Poll of the Day > DMed my second game of DnD yesterday.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Since we're doing names, help me with a pair of names too please!

I basically need a good way to phrase a central theme that is Inaction vs Action. Or Peace vs Conflict. Submission vs Assertion. But a really flowery and loaded term for each, on par with crap like "Hope". Hmm...

The basic gist of the theme is that the world is made of two kinds of people: those who act and those who don't. Or those who... fight and those who don't?

The actors tend to use any means necessary to do what they think is best. "Let us fix this world, or break it trying," is a good summary of the mindset these people tend to have.
But most people do virtually nothing all day long, not needing to provide for themselves and not having any drive. They've been socially suppressed, see no future, and indeed just exist. The worst cases have completely given up trying to sustain themselves, and they tend to starve to death every few weeks (since in this world you're automatically resurrected when you die).

So fun times all around. Got any good terms for this theme?
---

Do you want it to be an overall hopeful idea, or do you want depressing ideas?
Because Broken would be a great term for the inactive people, but not for a world full of love and hope for things.

I want cool names for the concepts themselves, not for the groups. Like what philosophy do people who are inactive represent?

Basically a new axis, similar to Law-Chaos, and these people are just the extremes on that axis.
---

Lightning Bolt posted...

I basically need a good way to phrase a central theme that is Inaction vs Action. Or Peace vs Conflict. Submission vs Assertion. But a really flowery and loaded term for each, on par with crap like "Hope". Hmm...

The basic gist of the theme is that the world is made of two kinds of people: those who act and those who don't. Or those who... fight and those who don't?

Dynamism vs Stasis.

:-D


---

Definitely using Dynamicism for one character. It sounds exactly like what the "chessmaster" character would call it. Thanks!

But it feels a little formal to use generally. Something more evocative like "Force" maybe... I think the Force is taken though, especially in nerd culture.
---

Lightning Bolt posted...

Definitely using Dynamicism for one character. It sounds exactly like what the "chessmaster" character would call it. Thanks!

But it feels a little formal to use generally. Something more evocative like "Force" maybe... I think the Force is taken though, especially in nerd culture.

It's literally the core premise of Mage: The Ascension.

Basically, the universe is balanced between Dynamism and Stasis - change versus status quo. It's also reflected in the Triat of Werewolf: The Apocalypse - to them, the entire universe is the byproduct of the tensions between the Wyld (raw, creative energy and uncontrolled chaos), the Weaver (a force for order that seeks to weave permanent meaning and purpose into the Wyld's dynamic potential), and the Wyrm (originally meant as a force for balance which would destroy the Weaver's excess creations and contain the Wyld's constant shifting, later bound and driven insane by the Weaver in an attempt to prevent it from destroying her creations, resulting in a new force of corruption and decay).

So in Mage every mage has an "Essence" that reflects the true nature of your soul, and two of those are "Dynamic" (the Avatar of Dynamism) and "Pattern" (the Avatar of Stasis). Though they also have "Questing" (the Avatar of Balance) and "Primordial" (the Avatar that reflects the deeper, more primal nature of reality). Each major faction of mages tends to correspond to one of those archetypes (and by extension, one of the Triat from Werewolf) - the Technocracy (the "evil" science mages that are generally antagonists for players) represent Stasis, and share the Weaver's desire to "calcify" all of reality into easily defined categories and principles that are unchanging and eternal, the Marauders (insane agents of chaos driven mad by their own power, who blindly seek dynamic change through destruction and represent the mindless Wyld), the Nephandi (utterly evil demon worshippers and nihilists who seek the absolute destruction of reality itself or the corruption of everything that exists, just as the Wyrm does), and the Traditions (the "good guy" mages most players play as, who tend to exist as more of a force for balance between dynamism and stasis, and thus theoretically represent the Wyrm in its original role, before it was imprisoned by the Weaver's webs and driven insane).

The upshot of all of which is that mages are generally seen as dynamic forces fighting against static reality (because the Weaver and the Technocracy are generally winning their wars), imposing their will against "The Consensus", which is basically the combined subconscious beliefs of the greater mass of humanity (ie, gravity works and things "fall down" because most people believe that things SHOULD "fall down". A mage is someone who effectively convinces reality around them that sometimes things can "fall up", and thus make themselves fly).

