How Does A False God Grant Spells?

[Palanan]

I’m looking for ways that a mortal imposter could grant spells to his “priesthood,” in order to demonstrate his supposed divinity and secure a power base.

I’m aware this could be faked in all kinds of ways, but for my purposes I’m looking for a way that the imposter could actually share a portion of his power with a handful of subordinates, so that they can cast spells or similar effects in his “holy name.”

Offhand I’m not sure what kind of mechanic would work, so I’m open to all kinds of suggestions, from all official WotC and Paizo sources. Can anyone think of a way to do this?

[DrMotives]

The Fiend Folio has a PrC called Fiend of Blasphemy that does exactly this. Have to be a fiend, but if you're the DM you can adapt the mechanic or handwave that rule away. Or use a real fiend, they're pretty decent at disguises anyway.

[ryu]

Trick the followers into worshipping the concept of him. By worship of a concept rules you can literally get divine spells from an eggbeater if in fact you have one.

[Venger]

Once you get divine rank, you can start granting spells. If your dm won't let you do that, imbue with spell ability can let you give a little spells to some people sometimes.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by DrMotives
…but if you're the DM you can adapt the mechanic or handwave that rule away.

I'm the DM, but I don’t have that book, and not sure if that PrC would work for a human.

Apart from the issue with creature type that you mentioned, what are the prerequisites?


Originally Posted by ryu
By worship of a concept rules….

Can you point me to those rules?


Originally Posted by venger
…imbue with spell ability….

This is promising, but this is a divine spell, and for story reasons my imposter can’t be a divine caster.

Is there an arcane equivalent to this?

.

[ryu]

I believe it's under clerics, specifically as an alternative to worshiping gods? Works in every setting but Faerun.

[Rynjin]

I’m looking for ways that a mortal imposter could grant spells to his “priesthood,” in order to demonstrate his supposed divinity and secure a power base.

I’m aware this could be faked in all kinds of ways, but for my purposes I’m looking for a way that the imposter could actually share a portion of his power with a handful of subordinates, so that they can cast spells or similar effects in his “holy name.”

Offhand I’m not sure what kind of mechanic would work, so I’m open to all kinds of suggestions, from all official WotC and Paizo sources. Can anyone think of a way to do this?

All official sources from Paizo? The obvious is Razmir, a 19th level Wizard who has fostered a cult around himself...and has Clerics with spells from him. (https://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Razmir)

His spell granting ability is similar to that of a demigod, giving 4 Domains and no sub-Domains (unlike the full deities which have 5 of each).


Of course (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/sorcerer/archetypes/paizo-sorcerer-archetypes/razmiran-priest/), all of that is bunk (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/other-paizo/e-h/false-priest/), but the plebs don't need to know that.

[DrMotives]

I'm the DM, but I don’t have that book, and not sure if that PrC would work for a human.

Apart from the issue with creature type that you mentioned, what are the prerequisites?

.

Race: Outsider with the evil subtype.
Base Save Bonus:Will +7.
Skills: Bluff 10 ranks, Knowledge (religion) 10 ranks.
Feats: Leadership.
Special: Must have at least one spell-like ability that
duplicates a spell effect of 4th level or higher.

There's a fair bit of class features, but I can't repost of that. You'll have to get the book itself.

[Bucky]

Pathfinder has a spell called "Imbue with Spell Ability" that transfers low-level spell slots to someone else.

[Remuko]

I believe it's under clerics, specifically as an alternative to worshiping gods? Works in every setting but Faerun.

this. its just default caster rules. clerics dont need to worship a god. (except in faerun)

[Venger]

this. its just default caster rules. clerics dont need to worship a god. (except in faerun)

clerics don't need to worship a god in faerun either. they can worship a concept. that just means their ass goes on the wall after they die.

[ryu]

clerics don't need to worship a god in faerun either. they can worship a concept. that just means their ass goes on the wall after they die.

I thought they had a specific clause about concept worship not getting spells there?

[Venger]

I thought they had a specific clause about concept worship not getting spells there?

Not to my knowledge. It might be lurking in there somewhere. Faerun books are just ocular teflon to me.

[ShurikVch]

I thought they had a specific clause about concept worship not getting spells there?Actually, since the Elder Evils, you're in no need of a patron in order to gain your divine spells:
Scholars and priests puzzled over Sertrous's dying words and made an incredible discovery: One need not worship a god to gain the power of divine magic. Rather than worship a god, a cleric could worship an ideal and gain the same reward. He could worship the mountains, or the sky, or the act of war, or himself.Thus, since there is "Sertrous in Faerûn" section, it should mean there is no actual limit for divine magic without patron



This is promising, but this is a divine spell, and for story reasons my imposter can’t be a divine caster.

Is there an arcane equivalent to this?There are numerous ways to get Imbue with Spell Ability as arcane spell:
Ring of Theurgy
Rainbow Servant 10
Arcane Disciple (Family or Magic)
Alternative Source Spell feat

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Rynjin
The obvious is Razmir….

I was just reading the entry on Razmiran from the Inner Sea World Guide. It’s fairly vague about what exactly Razmir is, although I had a feeling he was some sort of high-level wizard.

But how exactly does he emulate the domains, and how is he able to grant his priests the ability to channel positive energy?


Originally Posted by Shurikvch
There are numerous ways to get Imbue with Spell Ability as arcane spell:

These are quite handy, thanks.

[Rynjin]

I was just reading the entry on Razmiran from the Inner Sea World Guide. It’s fairly vague about what exactly Razmir is, although I had a feeling he was some sort of high-level wizard.

But how exactly does he emulate the domains, and how is he able to grant his priests the ability to channel positive energy?



These are quite handy, thanks.

I posted them in the spoilers, and he is explicitly a 19th level Wizard (solely to give him a reason to lust after Sun Orchid Elixir).

Essentially, Razmir's "priests" are arcane casters that can fake Divine abilities.

I have always thought Razmir is a GREAT candidate for using with "Cleric of an Ideal" since a Cleric can technically worship anything they want by RAW.

[Venger]

Actually, since the Elder Evils, you're in no need of a patron in order to gain your divine spells:Thus, since there is "Sertrous in Faerûn" section, it should mean there is no actual limit for divine magic without patron


There are numerous ways to get Imbue with Spell Ability as arcane spell:
Ring of Theurgy
Rainbow Servant 10
Arcane Disciple (Family or Magic)
Alternative Source Spell feat

It's always been part of my personal canon that, like in eberron, anyone with levels in divine classes is actually capable of casting divine magic themselves, and that the gods "granting" them spells is a kind of placebo effect, like in every movie where a character has super powers, and they rely on some magic feather for the first two acts, but then they learn that they could do it without it all along. you only lose spells for transgressing because that's what you think should happen. if you worship yourself, then you'll always be protected. leads to some weird implications with effects like commune, though.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Rynjin
Essentially, Razmir's "priests" are arcane casters that can fake Divine abilities.

Right, that part I get. But do they fake the domains, or does Razmir grant them somehow? And how does an arcane caster manage to channel positive energy?

[ryu]

If you were truly a super being capable of granting magic the whole time why should some simple magically enhanced self-reflection be beyond your abilities?

[Venger]

If you were truly a super being capable of granting magic the whole time why should some simple magically enhanced self-reflection be beyond your abilities?

I didn't say there'd be any kind of mechanical dysfunction, the image of the party being stymied about whether the duke of darkness's lair lies to the north and asking the cleric, only to have him sit in a corner, and provide information that he didn't have ten minutes ago (which was the whole reason you asked in the first place) was just amusing to me.

[ryu]

Not consciously aware of. If all clerics wield powers equivalent to the gods on a usually subconscious level, then all clerics have subconscious access to sensors and even portfolio sense. If we're using this theory we take it to its logical conclusion.

[Venger]

Not consciously aware of. If all clerics wield powers equivalent to the gods on a usually subconscious level, then all clerics have subconscious access to sensors and even portfolio sense. If we're using this theory we take it to its logical conclusion.

Oh, you were assuming the thing I said earlier was at play. That's nice of you.

Yes, in that case, I agree. You'd be like the tv characters who have visions when written into a corner.

[Rynjin]

Right, that part I get. But do they fake the domains, or does Razmir grant them somehow? And how does an arcane caster manage to channel positive energy?

I'd kinda hoped you'd follow the link I posted earlier. (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/other-paizo/e-h/false-priest/) =)

To sum up:

1.) They get the full abilities of their choice of one of the Trickery, Charm, Evil, or Law Domains. Presumably Razmir grants these.
2.) They get a "fake Channel" that grants long term Temporary HP instead of actual healing.

[GreatWyrmGold]

I’m looking for ways that a mortal imposter could grant spells to his “priesthood,” in order to demonstrate his supposed divinity and secure a power base.
How do actual gods do it? (And for that matter, how do druids, ideological clerics, and other casters who get spells from non-divine sources get spells?) In any setting where granting spells isn't a metaphysically-enforced Gods Only Club (which doesn't mesh well with default rules) and/or it's possible to ascend to godhood, there will be some way to grant spells even if you are a "false god". Maybe it requires you to be a de facto god by whatever standards a world operates by, but the real world has no shortage of times where [insert god(s) you believe is/are real] was deemed a false god.

[frogglesmash]

Once you get divine rank, you can start granting spells. If your dm won't let you do that, imbue with spell ability can let you give a little spells to some people sometimes.

I'm pretty sure that once you her divine rank you go from false god to false god.

[Venger]

I'm pretty sure that once you her divine rank you go from false god to false god.

Right, exactly, which is why that's the simplest way, raw.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Rynjin
Presumably Razmir grants these.

This is what I’m getting at. How does he grant these? How does an arcane spellcaster grant a divine domain?

If it’s not spelled out in the setting, fair enough. I’m just looking for a specific mechanism if at all possible.


Originally Posted by Rynjin
I'd kinda hoped you'd follow the link I posted earlier. =)

I did follow that link, but it raises more questions:

“At 10th level, a False Priest attains true power. Whenever he uses false channel, he can spend two uses of that ability to heal damage to all living creatures in the area, instead of granting temporary hit points.”

Again, how is he doing this as an arcane caster? Is it spelled out anywhere, or does his spell component pouch include a big pinch of handwavium?

[Psyren]

Again, how is he doing this as an arcane caster? Is it spelled out anywhere, or does his spell component pouch include a big pinch of handwavium?

"Arcane" and "Divine" are just words. Or to put it another way, they're different flavors of the same magic energy. It's more difficult to do some things (like heal wounds) with arcane magic, but it's not (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/i/infernal-healing/) impossible. (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/l/limited-wish/)

It's like making a cake without eggs or milk. It's a heck of a lot harder than doing it with those things, and the end result might not be worth it to many people, but if you're dead set against using eggs and milk in your cake, that doesn't mean you have to give up on cake for the rest of your life, it just means you have to put in more effort.

[Rynjin]

This is what I’m getting at. How does he grant these? How does an arcane spellcaster grant a divine domain?

