The Ups and Downs of Metagaming

Usually, if someone talks about metagaming, they're specifically referring to the act of using out-of-character knowledge to give yourself an in-game advantage.  For example, your character has never heard of the exotic monster you now face.  But you, the player, has read the Monster Manual, and you know that this monster is weak to cold.  Your character uses this out-of-game knowledge, and defeats the monster using ice spells.

Some consider this cheating, some consider it a necessary evil to speed up combat, and some just don't really care.  But that's not really the point of this blog.  Today I want to talk about some of the less commonly recognized forms of metagaming.  

Eleven years ago today, I played a D&D 4e session that took place on a zombie-infested island.  I'm not going to link to the session, because I don't want to blatantly call out the problem player by name, but you can find my session recap if you look hard enough.

One of the players, let's call him José, was a bit of a rules lawyer.  He had a reputation for being good at combat tactics, which is probably why he liked 4e so much.  But he also had a tendency to pick fight over flight, even when all signs were pointing to flight.

In this session, scores of zombies converged on us, herding us towards a church.  The plot required us to take refuge in the church.  Tactics-wise, our smartest move would be seek refuge in the church.  Common sense told us that we would be safest in the church.  Really, the DM might as well have shown us giant red arrows floating in the sky, pointing at the church.

José would not be herded.  He had total confidence that his character could survive hundreds, if not thousands of zombies.  For him, D&D was about combat, so this was heaven for him.  The rest of us were a bit less enthused by the endless hordes.  Especially the squishy bard and warlock.  

Since José wouldn't follow us toward the church, we climbed onto the roof of a house.  A few zombies tried to climb after us, but they were incapable of making it that far up.  We were safe to pick off zombies from a distance, with little risk.

But José wouldn't have it.  He didn't want to climb onto the roof, because he didn't have any decent ranged attacks.  But he also didn't like that he was the only one taking damage.  So he resorted to psychological warfare - he gave us a guilt trip.  "Your hit points are a party resource," he told us.  "Now get down here and take your licks with the rest of the party."

Our bard and warlock were not designed for melee.  The warlock in particular was a glass cannon.  From the roof, he could take out three or four zombies per round.  My bard wasn't quite as destructive, but her support abilities were still helpful to the other characters.  On the ground, getting pounded from all sides, neither the bard nor the warlock would have lasted three rounds.  But José, who considered himself a master tactician, tried to make us feel bad for maintaining our position.

And at the time, we did feel bad about it, and we even started to climb back down.  But we somehow managed to convince him that our opponents were infinite, that this was more of a roleplay encounter than combat, and that he wasn't really earning more XP so much as bleeding out his own resources.  We fled to the church and barricaded the door behind us, surviving to play another session.

"Your hit points are a party resource" burns me to this day.  Not only was José's request tactically unsound, but it reduced our characters to numbers on a sheet.  In a way, that sums up everything I didn't like about Fourth Edition.  It's like it was designed from the ground up to make people think of their characters as data instead of people.  

José's request was also metagaming, to a degree I hadn't previously experienced in a D&D game.  Our characters weren't exactly cowards, but it still would have been insanely out-of-character for them to do something so reckless as to dive into a swarm of zombies just to get XP.

Of course, it was also metagaming for me to recognize it was a plot encounter.  I knew early on that zombies would keep spawning forever, because the goal was to herd us to the church.  But it was also the most logical thing for our characters to do, so that little bit of metagaming wouldn't have hurt the story.

Since then, I've seen a lot of metagaming from both players and DMs, but never anything that dramatic.  One thing people forget is that metagaming works both ways.  Sometimes players act on knowledge they couldn't have had, sure.  But sometimes the players are denied knowledge their characters should have.  In both cases, out-of-game knowledge (or lack thereof) influences in-character actions.

One fun part of D&D is solving puzzles.  Unfortunately, sometimes the players aren't as smart as the characters.  It's always funny when character with intelligence as their dump stat solves the puzzle, simply because that was the player who figured it out.  But other times, the party is stumped even though some of the characters have 20 INT.  

Of course, a good DM won't let the story grind to a halt over such a thing, and will give the players hints in exchange for INT checks, or have an NPC help them.  But it can be frustrating playing a character smarter than you are, when most of the puzzles are designed for the players to solve, rather than the characters.  

My point is, it isn't really metagaming for a player to ask for hints to solve a puzzle.  The metagaming occurs when the DM requires an 8 INT player to solve a puzzle his 20 INT character should have figured out instantly.

Back when I hosted a NeverWinter Nights server, I had a lot of talks with other module designers.  One of my designer friends didn't like the fact that the game showed the names of characters above their heads.  From a roleplaying perspective, this allowed you to know another character's name before you had actually been introduced.  He was looking for a way to disable that feature for his module.

I strongly disagreed.  As I explained to him, NWN only had about ten heads for each race.  This did not mean that humans only had ten different faces in Faerûn.  The fact is, the characters had access to more data than the players did, because in-character, they could recognize each other's faces.  Having our names over our heads was an out-of-character tool that actually helped players stay in-character.

I mean, what if two players happened to use the same head, and wore similar outfits?  This actually happened to me on multiple occasions.  If it weren't for the names over our heads, the rest of the party wouldn't have known who was who.  Does this mean they were twins in-game?  Obviously not.  From the characters' point of view, they would have had completely different faces.

One NWN server I played on was very strict about roleplaying.  I liked the RP-heavy environment it created, but sometimes the moderators went too far and it actually broke the immersion.  The moderators often complained that players leveled too fast, they spent too much time farming for XP, and that they treated death like a slap on the wrist.

They often threatened to make death more permanent, so that players would pick their battles more carefully.  It sounds good on paper, I guess, but did they consider how often PCs got killed by lag?  Or server crashes, or their computers locking up?  I'd be pretty pissed if my computer crashed, and when I got back in my character was permanently dead, all in the name of "better roleplaying."  There's nothing "in character" about that, just bad moderators.

A more recent example is from my current Daggerford campaign.  In an early session, my bard decided to fire a Shatter spell into a room full of centipedes.  This turned out to be a bad idea, because another party member was in the room with the centipedes.  So why did she fire?  That's not like her.

Well, it's because we were using Roll20, and the other party member was occupying the same space as a centipede swarm.  Roll20 displayed the centipede token on top of the character token.  In character, Vanya definitely would have seen her teammate in there, fighting off the centipedes.  The other players warned me it was a bad idea, but they only said that it was a waste of a spell slot.  None of them mentioned that there was a party member in there.

When I realized my mistake, I told the DM that I wouldn't have done it if the player's token had been visible.  But it was too late.  I still think it was a bad call by the DM, but everyone makes bad calls now and then.  The fact remains that my character would have made a different decision if we'd been playing in person, with miniatures.  

Requiring players stick to decisions influenced by interface problems is a form of metagaming.  Maybe not metagaming in the traditional sense, but it's still allowing out-of-game factors to affect the story.  The format should never change the plot.  

The bottom line is, while a little metagaming can be good for the game, most of the time it's a bad thing.  But reverse metagaming - that is, letting out-of-character ignorance slow down the game - can be even worse.

Remembrance of Rules Past

The transition from D&D 4e to 5e was pretty easy, mostly because 4e was such an oddball system.  If they'd been more alike I might have had a harder time remembering which rule belonged to which system.  But for me, 5e feels more like a simplified version of 3e.  It's like 3e is chess, 5e is checkers, and 4e is... I don't know, Warhammer.

