Annoying Game Questions You Want Answered

[Blade]

If I remember correctly the rule doesn't forbid creation of complex matter but just says that magic is not intelligent and won't create it by itself.
In the case of the Create Food spell, the mage is the one shaping the mana into food, just like he's the one shaping the illusions for illusion spells or the animal form for the shapechange spell.

But this spell is still problematic because if a mage can create food this way, why can't he also create cyberdecks and credsticks?

[Iduno]

But this spell is still problematic because if a mage can create food this way, why can't he also create cyberdecks and credsticks?

If you give someone eggs, flour, and sugar, they might be able to make a cake. I've met very few people who could probably do the same with a circuit board, let alone a full-blown computer. And that's today's tech, not 50 years from now.

[Ice9]

If you give someone eggs, flour, and sugar, they might be able to make a cake. I've met very few people who could probably do the same with a circuit board, let alone a full-blown computer. And that's today's tech, not 50 years from now.

But if you gave someone carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, and sulfur, fewer people could describe how to make a complex protein structure like eggs than a circuit board from silicon, gold, etc..

Something Mage runs into also - they give "plywood" as an example of a simple material. Pretty much any nasty chemical compound you can think of is simple compared to wood.

It works if you go with a heavily consensus / global-subconscious based approach, where bread is "simple" because many people interact with it daily, where-as nitroglycerin is "not simple" because most people haven't seen it in person. But whether that makes sense depends on how you structured your metaphysics.

[Prak]

Is the standard D&D book organization generally considered to be decent, or is there anything glaring that would improve it?

[Username17]

Is the standard D&D book organization generally considered to be decent, or is there anything glaring that would improve it?

D&D has three core books. The Monster Manual standard is the standard, and it hasn't changed much in more than forty years because it's basically perfect. The Player's Handbook is decent enough, and there are only a few things that are worth quibbling about. The introduction is short, character generation is established early and easy to find, rules that you read and don't normally reference are in the middle, and the stuff you can't be expected to remember (the spells, mostly) are in a reasonably easy to navigate reference section at the back. Decent enough. The Dungeon Master's Guide changes unrecognizably between editions and it's basically impossible to find any information you care about in any edition because every version of the DMG is just a jumble of crap in a stream of consciousness rant.

So first of all, monster books for any game either basically look like a Monster Manual or they are basically worthless pieces of shit. That's the fucking standard, use it. How much "flavor" you have per page is entirely up to you, and it can be reasonable to have one monster per page or six monsters per page, but either way you're still using Monster Manual formatting or go fuck yourself.

Second of all, the DMG is real bad. Every edition of the DMG has been real bad from a presentation standpoint and I think that's very closely related to the fact that every edition of the DMG has been the weakest from a mechanical standpoint. Books which copy one of the editions of the DMG as their baseline for their attempt to express information to people are horrible.

So the real issue is the question of how much your book that isn't a book of ready-to-eat antagonists should look like the Player's Handbook. And the answer to that is probably "fairly similar". It's a decent enough format and the primary way it gets changed for books like Shadowrun's all-in-one book is to have more chapters that are similar to but shorter and less sprawling than the D&D magic chapter. This is probably the way you want to go for most games you'd make, because probably you have more than one character type who has their own "cool thing" that needs explaining in a chapter. The other thing that Shadowrun does where it clogs up the beginning of the book with setting information and stories and shit is obviously something that can go too far - but is acceptable as long as you don't go the full Scion and start the book with a functionally irrelevant 30 thousand word novella.

The White Wolf model of game book design is not something that I would suggest anyone follow. With all the "fluff text" filling up the front half of the book, it takes way too long to get to the part where you're defining terms. Game terms should be defined early, possibly on page one or two. Going over a hundred pages before you mention what kind of dice are rolled is fucking unacceptable.

-Username17

[OgreBattle]

So what should a good Game/Dungeon master's guide look like?

Perhaps as part of the monster manual? So a chunk for monsters, then a chunk for how to use said monsters in a session, campaign, build dungeons, etc.

Oh yeah a section for the cool loot said monsters and dungeons drop

[Username17]

So what should a good Game/Dungeon master's guide look like?

Perhaps as part of the monster manual? So a chunk for monsters, then a chunk for how to use said monsters in a session, campaign, build dungeons, etc.

Oh yeah a section for the cool loot said monsters and dungeons drop

The basic issue is that the Dungeon Master's Guide has never actually made a strong case for its existence. Any dreadfully important data in the DMG could be put in the PHB. Moving the to-hit charts to the PHB didn't cause the sun to go dark, and moving the magic items to the PHB wasn't notable as a problem with 4th edition.

