Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 14, 2024, 06:12:55 PMThe easiest way to do it is to make some simple free rules myself and make up the setting myself with a primer that explains things as quickly and simply as possible, then take player input.

Probably true, especially if you build those rules on something like the Black Hack or PBTA, where there's already a bit of a modding/hacking culture. People seem to be more comfortable trying something new if it's a hack of an existing system rather than a ground up new build.

Quote from: Omega on July 14, 2024, 06:30:52 PMAt some point wotc seems to have lost track of the idea of dungeoncrawling. I will not be surprised if they drop the random dungeon gen tables from Fake 5e.

Of all the decisions WOTC's made, that's probably one of the more sensible ones. The majority of their audience doesn't dungeoncrawl, and wouldn't no matter how many rules they put in the DMG.

The old school style of dungeoncrawling is almost a different game from the way most people play D&D now, and you really have to be taught it. It's not what you're going to get out of fantasy books or movies. The only place a new player who just buys the PHB off a shelf is going to get the idea of room-by-room crawling is from videogames, and with the exception of a few notable indie games, it's not even popular there anymore.

Quote from: ForgottenF on July 13, 2024, 09:51:33 AM

Quote from: Opaopajr on July 13, 2024, 12:41:43 AMAbout Darkvision, people will always play fast and loose with the rules. Darkvision sounds restriction-free, hence why it is seen as objectively better. But in reality it is specific:

Darkvision. You can see in dim light within 120 feet of yourself as if it were bright light and in darkness as if it were dim light. You discern colors in that darkness only as shades of gray.

Dim light has a tight radius, everything beyond that requires a Dim Light active Perception roll, killing an action, to make anything out in vague broad strokes. Treating it like illusions requiring active Investigation rolls helps complicate the process.. I knew when GMs actually played that up in actual play players quickly found the usefulness of providing light for everyone. People stopped asking "Oh, I read that in the dark, darkvision," "I grab the correct (e.g. 'red') key and run, darkvision" and started to realize its limits. Bee sure to add the -5 penalty to Passive Perception, and unless the PC actively gets involved that's all you feed back.

But that requires playing the rules and reminding the players how things really work. Most of the time people are swayed by titles and subject lines. This is an old problem we've known for generations. Being isolated from your allies is always a risk, so being without light is useful for *some* reconnaissance but can also put you in grave danger. And torches are soooo cheap, a copper a piece, so there's little reason to play uncooperatively keeping your allies in the dark.

People skim and scan, which is close to "skip and scam," because what you allow is what will continue.

I don't disagree with any of this, but I don't think it fully addresses the issue. I had two issues with Darkvision:

The issue for the purpose of this topic is that it's useful to the point where it can be perceived as a "no brainer" when choosing a character race. I don't think enforcing restrictions on color vision or fine detail is really enough to counteract that. IME the reason everyone wants darkvision is that it's a backstop. You can carry a light source, but you know you're going to be ok without one. It moves light from something you always need to deal with to something you use for particular problems. I don't run/play 5e, so I don't know the action economy/rules details, but a broad Perception penalty sounds like a good a good idea. More generally though, I think the only restriction that would make a real difference when it comes to player race choice would be if darkvision imposed combat penalties.

My other issue with it is that it's a pain for the DM to account for and adjudicate. Basically I find it annoying to have to tell half my players they see one thing and the other half something else, not to mention that the non-darkvision players are still hearing the description I give to my darkvision players (or seeing the revealed map on Roll20). If anything the finer details of how darkvision works compound that rather than simplify it.

In essence I do agree with your two points here as well. I've even brought up these issues way back here in 2014 on because it can be summed up in two ways (the second being near identical to your wording above:

1. WotC followed 2010s design ethos which is overly generous and doesn't like individualized limitations. Who knows if it a reaction to the past where people felt left out of the party. Perhaps because it reminds of old CCG design about "hoser cards" (also known as Silver Bullets). 2010s was a very "Everything is a universalized baseline then benefits are frosting on top!" design ethos.

