I didn't see a prior thread on the subject, hopefully I didn't miss it. Seems to be a lot of oldschool guys around here so I thought there might be some interesting opinions. For those who haven't seen it, Matt Colville is writing a 5e D&D book about strongholds, followers, downtime stuff etc (and it's apparently already the biggest ttrpg kickstarter ever). It doesn't sound particularly granular in some ways, but I am not really sure what it looks like (maybe there's more in his videos, don't know);
QuoteThis product will not turn your game into a 4X game, or an RTS. It grants new character options and opens the game up to a more political arena where nearby local powers, both good and evil, take an interest in the PCs and what they're up to. Nor is this product about buying 10' squares of wall or individual doors. You don't create a PC by buying organs!
So, basically I just really can't decide if I want this. These kinds of activities have always been available to players in my games (at least D&D type games) but more often than not I haven't used any particularly "official" or codified rules. I haven't really felt the need for it but I considered trying out some more formal rules for 5e. I also think it's pretty cool that there seems to be so much interest in a playstyle that seemed to have almost been written off in the past two editions.
Everything I've seen about Colville points to him being a very professional and aboveboard guy, so I'm not worried about it delivering and yet I'm still not sure I need this book. Is there some other book that you think I should get instead (specifically for 5e) that you don't think this one will beat? Opinions?
Is this something along the lines of An Echo Resounding (https://sinenominepublishing.com/products/an-echo-resounding)?
AER is quite useful so I assume "Strongholds & Streaming" would be as well.
=
Quote from: Greentongue;1027183Is this something along the lines of An Echo Resounding (https://sinenominepublishing.com/products/an-echo-resounding)?
AER is quite useful so I assume "Strongholds & Streaming" would be as well.
=
I guess so yeah. It expands on the rules for strongholds, followers, etc.
@OP I'm in the same position as you. I decided not to back because the Kickstarter includes minis, which is always a huge red flag when it comes to fulfilment - even professional minis companies struggle, for others it often sinks fulfilment.
I run a lot of 5e domain/stronghold/rulership stuff currently in my Wilderlands sandbox; I can't say I've felt much need for more rules but I expect to buy Colville's book when it goes on sale.
What's the 'streaming' part of the title?
Quote from: Dr. Ink'n'stain;1027197What's the 'streaming' part of the title?
A treatise on the game mechanics for how to rechannel a watercourse or drain marshland to create new farms?
Quote from: Dr. Ink'n'stain;1027197What's the 'streaming' part of the title?
He has done tons of GM advice videos on Youtube, now he is going to do some livestreaming of games. A big part of why this kickstarter blew up is surely due to his fans, at least at first. I've seen a couple of his videos and they were fine but I am not exactly clamoring for more otherwise I would just buy the book to support him. I like hardcovers and fancy ones are even better, so I am still deciding.
OK, had to check the KS. The book and contents itself seem OK, the rest screams 'Vanity Project!!!'.
Quote from: Bren;1027201A treatise on the game mechanics for how to rechannel a watercourse or drain marshland to create new farms?
Well, that would be an improvement. I wonder why it was included in the KS title, as it only comes to effect on the more expensive pledges.. oh well.
This project was the most successful kickstarter in RPG history, and its success was based entirely on Colville's youtube following. The time's they are a-changin' in the RPG world.
Quote from: happyhermit;1027202He has done tons of GM advice videos on Youtube, now he is going to do some livestreaming of games. A big part of why this kickstarter blew up is surely due to his fans, at least at first. I've seen a couple of his videos and they were fine but I am not exactly clamoring for more otherwise I would just buy the book to support him. I like hardcovers and fancy ones are even better, so I am still deciding.
I enjoy Colville's DM advice. There's nothing especially ground-breaking for an experienced DM, but he presents it in an enthusiastic and engaging way. And it's nice to see a DM who takes an old-school approach to D&D attract such a following of new gamers.
However, I have no interest in the book, and even less in the streaming. On the extremely unlikely chance that PCs in a campaign I run make 10th level, I have a pile of adventures I've never been able to run that are moving to the front of the cue, not stronghold and domain play. And I just don't get live streaming of D&D play. I find even a highly polished and produced stream with voice actors, like Critical Hit, to be dull, pointless, and vaguely embarrassing. I can't imagine anything less appealing than watching Colville and his co-workers play D&D for four hours.
But to show how prominent and influential D&D streamers are today, a couple guys in my group have pledged for the book. And they're not even DMs.
Quote from: Dr. Ink'n'stain;1027197What's the 'streaming' part of the title?
He is raising money for streaming games along with selling the book.
I backed it, but I only pledged a buck.
that way I can at least get news about it, and if it ends up being something I'm interested in I'll bump up my pledge and get the book via backerkit
First kickstarter by the creator.
Stretch goals with stickers, shirts and minis.
Stretch goals commit the creator to writing new content:
QuoteWe're printing a book and we need money for art and layout and printing costs. The core release is 128 pages, hardcover, but the content and page count increase with each stretch goal!
