Chebucto Regional Softball Club

This post did not contain any content.

> even with literally using the threat of death forcing the character to work with the party, there is ALWAYS that one dipshit who wants to bitch and moan about how I’m “railroading them/preventing them from roleplaying their character” by doing so This is an out of character problem that should be addressed by talking to your players at session 0 (and at any other time it arises). The manner in which you create characters is irrelevant here because it's an interpersonal issue, not a mechanical or narrative one. > either you have been incredibly lucky with groups or have let Critical Roll give you rosey glasses about the role-play capabilities of the average player I don't watch actual plays. Never have. Tried Critical Role for a few episodes and didn't see the appeal. I don't think it takes an awful lot of roleplay skill to accomplish. Because I've seen it work many times with very ordinary players. Ordinary, but participating in good faith, which is the bare minimum. If you don't have good faith, you shouldn't be playing.

> Sometimes assembling the group in session 0 is what’s right for the story, and sometimes it really, really isn’t. Think about how many movies literally have “Assembling the team” as almost their entire plot. The Avengers hangs two hours of non-stop action on “We need to put a party together.” Oh, that reminds me of a 4th way campaigns can start (in addition to the 3 I said in a different reply) that I've been in before and quite enjoyed—though wouldn't want to be overused. The MCU method. Where each player individually gets a 1 session (maybe 2 at most) solo session introducing them and getting them to the right place to start the campaign.

> it’s the same thing, effectively I **strongly** disagree. The first two are substantively the same, I agree. But the third is a wholly separate category. I see 3 basic categories we're talking about here: you choose to work together at the start; you know each other already; you're forced into working together by circumstances. The key difference between the 1st and the 3rd is that choice. "We have the same patron" is still a choice to work for that patron, and gives room for someone to say "nah, I'm not working with these people". When the circumstances themselves directly *force* you to work together, there's no ability to turn around and say "I'm going my own way". Being kidnapped and having brain slugs put in your head is one way. Everyone arriving in the same town at the time the town is unexpectedly invaded is another one I've been in as a player. The other key thing about in media res is that you don't have that "inevitable round of introductions that feels like that time at the start of school when everyone had to stand up to say their name and one interesting fact about them". You're thrown into *doing* things before there's any chance for that. You get to know each other not beforehand, as in case 2, but *as the adventure is going*. To be clear, I'm pointing to BG3 as an example that I've only very recently (the last two–four weeks) started, and which serves as a good well-known *example* of something that demonstrates a good example of something I already know works well. It's not a game that made me realise I completely new way of doing things. In media res will require players be cooperative enough to care to act, but it doesn't require they trust each other or know each other immediately. It *definitely* doesn't require pre-written specifically-designed characters.

There are options besides "strangers meet in a tavern and awkwardly introduce themselves" and pre-made perfectly-tailored party. I'm a fan of starting in media res, with the characters all in a location for their own reasons, when shit happens that forces them to act as a group. I've just recently started the video game Baldur's Gate 3, and it's not a bad example of what I mean.

Probably for the best. If you'd let him onboard it might have ended up like [this story](https://aussie.zone/post/407650).

> they should not meet in session 1. Strongly disagree. Nothing wrong with doing that, but nothing wrong with having them meet in session 1 too, as long as you have built characters who will be willing to go along with the GM's hooks. And even that part is flexible, depending on the nature of the hook. If the hook is "you see an ad look for rat exterminators", then you better have a character who wants to be an adventurer and will cooperate with other would-be adventurers. If the hook is "you're prisoners being ordered to go explore this dungeon by order of the vizier", there's room for slightly less cooperative PCs, as long as you PC is cooperative *enough* to go along with that order, even if (at first) reluctantly.

Right, exactly what you've said right here is *exactly* the mindset I'm pushing back against. The comic comes across as though it's saying "only those soft soyboys care about stuff like psychological safety, real tough guys who play tough manly gritty realism don't need that soyboy shit". Which is an incredibly toxic and lazy point of view. I don't *think* the author of the comic intended it that way, but that's how it comes across.

