Posts Tagged "tao-of-dnd" from 2014

My germ of an idea is this: relate pay to rarity of profession. This can be done by making reference to the probability of obtaining a certain result on the Father's Profession Table in your character background generator. (Assumption: probability of getting profession X on that table is more or less equal to proportion of people who hold profession X.)

Let P(job X) = probability of getting job X on your table.
Let G = monthly salary in arbitrary units.
Let specific salary for job X = g = G/P(job X)

If the probability of getting "prince" is 1/10,000 or 0.0001, then monthly salary for a prince is G/0.0001 = 10,000*G.

Alexis: I like the competency system a lot. Have more to say but also against pressing deadline, will expand.

I have initial thoughts on "wages and pay," as you bring up in your comment above; if you already have some thoughts to share on that, I would like to hear what your implementation details might be.

This reads like a lead-in to a discussion of dungeons that DON'T have these "mythological" features (eternal traps, monsters despite no signs of life, etc). I think that maybe the only sacred cow here is treasure (whether literal valuables, or lost knowledge or other resources); as you said, a DM can only introduce a treasure-free dungeon at his own peril, and maybe that's OK. What seems to be the way to solve the other parts of this tired setup is to think of the dungeon as integrated into the wilderness, and considering trap longevity, treasure "trickle down", etc. from that perspective.

I think these are good examples. I think the reason for the success is because of their naturalistic feel. A spooked horse, needing to pee, getting help to move something or straining one's back: these are all perfectly ordinary circumstances in the real world. They don't stand out like a neon DUNGEON THIS WAY sign to the players because they are fairly ordinary; for the game purposes, however, they lead somewhere fantastic. I think this fits in with the idea that the game world should be consistent with the real world: not in the sense that combat is "realistic" or that armor is historically accurate or whatever, but rather, in the sense that gravity points toward Earth, certain trees lose their leaves in fall, and so on. In effect, there is no "hook" : there's just some everyday stuff happening, but because it's fantasy there is more than meets the eye.

I am pleased to hear another DM who thinks it makes sense to apply rules to NPC interactions. So often, it seems, DMs I've asked about this have been very resistant. It's funny that the combat rules apply to everyone equally*, but any player-NPC interactions rules somehow don't. It makes me immediately think of the potential for automation of a certain level of NPC interaction. I could imagine a kind of "circuit design," reading a bunch of outcomes of NPC interactions and providing an outcome for a larger entity, say, a branch of government.

*Although of course (invincible "DMPC" anyone?)

OK.

Alexis, with regard to "crosstraining:" I'd forgotten your character generator had a setting that sometimes allowed cross-training of sage skills. At time of writing I was suggesting a method of active sage skill selection, but the rare generator output is a better way. Your point.

As far as "close to the chest," I apologize for that. I do remember you using that phrase to me regarding sage skills at an earlier date, about the Fighter and others, but I could obviously have thought harder about it; furthermore, some Google searches restricted to your site don't turn up the phrase in that context. So perhaps I was mistaken.

Alexis: have read your responses. No time to reply to them at the moment but I appreciate you taking the time to explain your thoughts.

I love it! It makes me wonder what other "large-scale" or "population-affecting" actions might provide for fun gameplay when rules are made for them. I can't remember if you use a Bard or not, but these would seem perfect as a Bard sage skill.

Is there any chance that certain sage skills will be shared between classes, in cases such as this? It does seem that there could be some overlap. Ranger/Druid comes to mind immediately.

I also have a question about the Standard Bearer amateur ability for the Heraldry sage skill. What is the justification for that being a sage ability? I understand that knowledge is needed to know the right standard to bear, but why is the actual ability to grant a benefit restricted to those with Standard Bearer?

Alexis, in your latest comment, you say "establishing what level culinary applications has".

What I think your meaning is, is "once I determine what level of knowledge is needed for the novel idea of culinary applications of, say, fungus, then culinary applications can be added to all similar sage fields at that level of knowledge."

Am I right?

Good post. Shitty DMs do a behavior to retain control/resist change, and train their players to expect it, or to use it themselves as DM. I think this behavior, and the "each session/adventure is a self-contained episode" behavior come from the same source*. They are done by the control-freak or over-invested DMs.

I noticed the absence in these in the portion of How to Run that I have finished, and I'm glad you wrote this post.