7th Sea 2e is a fantastic example of the bleeding edge of this ethos, and why it doesn't work in practice. You need benefits AND flaws for true individuality, you lean on your strengths as you learn from your failures and adapt. Time-tested truths are revealed to be true because they are tested over time and shown to still work -- seemingly tautological but really more applied experience accrued.

2. And the second issue is as you say, "it's a pain for the DM to account for and adjudicate." Bookkeeping, bookkeeping, bookkeeping. It's what made D&D 4e (*cough* D&D Tactics) a pain with that stack of conditions. The human is not a computer, its processing power is not so focused to the exclusion of other things, so maintaining board states become taxing. A little light source management is exciting, but at a certain volume becomes taxing.

So, well, it's great if parties split and do recon, as you can keep that Goldilocks zone. But when it becomes a layer in a highly contested space... eventually parties will adapt to which direction they want the war to be won before even engaged. Hence an eventual magic tax threshold for the party to nuke from orbit this contested space. This just makes it a looming grudge match instead of an occasional exciting contest. The design was overly complicated with multi-layered functions to the point people don't want to engage with it more than necessary anymore.

Quote from: Opaopajr on July 15, 2024, 02:02:02 AMSo, well, it's great if parties split and do recon, as you can keep that Goldilocks zone. But when it becomes a layer in a highly contested space... eventually parties will adapt to which direction they want the war to be won before even engaged. Hence an eventual magic tax threshold for the party to nuke from orbit this contested space. This just makes it a looming grudge match instead of an occasional exciting contest. The design was overly complicated with multi-layered functions to the point people don't want to engage with it more than necessary anymore.

A thought that's been rolling around in my head for a couple of days here, and I think is on the same wavelength: I'm finding myself increasingly thinking about light management much the same way I think about encumbrance. Those two systems are the most universally ignored by players, and they're the only two systems I've repeatedly seen players continue to ignore even when the DM tries to enforce them. If they can't ignore them, they will try to bypass them (portable holes and the aforementioned continual light flashlights). That's ultimately what makes darkvision so attractive. It's seen (correctly or not) as a way of bypassing an annoying system.

I think a lot of people regard this as laziness which the players should get over. Player laziness is definitely real, but once you reach a critical mass of people disregarding a system, I have to look at that and say the system is probably the issue.

Quote from: ForgottenF on July 15, 2024, 10:03:57 AMA thought that's been rolling around in my head for a couple of days here, and I think is on the same wavelength: I'm finding myself increasingly thinking about light management much the same way I think about encumbrance. Those two systems are the most universally ignored by players, and they're the only two systems I've repeatedly seen players continue to ignore even when the DM tries to enforce them. If they can't ignore them, they will try to bypass them (portable holes and the aforementioned continual light flashlights). That's ultimately what makes darkvision so attractive. It's seen (correctly or not) as a way of bypassing an annoying system.

I think a lot of people regard this as laziness which the players should get over. Player laziness is definitely real, but once you reach a critical mass of people disregarding a system, I have to look at that and say the system is probably the issue.

Encumbrance I'll grant you, though even there I think there are minimal nods to a system that will work with some care.  Light, I'm not buying it.  Yes, players are lazy any time they are given an option to be that way.  Sometimes this is because of system fatigue.  At other times, it is because it is the natural entropy of party dynamics.  When I set up all my races to not have any kind of special see in the dark abilities--and most of my monsters the same way--and took out the "cast cheap magic and forget about it" options--then suddenly the players aren't lazy anymore.

It's not that big of a deal to decide who has the torch or lantern.  It's not that big of a deal to worry about the torch going out if you drop it.  It's not that big of a deal to track broad swaths of time and tell the players the torch is flickering.  It's no real chore to have a few bits of light magic that also serve other purposes but are a finite resource that the players may hoard or use depending on the situation.

