Quote from: KingCheops;1055471I know he gets a somewhat bad rap around here but this is pretty much the reason I read The Angry DM at all.

I loved his idea about the megadungeon, but he's been derailed a number of times. I'm going to see if I can accomplish something similar without going off into the weeds.

Even when I disagree with Angry GM, the reason I disagree gives me something to think about.

Quote from: Motorskills;1055217You can't have shit like GamerGate

Which one?

Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;1055243That aside, until the SJW mob stops its stupidity things will never stop being problems. They create self-inflicted traumas or worse, latch on to legitimate ones and leech from them and use them as shields.

By dwelling on trauma and using it as a source of status, they traumatize others (including themselves) and prevent that trauma from being resolved.

Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;1055282The same asshats who get caught fabricating a rape story and then defend with, "It could've been real!"

That's why you should never rule on hypotheticals.

Quote from: KingCheops;1055288Hammurabi's Code:  false accusations carry the same sentence as if the accuser had committed the crime.

Seems fair.

Quote from: rawma;1055299As I read the longer quote, Paizo is saying "don't remove the female NPCs from the game world if someone doesn't like women in the roles those characters have, even if there are no female players at the table."

Really? Cause I didn't know that was even a problem.

But lets say it is. Unless Paizo is saying you're not allowed to change certain elements in their adventure paths, then groups have a right to change whatever they want when they run them at their table. Perhaps removing these female NPCs isn't the best idea, but trying to exert control over how people run their games is even worse, and historically something RPG players rally against.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1055349The leftist "inclusion" big lie is the same as it has always been:  

1. A group is reasonably inclusive to a variety of viewpoints, because of a mix of classical liberal, free-thinking conservative, libertarian, and various others that wouldn't necessarily be inclusive on their own but see no reason to rock the boat.
2. Leftist member rocks the boat.  Not happy that X isn't "included".  Get their way.  Arguments are all about how everyone needs to be included.
3. As soon as they get enough of their like-thinking members, they start running people out.  It starts with whichever target they can isolate the easiest.  During this period, they deny vigorously that this is what they are doing.
4. As soon as they get control, they change the rules to ensure they never lose it, and the purge begins of anyone that even thinks about standing up to them.
5. Finally, the organization collapses as they turn on each other.

Accurate.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1055303The only reason certain demographics (Women, popular kids) didn't, was because it was stigmatized that only losers played D&D.

Quote from: sureshot;1055316In most gaming groups it was for all. In my neck of the woods at least until the mid-90s women would not be caught dead playing in any tabletop rpgs as it was a hobby that came with a huge social stigmata.

Quote from: Dimitrios;1055350People were always invited in. Until recently most of them chose not to join because sitting around a table pretending to kill orcs was considered weird.

Quote from: Haffrung;1055356I don't think Millennials realize just how stigmatized geek entertainment and hobbies were in the 80s.

Can confirm.

And if you want a great example of institutionalized oppression, this is it.

Quote from: Gwarh;1055373Excellent observation (thought it's been made by others re the larger SJW community [not to denigrate your own observation])  It really is an evangelical religious movement, replete with saints, sinners, proselytizations, excommunications, papal bulls (with competing popes) and witch hunts and symbolic witch burnings (social media ostracization).

But without all the forgiveness and redemption.

Quote from: tenbones;1055380So you do justify its inclusion for people that are mentally deficient enough to *need* to be *explicitly* told what/how/whom to play with and what to represent in your fantasy-elf-games at your table by a book because they're too stupid and/or weak-willed to simply not allow people even more idiotic to play with them?

The real problem is that many treat the books as a source of validation and legitimacy, which is why trans characters were apparently unwelcome in D&D until the book explicitly said they were. So having a book which explicitly gives them permission to adopt the political beliefs they already hold and expel anyone who doesn't share those views is exactly what they're after.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1055413Dunno if I posted my 2 cents yet. I'm not really interested. I'm more interested in the (pulls out pretentious word) craft of GMing, and I actually find more value in video game commentaries.

Web DM is a good Youtube channel for GM advice. The GM in question has a lot of experience, the advice is practical, it isn't full of ideological, tribal nonsense, and the presentation is entertaining and high-quality.

