Well, Mike Mearls got promoted. Any hope for 5e?

[A Man In Black]

Why are people talking to shadzar?

[Swordslinger]

i still cant understand how people dont understand the priority of save order when i hear it today. start at the left and move right until you find a save that matches some aspect of what you are saving from...

example: a wand of polymorph would be saved as RSW since it is the save you reach first so wands are saved against and you dont even look to see the pertification/polymorph saves as wands take precident.

it even says so in the footnotes of the saves.

again, people trying to think to much about something, rather than to accept its design and use it how it was made, rather than try to question it. "comprehension is not a requisite of cooperation."

The save system in 1E/2E was just stupid, people should question it, because it was overly complex, unintuitive and imbalanced.

[PhoneLobster]

Why are people talking to shadzar?

This is the question that is wandering around bumping into things in my head.

I can only assume those guys are new here.

In the mean time it's taken the one half interesting thread at the moment and turned it into a Shadzar thread.

You heard it guys.

This is a Shadzar thread.

Only Shadzar is allowed to post here now.

[Hieronymous Rex]

in prior editoins you werent targetting an ability scores with an attack. that would make sense to defend with the ability score...but it doesnt make sense really to do it that way.

They are a confusing way of doing that. You could equally use a single save progression for each class (which, incidentally, is the S&W method).

Also, you are targetting ability scores, at least to a degree. Dwarves receive a save bonus vs. poison based on their Constitution.[/b]

[Wrathzog]

I maintain that Shadzar has actually brought up some decent points in the thread. You have to sift through a lot of grognardisms to get to them, but they're there.
His biggest problem is that when he starts writing supporting statements, he gets distracted and starts bringing up marginally related subjects that get strawmanned.

Anyhow, Things he's said that are correct (paraphrasing):

1) That DM's are also players and they should be able to have as much fun as the other players in the game.
2) DM's having more narrative control than the other players is going to be unavoidable as long as the DM is the primary world builder as well as the rules adjudicator for the game. The players should know and understand this when they appoint someone as their DM.
3) Bad DM's happen. That's not the game's fault, it's the DM's. He insists that you openly communicate your issues with the DM before raising a hissy fit. If that option fails, find yourself a new DM.
4) D&D has no win condition. You aren't actually in direct competition with anyone else in the game. The entire point of D&D is to have fun and maybe go on fantastic adventures with your friends in a fantastic world.
5) The Rules can't cover everything... but what they can do is give you a framework or a toolset that allows you to interact with the gameworld. Anything that falls outside of that scope falls on the DM to pull something out of his ass.
6) D&D supports a myriad of playstyles and it's not wrong to play D&D in any particular way. It is wrong to think that D&D can only be played in one particular way. (He takes like a thousand words to not get this point across very well, but he does)
7) Play the Character, not the Player. (in regards to social checks, personal knowledge, etc)

[violence in the media]

I think your assessment of point 7 is wrong. Shadzar throws a fit whenever a player would want to rely on their character's abilities for anything he thinks the player should be doing. If Aspie Annie says that she personally doesn't know what to say in this situation, but just wants her character Charismatic Catherine to say/do the right thing with her magnificent social skills and please just let her roll the dice so the game can move on, Shadzar launches into some sort of grognard apopleptic seizure about kids these days.

[CapnTthePirateG]

I think he did say something about cutting Aspie Annie some slack. Or not.

I don't like his point about "only these people can play D&D". It's a game about pretending to be an elf. How is this hard?

[tzor]

I think your assessment of point 7 is wrong. Shadzar throws a fit whenever a player would want to rely on their character's abilities for anything he thinks the player should be doing. If Aspie Annie says that she personally doesn't know what to say in this situation, but just wants her character Charismatic Catherine to say/do the right thing with her magnificent social skills and please just let her roll the dice so the game can move on, Shadzar launches into some sort of grognard apopleptic seizure about kids these days.

Well I'm a half Shadzar in this regard. I certainly don't expect Annie to know the neuances of social ettiqute in the fantasy game world, or how to address various forms of people who think they are important, but I'd like a vague executive summary of what she is trying to accomplish. Is it an appeal to reason, or logic, or facts, or vanity. ("I'm sure you are a very fine guard. They probably don't pay you what you really deserve.")

As players progress I don't expect them to know stuff, but it really helps to know about stuff. You don't need to know the details of heraldry but if you know that you can use heradry to figure out stuff about the lord you are talking to, who has a coat of arms on his shield, it's good enough.