I wish him the best, but it looks like a wait for retail situation to me. With $1.5 million gross you'd think he couldn't fail to fulfill at a profit, but the history of kickstarters suggests it's an open question.
Aside: 720 backers paid $500 each for "all the swag: stickers, shirt, PDF, five dragon minis and a SIGNED copy of the Kickstarter Exclusive hardcover!" There's one born every minute, isn't there?
I backed it. I love Colville and would have done it regardless.
But I'm only after the book. I don't need minis. The stream might be OK.
I just hope he resists the temptation to keep adding extra goals until it sinks him.
Interested in the book, but zero interest in the rest of the package. Sounds like a wait and see to me.
Can't you just make the minimum donation necessary to get the book then?
Quote from: Dave R;1027441First kickstarter by the creator.
Stretch goals with stickers, shirts and minis.
Stretch goals commit the creator to writing new content:
I wish him the best, but it looks like a wait for retail situation to me. With $1.5 million gross you'd think he couldn't fail to fulfill at a profit, but the history of kickstarters suggests it's an open question.
Aside: 720 backers paid $500 each for "all the swag: stickers, shirt, PDF, five dragon minis and a SIGNED copy of the Kickstarter Exclusive hardcover!" There's one born every minute, isn't there?
Yep, it's a perfect storm of goodwill ending in disaster.
My serious question is how this proposes to differ from ACKS which is an existing product that expands rules for dominik. Play. Or indeed An Echo Resounding as mentioned by others.
Quote from: Dave R;1027441...
Aside: 720 backers paid $500 each for "all the swag: stickers, shirt, PDF, five dragon minis and a SIGNED copy of the Kickstarter Exclusive hardcover!" There's one born every minute, isn't there?
There's a lot of people with a bit of disposable income to spend on stuff they enjoy, I throw money at a few things that I want to encourage with no direct personal gain, often getting some trinkets in return more as a token than anything. I just am not a big enough fan of his (though I don't have anything against him) to want to do that here necessarily.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1027442...
I just hope he resists the temptation to keep adding extra goals until it sinks him.
As far as kickstarter stretch goals go, this campaign seems incredibly restrained, from my perspective. I mean the initial goals ended at $170 000 and the next one he added wasn't until $1.3million! I don't do tons on kickstarter but that seems very conservative, especially as the stretch goal seemed pretty tame.
Quote from: Fiasco;1027445Yep, it's a perfect storm of goodwill ending in disaster.
My serious question is how this proposes to differ from ACKS which is an existing product that expands rules for dominik. Play. Or indeed An Echo Resounding as mentioned by others.
What's the disaster? Do you mean potential disaster or something I missed?
As for what makes it different, it mostly sounds like it's going to be more tailored to 5e specifically, with one example mentioned being enhancements to specific class abilities.
$20 seems a bit high for a PDF but maybe, I have always been interested in this aspect for D&D.
$60 including shipping for the softcover is right out.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1027444Can't you just make the minimum donation necessary to get the book then?
I could. At the price point, I would normally consider it. With the shipping cost, and all the other stuff likely to drive them past the due date and cause other problems, I don't see it as as something that is likely to be a good deal for me.
The person running this website is a racist who publicly advocates genocidal practices.
I am deleting my content.
I recommend you do the same.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;1027473Literally none of those is a 5th Edition supplement.
The specific edition is just window dressing. Does this offer anything significant in terms of mechanics or ideas?
Quote from: Dave R;1027441First kickstarter by the creator.
Stretch goals with stickers, shirts and minis.
Stretch goals commit the creator to writing new content:
I wish him the best, but it looks like a wait for retail situation to me. With $1.5 million gross you'd think he couldn't fail to fulfill at a profit, but the history of kickstarters suggests it's an open question.
This was my feeling - Matt is a smart guy, the book should be great, but the KS design looks full of classic noob errors likely to greatly delay fulfilment. I hate "The more you pledge, the later you get your stuff!" KS design. So although I've been wavering back and forth, I don't think the September fulfilment date is at all likely, I intend to wait for retail.
I hope you guys are wrong about all of the mistakes.
Quote from: Fiasco;1027445My serious question is how this proposes to differ from ACKS which is an existing product that expands rules for dominik. Play. Or indeed An Echo Resounding as mentioned by others.
I don't have the ACKS book, but I do have AER and it's pretty well unusable for what I want, which is much more along the lines of 1e DMG and BECM Companion Set background systems to support PC-centric play. I think Colville is doing much much closer to what I want. OTOH the ACKS book does likely fill similar design space.
Edit: Well this inspired me to finally order ACKS off amazon before the price goes crazy! As Venger Satanis was pointing out on his blog recently, OSR stuff is 99% compatible with 5e, and the simulationist approach of ACKS looks like what I want for my 5e Wilderlands game.