Quote from: Motorskills;1055462A year to get from L1-20, a level every two sessions, doesn't seem massively problematic to me. People enjoy levelling, give them what they want.

D&D levels aren't designed for such fast levelling. They're much too meaty, even in 5e. You can have fast leveling where it's just a small power up, as in Skyrim, but 2 D&D levels is about a x2 power increase. Whatever people want, you don't get a stable campaign that way. I ran Curse of the Crimson Throne AP as written for Pathfinder, with PCs leveling every 2 sessions. I don't think the players really enjoyed doubling in power every 4 sessions; it triviliased a good chunk of the campaign and just felt silly.

Quote from: Haffrung;1055481Web DM is a good Youtube channel for GM advice. The GM in question has a lot of experience, the advice is practical, it isn't full of ideological, tribal nonsense, and the presentation is entertaining and high-quality.

Yeah, they're ok. There are a lot of bad GM advice channels though. The only one I really take seriously is Matt Colville.

Quote from: Haffrung;1055481Web DM is a good Youtube channel for GM advice. The GM in question has a lot of experience, the advice is practical, it isn't full of ideological, tribal nonsense, and the presentation is entertaining and high-quality.

Thanks! I'll give a look-see.

Quote from: S'mon;1055482D&D levels aren't designed for such fast levelling. They're much too meaty, even in 5e. You can have fast leveling where it's just a small power up, as in Skyrim, but 2 D&D levels is about a x2 power increase. Whatever people want, you don't get a stable campaign that way. I ran Curse of the Crimson Throne AP as written for Pathfinder, with PCs leveling every 2 sessions. I don't think the players really enjoyed doubling in power every 4 sessions; it triviliased a good chunk of the campaign and just felt silly.

Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with you, especially for homebrew campaigns.

I was slightly surprised to see XP in 5e at all, but maybe it is (was) a sacred cow. I think I remember people reporting issues with levelling via XP in LMoP, but overall I think it probably worked fine for most groups.

For some of (all?) of the more published campaign books, WOTC indicated the levels that the adventurers should be at each chapter.

If DDAL shows the 'structured milestone' thing can work, I can well imagine no XP in 6e.


Edit: but for groups that want to push levelling to experience the full level range, a bump every two sessions is fine (IMO). But yes, you need a campaign that can handle it, or a extended series of one-shots.

Quote from: Motorskills;1055488Edit: but for groups that want to push levelling to experience the full level range, a bump every two sessions is fine (IMO). But yes, you need a campaign that can handle it, or a extended series of one-shots.

Probably works best with a series of one shots and an indeterminate amount of time passing between adventures.

BTW I've been interested to see at my open table 5e Meetup that all the GMs seem to advance the PCs at about the same rate as me, in the region of 5 sessions/level, or half the DMG-recommended rate. I think this is a pretty natural result of using the XP award tables in the DMG, it's also a pretty good rate in general. It means players can keep playing their PCs for a long time and be joined by new players with lower level PCs. If we used 2.5 sessions per level then players would have to retire PCs after a few months, or GMs would all have to run closed-table Adventure Path type games with fiat levelling.

Quote from: S'mon;1055482D&D levels aren't designed for such fast levelling. They're much too meaty, even in 5e. You can have fast leveling where it's just a small power up, as in Skyrim, but 2 D&D levels is about a x2 power increase. Whatever people want, you don't get a stable campaign that way. I ran Curse of the Crimson Throne AP as written for Pathfinder, with PCs leveling every 2 sessions. I don't think the players really enjoyed doubling in power every 4 sessions; it triviliased a good chunk of the campaign and just felt silly.

Yes. The flattened progression curve was the only thing about 3e that I changed immediately right out of the box. Everyone has always known that the game plays very differently at high levels. That wasn't an issue when high level play was rare. By flattening the curve, WotC ensured that playing around level 20 would suddenly become common, but I don't think they really thought through the implications of that.

Quote from: Motorskills;1055206The title of the segment is "Gaming Is For All". That's the objective.

Quote from: S'mon;1055227That's not really the objective. They clearly don't want social conservatives playing, never mind sexists racists et al.  In fact they don't even want people playing sexist or racist characters, since it's triggering.

