game. When I care about inventory, I use a slot-based system, but if someone decides to track the weight of everything... whatever, that's their decision. No one's obligated to play with any particular DM, and no DM is obligated to run a game they don't want to run.

As for the rest of your comment, I'm not sure what that has to do with the topic at hand. But anyway:

Thats like a DM refusing to level up your players because mid and high level encounters are harder to plan.

That's literally what Wizards of the Coast does. The game is completely broken at higher levels, so they just avoid creating campaigns that go up that high. And if a DM prefers to run lower-level games... so what? It's valid. And even though you don't need permission to run that kind of game, the rules explicitly break down character levels into "tiers of play."

One time, my high level party whoop my ass when Insent them many wyverns. Did I debuffed them ? No. I changed which monsters to use instead.

Sure, the CR system is notoriously broken. It's another reason why it's a pain to run 5e. It shouldn't surprise you that it's something I dislike about 5e, because, again, I think DMs should have fun, too.

Seriously. It sucks that this is apparently a controversial opinion, but:

The DM is also playing the game, and their fun matters just as much as anyone else's.

Nice! I do love me some Pathfinder. When I want a superheroic high-fantasy game, I'd run Pathfinder over 5e without the slightest hesitation.

I decided to cut this bit for space (and I already ran long!) but part of the fallout of WotC's shenanigans was that other publishers got a LOT of business. Paizo sold out of something like eight months of inventory in a matter of weeks, Goodman Games had similar record sales, and tons of others noticed a bump. D&D was synonymous with tabletop RPGs for a lot of people, but the backlash to the OGL changes put a huge dent in that market domination. I've never seen so many people talk about branching out and trying something new.

That might be surprising for developers that released a Unity game back in, say, 2015, when Unity CEO John Riccitiello was publicly touting Unity's "no royalties, no fucking around" subscription plans. Now, even developers who paid $1,500 for a "perpetual license" to Unity back then could theoretically be subject to additional per-install fees starting next year (provided their game is still generating sufficient revenue and installs).

This reminds me of a story from earlier this year from Wizards of the Coast, publishers of Dungeons & Dragons (and subsidiary of Hasbro). It hinged on exactly the same semantics.

The short version is that, in 2000, Wizards of the Coast released D&D under the "Open Gaming License (OGL)," which gave third parties explicit approval to make and sell their own material using most of the D&D content, under a perpetual license. Cut forward 23 years, and lots of major publishers got their start making D&D supplements, and continue to use the OGL because (a) it's a cover-your-ass license in case they tread into a legal gray area, and (b) allows them to open up their own content to third parties. Plans for an update OGL leaked, with predictably dogshit terms that I won't get into right now, but essentially killed the license as anything anyone would want to use. The malicious part was that they would be "de-authorizing" the OGL 1.0a, because while it was a perpetual license, that didn't make it irrevocable.

(IIRC, it's also a legal argument based on case law established after the OGL was written. Not a lawyer, though.)

Predictably, there was a huge backlash. WotC backtracked, and even gave up ground by releasing a bunch of stuff under the Creative Commons. However, the OGL is still dead, because third parties can no longer trust that WotC (or Hasbro) won't try this ratfuckery again. (Sound familiar?) Lots of products were subtly rewritten to no longer need the OGL, and several publishers worked on an industry license amusingly called the Open RPG Creative License, or ORC.

The thing is, D&D's going to survive this a lot better than Unity. The business model was to sell D&D and D&D supplements, they only indirectly benefited from third-party material, and people are still going to make D&D stuff because it's D&D. Unity's entire business model relies on licensing, so if people stop using it... that's it.

Honestly, because it depends on what the table wants.

Maybe that's what the meme is describing. The player decided that this is a meaningful last stand, and the DM making sure that they're on the same page.

Or it could be a table where the players don't expect their characters to either have a satisfying conclusion to their arc, or a meaningful, epic death. Maybe the stakes they enjoy include death being on the table more often.

And to be clear, none of these are value judgements. All are viable so long as the players (including the DM!) are on the same page and enjoy the game. Heck, I like various approaches depending on the campaign. :P

That sounds familiar! Partly because I recall reading that, but also because it's a frustratingly common scenario.

D&D is, for a ton of people, synonymous with tabletop RPGs. Often that means people think the things they like about playing tabletop RPGs are unique to D&D, even they aren't.

What gets me are people who complain about Pathfinder 2e having more rules. You're just as free to ignore them, and no one has to read much less memorize all the rules. Besides, is anyone under the illusion that players are learning all the rules to 5e?

Exactly. It's sort of an uncomfortable middle ground, but also just kind of messy.

And I'm tired, as someone who DMed it a bunch, hearing people act like broken or missing rules aren't a problem, or somehow even a good thing, because the DM can just make something up. Yeah, not shit. I can do that in literally any game I run. It's just unpleasant to do in 5e, yet I have to do it all the damn time to keep the game running smoothly. I'd rather have a game that either supports me as a GM, or is easier to improvise.

So do craft stores! :D

Due to the nature of Cybertruck, which is made of bright metal with mostly straight edges, any dimensional variation shows up like a sore thumb.​

It sounds to me like the reasonable conclusion to draw from this would be to modify the design of the car. I'd also assume you don't need tolerances to be the same for literally all parts inside and out. I'd also think that, if the car looks that bad if things are 10 or more microns out of place, these cars are going to age terribly after regular use.

But what do I know? If I were smart, I'd be rich, right? And Elon is so rich, he must be a genius!

I've heard that's true for seasons one and two, but that it turns around in the third. The advice I got from otherwise disappointed Trek fans is that it is worth watching if you skip straight past the first two seasons.

Camping. Whether it's at a campsite, where a family might spend tens or hundreds of thousands on an RV and all the gadgets in it, or deep in the woods, where an ultralight backpacker might spend thousands of dollars upgrading perfectly good gear they already had because it could save a few ounces.

To be clear, camping is actually really accessible, and few people go THAT extreme with it. Just... no matter what budget you set for it, there are ways to spend it. :P

I was going to say it's a lot less expensive if you don't need espresso. An aeropress is around $40, I bought mine nearly two decades ago, and still use it daily!

...then I realized I spent $160 on the grinder right next to it. So I'm not totally immune. :P

There's also ebiyaki! The difference is that it contains shrimp (ebi) instead of octopus (tako). I'm with you on not wanting to eat squid, but I already didn't like octopus, so I never even got to the moral quandary point. :P

Also, aside from needing a specialized pan, they're actually pretty easy to make at home, and you can fill them however you'd like.

Yeah, I remember that. Along with the focus on digital tools, all I can think is, That's a video game. You're designing a video game. Those already exist. That is not what your flagship product is.

Seriously. If I want to play a video game, I can already do that. Even some amazing D&D video games! But the reason tabletop D&D and other RPGs haven't been supplanted by video games isn't because the technology wasn't there yet, but because they do a different thing entirely. If they made Digital D&D, and even if it turned out amazing, it would be a completely distinct type of game, not a new edition of D&D.