The absolute madman

No fear as I am protected by my fortress of 3.5 books.

But this was literally always true. If the GM wants to ignore a rule, he can do so. Provided of course the players are happy, and if not then the rulebook comes out.

But no, I must take one twitter post as evidence of some great plague upon my perfect and pure hobby.

Why did he put the (((Jew))) markings around his own name?

it's a thing betas are doing to show solidarity with god's chosen people because evil internet nazis are pointing them out :(

Meme magic

It reflects an old-school attitude toward rules, in which you only use the rules when the GM is uncertain as to what the outcome is.

For example, if you make good use of 10 foot poles, or declare that you search in the right way, you don't need dice to determine that you found the trap. If you don't find it that way, then the dice come out and you roll your PC's trap-finding skill.

Or if you already earned the trust and respect of NPCs through play, you don't need a roll to determine whether or not they'll help you. However if their loyalty is not so certain, then the GM makes a roll for it, taking into account factors like charisma and the PCs relationship to them.

>2 SJW markers
>Wife's son
Christ...

Look up Richard Garriott. He is the Alpha-Beta

I mean, in 0e there was a lot of DM fiat too, and the system was designed to tell you "hey, if your players do something not listed here, figure it out."

So how is it a bad thing to try to move back toward that philosophy?

I have no idea who Mike Mearls is.

>implying that this isn't the best way to play dnd.
Seriously, even in ADnD the rules were mostly optional. It's up to the DM to choose the best playstyle for a group of people there is no one size fits all style of play.

>I have no idea who Mike Mearls is.
A lead guy on D&D 5th Edition. The cap is from some tweets he made talking about how livestreams and YouTube videos can be helpful to new players (I bet WotC's kike department has plenty of sales metrics to support that)

You're trying incredibly hard to be offended by this.

While the analogy is kinda bad. That's not bad advice, Dnd has a lot of rules and they take a while to teach. I've found that players react better to just playing the game and learning by doing.

Also what's the problem with getting new players into the game? Half of Veeky Forums is people complaining that they can't find people to play with, getting new players into the game is an excellent way to solve that problem.

We all know house rules are a thing, but Mearls comparison is just crazy. Especially when coming from a freaking game designer.

>up to the dm

No it fucking is not.

It is never up to the dm alone.

It is up to the group and should only be a group discussion, not a single member of the group.

It's not crazy. He's saying fundamental rules and mechanics can be easily learned through observation and he's gushing about that (because he designed them).

You know, I'm not even going to try to argue with this, because you're right.
I'll just find rules I actually want to use as homebrew material, or just make a Pathfinder-style 'I can't believe it's not D&D'.

Is it really though? A lot of a game designer's work is accessibility, a concept that Dungeons and dragons had struggled with for a while and sorely needs at the moment.

Also it's not like the rules are going away, they'll still be there.

No its true.
It is about the same as saying I send my thoughts and prayer.
If you actually care do something more than share a link and change color on your avatar.

I made pins and necklaces and handed them out at pride parade for free to show my support.

What I object to in the series of tweets is the dumb false dichotomy, that theorycrafting and designing 'for the table' are different things.

They're both part of the design process, and they're both important and intimately connected. Running the math and ensuring the theory is sound is part of avoiding snags at the table, while the table-design side sometimes requires compromising on exact mathematical perfection to make the experience more fun. Denying either side is just excusing the weaknesses of your game.

Yeah you're absolutely right, I was a bit lazy with my wording.
What I meant to say was that the DM's job is to interpret what the party wanted and design a game around it.

It doesn't sorely need it. The game sold and is selling well and coming back into the public consciousness. Whatever their plan was, it's not hurting them.

I believe he was refering to negotiate between playas, as an arbiter?

People with jobs don't have time to march alongside tony and jose as they 69 each other while cartwheeling down the street covered in body glitter and streamers.

...What?

Depends on the group.

When my players want me to DM, they tell me what kind of world they want, but beyond that they say house rules are up to me.

Just concerned.

There are people on Veeky Forums who adamantly believe that as a dm, their word is law and by being in that position they know best for their group.

If you can't put aside an hour to fondle a fag's cock then you need to reconsider your life choices.

To be fair it is really hard to get the 69 right while both are simultaneously cartwheeling. It takes alot of practice.

I think their plan for 5e has always been accessibility. It's a lot less mechanically driven then 3e and 4e.

>Also what's the problem with getting new players into the game?