So White Wolf was recently accused of harboring crypto fascists and Nazi sympathizers. As a result they had a press conference, and one of the questions asked was "Will you openly tell the fuck social justice warrior sensitivities alt-righters and neo-nazis who've been using RPGs as a recruiting grounds since the Age of Conan that The World of Darkness is not for them".

Well that's not so much a question as a demand, but SJWs can't tell the difference, which might explain why they see asking questions as an attack. And one of the reasons they see RPGs as recruiting tools is because that's exactly how they use them. Regardless, the important takeaway here is how the list of excluded persons was subtly expanded from Nazis to include, well, everybody who thinks SJWs are full of shit.

So who exactly would be included in that group?

So S'mon is right, Gaming for all is not the objective. What Paizo is doing here is doubling down on their attempts to appeal exactly the same market which includes ex-employees like Jessica Price who still accuse them of being an unsafe place for women. Because once you're labeled problematic, you have to do twice as much to prove you're not. And by continuing to cater to that segment, they're not just alienating a far larger one, but actively excluding them, which ironically they think will help them expand their market.

That's just crazy talk, and this may very well be the beginning of Paizo's irrelevancy. Because the key to their success was publishing a system people were already familiar with when WotC decided to do exactly the same thing they are now, and chase a market which resulted in alienating the majority of their existing customers.

Quote from: Dimitrios;1055501Yes. The flattened progression curve was the only thing about 3e that I changed immediately right out of the box. Everyone has always known that the game plays very differently at high levels. That wasn't an issue when high level play was rare. By flattening the curve, WotC ensured that playing around level 20 would suddenly become common, but I don't think they really thought through the implications of that.

3es curve isnt as bad as 4e. But in comparison its still darn fast. Faster than an A/2e Thiefs levelling. Though interestingly 3e actually slows down the early levelling up to about level 10. But then speeds it up afterwards.

Heres my updated comparison chart.

Quote from: Dimitrios;1055501Yes. The flattened progression curve was the only thing about 3e that I changed immediately right out of the box. Everyone has always known that the game plays very differently at high levels. That wasn't an issue when high level play was rare. By flattening the curve, WotC ensured that playing around level 20 would suddenly become common, but I don't think they really thought through the implications of that.

So did you also make it so that Fighters didn't adventure past 10th level, unlike the other classes, because they had a keep with NPCs they had to manage?

Quote from: Motorskills;1055488I was slightly surprised to see XP in 5e at all

A lot of GMs don't like calculating XP, but IME most players very much enjoy being awarded it and often (not always) quite resent GM-fiat levelling. Certainly I find that games with XP tend to be longer lasting and have a stronger sense of earned progression. People who think levels are a 'content pacing mechanism' rather than a player reward for successful play tend to have no use for XP. So eg Pathfinder Adventure Paths with an expected & required content progression benefit less from XP than do sandbox games.

Another negative consequence of fast leveling, particular when you're playing an Paizo or WotC adventure path, is the ridiculously rapid advancement of the PCs in game world time. A group of callow newbs save the village from goblins. They investigate the source of the attacks and return four days later in game time as proficient, veteran warriors and practiced mages. Another week of investigating ruins in the wilds beyond, and they return as heroic ass-kickers, more powerful than the local lord and wizened master wizard. It's just fucking dumb.

Quote from: Haffrung;1055557Another negative consequence of fast leveling, particular when you're playing an Paizo or WotC adventure path, is the ridiculously rapid advancement of the PCs in game world time. A group of callow newbs save the village from goblins. They investigate the source of the attacks and return four days later in game time as proficient, veteran warriors and practiced mages. Another week of investigating ruins in the wilds beyond, and they return as heroic ass-kickers, more powerful than the local lord and wizened master wizard. It's just fucking dumb.

Yeah Hoard of the Dragon Queen is REALLY bad for this.  By the time you finish you are about 7th or 8th level and have had 0 contact with any of the higher ups in the factions.  Then Rise of Tiamat picks up and you are supposed to be big movers and shakers but no one has any idea who you are or whether you are full of BS.  As if Neverember or Silverhand would give a wet fart about your characters.