Quote from: cranebump;908517Semi-related anecdote about [strike]real-world physics, etc.[/strike] a bad GM, harming our imaginative play: had a friend of mine relate an incident with a group he is in the process of quitting. His 20-STR character wanted to cart  a barrel of wine or ale or some such beverage to another character's abode for a birthday party or some such celebration. DM nixed it outright, which led to a long discussion of whether the character could actually haul it. Worse yet, when the player proposed alternatives to get the barrel moved (borrow a horse, rent a cart, what have you), the DM wouldn't just hand-wave the thing and move on (as hauling the barrel wasn't really a significant thing, one would think). My bud said they spent half the session arguing about what could be hauled and what couldn't. But this sounds part and parcel with this DM, who, evidently, sucks huge balls in almost every way.  By the way, the player really could give a shit whether his PC could actually do it. He just wanted the barrel delivered. The other players and the GM started getting into it, so he just sat there on his phone till they finally stfu.

(P.S. I'm typically a DM-defender, because it's not an easy job, and we all do stupid stuff--but this type of stuff is massive forest for innumerable trees--unless [I guess] he was worried the player would start throwing barrels of wine at his monsters? (in which case, allow the seller to help with delivery or something--sheesh))

Fixed that for you.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;908510When it comes to getting food, every animal is smart, or it's dead.

Actually, no.

Plenty of animals are damn stupid - to the point they attempt to eat just about anything they find, no matter whether it's good for them, or whether it's actually edible, sharks, one of oldest species being probably the best possible example of that behavior.

That some species are quite clever doesn't justify the needles glorification of animal kingdom.

Quote from: talysman;908516There's tons of underground cities in Cappadocia in Turkey. There's catacombs under several European cities. (...) Trying to drop a gas bomb down a ventilation shaft would probably be futile, since the gas is only going to fill a small area at the bottom of the shaft. (...)

I visited Cappadocia a few times (no Giovannis whatsoever), I went to canals underneath of Paris, descended to tombs in Egypt and happened to "explore" a handful of other, less known underground, labyrinthine complexes. I'm no master builder and I know next to nothing about firefighting, but the size of some among these places and their "floor planes" (that makes it impossible to tell where that friggin' air comes from") would render any "gas" based attacks impractical.

Quote from: Bren;908522Fixed that for you.

As the saying goes, "the rules can't fix stupid, and the rules can't fix asshole".

Quote from: talysman;908516The thing that gets me about the ventilation tangent is that the discussion seems to be focused on modern underground construction (one person even mentioned ventilation equipment.) Only problem is: there's lots of pre-Industrial Revolution underground construction, some of it quite extensive. There's tons of underground cities in Cappadocia in Turkey. There's catacombs under several European cities. People were able to handle ventilation, sometimes with multiple shafts, but probably more often by building partially into natural living caverns that already have ventilation.

And if the average dungeon looked anything like those, great.  No problems.  I'd love to see a D&D dungeon that actually looked like a structure built by intelligent beings that used it for something other than a monster zoo.

This seems interesting: http://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/457/how-can-i-estimate-how-far-into-a-cave-network-breathing-is-possible

Quote from: Bren;908522Fixed that for you.

Ha! Thanks.:-)

Quote from: David Johansen;908518You'd be surprised how many monsters can be defeated with a cart load of liquor.  

I wouldn't doubt it! :-)  

I think the thing that drives him crazy is how arbitrary the whole thing is. They're playing 5E, and not doing anything remotely resembling old school play, so no need for unusual tactics because they're, of course, non-squishy badasses. Still, I'll have to pass on the information about the rutabagas. That could prove key in the future.:-)

Quote from: Krimson;908520Never underestimate the usefulness of black powder explosives that do little more than make a bang. Excellent for distractions.

They also generate large quantities of acrid smoke. Even burning powder in the open, no bang just a sort of hiss, will make a good smoke cloud.

Quote from: Omega;9084891: How do you know they dont? Or that they even need them? ...

Eeesh, man.  YOU were the one who tossed out the "How do you know they're not ventilated??" bit.  Either it was a serious question, or you're playing "Haha, no matter what he says, I'm gonna come right back at him" games.  I don't mind the first, and I don't play the second.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;908491Ummm...   What the hell happened to this thread? :confused:

What happens to every thread.