It's sort of like combat. You don't need to know how to dodge, perry and riposte, but you certainly should learn that it's not bright to stand in the middle of your opponents. (Unless you are a wizard with stone skin with surprise who has memorized a "key hole" fireball, but I digress.)

[hogarth]

5) The Rules can't cover everything... but what they can do is give you a framework or a toolset that allows you to interact with the gameworld. Anything that falls outside of that scope falls on the DM to pull something out of his ass.

That's not usually how he phrases things. More like "old versions of D&D are better because they're missing rules for common situations, not despite it".

[Hieronymous Rex]

Every now and then (including a recent thread on GitP), someone says something like:

A: "I have this one player who uses Diplomacy to talk to people, what should I do to him?"

B: "Look at him blankly and say 'but what do you say?', and if he doesn't, slap a [unsupported in the rules] penalty on him for crossing you."

STOP THIS. You can't have it both ways. If your system has a skill system for social interaction, don't pretend it doesn't exist and act like the player is a bad roleplayer.

Having roll-less social interaction is a perfectly good way to run a game, and so is a roll based interaction. But don't say "We're playing 3.x!" and then in the middle of the game inform them that you have expansive houserules for Diplomacy. If players need to actually determine what they said, why is there rolling involved?.

[fectin]

I buy Tzor's answer here. It's legitimate to ask about what they say when you're trying to figure out what "success" on the roll actually means.

"I use diplomacy" is morally equivalent to "I use my spiked chain". What exactly are you trying to do? (hit, subdue, trip, disarm, tie up, etc)

[Hieronymous Rex]

I buy Tzor's answer here. It's legitimate to ask about what they say when you're trying to figure out what "success" on the roll actually means.

"I use diplomacy" is morally equivalent to "I use my spiked chain". What exactly are you trying to do? (hit, subdue, trip, disarm, tie up, etc)

This isn't really a problem that happens, though. Have you ever played a game where some said "I use Diplomacy on him" without stating an intent (e.g. convince him to like me/let us through without passes/tell me something)?

[fectin]

I really don't know. Diplomacy rolls haven't come up that much in games Ive been part of. It's pretty much bluff or MTP.

[Wrathzog]

That's not usually how he phrases things. More like "old versions of D&D are better because they're missing rules for common situations, not despite it".

Yeah, I know. You need to sift through that stuff and read between the lines and occasionally multiple posts. Shadzar just needs an editor/translator.

[Chamomile]

Well I'm a half Shadzar in this regard. I certainly don't expect Annie to know the neuances of social ettiqute in the fantasy game world, or how to address various forms of people who think they are important, but I'd like a vague executive summary of what she is trying to accomplish. Is it an appeal to reason, or logic, or facts, or vanity. ("I'm sure you are a very fine guard. They probably don't pay you what you really deserve.")

Isn't the whole thing with Asperger's that you can't figure out whether an appeal to reason, logic, facts, or vanity would be most appropriate for the situation? So aren't you basically telling Aspie Annie that she is allowed to roll for all the parts of conversation except the one that presents the biggest gulf between herself and Charismatic Catherine?

[shadzar]

in prior editoins you werent targetting an ability scores with an attack. that would make sense to defend with the ability score...but it doesnt make sense really to do it that way.

They are a confusing way of doing that. You could equally use a single save progression for each class (which, incidentally, is the S&W method).

Also, you are targetting ability scores, at least to a degree. Dwarves receive a save bonus vs. poison based on their Constitution.[/b]

not really, if, again, you dont go into with with assumptions and learn first. then just accept it.

they were saving versus a type of damage. this damage was not form an "attack" such that AC and the normal combat would mitigate it and arbitrate it.

PPD, RSW, Pet/Poly, Breath, Spells

paralyzation, poison and death, are all internal type of attacks...so nothing the "defense" system was made to handle.

rods, staves, and wands, are all...magic sticks...jsut shrink that back down to..magic

petrification and polymorph, again...magic

monster breath weapons are from a magical source....so magic

spells...easily magic.

so with the exception of PPD, all the saves were your defenses against magic, and ALL magic fit within those 5.

poison was a hold-over from days when assassins were still in as 2nd didnt have much in the way of poison unless a critter bite caused it... but they rank in order of lethality.

some magic can directly target the ability scores, but that wasnt the purpose of the saving system. it was a small simple system to encompass all methods of saving. does it really matter when fucking with a character if you are fucking with his mind (willpower) or his body (fortitude), when the result of a failed save means they are hindered greatly in some way?