Of course, you must do all of that to make it work, because all those things work together.  What I'm seeing is that the players have now gone from merely not being lazy into actively searching for ways to make this dynamic help them.  That's where having most of the monsters need light also helps.  The scouts are actively discussing how far ahead they want to be, with an idea of not giving themselves away but also having a chance to spot dangers before it is too late.  Once the dynamic is embraced, it isn't a chore anymore.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on July 15, 2024, 10:50:33 AM

Quote from: ForgottenF on July 15, 2024, 10:03:57 AMA thought that's been rolling around in my head for a couple of days here, and I think is on the same wavelength: I'm finding myself increasingly thinking about light management much the same way I think about encumbrance. Those two systems are the most universally ignored by players, and they're the only two systems I've repeatedly seen players continue to ignore even when the DM tries to enforce them. If they can't ignore them, they will try to bypass them (portable holes and the aforementioned continual light flashlights). That's ultimately what makes darkvision so attractive. It's seen (correctly or not) as a way of bypassing an annoying system.

I think a lot of people regard this as laziness which the players should get over. Player laziness is definitely real, but once you reach a critical mass of people disregarding a system, I have to look at that and say the system is probably the issue.

Encumbrance I'll grant you, though even there I think there are minimal nods to a system that will work with some care.  Light, I'm not buying it.  Yes, players are lazy any time they are given an option to be that way.  Sometimes this is because of system fatigue.  At other times, it is because it is the natural entropy of party dynamics.  When I set up all my races to not have any kind of special see in the dark abilities--and most of my monsters the same way--and took out the "cast cheap magic and forget about it" options--then suddenly the players aren't lazy anymore.

It's not that big of a deal to decide who has the torch or lantern.  It's not that big of a deal to worry about the torch going out if you drop it.  It's not that big of a deal to track broad swaths of time and tell the players the torch is flickering.  It's no real chore to have a few bits of light magic that also serve other purposes but are a finite resource that the players may hoard or use depending on the situation.

Of course, you must do all of that to make it work, because all those things work together.  What I'm seeing is that the players have now gone from merely not being lazy into actively searching for ways to make this dynamic help them.  That's where having most of the monsters need light also helps.  The scouts are actively discussing how far ahead they want to be, with an idea of not giving themselves away but also having a chance to spot dangers before it is too late.  Once the dynamic is embraced, it isn't a chore anymore.

Greetings!

Yep, Steven! I think it is important for the DM to take these details seriously. Encumbrance, Torches, Food, Water. Enforce them against the Players whenever they get lazy or stupid.

Most players get with the program quickly.

If they choose not to take such things seriously, then the giant Otyughs waiting for them in the shadows can eat them.

In a dungeon, I once had a player that acted stupid, and was devoured by an Otyugh.

That certainly got the rest of the group's attention. *Laughing*

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

One of my players who DMs now and then has been using the food, drink and starvation rules from Wilderness Survival Guide and think the lighting rules from Dungeoneer Survival Guide.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on July 15, 2024, 10:50:33 AMEncumbrance I'll grant you, though even there I think there are minimal nods to a system that will work with some care.

Of the two systems, encumbrance definitely sees more interest in terms of people trying to find hacks for the system to make it more palatable. Personally, I think a slot-based system is the way to go, especially if combined with some smart adventure/campaign design to keep the amount of loot the players need to be carrying down.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on July 15, 2024, 10:50:33 AMWhen I set up all my races to not have any kind of special see in the dark abilities--and most of my monsters the same way...

Yeah, I'd say these two together solve about 80% of the problem. If the monsters can't all see in the dark, that immediately makes it where pitch black environments are going to be rare. People are a lot more tolerant of this sort of thing if it's a special challenge for specific areas, rather than a constant hassle. Also I think people are more on board with that style because it's more realistic and therefore more intuitive. That's my preferred approach, and when I've been able to employ it, I've had very little in the way of light-related problems.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on July 15, 2024, 10:50:33 AMIt's not that big of a deal to decide who has the torch or lantern.  It's not that big of a deal to worry about the torch going out if you drop it.  It's not that big of a deal to track broad swaths of time and tell the players the torch is flickering.  It's no real chore to have a few bits of light magic that also serve other purposes but are a finite resource that the players may hoard or use depending on the situation.