Depending on how you look at it, the constant struggle between the two opposing forces of change and stasis can be painted as "growth versus stagnation" or "free will versus determinism" (if you're more on the side of dynamism), or as "random chaos versus structured meaning" or "anarchy versus order" if you're falling more on the side of stasis.

The idea being that neither extreme (either constant meaningless change or eternal unchanging paralysis) is all that appealing, and the ideal state is a balance between the two. Change given meaning, structure that can evolve and adapt, and so on.

For the full Order versus Chaos motif you could even go with the terms Apollonian Dionysian, but that's less how Mage treats it (and is more how Amber treats it).


---

You know, in retrospect, a lot of my favorite games apparently use Order/Chaos as the main fundamental underlying concept. :-P


---

Lightning Bolt posted...

But it feels a little formal to use generally. Something more evocative like "Force" maybe... I think the Force is taken though, especially in nerd culture.

There's always Kinetic versus Potential.

Or blend the two, and go for Kinetic (or Kinesis) versus Static (Stasis).

Or Motion versus Inertia.

Or some fancy, fantasy terms derived from the above but made up on the spot.


---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Basically, the universe is balanced between Dynamism and Stasis - change versus status quo.

Hmm. I think I'm gonna veer away from that actually. (Also thanks, because even if I don't say "ooh yes I'll use that thing" this is still helping me figure out what I want!)

Because my theme isn't about that... I think. It's less about change and more about being a decisionmaker. For instance, one of the main Actors is God-Emperor Hannah. She has taken control of the world, reshaped it to her will, and rules it. She no longer makes significant changes to the world because it already satisfies her vision, but she does exert her will and enforce the current state of things.

Meanwhile, the Anti-Theists consider the current world to be a travesty. They see the people who have given up, the towns that are abandoned, the way God is the source of food, water, and everything, and they fight to change it. And while they're on the verge of discovering something that could swing the whole fight, they're more of a "boogieman" to the people than a savior because, again, you can't rely on other people to exert your will onto the world.

Change wasn't the problem before, lack of change isn't the problem now, and change isn't the problem of the future. The problem has always been that only one person is making the decisions, and that a single person's solution for any problem will only reliably satisfy themselves. "Be the change you want to see in the world." more than "Change is good."

That's what I want the story to be about, making things better with your own two hands. I think.
The name of the campaign/story is "A Better Place", and I even might do this 3-sentence thing whenever they full rest, lightly chastising them. "Sleep does not fix the things that cause you stress. Sleep does not make the world a better place. But while you sleep, you may dream that everything is alright... and wake refreshed." Maybe.
(I always really liked those Sleeping-At-The-Inn themes in video games. A soothing, reliable little jingle that indicates you're safe and asleep, and that whatever is wrong in the world it doesn't need to be worried about for at least 3 seconds. Just the time for a sigh of relief. Gonna try it at least!)



Now that I phrase it like that, I probably don't need a word for Inactivity. It's sort of just the obvious counterpoint, but doesn't really crop up much except to highlight the Activity.
---

Well, last session was a mess, but probably the best yet. If it had a name, it would probably be, "How not to abduct children".

So, a quick backstory of the the past two sessions before that. Two of the members had to meet with a principal of a school when they reentered the city. The principal said that he would help them feed the town they were trying to help not starve if he did them a favor and protected someone from an assassin. Before they entered the office, they saw a teenaged boy who looked clearly upset leaving the office.

So the next day, and next session, they did just that. Well, after finding out that their charge may be trying to bring the slave trade into the city. And after, what I thought was a cool and fun fight (since the assassin was jumping from rooftop to rooftop and only going after the target rather than the party members), they managed to knock the assassin unconscious and get their charge safely out of the city. Their charge wanted them to capture him alive and get information from him, while the person who hired them wanted him dead. And that was the end of that session.

