Chebucto Regional Softball Club

Oh yeah I got a cheap wireless mouse and keyboard for it, worked fine. One or two crashes, but mostly just fine.

A couple years ago at a bar I was talking to a guy, and he mentioned he'd started playing DND. I went, "oh cool. Which edition?" He said, "what?". He didn't know there were other editions. He didn't know there were other RPGs. I think about this a lot and try to remember a lot of people aren't really deep in the hobby. They show up once a week to play a game with their friends, and that's about where it stops. Which is fine. Totally valid way to spend your leisure time. But very different than where I went.

Ah yes. I believe the term for that is "fantasy heartbreaker". Fascinating history, really. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/9/ https://rpgmuseum.fandom.com/wiki/Fantasy_heartbreaker

This sounds like a personal hell to me. I mean, it might work if your group is all kind of on the same wavelength to begin with. But if that's the case, you could also easily start with a system you like and go from there instead of reinventing all the wheels. A lot of people have only really played D&D and its close relatives. I like to describe that in this metaphor: Imagine someone who has only every seen the lord of the rings movies. They've watched them over and over, both cinematic and directors cuts. They know all the lore and all the minutia. And then they sit down to write their own movie. Maybe a sci-fi space mystery to change things up. And this movie? it has horses. Because movies always have horses, don't they? They're in like every movie. So when the detective is stuck in the burning theater, his buddy should ride in on a horse and save him. So I 0%, maybe even some negative percent, want to have to sell a group on "RPGs don't actually need six attributes" or "you don't need to have separate rolls for to-hit and damage" for the first time in their lives. Secondly, most people are bad at design. Sorry. It kind of follows from sturgeon's law ("90% of everything is crap"). Most people don't set out to make crap, but it happens anyway. Most people firing from the hip are just not going to make good systems. Especially if, as above, they've only ever really played one kind of game. So, no, I don't want to deal with the guy who's like "On a natural 1 you should drop your sword" who doesn't realize that, because fighter types make a lot more attack rolls, they're going to drop their swords way more often than you'd expect of the archetype. I am reminded of an unhappy time in an old, bad, D&D game where I fruitlessly tried to explain effective HP to the wizard. (Since D&D 5e stops counting damage at 0, there are some weird interactions between initiative, healing, and damage.) Third, even if you avoid all of that, even if you have a group with a deep and wide knowledge of game design, you're going to end up with an inelegant mess. Why does intimidating someone mean a simultaneous roll-off of increasingly large dice, but bluffing someone means drawing poker hands? Because those rules were added on different sessions, and Mike was really into poker and convinced people it would be cool. Wrestling someone you flip coins, but knife fighting you roll d4s. Sword fights use this complicated table Joe insisted would be fun, but magic is just a roll off. No thank you. I'd rather just play Fate, which is already pretty loose about how to interpret conflict and consequences.

I got the D&D 3e books when I was a kid. I completely, deeply, uncritically loved them. Read them cover to cover. Spent a lot of time drawing nonsense dungeon maps and coming up with terrible ideas. I remember I went to some game shop in some local mall and asked the guy for advice. He was like, "yeah i don't know, but that guy's into it" and pointed me to some customer who was a mega D&D nerd. He was surprisingly patient with my youthful excitement. I remember being like "So I can just... do anything in the game? I can be like, you kill the orc and his eyes are magic??" The guy was like ... i can't remember exactly what he said, but it was something like "You can, but probably don't spend a lot of time on minutia. You probably don't want your players spending 30 minutes checking every single trinket and orc body part for secret magic." I don't really like D&D/its close relatives much anymore, but like many people it was my entry point.

How I feel about mana depends largely on how quickly it regenerates. It can be just a reskin of spells-per-day or spells-per-encounter, or it could be something more interesting. DA:O had unlimited mana potions, which meant essentially you spend a small amount of time to refresh mid fight. Not very deep tactically, but more or less fine. I don't think resource management is really a thing most people actually enjoy. Most people don't like timed missions, so you probably don't want to use that to prevent people from resting a lot. You don't want to soft-lock players by letting them blow their resources too soon, so they can't win the fight but don't have a way to restore. The dark souls style "you reset at the checkpoint but so do the monsters. Keep trying until you get it right" works for me, but a lot of people hate that. There are so many ways you could do magic, and it's a bummer that vancian magic takes up so much space. DND just isn't as good and universal as people think it is, but it's hugely influential anyway. Side note: DND is balanced around like 6 "medium" encounters per day. You're supposed to slowly trickle down your resources. Turns out most groups do *one* encounter per day on average, and then the system doesn't work very well at all. There's lot of patches (eg: gritty realism) but the problem remains people don't seem to want to do that kind of cadence.

