The Randomness of the Pen and the Paper

[Blackhawk]

A component pouch is an excellent trade-off. You no longer track common spell components, but a thief can take it away to cripple your casting. In a typical contested skill check of Perception vs. Sleight of Hand, the thief is going to come out ahead.

That's why the best component pouch is sewn into a codpiece.

"Corius, do you need a cleric? Why are you always scratching your nu..."
"FIREBALL!"

[Isgrimnur]

"What am I supposed to do with all these miniature cloaks‽"

[Blackhawk]

Not to be confused with Braise Dead, which is an alignment-shifting, but delicious spell.

[Isgrimnur]

Traveller Humble Bundle

New Traveller Humble Bundle

[GreenGoo]

"What am I supposed to do with all these miniature cloaks‽"

I'm not actually following. Resistance is the cantrip I was referring to in my comments on miniature clothing.

[Blackhawk]

"What am I supposed to do with all these miniature cloaks‽"

I'm not actually following. Resistance is the cantrip I was referring to in my comments on miniature clothing.

I took it as a joke. You only need one tiny cloak, which you can use repeatedly (which, therefore, is assumed to be in your components pouch - you don't actually have to go into town and barter for 10 'Medieval Barbie' every session.)

[Isgrimnur]

Correct. The contrast there was between Resistance and Raise Dead, where Raise Dead specifically states that the spell consumes the material component.

So I'm picturing a character new to the cantrip that has 25 miniature cloaks, and, after casting it the first time, realizes that it doesn't disappear.

[GreenGoo]

Obviously I'm no expert, but I thought the generalist rule was consumption of the material component. I guess that's why I didn't get the reference, and obviously that's why my original question.

So I'm picturing a character new to the cantrip that has 25 miniature cloaks, and, after casting it the first time, realizes that it doesn't disappear.

[GreenGoo]

Hey a question for any 5e players. Given the popularity of a more even handed character creation process here on OO, I was wondering if anyone plays D&D using the average dice rolls for everything.

It seems to me that anything that is listed as rolling xdy dice, is also listed as the average of those dice. Fighter levels up? 1d10 (or 6. Rounded up from 5.5). Damage is 2d6 (or 7).

Does anyone actually play using these averages? It would result in a much more even game, with less positive or negative spikes in random outcomes.

So I'm just curious. What are peoples' experiences here?

[Blackhawk]

The Wizard class starting gear (most other spellcasting classes have something similar):



And the reference on how those work, from the spellcasting chapter under 'Material Components.'

Obviously I'm no expert, but I thought the generalist rule was consumption of the material component. I guess that's why I didn't get the reference, and obviously that's why my original question.

Mechanically, the component pouch 'replaces' all non-consumed material components. For the fiction and theme, it simply contains them. Most are probably consumed (just like always), but you're also assumed to be constantly replenishing them, so mechanically, you always have enough. Maybe the tiny cloaks are expended, maybe they're not. If they are, you're just assumed to be, say, cutting scraps of cloth from dead enemies and cutting them to shape around the campfire. You're assumed to be grabbing pinches of bat guano when you're in a cave, grabbing pinches of dust when you pass by a graveyard, gathering herbs and stones, and so on, and the rest is part of your cost-of-living expenses (which again, all classes pay, and the price is based on the quality of lifestyle, not class.

Spoiler:

[Blackhawk]

Hey a question for any 5e players. Given the popularity of a more even handed character creation process here on OO, I was wondering if anyone plays D&D using the average dice rolls for everything.

It seems to me that anything that is listed as rolling xdy dice, is also listed as the average of those dice. Fighter levels up? 1d10 (or 6. Rounded up from 5.5). Damage is 2d6 (or 7).

Does anyone actually play using these averages? It would result in a much more even game, with less positive or negative spikes in random outcomes.

So I'm just curious. What are peoples' experiences here?

Some love it, some hate it. Mechanically, I find it takes much of the suspense out of the game, and turns it into simply moving chits around.

