This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.
NOTICE: Some online security services are reporting that information for a limited number of users from this site is for sale on the "dark web." As of right now, there is no direct evidence of this, but change your password just to be safe.

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Consider what these bonuses represent.

When professionals are willing to WRECK their bodies to get 1% incremental benefit to physical performance... a +1 sword is a 5% increase.

2
The random tables effectively determine rarity.
I mean in a really roundabout way that takes allot of time I suppose. But its annoying to customize because you have to adjust every item %-wise if you want an items to exist or not.

Its fun for quick treasure drops or item shop generation, but as a general rarity rate, I would say no.
Quote
But that conflates rarity and power.
Well not necacarily. I generally make more utility granting items rarer in my games, but numbers boosters not uncommon.

Quote
It would probably be better to come up with consistent set of guidelines for classifying items by rarity
I just rate them manually. I don't play dungeon treasure crawls so somekind of level/dungeon/level rarity isn't important for me. Depending on setting, I just change around what Items exist/don't exist

In fairness high-end athletic gear isn't exactly rare in our world because we live in a technologically advanced, globalized and highly industrialized consumeristic society (at least till the supply chain completely collapses), where mass production is a thing. But even then the newest Nikes probably cost around ten times as much as some cheap ass bargain sneakers.

Well in the past shoes where simply worse. Even a master cobbler would make shoes generally worse then the ones in common day with less advanced materials. But even if in a post apolalypse where nikes didn't decay for some reason, they would not be worth bagillions, and stored in dungeons.
3
High level athletes pay obscene amounts of money for gear that can, at best, provide an almost infinitesimal performance improvement.
Possibly, but we don't sing songs about the Nikes of Jord-On, nor do the swimsuits of The Angeles warrant a dungeon to protect. And even with obscene amounts of money, it doesn't reach close to magic item costs (outside of tacky crap like jewel studs). Also those items are not really rare. If you want them, and have the money - you can get them. We don't need crushed pope teeth to craft the kickable balls of chiki-briki. If signed or something by a star athlete, they would be worth allot to collectors, but again rarely dungeon worthy.

And of course its not equalatiraly applied. A +1 sword exists in the same context as a ring of invisibility. Which is why I think beyond cost, there needs to be a degree of rarity.
Like...To some degree I also use +1->Gargoyle type stuff. I just have different degrees of what is commonly available and what is uncommonly available.

A +1 Sword is pretty common (And in SW flat attack bonuses don't go above a +1 on weapons), like a high quality car. But a Brutal weapon is rare because it allows a person to smash things with heavy armor (Big monsters/vehicles) even though in most combats it won't come up.

In fairness high-end athletic gear isn't exactly rare in our world because we live in a technologically advanced, globalized and highly industrialized consumeristic society (at least till the supply chain completely collapses), where mass production is a thing. But even then the newest Nikes probably cost around ten times as much as some cheap ass bargain sneakers.

Back in the olden days or some fantasy equivalent you would've had to find a master shoemaker to get shoes like that, and probably have them commissioned or something.

I also agree with Pat that while on the surface a +1 or even a +5 bonus might seem unimpressive, technically—all things considered, including STR/DEX bonuses, Specialization bonuses, plus bonuses stacked from other items, etc—a +1 bonus is not far off from actual fine craftsmanship level and a +5 bonus is actually obscene, and viable to screw up balance. The issue, as already stated is that a +1 bonus on its own doesn't feel as magical as special properties like+1d6 elemental damage or spell-like abilities and stuff like that.
4
I was going to bring up the basic "party contract" type of ethics.

Things like "Don't steal from the other party members" and "When combat starts, you have to fight on the party's side."

Looks like it's a little late, though.
5

And of course its not equalatiraly applied. A +1 sword exists in the same context as a ring of invisibility. Which is why I think beyond cost, there needs to be a degree of rarity.
The random tables effectively determine rarity. For example, in the B/X Expert Rulebook, the most common item is the +1 sword, with an 8% chance (20% chance to get the sword subtable, and 40% of that table is the +1 sword; 0.20 * 0.40 = 0.08). That means 1 in 12.5 of all magic items will be +1 swords. The next most common is the 1 spell scroll (4.5%/1 in 22), then the 2 spell scroll and some protection scrolls (lycanthropes, undead, and elementals; all 3%/1 in 33), followed by the +1 shield (2%/1 in 50).