Because that other half of Veeky Forums is neckbeards that hate all these normies invading their hobby. People want new players (to their group) but not new players (to tabletop) because they're picky bitches who will never be happy.

People here seem to be missing the point that Mearls was talking about live streams especially, and that is dangerous. Shows like Critical Role are improv acting with a plot and don't really look like your average game of D&D. Looking at this stuff to get tips doesn't sound good.

It's a good starting point though. A basic idea of the flow of the game. I don't think it's as dangerous as you're making it out to be.

I agree, it brings people up to speed quickly.

I'd be interested to see if other more 'usual' RPG streams arise. Problem is the pacing of your average session isn't as entertaining, so it'd necessarily attract a niche audience.

That's what he wants game groups to be, groups of handsome and beautiful improv actors that occasionally roll dice.

It is if it's going to affect WotC's design.

Yeah ok faggot, don't forget to luck that cheeto dust of your keyboard

It's already affected WotC's design. Do you think that they were unaware of the internet when they were designing 5e? Streams have been getting people into the game for a while.

Remember when DnD was good?

Design of what? 5e doesn't seem to be getting splat books and what he's saying doesn't affect adventures.

5e is doing really well so I wouldn't wring my hands about 6e coming out of nowhere looking like a Dungeon World clone

5e is great. Tons of fun, without being bogged down with needless rules. People are just looking for controversy.

I-Is that an (((echo))) on his name?

I do enjoy 5e, but i think there's a line that needs to be drawn here.

>6e coming out of nowhere looking like a Dungeon World clone

5e is successful enough that it'll probably be 5-10 years before 6e. In that time indie and narrative games are going to continue increasing in popularity. WotC will notice and will follow suit in their design of 6e.

I consider all of this a good thing.

Taking the tweet in a complete vacuum, he's right. Rule 0 has existed since forever.

What line? Ban streamers? Game designers having opinions on game design is bad?

No there isn't user

This is not rule 0. This is the slippery slope to DnD becoming Lord of the Dice.

Learn to fucking read.

I fuckin hate Mike but anyone bitching about this statement can leave the fucking hall. Rules lawyer WotC cucks. This is how Gygax meant DMing to function. Tough shit if you're not creative enough to handle it. Pussy.

I can read

You just seem to dislike story games, and you don't want anybody else to like story games either.

>Rules are bad and get in the way of my epic plot

When will this meme stop

probably never, unfortunately

Then you'll end up like the OSR grognards, the 3.5 die hards, and the 4eaboos if you're not already sitting in the corner shouting "Not muh d&d!"

You'll get some (you)'s and the community will move on

>((()))
o-oy vey

Cry some more, 3.5fags.

but critical role has lots of D&D elements, heavy dice rolling etc.

Harmonquest/Aquisitions Incorporated is much more cancerous and more like what you're describing

>I'd like to play a game with my friends but first I need make sure my fantasy taxes are in order.

Do you want a ten foot pole to help with that reaching?

Rules are there to make the game more fun they're features.

Unfortunately you also have players who get incredibly vexed when the game isn't played using all of the above rules and in a specific fashion (I know, I'm in one of those parties).

Yes there's a rule for underwater basket weaving on page 295, but would it really improve the game by having me stop to read/clarify it for this one time thing?

Bird people on motorcycles kill god. In space.

>the community will move on
Innovation is good. Change is bad.

NOTHING (especially RPGs) has ever been improved or made better by changing its core formula and altering it to fit what's popular now.

ITS THE SAME SHIT GARY GYGAX ALWAYS SAID
I'd hate to have you as my DM
This is just /v/ tier "looking for a reason to be mad" bullshit. Fuck you. Get out.

Has he actually said "Wife's Son" for real?

>Innovation is good. Change is bad.
You need to change things to innovate annon.

change for innovation is good, but change for the sake of change is bad. That should be rather obvious.

Who decides what's innovation change and what's bad change. Is it you?

Story games aren't D&D and never were, Its not what the system was designed for and there's so many better systems you could be playing for what you want. D&D is a dungeon crawl game.

Dungeons and Dragons isn't going to become a story game but it can stand to take a few pointers from them.

No, the differences between innovation and change are fairly obvious, especially with things that have had various iterations over time.

If a feature works well and is a 'core' feature - I.E. it's been used is all/most of the previous iterations - then changing it is not innovation.

Note, this does not keep things entirely static. New features can be added (and removed) easily and without problem, and older features can be changed if they don't work anymore.

Whether or a mechanic works is a lot less objective than you think it is. For example I really like how advantage works, I think it makes the game play faster. But my friend hates how imprecise it is and preferred situational modifiers for his games.