With light sources I find the usual problem is either people not wanting to give up a free hand to hold the torch, or not wanting to be bothered with the realistic details like lighting one, dealing with smoke or shadows, getting night-blinded, etc. You can dodge around a lot of that with minimal hand-waving. The timing issue is more for the DM, because you'll probably never get players to track it, but it compounds with other resource management elements. Unless you're policing encumbrance the players will never run out of torches, and at that point it becomes pointless busywork for the players to buy them and for the DM to track when they burn out. 

The problem I see pop up with these, and you see it to a lesser degree with food stores and ammunition, is what I sometimes call "player nullification". DMs will start off trying to enforce the rule, and as long as they're actively being reminded about it, players will play along. But as soon as the DM stops asking, they quietly start ignoring or bending the rules. The DM soon realizes that the only way the rule is going to stay active is if they check the character sheets every session, and usually gives up.

If players did this sort of thing with HP, XP or spells slots, I think everyone would happily call it cheating, but in my experience that almost never happens. To me, a system that some people cheat is just people cheating. A system everyone cheats is probably an unreasonable system.

Again, I think you can mitigate this problem with smart design and GM choices, but you have to be willing to spot where the problem is and meet the players halfway. As often as not, the problem comes from people just forgetting to mark things off or update their character sheet. When it's not that, the problem is usually not wanting to stop the game to track what the players consider to be unimportant systems. Often the GM is just as guilty of that one, which then means the player feels it's out of their hands. So the solution, to me, is a combination of mindful GM-ing and systems that pare down the paperwork/brainload for both the GM and players.

There is a subtle bit of player psychology involved as well. It's akin to the dynamic you sometimes get with "hero points" used for both avoiding death and "doing something cool".  If that's all it is, a significant chunk of players will hoard the points to avoid death, and thus never use them to do something cool. If you want to break that dynamic, then you've got to make the latter more attractive somehow.  (Can't say I've got an answer for that one, either.  Just that the problem is the same.)

After some experimenting, I found that the key to the torch lantern thing was several small things working together:

- Enough encumbrance to make torches a thing, but not necessarily onerous.  There's no good reason not to carry some torches.

- The monsters needing them too means that the monsters stock them.  You can replenish when you win, or you retreat and it doesn't matter, because now you aren't in the dark (assuming good lines of retreat).

- Giving options for characters to optimize around quick draw and/or single-handed weapons--with the express purpose of having a hand free.  Helps that I don't make switching a weapon free actions without some skill.

- Making a torch a decent backup weapon in a pinch--albeit chance it will go out. Making 2-weapon fighting not some crazy class niche but a thing that anyone can do that invests some weapon training in it.  Sure, sword and torch isn't the best combat combo, but it is a valid combo.

- Having rules that make torches not likely to go out, but just enough to make the players worry.  So they carry some spares because of that--not because of the length of the delve. 

- Having "grenades" that need an open flame to light them--since magic isn't a reliable choice for that.

- Putting "torch" in with "unarmed" weapon training to make it kind of an improvised thing.

Essentially, I made "torch" just enough of a combat option that having a hand free for it isn't the complete non-starter that it is in some systems.  It's even on the weapon list to reinforce that. 

Plus, there's always hiring someone to carry it, if you can afford them.  I keep the early parties poor enough that they could do that, but they'd usually rather do something else with the money. Not to mention, having a real morale system means that carrying it yourself means it is less likely to run off at a key moment. 

Short version:  Make caring about the torch less trouble than not caring.