I can't say I miss D&D 4e.  It was so mechanically structured that even roleplay scenarios felt forced and unnatural.  But I do like certain concepts enough that I would gladly still use them in 5e.  Heck, some mechanics were so popular that many tables continue to use them without even realizing those rules no longer exist.  

One thing about 4e is that it was so hated, that the 5e design team went out of their way to disguise anything that made it similar to 4e.  Like how you spend Hit Dice instead of Healing Surges now.  And 5e has dozens of abilities that contain the text, "Once you use this ability, you can not use it again until you have completed a (short or) long rest."  What a wordy way to say "Daily Power" or "Encounter Power".  Imagine how much ink they could have saved if they weren't afraid of using 4e terminology.

Or look at 4e's Standard/Move/Minor action economy.  To me, that is the standard RPG action economy, and I would probably use the same thing if I designed an RPG.  5e allows you to do approximately the same number of things on your turn, but it's just phrased more vaguely.  In 5e you can move and take an action, and some of the things that used to be minor actions are considered part of moving.  

Remember Double Moving?  In 4e, you could substitute lesser actions for greater actions.  So you could move again as your standard, or do a minor action instead of your move, etc.  You can still move as your action in 5e, but you have to call it "Taking the Dash Action".  If you actually use the words "I'm going to Double Move" in 5e, some pedantic snot will explain that that's not a 5e thing, and frankly I'm tired of trying to get blood out of the carpet.

And don't forget "Bloodied" - 4e had a lot of special rules that would trigger when a creature's hit points fell below half their maximum.  5e has a couple, but instead of having a word for it, it just says "when you are below half your hit point maximum" or some such.  Plenty of 5e players still say "bloodied" today, despite the term not appearing in the PHB.

I've been looking at various RPGs and picking out rules I really like.  I'm not saying they would all work in 5e.  And if I were to piece them together into one big Frankenstein's RPG - well, they probably wouldn't all complement each other.  But hell, it's my blog, and I'm going to babble about standout rules that I liked from 4e and other RPGs.

Square Fireballs (D&D 4e) - Look, 4e's system of magic was kind of silly, I know.  But admit it: You never had to argue about whether something hit or not.  If it said "area burst 3 within 20 squares", you knew exactly which creatures were affected, no protractor required.  You never had to say, "Well, this part of the circle looks like it takes up about three-eighths of the square, does that count?"

Flanking (D&D 4e) - The thing about flanking is it just feels natural.  If you gang up on an enemy, you expect a bonus.  There are math reasons that it doesn't work well in 5e, though.  Plus it defies their goal of keeping 5e's combat rules light.  

Holding or Delaying an Action (D&D 4e) - A lot of people are surprised that this is no longer a thing in 5e.  Like flanking, it was probably kept out for simplicity's sake.  But I've also heard it was because delaying actions complicates effects that last until the end of your turn.  As a DM, I would still allow it, within reason.  If nothing else, in the first round of combat, I'd allow PCs use it to rearrange their initiative order.

Called Shot (Various RPGs) - I haven't seen this since 3e (though there was an unrelated 4e feat by that name).  If a PC wants to target a specific body part, they can take a penalty to their attack roll.  Some 5e DMs allow their players to make called shots at disadvantage, but the designers discourage it.  Personally, if the player's desired effect was within reason, I might allow it.

Minions (D&D 4e) - 4e had single hit point enemies called minions, meant to annoy you with their numbers rather than to challenge you on a one-to-one basis.  1HP kobolds don't seem so weird, but when you got to higher levels, it was kind of odd to see minion Ogres and such.  But as a DM, I liked not having to track the hit points of creatures that weren't supposed to last very long in the first place.  Plus they were a great example of the "Conservation of Ninjitsu" trope.

Stat Generation (Pathfinder 2e) - I can't tell you enough how much I like the way stats are generated in P2e.  Your stats come partly from your ancestry, partly from your class, and partly from your background.  Given my personal vendetta against rolling stats, it's nice to have such a great system hard coded into the game's mechanics.

Initiative (Shadow of the Demon Lord) - There's a lot I like and don't like about SotDL, but it has one of my favorite systems for determining initiative.  No rolling, just a semi-structured way of letting people go in whatever order they want.

BFF / Rival (Various) - I've seen variations of this in several RPGs.  Basically, you designate one other PC to be your PC's best friend, and another one to be your PC's rival.  Note that "rival" doesn't necessarily mean enemy, just someone with whom they constantly compete (think Legolas and Gimli).  It doesn't matter if PC's pair off and select each other, or if player A picks player B who picks C and so on, as long as each PC has exactly one Rival and one BFF.  Whenever a PC does something spectacular (like crits the final hit on a boss), their BFF describes what happened as colorfully as possible.  Meanwhile, whenever a PC fumbles, their rival has the honor of describing their screw-up.

Simplified Stats (Warrior, Rogue & Mage) - I like simple rules.  Sometimes I think some of the stats are kind of redundant, and I'd love to try an RPG that only uses three.  Obviously this only works in a very specific kind of RPG.  

Exploding Dice (Various RPGs) - This probably isn't really compatible with D&D's math, but it sure is fun in the RPGs that use it.  Basically when you roll max on your damage die, you get to roll it again and add that in too.  If you roll max again, you can keep rolling until you stop rolling max.  So your d6 damage die might usually average you 3 or 4 damage... but sometimes you might do 38.

And now for something completely different...

Just to show both sides of the coin, here's some rules I'm glad to see gone forever.  Note that some are from editions I've never actually played, so I might have the wrong impression of them, but they still sound terrible.  Good Riddance to:

THAC0 and Hit Tables - (Early D&D) -  Once they invented the modern system of "roll a d20, add a bonus, beat a target number", there was never any reason to look back.  Even most of the "Retroclones" I've seen use modern attack rolls.  There are just some things that defy nostalgia.

Facing (Various RPGs) - This is still listed as an optional rule in 5e's DMG, but I'll never use it.  I'm sure it adds a little bit of realism, but it also adds an extra complication to battle without adding to the fun factor.

Descending BABs (D&D 3e) - By that, I mean having multiple attacks per round, but with a lower base attack bonus for each attack.  (Example: +12/+7/+2)  The system 5e uses actually works out better mathematically, as it helps keep Fighters on par with Wizards.

Level Drain (Various) - Any effect that requires you to recalculate your character sheet is annoying.  But what really annoys me is that the mechanic treats "levels" as a real existing aspect of your character, instead of just skills your character happens to acquire at the same time.

Races Being Tied To Classes (OD&D) - When they created D&D, they had no idea how much character customization would be available in later editions, so I can't really fault them for having a lack of foresight.  But when I look through older books, and see how non-human races can't be certain classes, it makes my heart hurt.  

Gold as XP (OD&D) - You used to get experience points for finding gold.  This kind of made sense at the time, since there weren't as many ways to spend your gold, so there had to be some incentive for treasure hunting.  In a sense, I see OD&D's gold as your "score".  But characters are deeper now, and not all of them are solely motivated by greed.

...aaaaand that's my list.  Feel free to comment below if I missed any rules you love or hate.

The Ridiculous Hills We Die On

It's funny the things we consider deal breakers.  A while back I posted my impressions of Pathfinder 2e.  I listed several of the rules that stood out to me, some good, some bad.  While I don't still don't think I'd like it as much as D&D 5e, I do want to give P2e another chance.  