I will attempt to generalize the portion of the advice given here that deals with NPC actions and portrayals. Please tell me if I am off the mark.

"Once you know what has happened to the NPCs, consider how they would feel and act if the player party was in no way present. Think about their emotions and their resources, and most importantly think about them as real people, not robots with a script. Then have them be going about their business in these ways when the party becomes involved."

Quoting Algol: "I imagine a smart player who's been taking notes in your campaign would be able to predict the features of nearby hexes or puzzle out where on the map they are when lost."

Well said. This is exactly why I advocate detailed, consistent world creation tactics: they allow players to actually LEARN about the world they are in! You don't get that with seat-of-the-pants, do-whatever's-funny "worlds" that are just hodgepodges of dungeons and tired fantasy cliches.

This is a key point in world-design philosophy.

Although I like your D&D-related posts the most, I still enjoy reading your views on other subjects. Thank you for sharing the video, quite interesting.

Of Grey's other videos, do you recommend any others in particular? School is nearly upon me and educational videos are easier to consume in my off hours than interesting textbooks.

Banner is looking good, Alexis. The "clean" artwork is appealing. Wish I could go to the expo to meet you in person; I'll have to settle for getting your book in the mail sometime next week instead.

Very cool. I did not know anything about chariots or their history before this. Thank you for the writeup.

"Seeing games on the internet should give you an idea why your girlfriend in Grade 10 was not that impressed."

Spot-on.

The title threw me. I thought this would be another post about people (especially bloggers) defending their dumb D&D gaming by saying "it's fun!"

Instead you talked about people defending dumb movies by saying "it's fun!"

Having deliberately written the sentences out in parallel, I realize from them that this explains major phenomena in the behavior of the nerds I know.

They cling to various dumb entertainments (Pathfinder, shitty formulaic fantasy books, comics and their movies) for enjoyment. However, they believe as nerds it is impossible to like dumb (i.e. unintelligent) activities. The looming contradiction is resolved by insisting that the entertainment in question is not, in fact, dumb. After that, they invent all kinds of meaning where there is none, since obviously a not-dumb (i.e. smart) entertainment must have deeper meaning in it. Finally, to complete the circle, anyone criticizing the entertainment is subjected to a two-pronged hate.

I hope the running today went well, Alexis. Getting back in the saddle is a good feeling and no mistake.

Well done indeed, Alexis. And let me say: it is your work on D&D that makes me respect you, but it is posts like these that make me *like* you.

Understood and understood. Frankly I think Fighters getting sage tables is a fine idea. Many times on the blog you have said something about telling Fighters who the most competent or dangerous enemy in a group is, or sizing up for them an individual enemy. Handling this kind of thing with the Fighter's version of a sage table seems to be the way to go. Is this the kind of thing that said table will handle, or is it still too early to tell? (I assume that you might have a few ideas even if nothing's appeared on the work blog for that yet.)

Couple questions, Alexis:

1. I read the recent post on stunning when it was published, but I'm not sure what you mean here when you say "the stunning system will stagger the second attack for everyone involved."

2. What was it that changed your mind on doing sage tables for Fighters, Thieves, etc? You seemed pretty dead-set against it a few months ago (I think that's how long it was since you started the new cleric ones.)

Oddbit: it does change the numbers, since one "hit" is destroyed by one successful attack (unlike HP where several HP are destroyed by one successful attack.) But ultimately the concept is the same: more hits is more survivability, whether they deplete 1-to-1 with attacks or not. Having hits instead of HP just makes the divisions less fine-grained.

With regard to pricing:

I, an American, am seeing a price of $23.60 for the paper book. Assuming that the price of $30 is supposed to be in CAD, then the USD price should be $27.90 at the current exchange rate of 0.93 USD to 1 CAD (source is Google which returns real-time rates.)

So there is something else going on here. I don't know what. When I buy my copy, if it's not fixed, I'll Paypal you the difference (god knows I can't use my ~$10 Paypal balance for anything else, so it's not entirely a moral thing.)

This is cool because it's like you're giving us another preview segment, but in an unusual way.

You're welcome, Alexis.

Excited for the book, although I can't buy myself a copy until around mid-August.

I like reading this kind of thing. A little bit of connective tissue and pure math (given certain assumptions, such as those of your game world) that prove one thing or another about the game world - all thanks to rigid application of the rules.