Quote from: SHARK on July 15, 2024, 11:21:48 AMI think it is important for the DM to take these details seriously. Encumbrance, Torches, Food, Water. Enforce them against the Players whenever they get lazy or stupid.

Quote from: ForgottenF on July 15, 2024, 01:37:13 PMThe problem I see pop up with these, and you see it to a lesser degree with food stores and ammunition, is what I sometimes call "player nullification". DMs will start off trying to enforce the rule, and as long as they're actively being reminded about it, players will play along. But as soon as the DM stops asking, they quietly start ignoring or bending the rules. The DM soon realizes that the only way the rule is going to stay active is if they check the character sheets every session, and usually gives up.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on July 15, 2024, 03:54:22 PMShort version:  Make caring about the torch less trouble than not caring.

I generally agree with ForgottenF and Steven Mitchell here, but it comes down to fun.

Playing with details like torches and encumbrance can potentially be fun, but if it isn't, then it's better to handwave it away - like going to the bathroom or avoiding infection from cuts or bad food. I wouldn't make the players work just to achieve realism for realism's sake.

In my experience, the biggest issue with torches is that they tend to ruin stealth or surprise. At least by publication, most dungeons aren't lit and the monsters can see in the dark, started from infravision and ultravision in AD&D. Having PCs who can sneak around in the dark is really useful.

Quote from: finarvyn on July 12, 2024, 05:20:37 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 12, 2024, 02:20:32 PMThe problem I can predict with the freakshow approach is that it messes with the logic of how adventurers determine "is it a monster or not?" If the PCs look like monsters, then how do they keep track of what monsters are okay to kill? Do they wait to be attacked? Do monsters have red circles around them to indicate they're hostile?

Agreed, and RPGs are going down that slippery slope already. Players want to play character types which are typically monsters, so then rulebooks start creating rules for PC monsters, then somebody decides that not all of those monsters are bad, then folks feel bad about fictitious creatures feeling bad about other creatures being better than they are, then we wind up trying to be PC about creatures that don't even exist.

I blame Drizzt, as he's the first one I can remember that did this. Drow were clearly evil, then Drizzt became a misunderstood drow, then everyone wanted to be a misunderstood drow, then they had to re-do the Ranger class because players wanted to do all of the things the Drizzt did that broke the rules. Spirals out of control. We can't have one outlier any more but instead have to change the rules so that everyone can be that character type. Ugh.

it's almost like killing people who arent bad has a bad side effect on humans who would have know then again why arent humans seen as the monsters since they do most the stuff orcs do but better and they play it off as "its for the greater good lol suck it up" till someone else kicks them in the chin

Quote from: Omega on July 15, 2024, 11:56:06 AMOne of my players who DMs now and then has been using the food, drink and starvation rules from Wilderness Survival Guide and think the lighting rules from Dungeoneer Survival Guide.

Could you summarize those rules? I owned both of those guides decades ago and didn't find them useful, so I got rid of them. Now I hear that there WAS something useful in them. :-(

As odd as this sounds, our long running Rifts campaign was all humans.

1.  RoboTech Macross Veritech pilot/full conversion 'Borg.  It was his first character, so he wanted to keep him when we played Rifts.  He then Dual Classed as a 'Borg, though.  A bit of a power gamer munchkin, but Rifts is so gonzo it actually wasn't a problem. 

2.  A techno wizard.

3.  Another Veritech pilot, this time from the Sentinels.  The power armor Cyclone came in handy when not flying a VF-6 Alpha wingman to the Macross VT pilot in his VF-1.

4.  An Apoc from Wormwood.  We allowed them to leave their home dimension. 

5.  A Super Hero from Heroes Unlimited rifted in and stuck there.

Quote from: Omega on July 12, 2024, 06:59:16 PMAD&D Conan, the 2e & 3e Masque of the Red Death and 90% of the 3e d20 Modern Polyhedeon settings were human only. Think the 3e Dark*Matter setting was too.

Dragon Warrior is an old RPG from Britain in the '80s also is human only. 