Rethgif the fighter is almost dead, with 7 health left. He gets attacked, and hit. The enemy's damage is 2d6 (7). Using the averages, Rethgif goes down. Using the traditional system, the whole table holds its breath, hoping the dice land on 2-6. The dice, to me, are more fun.

There are exceptions, though. There have been times when I was running a huge combat with 15+ combatants. In those cases, I'd usually say, "Ok, named NPCs roll dice, rank-and-file take averages." Doing that speeds things up dramatically.

Then again, some people, as we've discussed, play more for the story/character/narrative experience and prefer to push the crunchy (mechanical) elements to the back burner. For them, the average simplifies things (although most narrative-heavy players don't play D&D or Pathfinder - they go to systems like Fate, Powered by the Apocalypse, and so on which have lighter rules and tend to blend the systems for narrative and mechanics together. They often use a lot of improv cues, like 'failing forward (you fail, but it still advances your cause), or succeeding with consequences.

I did, however, have a house rule related to the averages system: From levels 2-5, you still roll for hit points, but if you roll below the average, it counts as the average. It was just to take some of the squishiness out of low-level characters. Starting at level 5, you rolled normally.

Here's an example representative of the more narrative driven games, just to show (roughly) how they work. I'm making the rules up on the spot, inspired by several different systems:

Spoiler:

Instead of rolling individual attacks, describe what you want to do over the first 20-30 seconds of combat.

Example:
GM: "The first orc runs right up to you, while the other three surround the priest."
Player: "Ok, I want to lean down, charge and ram my shoulder into the nearby orc's solar plexus to stun him, then sprint, over and jam my sword into the one closest to the priest, putting myself between my friend and the threat, shouting to get their attention on me."

Roll an appropriate check based on what you're doing:

Example:

GM: "Ok, it sounds like you're doing a dangerous athletic maneuver. Make me a Maneuver check user Strength"
Player: Grabs a D8 for his Strength, and grabs a D6 for his Maneuver skill.

Determine the result:

<3: Failure
4-5: Failure with perks
6-7: Success, but with downsides
8-12: Success
12+: Great success

Example:

Player rolls a 4 (failure with perks)

GM: "Ok, you charge the orc in front of you, jamming your shoulder into his midriff and sending him to the ground, gasping for breath, but as you charge past, the orc manages to grab your ankle, tripping you. You Stunned from the fall, but the first orc is going to be Stunned for the next couple of turns while he recovers."

Example 2:

Player rolls a 6 (success, but with downsides)

GM: "[successfully charges past the orc] Ok, I'm giving you ca choice. You can skewer one of the orcs, but you'll take damage as he swings wildly to defend himself, or you can get between the three and the priest. Narrate how it turns out."

Alternative: "It works like you wanted. One's gasping, another is dead, and you're in the way of the priest. However, your shout drew unwanted attention and another orc comes charging through the door behind you."

Example 3:

Player rolls a 12 (simple success)

GM: "Ok, it works exactly as you said it would. One orc is gasping for breath, another is dead, the other orcs have their attention on you."

Example 4:

Player rolls a 14 (great success)

GM: "Awesome! Everything works the way you said you wanted it to. Not only that, the orc you shouldered down lands in an open forge, causing his ragged clothes to burst into flame. He runs screaming, dropping dead in the doorway. Two orcs down."

Alternate: "Awesome! Everything works the way you said you wanted it to. Not only that, but you've rocked them back on their heels, giving the priest time to climb to his feet. Priest - take a free action."

The place where this kind of system really shines (and the way its intended to be played) is when the GM leaves it to the players to narrate what happens, giving them full control over their characters. Think, "Ok, you succeed by you become Stunned. What happened?", after which the player provides the narrative. It's a lot of fun to GM, too, as the player often take the story in a completely new direction, adding new twists to the story through their own narrative, which the GM then plays off of. Usually that sort of game starts with the players and GM coming to a consensus on what sort of game/campaign it's going to be, just so that the player don't randomly add dragons to your Mad Max inspired game.

