recent d&d deathwatch data

[Koumei]

I mean, I have too much faith in humanity.

I don't. I can believe someone could be that stupid. And we end up getting them.

Granted, it's possible he's on Death Row, and needs to give proof that he's legally retarded so they can't execute him.

Also on the alcohol thing: Europeans loved their wine. It looked pretty, so they went and developed glass, to look at the drink before drinking it (meanwhile the Chinese, who usually invented stuff hundreds of years before us, drank tea, and were fine with using china). This glass led to:
[*]Microscopes (I hear they're useful to some people)
[*]Telescopes (SPESS!)
[*]Windows, finally letting people see how fucking filthy their houses are and thus clean them, lowering disease and infection
[*]LASERS MOTHERFUCKER
[*]Glasses, thus adding about 10-20 years to the careers of scholars

All because the Europeans were piss-heads.

Now, on cooking and eating bees. I feel it should generally be a Survival check to catch them in the first place, with the DC varying on where you are:
The Elemental Plane of BEEEEEEEEEES: DC 0, 10d6*10 Bee Swarms
A giant bee hive:DC 5, 6d6 Bee Swarms or Giant Bees
A lower plane: DC 15, 1d4 Fiendish Giant Bees or 2d6 Bee Swarms
In the wild, you can see a hive right there: DC 0, 1 Swarm
A big field of flowers: DC 18, 10d6 Bees
An old book store: DC 18, 2d4 Bees (dead)
Out in the wild: DC 20, 2d6 Bees
A more suburban area or a beach: DC 25, 1d6 Bees
A regular city: DC 30, 1 Bee
An upper plane: DC 50, 1 Celestial Giant Bee

If you beat the DC by 10 or more, you also find 1d6+1 wasps (lower plane: 1 Hellwasp Swarm). Searching takes 1 minute, but you cannot search the same general area (100' square) for one day.

Bees can be bought in most bakeries or sweet stores for 1CP each, wasps for 2CP and Giant Bees for 5SP each.

Cooking and preparing the Bee:

Removing the stinger and poison sac requires a DC 1 Wisdom check. Or Intelligence check. I don't even care. Failure to do so will result, upon eating, in 1 point of Piercing damage and a DC 10 Fort save (Poison) against being unable to speak properly for the rest of the day. Unless it is a Giant Bee, in which case you suffer a critical hit from the stinger, and are poisoned as normal.

Cooking the bees will generally take 10 minutes, as they must be skewered, then heated over an open fire, slowly turned to even out the cooking process. A DC 13 Survival or Profession (Chef) or Knowledge (Nature) check will result in pleasantly cooked bees, a DC 20 check results in the perfect cooked bee. A +2 bonus is added to the check for each of the following added:
[*]Honey
[*]A sprinkling of salt
[*]A light dusting of cinnamon, pepper or similar

1 Giant Bee will feed 4 people for one meal. Otherwise, each person must eat 30 or more bees or half as many wasps to get a full meal.

[TheFlatline]

*soft round of applause for comprehensive bee-cooking rules*

[Swordslinger]

Now you're (EDIT: Swordslinger) just being an ass.

Apparently sarcasm is a forgotten art around here. I shall include tags for you guys from now on.

Sliding DCs are fine, but only as benchmarks, not objective measures. It's one thing to say, "Lockpick checks at level 12 are DC X", it's an entirely different thing to say, "Lockpick checks at level 12 should be DC X for a moderate challenge" and then have a corresponding Lockpick table where DC X has an entry reading, "complex non-magical lock".

<sarcasm>
Yeah, it's essential to label every type of everything, because those things just walk around with signs on their foreheads. NPCs don't have silly things like descriptions, they have Level 12 orc barbarianwritten over their head, MMO-style. Otherwise how would we know what they are? Why would I bother to describe a secured vault as being different than a rusty padlock. Come on dude, what do I look like? Some kinda storyteller? Fuck that, I'm a dungeon master. if my PCs want descriptions, I tell those motherfuckers to go play White Wolf. So I'm just going to tell them it's a lock and that's it. I'll be damned if I'm going to give those guys any details about it at my table. I brought a DM screen for a reason and that's to hide that shit from those meddling PCs. Until they show me anywhere in the book that says I'm supposed to describe the lock and give them hints to how difficult it might be, I'm not doing it.