So this session, after a little bit of trying to decide what to do with the assassin, they the two members who met the principal before notice that the assassin is the same teenager who was upset leaving the office. (This was planned, by the way. It wasn't spontaneous.) And then what to do with him escalated. And it escalated to points I never could have imagined. So after finding out that the same guy who hired them to protect the slave trade guy was the same guy who told the boy to kill him, they found out that the boy did so because he thinks his little sister is in danger of being a slave. Or, that's how they interpreted it, though it wasn't quite true. More like others like his sister would be, but whatever.

OK, so they now need to get his sister out of the same school while reporting to the guy that they killed the boy. (Which they chose to prove by cutting off his finger and showing that to him... (Sidenote, giving people the finger was very much a joke that game.)) And it just descended into chaos from there... I can't believe that was only 3 hours for how chaotic it was compared to how much they got done. Needless to say, the guy saw through their plot, though I tossed them a bone and had them let them go off anyways, considering he didn't really have any reason to stop them.

Here's some reasons for the things happening, this principle is the leader of the assassin's guild. (The party does not yet know that.) The slave trade is some indirect competition for him since a lot of the children in his school are orphans taken off the street and basically indoctrinated to work for him. The assassin that they stopped was one of them. He couldn't interfere with his guild since the guild is part of the city council that very much knows about his dealings and part of them are on board with the slave trade and were in the way. So he used a loophole, someone who isn't actually yet a member of his guild to get rid of his competition without the other guilds knowing about it. He also had the party protect him for deniability and to test them since he knew of one of the party members. In exchange he would give them information about how to get the other guilds to help them save the town. If they did succeed, he would have them make a deal where the town sends children to his school. If not, then his competition is gone and the party member who he thinks is a threat is probably gone. It was win-win-win for him in the way I had it set up.
---

Mario_VS_DK posted...

Well, last session was a mess, but probably the best yet. If it had a name, it would probably be, "How not to abduct children".

Kind of like how our past several sessions of Pathfinder have been variants on "How Not To Sneak Into the Heavily-Guarded Dwarven Compund". (Most recent attempt: Knocking a hole in the side of the mountain to get at it from the other direction. ... This one is working.)
---

Sooo, since this has turned into a general DnD chat. What are peoples thoughts on a Duskblade/Abjurant Champion in 3.5?

Mario_VS_DK posted...

Well, after someone decided they wanted to skin the dogs, anyways.

Oh, so you have one of those in your party ...


krazychao5 posted...

I never understood DnD

Reading this doesn't help

Basically, it's writing a book as a group. One person is the Dungeon Master, who acts as the referee and guide. Everyone else controls a character they made within the setting. The rules are extremely fast and loose. All disagreements are settled by the DM. To 'play' you simply say what your character is doing. In order to make sure that a player can't just have Superman with an Infinity +1 Sword, they have stats and limitations like classes or races. When you try to do something (let's say you say, "I'm going to push that boulder off the cliff on top of that Ogre") then the DM will ask you to roll a D20, add your strength bonus, and if you roll as high as the DM's set difficulty check (DC), you succeed. If not, you fail.

So basically, the DM needs to be godlike and well prepared because you always know there is going to be some asshole that thinks that the solution to saving the kingdom is blowing up the castle while unleashing several flaming goats in the streets, and the DM has to figure out how to determine if he succeeds or not.

I remember one story, it might have been on here, where a player created a poorly worded spell about summoning skeletons. Basically, the necromancer summoned the skeleton, and then had to roll to determine if they can control them. On the first casting, it failed and the skeleton mage that was summoned began using the spell. After a few minutes, they filled the city with skeletons. They ran and got in a boat while the city was crushed under the heaving mass of animated bones. They watched as the skeletons humorously tumbled into the sea, only for things to take a turn when a wave of undead started chasing the boat. After awhile, the entire planet was crushed under the weight of the massive undead skeletons that had been summoned.

Babbit55 posted...

Sooo, since this has turned into a general DnD chat. What are peoples thoughts on a Duskblade/Abjurant Champion in 3.5?

Mechanically or flavorfully?

@shadowsword87 posted...

Babbit55 posted...

Sooo, since this has turned into a general DnD chat. What are peoples thoughts on a Duskblade/Abjurant Champion in 3.5?

Mechanically or flavorfully?

