atelier-of-chel-the-red

[atelier-of-chel-the-red]

having brain rot about your own TTRPG character is so embarrassing. yes i love her and i think about her all day and i’ll take any excuse to talk about her. no, there’s no book or anything for you to read. she’s my emotional support rogue. she’s my fidget toy. i wish you could meet her. i made her up inside my head.

[atelier-of-chel-the-red]

what makes it so much funnier is that this passed editorial review. they've clearly been running with this concept in their bizarre proto-ASOIAF nonsense* for years or maybe decades. and no one at any point was like "isn't this... yknow... incredibly stupid?" it was just "Oh sure they worship the thingy because of the thingy of course it makes sense let's go" and I think that's beautiful

*: Battletech actually predates ASOIAF so if anything Martin might have gotten inspiration from mech game.

last night I learned stuff about battletech which astounded me.

apparently their antagonist/exterior culture considers the use of contractions to be as vulgar as, like, hate slurs.

instant loss of respect. I can see what they're going for I think but holy shit that is one of the tamest worldbuilding twists I've ever heard. it's like a dumb joke a four year old would write.

[atelier-of-chel-the-red]

The wizards are calling for help. The worst case scenario has occured, you see.

Bigby is here.

And he wants his hand back.

[atelier-of-chel-the-red]

also one of the ideas I kicked around for a while was something I chose to call "espers".

the core idea is your spell/power selection is hard limited to a single school of magic, or a single psionic discipline. selecting powers outside that narrow field becomes impossible. power stones, pages of spell knowledge expansion, etc. are worthless to you.

this would be another setting thing. obviously this is worse than basic clerics/wizards/psions, so either you have to start out from like "generalists are impossible" or "generalists are taboo" or some such.

or construct tradeoffs, such as giving them better bab or saves, improved potency, lower prerequisites, more spell/power picks, etc.

one such thought is - since each esper type is already effectively their own class - increase their versatility within their narrow field by eliminating distinctions between divine and arcane magic, and between magic and psionics.

this could be super fun but the setup would be a ton of work, as the DM would have to dredge all available spell lists to generate one that's correct for the esper type, and make dozens or hundreds of judgment calls about what works and what doesn't.

it all depends on what you want out of your game.

[atelier-of-chel-the-red]

new feat: Holbrook Fracture

prereqs: some caster levels, quest completion

benefit: you become a three realms caster instead of a nine circles caster. you split your magic spells up into three bins, instead of nine (as detailed above).

normal: caster status quo.

---====---

new feat: Consolidated Schemata

prereqs: more caster levels, Holbrook Fracture, quest completion

benefit: you generate magic points instead of preparing spells, and your spellcasting consumes magic points as detailed here.

normal: Holbrook Fracture status quo.

---====---

caution! in Consolidated Schemata, effective spell level is controlled by MP expenditure rather than fixed with caster level. this is a mild raw power loss to gain versatility surpassing even a sorcerer's.

it would be pretty funny to run a feat series like this for psionics but in reverse - enabling psions to lose the versatility of psychic points in exchange for an increase of raw power. might make augments function weird, tho.

Magic Foundational Theory: The Three Realms

In typical D&D or Pathfinder we have the nine circles of magic.

(usually called "spell levels", but I like to say "circles" to reduce confusion since we are already dealing with "character level" and "class level" elsewhere.)

Every spell has a few definitional aspects: its circle, its school, its title. Following that is what I think of as metadata - the spell's casting time, permitted saving throws, components, range, effect, duration, and so on.

The nine circles provide a relatively smooth power gradient, going from acolyte mage to grandmaster. In a class based system, this is useful.

However, it is not necessary. In a point build system, or a sufficiently different world building frame, some of these lines can be erased.

This is where The Three Realms alters the game's mechanics. Spells of circles 1 to 3 are of the first realm. Spells of circles 4 to 6 are of the second realm. And spells of circles 7 to 9 are of the third realm.

(DMs are encouraged to be poetic and descriptive in naming these for their worlds. Acolyte / Journeyman / Master, disciplines / sciences / arts, year / century / aeon tiers...)

Anytime a magic user would gain a slot of a particular circle, they instead gain a slot of the corresponding realm. Anytime a magic user could choose a spell of a particular circle, they instead choose a spell from the corresponding realm.

Spells and class features may have to be adjusted a bit, especially in the highly desired metagaming cases like a level 1 mage learning Fireball, but overall it's a workable system.