Another mechanic (and one I adapted for 5e when I played) is players earning 'points' that allow them to alter the world. Do something particularly cool, add a good narrative twist, do something that hurts your character and plans because its what your character would do (like a character who's afraid of heights voluntarily taking a -2 to their rolls while on a rope bridge), and you earn points. Those points can be used to add a bonus (with an explanation, of course), to add a story element ("Actually, I used to run cargo to this port. The dockmaster and I used to be buddies - if I can find him, I may be able to get us around customs"), or to simply alter the world, ("If we don't find some way to get the car running, the zeds are going to be all over us." [Player spends a point] "Ah, there's a five-gallon can of gas in this guy's shed!")

Unfortunately, if you're playing with a group where the players can't let go of thinking mechanically ("But how many points of damage did I do? How much health do I have?") it tends to fall apart, and instead of everyone building a story together, the GM ends up having to sit there and narrate every single thing, which is exhausting (and not much fun for anyone.) That, sadly, is why I've only really been able to play this sort of game at conventions. The few RPGers around here are very much the 'math and dice' type.

[Blackhawk]

Dammit, now I want to play some D&D (or something similar.) Is Baldur's Gate 3 on deep discount yet?

[GreenGoo]

Can't say I'm a fan of knowing an item is magic by picking it up, and knowing all it's properties by thinking about it for an hour.

Feels like it cheapens magical treasure somehow. There's not much mystery left.

[Blackhawk]

Yeah, that was something I house ruled into a check (with Identify giving a substantial bonus.)

[YellowKing]

Just playing Baldur's Gate 3 is making me want to play pencil and paper D&D. Especially when I see so much amazing content coming out for it on a monthly basis.

Alas, I don't have a group and while I have a good buddy that would be all over it, it's *one* good buddy, not a group. I can't complain as I have a regular weekly board gaming group, but they'd never branch into D&D. Heck, even if I did have a group I don't have the time.

I enjoy the discussion though. Not having played 5e, I know very little about it and didn't even know about the averages thing.

A buddy of mine has had a blast playing D&D by forum on BGG. It's something I'd like to try but the learning curve is a bit steep. He's experienced enough at it that he said he was going to try his own adventure soon though, and I'd be welcome to join as he'd show me the ropes. I think that would be a great way to get my D&D fix without the large time investment.

[GreenGoo]

Yeah, that was something I house ruled into a check (with Identify giving a substantial bonus.)

Despite my criticism, I do recognize that making magic item discovery exciting but challenging is itself a challenge. If there is no indication that an item is exceptional, why would the players keep it and research it? If it's obviously exceptional, that is just a giant flag announcing that it's a magic item. Sure there is detect magic and identify, but those used to take spell slots and in earlier versions of the game, not just spell slots but actual spells. For every detect magic spell you memorized, that was one less spell you could cast for other things.

You could try hauling everything out of the dungeon and identifying it later, but that was an affront to encumbrance rules.

For a unique, campaign-noteworthy item, that's a bit different, but that +1 dagger in the orc's lair of a low level adventure? What do you do as a DM?

[Blackhawk]

Some players in early games would pile up everything in a central location and Detect Magic the whole pile.

For a unique, campaign-noteworthy item, that's a bit different, but that +1 dagger in the orc's lair of a low level adventure? What do you do as a DM?

If it's not important, you leave it up to them to figure it out. If you want to make sure your players find it (but it isn't vital), you drop hints that it's special. You put it on the orc boss. Or you mention that, while all of the other orc weapons are corroded, this one is without a blemish. Or you mention that when the orc pulled it out of the character's ribs, the blood beaded and rolled off. You can also improvise if necessary. If they miss that +1 dagger in the orc's lair, and you really want them to have it, then guess what - the bandits that ambush them later while they're traveling have a +1 dagger. And if that doesn't work, it's in the next chest they open.