I'm not sure why slap on a -2 is slower or faster than advantage (i.e. more rolling attempts)

Care to explain?

Can you give a reason (based on logic/example rather than opinion) to explain why a mechanic is working or not? If you can, congratulations, you've found an objective answer to your questions.

user probably subscribes to the "more math = slow and wrongbadfun" school of thought.

NBA on suicide watch

It would be objective for someone who shares the same assumptions.

Personally, I'm the kinda person who gets bothered by advantage's implimentation basically meaning that you never crit if you are disadvantaged, and that crossbows can be fast reloaded with disadvantage which then means that if you already have disadvantage, your crossbow reload becomes free.

Naw, you guys are being silly. Situational modifiers work best with a steep curve a la GURPS, so characters will pretty much always succeed doing simple things, mostly succeed when doing things they're good at, and almost never succeed doing really complex reacharound shit. With a smooth curve you're just dicking around in a chaotic "WHO KNOOOWWWS" system anyway so why not add a weird double down mechanic?

But D&D has never been good. It's just your knowledge of the alternatives to it was shittier back then.

You can have a lot of modifiers stacking together, especially when you have a clever wizard or cleric.
Advantage is nice because you can give a person a bonus for using their imagination and all they need to do is grab two dice and roll it. It works really well for the pace of my campaign.

Also as said, it help reduce the "I'm good at it therefore I never fail ever" situations a minmaxing player can get into.

>It would be objective for someone who shares the same assumptions
It would also be objective for someone who doesn't shares the same assumptions. Thing is, you can have a perfectly logical and objective reason to innovate and a perfectly logical and objective reason to stay the same at the same time. It doesn't matter it more than one option is logical and objective; the change would still be innovation.

Personally, I've always thought that DnD was improved by the "I'm good at it therefore I never fail ever" situations. I think its perfectly setting appropriate for level 20 PCs to be mowing down low-level mooks like something out of Dynasty Warriors or Exalted. Speeds the game up too.

You have that many situational modifers that your players haven't figured out what will happen first hand?

Also, GURPS 3d6 just has a range of 10 or so values that produce interesting results, otherwise, you might as well just roll a.1d10 or something.

Yup

That's not neccessarily the case.

For example, assume that a person likes green as a color.

Therefore, it makes sense for them to find and collect green things. (Because they like them)

If you like red things, you shouldn't collect green things.

God, the RPG community barely survived the rise of WoD and the Storyteller system, and then the subsequent rise of The Forge and Storygames, but people getting into the hobby because they watched some streamers and the people who actually want to start "streaming" their D&D sessions are going to be the fucking end of us

>3d6 = 1d10
user, do you not understand how probability curves work?

>You have that many situational modifiers that your players haven't figured out what will happen first hand?
No, but my group likes to keep a relatively fast pace, and constant modifiers didn't flow as well as advantage so we went with that.

This goes back to the original point on core features not changing. If something's core features is being green, than it should not be changed to be red because some people like red. people who like red should use red things, not make green things change to be red.

Eh, It's more it a 1d8.

Anyway, I do this by looking at the output of 3d6 compared to 1d10, and comparing the "at least" outputs.

anydice.com/program/1a6b

You will note between 7 to 15 the differences in probability of between meating or beating a value and getting the value are about 10%, which goes with the 1d10.

However, that there are only 8 values where this is interesting makes it like 1d8.

But what if someone makes a green thing with red trim? I think you're oversimplifying.

Do you not see the curve on 3d6? You are more likely to get a 10 or 11 on 3d6 while you're equally likely to get any number on 1d10.

>Personally, I've always thought that DnD was improved by the "I'm good at it therefore I never fail ever" situations. I think its perfectly setting appropriate for level 20 PCs to be mowing down low-level mooks like something out of Dynasty Warriors or Exalted. Speeds the game up too.
That's fine man and I have a ton of fun playing those types of games, but in a d20 system that heightens failure probability and the gambling aspect, near-guaranteed hits are the exact opposite of what I'd try to implement as a designer. Also, that was a classic gripe of players who got into high level campaigns: they got bored. At a certain point the non-OP PCs kinda die off or fall by the wayside, while the OP players MIGHT be having fun doing the Liu Bei's Triple Peasant Death Twirl of Figurative Fisting, but often times they weren't because they didn't feel that challenge anymore, either because the lesser PCs were being protected or because the DM was actually having trouble putting together challenging encounters for those munchkins.