(Fireball is actually a great example. You just run its numbers backwards - normally fireball does 4d6 or 5d6 the level it's learned. A caster gaining it at level 1 would deal 1d6 instead. By this principle, it's only slightly more dangerous than incendiary runes, a spell many magic users are already allowed to choose at level 1.)

Make no mistake, though, running The Three Realms in your setting will make all magic users more powerful - they'll have more options and fewer limits. In a Three Realms game it might be appropriate to have all magic-using classes be prestige classes, limit their available schools more tightly, etc.

It all depends on what you want out of your story.

[atelier-of-chel-the-red]

last night I learned stuff about battletech which astounded me.

apparently their antagonist/exterior culture considers the use of contractions to be as vulgar as, like, hate slurs.

instant loss of respect. I can see what they're going for I think but holy shit that is one of the tamest worldbuilding twists I've ever heard. it's like a dumb joke a four year old would write.

[atelier-of-chel-the-red]

Summary of the d20srd link:

• Cautionary remarks to the effect of "3d6 is a bell curve, not flat" followed by a review of the effects of this on game balance.

• Suggestions for how to adapt critical hits on the slightly narrower number range.

• Replacements for the now nonviable botch/crit rule of tests.

• Replacements for the now nonviable take 20 rule.

• Adjustments to the luck domain.

My preliminary commentary on the link:

Mostly decent? Although I'm not fully comfortable with the way the bell curve is described. They talk about the lower amount of crits (describing them as a "fundamental reward") but subtly de-emphasize the lower amount of forced failures.

Dunno if I'd use their luck domain rework either. "Drop the worst/best d6" mechanic is... there's something about it that doesn't sit right. Bad precedent maybe.

Is your luck fucking terrible? Can you feel your soul shriveling every time you look at a twenty sided die? Have you ever thought about running a statistical analysis on your gameplay to prove your rolls are bad?

Then read on.

Alternate Test Rule: Draw Decks (1) Preparation:

Take a deck of playing cards. Set all the face cards and jokers aside. Shuffle the rest of the cards thoroughly. Now choose two suits out of the four. These will be your Favored Suits. Favored Suits get +10 to their numerical value when you draw them. Write these choices down. You can't change them during gameplay.

You may not look at undrawn cards. You may look at discarded cards, but ONLY the most recent one. When you have drawn every card, shuffle your discard pile thoroughly and flip it back over into your undrawn card pile.

Usage:

Any time the game engine calls for you to roll a twenty sided die, draw a card instead. Once the draw has been used, place it in the discard pile.

Any time the DM asks you to, place your discarded cards into the undrawn pile and shuffle thoroughly. If the DM asks for this (when your undrawn cards aren't exhausted) more than once per combat, you may quit the campaign immediately.

Alternate Test Rule: Draw Decks (2)

Prepare and use the cards the same way as Draw Decks (1), but use two or more decks of playing cards. An undrawn card pile prepared this way is sometimes called a "shoe". This makes your draws harder to predict long term, which is useful for advanced players or cowardly DMs.

Alternate Test Rule: Council of Three

Preparation: Have three six-sided dice on hand.

Usage: Any time the game engine calls for you to roll a twenty sided die, roll 3d6 instead. Most of the game's math still works this way, because 3d6 averages 10.5 like 1d20 does. (For advice on how to adapt critical hits and so on to Council of Three, have a look at https://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/bellCurveRolls.htm ).

[atelier-of-chel-the-red]

“Alexandria’s Genesis, a.k.a violet eyes (a genetic mutation).

When someone is born with Alexandria’s Genesis, their eyes are blue or gray at birth. After six months, the eyes begin to change from their original color to purple, and this process lasts six months. During puberty, the color deepens to dark purple, a deep purple, a royal purple, or a violet-blue color and remains that way. It does not affect the person’s eyesight. Those who have this mutation will never grow any facial, body, pubic, or anal hair (not including hair on their head, on their ears, noses, eyebrows and eyelashes). Women also do not menstruate, but are fertile”

[atelier-of-chel-the-red]

"If you're not running a game yourself you can't-" Blocked. Blocked with extreme prejudice. Blocked ten out of ten times.

I don't need to know how to assemble a rifle to be able to tell when someone's been shot. Go fuck yourself, you disingenuous little twerp. You have no right to finish a sentence here.

There's one of you and at least two players in your troupe, so I'm looking out for the players first.

[atelier-of-chel-the-red]

I would solve this with tiles. Tiles are of indeterminate size.