Of all the rules I looked at, only a couple really feel like barriers to my enjoyment.  The first is the overabundance of feats.  It's not that I dislike feats, it's just that there's so many of them, and they're so wordy.  Of course I'm going to read every available feat before I pick one, which means I'll take forever to create my character or level up.  

The good news is that it's only a problem while building my character, so it doesn't slow down gameplay.  And I can always look up character builds online if I don't want to think about it.  The PHB even has its own suggested builds, which is a wonderful time saver.

The bigger issue is the one that shows how crazy I really am.  Movement.  I just don't like 5,10,5,10 diagonal movement.  Moving is fundamentally one of the simplest actions one can make in an RPG, and therefore it should be kept as easy as possible.  Having to keep track of how many diagonal squares I've moved so far breaks the immersion for me.  

Look, you can whine about realism all you want, but the fact is, grid-based battles are going to be abstract no matter what you do.  I mean, you can move in way more than eight directions in real life.  Hell, everything about battle is an abstraction.  Hit points represent a combination of stamina, damage taken, luck, spirit, and probably even your will to live.  And do you really think every fireball is going to make a perfect circle of flames?

It's not like moving diagonally actually gives you any sort of advantage.  As long as the monsters can move diagonally too, then everyone's on the same footing.  There are just some shortcuts we take in order to streamline the game, some acceptable breaks from reality that keep us from tearing our hair out at the abundance of rules.  

If it helps you, don't think of a square as being exactly five feet.  Think of them as closer to four feet.  You're moving four feet whenever you move North, South, East, or West, and you're moving 5.66 feet (thank you, internet) when you move diagonally.  If you use both NSWE and diagonal movement on your turn, then you probably moved an average of five feet per square.  

For example, if your character can move 30 feet, just go North twice and diagonal four times.  That adds up to 30.64 feet, which is close enough IMO.  Then you can pat yourself on the back for being more realistic, and the rest of the table doesn't have to share your pedantry.

It's not like that's my only unreasonable RPG pet peeve.  It's just that P2e manages to avoid most of my other grievances.  I've already ranted about my feelings on rolling stats, and P2e pleases me by having an absolutely beautiful system for generating your ability scores.  I don't like the slow healing in older editions, but P2e has the "Treat Wounds" skill that should speed things up a bit.  I'm not in love with P2e's "bulk" system for encumbrance, but I'm also not one of those players who loots everything they see.

So while a lot of P2e's changes make me raise my eyebrow a little, the only one that drives me nuts is one that's true of a lot of RPGs.  Heck, even my beloved D&D 5e lists 5,10,5 as an optional rule in the DMG.  I freely admit that it's a silly objection, and in my defense, it wouldn't actually stop me from playing in a P2e campaign.  I'd accept the rule and make the best of it.  But I'd still roll my eyes whenever I had to move diagonally in battle.

My RPG Bucket List

I recently started playing in a new campaign, as a Bard.  It's my first Bard in 5e, despite Bards being my favorite class in previous editions.  So I can finally cross "5e Bard" off my bucket list.  I thought I'd list a few more things I've been wanting to play.  Hopefully I can check these off eventually.  I'll probably keep editing this blog as I think of more.

Characters I Want To Play:

Fairy/Pixie/Sprite - Don't judge me, but I like fey characters.  There was a playable pixie race in one of the later 4e books, but we stopped playing 4e before I got a chance to play one.  I have no desire to ever play 4e again, but I wish 5e would get an official fairy race at some point.  Of course, I could always just play Shadow of the Demon Lord.

Tabaxi - I'm a huge cat lover.  When I was a kid, I even drew comics about anthropomorphic cats that looked pretty similar to the Tabaxi.  I would bet that one of my next three 5e characters ends up being a Tabaxi.

Warlock - Of all the classes I've never played, Warlock is probably my favorite.  My next character might just be a Tabaxi Warlock, which would kill two birds with one stone.

Divine Soul Sorcerer - From Xanathar's. Sorcs are one of my favorite classes, and I like it when non-healing classes are given the option to do a bit of healing.  I've been wanting to try this subclass for a while.

Cleric or Paladin of Sune - I think the concepts of Love and Beauty are underrated in D&D.  Smart characters tend to worship brainy gods, strong characters tend to worship the war gods, and sneaky characters tend to worship luck gods.  It's trite, but I've always wanted to play a character that believes in using the power of love to vanquish evil.

Settings/Campaigns/RPGs I Want To Play Or Run:

Spelljammer - God help me, but Spelljammer is so goofy looking, I want to give it a try sometime.  I have no desire to use the AD&D based rules, but if they ever make a 5e version, I'm going to be all over it.

Curse of Strahd - This is my favorite published 5e module.  I've read it cover to cover, but I don't think that would spoil much because some of the story's elements are random.  If I ran it as a DM, I'd really want to go all out - candles, music, etc.  I'm not sure I could pull it off, but I'd like to try.  But not until we're able to start playing in person again.

Expedition to Barrier Peaks - A classic D&D adventure that mixes in some sci-fi elements.  I'd be happy to play it or run it.  There's a 5e version available from Goodman Games.

Star Wars - Let's face it, Star Wars is my life.  There have been several Star Wars RPGs, but I've never played one.  I came really close to getting into a Star Wars campaign right before I started playing D&D 4e.  Currently there's a very well done fan-made SW RPG based on D&D 5e, and I'd really like to try it someday.  

Alien RPG - Alien and Aliens are two of my favorite movies.  Last year they released a new Alien RPG.  I've read it, and it does a good job of capturing the feel of the movies.  It has two modes - a cinematic mode designed for one-shots, and a more fleshed out version for longer campaigns.  I don't know if I'd be up for a full campaign, but I'd love to try the cinematic mode.

My homebrew campaign - I've run a campaign before, but honestly, it was really more like a series of one-shots that happened to use the same characters.  I've been writing a campaign lately, designing a setting and an organization for the PCs to join.  I'd love to run it someday, as an actual long-running campaign, with a reliable group.  I'm not the best DM, and I would prefer to run it for inexperienced players.

Keep It Simple Stupid

Scouting ahead, the party rogue tiptoes through the dungeon.  She hears a loud snoring on the other side of a partially open door.  Carefully slipping through the doorway, she sees a sleeping orc.  Scattered about the room are several empty wine bottles, and she can smell the alcohol on the orc's breath from here.  While killing a sleeping foe isn't exactly sporting, she can't risk leaving any of them alive.  She draws her dagger and holds it to the monster's throat...

What happens next?   Well, that depends on the edition.  In some RPGs, the rogue gets a free hit in before initiative is rolled.  Or maybe initiative is rolled right away, but the orc can't act in the first round.  Maybe the rogue gets advantage on the roll, maybe she auto crits, maybe she gets some sort of "coup de grace" bonus.  In some editions, the orc's armor makes the AC so high that the rogue still misses, even though she was holding the dagger to the orc's bare throat.

If I were the DM, she wouldn't even have to roll.  Not to attack, not for damage.  A single drunk, sleeping orc with an exposed throat does not present enough of a challenge to warrant a roll.  IMO, that would be a roleplay scenario.  But some DMs want to roll for everything.  For them, as soon as a weapon is drawn, it's a combat scenario.

Note that I'm not here to tell anyone that they're having fun wrong.  Whatever is fun for you is your business, assuming the rest of the table is having fun too.  Most of my rambling rants are just me thinking out loud, and musing about things I'd like to see.  It's not my place to criticize what other people enjoy, though I probably do it more than I mean to.