And of course, because the DCs for a level 12 lockpicking challenge are laid out, that means that, so long as the PCs are level 12, every lockpicking challenge they ever run into must 12th level. You must be sure as a DM to never give them a level 9 lockpicking challenge at 12th level, that'd be as ludicrous as making them fight a level 1 goblin at 3rd level. And so you go and do this and what do your PCs do? They complain about some lack of believability or some crap. Well rest assured, it's not your fault as DM. This must be a failure of the 4E system. As DM, you're way in the clear. Fuck dude, those are DC guidelines! Nothing is more set in stone and immutable than guidelines.

And yeah dude, I want a fixed DC for climbing a stone cliff face just like you do for the raw realism of it. Every serious climber will tell you: you climb one cliff, you seen it all. There's no such thing as a more difficult climb. Things like lack of footholds and handholds are totally irrelevant. Freezing cold that may make your hands numb... also irrelevant. Loose rocks that may fall and crumble when you put pressure on them? Yep, you guessed it. Irrelevant. In any believable fantasy world, every cliff is made to strict engineering specifications that ensure they're equal everywhere. The model T-115 stone cliff is one that should be easily recognizable and distinct from the T-199 icy cliff and the R-45 smooth wall. Anything that isn't a regulation cliff face has no place in my game. Unfortunately not all DMs have as strict a sense of quality control as we do.

</sarcasm>

[LR]

Moderately long rant rant in sarcasm tags

In order for sarcasm to work, you need to sarcastically promote an idea that is not true. Unfortunately, the idea that you can make a sufficiently robust climbing simulator is true, so you just wind up being full of shit.

[mean_liar]

So when do you get bored of playing "mother may I" with the GM about setting DCs?

What is Hard at level n relative to Moderate at level n+4? Are they the same? Is a DC that's keyed to a level only valid for that level? How does a player know what a DC of a test is going to be without asking the GM? What is a level 8 lock as opposed to a level 9 lock? Will it be consistent?

...or is the GM basically just making up shit as he goes along and hoping for the best?

Your kind of bullshit is never classy.

[Shazbot79]

The MC controls the locations and dispositions of every single creature and object in the entire world except my character. If I have to ask "mother may I?" for every fucking thing, I might as well just read a fucking book. Seriously, I don't know why I am even there during a 4e Game.

-Username17

Let's look at this from the other end of the spectrum. Let's say, hypothetically, that the game rules enable you, the player, to easily wrest control of the campaign from the hands of the GM and stir it in any direction you want to go. One morning, your character wakes up and says "Today, I think I'll teleport to the Far Realm, mentally dominate Cthulu and use him to overthrow Cormyr". Mind that I'm not actually saying that this scenario is a negative.

In this scenario, what's the role of the GM? Is it cooperative? Adversarial? Why is he there?

Where does one players agency begin and another's end? Where's ideal division between player agency and gm agency? Is it something that should be determined by superiority of one's level of rules mastery?

[Shazbot79]

So you obviously don't actually know how to play 3e, and are just parroting the stupid generalizations you've heard about class disparity.

Is there any reason we should take what you say seriously?

Is there an actual argument buried somewhere in there, or are you just flirting?

Sure, the 4e fighter changes options more than a 3e fighter. But no one intelligent plays the 3e fighter.

Plenty of intelligent people play Fighters in 3E.

They're the ones that only pick up their dice and books during game night, and promptly forget about them the rest of the week.

They're the ones that have the good sense not to obsess over rules outside of the game, unlike the rest of us who spend our free time arguing incessantly over them on the internet.

[Username17]

The MC controls the locations and dispositions of every single creature and object in the entire world except my character. If I have to ask "mother may I?" for every fucking thing, I might as well just read a fucking book. Seriously, I don't know why I am even there during a 4e Game.