If it’s not spelled out in the setting, fair enough. I’m just looking for a specific mechanism if at all possible.



I did follow that link, but it raises more questions:

“At 10th level, a False Priest attains true power. Whenever he uses false channel, he can spend two uses of that ability to heal damage to all living creatures in the area, instead of granting temporary hit points.”

Again, how is he doing this as an arcane caster? Is it spelled out anywhere, or does his spell component pouch include a big pinch of handwavium?

I mean, it's magic.

Give him Mythic Ranks and the ability to grant spells if you like, I don't think he has an official statblock anyway.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Psyren
"Arcane" and "Divine" are just words.

From a player's perspective, sure, but I'm trying to understand this from an in-game perspective.

And in-game, or at least in the games I've played, there is a fundamental difference between arcane and divine.


Originally Posted by Rynjin
I mean, it's magic.

In other words, nobody knows. Fair enough. :smallsmile:

[Nifft]

Gods aren't real in the first place, and Clerics got spells from prayer without anyone "granting" them.

Beware of whatever group or force prevented this fact from being well-known in the campaign previously -- now that you know, they're going to be coming for you.

[Venger]

Gods aren't real in the first place, and Clerics got spells from prayer without anyone "granting" them.

Beware of whatever group or force prevented this fact from being well-known in the campaign previously -- now that you know, they're going to be coming for you.

A resistance exists called the athar. Find them or a friendly ur-priest, who's already discovered this truth, and they'll help you out.

[GreatWyrmGold]

I didn't say there'd be any kind of mechanical dysfunction, the image of the party being stymied about whether the duke of darkness's lair lies to the north and asking the cleric, only to have him sit in a corner, and provide information that he didn't have ten minutes ago (which was the whole reason you asked in the first place) was just amusing to me.
...Isn't that how all divination (god-given, self-granted, arcane, or otherwise) works?



From a player's perspective, sure, but I'm trying to understand this from an in-game perspective.
And in-game, or at least in the games I've played, there is a fundamental difference between arcane and divine.
There's also a fundamental difference between cleric and druid spells, or sorcerer and bard. It's less pronounced, but it's there. Think of the difference between those differences as a difference of magnitude rather than kind, and you're on the right track.



Gods aren't real in the first place, and Clerics got spells from prayer without anyone "granting" them.
Beware of whatever group or force prevented this fact from being well-known in the campaign previously -- now that you know, they're going to be coming for you.
Why must there be any group or force suppressing the knowledge? Genuine ignorance is stronger than any conspiracy could ever be. Look at science; nobody suppresses scientific discoveries which contradict a previously-established canon, whatever the pseudoscientists tell you, but plenty of facts were prevented from being well-known simply because nobody knew them or had the means to find them.
I'm personally a fan of this approach, partly for personal reasons but partly because so few authors explore this idea. (Which I think should be explored for those personal reasons.)

[Nifft]

A resistance exists called the athar. Find them or a friendly ur-priest, who's already discovered this truth, and they'll help you out.

"Though you die, La Resistance lives on!"


Why must there be any group or force suppressing the knowledge?

Because D&D characters are really good at face-stabbing groups of enemies.

Widespread social ignorance is an Out of Context Problem for D&D characters.

[Doctor Awkward]

Trick the followers into worshipping the concept of him. By worship of a concept rules you can literally get divine spells from an eggbeater if in fact you have one.

To clarify, this is definitely a thing, but...

It's suggested in several places in Complete Divine that clerics who are granted spells through the worship of ideals and concepts are actually getting them from some random deity who is associated with one of the domains that cleric has chosen. They just aren't aware of it.

As to why the particular deity would do this, there are many reasons: perhaps said cleric is unknowingly advancing the deities agenda and so they see no reason to try and "convert" them, or because they are an in fact looking to convert the cleric into one of their eventual followers, or perhaps simply because it amuses them.

If, for the purposes of your campaign, you want to ignore that, then it is your campaign.

[Venger]

...Isn't that how all divination (god-given, self-granted, arcane, or otherwise) works?
Well, yeah, I just thought commune was funny because you're specifically asking someone, and that someone is you, versus magic telling you the information like augury.



Why must there be any group or force suppressing the knowledge? Genuine ignorance is stronger than any conspiracy could ever be. Look at science; nobody suppresses scientific discoveries which contradict a previously-established canon, whatever the pseudoscientists tell you, but plenty of facts were prevented from being well-known simply because nobody knew them or had the means to find them.
I'm personally a fan of this approach, partly for personal reasons but partly because so few authors explore this idea. (Which I think should be explored for those personal reasons.)
well, because that's got the makings of a good story. it's a concrete problem for the pcs to oppose. historically, scientific discovery has absolutely been suppressed for contradicting a previously established canon (or Canon). it's why we had the dark ages, because declaring that the sun didn't revolve around the earth was blasphemous.

when it comes to fiction writing, I definitely agree with your basic ideology, that overcoming an abstract force instead of a character who is an antagonist.

of course it depends on your group, but generally in my experience, having some kind of character-based antagonist is more fun for players. one of the quirks of rpgs having the characters and the audience be the same people. it's more fun for them to butt up against someone who's actively working at cross purposes than not. it's hard to have memorable conversations with the abstract concept of ignorance.


To clarify, this is definitely a thing, but...

It's suggested in several places in Complete Divine that clerics who are granted spells through the worship of ideals and concepts are actually getting them from some random deity who is associated with one of the domains that cleric has chosen. They just aren't aware of it.

As to why the particular deity would do this, there are many reasons: perhaps said cleric is unknowingly advancing the deities agenda and so they see no reason to try and "convert" them, or because they are an in fact looking to convert the cleric into one of their eventual followers, or perhaps simply because it amuses them.

If, for the purposes of your campaign, you want to ignore that, then it is your campaign.
That's interesting. So if you revere fire, surtur will give you some mana, and pelor will give you some mana and so on.

It's possible the gods compartmentalize their divine mana into separate pools for this reason following your logic: they have some in each of their portfolio things. We went into a lot of detail in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?557843-Divine-Wifi) where in that analogue, the different things, like fire or transformation or what have you, they'd be different networks, and the clerics who revered them would get access.


"Though you die, La Resistance lives on!"

Because D&D characters are really good at face-stabbing groups of enemies.

Widespread social ignorance is an Out of Context Problem for D&D characters.
yeah, I mean I can't even pick it as a favored enemy. though maybe if I could deal imaginary damage (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?560112-Dealing-i-damage), you could vanquish abstract concepts such as ignorance

[Doctor Awkward]

That's interesting. So if you revere fire, surtur will give you some mana, and pelor will give you some mana and so on.


This actually sounds like a great plot for an adventure involving PC's with divine ranks...

"X lesser deity is granting your followers spells in an effort to steal them from you. What will you do about it?"

[Nifft]

though maybe if I could deal imaginary damage (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?560112-Dealing-i-damage), you could vanquish abstract concepts such as ignorance

Well segued.

I'm not going to top that.

[Psyren]

From a player's perspective, sure, but I'm trying to understand this from an in-game perspective.

That IS an in-game perspective. It's just a very rare one. Remember, in-universe the really smart people are making their own spells and breaking the arbitrary rules they learned as rote at Hogwarts. At least, until they rip a hole in the Weave or whatever and become vestiges. That is a bit less smart. But omelettes and breaking eggs, etc.

Also, as others have pointed out to you, bards are arcane and can heal just fine, right in core. So yes, even in-universe the distinctions are arbitrary.

[Venger]

This actually sounds like a great plot for an adventure involving PC's with divine ranks...

"X lesser deity is granting your followers spells in an effort to steal them from you. What will you do about it?"

That's a really interesting idea. I like it. It'd be hard to talk your followers into not enjoying free goodies.

[SangoProduction]

All you need is for the clerics to have magically strong beliefs. That grants them power. Then you just attribute the power to whatever 'False God' you wish.

In fact, it's a little fan theory of mine that all magic is, at its roots, divine (aka belief-based), but with different origins for their beliefs. Each classification of magic simply believes that they can obtain magic in this way, and that's how it works.

"True divine magic" is when the belief is placed in something 'higher' than yourself, whether a god or cult leader or the pure cosmic force of Good. Then by doing some crazy hoodoo ship, you call his great fluffyness to you!

Arcane magic arises from the belief that entirely physical means can cause magic to happen. Whether that's the rituals and whatnots of the wizard or the blood of the sorcerer. Compared to clerics, who use their rituals to call for their sky daddy, the wizards believe it's the rituals themself that produce the power.

Psionics is when one believes that 'the self' is the source of magic. Indeed, you'll often find psionicists worshipping 'self-improvement' as a deity in and of itself. To find one's self and...yadayadayada.

And lastly sword magic arises from those who simply believe that hitting something with a stick (in the correct fashion) will conjure a white raven to heal their friends. I've heard crazier things.

[unseenmage]

It uses the Mythic rules from Pathfinder as a heroic NPC?

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by unseenmage
It uses the Mythic rules from Pathfinder as a heroic NPC?

Thanks for this suggestion, I appreciate it.

Mythic rules are something I’ve never really looked into, mainly because I don’t really get the mechanics involved. Are there separate rules for heroic NPCs vs. heroic PCs?

[Andor13]

Thanks for this suggestion, I appreciate it.

Mythic rules are something I’ve never really looked into, mainly because I don’t really get the mechanics involved. Are there separate rules for heroic NPCs vs. heroic PCs?

No, there is only one set of rules (although there are separate monster rules.)

Basically you have 10 levels of mythic rank, separate from and unrelated to class levels, which are advanced not by earning experience, buy by achieving mythic deeds.
These grant a combination of mythic powers (which everyone gets), mythic stat advances, mythic feats (mostly just regular feats turned up to 11),and path abilities. Each mythic heros selects a mythic archetype to follow and gets abilities drawn from that archetypes list. There is also a universal list, and one of the 3rd level abilities on that list is:

Divine Source (Su)
You can grant divine spells to those who follow your cause, allowing them to select you as their deity for the purposes of determining their spells and domains. Select two domains upon taking this ability. These domains must be alignment domains matching your alignment if possible, unless your alignment is neutral. You grant access to these domains as if you were a deity. Creatures that gain spells from you don’t receive any spells per day of levels higher than your tier; they lose those spell slots. In addition, you can cast spells from domains you grant as long as their level is equal to or less than your tier. Each day as a spell-like ability, you can cast one spell of each level equal to or less than your tier (selecting from those available to you from your divine source domains). If you’re a cleric or you venerate a deity, you may change your spell domains to those you grant others. At 6th tier and 9th tier, you can select this ability again, adding one domain and two subdomains to your list each time and adding their spells to the list of those that you can cast.