Is it any wonder I can't stomach the 'rules-lite' crowd who crow proudly about their stories and their fantasies? They did not have to work against the odds for the story they boast about. They picked and chose at will, like rich children in a chocolate shop.

I can have their indulgence, or I can have the reality of percentages.

If we follow through your final paragraph to its conclusion, then over a period of generations the humanoid population has a higher and higher percentage of high-HP individuals.

There's nothing wrong with that. It just is.

It makes me think of quantifying the difference between primitive and advanced sub-species with the subrange (within the die range) that their HP can have. Perhaps the Cro-Magnon orc has 1-3 HP and his more-evolved Neanderthal cousin has 4-6 and the modern one has 7-8.

Maybe I'm taking "evolution" a bit too literally?

Alexis, I want to check my understanding of this post and your comment follow-ups.

(1) Hit points, with no additions such as your mass-HP rule, are a range from 1-X on a dX, e.g. 1-8 on 1d8.

(2) From (1) we know that 1 in 8 1HD creatures ("humanoids") have only 1 HP.

(3) From (2), the damage die for a spear, and the chance to hit a humanoid, a certain number of humanoids will die after one round in battle.

(4) From (3) we can extrapolate, finding that a certain number of humanoids will be killed after 2, 3, ... n rounds of battle.

Glad to hear you're doing well and are still in high spirits as the project comes to a close.

Thank you for putting to words the soccer example. It's something I can use to illustrate why the "I can do anything I want!" attitude toward RPG is just as childish as it sounds on paper.

Oh coooooooool

I did download the Chooser, although I didn't do much beyond play around with it since gaming was on hold last semester.

Is it this one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abakan_Range

Remember to come up for air now and then!

The scans of the cover pages are very dark, but I've found all the content pages to be very readable so far.

Yes. I found two. The first is a hyperlinked version, which I suspect to be incomplete because it lacks articles on such prominent places as London.

The second, which I will use, is version composed of 10 PDFs, one for each volume, each about 600 pages. I'll link you to volume 01; the others can be found thru a search on the same site.

https://archive.org/details/colliersnewencyc01newy

Oh shit! Somehow I overlooked the fact that this was just the first volume (yes, about 600 pages). Uh, gonna have to revise my estimates. Found an online version of the whole thing so at least I don't have to download any more massive files.

This is suddenly a much bigger project! Wow! But I'm not daunted.

Hm. I think I can safely leave out the New World. And it might be worthwhile to just total up some places, e.g. Africa and Russia, as big giant single "cities" for now. Wish I had a way to OCR these PDFs and some way to scan through them for keywords "produce" and "manufacture" and "harvest" and similar keywords to help me along. Oh well, I guess this is one thing that's difficult whether or not it's computer aided.

Got it. Thanks.

I'm working through that 1921 Colliers now, by the way. Any tips for keeping it all straight?

So far my game plan is as follows:

I'm noting each "new" reference as I find it, to form a master list of all the different types of references.

Obviously I'm tracking each city and its references.

I'm also tracking regional references as best I can, in order to do some kind of divvying-up at the end of things.

If I can knock out 10 pages a day I'll have all the data extracted in two months, and 10 pages isn't even that much since some pages don't have a single city on them.

Please check my understanding.

I am somewhat familiar with Traveller. Normally, the players roll through several of these four-year cycles in the Navy or what have you. They get various skills and eventually they muster out and the real game begins.

B-b-but Alexis, the bartenders in my fantasy novels all know lots of secrets! Why wouldn't I try to drag those secrets out of them?

And the settlements, which are always scattered impossibly thin across the landscape, are all unique and special and provide 20-30 hours of adventuring each, because they're so rich with hidden or long-forgotten adventuring sites! Why, the protagonists of "Barzalom the Eldermancer" spent two whole books in Kape Kod, uncovering the underground mystery of the Bonerizer that the whole town turned out to be in on! They must have talked to a dozen bartenders and learned something new each time! Isn't that suspenseful? Doesn't that get your RP tingling?