In the context of 5e, Detect Magic is a level 1 ritual spell. For a wizard, that means it can be cast in ten minutes without expending a spell slot. In practice, I usually saw players exploring with it active if there was any indication at all that something might be there. Sometimes (if we were doing a dungeon), they'd clear four or five rooms, take a ten minute break while the wizard ritually cast it, then walk back through the rooms they'd just cleared. Since it can 'see' magic through wood, stone, and metal (to varying degrees), and has a 10 minute duration and 30-foot range, just walking through was enough to find anything that wasn't intentionally being blocked (say, in a lead-lined box.)

Also keep in mind that the 5e rules say that simply handling a magic item is enough for someone to sense that it's unusual in some way (a magical Peter tingle.)

What I really had issue with was the process for identifying magic items (I'll touch on why they did it the way they did in a bit.) All you had to do was spend ten minutes holding it and you'd know what it was. It was the Identify spell that could be used by any class with a ten minute cast time. It also made the real Identify spell almost redundant. It reduced the time to one minute and could potentially give extra information (like charges), but that's it, and it cost a spell slot. It could be cast by ritual, which takes... ten minutes. Most parties just identify their stuff when they stop for the night, so time isn't an issue.) It also took out the whole, "This is too complex for you to understand. You'll have to engage the services of an expert" element from the game. I always felt like the process and expertise behind finding out what items did was a fun part of the fiction of the D&D games.

Here was my house rule:

7. Identifying a magic item requires that a Detect Magic spell be cast and the item be studied for at least one hour, followed by making a successful Arcana roll against a DC based on the item's rarity. Potions can still be identified by tasting:
a. Common: 10
b. Uncommon: 15
c. Rare: 18
d. Very Rare: 20
e. Legendary 25+

Now it required a (fairly easy) skill roll and a spell, plus it took some serious study (an hour.) It was still going to be possible for a low-level caster to identify low level items almost every time (a DC 10 Arcana check is nothing.) But it made the Identify spell much more useful and worth knowing (a guaranteed success after ten minutes.)

I said I'd touch on why they did it the way that they did. This is my guess, at least. One design principle that they went into 5e with was that they wanted to get rid of the idea that every single group had to have one wizard, one healer, and one rogue. They made rogue skills available to anyone (with backgrounds.) They changed healing and gave multiple classes the kind of emergency healing that required a cleric before. And they took many of the 'only an arcane caster can do this' rules and made it so that you could get by without. In every case, a specialized class might do it slightly better, but not enough to make any one class mandatory.

For example, a rogue would likely have access to some bonus to one rogue skill or another (depending on how they built their character), but actually picking a lock or disarming a trip only requires a Dex check and proficiency with theives' tools (which you can get by having the right background.) In other words, if you want to be able to open locks, and nobody wants to play a rogue, any high Dex character can do so (like most rangers, or a Dex fighter.) Likewise, Sleight of Hand (a skill anyone can learn, and multiple backgrounds give proficiency to) replaces Pick Pockets, the same way Stealth is now a skill.

So in practice, the last person to pick their class didn't get stuck playing the cleric. Warlocks, sorcerers, paladins, druids, the Medicine skill, and a few other things can handle the emergency healing, while the resting/Hit Dice mechanics take care of the recovery afterwards.

It's a good system, and changing the way magic identification works is the only thing I did that interfered with it, but only barely - with the exception of the warlock, every base class that could cast spells has access to Detect Magic, and anyone can learn Arcana (plus there are multiple ways to gain proficiency.) I never once had a group that didn't have a way to ID items with that rule. And if I every got a group and nobody wanted to play a class/background that could do it? Easy - the goal is fun. I'd tweak a rule and simply hand the warlock a ring that could cast Detect Magic once per hour, or say that the paladin wanted a better understanding of the forces of darkness, and had done enough research during his training to gain proficiency with Arcana.

[Blackhawk]

Have we argued about critical misses on attacks yet?

[GreenGoo]

We're not arguing, we're discussing the game and my perceptions of it.

And I agree, there are many ways to drop hints without being overt, and very likely many people have come up with interesting and clever house rules to handle magic items in general.