You can find the whole thing here. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/mythic/mythic-heroes/)

[Cruiser1]

Well, yeah, I just thought commune was funny because you're specifically asking someone, and that someone is you, versus magic telling you the information like augury.The Commune (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/commune.htm) spell says that, "A cleric of no particular deity contacts a philosophically allied deity." Therefore Clerics of causes (or even of themselves) can cast divination spells and get correct information they didn't know previously.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Because D&D characters are really good at face-stabbing groups of enemies.

Widespread social ignorance is an Out of Context Problem for D&D characters.
If everything was about stabbing people in the face, the adventure would get awfully boring.



of course it depends on your group, but generally in my experience, having some kind of character-based antagonist is more fun for players. one of the quirks of rpgs having the characters and the audience be the same people. it's more fun for them to butt up against someone who's actively working at cross purposes than not. it's hard to have memorable conversations with the abstract concept of ignorance.
That's true in any medium. You know how authors solve it? By giving ignorance a face. The community leader moving against the PCs doesn't have to be a religious zealot who seeks to hide the Truth from the masses; they could be someone who assumes the PCs are just insane and worries that their madness might destabilize the community. He's motivated by ignorance, not malice, but he's still an obstacle to the heroes.
This is, if you ask me, the basis for a much more interesting antagonist than the medieval Men In Black...especially since it's a lot harder to justify murdering someone who could be brought to your side, someone who could be made to understand why you're saying what you say and agree.



It's suggested in several places in Complete Divine that clerics who are granted spells through the worship of ideals and concepts are actually getting them from some random deity who is associated with one of the domains that cleric has chosen. They just aren't aware of it.
Oh, f*k off.
Not you, Tony, it's just...I really dislike changes that make the world less interesting. Saying "We changed our mind, you can't get divine spells without gods" is one of those changes. Especially since it clashes with another bit of random D&D lore I found interesting (the athar, who question the nature of divinity).
Plus, if you have these gods with unique powers and crap, you approach ever-closer to the philosophical* problem of evil. I mean, for evil per se it doesn't apply, since there are evil gods (which is a whole other can of worms...), but one still wonders how false gods like the demon lords and archdevils could get any real influence if there are gods with godly powers godmodding it up in the outer planes...especially since most of them would be directly competing with the most bloodthirsty and ruthless gods. If we say that divinity isn't a super-special card of any kind, that anything divine can be matched by something non-divine, that sort of problem vanishes.
I guess it's a personal preference thing. There are people who prefer their gods to be really, really godly...and there's nothing wrong with that approach. Heck, it can be done good, if you do something with it. But D&D, being Generic Kitchen Sink Fantasy: The RPG, can't do anything like that. Which is another reason I don't like that implication; it takes one of those kitchen-sink concepts and says "No, I don't like that, divine magic is gods-only. Your character who you wanted to worship an abstract concept instead of a god actually worships a god, ha ha."

*Since this is one of those threads that teeters on the edge of discussing real-world religion, it's important to emphasize that the problem of evil is not inherently religious. The fact that most beings who it would apply to are religious is technically irrelevant.
I hope.

[unseenmage]

Thanks for this suggestion, I appreciate it.

Mythic rules are something I’ve never really looked into, mainly because I don’t really get the mechanics involved. Are there separate rules for heroic NPCs vs. heroic PCs?
Their wealth by level differs and that's about it to my knowledge.

Though IIRC monsters use slightly different rules for Mythic than PCs. But they both pull from the same source of Mythic superpowers. Unless I am.mistaken.

[Nifft]

If everything was about stabbing people in the face, the adventure would get awfully boring.

Crack open a Monster Manual some time, any of them.

Look, there's a whole new world of non-people who also need face-stabbing!

But seriously, if you are throwing problems at the PCs which they can't resolve using the game's rules, you're doing the players a disservice. If the problem can be resolved by the rules of D&D, then it's quite likely that it's compatible with face-stabbing.

[ShurikVch]

I remembered one obscure theory (which I seen in some old magazine):

Process of spell preparation in D&D is rather confusing: what's the point of "memorizing" spells if you already remembering them - from either Eidetic Spellcaster, Spell Mastery, or it's the Read Magic?
What kind of "preparation" is it, if it take just 1 hour for the whole spell repertoire, but some separate spells could take several hours to cast?

The answer is: spells, are, actually, extraplanar creatures.
When casters "preparing" their spells, they're, in fact, just inviting otherworldly creatures to possess them.
The creatures are staying with the mage until the spell is cast, sacrificed, or lost in some other manner

(For divine casters - creatures are shoved in by the caster's patron)

So, if our "False God" got, somehow, access to a bunch of such creatures, then he shouldn't have any problems to "grant" the corresponding spells

[unseenmage]

Crack open a Monster Manual some time, any of them.

Look, there's a whole new world of non-people who also need face-stabbing!

But seriously, if you are throwing problems at the PCs which they can't resolve using the game's rules, you're doing the players a disservice. If the problem can be resolved by the rules of D&D, then it's quite likely that it's compatible with face-stabbing.

Which sounds fine right up until somebody gets petrified and suddenly face stabbing stops solving the problem real fast.

[Nifft]

Which sounds fine right up until somebody gets petrified and suddenly face stabbing stops solving the problem real fast.

Indeed.

Some faces should be avoided rather than targeted.

That's the breaks in the dungeon, though -- face-stabbing giveth, and face-stabbing taketh away.

[Bucky]

You could do a passing-off trick. Somehow convince your followers they're getting spells from you when they're actually getting them from some obscure aspect of a real deity.

[GreatWyrmGold]

But seriously, if you are throwing problems at the PCs which they can't resolve using the game's rules, you're doing the players a disservice. If the problem can be resolved by the rules of D&D, then it's quite likely that it's compatible with face-stabbing.
I have literally written an essay about how I see that as a flaw in D&D. At this point, video RPGs consistently have deeper non-combat mechanics than traditional RPGs...sometimes even the VRPGs which are theoretically based on TRPGs.



I remembered one obscure theory (which I seen in some old magazine):
-snip-
The answer is: spells, are, actually, extraplanar creatures.
-snip-
Ooh, I like this idea. It fits in pretty well with the idea of binders, come to think of it; most casters just force the vestiges to do their bidding for a few minutes, but binders actually make deals with them.

[Nifft]

I have literally written an essay about how I see that as a flaw in D&D. At this point, video RPGs consistently have deeper non-combat mechanics than traditional RPGs...sometimes even the VRPGs which are theoretically based on TRPGs.

Ah, you're one of those people who dislikes D&D. No wonder you're trying to drag the conversation off-topic.

Well, that's an easy enough trap to avoid.



You could do a passing-off trick. Somehow convince your followers they're getting spells from you when they're actually getting them from some obscure aspect of a real deity.

You could do that with a concept instead, and not risk having a self-aware being like a deity gunning for you.

Alternately, you could clear it with the deity('s aspect) before-hand, but I guess if you had the power to go chat with a god you might not need to fake the divinity thing.

Alternately alternately, you could openly set up the worship of a concept, and build a new god under it. Maybe that's how St. Cuthbert got his divinity in the first place -- by embodying a concept which was being worshiped in earnest.

[Bucky]

I didn't say it was a good idea, but it'd definitely work even if the setting doesn't allow concept-worship for some reason.

I wouldn't rule out being able to get permission from *someone*, although for the obvious candidates you would probably regret it later.

[Nifft]

I didn't say it was a good idea, but it'd definitely work even if the setting doesn't allow concept-worship for some reason.

I wouldn't rule out being able to get permission from *someone*, although for the obvious candidates you would probably regret it later.

A campaign which is full of decisions that the players know they're going to regret later... yeah, that sounds like excellent fun for both the players and the DM.

Characters who make good decisions don't usually end up having adventures.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Ah, you're one of those people who dislikes D&D.
Wait wait wait. Hold on a friggin' minute.
I never said I disliked D&D, I said it had a flaw. Do I need to think something's flawless to like it? Because in that case, I hate everything and the term "dislike" becomes meaningless.

[Psyren]

I have literally written an essay about how I see that as a flaw in D&D. At this point, video RPGs consistently have deeper non-combat mechanics than traditional RPGs...sometimes even the VRPGs which are theoretically based on TRPGs.

Do you have examples? Most of the big name VRPGs I see these days have very cursory social mechanics at best. Games like Divinity, Skyrim, or Dragon Age typically have a "persuasion stat" or maybe two, and not maxing it out means you lose out on some content. pay more for items or get into avoidable fights more often - but keeping it maxed out doesn't really hurt your combat prowess much, especially past the early game. Whenever they try to get more complicated than that, we usually end up with a failure, like Oblivion's awful "conversation pie" minigame. I personally think tabletop has much greater potential for rich social interaction, because they have the freedom to make such mechanics completely optional for those who enjoy them, while VRPGs have to include basically everything the player is meant to experience.

Other major VRPGs like Dark Souls and Legend of Zelda have basically no social mechanics at all. (Come to think of it, I think JRPGs tend to eschew them entirely for the most part, beyond maybe some romance minigames...)


I remembered one obscure theory (which I seen in some old magazine):

Process of spell preparation in D&D is rather confusing: what's the point of "memorizing" spells if you already remembering them - from either Eidetic Spellcaster, Spell Mastery, or it's the Read Magic?
What kind of "preparation" is it, if it take just 1 hour for the whole spell repertoire, but some separate spells could take several hours to cast?


They're not actually memorizing them, that's why. They're precasting the parts you need peace and quiet to store. The stuff that's left only requires concentration, which you can train yourself to do even during a fight if needed.

[Andor13]

But seriously, if you are throwing problems at the PCs which they can't resolve using the game's rules, you're doing the players a disservice. If the problem can be resolved by the rules of D&D, then it's quite likely that it's compatible with face-stabbing.

I disagree. One of the reasons D&D is a lousy engine for genres like horror and intrigue is that it makes too much certain, and has too many binary "Solve problem X" switches. Think the King has been dominated? Toss him in a magic circle and ask him. Think a shape shifter is impersonating a member of the court? True Seeing sorts that right out.

Some of these things are level gated to a degree. Which has the odd effect of meaning that the higher level you are the fewer problems you can actually engage with because things that would have been trouble at lower levels are solved with a fingersnap.

So problems that lie outside the regular mechanics of the game have the virtue of remaining both relevant and uncertain throughout the entire level span.

For example, in my current Pathfinder game the the background to the adventure is (or seems to be, there is a lot of murk) a race between several beings trying to ascend to Godhood following the murder of Sehanine Moonbow several years earlier, using her captured energy (and apparently some left over bits of an avatar of Tharzidun, which has been having consequences.) There is also a Great Wyrm+ Red Dragon who is a former consort of Tiamat, who seems to be trying to ascend as well (and came up with the trick of enchanting an entire treasure hoard so that everyone who touched a coin, would have a tiny bit of their devotional energy go to him instead of the correct God.) Since there are no solid rules for achieving Apotheosis, we have no way of knowing exactly what's happening or what it means and it leaves us with a lot of doubt about our best course of action, and that is rarely a part of the D&D game.