"I wouldn’t fault somebody for making the assumption. The original quote you made in your piece is word for word from the video. In that line I do not paint a picture of a situation with no mechanics; I paint one where they are no longer controlling the RP or have been suspended. “[they] don't moderate anything, they're not the medium, they just get the hell out of the way.” In the example this quote comes immediately after, the DM has chosen not to make a character roll for diplomacy because of the quality of his acting. For me, the less intrusive the mechanics are on the RP, the better. I would not advocate ditching all the mechanics of any game. I do however believe they are
flexible and often expendable."

I am fortunate, however, in that the students I know are mostly ones with aspirations, and who are willing to work hard to achieve them. This is because of the climate of the school where I study. So I can count my blessings, because they are at least somewhat better than the guys back home. What a nightmare high-school D&D was!

I'm a student, so many of the available players have all their sub-25 problems. It's just something I have to navigate. What's more troubling, however, is that most of the adults I've met in this hobby weren't functioning adults (where `functioning adult' can mostly be defined by what you've laid out here.) Makes me worry about my ability to game well in the future.

I trust you when you say that such a debate exists, Alexis. But I've never been part of it. I suspect that at least some of the time the debate gets hung up on "fun," and ends up with "A good game is one where DM and players all have fun." Which of course falls prey to players who have fun through being assholes.

However, I'll retract my "too obvious" judgment for the following reason: I more carefully considered your wording. "Accept the shared responsibility" is not what I was thinking of originally. There is a difference between acknowledging that everyone should have a "rich and rewarding" experience, and actually working toward that goal, keeping it in the back (or perhaps forefront?) of the mind during play. Putting one's money where one's mouth is, in other words.

Sorry, Alexis, but regarding yesterday's post, I'm in the "too obvious to bother mentioning" camp. The players are responsible for the game being enjoyable just like the DM is, albeit in a different way: what's there to not get? (Well, quite a bit, if you're a problem player. But then you're a problem player.)

I do enjoy seeing you expound on the idea, however. Just because it's something I already know doesn't mean I should object to its being clearly stated. A kind of defining one's terms.

Your reasoning is sound. Another point in its favor: it's doing part of the "heavy lifting" for you. The player has now learned the recipe for making portable holes? I bet a fair few would drop everything and start working on it immediately, and more reserved players would still suddenly have a new strategic goal, something to commit resources toward. One more moving part making the game rich and complex, and all you have to do is state that they now DEFINITELY could have access to it ... if they were willing to sweat. Then you sit back and watch them run all over creation, a perfectly self-motivated group (something that is hard to come by in this day of spoon-fed "quests" and such. But that's another topic.)

I'm curious: suppose a player worked his druid up to the proper rank of Alchemy and elected to know how to make portable holes. What would your thought process be for figuring out how to make that "recipe," or a similar one, be a satisfying answer for the player? In my view, the player has spent a large amount of resource to gain this knowledge and the recipe shouldn't be so difficult as for the knowledge to be useless (with the world in question determining what "difficult" means, of course. On the other hand, I do agree that the way you do it here (giving knowledge, not some kind of "portable-hole EZ-maker" ability to simply be activated whenever the ingredients are gathered.)

I agree with some of the others: leave it up with a note saying it's been revised and can be found in the essay book. I don't see any reason why you should put the new version of the essay up here. You're doing new work, after all: why not charge for it?

I also would like it with no text. In my experience, younger folks tend to wear shirts with text on them (not logos or brand names, but rather full sentences, "witty" slogans and so on.) I think that plain graphic shirts, while still sometimes juvenile, are a bit more appropriate for adult wear, especially when the design isn't super loud (and black/white isn't loud at all.) No complaints on the design. I would buy it as-is, and would not buy it with any text.

I think the subtitle is childish, and I prefer the original title as posted yesterday. You take this hobby seriously and I think using today's subtitle would mean not following through on your serious intentions.

The academic "tradition" of giving a tongue-in-cheek name to an otherwise serious article or paper seems to exist mostly among undergrads, in my experience.

Is there a joke I'm missing? Some kind of "draw in the players who play to boast and teach them the error of their ways" trap?

Alexis, I have a question about your pricing table.

I am looking at the "carpenter" section of the table. It has different listings for "existing" and "designed" houses.

Can you please explain the difference? From the description, my guess is that the former is for improvement work, while the latter is for construction from the ground up.

Also: I sent you an email but I wasn't sure if I had the right address, so I'll quickly ask here: would it be possible to purchase some (or even all) of your hex maps?

Thanks.