Well the flavor I am going for is an armoured warrior mage who strides into the thick of it mainly using spells for defence a kind of Arcane paladin if you will, Duskblade suits that nicely though the skills on paper for the Abj champ look like they work well too mechanically. What are some of the other some of the other prestige classes to look at?

There is the Spellsword in the Complete Warrior which lets you wear heavier armor faster than the Duskblade will do normally.

There is also the Eldritch Knight if you want get into a prestige class late, which is pretty boring and straightforward, but works.

Also Runesmith if you want to be a Dwarf.

@shadowsword87 posted...

There is the Spellsword in the Complete Warrior which lets you wear heavier armor faster than the Duskblade will do normally.

There is also the Eldritch Knight if you want get into a prestige class late, which is pretty boring and straightforward, but works.

Also Runesmith if you want to be a Dwarf.

You sure? Duskblade gets light armour from level 1 as it is a base class, If I didn't go there I would be looking at either a mix Mage of some type/Fighter, also as a prestige class It would take time to get there, Eldritch knight I didn't like the look of as it seemed more melee focused with little on the spell side.

Not had a look at Runesmith though, what is that one like

I guess the question is how armored you were looking to be then.

Hexblade is also an option.

There's also the Swordmage - it's a 4e class, but people have done 3.5e conversions for it online.


---

shadowsword87 posted...

I guess the question is how armored you were looking to be then.

Medium at most and a shield, Duskblade covers that.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Hexblade is also an option.

There's also the Swordmage - it's a 4e class, but people have done 3.5e conversions for it online.

There is a Hexblade class already, though I thought it was a base class in 3.5?

Bump.
---

Something something Bladesinger something something.

Usually followed by me grumbling "damn Elves" and making a Dwarf.
---

Quick question:

You know how the usual defining trait of a berserker is "being really pissed off", and D&D basically treats "berserker" as the defining characteristic of the Barbarian class?

I was thinking the other day about keeping all the rules the same, but changing the flavor of the berserking. Like, instead of a character who is frothing-at-the-mouth burning with raw, screaming rage, having a more "cold", focused fury. Where the warrior isn't screaming and hacking and going full-bore crazypants, but has more of a dead calm, tunnel-vision, inhuman killing machine sort of feel (so if one was after you, they'd look less Tasmanian Devil and more Terminator).

I was trying to think of real-world cultural stuff to see if I could come up with a name to describe that sort of combat trance, but all I could think of was the various takes on rage/berserking (like the "warp spasm" of Celtic stories or the bear/wolf/boar-serkers of the Norse). I was wondering if anyone here might be able to think of something I missed.


---

Sort of like a wolf attacking?

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Quick question:

You know how the usual defining trait of a berserker is "being really pissed off", and D&D basically treats "berserker" as the defining characteristic of the Barbarian class?

I was thinking the other day about keeping all the rules the same, but changing the flavor of the berserking. Like, instead of a character who is frothing-at-the-mouth burning with raw, screaming rage, having a more "cold", focused fury. Where the warrior isn't screaming and hacking and going full-bore crazypants, but has more of a dead calm, tunnel-vision, inhuman killing machine sort of feel (so if one was after you, they'd look less Tasmanian Devil and more Terminator).

I was trying to think of real-world cultural stuff to see if I could come up with a name to describe that sort of combat trance, but all I could think of was the various takes on rage/berserking (like the "warp spasm" of Celtic stories or the bear/wolf/boar-serkers of the Norse). I was wondering if anyone here might be able to think of something I missed.

You'd have to look to something like people that work themselves into a trance and firewalk or Shaolin monks, something of that nature.
---

"Phalanx" sounds pretty nifty, and has a sense of settling into a focused battle form. Historically it's been an extremely cooperative thing, though, so hard to pull off alone.
---

I don't have any nerd friends to play DnD with and I've always wanted to play. Does anyone want to play PotD DnD?

Having never played I can't be the master

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Quick question:

You know how the usual defining trait of a berserker is "being really pissed off", and D&D basically treats "berserker" as the defining characteristic of the Barbarian class?

I was thinking the other day about keeping all the rules the same, but changing the flavor of the berserking. Like, instead of a character who is frothing-at-the-mouth burning with raw, screaming rage, having a more "cold", focused fury. Where the warrior isn't screaming and hacking and going full-bore crazypants, but has more of a dead calm, tunnel-vision, inhuman killing machine sort of feel (so if one was after you, they'd look less Tasmanian Devil and more Terminator).