[Doctor Awkward]

I disagree. One of the reasons D&D is a lousy engine for genres like horror and intrigue is that it makes too much certain, and has too many binary "Solve problem X" switches. Think the King has been dominated? Toss him in a magic circle and ask him. Think a shape shifter is impersonating a member of the court? True Seeing sorts that right out.

Some of these things are level gated to a degree. Which has the odd effect of meaning that the higher level you are the fewer problems you can actually engage with because things that would have been trouble at lower levels are solved with a fingersnap.

This isn't a bug. It's a feature.

In exactly the same way that Superman has little trouble foiling a bank robbery, your characters are supposed to be learning new methods of solving problems and be able to clearly recognize their improvement (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0853.html) through overcoming challenges that would have proved difficult or even impossible at previous levels.

Not all types of stories are suitable for all levels of play in D&D, and it's always been this way. Just as you wouldn't expect a group of 3rd and 4th-level adventurers to be foiling the invasion of demonic hordes of the Abyss through an active portal in the middle of the city, "spotting the changeling spy" is a little below the pay grade of a group ten levels above them.

[Calthropstu]

Mythic.

Pathfinder mythic has the specific power to grant cleric spells to followers. You can grant spell levels up to your mythic rank I believe.

[Calthropstu]

Their wealth by level differs and that's about it to my knowledge.

Though IIRC monsters use slightly different rules for Mythic than PCs. But they both pull from the same source of Mythic superpowers. Unless I am.mistaken.

You are mistaken. Monsters pull from a completely different ability list that does not seem to have been printed.

In point of fact, the mythic monsters simply appear to have "whatever random ability the writer seems to think of at the time." Mythic monster printouts have no set of standard rules to them. They DO have a basic subset of mythic monster abilities though, such as dual initiative which there is no known way for pcs to obtain.

[Andor13]

This isn't a bug. It's a feature.

In exactly the same way that Superman has little trouble foiling a bank robbery, your characters are supposed to be learning new methods of solving problems and be able to clearly recognize their improvement (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0853.html) through overcoming challenges that would have proved difficult or even impossible at previous levels.

Not all types of stories are suitable for all levels of play in D&D, and it's always been this way. Just as you wouldn't expect a group of 3rd and 4th-level adventurers to be foiling the invasion of demonic hordes of the Abyss through an active portal in the middle of the city, "spotting the changeling spy" is a little below the pay grade of a group ten levels above them.

I didn't say it was a bug. It's a feature of the system with consequences for adventure/campaign design (and world building.) However, if you're looking to have a single theme to a long campaign, then if something doesn't fall under the regular resolution mechanics, then it can remain a viable puzzle/mystery/plot hook/source of tension across a much longer span of levels because you never get the "solve this problem" button. Under a bad GM it can also be a nightmare. The point I was making was that something outside the regular scope of the rules isn't automatically bad, it's a tool and has it's place in the tool chest.

I can see how you thought I was making it sound like a bug though, in all fairness, because the plethora of binary resolution mechanics does provide some hard limits on what you can do in adventure design, without accounting for them. If you want a murder mystery campaign, you're probably going to want to ban divination heavy characters (and then provide an in-world reason for that, or they'll just hire an NPC to do it.)

[Nifft]

If you want a murder mystery campaign, you're probably going to want to ban divination heavy characters (and then provide an in-world reason for that, or they'll just hire an NPC to do it.)

Actually I'd do the exact opposite, driven by the opposite reasoning.

If one of my players made a Divination-heavy character, I'd make damn sure to put in some stuff that could be solved using Divination.

I want the PCs to be able to win.

D&D is not a game about gaining experience from repeated failure.

[Andor13]

Actually I'd do the exact opposite, driven by the opposite reasoning.

If one of my players made a Divination-heavy character, I'd make damn sure to put in some stuff that could be solved using Divination.

I want the PCs to be able to win.

D&D is not a game about gaining experience from repeated failure.

Of course the PCs should be given a chance to shine, but that happens by scene or adventure, not an entire campaign. If I've designed a campaign set to go from 1 to 15 as a web of intrigue, deceit, murder, and politics and the first session ends with the hand of God going "The one in the braces, he done it." because I failed to take PC abilities into account, then it was a pretty crap game. If the diviner solves everything and the rest of the PCs sit on their thumbs, it's a pretty crap game. You need to be able to shape things to the needs of the game. Sometimes that means redesigning an encounter to let a PC shine, sometimes it means saying "I'm not allowing X".

Personally, the first thing I ask any GM is "What does this game need?" when I make a new character, and I hate getting told "Oh, bring whatever." Invariably I wind up 180 deg out of phase with the campaign, whether I brought a killing machine to a game of politics or a political mastermind to a game of "boot the door, take the loot." (I've done both, with the same group.)

We're coming at it from opposite ends. I said "I'm designing my campaign thusly, so I should limit classes that short circuit (or conversely won't contribute to) the plot. You said "A player showed up with this, so I should build to allow him to show off." Both are valid, of course, although if the GM has a particularly goal with a campaign I would always yield to him as a player even if I had my heart set on X, not so much because "Rocks fall" but due to the GMs workload being so enormously greater than a players.

[Florian]

I´ll echo ´stu on this: In PF, especially Golarion, all non-divinities that can grant spells are Mythic.

[Andor13]

In terms of faking it you could also have the "God" handing out 'Holy Symbols' that are actually magic items that grant some spells per day. There is not a lot of daylight between a 1st level cleric and a guy with an item that cast clw 3 times a day by invoking his 'deities' name.

[Goaty14]

In terms of faking it you could also have the "God" handing out 'Holy Symbols' that are actually magic items that grant some spells per day. There is not a lot of daylight between a 1st level cleric and a guy with an item that cast clw 3 times a day by invoking his 'deities' name.

That's cool and all up until 24 hours later when the "cleric" tries to prepare summon monster I.

[Andor13]

That's cool and all up until 24 hours later when the "cleric" tries to prepare summon monster I.

Assuming they know how the cleric class works of course. Not every NPC has access to the PHB, if you're not in OotS or Goblins.

I'm sure it could be explained in world too. "The Divine Bob does not like his priests dabbling in adventuring. Stick to healing your flock and spreading the good word." Or "Of course you can't. The Divine Bob doesn't like to sully his Holy Symbols by channeling different magics through them. Here, try this blue one."

[Psyren]

That's cool and all up until 24 hours later when the "cleric" tries to prepare summon monster I.

I mean, if you want to get technical, praying for spells is just the cleric stating what they'd like to cast. What actually ends up in the slot is up to the deity in question. Sure, most of the time you get what you ask for (because game), but a deity that wants to make a point can fill all your slots with whatever it wants, e.g. Commune/Augury/Guidance if they want to send the message that you should really think about giving your boss a call.

So a worshiper a false deity like this might simply think their god only wants them casting cure spells or whatever else the item actually lets them do. Though Razmiran clerics specifically are actually "in on the joke."

[GreatWyrmGold]

Do you have examples? Most of the big name VRPGs I see these days have very cursory social mechanics at best. Games like Divinity, Skyrim, or Dragon Age typically have a "persuasion stat" or maybe two, and not maxing it out means you lose out on some content. pay more for items or get into avoidable fights more often - but keeping it maxed out doesn't really hurt your combat prowess much, especially past the early game...I personally think tabletop has much greater potential for rich social interaction, because they have the freedom to make such mechanics completely optional for those who enjoy them, while VRPGs have to include basically everything the player is meant to experience.
I'm not going to argue that TRPGs don't have greater potential, but they aren't using it. First off, TRPGs either have exactly the same persuasion-stat system that you (correctly) describe mainstream VRPGs as having; the only addition that TRPGs have is that you can roleplay talking to the NPC without rolling, which is the rough equivalent of a dialogue tree. (Because let's be real; you can make the DM say a wide variety of things while RPing the conversation, but the possible outcomes that matter beyond maybe a cheap laugh are about as limited as they are in a typical dialogue tree.) In games without social mechanics, most NPC interaction is little more involved than a World of Warcraft quest-giver, in that the quest designer/DM has absolute control over what the character willand won't say/do from the very beginning.
But when you move outside of mainstream video games, you see examples of more in-depth social systems. Naturally, these are most common in games about managing relationships between characters (mainly visual novels, dating sims, and a few strategy games), and they tend not to be nearly as popular as the Elder Scrollses and Dragon Ages and so on. One that deserves as much attention as possible is Last Word. Its debate system is very bare-bones, but it represents a few distinct aspects of who is winning the debate in a mechanical fashion which is reasonably deep, easy to understand, and (most importantly) which feels different than combat or other systems in an RPG. And, best of all, it wouldn't be that tricky to modify and add to an RPG (T or V) along with other mechanics.

Are you wondering why I'm focusing on mechanics? After all, doesn't the flexibility of a human DM make up for mechanical shortcomings? NO! First off, a mediocre DM (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Railroading) (or an average one who thinks he has a great idea) can easily be less flexible than a game designed with passion and skill (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DevelopersForesight). It's worth remembering that your typical D&D game is run by one amateur writer/game designer (maybe with one or a few more providing assistance in the form of a prewritten adventure), while big VRPGs can have more people working on side content than WotC has working on D&D. The limited flexibility individuals demonstrate on the fly in practice pales in comparison to what the product of a well-run professional team can create with a couple years.
(Aside: Yes, it's true that a decent DM running with a crazy player idea and/or the wrong die roll at the right time can throw an adventure down an entertainingly unexpected path, but video games have equivalents in things like good bugs (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoodBadBugs), creative use of mechanics (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NotTheIntendedUse), and emergent gameplay (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EmergentGameplay), the last being the focus of an entire genre. Oh, and also easter eggs, which can be planned and added much more easily by a team working for months than by a DM prepping on weekends.)
Beyond that, and more importantly... Good DMing cannot and should not replace good game design, ever. As mentioned above, a DM is one person who has likely never so much as watched an Extra Credits video, while the creators of an RPG (V or T) presumably have (collectively) decades of experience in a variety of fields related to game design. This should be exploited to ensure that a DM doesn't have to make design decisions not related to the details of his group or adventure. The way to do this is, of course, through mechanics. Mechanics are part of the narrative of a game (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QwcI4iQt2Y) at least as much as anything else, and they are absolutely critical to maintaining engagement. (Duh.) The fact that D&D and most other TRPGs have interesting, reasonably-well-designed combat mechanics and almost nothing for any other challenge the PCs might face is a disgrace.
Here's an example. In D&D, combat is a game of resource management focused on player empowerment; you can cleave hordes of goblins or control monsters to fight for you or whatever, but you can't do it indefinitely, so you need to take care and only break out the big guns for the big boss—you know, like how shonen protagonists don't use their ultimate techniques or transformations or whatever until the tension gets high enough. On the other hand, Shadowrun combat is extremely deadly, with getting shot or manablasted having a decent chance of killing you or impairing you enough that you can't effectively return fire. This makes combat less about the fight itself and more about preparing for it, incentivizing ambushes and avoiding fights entirely. But in both games, if you want to convince someone of something, you say what you want to do, maybe try to finagle some circumstance modifiers with appropriate arguments or bribes or whatever, and then roll. Optionally add a prayer to your personal deity and/or the supernatural being you blame your luck on. There are two problems with this. One, while combat in both games involves a series of interesting decisions which are baked into the fabric of the game, the choices involved in social situations are basically "try to do something" and "convince your GM that you deserve a circumstance modifier". That's not nothing, but it's far less. Two, this does absolutely nothing to communicate the different tones the games should be presenting. D&D is supposed to be fantasy of both the "high" and "power" varieties, so maybe appealing to the target's morals or boasting of your deeds should be effective and bribes should only work well on greedy, corrupt, or desperate characters; make it more organic, with a variety of possibilities for any kind of character to contribute something. Meanwhile, for grittier Shadowrun, you might build a system where bribes and threats are essentially the only currency of serious value; maybe the player has to guess what combination thereof will be effective, basically gambling with his character's goals (and possibly a firefight) on the line. But the games don't really do this.
It doesn't help that I'm personally uninterested in the kind of combat most TRPGs provide. (And most VRPGs, for that matter, but that's because I can't keep up with action-RPG gameplay to save my avatar's life.) I prefer noncombat challenges in most TRPGs, and TRPGs don't really focus on those. Social situations usually provide more interesting choices than most other noncombat challenges; at least you can roleplay and finagle circumstance modifiers out of your DM. VRPGs have platforming challenges, hacking puzzles, and assorted minigames; TRPGs have acrobatics/athletics rolls, lockpicking rolls, and other assorted rolls. I know the solutions are there, because I've seen them, and often in forms which could be ported to TRPGs with relatively little work...but nobody else seems to care. It's all hack-and-slash; that's all any designers focus on.