I'm very interested in this but will wait until it's out
Matt has made it very clear that he is not getting tangled up with stretch goals or add-ons.
Bundling three very different projects (book, office / streaming set-up, five(?) dragon minis) is an eyebrow raiser enough anyway.
The first two are relatively straightforward for someone with his experience and contacts. The third is more challenging, of course, but it is very limited.
I'm not concerned.
Quote from: happyhermit;1027162Opinions?
Matt isn't a role-player. He is a facilitator of Mother, May I? guessing games is all.
Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1027512Matt isn't a role-player. He is a facilitator of Mother, May I? guessing games is all.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1027512Matt isn't a role-player. He is a facilitator of Mother, May I? guessing games is all.
Really? Sweet, thanks for the info! I have seen my playstyle denigrated in almost exactly the same way by strangers on the internet, so I might have to watch some more of his videos at least.
Quote from: Haffrung;1027513:rolleyes:
What he said.
Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1027512Matt isn't a role-player. He is a facilitator of Mother, May I? guessing games is all.
What? He's known for playing more old school style than any other D&D personality and for popularizing a lot of it.
Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1027512Matt isn't a role-player. He is a facilitator of Mother, May I? guessing games is all.
What do you mean by that?
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1027534What? He's known for playing more old school style than any other D&D personality and for popularizing a lot of it.
Well, I'm not sure here but I have seen that sleight used by proponents of "new school" games ie; indie games, against "traditional" games like D&D where the GM has the final say.
Quote from: happyhermit;1027521Really? Sweet, thanks for the info! I have seen my playstyle denigrated in almost exactly the same way by strangers on the internet, so I might have to watch some more of his videos at least.
He's one of the best Youtube advice-giving GMs IMO. He seems to run a decent game, unlike most of them - pretty sandboxy, not railroaded. He uses rules as tools not straitjacket, in the best Gygaxian tradition of "Mother May I Guesing Games" (which sounds like the kind of crap I used to see on rpgnet) - ie he appreciates the GM runs the game not the rulebook, and he's very open to player ideas. He will occasionally kill PCs though probably not as much as I do.
Quote from: happyhermit;1027543Well, I'm not sure here but I have seen that sleight used by proponents of "new school" games ie; indie games, against "traditional" games like D&D where the GM has the final say.
Yes, AFAICT "Mother May I" is a phrase used by rules-bound dickheads to denigrate people who play RPGs like God and Gygax intended, with the GM in charge of play and adjudicating what happens in response to PC actions.
+1
The schism in play styles raises its ugly head.
=
Quote from: Motorskills;1027507Matt has made it very clear that he is not getting tangled up with stretch goals or add-ons.
Bundling three very different projects (book, office / streaming set-up, five(?) dragon minis) is an eyebrow raiser enough anyway.
The stickers, t-shirts, minis, office/streaming setup and additional book content literally are the definition of getting tangled up in add-ons and stretch goals. In what possible sense has he made it clear he's not doing these things, when he's doing these exact things?
Quote from: happyhermit;1027543Well, I'm not sure here but I have seen that sleight used by proponents of "new school" games ie; indie games, against "traditional" games like D&D where the GM has the final say.
He definitely has some political correctness to him, but as far as old school cred goes, he seems legit. He's always been a "D&D is my main game" kind of guy because that's where all the players are. Maybe not OSR level, but half of his videos are about introducing old school concepts like the West Marches, and Strongholds. That is why his book took off so much, because he spent so long telling everyone about the old days, like a grandpa regaling his children. And everyone wanted to join in because they liked listening to him and he did a good job selling the concepts.
Quote from: Dave R;1027556The stickers, t-shirts, minis, office/streaming setup and additional book content literally are the definition of getting tangled up in add-ons and stretch goals. In what possible sense has he made it clear he's not doing these things, when he's doing these exact things?
Fair.
The non-model gubbins aren't hard though, and were announced well in advance, so I don't really consider them add-ons (I'm probably blinkered by some of those miniature campaigns which have more Add-On models than core product). And the stretch goals were so low-hanging that I don't really consider them to have been a stretch in the first place.
The "pirate ship" stretch was a bit of fun on Matt's part for setting a new record, and that is text, the thing we know for sure he actually can do.
But philosophical differences aside, there's no doubt it is a
weird KS.
Quote from: S'mon;1027546Yes, AFAICT "Mother May I" is a phrase used by rules-bound dickheads to denigrate people who play RPGs like God and Gygax intended, with the GM in charge of play and adjudicating what happens in response to PC actions.
The term was originally used in RPG circles to describe character abilities whose usefulness depended on the DM's setting or scenario design, such as the ranger's favored enemy. Like so many terms, it's mutated over the past decade and a half.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1027592He definitely has some political correctness to him, but as far as old school cred goes, he seems legit. He's always been a "D&D is my main game" kind of guy because that's where all the players are. Maybe not OSR level, but half of his videos are about introducing old school concepts like the West Marches, and Strongholds.
