วีดีโอ

I ditched AD&D as a brand because of those idiots (The BrOSR) and decided to stick with the clones. I don't necessarily see them as Gatekeepers. They've failed at that, miserably. What they are are inquisitors and AD&D is their One True Way. Anyone that doesn't conform or join or act as insufferable as they are met with harassment and bullying. They're kind of another reason I avoid conventions even though I'm a train ride away from one of them and it's because if I ever met one in person, I'd only give them ten seconds to say the things they've said to my face and not one second longer before I make them regret ever saying so much as "hello" to me.

This channel continues to be one of the sanest voices in tabletop. Godspeed!

Still wrong about the tieflings being "evil demon spawn," but you're dead right on everything else.

I generally agree with the video, the world is the GM's "character" with many quotation marks. However I've got a clarificatory comment about the beggining, that is that the GM should indeed reduce and tend to minimize his choices after he designed the world, because that is strongly pro-emulation/simulation, making the world more virtual and less "i put it there because I thought it'd be cool to have that this this very session!" (director's stance). The random tables are DA way to go (I use GPT after sending my setting doc)

Merry Christmas! 🎄

The only part of this I have any issue with as of twenty six minutes in is rolling to cast. It breaks the "one roll per effect" soft unspoken rule. Typically an action calls for the player to make an attack roll or the enemy to make a saving throw to see if an effect lands, not both. There are of course exceptions, but the only ones I can think of are where there's a roll to hit for damage and then if the attack lands there is a follow-up save to avoid a secondary effect. Rolling to cast ads a second roll to see if anything happens at all. Those extra rolls take time, not a lot but it adds up, and time at the table in my experience is the most precious resource of all. The extra rolls also increase the odds that a spellcaster gets nothing for their effort. Let's say I'm a level 2 Wizard with a +2 Intelligence modifier. I want to cast a first level spell, so the DC is 11. I get a +4 on my caster check. That means I need to roll a 7 or better. That's a 30% chance to fail. That means on average I will fail one in three casts. That seems reasonable for a beginner wizard thematically. I'll give it that. However, considering I only have three first level spell slots (before cutting them in half), that means I'm on average going to fail to cast at least one spell a day, and that's _before_ I roll to hit or the enemy gets to roll a saving throw. I don't know what the final average failure rate would end up being, but it's not looking great to my eyes. Maybe it's just my risk averse personality talking, but that doesn't sound like a fun mechanic. Whiffing all your attack rolls in a round as a fighter feels bad, but at least it doesn't cost me anything. I can always try again. I can low roll a whole session, and as long as I'm still keeping the bad guys away from my friends , I've still succeeded at my job. Botching a spell cast check and losing a spell slot means I just burned resources to get nothing, and now it's going to take me a whole day off of adventuring to get that resource back. Failing multiple in a row means that my low level wizard has no spells slots left and nothing to show for it, and even when I'm making my casting rolls I may still miss the attack roll or the enemy might make its save and negate the effect anyway. Some may say that that would never happen. Well, my record stands at five _consecutive_ natural ones during a single play session. I think this mechanic is just too punishing for what it attempts to do. On the other hand, I think it's a great mechanic for a magic dampening field either as a set piece affect, planar affect, trap, special monster aura, or even a Mage Hunter Feat where anyone you threaten has to make the ability check, and the DC is 8+your proficiency modifier+your attack attribute modifier and if you're wielding a magic weapon you get to add its modifier to the DC too. For all of those things, a temporary penalty that can be played around, for that it sounds *fantastic.* I'm all for toning down spells, but I personally think that spells should be pushed up in level rather than made harder to cast. For instance, if you just add one to the level of every spell in the game I suspect it would help a lot. Some of the really weak spells could stay the same, and a few stand out spells could be pushed up two levels or more. I think that would help fix a lot of issues without adding a lot of uncertainty to the game. Just think of the classic examples of Good Berry and Tiny Hut. If they were 8th or 9th level spells, no one would care that they are so powerful or invalidate certain adventuring concerns because spells at that level are _supposed_ to be able to do that.

Yeah I don’t think Braunstein can be patented any more than the term “RPG” can be. It’s more of a style than a proper name these days

Glad I watched, commenting for support. Good luck bro

You’re playing it wrong! This seems to be the battle cry of both sides. I am still trying to recover from the Hell High school romance modules

What did Pundit say that was reprehensible? His best friends would admit he can be a major asshole and he loves to pick fights, but his actual opinions seem pretty inoffensive to me.