-Username17

Let's look at this from the other end of the spectrum. Let's say, hypothetically, that the game rules enable you, the player, to easily wrest control of the campaign from the hands of the GM and stir it in any direction you want to go. One morning, your character wakes up and says "Today, I think I'll teleport to the Far Realm, mentally dominate Cthulu and use him to overthrow Cormyr". Mind that I'm not actually saying that this scenario is a negative.

In this scenario, what's the role of the GM? Is it cooperative? Adversarial? Why is he there?

Where does one players agency begin and another's end? Where's ideal division between player agency and gm agency? Is it something that should be determined by superiority of one's level of rules mastery?

The MC controls the actions, reactions, placement, and dispositions of every single character in the entire campaign world except the three to six characters played by the PCs. He has so much agency that most prospective MCs feel option paralysis all the time. I am not crying for the lack of control MCs have on the story, nor will I ever do so no matter how much narrative control the players get under any circumstances.

-Username17

[TheFlatline]

I'd cry tears of joy if my players created their own fucking agendas.

Most RPG players are among the laziest, least-motivated people I have ever met. Many get offended at the idea of a player acting proactively in a game, and instead *wants* to be spoonfed consistently interesting, engaging, and entertaining stories and challenges.

This is why MCs burn out and become bitter. Not because a player decides to actually pursue his own goal.

[Ganbare Gincun]

I'd cry tears of joy if my players created their own fucking agendas.

Most RPG players are among the laziest, least-motivated people I have ever met. Many get offended at the idea of a player acting proactively in a game, and instead *wants* to be spoonfed consistently interesting, engaging, and entertaining stories and challenges.

This is why MCs burn out and become bitter. Not because a player decides to actually pursue his own goal.

Really? Because I come up with goals, plans, and motivations for my PCs all the time, and oftentimes they have been ignored by past MCs. I think a lot of player paralysis stems from bad experiences with MCs obsessed with keeping their games on tight rails or act like petty bullies; it sometimes takes a while for players to realize that they actually have more agency in the game aside from being from shuffled from place to place and being asked to hack up monsters.

[TheFlatline]

Really? Because I come up with goals, plans, and motivations for my PCs all the time, and oftentimes they have been ignored by past MCs. I think a lot of player paralysis stems from bad experiences with MCs obsessed with keeping their games on tight rails or act like petty bullies; it sometimes takes a while for players to realize that they actually have more agency in the game aside from being from shuffled from place to place and being asked to hack up monsters.

It takes a lot of effort to create an engaging setting and then build on top of that an engaging plot that is paced properly. Characters who are willing to simply play in my setting are going in their own direction that they find interesting, at their own pace, and it's easier for me to just fill in the world than to fill in the world *and* herd the equivalent of 4 or 5 cats simultaneously while entertaining them all.

Every time I try to run a sandbox game I give a loose adventure that's sort of a tour of the sandbox and then attempt to step back and the entire game falls to pieces within an hour. Hell in the game I'm running right now in Dark Heresy one of the players actually asked me what his character's motivation for working with the inquisition was. I pointed out that was sort of his job, having created his character in a game where you work for the inquisition. I had to handle the rest of the universe. He complained, so I pointed out in game that you get privilege (which I've gone to lengths to illustrate), your sense of duty demands it, and three or four other potential motivations. He said, and I quote "Yeah but I don't care about any of that stuff. What's something I could care about?" referring to the player, not the character. At that point I said "there's no game if you aren't working for the inquisition". That placated him... barely...

Later, when the party had assembled a lot of information about a conspiracy and asked me what they should do next and I said "That's up to you guys. You have a lot of options" and then I listed several of the most obvious options, I was actually cursed out because I was making them think about the game. I'm not kidding on this.

Then if you spoonfeed *too* much, they get pissy. They bitch about being railroaded and then when you give them meaningful decisions in the game they suddenly want to be spoonfed again.

Players who help strike a balance with the MC and engage in the story are rare people. They may get railroaded simply because the MC is expecting everyone to be barely more than rats hitting a button for a food pellet.

[Kaelik]

Bad MCs create bad players, and bad players create bad MCs. It sucks, and we can whine about it all day, but let's be clear about how it's definitely not any of our faults, and not take it personally okay?