a reason i didnt like psionics, it can force players to have to act their character in a certain way because of a "mental attack"..i dont like forcing them to do so, no want to hear the melodrama of them trying to RP a character in such a way be it from an attack to the mind (willpower), nor from psionics. which is the same as Gary, so he created a simple system, that allowed for that type of RP, but didnt force it, and could shut it down as a DM as it not being fun to him, by not even having a hint of it. those wanting it werent denied that RP avenue, just that it wasnt the default, and any form of RP can really be added to the game at your own table.

couldnt read that blinding page, but you didnt target dwarves CON in regards to poison, they just had a more stout system to handle such things due to years of drunken behavior.

another reason i despise 4th and its powers, it tries to hard to emulate many of those spells that target ability scores, as well did 3rd with its save system, that put the metagame into the fiction.

sure you CAN have some mechanical effect from a spell, but it shouldnt be for that purpose, as i believe in the world as a living thing, and breaking the 4th wall as little as possible.

[shadzar]

I buy Tzor's answer here. It's legitimate to ask about what they say when you're trying to figure out what "success" on the roll actually means.

"I use diplomacy" is morally equivalent to "I use my spiked chain". What exactly are you trying to do? (hit, subdue, trip, disarm, tie up, etc)

This isn't really a problem that happens, though. Have you ever played a game where some said "I use Diplomacy on him" without stating an intent (e.g. convince him to like me/let us through without passes/tell me something)?

actually i have seen someone just say i roll for diplomacy without declaring an intent or reason to be diplomatic...

but you still need MORE than just those two. the DM msut be entertained as well since he is adopting forms of character to give life to the NPCs, so to the player should offer something to the DM. more like this....

1- player says, i want to get the duke to side with us in the local border dispute so we have access to the dungeon in those mountains.
2- DM asks how are you going to do this.
3- player responds with something, such and an example from ANY DMG including 4th edition about what kind of thing they want to say, even if not exact words with the proper formal etiquette.
4- DM decides if this procedure would work.
4a- DM decides DC, player rolls the diplomacy

4a is not really needed, but there for the comfort of those people who get stuck or dont want to volley back and forth with the DM and act out the negotiations, while 4 is there for those who do, or to set-up the "skill challenge" as it were in 4a.

if your game is just hack-n-slash, and the only avenue of player involvement, the you shouldnt have anything diplomatic or social in it at all. do like Wyatt says and handwave the whle thing and let the players get back to Wyatt's hack-n-slash, and people wanting to play the social interactions and want to get involved in them, can. dont even make rules for the social interactions for people who dont want social interactions.

so again the player needs to bring something to the table, and in regards to that earlier point #7...the skills of the player shouldnt be weighed agains the other players, but against himself.

is a player is trying to do something that contributes other than with the mechanics, and the ist is gotten by the DM, then it should have a good chance to pas, unless for some reason the opposing side the DM is controlling just wouldnt agree with the player's PC, if both their lives depended on it.

dont compare any player to JFK, MLK, or other orators, but judge their contribution to the game, based on who the player is.

[Lokathor]

Well I'm a half Shadzar in this regard. I certainly don't expect Annie to know the neuances of social ettiqute in the fantasy game world, or how to address various forms of people who think they are important, but I'd like a vague executive summary of what she is trying to accomplish. Is it an appeal to reason, or logic, or facts, or vanity. ("I'm sure you are a very fine guard. They probably don't pay you what you really deserve.")

Isn't the whole thing with Asperger's that you can't figure out whether an appeal to reason, logic, facts, or vanity would be most appropriate for the situation? So aren't you basically telling Aspie Annie that she is allowed to roll for all the parts of conversation except the one that presents the biggest gulf between herself and Charismatic Catherine?

That's part of it, but you also almost always default to an appeal to logic/facts anyways because using reason/vanity is like toying with ancient chemistry; your half-way knowledge can as likely blow you up or poison you as it can get you what you want.

[PhoneLobster]

I maintain that Shadzar has actually brought up some decent points in the thread. You have to sift through a lot of grognardisms to get to them, but they're there.

What you are getting mixed up there is those "points" are basically all just motherhood statements he is attempting to use in support of the vast ocean of gibberish grognardisms and gygaxian fan wanking.

The GM is just another player? OK? The GM should have fun? OK? But what is it you are bringing these "points" up to support? Oh? Gygaxian rocks fall you all die/no rules are good rules/2E is great! ? And it takes you pages on pages of text wanking over this again and again? OK That makes you Shadzar, and Shadzar is a waste of time and the DEATH OF THIS THREAD.