You know as an adult, playing with other adults, the moment you mention anything specific they tend to hone in on it (meaning no amount of subtlety will matter). So you have to lay the ground work with a LOT of red herrings beforehand, even in previous gaming sessions. But if you overdo it, they'll tire of investigating those red herrings and stop investigating anything despite it seeming noteworthy. You can only waste their time so much before they start ignoring your clues (which have been red herrings up until now).

As far as 5e goes, I can tell that a lot of the focus was on the "fun" parts of D&D. Reducing the tedium (good!) and increasing the fun (also good!). As an old schooler, I feel like players should have to "work for it". Meaning that things still need to be challenging in order to be rewarding. I get that the word "tedium" should not be part of a game people play for fun. However, the concept of a Monty Hall campaign seems to have become the design philosophy for the entire game.

I think that is best shown with the short/long rest mechanic. I completely get that healing wounds was a major issue in older versions (or at least 1e/2e) and I *want* some way to deal with them that doesn't involve weeks of in game rest at the inn doing nothing, but I feel like they've gone too far.

I *like* the idea of death saves. I always had a hard time killing my players because a) 1e characters were squishy for the first 3 levels at least (i.e. it was too easy) and b) it made my players unhappy (we were younger, the concept of a heroic death was not on our radar). Death saves gives me a way to "kill" them without having them die, necessarily.

I am not an expert on 5e and haven't even read the rules all the way through even a single time yet. I'm picking at them, a bit at a time. So I can't speak for the entire system as a whole, and I do understand that some parts of the system that seem unbalanced may in fact be balanced by another part that I don't know about yet.

And I don't feel like I'm being overly critical. 5e is almost certainly more fun than AD&D ever was, and I've mentioned a number of aspects that I absolutely like/love in 5e. I just want to share my thoughts as I read more and more of the game rules.

[GreenGoo]

Another design decision I like is passive perception as well as how searching for secret doors etc are handled. A game session that is spent searching every inch of the dungeon for secret doors is not a fun session. But missing a secret door to exciting stuff is disappointing (for the DM at least) so some way to make it easier without making it too easy was necessary, imo.

[Blackhawk]

We're not arguing, we're discussing the game and my perceptions of it.

I tend to use 'arguing' as synonymous with 'debating.' I should probably stop.

However, the concept of a Monty Hall campaign seems to have become the design philosophy for the entire game.

Not really, in my experience.

There is much less Monty Hall in the game than in the previous editions (especially 3rd and 4th), which were much, much heavier on the magic items. 5e does not work well with low magic (they balanced it around the assumption that players have a certain amount of magic items available), and they seriously limited the appeal of Monty Halling with the Attunement system . Short version: many magic items, including most 'special' ones, require that the character be attuned to it (think of it like forming a personal bond with the item), which takes a certain amount of time (enough that you can't do it on the fly.) Each item can only be attuned to one character at a time, and each character can only be attuned to three items at a time. If you use an attunement item that isn't attuned to you, you don't get any of the magical benefits. A Robe of the Archmagi isn't good for much beyond putting on after a shower if you're not attuned to it.

So, your GM gets a little Monty Hall. Your level 12 fighter ends up with a Ring of Protection +1, +1 Chainmail of Fire Protection, a Belt of Hill Giant Strength, a Cloak of Protection +1, and a Flame Tongue sword.

It doesn't matter how many you have in your bag, you can use three of them. If you want to ditch the cloak for the armor, you're going to have to spend 20 minutes doing it (10 to 'release' the cloak, 10 to attune the armor.) It gives you some options (if you want to figure out a way to handle the extra weight, although your GM probably gave you Bag of Holding, too), but it isn't like previous editions where you could sit there covered in magic items, with four different swords with different properties ready to go, or where characters could trade off items for each check. It's more like choosing your spells for the day.

And the ones you're not using? The 5e rules make selling them extremely challenging. If you're in a massive city with a magic academy, maybe. But anywhere else? Don't bet on it. You may choose to spend ten days of downtime to get a DC 20 Investigation check to find a buyer for a single item, and he'll probably pay you half of the value or less. And that downtime was time spent not researching, or earning money, or crafting more scrolls, or training to learn new languages or scrolls, etc.