Dragon Warriors

Currently Pay-What-You-Want on DTRPG.  Set the price to zero, and you get a free PDF.   I set the cost of my hardcover to be the minimum of $1.25 or such, and it was actually the shipping that cost the most at $15 or so. 

This is partly a setting problem, partly a (lack of) roleplaying problem, and partly a rule problem.

In general most of the D&D settings encourage the menagerie issue because an endless stream of creatures & races provides content for publishing. Developing a setting that only had a limited subset of creatures is not in the business interest, and takes thoughtful design to make it work, rather than just throwing in anything and everything and trading off of the superficial fantasy tropes.

To address the rule problem, I've considered developing a system for my own games that deals with group composition. Spitballing, if your player party is 75% or more of a single race, characters of that race gain some kind of extra cohesion benefit.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on July 15, 2024, 03:54:22 PMThere is a subtle bit of player psychology involved as well. It's akin to the dynamic you sometimes get with "hero points" used for both avoiding death and "doing something cool".  If that's all it is, a significant chunk of players will hoard the points to avoid death, and thus never use them to do something cool. If you want to break that dynamic, then you've got to make the latter more attractive somehow.  (Can't say I've got an answer for that one, either.  Just that the problem is the same.)

Agreed. Players will tend towards the boring but safe choice unless the alternative is heavily incentivized. It reminds me of how I always finish a computer RPG with hundreds of healing items in my inventory.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on July 15, 2024, 03:54:22 PMfter some experimenting, I found that the key to the torch lantern thing was several small things working together:

A lot of these are really good ideas, some I hadn't thought of before. For brevity, I'll just pull out one.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on July 15, 2024, 03:54:22 PM- Giving options for characters to optimize around quick draw and/or single-handed weapons--with the express purpose of having a hand free.  Helps that I don't make switching a weapon free actions without some skill.

I'd be curious for more detail on what you mean here. One thing that's common across every iteration of D&D I've played is that most character types nerf themselves considerably without the use of both hands (whether for a shield, dual wielding, casting spells, or using a bow). I know 5e has the "dueling" fighting style for martial classes, but that always seemed like objectively the worst one.

The switching weapons thing is a weird one. I've always been used to the rule that dropping a weapon is a free action and drawing/sheathing one is the equivalent of half a round's action (whatever that means in a given system). That's so ingrained in me that I don't even know what game I got it from. I'm sure most players would rather have weapon-switching be a single action, and I think I've seen some newer games go that route, but it's a little too easy for my taste. Intuitively it seems most weapons --maybe not polearms or bows-- should be free/quick/bonus (as applicable) actions to draw, but still an action to sheathe. How that effects torches I couldn't say, because you've got to include time to light one.

Quote from: jhkim on July 15, 2024, 04:35:49 PMIn my experience, the biggest issue with torches is that they tend to ruin stealth or surprise. At least by publication, most dungeons aren't lit and the monsters can see in the dark, started from infravision and ultravision in AD&D. Having PCs who can sneak around in the dark is really useful.

The problem I find is that under old school rules sneaking up on the monsters isn't all that useful unless the whole party can do it. If only one PC can do it, it's probably going to be the thief. The old-school backstab is pretty hard to set up even if you can approach the baddies unawares, and if you do get it off, it's not going to reliably kill any monster consequential enough to be worth the risk.  I know some games have an assassin class to solve this, but that's not what I'm running. Even a full party surprise attack isn't that much of a game changer unless the dice really go your way. I usually let thieves sneak attack from range and have played with the idea that a successful party ambush triggers an immediate morale save for the baddies.

Quote from: weirdguy564 on July 15, 2024, 09:29:27 PMDragon Warrior is an old RPG from Britain in the '80s also is human only. 

It does have optional rules for playing elves, etc., but yeah by default it's humans only. If memory serves, it also has a few different tiers of sight for monsters, to account for them having better than human vision without actually being able to see in pitch blackness.