[CapnTthePirateG]

in prior editoins you werent targetting an ability scores with an attack. that would make sense to defend with the ability score...but it doesnt make sense really to do it that way.

They are a confusing way of doing that. You could equally use a single save progression for each class (which, incidentally, is the S&W method).

Also, you are targetting ability scores, at least to a degree. Dwarves receive a save bonus vs. poison based on their Constitution.[/b]

not really, if, again, you dont go into with with assumptions and learn first. then just accept it.

they were saving versus a type of damage. this damage was not form an "attack" such that AC and the normal combat would mitigate it and arbitrate it.

PPD, RSW, Pet/Poly, Breath, Spells

paralyzation, poison and death, are all internal type of attacks...so nothing the "defense" system was made to handle.

rods, staves, and wands, are all...magic sticks...jsut shrink that back down to..magic

petrification and polymorph, again...magic

monster breath weapons are from a magical source....so magic

spells...easily magic.

so with the exception of PPD, all the saves were your defenses against magic, and ALL magic fit within those 5.

poison was a hold-over from days when assassins were still in as 2nd didnt have much in the way of poison unless a critter bite caused it... but they rank in order of lethality.

some magic can directly target the ability scores, but that wasnt the purpose of the saving system. it was a small simple system to encompass all methods of saving. does it really matter when fucking with a character if you are fucking with his mind (willpower) or his body (fortitude), when the result of a failed save means they are hindered greatly in some way?

a reason i didnt like psionics, it can force players to have to act their character in a certain way because of a "mental attack"..i dont like forcing them to do so, no want to hear the melodrama of them trying to RP a character in such a way be it from an attack to the mind (willpower), nor from psionics. which is the same as Gary, so he created a simple system, that allowed for that type of RP, but didnt force it, and could shut it down as a DM as it not being fun to him, by not even having a hint of it. those wanting it werent denied that RP avenue, just that it wasnt the default, and any form of RP can really be added to the game at your own table.

couldnt read that blinding page, but you didnt target dwarves CON in regards to poison, they just had a more stout system to handle such things due to years of drunken behavior.

another reason i despise 4th and its powers, it tries to hard to emulate many of those spells that target ability scores, as well did 3rd with its save system, that put the metagame into the fiction.

sure you CAN have some mechanical effect from a spell, but it shouldnt be for that purpose, as i believe in the world as a living thing, and breaking the 4th wall as little as possible.

But I can smack a dude with magic dominate...oh fuck this. this is pointless.

[shadzar]

But I can smack a dude with magic dominate...

psionics?

a reason i didnt like psionics, it can force players to have to act their character in a certain way because of a "mental attack"

[K]

I maintain that Shadzar has actually brought up some decent points in the thread. You have to sift through a lot of grognardisms to get to them, but they're there.

What you are getting mixed up there is those "points" are basically all just motherhood statements he is attempting to use in support of the vast ocean of gibberish grognardisms and gygaxian fan wanking.

Can someone strip out the actual points? I can't seem to find any.

[Wrathzog]

What you are getting mixed up there is those "points" are basically all just motherhood statements he is attempting to use in support of the vast ocean of gibberish grognardisms and gygaxian fan wanking.

You got it backwards, the grognardisms are his attempt at supporting those points. His experiences with and expectations of D&D are very specific but he EXPLICITLY says that while there is no "right" way to play D&D, he admits that certain styles of play are better suited for the game.
He only goes on tirades when people attack his style because (and I'm assuming) in his mind, no One style is objectively better than any other as long as people are having fun (which, as we all know, is Subjective).
Of course, instead of saying that, he starts frothing at the mouth and hammer-fisting his keyboard. Dude's got no points in diplomacy, why you gotta hate?

The GM is just another player? OK? The GM should have fun? OK? But what is it you are bringing these "points" up to support? Oh? Gygaxian rocks fall you all die/no rules are good rules/2E is great!

I don't understand where you're going with this. Rocks Fall/You Die is a signal that your DM is a fucking Douche. Douche Bag DMs is not a system/game specific concept. You can find that in any TTRPG.
Also, afaik, no one brought this up until you did. So, good job on evoking D&D's version of Godwin's law.

Can someone strip out the actual points? I can't seem to find any.

I totally did.

[CapnTthePirateG]

But I can smack a dude with magic dominate...

psionics?

a reason i didnt like psionics, it can force players to have to act their character in a certain way because of a "mental attack"

Precisely.

Why the hell don't you ban the enchantment school then.

[RadiantPhoenix]

Why the hell don't you ban the enchantment school then.

Heroism, Daze, Sleep, Hold, Stun, Power Word Kill