A few months ago I posted a blog on Simplified Death and Dying Rules, which got a bit of negative feedback.  Granted, the internet is a minefield.  I could tweet "kittens are cute" and get 100 responses claiming I hate dogs.  

But regarding my blog about dying rules, I wasn't suggesting they change the rules in 5e or any other existing system.  It was more of a general "If I were to design an RPG" kind of thing.  I think about that a lot, what elements I would put in an RPG.  

My primary goal would be to keep the rules as simple as possible, and keep the character sheets small.  I'd love to have all my stats printed on a playing card.  I'd cut out D&D's system of having both stats and stat bonuses, and just use the bonuses.  I'd also trim the six stats down to three.

There's an indie RPG called "Warrior, Rogue, and Mage" which gives you three stats: Warrior, Rogue, and Mage.  If you're rolling a check that is something a Rogue would do (like sneaking), you roll the die and add your Rogue stat.  Attacking with an axe?  Roll your Warrior stat.  And so on.  I haven't played it, but I can get behind the idea.  Though I think they missed the boat by not calling it "WTF" (Wizard, Thief, Fighter).

For my own RPG, I think I'd go with the stats "Brains, Brawn, and Style".  Brains would be a combo of INT & WIS, Brawn would be STR & CON, and Style would be DEX & CHA.  Instead of a long list of skills taking up room on the character sheet, I'd probably just have you roll one of the three main stats for whatever skill they govern.  

I'd also reduce the spell list to remove redundancies, instead turning the variations into customizations.  Like instead of Acid Splash, Fireball, Magic Missile, etc, you'd have one basic projectile spell.  You would decide if it's fire, acid, etc. Higher level customizations of the same spell would change things like how many squares it hits, whether it's multiple projectiles, whether it auto-hits, if it leaves a zone, overall range, ongoing damage, status effects, and so on.

Similarly, all healing spells would be reduced to a single spell, with variations for range, whether it heals other status effects, raises the dead, etc.  The D&D 5e PHB's chapter on spells is 82 pages long.  I bet my own RPG wouldn't need more than 10 pages of spells.

A lot of people look at the size of an RPG's rulebook and are reluctant to learn the hobby.  I believe that at its core, D&D is a very simple game.  The PHB might be over 300 pages long, but most people don't use more than twenty pages of it.  Personally I think Monopoly is harder to learn.  Someday I want to run an RPG where the rulebook isn't much thicker than that of a board game.

But then we have powergamers and rules lawyers.  I honestly believe that 70% of the rules are just patches to keep certain players from exploiting the rules.  And another 20% is there to keep killer DMs from going on a power trip.  That final 10% is all that's needed to run the game, and in the perfect gaming group, that 10% is all they'd need to print.

So when I say, "With the right group, you barely need dying rules at all," that's all I mean.  It's not that I think D&D overdid dying rules, or that I get confused by all of Pathfinder 2E's rules, or that my current group is anything less than perfect.  I'm just saying that....sometime in the future.... in addition to several dozen other RPGs I'd like to play... I want to try a truly simple RPG, with a group that is just as enthusiastic as I am to try it.

The Rule of Three Revisited

Some RPGs have a the “Rule of Three” when it comes to survival checks.  It varies from system to system, but I have seen this rule of thumb come up in more than one RPG.

Basically, a PC can go:

…three minutes without air.

…three days without water.

…three weeks without food.

Generally speaking, the PC doesn’t immediately die at the end of those time periods, it just means at that point they have to start making saving throws. 

I would like to add a few of my own.

…thirty seconds without blinking.

Mostly used for staring contests.

…thirty seconds without sneezing.

Let’s say you’re trying to hide.  Maybe you’ve found a pretty good hiding space, but it’s dusty.  There’s so much dust in the air, in fact, that you feel a sneeze coming on.  Except sneezing will give you away, so you restrain yourself.  After thirty seconds, you have to start making CON checks or you’ll sneeze.  Arguably this kind of thing would be covered by stealth checks, but why punish less stealthy characters for something clearly CON-related?  Let’s say you already found a really great hiding place, like a wardrobe.  Stealth is no longer an issue, now you just have to keep from sneezing.

…three hours without using the restroom.

This doesn’t mean your character has to use the restroom every three hours.  It just means that three hours after you eat, you start to feel the need to relieve yourself.  If choose not to go at this time, you have to make a CON save each hour.  It's an easy CON save at first, but the difficulty gets higher each hour.

Okay, let me make one thing clear.  I would never actually play in a campaign where the DM makes us roll for every bowel movement.  Heck, I don't even like DMs who make me keep count of my arrows.  But the restroom rule would be for very specific situations.  For example... Oh, I don't know, maybe your DM is running a one-shot based on the "Potty Emergency" episode of Animaniacs.

…three days without bathing.

This one would depend on the setting.  In some medieval-style worlds, three weeks might be more appropriate.  Still, there aren’t a lot of excuses to make CHA saves in D&D, so this would be one of them.  Excessive body odor can affect social interactions, and even attract monsters.  The saving throw (or skill check) represents your ability to clean up nice, perhaps wiping away excessive sweat, etc.  Can your character trek through the swamp and still make themselves presentable to the king later?  Remember, never let them see you sweat.

…three months without sex.
Unless they’re married, in which case they can go three years without sex.  Of course this one started as a joke.  But why not?  Well, to be honest, I’m hesitant to even mention sex in an RPG.  You have to be playing with the right kind of group, and you need to establish some serious ground rules in session zero.  Even then it's not a subject I'm likely to approach as a DM.  For some, even mentioning rules for sex opens the door to inappropriate behavior.  

But I'm not saying that failing your CON save would send you into a sexual frenzy.  My idea is that if you fail your save, it makes some social interactions awkward.  Maybe you have disadvantage on rolls to interact with NPCs you find attractive, because you keep staring in the wrong place or stumbling to say the right thing.  

Eh, still probably not a great idea.  Given recent events in the RPG community, I'm not sure even the best DMs are capable of handling the subject in an inoffensive way.  

But it doesn’t even have to be sex.  It can be anything your character is into.  Try this:  When you create your character, and you’re filling out the “Personality Traits/Ideals/Bonds/Flaws” section, make sure to list something your character really loves.  It could be swimming, chocolate, painting, petting cats, bacon, spending time with family, painting cats with bacon, or watching a play.  Really any hobby or indulgence that’s possible in the setting.  If they don’t get the opportunity to fulfill that need once every three months, they start to make saving throws.  The stat might vary depending on the thing being missed, but for WIS saves seem appropriate for most of them.  Failing a save means that the character cares less about their quest.  Sometimes you have to be reminded of the good in the world to continue to want to save it.

This might be more of a roleplay penalty than a mechanical one, giving players an opportunity to act out how they deal with being homesick for their favorite activities.  On the other hand, this despair could cause you to have trouble concentrating (affecting spellcasting or INT/WIS saves) or make it so your heart’s just not in it (penalty to attack rolls).

A lot of this blog is meant as humor more than actual suggestions.  Regular readers know I prefer my RPGs with the simplest rules possible, and the above ideas make the game more complicated.  Still, if any of you decide to get silly and use some of these ideas, let me know how it goes.

My Fantasy D&D Group

I hear this question asked a lot: “What is your dream D&D group?  If you could play a campaign with any six people, who would you choose?”  Now, most people go over the list of known celebrities who play D&D, which includes such notables as Vin Diesel, Wil Wheaton, Felicia Day, Joe Manganiello, Judy Dench (seriously), and so on.