I disagree. One of the reasons D&D is a lousy engine for genres like horror and intrigue is that it makes too much certain, and has too many binary "Solve problem X" switches. Think the King has been dominated? Toss him in a magic circle and ask him. Think a shape shifter is impersonating a member of the court? True Seeing sorts that right out...So problems that lie outside the regular mechanics of the game have the virtue of remaining both relevant and uncertain throughout the entire level span.
This has less to do with problems lying within or without the mechanics of a game and more to do with the specific mechanics that D&D has—specifically, those "Solve problem X" switches (which I see as more evidence that the designers don't care about noncombat challenges).



You are mistaken. Monsters pull from a completely different ability list that does not seem to have been printed. In point of fact, the mythic monsters simply appear to have "whatever random ability the writer seems to think of at the time."
Isn't that how monster design has worked for basically every RPG? I've argued that monsters and PCs should follow the same rules, and I'll likely do so again, but monsters should be allowed some kind of exception in any system which doesn't allow open-ended construction of basically any ability you can think of (e.g. GURPS).



Actually I'd do the exact opposite, driven by the opposite reasoning.
If one of my players made a Divination-heavy character, I'd make damn sure to put in some stuff that could be solved using Divination.
I want the PCs to be able to win. D&D is not a game about gaining experience from repeated failure.
1. Your reasoning is flawed. "A -> B" does not disprove "B -> A".
2. D&D is also not (or at least should not be) a game about never having to work to avoid failure. There should be challenges that the characters need to work to overcome, and this means that the players need to chip in a little effort (or you risk the effect falling flat).



That's cool and all up until 24 hours later when the "cleric" tries to prepare summon monster I.
You're assuming the cleric has been told that his god and spellcasting works exactly as every other god in the world and their magic. Sure, that seems like it should be a red flag, but people have ignored greater red flags for less.



...but a deity that wants to make a point can fill all your slots with whatever it wants, e.g. Commune/Augury/Guidance if they want to send the message that you should really think about giving your boss a call.
That gives me a hilarious mental image of some god acting like the stereotypical aging mother. "We never talk anymore, Jozan. You haven't even had communion with me in ages!"

[Nifft]

Of course the PCs should be given a chance to shine, but that happens by scene or adventure, not an entire campaign. If I've designed a campaign set to go from 1 to 15 as a web of intrigue, deceit, murder, and politics and the first session ends with the hand of God going "The one in the braces, he done it." because I failed to take PC abilities into account, then it was a pretty crap game. If the diviner solves everything and the rest of the PCs sit on their thumbs, it's a pretty crap game. You need to be able to shape things to the needs of the game. Sometimes that means redesigning an encounter to let a PC shine, sometimes it means saying "I'm not allowing X".

Personally, the first thing I ask any GM is "What does this game need?" when I make a new character, and I hate getting told "Oh, bring whatever." Invariably I wind up 180 deg out of phase with the campaign, whether I brought a killing machine to a game of politics or a political mastermind to a game of "boot the door, take the loot." (I've done both, with the same group.)

We're coming at it from opposite ends. I said "I'm designing my campaign thusly, so I should limit classes that short circuit (or conversely won't contribute to) the plot. You said "A player showed up with this, so I should build to allow him to show off." Both are valid, of course, although if the GM has a particularly goal with a campaign I would always yield to him as a player even if I had my heart set on X, not so much because "Rocks fall" but due to the GMs workload being so enormously greater than a players. In my experience, D&D comes with a lot of baggage.

That's good and bad, of course.

The good is that it's easier to bring players up to speed insofar as they're familiar with the tropes & patterns that pervade the game.

It's bad if you want to change something fundamental, and that's mostly because you need to manage every player's expectations. This is harder when you're pitching a game that isn't quite D&D -- it's sometimes easier to find a game that does what you want, and pitch that game instead.

If you've got a group which jumps at the chance to play a different mish-mash house-ruled not-D&D game whenever you pitch one, then I'm mildly envious and obviously the above doesn't apply.


The worst case would be "a player showed up with this", and I've only seen that happen twice. More in line with my own expectations would be "a player built this character over 10 levels of play, let's ensure they get to be awesome". If someone just shows up with something, they're not getting any special treatment in the current session -- there's no time to plan around that PC.

But even though I don't expect it to happen often, or hopefully ever again, it is kinda nice when my campaign is close enough to the base game's rules that I can accommodate a drop-in PC.


Anyway, in terms of mysteries, my advice would be to account for Divinations rather than banning them. For example: a mundane Disguise check which fools the murder victim's corpse will effectively negate speak with dead, sending the party on a wild goose chase -- or framing a member of the party, if they're already famous.

This is similar to some (official?) advice I've seen regarding mid-to-high-level spellcasting in general: "don't ban teleportation (etc.), require it." I don't recall where that advice came from, but maybe someone will remember, and maybe it'll have some Divinations advice too.





Actually I'd do the exact opposite, driven by the opposite reasoning.
If one of my players made a Divination-heavy character, I'd make damn sure to put in some stuff that could be solved using Divination.
I want the PCs to be able to win. D&D is not a game about gaining experience from repeated failure.

1. Your reasoning is flawed. "A -> B" does not disprove "B -> A".
2. D&D is also not (or at least should not be) a game about never having to work to avoid failure. There should be challenges that the characters need to work to overcome, and this means that the players need to chip in a little effort (or you risk the effect falling flat).

Er... that post contained no claim to "disprove" anything, and it didn't say anything about "never having to work to avoid failure".

Were you trying to respond to someone else's post?

[Calthropstu]

I'm not going to argue that TRPGs don't have greater potential, but they aren't using it. First off, TRPGs either have exactly the same persuasion-stat system that you (correctly) describe mainstream VRPGs as having; the only addition that TRPGs have is that you can roleplay talking to the NPC without rolling, which is the rough equivalent of a dialogue tree. (Because let's be real; you can make the DM say a wide variety of things while RPing the conversation, but the possible outcomes that matter beyond maybe a cheap laugh are about as limited as they are in a typical dialogue tree.) In games without social mechanics, most NPC interaction is little more involved than a World of Warcraft quest-giver, in that the quest designer/DM has absolute control over what the character willand won't say/do from the very beginning.
But when you move outside of mainstream video games, you see examples of more in-depth social systems. Naturally, these are most common in games about managing relationships between characters (mainly visual novels, dating sims, and a few strategy games), and they tend not to be nearly as popular as the Elder Scrollses and Dragon Ages and so on. One that deserves as much attention as possible is Last Word. Its debate system is very bare-bones, but it represents a few distinct aspects of who is winning the debate in a mechanical fashion which is reasonably deep, easy to understand, and (most importantly) which feels different than combat or other systems in an RPG. And, best of all, it wouldn't be that tricky to modify and add to an RPG (T or V) along with other mechanics.

Are you wondering why I'm focusing on mechanics? After all, doesn't the flexibility of a human DM make up for mechanical shortcomings? NO! First off, a mediocre DM (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Railroading) (or an average one who thinks he has a great idea) can easily be less flexible than a game designed with passion and skill (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DevelopersForesight). It's worth remembering that your typical D&D game is run by one amateur writer/game designer (maybe with one or a few more providing assistance in the form of a prewritten adventure), while big VRPGs can have more people working on side content than WotC has working on D&D. The limited flexibility individuals demonstrate on the fly in practice pales in comparison to what the product of a well-run professional team can create with a couple years.
(Aside: Yes, it's true that a decent DM running with a crazy player idea and/or the wrong die roll at the right time can throw an adventure down an entertainingly unexpected path, but video games have equivalents in things like good bugs (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoodBadBugs), creative use of mechanics (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NotTheIntendedUse), and emergent gameplay (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EmergentGameplay), the last being the focus of an entire genre. Oh, and also easter eggs, which can be planned and added much more easily by a team working for months than by a DM prepping on weekends.)
Beyond that, and more importantly... Good DMing cannot and should not replace good game design, ever. As mentioned above, a DM is one person who has likely never so much as watched an Extra Credits video, while the creators of an RPG (V or T) presumably have (collectively) decades of experience in a variety of fields related to game design. This should be exploited to ensure that a DM doesn't have to make design decisions not related to the details of his group or adventure. The way to do this is, of course, through mechanics. Mechanics are part of the narrative of a game (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QwcI4iQt2Y) at least as much as anything else, and they are absolutely critical to maintaining engagement. (Duh.) The fact that D&D and most other TRPGs have interesting, reasonably-well-designed combat mechanics and almost nothing for any other challenge the PCs might face is a disgrace.
Here's an example. In D&D, combat is a game of resource management focused on player empowerment; you can cleave hordes of goblins or control monsters to fight for you or whatever, but you can't do it indefinitely, so you need to take care and only break out the big guns for the big boss—you know, like how shonen protagonists don't use their ultimate techniques or transformations or whatever until the tension gets high enough. On the other hand, Shadowrun combat is extremely deadly, with getting shot or manablasted having a decent chance of killing you or impairing you enough that you can't effectively return fire. This makes combat less about the fight itself and more about preparing for it, incentivizing ambushes and avoiding fights entirely. But in both games, if you want to convince someone of something, you say what you want to do, maybe try to finagle some circumstance modifiers with appropriate arguments or bribes or whatever, and then roll. Optionally add a prayer to your personal deity and/or the supernatural being you blame your luck on. There are two problems with this. One, while combat in both games involves a series of interesting decisions which are baked into the fabric of the game, the choices involved in social situations are basically "try to do something" and "convince your GM that you deserve a circumstance modifier". That's not nothing, but it's far less. Two, this does absolutely nothing to communicate the different tones the games should be presenting. D&D is supposed to be fantasy of both the "high" and "power" varieties, so maybe appealing to the target's morals or boasting of your deeds should be effective and bribes should only work well on greedy, corrupt, or desperate characters; make it more organic, with a variety of possibilities for any kind of character to contribute something. Meanwhile, for grittier Shadowrun, you might build a system where bribes and threats are essentially the only currency of serious value; maybe the player has to guess what combination thereof will be effective, basically gambling with his character's goals (and possibly a firefight) on the line. But the games don't really do this.
It doesn't help that I'm personally uninterested in the kind of combat most TRPGs provide. (And most VRPGs, for that matter, but that's because I can't keep up with action-RPG gameplay to save my avatar's life.) I prefer noncombat challenges in most TRPGs, and TRPGs don't really focus on those. Social situations usually provide more interesting choices than most other noncombat challenges; at least you can roleplay and finagle circumstance modifiers out of your DM. VRPGs have platforming challenges, hacking puzzles, and assorted minigames; TRPGs have acrobatics/athletics rolls, lockpicking rolls, and other assorted rolls. I know the solutions are there, because I've seen them, and often in forms which could be ported to TRPGs with relatively little work...but nobody else seems to care. It's all hack-and-slash; that's all any designers focus on.