Colville also says he doesn't believe in balance or use CRs, that it's okay to just make shit up, random encounters are great, and DMs shouldn't be trying to tell stories. Grognards should be happy that maybe the most influential person in the hobby today exposing D&D to new DMs is so old-school.
Quote from: Haffrung;1027601Colville also says he doesn't believe in balance or use CRs, that it's okay to just make shit up, random encounters are great, and DMs shouldn't be trying to tell stories. Grognards should be happy that maybe the most influential person in the hobby today exposing D&D to new DMs is so old-school.
Yeah I agree. There are a lot of terrible New School GMs out there on Youtube. It's great that the biggest name in Youtube GMs is ONE OF US*. :D
*OK he thinks Frazetta style S&S-T&A art is objectionable. Nobody's perfect. :)
Quote from: Haffrung;1027601Colville also says he doesn't believe in balance or use CRs, that it's okay to just make shit up, random encounters are great, and DMs shouldn't be trying to tell stories. Grognards should be happy that maybe the most influential person in the hobby today exposing D&D to new DMs is so old-school.
He's also one of those "the world is what it is, it's your job to make your place in it" GMs instead of "the world is designed around the PCs."
Quote from: Haffrung;1027601Colville also says he doesn't believe in balance or use CRs, that it's okay to just make shit up, random encounters are great, and DMs shouldn't be trying to tell stories. Grognards should be happy that maybe the most influential person in the hobby today exposing D&D to new DMs is so old-school.
Yeah I like his videos a lot.
https://www.reddit.com/r/mattcolville/comments/819dnx/story_mercer_vs_monster_killing_colville/dv1mhsz/
Here's Matt's response when someone asked him whether D&D is a storytelling game.
Quote from: S'mon;1027608Yeah I agree. There are a lot of terrible New School GMs out there on Youtube. It's great that the biggest name in Youtube GMs is ONE OF US*. :D
*OK he thinks Frazetta style S&S-T&A art is objectionable. Nobody's perfect. :)
I'm out. I will not interact with this blasphemer!
Matt is a GM at the Los Angeles conventions. I don't remember gaming with him, but he's a very familiar face. I contacted a friend and sent over his name/face and my friend says, yeah, he's a GM at the local cons, good dude, what's the deal? So I tell him Matt apparently is a D&D YouTube bigwig who just made $1.5M on KS. Then my phone exploded in a litany of holy fucks.
Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1027512Matt isn't a role-player. He is a facilitator of Mother, May I? guessing games is all.
Explain.
Quote from: Haffrung;1027601Grognards should be happy that maybe the most influential person in the hobby today exposing D&D to new DMs is so old-school.
That's great news!
[video=youtube_share;B5RIXub2i8M]https://youtu.be/B5RIXub2i8M[/youtube]
Quote from: Motorskills;1027599Fair.
The non-model gubbins aren't hard though, and were announced well in advance, so I don't really consider them add-ons (I'm probably blinkered by some of those miniature campaigns which have more Add-On models than core product). And the stretch goals were so low-hanging that I don't really consider them to have been a stretch in the first place.
The "pirate ship" stretch was a bit of fun on Matt's part for setting a new record, and that is text, the thing we know for sure he actually can do.
But philosophical differences aside, there's no doubt it is a weird KS.
Matt talks extensively about the mechanics / financials of the KS in this podcast (http://www.starwalkerstudios.com/gamemastersjourney/209), especially after the 1 hour mark. I think it should be encouraging to anyone concerned that Matt is invested in finding out the issues. I will grant it would have been better if all these queries had been resolved in advance of the launch (however there is a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation here, you need backers in order to get backer feedback!).
Quote from: S'mon;1027608*OK he thinks Frazetta style S&S-T&A art is objectionable. Nobody's perfect. :)
Well, it does go against the Bible.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1027649https://www.reddit.com/r/mattcolville/comments/819dnx/story_mercer_vs_monster_killing_colville/dv1mhsz/
Here's Matt's response when someone asked him whether D&D is a storytelling game.
That's a decent-enough answer.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1027923That's a decent-enough answer.
Here's the thing though, the finale-aftermath-thing of Critical Role Season 1 had Colville all choked up. Because it was all story, not a single dice was rolled.
Colville's analysis of the rules-set is spot on.
But D&D
is a story-telling game (small S). It just doesn't support the other two non-monster-killing pillars very well, let alone deep and emotive subjects.
And people remain fine with that, after forty years, and especially with 5e.
If folks want rule-sets that cover those things, they exist in various forms.
"No edition of D&D has really encouraged role-playing." (https://www.twitch.tv/videos/234982235?t=00h28m11s)
Quote from: Motorskills;1028006But D&D is a story-telling game (small S). It just doesn't support the other two non-monster-killing pillars very well, let alone deep and emotive subjects.