I was trying to think of real-world cultural stuff to see if I could come up with a name to describe that sort of combat trance, but all I could think of was the various takes on rage/berserking (like the "warp spasm" of Celtic stories or the bear/wolf/boar-serkers of the Norse). I was wondering if anyone here might be able to think of something I missed.

I know they kind of thing you mean. Great thing with DnD, if that is the kind of chara your chara is, great. Not all Barbs need to be a frothing at the mouth screamer.

Lightning Bolt posted...

"Phalanx" sounds pretty nifty, and has a sense of settling into a focused battle form. Historically it's been an extremely cooperative thing, though, so hard to pull off alone.

Phalanx is a military manoeuvre rather than a warrior archetype, it also would more imply a more tactical approach to fighting, rather than the more reckless style a barb has.

Lightning Bolt posted...

Historically it's been an extremely cooperative thing, though, so hard to pull off alone.

Yeah, but I'm not really talking about what is generally referred to as "battle trance", wherein large groups sort of zone out into the same rhythm. What I'm talking about is more like Blademasters in the Wheel of Time series, who sort of turn their focus internally and quell their own emotions and awareness (which in turn was probably inspired by various ideas in Buddhism and samurai philosophy), filtering out everything (including physical pain and other distractions) other than the perfection of your own strikes and your opponent.

http://wot.wikia.com/wiki/Void

In fact, now that I bring that up as an example, I'm reminded of the concept of wu wei, as well as this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)

Going down these lines, samurai might be the best model to work from, especially the more romanticized later-period samurai (ie, Tokugawa-era), where you have the mentality that the true warrior has perfect focus in all things, whether a battle, a duel, or writing a haiku or painting calligraphy. That sort of mental state occasionally known as "ego-death", where you basically blot out everything but the moment you exist in and focus the totality of your effort on whatever it is you're doing. The sort of thing where you have someone talking about being "one with the blade" or whathaveyou.

But I'm still kind of stumped on any real world examples to really call on as a descriptor for that sort of thing (other than the aforementioned samurai, which unfortunately carries a few too many connotations of its own to really work for this as a more generic term for "cold" berserking). Most meditative forms of ego-killing I can think of tend to be less militaristic and more philosophical.



synth_real posted...

You'd have to look to something like people that work themselves into a trance and firewalk or Shaolin monks, something of that nature.

Shaolin definitely touches on the idea, especially with the combination of Zen Buddhism and combat, though that falls more into a Monk's purview than a less-nimble, tankier class build (like Barbarian).


---

"Nirvanic Battle Trance"
That's definitely nirvana.

Or nibbana in another translation if you don't wanna sound like the band. But at that point you can pretty much go with anything "Asian sounding" and people will get it.
---

Yellow posted...

I don't have any nerd friends to play DnD with and I've always wanted to play. Does anyone want to play PotD DnD?

Having never played I can't be the master

You're going to be hard pressed to join a DnD game on PotD. Try just checking the Roll20 listings every now and then to find one. It'll take a while, but you should be able to get into a game eventually.

https://app.roll20.net/lfg/search/
---

Yellow posted...

I don't have any nerd friends to play DnD with and I've always wanted to play. Does anyone want to play PotD DnD?

Having never played I can't be the master

I tried to make shadow run a PotD game last Christmas and no one signed up. It does not work.
---

The problem is the instant that a schedule is implied everyone runs to the hills.

Lightning Bolt posted...

"Nirvanic Battle Trance"
That's definitely nirvana.

Or nibbana in another translation if you don't wanna sound like the band. But at that point you can pretty much go with anything "Asian sounding" and people will get it.

I'm not really looking for a name for it, per se. I'm just trying to think of any real-world examples of something similar.



shadowsword87 posted...

The problem is the instant that a schedule is implied everyone runs to the hills.