Other people would pick genre-specific celebrities, as in, people who are only famous in D&D circles, and/or famous specifically for playing D&D.  For example, Matt Mercer, the DM of the Critical Role web series.  Or any of the current D&D designers, like Chris Perkins or Jeremy Crawford.  If it’s a “living or dead” type of question, then they might go with D&D’s original creators, Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson.

Still other people might pick celebrities who have nothing to do with D&D, but who have skills that would bring something to the table.  How cool would it be to have your favorite cartoon voice actor as the DM, so they could do different voices for each character?  Or how about one of history’s greatest military generals, known for their unconventional battle tactics?  And how scary would it be to play a horror themed game run by a great storyteller like Stephen King or Clive Barker?

But for myself?  My dream D&D game would be all my closest friends.  My best friend from college, who lives too far away now.  My best friend from high school, who is so busy with family now that he can’t commit to a regular game schedule.  My best friend from junior high, who thinks D&D is boring.  My best friend from elementary school, who always thought D&D was a tool of the devil.  My best online friends, who prefer video games to pencil-and-paper.  And of course my best DM friend, who lives close by and runs games regularly, but who unfortunately doesn’t tend to like the same RPGs that I do.

They all have their own lives, and I’m happy for them.  I wouldn’t want to change them for the world, or do anything that takes away from their own interests and pursuits.  But if, in a parallel world, I could put all these people in a D&D group together, that would be the perfect game.

The Importance of Agency

As far as I'm concerned, D&D is a game about living out your fantasies.  It gives you the opportunity to control a character in a fairy tale, and allows you to tune out real life problems in favor of fictional problems for a few hours a week.  Considering how difficult it is to arrange a time each week that all the players can make it to the game, it's important that each player is having fun and is playing a character they really want to play.

I've already mentioned this subject in past blogs, most notably my rant about rolling stats.  TL;DR version:  If that's how everyone at your table wants to generate characters, great, but I personally prefer allowing players to have more creative control in building their characters.

But today I want to talk about campaign ideas that remove agency.  For the record, I'm using the following definition of agency:

"In social science, agency is the capacity of individuals to act independently and to make their own free choices." - Wikipedia

Every DM lies awake at night trying to come up with brand new, creative ideas for campaigns.  Unfortunately, a lot of them come up with the exact same "brand new, creative ideas".  One that I see tossed around a lot is amnesia-themed campaigns.

In a typical amnesia scenario, the DM builds characters for all their players, who don't even know what race or class they will be playing at the beginning of the campaign.  The PCs typically wake up with no memories, knowing only what they see in front of them.  They fill out their own character sheets one discovery at a time.

I look like a human?  Write that down.  I'm good with a lockpick?  I must be a Rogue, write it down.  By the end of the first session, you'll probably have most of your character sheet filled out, and can start working on the campaign's true plot - finding out why you lost your memories and getting your life back.

Yes, it’s an interesting idea, and it would make a pretty fun one-shot.  But after the initial session, you’re left playing a character you didn’t design.  Now, a good DM might know their players well enough to build characters they’ll enjoy.  If you’re reading this and considering running such a campaign, ask your players in advance which races and classes they like most.  Then build characters with that in mind.  Once they’ve assembled their entire character sheet, allow them to make minor changes if they don’t like your choices.  I’m not much of a powergamer myself, but min/maxers deserve to have fun just as much as the rest of us, and should be given a little leeway.

One DM I know is bothered by players who always play the same characters.  He says he wants to run a campaign where, once everyone has created their character, they pass their character sheet to their left so that everyone plays a character they didn’t design.  Now, I want to stress that this DM is a good friend and I love him.  But if he pulled this crap on me at the start of a campaign, I would walk the fuck right out, and he knows it.  Not only would I be playing a character I didn’t create, but in such a scenario, it would feel like I was playing someone else’s character.  I’d have trouble making decisions as that character, because I wouldn’t know if I was playing the character the way the original author intended.  Basically, I want my character to feel like an extension of myself, and this scenario makes me feel further detached from my character.

Although, switching character sheets around could be fun for a “body swap” story, where the PCs get their minds switched by an evil wizard.  The story could have them searching for the wizard to get themselves switched back.  But this story works best in an existing campaign, where the characters’ personalities are well established, so that the switching has more impact.  If you do it to brand new characters, when they’re still just numbers on a page, there’s nothing really to “switch”, it’s just making the players play different classes.  I also think this side story should only last two or three sessions before they go back to normal, so the players can get back to controlling the characters they designed.

Honestly, I don’t get why some DMs care so much what their players play.  The PC is the one part of the story the player controls.  Everything else in the world is DM’s choice – setting, NPCs, technology level, whether magic is common, all the way down to whether the local butcher is left handed.  I just don’t understand DMs who also want to control the one part of the game that’s supposed to be up to the players.  It seems greedy.  Might as well roll their dice for them too, and make all their decisions.  Heck, might as well not even bother meeting up, and just write a book instead.

I know a guy who almost always plays the same character.  Not just the same race/class, but even the same name, personality traits, and facial disfigurement.  I’ve seen him play this character in several campaigns, taking place in different universes.  And you know what?  It’s never caused us any problems.  It’s never pulled me out of the game.  Is my friend missing out by not experiencing what other classes might offer?  I doubt it; he’s been playing D&D a lot longer than I have.  He probably tried all the classes and races long before I ever met him, and now he has his favorite.  I can’t fault him for that, any more than I can fault someone for always ordering their favorite flavor at Baskin Robbins.  If a DM forbade him from playing that character, he’d probably go find a different group.

Maybe you think it’s good for your players to get out of their comfort zones.  But you know what?  That’s not your job.  You’re not their psychiatrist, you’re their dungeon master.  Your job is to create interesting worlds for them to explore, design powerful villains for them to fight, and craft intricate plot hooks for them to ignore.  Unless a player wants to play a character that doesn’t fit the theme of your campaign, then it’s none of your business what kind of PC they play.  Actually, even if a player wanted to play a race that doesn’t exist in my universe, I’d probably work with them to make it happen.   Maybe they fell through a wormhole or something.  An out-of-place character generates some cool roleplay scenarios.

I believe in player agency.  It’s part of what makes RPGs appealing, as opposed to more restrictive board games.  And it’s a large part of the reason I play. 

Dragon Con 2018

So we went to the 2018 Dragon Con.  Fun times!  It was extremely hot and crowded, and we spent a lot of the time thinking, "Why do we do this again?"  But now that we're back home I'm feeling  extreme euphoria when I think back over the weekend.

This is the longest we've stayed at Dragon Con.  Usually we only go down for Saturday, but this time we splurged and bought memberships to the entire con.  We still didn't get to stay in one of the host hotels, though; we'll save that dream for another year.  Commuting in each day from Alpharetta was much cheaper.  We used a website that lets you book parking spots in advance, so that was one less headache. 

The parade was fun, but it's getting harder and harder to find a good place to sit. You have to get there earlier every year.  This year we got there nearly two hours before the parade, and Peachtree Street was already full.  This meant we had to go further down the parade route, on an East-West street instead of a North-South street.  This is significant because it means instead of the sun being blocked by all the skyscrapers, the sun now shines directly upon you.

So we sat in the hot sun for about two hours before the parade even started.  We misjudged how much water to pack, so by the time the parade was over, we both had a bit of heatstroke.  We were so worn out that it affected our energy levels for the rest of the day.