And I don't feel like I'm being overly critical. 5e is almost certainly more fun than AD&D ever was, and I've mentioned a number of aspects that I absolutely like/love in 5e. I just want to share my thoughts as I read more and more of the game rules.

One of the biggest advantages of 5e (and, to be fair, any D&D post-A) is consistency. It shows up best when it comes to teaching new players the rules. Like (in AD&D) which numbers you had to roll a d20 and get under, versus which numbers you had to roll a d20 and get over. Or the way AC worked, where a score of 2 was way, way more armor than 8. As experienced players, we forget how counterintuitive it was that the numbers that represented your abilities, level, and health went up as they got better, while the numbers that represented you armor, fighting skill, and resilience (saves) went down as they got better. Or THAC0 in its entirety.

Starting with 3e, bigger = better, and every roll is a d20 plus your stat/skill bonus vs a number the GM tells you.

Another design decision I like is passive perception as well as how searching for secret doors etc are handled. A game session that is spent searching every inch of the dungeon for secret doors is not a fun session. But missing a secret door to exciting stuff is disappointing (for the DM at least) so some way to make it easier without making it too easy was necessary, imo.

The passives are great (and almost any skill can be passive - Passive Investigation can be handy.) The best part is it avoids the old trope:

DM: "You see a room with [stuff]"
Players: "Ok, we move on through to the next room."
DM: "Give me a perception check."
Players: "12. Oh, and we search the room before opening the door."

Now, unless the players choose to search the room, they'll never know the GM is making checks.

They're a little hard to understand if you're coming into the game from other systems, though. For instance, if a passive skill applies, an active skill can always beat your passive, but can't be lower. Example: If Frank the Bard is trying to lie to a city guardsman, it's Frank's Deception vs the guard's Passive Insight (let's say it's 12.) But if the guard is actively suspicious of Frank, he could make an Insight roll. If the guard rolls under 12, his passive insight would still pick things up at 12, but the guard could also roll higher. Rolling is always worth it.

Another way I've seen them used (often in official adventures) is to have different DCs. A well-hidden secret door might be detectable with a DC 20 Passive Perception, or with a DC 14 Perception check. Or a very well-made hidden compartment in a drawer might say, "...discovered on a DC 15 Wisdom (Perception) check (no passive check possible.)"

[Smoove_B]

I've never felt so old. And sad.

[GreenGoo]

I find it somewhat amusing and/or strange that I experienced the origin of that meme along with thousands of other people, but unlike them, I have no recollection of it and zero emotional response to her death.

I find it weird that so many people were attached enough to the cleric to care when she didn't make it.

Perhaps I'm a sociopath. Where's the loot??

[Smoove_B]

Oh man. I think I was around 9 when I read through the Red box rules. For me it was the art of that solo / intro adventure that stuck out so much - I don't really think I'd seen anything like it before. And then the way it all ended....I feel like that was a lot for a kid to process. Maybe you just blocked it out because it was so painful.

[Blackhawk]

Ah, that's what it was from. When I first saw it, I thought I was looking at the Laurana illustration from module DL5. Same artist, same style, but the helmet was just a little off. Then GG's comment made me realize that it wasn't that. But I knew I'd seen it, I just couldn't remember where.

[GreenGoo]

Oh man. I think I was around 9 when I read through the Red box rules. For me it was the art of that solo / intro adventure that stuck out so much - I don't really think I'd seen anything like it before. And then the way it all ended....I feel like that was a lot for a kid to process. Maybe you just blocked it out because it was so painful.

I'm in denial!

[GreenGoo]

Ah, that's what it was from. When I first saw it, I thought I was looking at the Laurana illustration from module DL5. Same artist, same style, but the helmet was just a little off. Then GG's comment made me realize that it wasn't that. But I knew I'd seen it, I just couldn't remember where.

She does remind me of one of the DL illustrations. I'll take your word that it is Laurana and DL5.