The real problem is that there are people on this site from both sides of the US as well as the UK, so the first problem is finding a time when everybody can be online at the same time. A "convenient" time (let's say, 7-10pm or so) for the East Coast winds up being too early for West Coasters who may not be home from work/school by 4pm, and too late for people in the UK (who would have to start around midnight). Conversely, starting at a time that's good for West Coasters (say, 7pm again) still winds up hurting the East Coast a bit (10pm isn't super-late to start, but finishing after midnight can be a problem for people with jobs or early classes), and would be the absolute worst option for UK players (who would be starting at like 3am). On the other hand, a convenient time for UP players (again, let's say 7pm) basically winds up being afternoon for the US East Coast (2pm) and morning for the West Coast (11am).

So for the first step, you basically have to thrash that out, AND find a day of the week that works for everyone (which is also hard, because some people may have certain days off but not others, some people may have activities on certain days, and so on), AND make sure there are enough people who are happy with the compromise (rather than having everyone be equally miserable by splitting the difference) that you have confidence in the time you've set for play.

But then because it's an online game rather than a face-to-face, it's a lot easier to dismiss out of hand whenever you feel like blowing it off (especially if your players aren't all that serious about playing in the first place), either because you wind up making plans for that night, or because you just feel tired or sick, or have other things you need to do, etc. And the odds of being willing to blow it off only increases for people who are already sacrificing a bit to play (ie, I'm way more likely to blow off a game starting at 1am than I am one starting at 8pm).

Then you have to factor in technical issues (where people who would otherwise show up can't because one thing or another isn't working quite right).


The other major problem is that when someone says "Hey, we should play D&D" tons of people will pipe up to go "Yeah, I'd love to play!", but a fair number of those people have absolutely no experience with the game (or only know older editions and aren't familiar with newer rules, or are familiar with the rules but have never played online before, etc), which usually results in them being more awkward while playing (in theory only until they get used to things, but potentially being a long-term problem), as well as being more likely to drop out whenever something else comes up or they just don't feel like playing.

Enthusiasm for RP is sort of like enthusiasm for going back for seconds (or thirds, or...) while eating. Sometimes your eyes are too big for your stomach, as the old saying goes.


---

And while writing all that, I reminded myself of another related problem:

ParanoidObsessive posted...

or only know older editions and aren't familiar with newer rules

Basically, the more experienced players are all going to go into the game with pre-existing biases towards which system they like best. For every person totally content with using 5e as the default system because it's the current one, there's going to be someone who still has nostalgia for 4e, someone who thinks the game peaked with 3e/3.5, and someone else who's going to bring up and push for Pathfinder instead. And then me (or someone like me) will come along and jokingly suggest BECMI.

But once whoever is DMing (which is another issue that needs to be resolved in advance, because most people want to play but only a few people want to/feel comfortable enough to DM) puts their foot down and declares an official system, there's going to be people who are soured on the game because they don't like that system. And a player who is like "Well, I hate 4e but I'll play anyway because it's the system you're using and I want to play D&D" is going to be less enthusiastic about the game on the whole (and may spend half their time grumbling about how 4e sucks and pushing to switch the game to a different system after the first few sessions).

Ultimately, most of our inability to get a stable D&D group together is sort of rooted in the fact that PotDers in general tend to have wildly disparate personalities and live scattered across half the world. It wouldn't be as huge a problem if we were all in one room and playing together, but online play only tends to exacerbate those sorts of issues.


---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

I'm not really looking for a name for it, per se. I'm just trying to think of any real-world examples of something similar.

Ohhh gotcha. Okay, if it's not mushin then I give up on everything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mushin_(mental_state)#
---

HEY SHADOW!

Which D&D podcasts did you say you like/listen to again? I forget, and I've been considering the issue lately (because I'm up to like 12 hours a week worth of D&D podcasts at this point and it's starting to worry me).


---

I need to separate them because, like most people, a lot of the podcasts play more than just DnD.

DnD Main podcasts:
Critical Hit
The Adventure Zone
Temple of the Lava Bears

Non-DnD podcasts (that may still have DnD):
Campaign
Fear the Boot*
RPPR Actual Play
RPPR Tabletop Tales
Rag-NERD-rok Podcast
The Mixed Six (technically)

RPG Adjacent:
GM Word of the Week*
Lookout Radio
Ken and Robin Talk About Stuff
RPPR

The *'s are where I give a heavy recommendation

Wait a second, is this just a way for you to feel better about listening to just 12 hours of podcasts?