I kinda had a worldbuilding idea that wizards and mages are monotheist within a polytheist world. Mages get to witness the grandeur of that great being though the touch magic. This was inspired a bit from Chrisitan scientists and how monks where some on the most educated in the early medieval period and a bit from Jewish mysticism.

Let's be real, Ginni Di is so popular because she's a pretty face who's good with makeup and charming, not because of real experience or insight.

I'm a youngish 5e refugee, and Original D&D really appeals to me. Maybe it's just being able to scratch that game designer itch within a solid enough framework. I also like the idea of classes and levels defining your character more than ability scores.

I think Basic Expert makes a good argument for understanding the rules before changing them, though he does present it as being somewhat needlessly rigid.

This is a great channel. Great thoughts about fantasy religion.

Well said. Listening to your ideas is a pleasure. Not just because I agree with most of them. The thought you put into it is solid.

I just implemented an Early Iron-Age religion landscape, and works like a clockwork.

Agreed. You can't call it a role playing game if the players can't take passionately religious characters seriously. Playing those characters tends to be the most interesting if done right. Give them moral issues where they need to balance their values with the challenge right in front of them.

Yeah, religions in games should have a bare minimum world view, rituals, and dogma.

One issue, as I see it (sorry if you cover it in the video, but I'm going to put this here anyway) is whether the cleric is supposed to be a priest, a saint, or though unlikely a clerk. In 2e the cleric and druid are both put under the archetype of priest and many systems decide (mistakenly imo) to make the cleric into a priest, at least in title. Unfortunately, I choose to make the same mistake (at least in terms of archetype) because of how emblematic the word is, seeing as a priest is something much more specific than a saint. But then, if you consider both the turn undead ability and the restriction sometimes imposed of lacking any spells until second level, the cleric comes across as more of a wandering exorcist. And by the same logic, an exorcist is more specific than a priest so... But then an exorcist sounds like it belongs in Call of Cthulhu rather than a traditional fantasy setting.

In short, to defeat the ultimate chess master, you must act outside their game: A. Add a piece to the game they thought wouldn't matter. B. Cheat, break the rules in ways they can't because they're lawful. If you suddenly start playing Calvinball in the middle of their game you might be able to get an edge. C. Play the player and not the game. Get them so mad that you smacked them across the face and poured your drink in their lap that they stop thinking about the game and you can maneuver a checkmate while they're distracted. D. Flip the table. (Please apply sparingly for the sake of your GM's sanity.) Go apocalyptically murder hobo. It doesn't matter what schemes the master manipulator has in motion if you kill everyone and burn everything to the ground. It's hard to manipulate people and systems when they're ash on the wind. *Caution,* this may have been the devil's plan all along. If it was done with these pieces anyway, claiming their souls while you do the reaping is a bad look, and you'll feel dumb when you show up to gloat about wrecking its plans only for it to laugh and say, "Thanks for saving me the trouble. You're very good at that. I've got a sweet contract here where you can sign up to do this kind of thing for me again, and next time I'll pay you for it."

I've put a lot of time into religion in my game, but I've used the same setting / world since 1974. It started out simple but picked up detail while I picked up degrees in history and anthropology and worked on world building. I have handouts for my players covering the details of the specific religions they pick. A more detailed one for religious classes and a simpler one for non-religious classes. It definitely draws players into the world. The detailed one for religious classes does tend to discourage players who don't want to be involved in the religious side of things :)

The concept of religion itself is largely ignored by DMs, players, and most of all, the game designers themselves, who seem to be entirely atheist. Yet it's the cleric that has undergone the single biggest "power creep" of all the classes, because otherwise, no one would play them. You also see the healing duties clumsily handed off to paladins and bards.

In my most recent 5e game i changed the the game a bit, this includes -roll under stat for all save or skill checks -save or suck death saves using con -gritty realism rest varint -anti hammerspace inventory sheets -banned full casters - used a 4e inspired encounter design It was more fun for me to run an and the players.

pressed enter too soon on the other comment. @9:23 yeah, it's not necessarily about getting the devil banished or slaying it's material avatar, it's about getting it demoted by _virtue_ of requiring it to break *The Code* (back to you, not pressing send yet 8^ ) [Have you hugged your Firebird today] <-- bumper sticker on my dad's bosses car in the 80's. It's my Rottweiler's 7th birthday today too. Thank a Pilgrim. L8r _kek, I'm so used to the _*_Minds_*_ platform Imma trying to copypaste a Dshift7D meme into this_

eternal beings live the pattern, they aren't foreseeing per se, as in the *_Ex machina_* which keeps happening in favor of the devil isn't unexpected by it. Something like that.