[Blackhawk]

Ah, that's what it was from. When I first saw it, I thought I was looking at the Laurana illustration from module DL5. Same artist, same style, but the helmet was just a little off. Then GG's comment made me realize that it wasn't that. But I knew I'd seen it, I just couldn't remember where.

She does remind me of one of the DL illustrations. I'll take your word that it is Laurana and DL5.

I'm not 100% that's what I was thinking of. It definitely reminds me of Laurana, and DL5 was the one that was full of extra character illustrations (it was a sort of character guide) - but the entire series had illustrations as well.

[GreenGoo]

Sure. She does remind me of something/someone too. It could just be that I'm remembering the red box illustration. i.e. this illustration.

But I think Tanis had a warrior female friend in DL? The pic makes me think of her, but we're talking murky depths of memory to be delving in. So, likely not even close.

Anyway, I just looked it up, Bargle the Infamous kills Aleena the Cleric and thousands of children bear the scars.

[Blackhawk]

Sure. She does remind me of something/someone too. It could just be that I'm remembering the red box illustration. i.e. this illustration.

Honestly, those early Elmore/Easley illustrations were often very similar, and they frequently got reused. I also looked it up, and there's an illustration of a dwarf that I'm certain I saw reused somewhere, too.

But I think Tanis had a warrior female friend in DL? The pic makes me think of her, but we're talking murky depths of memory to be delving in. So, likely not even close.

I'm not sure of the spelling (it's been decades), but it was Kitiara.

[GreenGoo]

[GreenGoo]

I'm not sure of the spelling (it's been decades), but it was Kitiara.

Yeah, I was way off. Your memory is much closer for sure. Laurana.

[AWS260]

Dungeons & Dragons on death row.

Playing Dungeons & Dragons is more difficult in prison than almost anywhere else. Just as in the free world, each gaming session can last for hours and is part of a larger campaign that often stretches on for months or years. But in prison, players can’t just look up the game rules online. The hard-bound manuals that detail settings, characters and spells are expensive and can be difficult to get past mailroom censors. Some states ban books about the game altogether, while others prohibit anything with a hard cover. Books with maps are generally forbidden, and dice are often considered contraband, because they can be used for gambling. Prisoners frequently replace them with game spinners crafted out of paper and typewriter parts.

This quote notwithstanding, the article is less about the mechanics of D&D in prison, and more about how it builds connections and allows for a bit of escapism.

[Blackhawk]

Good article.

I've seen D&D played in prison a few times, watched a few games. There's a ton of innovation there. Some use dice made out of compressed cubes of wet toilet paper. Others used decks of cards where they were allowed (a deck of cards provides a d2, d4, d10, and d100, and can be used as a d20 by drawing two cards - red and black for 1-10/11-20, then a card for the number, and if you use two decks, you can imitate even more dice.) If rulebooks aren't available, paper and pencils usually are. There's always someone smart enough, and with enough experience to write a set of rules for whatever tools they have on hand.

[hentzau]

I remember years ago my uncle telling me that in the mid 80's D&D was huge on the nuclear sub he served on. He said he couldn't get into it, but they had pretty much a game going on all the time.

[Blackhawk]

I remember years ago my uncle telling me that in the mid 80's D&D was huge on the nuclear sub he served on. He said he couldn't get into it, but they had pretty much a game going on all the time.

I've heard the same thing from people who served in both the Navy and the Air Force during that period.

[Redfive]

How many folks here play tabletop RPGs online via Fantasy Grounds / Roll20 / Foundry? Or rather, how many would be interested in playing online?

[hentzau]

How many folks here play tabletop RPGs online via Fantasy Grounds / Roll20 / Foundry? Or rather, how many would be interested in playing online?

I have dipped my toe into using FG/Roll20, but have never tried running a game via the platforms.