Well, if it was, I would certainly feel better now!

But yeah, I was mostly just interested in the D&D podcasts, because it seems like that's what most of the actual likeable personalities with a view towards "game-as-entertainment" seem to play, as opposed to people who are either less likeable/more grating or who are clearly treating it more as just a documenting of their normal playstyle.

I couldn't even get into Foreververse when they were doing their 7th Sea run in spite of liking that system. And I've never been able to get into Heroes and Halfwits in spite of liking all of the Rooster Teeth guys because their DM irritates me (and I don't watch Twits and Crits because it's behind the paywall).

At this point, I'm mostly just watching the Acq Inc. stuff, Critical Role, Dice Camera Action (which I just finished binging to catch up on, mainly because of Perkins being the DM and because of the Holly Conrad/Strix guest appearance in the main Acq Inc game), and I've just started slogging through the Yogscast crew game (partly because I liked their guest appearances on DCA, and partly from watching them play on the Stream of Annihilation).

I suppose I technically also watch Force Grey, but that's less of a show and more of a mini-series sort of deal.


---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Well, if it was, I would certainly feel better now!

Oh please, RPG-related stuff is just half of what I listen to!
I am going to double down on the Fear the Boot Actual Play podcast though, I heavily recommend it:
http://ap.feartheboot.com/
There's only 9 episodes so far so it's not too much to actually catch up on, but holy crap they're amazing.

shadowsword87 posted...

Oh please, RPG-related stuff is just half of what I listen to!

Yeah, but my point was that, if I was starting to feel bad about listening to too much D&D/RP, then the fact that you're clearly listening to way more WOULD make me feel better.

As for it only being half of what you listen to, I probably listen to/watch more wrestling and video game stuff per week than I do RPG (my main channels are basically everything Rooster Teeth, Outside Xbox, Playstation Access, WhatCulture, WhatCulture Gaming, WhatCulture Wrestling, WrestleTalk, and Wrestling with Wregret, plus PreRec and RedLetterMedia when they come out with stuff, and I generally try to keep up with most new videos for each channel). But YouTube has pretty much become TV for me at this point.

Plus most of the time I'm listening to RP stuff is usually in tandem with playing Minecraft, where like I said in the Geek topic, I'm basically covering an entire world in cobblestone (about 750,000 blocks) - in Survival Mode - because I am a sick person. Made sicker because, since the last time I mentioned it, I decided to box in the sides as well (which is going to take another 500,000 blocks or so).


---

Oh, and here's something else I've been considering:

Material Components - does anyone actually like/use them as a mechanic?

I know they've been a thing since pretty much forever, but I've always loathed them as a concept (even in other systems, like Warhammer), and I've noticed that almost none of the more casual D&D games I watch use them at all (except to occasionally mention someone spreading flower petals or whatever as flavor-fluff that is never brought up again, and no one ever has to buy or harvest components as they travel).

So I was wondering if people here are more inclined to actually use them as presented, forcing players to constantly restock supplies or be unable to cast spells, or if pretty much everyone other than the hardest of hardcore grognards brush off the mechanic entirely and straight up ignore it.

And on a more or less related note:

Spellcasting Focus - 5e rules allow a spellcaster to substitute a "Spellcasting Focus" instead of using material components in a spell, which is sort of like how a clerical holy symbol works mechanically, except for arcane casters instead. They list stuff like crystal balls, orbs, rods, staves, etc. as recommended focuses (foci), with Druids having their own separate list (of stuff like mistletoe, sickles, etc). It's seemingly presented as being entirely optional, though, and it seems like it would be completely unnecessary in a game where a DM didn't require material components. Indeed, in much the same way none of the spellcasters in the various podcast games I watch ever use material components, none of them seem to use foci either.

I do remember this specifically being more of a required thing in 4e (at least, I remember giving my Sorcerer runic daggers and my Warlock had a staff because of it, and I don't remember it being optional), but in the same vein, I don't remember Perkins ever really requiring it in the 4e Acq Inc games (though Jim's obsession with wands more or less fills that niche anyway - and ironically, his tendency to treat them like holstered guns actually echoes one of the earliest D&D characters in Gygax's home campaign, who was more or less a Wild West gunslinger-type mage).