Quote from: talysman;908516Trying to drop a gas bomb down a ventilation shaft would probably be futile, since the gas is only going to fill a small area at the bottom of the shaft. Also... well, it's a ventilation shaft. Without machinery, ventilation generally works by temperature differences around two shafts causing air to drop down one, flow through, and rise out the other. Any gas from a bomb is going to be dissipated. If it doesn't... well, now how are you going to get the treasure?

Right. Some vents are going to be intakes and others outtakes if its a large complex. I was actually hoping some player would try that as Id have plotted out which were which and oh hey the party just offed themselves.

Back on topic.

Someone upthread mentioned that skill based classless games dont have niche protection.

Sorry. Hate to burst your bubble but theres also skill protection. As noted earlier, some players can be pretty territorial about their skills and wont let anyone else overlap with them. Im not very fond of these types either.

On the other hand I have had players wanting to fill percieved holes in the group. Not because of niche protection but simple tactics and logistics as they saw it. I am ok with this as long as its their own call and they arent trying to force that on the other players. But I allways tell players to "Create a character. Not a stat block or party puzzle piece."

Quote from: JesterRaiin;908524Actually, no.

Plenty of animals are damn stupid - to the point they attempt to eat just about anything they find, no matter whether it's good for them, or whether it's actually edible, sharks, one of oldest species being probably the best possible example of that behavior.

That some species are quite clever doesn't justify the needles glorification of animal kingdom.

Actually yes.

Animals will try to eat anything because they are experimenting or the item is giving false cues. IS this stuff edible? A bird does not know certain bugs are bad for it untill it tries one. As for the shark. Sharks eat odd objects for ballast apparently. And some sharks senses are thrown off by metal objects. They can learn. But not alot.

We arent glorifying animals. We are pointing out that any given critter can over time come up with some tactics or behavior traits. And some just do things naturally that is still darn effective. In the right circumstances.

Quote from: Ravenswing;908532Eeesh, man.  YOU were the one who tossed out the "How do you know they're not ventilated??" bit.  Either it was a serious question, or you're playing "Haha, no matter what he says, I'm gonna come right back at him" games.  I don't mind the first, and I don't play the second.

Nah. Im more asking. "Why are you assuming there isnt this thing because no one stated it is there or alternatives?" It comes across as wanting your hand to be held for every little detail else it cant possibly exist. Which can lead to arguments like. "Swords have no handles because no one mentioned handles. So that means everyone cuts themselves when they swing a sword. Take 1d6 damage each round you hold the sword."

Isnt it better to assume that if Z exists then there must be some sort of Y and X to support it? Even if it is as simple as "A wizard did it!"?

Quote from: Omega;908539Actually yes.

Animals will try to eat anything because they are experimenting or the item is giving false cues. IS this stuff edible? A bird does not know certain bugs are bad for it untill it tries one. As for the shark. Sharks eat odd objects for ballast apparently. And some sharks senses are thrown off by metal objects. They can learn. But not alot.

We arent glorifying animals. We are pointing out that any given critter can over time come up with some tactics or behavior traits. And some just do things naturally that is still darn effective. In the right circumstances.

Heck, no.

It was postulated, that when it comes to getting food, every animal is smart, or it's dead. While there's nothing wrong in the claim that "certain" animals might be smarter than other, the assumption that EVERY animal is either smart, or dead is nothing short of glorification. And a false one - plenty of animals are dumb as a brick.

As for sharks - don't mistake them for ostriches. Some simply eat whatever they find, including things like nails or electronics, not because it supplements their digestive process, or makes a good "ballast", but simply because it's within their reach and they are too stupid to tell the difference between "food" and "not food".

Quote from: Christopher Brady;908471How did the tribegroup of goblins who died to the first time suddenly pass on the knowledge to the other tribes?  That's a high level of metagaming there, bub.  And also, who says they'd be willing to talk to other tribes, last I checked Goblins weren't well known for cooperating with each other without a strong leader killing a few to get them motivated...

Indeed. And I dislike turning a campaign into an arms race of tactics between the GM and the players. I find that usually player tactics will be clever enough without being too disruptive to the scenario. And coming up with clever plans is part of the fun.
But if the player's tactics are seriously disruptive, then the most devious monsters are going to be the ones who survive. Getting organized and "metagaming" will be required for them to survive.