The least common items have a 0.05% (1 in 2,000) chance of occurring, and include a couple high bonus weapons (mace +3, dagger +2/+3 vs., warven thrower +, spear +3), multiple wish items (2 rings), and other powerful items (staff of wizardry, crystal ball with ESP, drums of panic, efreeti bottle, the 4 elemental summoning devices, a flying carpet, helms of telepathy and teleportation, horn of blasting, and mirror of life trapping). Everything else falls in between. It's not hard to convert those to AD&D frequencies (very rare 4%, rare 11%, uncommon 20%, common 65%).

But that conflates rarity and power. It would probably be better to come up with consistent set of guidelines for classifying items by rarity, and how to distinguish that from more powerful items being inherently less common. Thinking of magic items like monsters and dungeon levels might help -- what items belong on dungeon level 8, and which of those are the rarest even on the most ideal level? Assign magic items a typical level, and then a rarity.
6
High level athletes pay obscene amounts of money for gear that can, at best, provide an almost infinitesimal performance improvement.
Possibly, but we don't sing songs about the Nikes of Jord-On, nor do the swimsuits of The Angeles warrant a dungeon to protect. And even with obscene amounts of money, it doesn't reach close to magic item costs (outside of tacky crap like jewel studs). Also those items are not really rare. If you want them, and have the money - you can get them. We don't need crushed pope teeth to craft the kickable balls of chiki-briki. If signed or something by a star athlete, they would be worth allot to collectors, but again rarely dungeon worthy.

And of course its not equalatiraly applied. A +1 sword exists in the same context as a ring of invisibility. Which is why I think beyond cost, there needs to be a degree of rarity.
Like...To some degree I also use +1->Gargoyle type stuff. I just have different degrees of what is commonly available and what is uncommonly available.

A +1 Sword is pretty common (And in SW flat attack bonuses don't go above a +1 on weapons), like a high quality car. But a Brutal weapon is rare because it allows a person to smash things with heavy armor (Big monsters/vehicles) even though in most combats it won't come up.
7
If only two or three people specified their pronouns would Gen Con admit it?
Or would they just announce the new pronoun initiative was a great success.
8
I enjoyed Episode 5.
No spoilers about it.

Episode 1-4 thoughts
Shouldn't boba have been younger or digitally de-aged in the flashbacks? Or did he spend like.. years inside the sarlak?
The character of boba fett seems very empty now that they're trying to actually make him a character.
I don't feel any enthusiasm for the character in the writing. And the rainbow biker gang doesn't feel like they fit in.
9
My "cheaper local convention" just sent me an email advertising a new grant program for marginalized game designers.

https://www.bigbadcon.com/blog/our-new-story-synth-microgrant-program/

Basically, submit an application and create a game in 6 months and you'll be awarded $300 dollars and micro-transactions whenever anyone accesses your game online.

But, of course, I can't apply unless I pretend to be a faggot or something. The application is only open to: "Marginalized Gender, Disabled, BIMPOC (???), LGBTQUIA+, and Identity [Other].

Oh, and get this, you can check multiple boxes, and website says the program is focused on helping game designers at the intersection of these identities. So if I were a morbidly obese black lesbian they would drool all over my application.

As a straight white, able-bodied male who works construction... odds are not so good.

I don't think I shall be attending this year BigBadCon, you furry-loving pricks.

My formerly local con stopped using Gamemaster and went to host instead. Never went again. I think this was a decade ago.

I find I like the idea of a con more than the actual experience usually, anyway.
10
5e actually has been holding up very well AFAICT - it has great 'legs', which seems to have been part of the (Mearls-led) plan 2012-14. While I don't think Crawford's recent messing around with 5e has helped sales, I doubt it has impacted sales much either. I don't think his more Woke recent material has sold particularly well, but I don't think that has harmed the overall bottom line very much yet either.

Crawfords been messing with 5e since practically the get-go. If you ask him and Mearls a question about the rules. Odds are very high that Crawford will answer the near diametric opposite of Mearls. This was apparent early on in 5es release. After that he seemed to settle down for a while, with brief flare-ups. Then recently hes been pushing more and more stuff thats impacting the bottom line one way or another.

Why? Who knows. Some of his answers remind me a bit of that woman who for a time ran the Q&A section of Dragon and deliberately gave bad answers because she wanted to discourage kids staying inside playing RPGs when they should be outside.

I don't know if this has anything to do with Wokeness, but his Sage/Twitter answers do often seem to make special effort to be bad/perverse.

He's a subversive in the classical mold with a grievance against wider society. If he wasn't in DnD he would be a shrink pushing transgender ideology.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10