It (5e and 0e-2e at least) doesn't get in the way of the other pillars. That's all I ask. There's tons of heartbreakingly deep emotion in my online 5e game, maybe too much - I worry about some of my players... :)
4e sadly trashed the Exploration pillar, making it a bit of a 2-legged stool IMO, though I still run it for what it does well.
Quote from: Motorskills;1028006deep and emotive
One person's "deep and emotive" is another's pretentious and mawkish.
Quote from: Motorskills;1028006Here's the thing though, the finale-aftermath-thing of Critical Role Season 1 had Colville all choked up. Because it was all story, not a single dice was rolled.
Colville's analysis of the rules-set is spot on.
But D&D is a story-telling game (small S). It just doesn't support the other two non-monster-killing pillars very well, let alone deep and emotive subjects.
And people remain fine with that, after forty years, and especially with 5e.
If folks want rule-sets that cover those things, they exist in various forms.
D&D tells great stories:
once upon a time there were a whole bunch of orcs in that cave over there
then four guys showed up and killed them with swords and fire
they got pretty rich from that
THE END
Quote from: Motorskills;1028006Here's the thing though, the finale-aftermath-thing of Critical Role Season 1 had Colville all choked up. Because it was all story, not a single dice was rolled.
Colville's analysis of the rules-set is spot on.
But D&D is a story-telling game (small S). It just doesn't support the other two non-monster-killing pillars very well, let alone deep and emotive subjects.
And people remain fine with that, after forty years, and especially with 5e.
If folks want rule-sets that cover those things, they exist in various forms.
I think you are getting confused.
D&D can still tell stories but the stories are emerging after-the-fact from what happens. But that doesn't mean it's a "story telling game." The story is what comes out as a byproduct rather than being directly produced.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1028078I think you are getting confused.
D&D can still tell stories but the stories are emerging after-the-fact from what happens. But that doesn't mean it's a "story telling game." The story is what comes out as a byproduct rather than being directly produced.
But it's not either / or. The classic intro is the PCs meeting in a tavern, likely with the bar staff and a mysterious stranger.
Dice can be rolled, but just as often they won't be. The stories are being built before a single monster has been killed.
1. Every edition of D&D that doesn't have social skills (that is, social skills usable as substitutes for roleplaying) encourages roleplaying.
2. I've had several sessions of (non-Amber-based) games where no or hardly any dice were rolled.
The idea that something not covered by the game rules/mechanics is in fact something encouraged by the game is asinine.
Quote from: Ras Algethi;1028420The idea that something not covered by the game rules/mechanics is in fact something encouraged by the game is asinine.
there's no roll for talking to npc mechanic
this game doesn't encourage roleplaying
i hate my life
Quote from: Ras Algethi;1028420The idea that something not covered by the game rules/mechanics is in fact something encouraged by the game is asinine.
Gronan's standard response for this is 'bluffing in poker.' I can see the point, especially given the Old School theme that engaging with the mechanics directly (at least for combat) represents a sub-optimal or failure state.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1028433Gronan's standard response for this is 'bluffing in poker.' I can see the point, especially given the Old School theme that engaging with the mechanics directly (at least for combat) represents a sub-optimal or failure state.
Combat as Sport vs
Combat as War.
I run the latter, until it invariably runs into the former. My only regret with how I ran SKT is that I didn't make several of the Giant encounters much more dangerous, so that the party needed to come up with better solutions.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1028433Gronan's standard response for this is 'bluffing in poker.' I can see the point, especially given the Old School theme that engaging with the mechanics directly (at least for combat) represents a sub-optimal or failure state.
Another thing not in the rules?
Tempted to back this for the PDF. I'm a sucker for realm-building and mass combat rules.
Quote from: Motorskills;1028435Combat as Sport vs Combat as War.
I run the latter, until it invariably runs into the former. My only regret with how I ran SKT is that I didn't make several of the Giant encounters much more dangerous, so that the party needed to come up with better solutions.
What happens when it runs into the former?
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1028668What happens when it runs into the former?
Players like to hit stuff, can't blame 'em, I do too. So as much as everyone is happy when fights are bypassed or nuked without a scratch, sooner or later there will be a fight that goes to the wire. My job as a DM is to sprinkle enough of those in the mix to keep everyone happy.
Quote from: Dave R;1027556The stickers, t-shirts, minis, office/streaming setup and additional book content literally are the definition of getting tangled up in add-ons and stretch goals. In what possible sense has he made it clear he's not doing these things, when he's doing these exact things?
Quote from: Motorskills;1027599Fair.
The non-model gubbins aren't hard though, and were announced well in advance, so I don't really consider them add-ons (I'm probably blinkered by some of those miniature campaigns which have more Add-On models than core product). And the stretch goals were so low-hanging that I don't really consider them to have been a stretch in the first place.
The "pirate ship" stretch was a bit of fun on Matt's part for setting a new record, and that is text, the thing we know for sure he actually can do.
But philosophical differences aside, there's no doubt it is a weird KS.