So, does anyone here use/require foci in games? Or is that something else that most groups simply ignore as being too cumbersome/restrictive?


---

In Pathfinder, components are pretty simple to deal with.

You just have a spell component pouch that is assumed to have any component or focus without a written value, and you are assumed to stock it back up whenever you're in town.

For components with a cost, you're assumed to have them and just subtract the cost from your gold whenever you cast it. For foci, it's just a one time cost in most cases. (If it asks for a weapon, you're certainly not going to be pulling that out of a small pouch.)

And that's the rules as they are written. If you want to do it a different way, either steal their component pouches while they're far away from civilization or OK it with them first. It would add a lot of extra bookkeeping if you decide not to do it that way.
---

Materials are basically the "Arcane Focus". Instead of a symbol of god, it's a bag. So nah, I don't feel much need to keep track of the details. Adds very little fun gameplay, and inventory management in general is very "solo play" which I don't like to encourage.
Reflavoring the bag to an orb is fine, whatever their cute little hearts desire.

I wouldn't remove them, since players won't use them unless there's a reason to, and they feel neat so I want to encourage them. Though making them optional and giving them bonus stats could work. It's so harmless to require it that I usually just do so in case I want to play with the mechanic at some point. Rare materials, getting captured and losing materials, expensive materials, and such work. Not a fan of inventory management and travel preparation usually.

Inventory management being the micromanaging of amounts of supplies and consumables you'll need. Magical item upgrades, allocating your money as a power budget, is fine, though a little stale in execution in some games.
---

Mario_VS_DK posted...

In Pathfinder, components are pretty simple to deal with. You just have a spell component pouch that is assumed to have any component or focus without a written value, and you are assumed to stock it back up whenever you're in town.

It's the same in 5e. Basically, you can use a component pouch in the same way you use a focus - ie, substitute it for any material component that doesn't have a cost.

What I'm basically asking is if anyone ever uses a more active material component system, assuming that players don't bypass it entirely by using foci or pouches that way. Or if literally everyone bypasses it via the provided workarounds. Or just ignores it entirely.



Lightning Bolt posted...

Materials are basically the "Arcane Focus". Instead of a symbol of god, it's a bag.

Well, no. The Arcane Focus for an arcane spellcaster is literally an Arcane Focus (or more broadly, a Spellcasting Focus, with Arcane Focus being more specifically for Wizard and the like, with Druid Focus as a separate category of Spellcasting Focus that works for Druids).

Materials are a separate system which, as-written, can be replaced by a focus which is analogous to a holy symbol.

It might sound like semantics, but there IS a separate step in there, which is sort of at the root of the question I'm asking.

Though the fact that every answer to the question so far seems to miss that might in and of itself be the answer to the question.



Lightning Bolt posted...

and inventory management in general is very "solo play" which I don't like to encourage

In a similar vein, I'm also not a fan of Encumbrance rules - but that's an entirely different discussion.


---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Does anyone actually like/use them as a mechanic?

No. I suspect those components originally existed to help balance the magic-using classes (i.e. reduce their overpoweredness at high levels), but, in my experience, all they do is slow down play and add one more element to track.
---

I_Abibde posted...

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Does anyone actually like/use them as a mechanic?

No. I suspect those components originally existed to help balance the magic-using classes (i.e. reduce their overpoweredness at high levels), but, in my experience, all they do is slow down play and add one more element to track.

The basic spell comps are included in a bag that is deemed to restock. Just certain spells require a more advanced comp, like a 100g gem for Identify. They are the only ones you need to worry about.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Materials are a separate system which, as-written, can be replaced by a focus which is analogous to a holy symbol.

I'm aware. I don't feel much need to keep track of the details. Inventory management is an unfun thing so I just use the bag as a holy symbol mechanically.
---

Bump-ing this because I was eyeballing Castles & Crusades rulebooks at the gaming store, only to be told that C&C does not have proper new "editions", only reprints that change up the cover artwork and tweak rules very slightly, remove spelling errors, etc. I guess that makes sense.
---