No, I disagree that it should be in this comic because it sends the wrong message.

In formal English, the comma is just wrong. Informally, I agree it does a very effective job of making the message get across that way.

No, they have nothing to do with the style of play. They have to do with group dynamics, which is an entirely separate thing. I actually haven't ever used them myself. I've only played with people I already know or people that those people are vouching for, and I do a solid session zero to establish campaign content and tone. But it's who I'm playing with and the fact that we've discussed it that's relevant there, not whether we're playing heroic fantasy romance or dark gritty realism.

Because they're valuable whether you're doing sexy romance or gritty realism or something else entirely. They don't factor in with the "various styles of play are all equally valid" conversation.

Safety tools shouldn't be lumped under style of play, IMO.

The lack of dnd-style multiclassing in Pathfinder was something I struggled with at first, but honestly now (especially with the "free archetype" optional rule) it's one of my favourite underrated things about having switched. It's not as flashy as the 4 degrees of success or three action system, but it's a really great system.

> Though for area damage spells, it’s much, much more complicated. That's an optional variant rule described in Xanathar's Guide. The default rule for grids is simpler: just do Chebyshev.

Ah right, so "diamond" (depicted as a square rotated 45 degrees) is Manhattan, circle is Euclidean, and square is Chebyshev, then?

As it happens I've just looked up the 5e rules for this for the sake of another comment, and their rules are that, like PF1e, if you go vertical, you follow the same rules (i.e., Chebyshev by default, optional alternating) as on a flat plain. I've not looked up the PF2e rules, but I feel safe in assuming it's the same in this regard as 1e.

D&D's targeting rules are quite strange, but yes, it's very explicit that Chebyshev is used in 5e, if playing on a grid. On page 192 of the 5.0e PHB: > To enter a square, you must have at least 1 square of movement left, even if the square is diagonally adjacent to the square you're in. The DMG presents, on page 252, an optional variant of the optional grid rules, which is to treat it the same as Pathfinder 2e does (alternating 5 ft and 10 ft): > The *Player's Handbook* presents a simple method for counting movement and measuring range on a grid: count every square as 5 feet, even if you're moving diagonally. ... This optional rule provides more realism. > > When measuring range or moving diagonally on a grid, the first diagonal square counts as 5 feet, but the second one counts as 10 feet. This pattern...continues when you're counting diagonally even if you move horizontally or vertically between different bits of diagonal movement. As for the value of cube vs sphere in the context of Chebyshev ranges, there are two key differences. First, cubes measure side length, spheres measure radius. A 10 ft cube covers 4 squares. A 10 ft sphere covers 16. Second, and more importantly (since the above could easily be translated by using only cubes or only spheres throughout the system, with either half or double the numbers), cubes are cast *from one side*, whereas spheres are cast from the centre. If you're standing in the front line with enemies in front of you and allies behind, a cube cast with you as its origin point will hit either allies only or enemies only, but not both. A sphere cast with you at its origin point will affect *both* allies *and* enemies. Note that the rules for cube, on page 204 of the 5.0 PHB say "A cube's point of origin is not included in the cube's area of effect, unless you decide otherwise." So you could include yourself and your allies, or you could include enemies but not yourself, if you so desired. Or, less likely, you could include allies but not yourself, or enemies and yourself. From memory, cube spells are mostly cast from a range of "self", which is where this becomes an important distinction. If a spell has a range of X feet and cube, then the main difference is just that its area is smaller but its reach is longer than a sphere with the same numbers.

He does mention at the start of the video that he's been busy lately and hasn't done any videos lately. But that this particular video is very low effort.

Fair point. I actually don't know what, if anything, the D&D (or Pathfinder) rules say on this matter. I've always just treated it as a natural 3D extension of the 2D grid rules. If they're three squares in one direction, same square in the other, and 10 feet up, I'd treat that as 15 feet away because of Chebyshev rules.