This philosophy(?) (https://www.mcdmproductions.com/news/2018/3/12/the-end-of-the-beginning) is why I have confidence in Matt. A good read IMO, and addresses (to some degree) why the KS is as weird as it is, yet (IMO) remains restrained nonetheless.
Quote from: Ras Algethi;1028420The idea that something not covered by the game rules/mechanics is in fact something encouraged by the game is asinine.
No. The idea that mechanics that end up SUBSTITUTING the need for actual Roleplaying are somehow what "encourages" roleplaying is asinine.
The endless debate about things not covered in the rules in OD&D almost always devolves into a lot of disconnected gobblygook. If you start by making some technical point, like how it is asinine to write a game with six different ways of describing stealth and perception* and basically no guidance as to how they interact, you end up arguing about how youngsters and other dipshits don't really understand roleplaying. If a dedicated OD&D apologist is around, you an often get there in 1 move.
* Here they are:
1) 1d6 roll for listening
2) 1d6 roll for surprise
3) Thief roll for listen
4) Thief roll for move silent or hide in cover
5) 1d20 vs. attribute roll for things you think people can probably do
6) Describe your actions and have the DM adjudicate outcome without a die roll (i.e., 'role playing')
I contend that any or all of these is fine, provided you spend at least 1 sentence explaining what you mean by each. I'm not sure we ever quite got there in any pre-3E edition of D&D.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1029271No. The idea that mechanics that end up SUBSTITUTING the need for actual Roleplaying are somehow what "encourages" roleplaying is asinine.
Facilitating outcomes, via mechanics, is not detrimental to role-playing anymore than facilitating the outcome of combat is, via mechanics, is detrimental to combat.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1027649https://www.reddit.com/r/mattcolville/comments/819dnx/story_mercer_vs_monster_killing_colville/dv1mhsz/
Here's Matt's response when someone asked him whether D&D is a storytelling game.
I'm now open to this dude after that.
Quote from: Larsdangly;1029277The endless debate about things not covered in the rules in OD&D almost always devolves into a lot of disconnected gobblygook. If you start by making some technical point, like how it is asinine to write a game with six different ways of describing stealth and perception* and basically no guidance as to how they interact, you end up arguing about how youngsters and other dipshits don't really understand roleplaying. If a dedicated OD&D apologist is around, you an often get there in 1 move.
Honestly, I have the same reaction to just about all big theories about gaming, be they old-school vs. modern, Mother-may-I?, Combat as Sport vs. Combat as War, or any of the rest. It's almost* all a bunch of buzzwords and tribal one upmanship. And of course a critique of one's favored system cannot be allowed to stand, because that's clearly an attack on the core of ones' being :p.
*Sure, there might be some theoretical philosophical underpinnings as a foundation, but in terms of actual play, I am unconvinced.
Quote from: Ulairi;1029301I'm now open to this dude after that.
I no longer play D&D (not opposed to playing, it's just not my system preference) but I still find his videos informational and useful.
Quote from: Ras Algethi;1029284Facilitating outcomes, via mechanics, is not detrimental to role-playing anymore than facilitating the outcome of combat is, via mechanics, is detrimental to combat.
Those aren't the same thing. An RPG involves roleplaying. Combat can be abstracted not because it's more important than roleplaying but because it's LESS important.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1030131Those aren't the same thing. An RPG involves roleplaying. Combat can be abstracted not because it's more important than roleplaying but because it's LESS important.
If the "role-playing" aspect is the most important, what does it say if little, or for that matter any, rules for "role-playing" are present?
Quote from: Ras Algethi;1030139If the "role-playing" aspect is the most important, what does it say if little, or for that matter any, rules for "role-playing" are present?
It would say that Roleplaying is too important to be abstracted with mechanical rules.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1030693It would say that Roleplaying is too important to be abstracted with mechanical rules.
That's pretty much how I feel. But it's good to have some sort of mechanical aid if I'm unsure of an NPC's reaction.
Quote from: Ras Algethi;1030139If the "role-playing" aspect is the most important, what does it say if little, or for that matter any, rules for "role-playing" are present?
Poker has no rules for bluffing, does it?
Quote from: Motorskills;1028102But it's not either / or. The classic intro is the PCs meeting in a tavern, likely with the bar staff and a mysterious stranger.
Dice can be rolled, but just as often they won't be. The stories are being built before a single monster has been killed.
That's not a story. Those are events happening. Later on, when those events are retold, that's when someone creates a story. That's what a story is, it's a telling of what happened not the happening itself.
The only time you're creating story like that is when you're purposely authoring things with a mind to make a story. It's possible you've always roleplayed with that OOC, 4th wall awareness that "I'm creating a story" but many people do not.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1030693It would say that Roleplaying is too important to be abstracted with mechanical rules.
This fallback of "it's not in the rules so it's
really what this game is about" is fucking lame.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1030724Poker has no rules for bluffing, does it?
But it does for betting and who wins the hand/pot. Bluffing doesn't invoke rules/procedures not already in use/described. You place bets and the winner is determined.