But the parade?  Worth it.  There were so many people in creative costumes, some 100% movie authentic, others clever mashups or puns, and some so obscure or meta that they only make sense at Dragon Con.   There were a couple of celebrities - John de Lancie, Joel Hodgson, maybe more.  The crowd went crazy for them.

We didn't go to any symposiums this time.  We rarely do.  For us, Dragon Con is mostly about seeing all the geeks and taking lots of pictures.  In the artists hall, I got to meet comic book writer Gail Simone.  To be honest, I know her more because of her politics than for her actual writing, but she's still one of my favorite people.

At first I was too nervous to approach her.  It wasn't just that I was intimidated, but I also just didn't know what I wanted to say.  When I told my wife about my embarrassment, she pulled me over and introduced us.  "Hi, are you Gail Simone?  This is my husband, Matt.  He's a huge fan, but he's really shy."  That didn't exactly make me less embarrassed, but at least it broke the ice.

She was signing things for free, and I wanted to buy a comic for her to sign, but she didn't take plastic and we rarely carry cash.  A stranger behind us was so sympathetic that he bought me a comic book.  I tried to talk him out of it, but he wouldn't hear of it.  Again, embarrassing, but really nice.  I swear they must think I'm mentally challenged or something.

On Sunday I had a photo op with Felicia Day.  This is the third celebrity photo op I've done (the others being Matt Smith/Karen Gillan, and John Barrowman).  I'd really like to start a collection, but it's an expensive hobby.

You don't get to talk much at the photo ops (if you want a longer conversation, go to the autograph halls), but Felicia was extremely friendly and made a point of saying something to everyone.  When it was my turn, she told me she loved my MST3K shirt, and I tried to say "thank you" but I don't think any actual sound came out.  After the photo, she said to make sure I watch the new season, and I think I replied something like "larfleglimph." 

They had a deal where if you give blood, you get a free T-shirt.  There were people all over the con holding up signs for the blood drive, usually announcing "No waiting", but I didn't want to risk not having enough energy for the rest of the day.  So once we were nearly done on Sunday, since I knew my wife would be driving home, I decided to go for it. 

And everyone else had the same idea.  There was a pretty long line to give blood, but I got to listen to a lot of interesting people.  It was strange to see all these costumed people giving blood, especially when some are dressed like creatures you wouldn't want to receive blood from.  Even the Flying Spaghetti Monster was sitting in line.

The actual process was relatively painless, no different from having blood drawn at the doctor, it just took a little longer.  I strongly encourage others to give blood if they can.

When I got home, I posted my Felicia Day pic on Twitter, and Felicia Day herself liked it.  Okay, she probably "likes" every post she's tagged in (and she might even hire somebody to manage her Twitter account), but it still gave me a little thrill.

All in all, it was a great trip.  I don't think we're going to go to Dragon Con very often any more; it's just getting too crowded.  Attendance has nearly tripled since the first time we attended, and between the heat and the people, we just don't have the energy.  The only way I will go there from now on is if we can actually stay in one of the host hotels, which requires a lot of money and fore planning.  My dream vacation would be to stay at the Marriott from Thursday all the way until Monday, so I can just go back to my room to rest whenever I want.

Maybe some day!

Starfinder: First Impressions

Well, I had high hopes, but so far I have to give Starfinder a thumbs down.  Now before I get into things, some caveat:

1. I actually haven’t played it yet.  So far I’ve just skimmed the book.  I do still plan to try it.

2. I’m more of a casual gamer, so I’m more impressed by rule efficiency than tactical realism.

3. I’ve been spoiled by the simplicity of D&D 5e.

4. Pathfinder players will probably love it.

I’ve always wanted to try Spelljammer, but I don’t like older RPGs so much.  It took decades to streamline D&D’s rules to create the elegant system we have today, and it's hard for me to go backwards.  I keep wanting to try modern sci-fi RPGs, but the few I’ve tried haven’t really done it for me.   Starfinder is Paizo’s newest attempt to create a sci-fi RPG, and I was really looking forward to it. 

They obviously wanted to make it as cross-compatible with Pathfinder as possible, and those who are used to Pathfinder will be right at home. Unfortunately for my tastes, that's where things went wrong.

Where do I begin?  Pathfinder was already pretty complicated compared to D&D 5e.  Being based on 3.5, the most prolific version of D&D, it had to compile years of content and errata into a coherent system.  I’ve always respected Pathfinder so doing it so thoroughly.  But now that I play D&D 5e, I was glad to be rid of things like flat-footed AC, diagonal squares taking more movement, ability damage, negative levels, and so on.  Now Starfinder comes along and adds two kinds of AC, separate stamina and hit points, resolve points, and so on. 

This would all be okay if any of the new stuff impressed me, but it doesn’t.  I’m disappointed there aren’t more races, and the ones it does have don't wow me.  Sure, it has rules for using existing Pathfinder races, but I never really wanted to see any of those in space.  The classes are mildly interesting, but none of them really jumped out at me.  Usually when I read a new RPG book, my biggest problem is narrowing down all the cool new stuff I want to try, but for some reason none of the Starfinder classes really sparked my imagination.

I do like that it has separate classes and themes.  The themes remind me of the backgrounds in D&D 5e.  But there's only ten of them in the PHB (including "Themeless").  And some of the ones they have are more specific than others.  I can understand Mercenary or Spacefarer - those are fairly generic and are likely to describe a lot of adventurers.  But "Icon" (i.e. celebrity) seems a bit specific when you only have ten themes.  I much prefer 5e's spread of backgrounds.

Of course, by the time I get my next haircut they'll have released a dozen splatbooks full of new races, themes, and classes, and eventually I'll see something I want to play.  And that's great and all, but I'm still not sure I like Pathfinder rules in space.  Every three pages I'll run into a paragraph I have to read three times to really "get", because it's phrased like a calculus problem.

But that's my fault.  I knew Starfinder was going to be kinda/sorta Pathfinder compatible, so I should have expected that from the beginning.  And to be fair, I don't dislike Pathfinder.  I've played it before and the rules don't feel nearly as complicated in context - they just don't read well.  Again, 5e spoiled me.

From my point of view, it feels like a wasted opportunity.  They had the chance to create an RPG from scratch, but instead they built on top of Pathfinder's tried-and-true rules.  It was actually a very smart decision, and it will probably sell a lot more copies than the hypothetical RPG I would have preferred they made.  In other words, Starfinder, "It's not you, it's me."

TL;DR: I think Starfinder is a high-quality RPG... I'm just not sure it's for me.  My new hope is that WOTC releases a 5e version of Spelljammer or Gamma World.  But I won't hold my breath.

Being Yourself vs Rolling Stats

Note, this blog is not related to any current campaign or session.  Occasionally I enjoy using this blog for rambling about how I feel about different rules and systems, and this is just something that's been percolating in the back of my head for a while.

One of my fundamental beliefs when it comes to RPGs is that players should be allowed to play the character they want to play.  I hear DMs grumble about "special snowflake" players who want to run bizarre races like half-dryad/half-gnolls, and I always wonder why that bothers them so much.  This is a game of infinite possibilities, and restricting yourself to the same old races seems contrary to the point of the game, IMO.  As long as a race is balanced with the other races, and isn't offensive somehow (like parodying real life races), why should the DM care about the flavor?  We're all at the table for different reasons, and if I've always wanted to pretend I was a Dryad/Gnoll, then that's why I'm at the table.