Games that go for an "everything in one book" format are forced to create a Game Mastering section, and the honest truth is that shorter MC sections re pretty much universally better. No one much minds the "Gamemastering" chapter in Shadowrun, but the "GM's Only" third chunk of the book in games like L5R and Unknown Armies are fucking awful.

But yes, the broader issue is that having a two book format where one book was most of the game and the other book was mostly a monster manual seems like a pretty good idea. When 4th edition straight up cancelled the DMG3, I don't think even 4rries really cared.

-Username17

[phlapjackage]

The basic issue is that the Dungeon Master's Guide has never actually made a strong case for its existence. Any dreadfully important data in the DMG could be put in the PHB. Moving the to-hit charts to the PHB didn't cause the sun to go dark, and moving the magic items to the PHB wasn't notable as a problem with 4th edition.

This makes me wonder about BECMI D&D - it had the Basic set with distinct PHB and DMG books, then the Expert set switched to an all-in-one, then next the Companion set went back to 2 books...was it an experiment that they thought didn't pan out? Just a fluke that the all-in-one format was used?

[virgil]

I feel like the DMG could be made worth something by having adventure design material in it. Basically detail out structural guidelines for the various types of adventures - sandbox, one-shot, story arc, etc.

[souran]

The dungeon master's guide is really an odd book. Frank points out that a section on being the game-master is all that most games need. How many pages does it take to tell people to keep things moving?

On the other hand, there is a bunch of useful information that could be put in a book that would be more interesting to the GM than to the players. Basically a DMG should be a dissection of the rules so that the DM can understand what the designers intent was as well as what is likely to change by modifying different things.

Points to discuss should probably include:

1) How big does a modifier have to be to likely to change the result of an action and a comparison to the standard modifiers the game has.

2) Expected proficiency levels of characters at various breakpoints in the game (newbie/established/experienced/high-end). This could be very difficult or fairly easy depending on what kind of game you have but regardless the designer should be able to describe these characters.

2a) Additionally, there should be discussion of how characters who are expert/specialized vs. other characters are going to perform.

3) A discussion of what the designers intended with artifacts/mcguffins. Where they planning a treadmill? Where they excluded from the design math in described in section 2.

4) A discussion on time keeping and refresh rates of special powers. Really, this cannot be handled in a single paragraph. It gets at the core problems of many games. If the designer thinks that everybody gets all their spells/powers/unique actions/whatevers refreshed once in an adventure but most people are refreshing once a session that is huge.

If the PHB for a game is the owners manual, the DMG (if you have one) should be more like the design standard. The PHB tells you how to get behind the wheel and the DMG should explain how to get under the hood.

That said, both TSR and WOTC have been terrible about putting this sort of information into DMGs because they don't do honest analysis of their own games.

[Username17]

I feel like the DMG could be made worth something by having adventure design material in it. Basically detail out structural guidelines for the various types of adventures - sandbox, one-shot, story arc, etc.

There's certainly room in the world for books aimed at MCs. Both in terms of books that are actually full of MC advice and tools like Mr. Johnson's Blackbook, and just books that will never see play but people might want to read just to read. Like setting books and setting history books and shit.

The idea that has to die in a fire is the idea that these books are somehow "co-equal" with the basic game mechanics which run the game engine. They are not. A book like Mr. Johnson's Blackbook or Secrets of Stjordvik is not and never will be as important a book as the Player's Handbook or even as important a book as a first order splat like Sword and Fist.

-Username17

[jt]

A lot of the things on Souran's list would make the most sense as a running side panel alongside the player's handbook. Yes, like a religious text - if this is the Torah then the player's handbook is the Mishnah and the MC's guide is the Gemarah.

That format is bordering on insane for physical copies of an RPG book, but if the game is primarily published as an ebook or website then copy/pasting is free.

[souran]

A lot of the things on Souran's list would make the most sense as a running side panel alongside the player's handbook. Yes, like a religious text - if this is the Torah then the player's handbook is the Mishnah and the MC's guide is the Gemarah.

That format is bordering on insane for physical copies of an RPG book, but if the game is primarily published as an ebook or website then copy/pasting is free.

I agree that you could do all of the tings I talked about as side panels, but the real question is would that be worth it? If you didn't care about page count then side barring the design would be awesome and easy.

However, most of your players literally won't ever care about the background to design decisions or about core design assumptions. This material is really for a subset of players.