Quote from: Ras Algethi;1030139If the "role-playing" aspect is the most important, what does it say if little, or for that matter any, rules for "role-playing" are present?
Different strokes. This is a play style issue and one of the big divides in the hobby. I can understand where you are coming from on this, and recognize there are folks who enjoy having mechanics to help navigate RP, but you should also try to understand things from the perspective of folks who don't like mechanics that interfere with more naturalistic role-play (i.e. just resolving things by speaking in character). The old argument that if the game doesn't have a mechanic for it, then the game isn't about that, is pretty shoddy and leads to claims like "D&D isn't an RPG" (personally I think everyone on all sides of the debate are way too prescriptive about the R, when we should be more descriptive---because it just because a clever way for people to make the hobby about what they want).
I remember being incredibly annoyed by the introduction of social skills into 3E for instance, and it definitely changes 1) the way the game was played, 2) my experience of the game. Once I got rid of things like Bluff, play went back to how I enjoyed it. Not saying my approach is the right one. I think there is room for compromise around this point given how evenly split gamers see to be on this topic. But the key issue for a lot of us, is a lot of these social mechanics seriously detract from what we consider a crucial aspect of the game. You really don't need mechanics for a game to be about something, when it is an area as open to free-form play as RP. And even then, there are plenty of other mechanics that exist in most games that help inform RP.
One approach to social mechanics I did like was the one in OG, where they gave you a vocabulary list (which increased if I recall with levels). That worked because I found it added to the flow of RP rather than disrupt it.
We are back to the people that got started with computer and video games needing something in the rules to think that it is encouraged by the game.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1030745Different strokes. This is a play style issue and one of the big divides in the hobby. I can understand where you are coming from on this, and recognize there are folks who enjoy having mechanics to help navigate RP, but you should also try to understand things from the perspective of folks who don't like mechanics that interfere with more naturalistic role-play (i.e. just resolving things by speaking in character). The old argument that if the game doesn't have a mechanic for it, then the game isn't about that, is pretty shoddy and leads to claims like "D&D isn't an RPG" (personally I think everyone on all sides of the debate are way too prescriptive about the R, when we should be more descriptive---because it just because a clever way for people to make the hobby about what they want).
I remember being incredibly annoyed by the introduction of social skills into 3E for instance, and it definitely changes 1) the way the game was played, 2) my experience of the game. Once I got rid of things like Bluff, play went back to how I enjoyed it. Not saying my approach is the right one. I think there is room for compromise around this point given how evenly split gamers see to be on this topic. But the key issue for a lot of us, is a lot of these social mechanics seriously detract from what we consider a crucial aspect of the game. You really don't need mechanics for a game to be about something, when it is an area as open to free-form play as RP. And even then, there are plenty of other mechanics that exist in most games that help inform RP.
One approach to social mechanics I did like was the one in OG, where they gave you a vocabulary list (which increased if I recall with levels). That worked because I found it added to the flow of RP rather than disrupt it.
Just to be upfront, there is nothing wrong with house-ruling or creating your own set of rules. It's the insinuation that the way you house-rule, or whatnot, is what the game is about for everyone. D&D is a role-playing game in the sense that one is playing a role or character. But there is a pretty wide spectrum of what constitutes playing a role. Some seem to say it playing yourself in what ever character you happen to be playing and some others might say it's playing someone else as reflected in the character your playing.
There are many ways to play or interpret the same game, especially when you introduce GM rulings and house-rules. But to claim that something not covered in a game book/manual is really what the game is about is simply silly.
"Not covered in the game book" is not the same as "Has no explicit mechanics." Not knowing that, or pretending not to, is simply silly.
Quote from: Ras Algethi;1030761Just to be upfront, there is nothing wrong with house-ruling or creating your own set of rules. It's the insinuation that the way you house-rule, or whatnot, is what the game is about for everyone. D&D is a role-playing game in the sense that one is playing a role or character. But there is a pretty wide spectrum of what constitutes playing a role. Some seem to say it playing yourself in what ever character you happen to be playing and some others might say it's playing someone else as reflected in the character your playing.
There are many ways to play or interpret the same game, especially when you introduce GM rulings and house-rules. But to claim that something not covered in a game book/manual is really what the game is about is simply silly.
Capt. Ross : Corporal Barnes, I hold here the Marine Outline for Recruit Training. You're familiar with this book?
Cpl. Barnes : Yes, sir.
Capt. Ross : Have you read it?
Cpl. Barnes : Yes, sir.
Capt. Ross : [hands him the book] Good. Would you turn to the chapter that deals with code reds, please?
Cpl. Barnes : [confused] Sir?
Capt. Ross : Just flip to the page of the book that discusses code reds.
Cpl. Barnes : Well, well, you see, sir code red is a term that we use. I mean, just down at Gitmo. I don't know if it's actually...