I meant how in poe1 and 2 might (the stat) is 3% more damage per point, so it's hard to feel the difference between might 10 and might 15. Does +15% of 10 damage make a meaningful difference? It's probably the same as +12%, right, or is there decimal damage too? I guess when multiplied by power levels it's a bigger deal, but that's kind of opaque. Also "like proficiency bonuses on crack" is deeply funny to me as someone who played DND 3e. Base attack bonus every level, skill ranks up every level, oh so many memories and not all of them good.

I really liked poe2 and would play a third one. I really liked that they made powers per-encounter instead of per-rest. Per-rest really doesn't work well despite DND trying really hard. It especially doesn't work well without a human steering to prevent things like "you killed everyone in the castle, now go rest for 8 hours before opening the final door to the boss". Or you can programmatically enforce that, but players don't like that. Mostly because it sucks to do like an hour of stuff and realize you're too low on resources to win, and have to reload. I'd probably prefer the stats to be coarser or more meaningful. It's hard to get a feel for "3% more damage". Especially when the base damage is like 5-15.

An advanced technique: ask your players to make shit up. Like, the players decided to go to the wizard university the wizard PC graduated from. So I ask him, "what's their entrance hall like?" and let him just riff on it for a while. Players feel more engaged with the world, and it's a little less work for me. Warlock is trying to commune with his patron. I ask, "what is your patron usually like?" and the player is delighted to describe "the great sculpin" in detail. This then inspires me further. Note that some players are very much "just tell me a story" and don't want any input, and won't like this. Some players are also shy and don't think well on their feet. And some players are just really bad at staying on theme. But if you know your players , this can be a powerful technique.

I would probably make spells easier to interrupt like they were in 3e. https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/castingSpells.htm These two things were key: - Casting a spell provokes an opportunity attack - Taking any damage requires a check or you lose the spell Now casting when the orc warlord is up in your face is a lot riskier. I think I get why they got rid of this system. It was more to think about, and I think they wanted the game to generally be easier so more players could enjoy it. Certain classes of player don't want to think about tactics and positioning. They want to cast fireball. But as a result, the whole game is kind of shallower sometimes. For mages countering mages, I'd probably give it a rework. It shouldn't just be its own spell. It should be an action. Maybe have a separate check to identify the spell, or maybe just tell the player to skip double rolls. Then make some sort of opposed check. Use the spell level delta (and if you had them roll to identify, how thematically opposite the spell is. Like a fire and ice spell, or shield v magic missile).

I recommend players make their characters together. Fate's rules for it are pretty good, and can be ported to many systems: https://fate-srd.com/fate-core/phase-trio . The whole "You all meet in a tavern for the first time" mode is a valid way to play, but I've had friends do that and then struggle with how contrived it feels to fight to the death for people they just met, or go on a whole dangerous sidequest for someone else's hobby. I also recommend reading other systems. Not everyone needs to know dozens of games, but if you always play d20 games spending some time in a different branch of the RPG family tree can really be eye-opening. Or if you've only really played really light games, looking at how something crunchier does detail can be insightful.

Musk seems like the kind of D&D player who would - Build a horrible character (frankly impressive in 5e, which is pretty simple in terms of choices to make at the start). Like, a bard with 8 charisma, or a rogue with no dex - Or, pay someone else to build their character, and then not know how to play it. - And/or induce the other players to murder him (in the game)

I've found that when the players hit an outright failure, a lot of the time they just draw blanks or zero in on this one specific solution. It's a weird tunnel vision. Like, they want to talk past the doorman and he says no after they roll. Good players on their game will then think about other options. Sneak in the back. Set off an alarm. Impersonate someone who lives there. But i've just had so many players that just get stuck on this, and will try to spend 10 minutes on "What if I ask him nicely?" I've started including a spiel about this in my session 0. "If an obstacle in the world has exactly one purpose in the story, and you attack it dead on, you may fail. Especially if it's not also your strong suit. For example, there is a doorman of a fancy apartment building. His entire role in life is to look at people, and only let them in if they're authorized. If you walk up to him, not authorized, and go 'Hey bro let me in', that will be a very hard check. That is shooting fire at the fire elemental. Disguising yourself will be easier, but still is in his domain of 'Looking at people and only letting authorized folks in'. But going in a back door so he doesn't see, setting off the fire alarm so he evacuates, calling on the phone and telling him his car has been towed, those ideas hit him where he's weaker."

Don't put important details behind failable skill checks and just dead end it there. Like if they find a book with ciphered text, you might be tempted to be like "make an intelligence + investigator check to decipher it", and if they fail be like "you can't figure it out". It's better to do some sort of degree of success or succeed at a cost so the game keeps moving forward. Like, on a bad roll they translate it but whoops awaken an angry spirit that's now attacking them. Or they make some progress, but realize they need the key to fully crack it. The note in the margin says it's at such-and-such flophouse, owned by the PC's most annoying rival group. I've done too many "you rolled .. 0? Ok. Well you have no idea what this altar means" and then later regretted it because the players didn't have a vital clue.