This has less to do with problems lying within or without the mechanics of a game and more to do with the specific mechanics that D&D has—specifically, those "Solve problem X" switches (which I see as more evidence that the designers don't care about noncombat challenges).



Isn't that how monster design has worked for basically every RPG? I've argued that monsters and PCs should follow the same rules, and I'll likely do so again, but monsters should be allowed some kind of exception in any system which doesn't allow open-ended construction of basically any ability you can think of (e.g. GURPS).



1. Your reasoning is flawed. "A -> B" does not disprove "B -> A".
2. D&D is also not (or at least should not be) a game about never having to work to avoid failure. There should be challenges that the characters need to work to overcome, and this means that the players need to chip in a little effort (or you risk the effect falling flat).



You're assuming the cleric has been told that his god and spellcasting works exactly as every other god in the world and their magic. Sure, that seems like it should be a red flag, but people have ignored greater red flags for less.



That gives me a hilarious mental image of some god acting like the stereotypical aging mother. "We never talk anymore, Jozan. You haven't even had communion with me in ages!"


You haven't seen my sandbox campaigns then. Often, I am making up dialogue on the spot, creating results, affecting npcs on the fly in response to my players interactions. Some of the consequences they never even realize, but I note it down all the same.

Hell, I even sometimes have the bad guys go into town and purchase items the pcs passed up, or stir up trouble for the pcs. I let the pcs try to start rumors (true or false) and sometimes start rumors about them from their enemies. I do everything from full on pr campaigns to shadow ops targetting those supporting the pcs... often all behind the scenes. So a casual conversation in my game can have huge impacts.
And of course if I ever describe "some random farmers go passing by," my players tend to overthink it and start rolling perceptions and knowledge checks.

[Svata]

"Arcane" and "Divine" are just words. Or to put it another way, they're different flavors of the same magic energy. It's more difficult to do some things (like heal wounds) with arcane magic, but it's not (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/i/infernal-healing/) impossible. (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/l/limited-wish/)


I mean, you don't even need that. Cure [X] Wounds is on the Bard spell list, and Bards are Arcane casters.

[Psyren]

GWG: While I appreciate your passion on this topic and I read the whole thing, I'll also add that brevity is the soul of wit too. To the extent that you can I'd recommend trying to condense the walls of text into bullets.


I'm not going to argue that TRPGs don't have greater potential, but they aren't using it. First off, TRPGs either have exactly the same persuasion-stat system that you (correctly) describe mainstream VRPGs as having; the only addition that TRPGs have is that you can roleplay talking to the NPC without rolling, which is the rough equivalent of a dialogue tree. (Because let's be real; you can make the DM say a wide variety of things while RPing the conversation, but the possible outcomes that matter beyond maybe a cheap laugh are about as limited as they are in a typical dialogue tree.) In games without social mechanics, most NPC interaction is little more involved than a World of Warcraft quest-giver, in that the quest designer/DM has absolute control over what the character willand won't say/do from the very beginning.

Respectfully, you're wrong, that's not the only addition TRPGs provide; they bring a lot more to the table (heh) than that.

1) Circumstance mods - you describe talking to the NPC/DM as an alternative to rolling, but they can actually be combined instead. If the player has a particularly good argument but their roll is tepid, you can reward them by adding an ad-hoc amount to the result and prevent outright failure. Similarly, if a PC is roleplaying badly or not enough, you can temper their PC's numerical modifier with an ad-hoc penalty. In this way, the dice still play a role (heh) but you can encourage the PCs to not just be calling out numbers like they would in combat. This also leads nicely to:

2) Degrees of success - if you want to reward (or punish!) a PC's roleplay approach but still want the dice to be the final arbiter, the way to do that is to have success not be binary. The dice should be able to succeed and move the plot, but the players who can roleplay AND have great rolls should get more critical success. Pathfinder 2.0 is building this into their skills system right in core, while 5e sidesteps it by having bounded accuracy and mutable DCs, but you can and should build this into 3.5 or P1 on your own, and it's very easy to do. Look at the "X in the World" section of most 3.5 PrCs and you'll get a good example of what such a system can look like, where higher knowledge rolls let you learn more about the PrC and where to find them, but lower ones are not actually failures.

3) Complex Skill Checks: If you really want your social system to have depth, the heavy lifting has been done for you - make it a complex skill check. You'll likely have to tweak what WotC came up with to make it work best for your campaign, but the skeleton is there - get to X successes before Y failures to truly win the encounter. You can even combine this with the two above - for degrees of success, maybe getting to X+2 successes before Y failures gets you an even better outcome, and those circumstance mods you get for having great arguments or showing you were paying attention to the campaign would be a great way to keep those pesky dice in line.

The primary advantage TRPGs have over VRPGs with these approaches is that you can do all of them on the fly, or change them mid-campaign as your PCs do. With a program (like a video game) you have to come up with all of these flavors of success, modifiers , and where to use CSCs etc long before the campaign begins, and changing them midstream is exceedingly difficult. TRPGs have no such limitation - at most, you'd need a night of revising your encounters before the next session or something.


But when you move outside of mainstream video games, you see examples of more in-depth social systems. Naturally, these are most common in games about managing relationships between characters (mainly visual novels, dating sims, and a few strategy games), and they tend not to be nearly as popular as the Elder Scrollses and Dragon Ages and so on. One that deserves as much attention as possible is Last Word. Its debate system is very bare-bones, but it represents a few distinct aspects of who is winning the debate in a mechanical fashion which is reasonably deep, easy to understand, and (most importantly) which feels different than combat or other systems in an RPG. And, best of all, it wouldn't be that tricky to modify and add to an RPG (T or V) along with other mechanics.

Thanks for your example; you may very well be right and there are VRPGs and other genres doing this correctly. I wouldn't know as I haven't played your specific examples myself. But the points I made above still apply - however well another video game might handle this, you lose that adaptability that TRPGs provide. Besides which, for a system as open-ended as 3.5, incorporating the best bits and bobs from more obscure VRPGs is not difficult.



Are you wondering why I'm focusing on mechanics? After all, doesn't the flexibility of a human DM make up for mechanical shortcomings? NO! First off, a mediocre DM (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Railroading) (or an average one who thinks he has a great idea) can easily be less flexible than a game designed with passion and skill (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DevelopersForesight). It's worth remembering that your typical D&D game is run by one amateur writer/game designer (maybe with one or a few more providing assistance in the form of a prewritten adventure), while big VRPGs can have more people working on side content than WotC has working on D&D. The limited flexibility individuals demonstrate on the fly in practice pales in comparison to what the product of a well-run professional team can create with a couple years.
(Aside: Yes, it's true that a decent DM running with a crazy player idea and/or the wrong die roll at the right time can throw an adventure down an entertainingly unexpected path, but video games have equivalents in things like good bugs (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoodBadBugs), creative use of mechanics (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NotTheIntendedUse), and emergent gameplay (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EmergentGameplay), the last being the focus of an entire genre. Oh, and also easter eggs, which can be planned and added much more easily by a team working for months than by a DM prepping on weekends.)

You glossed over modules above but that's honestly the solution. DMs who want to get better at the practice will do so, and modules/APs are the training wheels to get them there.


Beyond that, and more importantly... Good DMing cannot and should not replace good game design, ever. As mentioned above, a DM is one person who has likely never so much as watched an Extra Credits video, while the creators of an RPG (V or T) presumably have (collectively) decades of experience in a variety of fields related to game design. This should be exploited to ensure that a DM doesn't have to make design decisions not related to the details of his group or adventure. The way to do this is, of course, through mechanics. Mechanics are part of the narrative of a game (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QwcI4iQt2Y) at least as much as anything else, and they are absolutely critical to maintaining engagement. (Duh.) The fact that D&D and most other TRPGs have interesting, reasonably-well-designed combat mechanics and almost nothing for any other challenge the PCs might face is a disgrace.

I would argue they really don't need much more than the three bullets I suggested above to have a decent social system - and even then, a more detailed system than pass/fail should be presented as optional. At the end of the day, the game is Dungeons & Dragons, not Debates & Discussions. You want just enough social stuff to create differences in kind between the fights, but the fights being the focus is what draws people to the brand. And you definitely want that stuff to be modular, because there are plenty of groups that just don't care about degrees of success or complex checks, as well as groups (like sanctioned play at conventions) that don't have the time.



That gives me a hilarious mental image of some god acting like the stereotypical aging mother. "We never talk anymore, Jozan. You haven't even had communion with me in ages!"


In this analogy though, that aging mother god is paying your phone bill and tuition.

[GreatWyrmGold]

GWG: While I appreciate your passion on this topic and I read the whole thing, I'll also add that brevity is the soul of wit too. To the extent that you can I'd recommend trying to condense the walls of text into bullets.
I tried to identify key points with bold text, but I couldn't just say my key points and leave. First, that would start an argument where I'd have to regurgitate that wall of text, piece by piece, in a chaotic fashion; I can't see how that's any better. Second...well, it's just not in my nature to leave an argument unsupported. That is a major reason for my sesquipedalian loquaciousness. I feel the need to justify, explain, support, expound, define everything.
And in truth, you seem to be the same. Rather than make a brief list of things that TRPGs "bring to the table," you explained each and why you think they matter.