Capt. Ross : Ah, we're in luck then. Standard Operating Procedures, Rifle Security Company, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Now, I assume we'll find the term code red and its definition in that book. Am I correct?
Cpl. Barnes : No, sir.
Capt. Ross : No? Corporal Barnes, I'm a Marine. Is there no book, no manual or pamphlet, no set of orders or regulations that lets me know that, as a Marine, one of my duties is to perform code reds?
Cpl. Barnes : No, sir. No book, sir.
Capt. Ross : No further questions.
[as Ross walks back to his table Kaffee takes the book out of his hand]
Kaffee : Corporal, would you turn to the page in this book that says where the mess hall is, please?
Cpl. Barnes : Well, Lt. Kaffee, that's not in the book, sir.
Kaffee : You mean to say in all your time at Gitmo, you've never had a meal?
Cpl. Barnes : No, sir. Three squares a day, sir.
Kaffee : I don't understand. How did you know where the mess hall was if it's not in this book?
Cpl. Barnes : Well, I guess I just followed the crowd at chow time, sir.
Kaffee : No more questions.
Quote from: S'mon;1027500I don't have the ACKS book, but I do have AER and it's pretty well unusable for what I want, which is much more along the lines of 1e DMG and BECM Companion Set background systems to support PC-centric play. I think Colville is doing much much closer to what I want. OTOH the ACKS book does likely fill similar design space.
Edit: Well this inspired me to finally order ACKS off amazon before the price goes crazy! As Venger Satanis was pointing out on his blog recently, OSR stuff is 99% compatible with 5e, and the simulationist approach of ACKS looks like what I want for my 5e Wilderlands game.
Currently running an ACKS campaign, and we're creeping into midlevels, where all this domain/downtime stuff is becoming important. ACKS works great for it, with the advantage that it's all integrated into the entire system, but...
BUT
If you don't like copious record keeping and fiddling with numbers, it's not likely to be to your taste. FYI
Quote from: Rod's Duo Narcotics;1030795Currently running an ACKS campaign, and we're creeping into midlevels, where all this domain/downtime stuff is becoming important. ACKS works great for it, with the advantage that it's all integrated into the entire system, but...
BUT
If you don't like copious record keeping and fiddling with numbers, it's not likely to be to your taste. FYI
Well I got it a wee while ago now, and quite like it, but I'll just be using bits & pieces in my 5e game, not the whole system.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1030763"Not covered in the game book" is not the same as "Has no explicit mechanics." Not knowing that, or pretending not to, is simply silly.
This is a common fallacy. Because humans are wired not to see outside of their 'box' their paradigm, we like comfort, patterns, things we're used to. Change is scary to most.
For gaming, if it doesn't say you CAN, most people will assume you CAN'T. This is why a lot of modern games went the more complex route (for example D&D 3 and 5e) and hammered out what you can do, or they explicitly say in the game that if it's not covered, does NOT mean you CANNOT.
You (the general you, not you specific Mr. Mitchell) need to realize that almost all humans think that way.
I worded that badly in my annoyance with He Who Cannot Be Bothered To Make An Argument. Let's consider instead a hypothetical example:
I have an RPG book. In this book, there are examples of play. In the examples of play, and some of the text around them, there is explanation of the typical flow. A GM states the situation. One or more players say what they are doing The GM adjudicates. Repeat. Some of the examples are combat related, some are exploration, and some are social. In the mechanics section, there is a distinct combat chapter, some coverage of exploration abilities (sometimes explicit, sometimes vague, sometimes merely implied), but not much overt social mechanics. We might speculate a reaction table hints at social areas.
The game is clearly about more than combat and occasional, niche exploration. How much more will, of course, depend upon the participants and their tastes.
Now, assume that the examples are sketchy and limited, because the information conveyed by the examples has been, heretofore, conveyed by word of mouth and passed from table to table by experience. It's the same game. It has the same variety as before. It is probably not as well understood. That does not change the game's inherent nature. The idea that a game is about only what its mechanics cover is fatally flawed.
Personally, I prefer a fair amount of social mechanics--not determinant ones, as with some modern games, but more than what early D&D has. But how little or much you have is orthogonal to what an RPG is about. Rather, mechanics are detailed or moderate or slight or missing because that is what the designers wanted for that game.
Quote from: S'mon;1030721That's pretty much how I feel. But it's good to have some sort of mechanical aid if I'm unsure of an NPC's reaction.
That's what the Reaction Roll is for. It's all the social mechanic you'll ever need.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1030972That's what the Reaction Roll is for. It's all the social mechanic you'll ever need.
Well, I use the 2d6 RR to set NPC's initial disposition. If a PC is making a specific proposal, and I'm not sure how the NPC will react, I like a d20 attribute check as a more binary pass/fail determiner.
With the exception of 4e, the D&D monster manuals are rich with text on how to role-play monsters. Just because there's not a dice-based mechanic doesn't mean it's not there.
Well, yeah, in the sense of how to interpret the monsters.