[TheFlatline]

This was all a sidetrack anyway on how strongly D&D is doing, which sidetracked off of a sidetrack discussing how much ability players have to take control of the story in 4th vs 3.x.

But we did establish rules for bee cooking, so that ought to be cool.

[shadzar]

This was all a sidetrack anyway on how strongly D&D is doing, which sidetracked off of a sidetrack discussing how much ability players have to take control of the story in 4th vs 3.x.

But we did establish rules for bee cooking, so that ought to be cool.

sidetrack or not, it helps to show the level of attention players of newer editions give to the game....

most 3rd edition players i have seen would play with minis, look at the books, read a comic, watch TV, etc while the DM or another player was talking and when it got quiet look up and have the expression of "ok what are we supposed to do now?" if they didnt ask directly. so they are lazy or jsut act like they dont care to be there, which seemed the case with the WotC 4th video long ago with Dave Noonan even and the players were WotC employees...

so when the edition causes people to be disinterested....it kind of goes to show how weak it is/can be. that weakness could come in many forms...

[Kaelik]

Shut up Shadzar. Your stupid edition wars are not interesting. 2e players are just as bad as 3e players, because they are the same damn people. Stop trying to take random anecdotes colored by your confirmation bias and spin it into a story of edition superiority, no one wants to hear your bullshit.

[mean_liar]

You have added this person to your Ignore List. Click HERE to view this post.

There are solutions to that complaint, Kaelik.

[shadzar]

Shut up Shadzar. Your stupid edition wars are not interesting. 2e players are just as bad as 3e players, because they are the same damn people. Stop trying to take random anecdotes colored by your confirmation bias and spin it into a story of edition superiority, no one wants to hear your bullshit.

you can huff and puff and cry all you want because it is true, but this is what i saw.

i did not see 2nd edition players sit with their thumbs up their asses. this could be to the LGS trying to get people to buy anything and just letting anyone in games or forcing DMs to run games for just anyone to join rather than letting people play and have people they wanted to join join. maybe it is because the game day where just anyone would come in and they never did anything different, but again i am looking at that one game day i played in where the novices to D&D a vet and his GF other than myself was playing in the 8 man game all finished the adventure with time to spare and discussed things about it afterwards, while the experienced 3rd edition players got stuck trying to figure out what to do or looking through books and the game didnt finish in the time allotted.

whatever the reason be it bad edition, video gamers thinking tabletop would be somehow as similar and engaging, the lack of engagement they showed is a problem with the game. either it didnt present itself properly which means a new edition was warranted...as shown with the 4th teaser video (grapple the troll) to try to present itself or otherwise change the game to meet the eneds of those who never liked what it was to begin with.

and that is exactly what happened. the game didnt evolve, it just changed audience, which means it changed the game. this is NOT good for a product, however good it may be for a brand name or company.

the drive is there to find somehow to engage the players and that happens a lot through changing the game to meet the standards of the newer players or the status quo of those players rather than getting those players to engage in the game as it is.

it is like changing football to a board game to get lazy people to play it...well Bloodbowl exists...but also so does football (american) and it didnt have to be destroyed to create somethign for other people to engage them in the "game".

when people become disinterested it is a signla that a change is needed in order to get more money, and that i what the D&D deathwatch really is about. what will D&D be next, if it even will be?

these are the reason the questions are asked, because if people arent wanting to put that much effort into playing a game, then D&D may move from a tabletop RPG to something lazier people are more willing to devote the les effort required to play. vis-a-vis fotunre cards enter D&D the gathering, and D&D board games like Ravenloft, because Dragonlance, and those 30 other D&D board games did so well...but will it be the end of the tabletop RPG in order to keep the brand name alive?

the quesiton you have to ask is with all this, will D&D be, or is it still a tabletop RPG, or just a brand to slap onto anything to try to sell it from being a popular name (Lorraine Williams) just to grab some quick money.

history is repeating itself and for the same reason, but the laziness now is not for the same reasons as it was then.

[Kaelik]

You have added this person to your Ignore List. Click HERE to view this post.

There are solutions to that complaint, Kaelik.

He is on my ignore list.