A sandbox can still have these set pieces in it. The thing you don't do is let your troupe wander into (or drag them into) that kind of setpiece without some kind of heads up or content notice, like:

"!! WARNING !! Compromised Agency Zone"

which can be coded out however you want at the beginning of the campaign to make it less jarring

the details are gonna be different for every troupe, but, broadly: if you without asking abruptly dump them down a pit with spikes at the bottom, and then laugh and relish the taste of their tears while they're bleeding out, you're still a cowardly piece of shit. This still holds if you place the pit in their path and carefully ensure that their abilities and knowledge cannot reveal the pit until it's snared them.

In the interview their cute little anecdote about minecart tracks leading down into gemstone mines is covering for this possibility, and they both know it. Exit rails were mentioned zero times.

Yes, there are DMs that run like this. More than you'd think.

What's the better way to DM - railroading or sandbox?

Watch the full Adventuring Academy on Dropout

[atelier-of-chel-the-red]

Hm, I was pondering about the recent-ish trope of Adventuring Guilds (effectively trade unions for protagonists in fantasy rpg-inspired settings, which I’m sure I’ve seen in a bunch of things but the main example that springs to mind is Goblin Slayer to my annoyance but the Hero Association in One Punch Man has a similar albeit superhero-slanted deal), and how mechanically in the setting they exist to ensure x reward is provided for x amount of work/danger involved but in a meta sense are there so the characters don’t have to go looking for heroing gigs on ye olde Craigs Lyst or something.

It’s an interesting idea, similar in a manner to the many fantasy trope-tinged guilds in the Discworld novels of the late great Terry Pratchett, although an amusing idea occurred to me with the idea of trade unions for fantasy heroes.

Like, if there are unions to ensure employment and fair pay for folks clearing out dungeons, getting gnolls out the cabbage patch, stopping gnomes from going through your bins, and so on, then, logically, there much exist fantasy hero scab workers as well.

Folks that the local king or something brings in for lower pay on more dangerous jobs. Folks who are, say, completely new to the setting, out of their depth, and are thrust into a dangerous situation by a seemingly benevolent authority figure because said authority figure is too cheap to hire someone who understands the risks involved and asks more suitable wages for the role…

Y’know…

[atelier-of-chel-the-red]

D&D / Pathfinder are a level of crunch where learning the rules never really ends, leading to a state of affairs that I used to enjoy describing as "the pie eating race".

This can create some weird lacunae — for example not knowing exactly how basic a basic game mechanic is until it randomly gets tested seventeen levels in because that was the first time it was relevant to the core story. (A cowardly DM has an excellent opportunity to be shitty here, if they work hard to foster the right kind of ignorance.)

Related to the "it's not fair to expect players to learn the rules" discussion:

If your players are unwilling and unable to learn the rules because of their volume, there are many games where the rules are much more brief and easier to learn.

Your friends don't need to learn all the rules immediately, but as long as they're willing to make an effort to learn them you'll be saving yourself a lot of cognitive load in the future.

If you actually want to run crunch heavy games with big rulebooks and your players actually refuse to make an effort to learn the rules, you might want to find new players who actually want to engage with the game at the same level of mastery as you. Seriously, it'll save you the cognitive load and it'll be more fun for you because your interests will be aligned with your players'.

Ultimately, I think players making an effort to learn the rules is like a minimum expectation. If they want to play a big crunchy game then they should make an effort to learn the rules, because otherwise they will be saddling the GM with a lot of cognitive load, and not only is it unfair to the GM it is also bad for the hobby as a whole. We want to encourage players to engage with the rules, we want them to be proactive, we want them to be good players who help the other players with rules questions instead of leaving it all to rest on the GM's shoulders.

[atelier-of-chel-the-red]

So this is part of why I want to build other games using the pieces D&D is built from. It's more accessible, it utilizes Wizards' tech to reduce the market share of Wizards' property.

I think that's beautiful.

I say a lot of stuff on this blog about "play another game" and I really want people to understand what I mean about that. monopolies are bad. DnD has, through marketing and business decisions and luck and capital, dominated the entire hobby in a way that no other creative genre has ever seen before.

[atelier-of-chel-the-red]

DM: What does it look like when Celestial Warlock takes down an enemy?

Celestial Warlock: My Eldritch Blast is like sparkles and rainbows, the Carebear stare.

[atelier-of-chel-the-red]

"i'm not triggered or upset by or even ideologically opposed to it, i just associate it with something so bad that i can't enjoy it anymore" is such a frustrating relationship to have with a piece of media

[atelier-of-chel-the-red]

that's a bit too on the nose I think

King who's replaced his knights with living armour. But each living armour is actually controlled by people in the another kingdom that has worse labour laws.

­