I'm way off the deep end of doing devils wrong. I don't even use the AD&D Outer Planes, my extra-planar approach is more in line with the D&D Immortals concept, but that's with a smidge retroactive continuity on my end. I won't do a full lore dump about the way I use devils, but in my primary campaign world they are space-faring, magic using, effectively immortal beings from different parts of an empire in another galaxy, and a parallel universe. They are trying to figure out how to get their fleet to that world physically, but are only able to appear in the world when magically gated in by foolish mortals. The end of one campaign arc in that world gives the players a chance to play in that same world, but set thousands of years in the future (I use WEG d6 rules now if they choose that route...originally was based on Star Frontiers). I do still run devils very much as the major Lawful Evil villains though. I didn't have it as a model when I first started running devils that way, but nowadays I'd say they're my version of the Goa'uld from the Stargate franchise. One of the things I was definitely shooting for was the sense the same devils from Earth's folklore appeared in that campaign world, too. I tried to lean into the idea that my campaign world might be out there somewhere, just in an alternate universe and a galaxy far, far away. Cheers!

I just don't get this take. Are you playing level 1 players with enough xp encounters in between rests? It's so easy to accidentally kill players if you use the suggested encounters xp challenges and don't give them rests more often than called for. Also, are you giving them potions and magic items? Cause I make my players work to get that stuff. Man, my first game I had a player who demanded a level every session. Using the encoubter challenges to obtain the proper xp in order to level up, trust me, that's a challenge to players. I need an in depth explanantion what you're doing to screw it up, because I followed the DMG and I kill a player almost every game. Gosh players are so squishy before level 4. It honestly sounds like you're critiquing modern players and weak DMs.

lol, 30 seconds in and I'm thinking "of course people are playing it wrong, they aren't playing it like a simulationist."

Goblins and sticks thats a shout out to me Thanks for the free press

I play it wrong. I don't care. How? Easy. I play Wasted Lands: The Dreaming Age, OSE, Basic Fantasy, Castles & Crusades, Swords & Wizardry, Lamentations of The Flame Princess, Cairn, basically anything BUT 5E. Any 5E Supplements I have get converted to Castles & Crusades and it's little if any homework.

1. Powercreep: Yeah like no other TTRPG has that issue...and generally plenty of later released classes cant even scratch on smth like the moon druid. So this point is bs. 2. Player focused game. If it was a bad system that didnt offer good games it wouldnt be the literally most successful edition of the game. People wouldnt buy it. And your rambling makes almost no sense for the topic. The mechanics of 5e dont support in any way that the system equalizes the importance of PCs. Else please point out those rules. MinMaxing and players being unhappy with limited choices has always been a problem. What stops you from limiting stuff in 5e? players could cry just as well in 3.5. There is literally nothing stopping you. Just as little as it did in 5e. I assume your actual problem is that players are not the same as 30 years ago. They like dofferent things. Thats fine. But no issue of the edition. 13:00 instant death or saves both have positives and negatives. Its pure taste on what you like more. Its pure arrogance to claim one is better. 10min in and not a single issue mentioned is edition specific. I want to continue listening but this is clearly just a rant buy someone who doesnt like the edition and makes up reasons to support that opinion.

26:45 that would be Mythmere Games.

Good ideas. Subbed.

Hmmm...this guy sounds familiar. :) Interesting thoughts, sir. Looking forward to hearing more. Gotta get that Z running, though.

So, I completely understand that many things in 5e and even 6e need to be fixed or changed. However, there's one big issue I have with all thw suggested changes. None of them make your game sound like it would be any fun. Ttrpgs are all about, first and foremost, having fun at a table with your friends/players. If you want to make the game more difficult just for the sake of making it difficult, then you're playing for the wrong reasons.

😊 I'm already loving it by the 3:20 to 3:36 mark.

5th edition is OK, if you want to play that style of game. Superheroic is a good description for it. Otherwise, for that more grounded feel I play / DM OSR type games. I agree with a lot of your ideas on fixing 5E, but it's easier to start out with an OSR framework. Less to change / fix. There is always something to tiker with :D I need to look at Shadowdark. it sounds closer to the style I prefer. I'm waiting for them to re-print it (February I gather). You can get the PDF right now but while I find PDFs useful, I need a physical book to get into a system.

"it's not the way i want it to be, therefor it's garbage." ok.

Are you familiar with any of the Vatican Cardinals? Who would you like to become the next and proper Pope?