EDIT: Shadzar, Read up on confirmation bias and get back to us when you have even the basic understanding of how your brain works.

[fectin]

Shut up Shadzar. Your stupid edition wars are not interesting. 2e players are just as bad as 3e players, because they are the same damn people. Stop trying to take random anecdotes colored by your confirmation bias and spin it into a story of edition superiority, no one wants to hear your bullshit.

you can huff and puff and cry all you want because it is true, but this is what i saw.

i did not see 2nd edition players sit with their thumbs up their asses.

I did. When I played 2nd ed, the plots were unmemorable, the rules and player stifled creativity (e.g., I spent weeks trying to hack together a way to use poison with a blowgun, and got repeatedly shot down. There are other examples also), and life was like an unwashed dwarf: nasty, brutish, and short. Aside from Monty Python quotes, everyone basically just sat around uncomfortably out of combat (and in combat too).
I was only playing with one group during the transition to 3.0, but it was a distinct improvement. Seriously, it was better in just about every way you can imagine. The real problem we had was that DM kept applying 2nd edition thinking (e.g. sneak attack bonus damage only for backstabbing). 3rd edition gave us the tools to do things like drop rocks on ogres, and brought out more rolelaying each session than the entire 2nd ed. campaign had.
I've also seen 3.5 run purely as a dungeon crawl. Once. In a campaign which had "dungeon crawl" as a design goal. Even then, we spent a startlingly long time talking to a village of centaurs, and there was a plot about how prismatic worms boring between planes and causing conflict between major factions.

I'm sorry that your experiences with 3rd edition have involved immature players. Really, I am. It sucks when you have a different playstyle than the people around you, and sucks the fun right out.

But all my experiences have been directly contrary to yours, and I can't even see how 3rd edition could work out that way. When you keep tying a theory which I have empirically observed to be false to all of your other points, it tends (at least in my mind) to somewhat discredit them.

The meds probably aren't helping either.

[shadzar]

Shut up Shadzar. Your stupid edition wars are not interesting. 2e players are just as bad as 3e players, because they are the same damn people. Stop trying to take random anecdotes colored by your confirmation bias and spin it into a story of edition superiority, no one wants to hear your bullshit.

you can huff and puff and cry all you want because it is true, but this is what i saw.

i did not see 2nd edition players sit with their thumbs up their asses.

I did. When I played 2nd ed, the plots were unmemorable, the rules and player stifled creativity (e.g., I spent weeks trying to hack together a way to use poison with a blowgun, and got repeatedly shot down. There are other examples also), and life was like an unwashed dwarf: nasty, brutish, and short. Aside from Monty Python quotes, everyone basically just sat around uncomfortably out of combat (and in combat too).

I was only playing with one group during the transition to 3.0, but it was a distinct improvement. Seriously, it was better in just about every way you can imagine. The real problem we had was that DM kept applying 2nd edition thinking (e.g. sneak attack bonus damage only for backstabbing). 3rd edition gave us the tools to do things like drop rocks on ogres, and brought out more rolelaying each session than the entire 2nd ed. campaign had.

I've also seen 3.5 run purely as a dungeon crawl. Once. In a campaign which had "dungeon crawl" as a design goal. Even then, we spent a startlingly long time talking to a village of centaurs, and there was a plot about how prismatic worms boring between planes and causing conflict between major factions.

I'm sorry that your experiences with 3rd edition have involved immature players. Really, I am. It sucks when you have a different playstyle than the people around you, and sucks the fun right out.

But all my experiences have been directly contrary to yours, and I can't even see how 3rd edition could work out that way. When you keep tying a theory which I have empirically observed to be false to all of your other points, it tends (at least in my mind) to somewhat discredit them.