I just started off a D&D campaign last week. Three of my players are local and playing in person, and 2 are remote, so I'm currently using Zoom for the game. I have a camera set up so the remote folks can see all of the players, and I have the remote folks up on my TV so it's easy for the locals to see. I have a phone mounted above my table tied into the zoom meeting, so the players can see the maps, etc. I'm using an adventure from D&D Beyond so I have possible handouts ready to show via Zoom sharing if need be.

I toyed with the idea of doing the whole thing via Fantasy Grounds or Roll20, but I don't think I want my folks around the table looking at screens the whole time. They're already looking at the screens a ton since we're using D&DB for characters. But maybe I'm mistaken. Maybe it would level the playing field for the other players to do everything online and put the maps, etc up on the big screen. Dunno.

[Zarathud]

I’ve run parts of 2 campaigns on Roll20. It helped speed up play, and paired with Zoom for chat works well.

[Blackhawk]

How many folks here play tabletop RPGs online via Fantasy Grounds / Roll20 / Foundry? Or rather, how many would be interested in playing online?

I've played on both Roll20 and Foundry. I've run games on Roll20 and MapTool, and I've set up games on Foundry that I've never played (due to group implosion.) My personal preference? Foundry. It's business model is much, much friendlier to everyone (it works like Tabletop Simulator, where all of the content is player created mods, vs the "buy everything again" approach that the others use), and I've found it's more powerful. The only downside is that it takes a little more work to learn/set up. It's like comparing Paint and Photoshop - Paint is easier to use, but Photoshop is more powerful.

I toyed with the idea of doing the whole thing via Fantasy Grounds or Roll20, but I don't think I want my folks around the table looking at screens the whole time. They're already looking at the screens a ton since we're using D&DB for characters. But maybe I'm mistaken. Maybe it would level the playing field for the other players to do everything online and put the maps, etc up on the big screen. Dunno.

One thing that I've done in the past in similar circumstances is set up my laptop as the 'GM', and set up a second PC running through my TV near the table as a 'player' (basically functioning as a player's POV.) The TV/player account is mostly passive, and is mostly just there so that everyone can see the map. It's a large TV, and sits right next to the table, so everyone can see it clearly.

When I did it, it was for a fully in-person group, serving primarily to manage the maps/fog of war. I, as the GM, set up a single token to represent the entire party (with a couple of extras if they split), and moved it around (from my laptop) according to their instructions. The only time I had to interact with the 'player' PC was to occasionally recenter the view. The whole point was to show larger maps and what was and was not visible without having to print/draw on the table, both of which were a hassle, and slowed down the actual gameplay. Encounters would actually be played on the table the old-fashioned way, with maps on mats sketched out in dry-erase.

It would be fairly simple to set up something similar. You set up a TV/computer near the table where everyone can see it running your VTT (Virtual Tabletop), and you have tokens for each player. The remote players connect normally and can move their tokens around, while you (as the GM) are connected from your laptop and move the local players tokens according to their instructions. For the local players, they'd just be seeing the TV as the map and playing normally (without their faces in their own devices), while for the remote players, you'd be leveling the playing field. They'd see exactly the same map as everyone else, while a camera would capture the rest of the group for them to talk to. You could even have the remote players' camera feeds on the TV, too.

The only limitation I can see is that, since there would be only one screen for all of the local players, you wouldn't be able to use individual fog-of-war, the effect where each player only sees what their character could see, like shadows behind pillars (this effect, as displayed in Foundry.) You'd have to either manually reveal one room at a time (which only takes seconds - you set up the fog of war during prep by basically drawing it in, then simply right click each section and remove it), or by creating a couple of invisible tokens that share their view with the players and moving them where necessary, revealing it to everyone.)

You could run the encounters either via the VTT (although that would be hassle, having to keep each character updated on the VTT and having to make each roll yourself), or the old fashioned way via dice (and Zoom.) Although the connected players could certainly use the VTT's dice rolling function so that everyone could see their rolls on the screen.

It isn't nearly as fiddly as it sounds - it's basically just running one aspect of the game (the maps) through a VTT, and playing the rest normally. Once you do an experiment or two with the TV and laptop to get the setup and controls down, it becomes super easy.