I have seen a lot of design blogs and games talk about "player facing" and "GM facing" rules lately. This seems to be the new buzzword of the moment replacing "associated and disassociated mechanics"

If you had a lot of "GM facing" mechanics for whatever reason putting them in the GM book would make sense. The problem is that most "traditional" rpgs have fairly high rules transparency (at least between the GM and players) and don't have different rules for the person behind the screen. Weirdly enough, the games that do use the same rules for the GM and players really need to have that interaction all described in one place so while a phb/dmg split makes logical sense, it would hinder learning the game.

[Koumei]

So I assume this question is only related to D&D 4Ed, but it might actually be related to something in an older one: what the fuck is an Ashmodai in D&D? I get that the word relates to Asmodeus, so is it just "Devils directly in service to Asmodeus"? Is it the new keyword for all devils instead of Baatezu? Are there multiple Devil subtypes and this is the one that covers... Erinyes, Imps and Legion Devils?

[maglag]

They were a bunch of Neverwinter Nights devil cultists that worshiped Asmodeus directly, but were usually humanoids themselves. One of their main members was a female dwarf assassin.

[Koumei]

My encounters with them are based 100% on Neverwinter Online, yeah. And there are a bunch of cultists and Hellfire Warlocks with that tag, but also the aforementioned types of devils. So it's just a title no different to being a Pelorite then?

[maglag]

Pretty much yes.

[allanlerouge]

Hello all !

Question concerning WFRP (Warhammer RPG) 4th ed. :

Context : The daily expense cost for a Gold X status character is X/2 GC, but the Earnings endeavour bring only 1 GC per week. So, considering a start without wealth, in order to adventure one full week, I need to spend (7*X) / 2 Weeks beforehand to gather enough cash.
Additional context : for Brass / Silver, the daily expense is X/2 in their respective coin type, but they respectively gain 2d10 / 1d10 of those per Earnings Endeavour, which speed things a lot comparatively.

Question : Did I understand correctly ? Did anyone have a similar understanding ? Any idea on how to circumvent it ?

I know economics are a widely disregarded aspect of most games, and that their decision is probably to avoid one Gold status player buying everything for the other ones, but ... Dafuq ?

[erik]

Sounds like shadowrun lifestyle. A more expensive lifestyle will cost ya, though it has perks.

[allanlerouge]

Well well well ... Not really, no. A +10% on social interaction toward people of lesser status, and the idea that you have finer foods, drinks, and stuff, but nothing "meaty".
Granted, we're more or less in GM territory here, about what you have and have not, wether or not keeping your status (or even having a status) is worthy of attention, etc.

But I'm annoyed as fuck that the Brass & Silver status can easily put enough money on the side to go fuck things up in an adventure far more readily than a Gold status - and this level of status mean Nobles, Merchant Princes, High-Priests, Knights of the highest order, etc...

Status & cost of living are interesting concepts, but sorely lacking in details - altough your parallel with the Lifestyle of Shadowrun is a welcome idea for some house rules ... Thanks !

[deaddmwalking]

But I'm annoyed as fuck that the Brass & Silver status can easily put enough money on the side to go fuck things up in an adventure far more readily than a Gold status - and this level of status mean Nobles, Merchant Princes, High-Priests, Knights of the highest order, etc...

That might honestly be more historically accurate, maybe? Just about every noble was taking loans to finance a status of living that they couldn't actually afford. When the loans became too expensive, they'd try to murder all their creditors by inflaming religious intolerance... For how concise this overview of medieval banking is you could do a lot worse.

[Prak]

So, I've found that basically the perfect god for the way I play paladins exists in the D&D canon, Joramy, NG goddess of fire and arguments, more or less.

Unfortunately, while she exists in canon, there doesn't seem to be a lot of information about her. She gets, like, a single paragraph in It's Hot Out Here, three in Living Greyhawk Gazetteer, the old box set which seems to have introduced her has literally no information beyond the basic mechanical shit like portfolio... Does anyone know where I can find some actual information on Joramy?

[Orca]

No sources sorry, but I remember reading that she was a volcano goddess and, in her original conception, Evil. I'd bet that Gygax was drawing on half-remembered stuff about Pele.

[angelfromanotherpin]

She got a fuller write-up in The Oerth Journal #11.

Mind you, that's a fanzine, so it's only slightly more official than making shit up yourself.

[OgreBattle]

Which PF Alchemist archtypes are considered the most all around useful for adventuring? In combat, in downtime, both?

Which ones under perform? For those what would be some simple fixes to boost their abilities to other alchemists?

For reference: https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-c ... alchemist/