The meds probably aren't helping either.

different groups of people act differently?

i see 2nd people tried stuff because there wasnt some rule, and rules lawyers were quickly silenced because of their bitching "it doesnt say you can do that". rocks dropped was real easy to deal with in 2nd...as were poison darts. it seems the type of players i see for 3rd are the ones you had for 2nd, or at least your DM pretty much sucked.

just seems our experiences are reversed, and to me the 3.x rules are the stifling ones as they try to make a rule for anything and people dont want you to do anything that isnt exactly in the rules, while if there wasnt a rule for it in second, you just went with common sense as to how it would work.

and bad DMs exist in all edition as do bad players. i just see MORE lazy ones in 3rd as my AD&D games didnt just have ANYONE sitting in on them as they were by invite because they were held in private homes, not an LGS. maybe the environment played the biggest part, but i know of NO ONE that would hold a 3.x game in their home either....why so many were run at the LGS for me to see.

whose meds? mine or yours?

[Kaelik]

while if there wasnt a rule for it in second, you just went with common sense as to how it would work.

Not having a rule and using "common sense" is not better than having a rule. What different people view as common sense differs. If your ideas are different from the DM, then everything you ever try gets shot down, and that's retarded.

If you have actual rules, then your characters live in a consistent universe in which you can make decisions based on predictable results that allow you to make intelligent decisions.

[shadzar]

while if there wasnt a rule for it in second, you just went with common sense as to how it would work.

Not having a rule and using "common sense" is not better than having a rule. What different people view as common sense differs. If your ideas are different from the DM, then everything you ever try gets shot down, and that's retarded.

If you have actual rules, then your characters live in a consistent universe in which you can make decisions based on predictable results that allow you to make intelligent decisions.

dropping rocks on ogres...

rules for gravity exist...therefore the ogres pretty much suffer falling damage as if it was a cieling trap.

you just use applied knowledge and common sense.

the blowgun poison dart was from 1st, and you just had to remember to look up poisons there since assassins were removed from 2nd.

all common sense.

a fighter cannot trip someone in 2nd since it is a priest spell i guess?

and you really need to go through all that shit listed in the PHB for someone to trip someone in 3.5?

i would rather not trip someone if i have to go through all that shit.

ever stuck your foot out to trip someone? does it work like in 3.5?

how the fuck can they trip you back after a failed attempt if you are sitting down?

i guess having totally fucked up rules are ok for you, but i would prefer common sense.

if you have a DM shooting everything you try down, then your problem isnt the ruleset, but your DM.

why is most of the shit foisted onto the system for blame, when it boils down to bad players?

[For Valor]

shadzar, you made a point. fectin disproved it.

Therefore, you are wrong, and writing a bunch of "oh, duh, obviously" / "just as planned" crap does not help your case. 2e players DO sit with their thumbs up their asses. You are wrong.

[shadzar]

shadzar, you made a point. fectin disproved it.

Therefore, you are wrong, and writing a bunch of "oh, duh, obviously" / "just as planned" crap does not help your case. 2e players DO sit with their thumbs up their asses. You are wrong.

ancedote vs anecdote...which one wins?

fectin disproved nothing, only that his play experience has been the opposite of mine.

my point was:

i did not see 2nd edition players sit with their thumbs up their asses.

fectin would have to prove that i DID see 2nd edition players sit with their thumbs up their asses to disprove my point.

come back when you have any debating skills and try again, or at least when you understand the definition of "proof".

[quanta]

Not having a rule and using "common sense" is not better than having a rule. What different people view as common sense differs. If your ideas are different from the DM, then everything you ever try gets shot down, and that's retarded.

If you have actual rules, then your characters live in a consistent universe in which you can make decisions based on predictable results that allow you to make intelligent decisions.

You're making several massive unfounded assumptions. First, the rules would have to not suck, and I've never encountered a set of even vaguely detailed rules that didn't either lead to retarded consequences on some level or just not cover some situations. Second, even if the rules do a good job of simulating the world and meeting the design goals, it has to be worth the time to learn the common rules and worth the time to look up the less-used rules on the fly.

And the presumption that because something has rules your decisions have predictable results isn't true in any meaningful sense. Unless you know the stats of everything on the DM's side of the screen, you can still be operating with a lot of uncertainty. Which is fine, ideal rules only need to clearly delineate what's acceptable uncertainty and what isn't. In D&D, it's o.k. if looking at the dragon doesn't tell you what spells it knows, but it's not o.k. if there is no in-game way to distinguish between dragons and cats until you're set on fire.