Messaged you on discord. I'm down to run a playtest

I am curious about the game system. Enjoyed your talk the other day. Also, growing up in northwest Georgia, those roads looked very familiar.

Cool. ...... My first question got passed over again.

I'll have to watch the playback of Pundit's stream, I was able to pop in for a few minutes but had to run.

I've always told players their characters story will largely be written in game. I have a series of tables form which characters can either roll or choose elements of their backstory. Nationality, social class (based on their class choice), age, family (parents / siblings birth order), relation with parents / siblings. Other odds and ends at the players choice, but no chosen ones, heirloom weapons, vast experience etc. It gives the broad outline of a backstory for players to build on and, for those who don't want to bother, a baseline minimum. It has worked pretty well over the years, but then I tend to play with an older crew (I'm 66).

On the whole, this is good advice, and has made for a good series of videos. That said, I would advise against directly lifting ideas, piecemeal, from historical sources. Each culture, historical or contemporary, is an integrated collection of subsystems, which must be considered holistically, because effects in one subsystem are not easily assigned to particular inter-systemic or intra-systemic causalities, plus almost nothing is reducible to monocausal explanations. It is much better to take the main idea that one wants to implement, and create an abstraction based on the same or similar occurrences in other historical or contemporary cultures, plus consider the potential for warping other analogous causes/effects from the source side, before applying them to the subject side (i.e., in this case, the shared imagined setting of the game). For example, if you wanted to put a system of land grants for service to the kingdom into your game's main "civilized" area, then you might consider not only how the Roman Empire administrated land grants to soldiers, but also had the newly formed United States administrated land grants to soldiers in the Revolutionary War. Beyond that you might also compare those two land grants programs for individual soldiers, to the various railroad land grant programs in under the Public Land Survey System in the U.S. What does is say about the kingdom, its needs, it priorities, etc. when soldiers who served in the kingdom's wars might be granted 80-160 acres of land, compared to a railroad company who might be granted 6400 acres (in, for example, alternating one mile by one mile sections) per one mile of track completed? In the Autropa setting that I've been developing as my example setting, for my own series of world-building videos it's all set in a physical terrain that is explicitly taken from western Europe, and the historical cultures of the region are being exploited as source material. For example one empire, set along what we would recognize as the Mediterranean Sea is based on the question what if the Etruscans had never given way to the Latins; however, the internal politics actually draws more on the factional conflicts of the Guelphs and Ghibellines during the 12th and 13th centuries. For those who aren't sure where to start with teasing out specific traits, and analyzing them cross-culturally there is a great org site called D-PLACE, which provide data under a Creative Commons license. It is very similar to the Human Relations Area Files (HRAF) that have long been an ethnological resource for academic and professional anthropologists. It's pretty much limited to contemporary cultures though, so one would have to do more digging to get at archaeological cultures (forgive the pun). Cheers!

People love to world build and players love to learn about the world but limited scope is a great tool to have around. Like you said before, unless the lore affects the players it doesn't need to be seen or heard about.

I hate pallet swapping the most. It also goes against the core concept of fantasy. The whole reason why fantasy is popular is because everyone knows what elves and demons are. Then if you change the core concept of what a demon is then why have them be demons at all other then to be contrarian?

I would love to see a follow-up video to this one where you give some examples of how to turn these fails into wins. For example, I love pallet swapping, but I usually only do it at the small scale. Case in point, I needed a humanoid mechanical automaton stat block to convert 5th edition D&D into a steampunk Europe D&D mashup one-shot for a birthday party. I didn't want to spend the time making a new creature, so I just took the skeleton, swapped out the undead type for the construct type, and boom, done. It works because they are logically, mechanically similar within the rules. I wouldn't try to apply that change across a whole world during a regular campaign though because it has too many implications at that scale. It's funny that you used the pallet swapped orc as an example. I've actually pallet swapped half-orcs in a homebrew campaign before. I removed half-orcs from the setting and replaced them with Ibixians (goat folk), think large human sized minotaurs, from one of the 3.5 monster manuals. When changing from 3.5 to 5th, I needed new stats, so I just used the default half-orc. I did swap out the bonus crit damage for a horn charge stolen from the charger feat bonuses to make things more thematic, but otherwise I used the stats as is because my new race was filling the same roles as half-orcs already had so those stats still made sense. Still, it surprised me how excited people were to play a noble mineotaur, pronounced mine-o-taur, compared to a crude half-orc. The fluff was different, but the crunchy bits were basically identical.