If you find a specific player annoying because they keep playing weird things, then maybe that player isn't a good fit for your group.  It doesn't mean you're a bad DM or they're a bad player, it just means you probably don't have compatible play styles.  In my experience, it takes a certain kind of player to build a Dryad/Gnoll, and that type of player drives vanilla DMs nuts even when they run Human characters.  So maybe you're just not a good fit for each other, but don't blame the character they designed.  If you're going to let the player at your table, then let them play the character they want to play.

The DM controls about 90% of the story.  The only elements the players contribute is the actions of their own characters.  If the DM wants to dictate what type of characters they play, then maybe this game isn't for them.  That DM should just be writing a story instead, where they can control all the elements.  But D&D is a cooperative storytelling game.  Sure, the DM's the only one who knows the full plot, but everyone contributes, and the DM shouldn't be surprised if things don't go in the direction he planned.

And that's a big part of why I hate rolling stats.  There are times when I enjoy rolling everything randomly, even the class and race.  But for a long-running campaign, I want to play a character I designed from the ground up. It's an investment of my time to take a few hours out of every Saturday to drive out to the game store, and you better believe that if I go to the trouble, it's because I want to have fun.  And I don't find it fun playing a character I didn't design.

Admittedly, part of it is not wanting to get stuck with bad stats.  I don't really care about good stats, I just don't want to be stuck with a lot of 8s.  If the universe ever conspires to give me bad die rolls during a game, it will be during character generation.  That's when the Random Number Gods can do the most damage to me, because those rolls will affect me the entire campaign.  I'm not saying I'm superstitious, but I do tend to roll badly when it counts most.

And then there's fairness.  The makers of D&D put so much time into making sure all the races and classes are balanced.  You can't make Rogues "better" than Wizards (at least not in ways that are universally obvious), nor can you make Dragonborn better than Elves.  Of course people like certain combos better than others, but if any class or race is blatantly overpowered, it gets nerfed in the next errata.

And yet, in the very first session of a "roll stats" campaign, it's mathematically possible for players to create characters with huge differences in their stats.  If session one begins with the Rogue having every stat near 18, while the Wizard doesn't have a single stat above 10, who do you think is going to be the star of every following session?  It gets old when the same character outshines everybody week after week.

When our group starts a new campaign, we sometimes discuss the possibility of rolling stats.  I always argue against it, for the reasons listed above.  But while we're discussing it, several alternate methods usually come up.  For example, the "Organic Method" (4d6 drop lowest, roll in order, swap one, reroll one).  I've also looked at a bunch of different methods online, some of which were almost like calculus in their complexity, and it's gotten to the point where it's almost a berserk button for me.

Many players complain that point buy gives everyone cookie cutter stats, but my solution would be to STOP LOOKING AT EVERYONE ELSE'S STATS.  Your stats are not your character.  In any given campaign, I have no idea what all my co-players' stats are.  I know which characters are naive and which ones are crafty or lusty or cowardly or driven or simple-minded or devious, and I assume those players are playing their stats appropriately.  But if our party's Half-Orc Barbarian roleplays a low INT, I still have no idea if his INT is 3 or 9.  And I don't want to know, because my Half-Orc friend isn't a bunch of numbers to me, he's a (virtual) person.

The fact that everyone's stats are balanced is a bit like saying everyone in the party has 24 ribs, one liver, and two kidneys.  Those numbers exist under the skin, but I will never see them, nor do I wish to.  For the people who think "point buy ruined the game", what part of the game do they think it ruined?  How did it affect roleplay, really?  I've heard many older DMs make the complaint, but I have yet to see one make a convincing argument for how it hurt the game.  It might have made the game a little less deadly, but that's a feature, not a bug.  (I could write a whole other blog on how I feel about hardcore "killer" DMs.)

Now... all that said.  If I were to play a "roll stats" campaign, what would be my preferred method?

One of my biggest problems with 4d6 (even if you drop the lowest), is that the minimum is 3.  I don't believe a playable humanoid should have any stat below an 8.  To me, that would represent subhumanoid levels, or some sort of physical handicap.  I could see it working for specific character concepts or for certain types of campaigns, but for basic D&D it just bothers me.

So my preferred rolling method would be (*drumroll please*)... 2d6+6, no rerolls, put your stats where you want.  It's simple, and it gives you a minimum of 8, so no handicaps.  The average is slightly higher - 4d6 has an average of 10.5, while 2d6+6 gives you an average of 13.  But 4d6 has you dropping the lowest to weed out bad die rolls, while my method would require you keep the bad rolls.

I've tested it by rolling a bunch of sample stats using each method.  After 25 test rolls, 4d6 (drop lowest) gave me an average of 12.6, while 2d6+6 gave me an average of 12.8.  (Note that standard array has an average of 12.)  The only real difference was that my method didn't yield anything under 8.  Now, I could have just gotten some lucky rolls when doing my tests, and maybe someday when I'm bored I'll sit down and do 100 of each method.  But from what I've seen so far, I'd say it's close enough that it won't break the game.

But again, that's only if I were to run a "roll stats" campaign, which is highly unlikely.

D&D 5e Vs Pathfinder

It's been a while since I've made a non-campaign-related blog on this page.  A few years ago I wrote a blog about D&D 4e vs Pathfinder.  I didn't have a clear winner at the time, because the two systems have such different play styles.  Sometimes you're in the mood for tactical combat, sometimes you're in the mood for simulationist roleplay.  But in retrospect, it's not that much of a contest.  Pathfinder is so obviously superior to 4e that it's not even funny.  I still remember my 4e campaigns with great fondness, but it's not a system I ever care to play again.

We're about to wrap up our current campaign, in which we are using D&D 5e to play a Pathfinder adventure path.  This has been particularly taxing on the DM, with all the enemy and item conversions.  As I write this, we're still debating on whether to make the next campaign D&D or Pathfinder, but I believe the group is leaning toward Pathfinder.  I'm torn.  I like both systems, for different reasons.

Character Creation
Winner: 5e
So in preparation for our potential Pathfinder campaign, I started looking through the PHB for character ideas.  And I swear, after playing 5e for so long, for a minute I thought I was reading one of my old Calculus books from college.  Pathfinder's like, "You can use this power 3 times a day plus your Charisma modifier minus your Strength mod unless you're left-handed or it's a Thursday after 3PM in which case you roll a d4 and subtract 5 and add your number of eyes (minimum 1), unless your grandmother owns a parakeet in which case you can use the power two extra times per day (maximum 3 per fortnight) and it also adds budgie damage except to monsters who are immune to ice cream."

Okay, I'm exaggerating.  But I can build a 5e character in less than 10 minutes, and the great part is that I can do it myself without having to use some sort of character generator program.  This was one of the first things I loved about 5e; even in 4e I had to resort to WOTC's character creator.  In my last Pathfinder campaign I used PCGen, which was helpful but tedious.  It sped things up a lot, but it's not user-friendly enough for my tastes.

Character Options
Winner: Pathfinder
Unfortunately 5e's ease-of-use comes at a price.  The system feels so basic.  People who want more interesting characters just don't have a lot of choices.  Personally I'm really into races.  The more a system has, the better.  My two favorite books in 4e were "Heroes of the Feywild" and "Heroes of Shadow."  They didn't have the most powerful options, but I loved the flavor.  Unfortunately those books came out near the end of 4e's life, and I only got to try out one of those races before I stopped playing 4e.  With 5e releasing new content at such a glacial rate, once again they'll probably start putting out fey/dark races and classes right before 6e launches.