Respectfully, you're wrong, that's not the only addition TRPGs provide; they bring a lot more to the table (heh) than that.
For this section, I will delete your arguments for brevity and hope that people are fine switching between the posts. Also, please note that I agree that these things can be


1) Circumstance mods
I never meant to imply that arguing for circumstance modifiers was separate from rolling, any more than praying to RNGsus was separate from rolling. They're just different steps in the process.
Now onto the argument. It's quite true that the DM can apply circumstance modifiers on the fly. It's also very true that game designers can create them ahead of time, and the effect for the player is much the same. Sure, theoretically you can argue for a wider variety of modifiers with a human GM, but in practice they're going to fall into a few distinct groups rather than being an impressive mass.
As an example, look at Crusader Kings II. Its social mechanics are relatively simple and more political than personal, but it serves as a decent lesson. There are two mechanics of note here—Opinion and the plusses and minuses seen in various diplomatic action screens. Both are, essentially, just a list of circumstance modifiers, with the latter having an absolute no for things like convincing a king to become your vassal or marry their crown prince matrilineally. Much of the game is based around finding ways to get those circumstance modifiers you need.


2) Degrees of success
First off, again, some video games have implemented this. Second, it's rare for a good reason...it usually doesn't matter. You curiously don't give many examples of how this could be useful, so let's look at the one example you gave. Let's say the PCs need to find out about the PRC, an organization/prestige class which is plot-relevant. There is probably one bit of information which is relevant to moving the plot forward. The PCs make their knowledge check and either get that bit of information or don't; it's binary, there is no middle ground. Sure, you could get more information, but the players probably won't care. And while you could give a near-miss a clue to finding the information regardless, you should give something like that to the players regardless. Or just, you know, give them the plot-relevant information by some method that doesn't rely on the dice.
Generally speaking, if you're breaking out the dice, there are two possibilities. Either the dice are there for determining the result of some plot-relevant action (finding information about the PRC, opening a door, conning the king, whatever), or they are there for determining the result of some frivolous action being taken "for fun" with little consequence beyond the immediate scene (karaoke, drinking contests, moving confused goblins' huts out of the middle of the road, whatever). In the former case, it generally boils down to something binary; whether you barely find a reference to the one relevant detail or find an infodump which includes the relevant detail and a bunch of interesting ones, you get the detail you needed.
In the latter case, degrees of success can absolutely be useful; after all, the difference between a near-miss and an epic fail can be the difference between a boring waste of time and a hilarious diversion. I do think that this sort of thing is something with no direct correlation to VRPGs, or even video gaming in general; the closest would be screwing around in open-world games like GTA or BotW. But I also don't think this is something relevant to a discussion of TRPGs as a medium. Every medium has its own diversions which are good for comic relief and controlling tension, and maybe for developing character and other subtle things if the author(s) know what they're doing, but they generally aren't as "important" as the other tools a medium provides. Video games, TRPGs, and anime have different (though overlapping) toolboxes for conveying the horrors of war through violence, but the effect of scenes where the characters splash each other with buckets will be created through much more similar means.


3) Complex Skill Checks:
This is where I disagree on every level. First, video games could absolutely do this if they wanted to. They don't, because this system adds nothing to the experience. It's just a series of rolls instead of one roll. Maybe it could work if you had a series of discrete challenges based on different skills (or the same skill in different contexts), but both VRPGs and TRPGs without complex skill checks have this without needing complex skill checks.


The primary advantage TRPGs have over VRPGs with these approaches is that you can do all of them on the fly, or change them mid-campaign as your PCs do.
You are correct. However, I'd still argue that one amateur game designer making stuff up on the fly is often much less flexible than a system created by entire teams for years of their life. Sure, if you have a great DM, maybe you really can write your own story, and you don't get to do that in VRPGs...but you can do so in many simulation games and others which rely on emergent gameplay.


You glossed over modules above but that's honestly the solution. DMs who want to get better at the practice will do so, and modules/APs are the training wheels to get them there.
No game should require expert players to be good (and the GM is as much a player of TRPGs as the "actual" players). That is the gaming equivalent of a modern art snob claiming that the audience "just doesn't get it". No author should require extensive investment from an audience for the experience to be engaging; this is true in any medium. It's natural and expected for audience members with more experience to be able to get more out of a given work, but it should not be expected.
Neither D&D nor any other TRPG should be defended on the grounds that a sufficiently skilled DM could make them better. They must be judged on their own terms, with only what they bring to the table.
If all of this stuff is too English Major for you, consider this: What flaws cannot be corrected by a sufficiently good DM?


I would argue they really don't need much more than the three bullets I suggested above to have a decent social system - and even then, a more detailed system than pass/fail should be presented as optional.
And you don't need a more complex combat system than "roll your combat skill, pass/fail," and there's no reason not to label a more complex combat system as optional. But hardly any RPG does this, because people enjoy more detailed combat systems.
I believe that more complex things based around things that aren't combat can be enjoyble as well, and not just because I've played Last Word. I believe that because the alternative implies that people are enjoying the mental image of their avatars killing people, since that's the only substantial difference between a tactical combat system and a similarly-deep social system.
D&D claims that its three pillars are combat, social situations, and exploration—why does only one of those have significant mechanical support beyond "Roll this, don't get a 1" and ad hoc circumstance modifiers?




In my experience, D&D comes with a lot of baggage. That's good and bad, of course. The good is that it's easier to bring players up to speed insofar as they're familiar with the tropes & patterns that pervade the game. It's bad if you want to change something fundamental, and that's mostly because you need to manage every player's expectations. This is harder when you're pitching a game that isn't quite D&D -- it's sometimes easier to find a game that does what you want, and pitch that game instead.
In principle, yes. In practice...most groups have one or a few games they enjoy, and it's easier to get them to accept one of those with a couple of tweaks and a new focus than a completely new game with new rules and that different focus.


Er... that post contained no claim to "disprove" anything, and it didn't say anything about "never having to work to avoid failure".
Were you trying to respond to someone else's post?
Andor said that in an intrigue-based campaign, he'd ban divination; you responded that you'd add intrigue if one of your players was a diviner. You then said the stuff about PCs winning and D&D not being a game about learning from repeated failure. All of this made it seem like you were disagreeing with Andor, and that your post was intended to counter his post. I, in turn, disagreed with you, and made a post intended to counter yours. My points were:
1. Your logic is invalid. Adding intrigue to make a diviner useful is a valid game design decision, but it does not invalidate a ban on divination in intrigue-based games.
2. D&D is not a game where you don't have to work to avoid failure; we both agree on this, and I never expected you to disagree. My point was intended to relate back to how divination lets a player solve intrigue-based plots with no effort, a link which was apparently unclear.



You haven't seen my sandbox campaigns then. Often, I am making up dialogue on the spot, creating results, affecting npcs on the fly in response to my players interactions.
Without any kind of examples or experience, I'm not convinced that this is meaningfully different from descriptions I gave of something with the same effect as a dialogue tree. Especially when it's paired with:

Some of the consequences they never even realize, but I note it down all the same.
If a player never understands that their actions are connected to something they see down the road, it cannot be effective as a consequence. If a player never even sees that something, it is even less effective—nowhere near worth the paper it's written on or the space it takes up in your mind. Even the most mediocre video games are better about this; if there's some minor consequence of your actions that nobody cares about, it'll still be reflected in some dialogue down the line.

[Psyren]

I tried to identify key points with bold text, but I couldn't just say my key points and leave. First, that would start an argument where I'd have to regurgitate that wall of text, piece by piece, in a chaotic fashion; I can't see how that's any better. Second...well, it's just not in my nature to leave an argument unsupported. That is a major reason for my sesquipedalian loquaciousness. I feel the need to justify, explain, support, expound, define everything.
And in truth, you seem to be the same. Rather than make a brief list of things that TRPGs "bring to the table," you explained each and why you think they matter.

Well sure, but *I* summarized each one with a bullet, then kept it pithy afterward :smallsmile:



I never meant to imply that arguing for circumstance modifiers was separate from rolling, any more than praying to RNGsus was separate from rolling. They're just different steps in the process.
Now onto the argument. It's quite true that the DM can apply circumstance modifiers on the fly. It's also very true that game designers can create them ahead of time, and the effect for the player is much the same. Sure, theoretically you can argue for a wider variety of modifiers with a human GM, but in practice they're going to fall into a few distinct groups rather than being an impressive mass.

But one can get to an impressive mass quite easily. You don't need a complete list of everything you'd find convincing beforehand in a tabletop game, but in a video game you do. And I say this as someone who loves VRPGs.



First off, again, some video games have implemented this. Second, it's rare for a good reason...it usually doesn't matter. You curiously don't give many examples of how this could be useful, so let's look at the one example you gave. Let's say the PCs need to find out about the PRC, an organization/prestige class which is plot-relevant. There is probably one bit of information which is relevant to moving the plot forward. The PCs make their knowledge check and either get that bit of information or don't; it's binary, there is no middle ground.

This "choice" is not a choice at all. "Move the plot forward" is what needs to happen, regardless of what they roll. What you should instead be thinking about is how directly the plot gets moved, and what ancillary rewards they party have picked up by succeeding above and beyond (or what extra they lose by failing badly.) THAT is non-binary, and that is where degrees of success shine. The plot not moving at all should not even be an outcome in your mind. Even an abject failure should be followed by the plot moving in some other way, like the villains taking initiative (not the combat term.)


Sure, you could get more information, but the players probably won't care.

Your job is to make them care. You control every reward and punishment system in the entire game, remember? :smallconfused::smallconfused::smallconfused:


This is where I disagree on every level. First, video games could absolutely do this if they wanted to. They don't, because this system adds nothing to the experience. It's just a series of rolls instead of one roll.

I'm... genuinely unsure now if you know how probability distributions work :smallconfused:
A series of rolls does matter, because it mitigates if not eliminates the swinginess that a single roll would have. To say nothing of the added tension that "Win X before you lose Y" mechanics have.



No game should require expert players to be good (and the GM is as much a player of TRPGs as the "actual" players). That is the gaming equivalent of a modern art snob claiming that the audience "just doesn't get it".

It doesn't, and I never said that. I said newer players start with modules and established settings, then (if they choose) graduate to their own custom creations. And VRPGs do this too - the ones with sandbox/GM modes anyway. In NWN and Divniity, folks play through the campaign before actually building anything custom.



And you don't need a more complex combat system than "roll your combat skill, pass/fail," and there's no reason not to label a more complex combat system as optional. But hardly any RPG does this, because people enjoy more detailed combat systems.

Right, but again, D&D is branded with the expectation of deep combat in mind. That's what brings people to the system. The expectations for social mechanic depth vary much more widely. You're comparing apples and volkswagens.

[GreatWyrmGold]

But one can get to an impressive mass quite easily. You don't need a complete list of everything you'd find convincing beforehand in a tabletop game, but in a video game you do. And I say this as someone who loves VRPGs.
I disagree with the "quite easily" part. The players of a TRPG could probably come up with dozens of appropriate circumstance modifiers if they took fifteen minutes to think of them, but A. most of them would fall under Sturgeon's Law (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SturgeonsLaw) and B. no group wants to spend a quarter of an hour haggling over circumstance modifiers. (By contrast, a professional dev team can spend far longer thinking of modifiers and separating the wheat from the chaff, and making sure the numbers make sense across the board...which is part of why tabletop RPG devs should provide stronger guidelines than they usually do.) In practice, if the game is running smoothly and peacefully, the DM and players might think of one or two each, possibly plus ones suggested by the books, and then they'll let the dice roll. It's just not worth it.
TL;DR: You're technically right, but the effort:reward ratio is too high for most groups to get much out of it.


Come to think of it...TRPGs have another problem. Not only is the amount of work it takes a player to get that modifier greater in TRPGs, you need to make the modifier stronger to make a meaningful impact. After all, almost all TRPG players are only going to know about their own experiences, while a substantial fraction of VRPG players are going to see Let's Plays, talk about it with their friends, or maybe even play through the game more than once. This means that relatively small changes are going to be obvious to a VRPG player, but you need to work harder to connect "This is something you did" to "This is a consequence of that". It doesn't help that human GMs, by their very nature, have a lower signal-to-noise ratio than game engines.
Not sure how or if that affects this specific topic, but it's a design consideration, and probably part of why premade adventures often seem so much more ham-fisted than VRPG plots. They need to be more obvious than VRPGs for the players to have a chance of connecting the dots.



This "choice" is not a choice at all. "Move the plot forward" is what needs to happen, regardless of what they roll.
Which is part of why I wasn't impressed by your argument. I thought that was clear enough that I didn't have to spell it out.


What you should instead be thinking about is how directly the plot gets moved, and what ancillary rewards they party have picked up by succeeding above and beyond (or what extra they lose by failing badly.) THAT is non-binary, and that is where degrees of success shine.
In principle. However, making up rewards on the fly is very difficult; it's only going to come up for a few rolls which the DM expected and thought to add extra rewards for.


Your job is to make them care. You control every reward and punishment system in the entire game, remember? :smallconfused::smallconfused::smallconfused:
That's not wrong, per se, but it's also not right.
1. Trying to make audiences care about something they don't care about generally falls into the category of "blatant emotional manipulation," which audiences are not impressed by.
2. In my experience, players come into games with expectations about what the experience will be like and what they want out of it; this is hard to change. This is true of all media, actually. Changing or subverting expectations is not easy, especially if you want to do it in a way that doesn't make the experience work. Which brings me to my most important argument...
3. There are no professional DMs. Okay, I guess that people who DM for roleplaying podcasts are technically professional DMs, as are the DMs for playtests, but neither of these are DMing your typical campaign and they make up a smaller proportion of the gaming community than women make up the Vatican population. Very nearly all DMs are just normal people with no instruction in DMing outside the introduction to the DMG, which isn't enough to teach people to care.


I'm... genuinely unsure now if you know how probability distributions work :smallconfused:
A series of rolls does matter, because it mitigates if not eliminates the swinginess that a single roll would have. To say nothing of the added tension that "Win X before you lose Y" mechanics have.
I understand probability distribution, and I understand that a 50% chance of winning is technically different than both of two 60% chances or one of three 30% chances. But at the end of the day...rolling is rolling. The player experience is functionally the same no matter what mechanics are used, as long as they aren't so needlessly clunky or time-consuming as to distract from the experience.


It doesn't, and I never said that. I said newer players start with modules and established settings, then (if they choose) graduate to their own custom creations. And VRPGs do this too - the ones with sandbox/GM modes anyway. In NWN and Divniity, folks play through the campaign before actually building anything custom.
The implication was that DMs are expected to use modules to learn how to DM, to learn how to overcome the problems I was bringing up, and then the problems would be solved. If that's not the case, then the problems still stand.
Also, you kind of ignored something important. I asked a question which I think is pretty fundamental to this whole issue: What flaws cannot be corrected by a sufficiently good DM? Without a good answer to this, "You just need a decent DM" cannot be a valid argument.


Right, but again, D&D is branded with the expectation of deep combat in mind.
According to the designers, it's supposed to have two other elements of comparable importance: (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/unearthed-arcana/3pillarxp)

Three pillars of adventuring make up the D&D game: exploration, social interaction, and combat.
Search for the Three Pillars of D&D, and you'll doubtless find other examples of people talking about D&D in the context of exploration, social interaction, and combat. At least for this edition, combat is being advertised as an important aspect of D&D, not the important aspect.

[Rynjin]

Eh, for 3.PF it really is THE aspect.

When you explore, combat will be a part of that. Hell, most dungeon crawls (here meaning any segment where you wander from screen to screen; could be a forest, a cave, or an actual dungeon it doesn't matter) are a matter of "We explore until we stumble across the dungeon boss and engage in combat with it" where social aspects of the game are primarily geared towards being able to avoid combat while still having uses to gain bonuses inside combat (Bluff to Feint, Intimidate to Demoralize, Diplomacy for the Antagonize Feat, etc.).

Everything in this edition is built around and hooked into the combat rules.

[Psyren]

I disagree with the "quite easily" part. The players of a TRPG could probably come up with dozens of appropriate circumstance modifiers if they took fifteen minutes to think of them, but A. most of them would fall under Sturgeon's Law and B. no group wants to spend a quarter of an hour haggling over circumstance modifiers.
...
TL;DR: You're technically right, but the effort:reward ratio is too high for most groups to get much out of it.


I don't think most groups need to "haggle" over modifiers at all. For starters, the less experienced groups are, as discussed, likely running modules that define the outcomes pretty clearly. And second, for the ones that are more experienced, the DMG has a quick numerical rule of thumb anyway (+2 per circumstance.) Either way, the result of that is also easy to handle by deferring it (see below.)



Which is part of why I wasn't impressed by your argument. I thought that was clear enough that I didn't have to spell it out.

"The choice is a binary between passing/plot advancement and failing/plot stagnation" was your argument, not mine. I'm the guy advocating for more nuance than that, e.g. degrees of success. I'm also saying "plot stagnation" should just never happen, even as a consequence for failure. Failing might mean the plot is moved by someone else - typically the villain - but it still moves.

By the way, you're wrong again - you don't actually have to come up with these degrees on the fly. A critical success doesn't have to be any different than a regular one in the moment; the added benefits can simply be deferred. All you have to do when it happens is track how well the PCs did, and let them know that, then revisit it later on when you've had a chance to think through it. In point of fact, VRPGs actually do this too - e.g. Dragon Age saying "X Greatly Approves" when you ace your persuasion check, but you getting the same info you'd have gotten on just "Approves." You don't know (and more importantly, don't have to know) what that might affect down the line.



That's not wrong, per se, but it's also not right.
1. Trying to make audiences care about something they don't care about generally falls into the category of "blatant emotional manipulation," which audiences are not impressed by.
2. In my experience, players come into games with expectations about what the experience will be like and what they want out of it; this is hard to change. This is true of all media, actually. Changing or subverting expectations is not easy, especially if you want to do it in a way that doesn't make the experience work. Which brings me to my most important argument...
3. There are no professional DMs. Okay, I guess that people who DM for roleplaying podcasts are technically professional DMs, as are the DMs for playtests, but neither of these are DMing your typical campaign and they make up a smaller proportion of the gaming community than women make up the Vatican population. Very nearly all DMs are just normal people with no instruction in DMing outside the introduction to the DMG, which isn't enough to teach people to care.

First off, making audiences care about something they don't yet have a reason to know or care about is called "writing." Or perhaps "narrative." Unless you're advocating that every audience came out of the womb knowing exactly which characters and situations they'd be moved by; that audiences knew they'd like that Harry Potter kid or that Bilbo Baggins guy before picking up either of their books or seeing their movies. Games are no different; the narrative is just interactive in that case.

Second, caring about something is not a binary either. The bits in the DM and an introductory module are plenty enough to get a group's feet wet, and that's all that actually matters in terms of getting them going.



I understand probability distribution, and I understand that a 50% chance of winning is technically different than both of two 60% chances or one of three 30% chances. But at the end of the day...rolling is rolling. The player experience is functionally the same no matter what mechanics are used, as long as they aren't so needlessly clunky or time-consuming as to distract from the experience.

Swingy rolls are fundamentally different than normalized distributions, both mathematically and in terms of game feel. It's why we have modifiers and DCs at all, rather than simply having every roll be an unmodified d20 where you hope to roll high.



The implication was that DMs are expected to use modules to learn how to DM, to learn how to overcome the problems I was bringing up, and then the problems would be solved. If that's not the case, then the problems still stand.
Also, you kind of ignored something important. I asked a question which I think is pretty fundamental to this whole issue: What flaws cannot be corrected by a sufficiently good DM? Without a good answer to this, "You just need a decent DM" cannot be a valid argument.

The problems you brought up were, to use your own words, "mechanical shortcomings." But no product of human hands is going to be free of those. VRPGs can avoid some of the issues TRPGs can experience by lashing you to the rails, but that approach often creates problems of its own. Consider Skyrim, one of the most open and popular VRPGs ever made - there's a whole thread going on right now about how hollow the game world feels (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?560078-What-would-you-do-to-make-Skyrim-less-soulless) because of the inherent limitations of its own medium. Making a world that would react with total realism to the player's actions is near impossible, and to the actions of multiple players even less so.



According to the designers, it's supposed to have two other elements of comparable importance: (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/unearthed-arcana/3pillarxp)



Search for the Three Pillars of D&D, and you'll doubtless find other examples of people talking about D&D in the context of exploration, social interaction, and combat. At least for this edition, combat is being advertised as an important aspect of D&D, not the important aspect.

I don't see anything in your link about the pillars being "comparable." In fact, if you had bothered to quote the rest of it, you'd see it's quite the opposite of that: "But when it comes to earning experience, the combat pillar often supports most of the game’s weight." Experience if you'll recall is the game's primary reward system. This expectation is found throughout the game as well, such as this passage from your PHB: "Mighty swords clash, arrows hiss through the air, claws rip and tear and rend; these are the thrilling sounds of battle. D&D adventurers constantly find themselves embroiled in combat situations—and they wouldn’t have it any other way!"


Eh, for 3.PF it really is THE aspect.

When you explore, combat will be a part of that. Hell, most dungeon crawls (here meaning any segment where you wander from screen to screen; could be a forest, a cave, or an actual dungeon it doesn't matter) are a matter of "We explore until we stumble across the dungeon boss and engage in combat with it" where social aspects of the game are primarily geared towards being able to avoid combat while still having uses to gain bonuses inside combat (Bluff to Feint, Intimidate to Demoralize, Diplomacy for the Antagonize Feat, etc.).

Everything in this edition is built around and hooked into the combat rules.

Indeed. It's not the only "pillar" but they knew what their main draw was, and his own link says it.