Meanwhile, Pathfinder has a ton of options.  Being based on an earlier version of D&D, they had a big head start and have had a lot more time to get content out there.  In fact, I'm a little surprised they don't have even more to choose from, but what's out there is enough to keep me busy for years.  For those who are bored with the standard fantasy core classes, Pathfinder is the way to go.

On the other hand, if you don't mind a little homebrew, there are a ton of fan sites out there with great new 5e options. They vary in quality, but if you look hard enough there's a lot of well-balanced content with lots of new flavor.

Healing
Winner: 5e
I've said it many times before:  I hate slow healing.  People have different ideas on what hit points represent, but to me they're more about stamina than anything.  Getting "hit" doesn't mean your enemy's sword broke your skin, it means you deflected a blow and it cost you some stamina.  In most fights, the only blow that actually cuts you is the one that takes you below zero, because at that point you were too tired to block it.

Pathfinder's "1 hit point per level per night" is maddeningly slow.  It's a relic from a time when people didn't heal up after every battle, and while I have nothing against those players, it's not for me. 

Difficulty
Winner: 5e
And by "winner" I mean it's easier to stay alive in 5e.  For some people that's not a bonus, but I'm more interested in the story than the challenge.  I don't have anything to prove; I already know I suck at battle strategy, and it's not something that really bothers me.  To me, it's not a very interesting story if we keep rolling up new characters every few sessions.  If a campaign has an over-arcing plot, then I like there to be some continuity regarding the characters in it.  If the final sessions of a campaign have a completely different cast than the early sessions, it makes me wonder why we were following those early characters in the first place. 

Rules Specificity
Winner: Pathfinder
One of the big complaints I keep hearing about the table, is that too many of 5e's rules boil down to "ask the DM".  It can really slow things down when someone asks a question, and everyone checks three different books, only to find the information hasn't been written yet.  To be fair, the internet is full of fan-made documents that fill in the gaps, but should we really have to resort to that many houserules just to play the game?  The DM might rule one way in this session, then forget and rule the opposite way in a later session.  The more you rely on the DM to fill in the gaps on the fly, the less fair the game becomes. 

Negative Effects
Winner: 5e
I've said it before, but stat reductions and level drains suck.  I might spend hours at home doing all the math to figure out all my skills and attack rolls.  Then I get attacked by a wight or something, and suddenly I have to redo all my math right there at the table, on the fly.  I have yet to meet anyone who thinks stat drains are fun.  Let me repeat that for emphasis: STAT REDUCTIONS ARE NOT FUN.

Pathfinder is one of the world's most popular tabletop RPGs, and the makers spent a lot of time taking the best elements of D&D 3.5 and tweaking them to perfection.  And yet they intentionally put in a mechanic that absolutely everyone fracking hates.  For a game designed to be fun, it doesn't make a bit of sense.  I mean, would you keep playing Monopoly if one of the rules was that you have to shove a pencil in your eye every time you pass Go?  Frankly, this is unforgivable.

But, you don't get a Marvel No-Prize just for pointing out a problem, you also have to figure out a solution.  Our DM is fond of handing out condition cards when you get Dazed or Stunned or whatever, so how about some Stat Reduction cards?  You get hit with stat reduction, you get handed a card that says, "You Are At -2 Dex.  Your get -1 to your ranged attacks, AC (depending on your armor), and the following skills:  Acrobatics, Disable Device, etc."  That would at least leave fewer eraser marks on my character sheet.  But more importantly, I want these negative effects to go away faster. 

Overall Winner
Honestly, I really prefer 5e, I just wish there were more books out for it.  I'll happily play Pathfinder, though.  Bottom line: The fun comes from the group, not the system.

More Dice

A while back I posted pictures of my dice.  My collection has grown a little since then, so I thought I'd post a few more pix.  You know me, any excuse to take pictures. 

First up we have "Festive Dice" by Chessex: 

Festive Dice

Basically I got them because I like tie-dye.  They're currently my favorite set of dice I own.  I come from a family of artists, which probably influenced my love of bright colors and other visual stimuli.  This set of dice has a vibrant mix of colors that really calls to me.  In fact, I hear them speaking right now...  what's that, little dice?  Kill them all?  Okay...   Just kidding, moving on...

Deadlands Dice

These are Deadlands dice. I got them for playing Savage Worlds.  It includes an extra d6 of a different style, since Savage Worlds uses a distinctive "Wild Die" with every roll.

This set's design is more for Western settings than anything I've played, but they're still pretty neat.  It actually makes me wish I liked westerns more, so I'd have an excuse to use them.  But it's just never been a genre that interests me.  Westerns are just too "testosterony" for my tastes, I suppose.

"Zocchi" Dice

I got these odd-shaped dice (sometimes called "Zocchi" dice) for Dungeon Crawl Classics. DCC uses a lot of strange, harder-to-find dice.  Here we see a d3, d5, d7, d14, d16, d24, and d30. I really like most of them, except for the d7.  The d5 and the d7 have the problem of not being perfectly identical on all sides.  Both dice have two sides that are larger than the rest.  I don't mind it on the d5, because the two largest sides are the 1 and the 5.  So even if there's a greater chance of it landing on the larger sides, I still have just as much chance of getting the maximum as the minimum.

But on the d7, the two large sides are the 6 and the 7.  To me, that's just weird. However, these are made by GameScience, a company that's known for making "perfect" dice, so I have to believe they know what they're doing.  If they say there's an equal chance of it landing on any of the seven sides, I want to believe them.  But even if they're right, I still would have felt better if they'd made the d7's largest sides the max and min.  Also, I don't really like the style of the d7.  It makes me think of casinos more than fantasy gaming.

Sci-Fi Dice

I got these for our short-lived Traveller campaign. The black ones are official Traveller dice, from back when the game was more popular.  The sunburst design with the digital numbers looks cheesy now, but I suppose it looked more futuristic back when it was designed.

The others are from Q-Workshop, and I got them for specific skill rolls.  The circuit ones (Chip and Cyber) are for Computer rolls, and the gears (Mechanical) are for Engineering.

It's unfortunate that our Traveller campaign didn't last longer, but I don't regret buying the dice.  I really like the designs, and I'm sure I'll play other sci-fi games in the future.  I could probably use the mechanical ones right now for my Savage Worlds character (she's a mechanic), but her repair rolls use a d10.  I guess I could use one as her wild die when she makes a mechanical roll, but then I don't get to use my Deadlands wild die.  I know, "first world problems".

(Completely unrelated mini-rant:  One good thing about the Traveller campaign being over, is that I'm sick of the computer's spell-check yelling at me over the British spelling of Traveller.)

Elvish Dice and Forest Dice

I got these when playing a Dryad in our Unlikely Heroes campaign.  The top ones are transparent Elvish Dice from Q-Workshop.  They're very pretty, but hard to read.  Towards the end of the campaign I bought some Forest Dice (lower pic), which are even prettier and even harder to read.  Really, Q-Workshop is legendary for making Awesome but Impractical dice.

Unfortunately the dice arrived right after our final session, so I never got to use them.  But there's always the possibility we'll pick that campaign back up again.  In any event, I like playing tree-hugging characters, so I'm sure they'll get used eventually.

Probability Die

And last but not least, I picked this one up on a whim. "Probability Die" from Koplow Games.  The sides are:  Certain, Likely, Equally Likely, Unlikely, Highly Unlikely, and Impossible.  Really just about sums up all RPG rolls, doesn't it?  You could probably run an entire game using just this die.