A "Why Oh Why" RPG Thread [+]

[Davies]

Why oh why do so many people prefer "psionic" to "psychic"?

 

[johndesmarais]

Why oh why do so many people prefer "psionic" to "psychic"?

Because 'psionic' sounds exotic and 'psychic' makes people think of the Psychic Readers Network.

 

[Gradine]

Why oh why do so many people prefer "psionic" to "psychic"?

Tradition. And Gygax. But I repeat myself.

Etymologically, it was first coined to give a more scientific name to the study of the paranormal (-onic as in electronic). Never really gained traction outside of the sci-fi genre, however.

 

[johndesmarais]

To expand a bit on my previous post...

I think the real potential for ChatGPT in gaming, right now at least, is not as a GM but as a GM aid. Things like,

"Come up with a D&D 5e statblock for a CR 10 scorpion-like monster that guards treasure in the desert."

"Give me an idea for a fantasy roleplaying adventure for a group travelling into a mountainous area."

ChatGPT's first answer isn't likely to be great. Heck, its first five answers (as you make clarifying questions) might not be great. But at a minimum, it'll give you enough of an idea to get the mental juices flowing. You'll think, "No, no, no! Not like that, like this!" and you're off to the races.

Why oh why does ChatGPT want my phone number in order to create a login?

 

[Davies]

Tradition. And Gygax. But I repeat myself.

That particular one is ironic, because it's from Gygax that I learned that latter definition. (He rants a bit about it in Dangerous Journeys as the reason he uses "psychogenic" ... but I digress.)

 

[James Gasik]

Why oh why is it so hard to have a good Session Zero?

I've tried this from both sides of the screen. You get the group together, you give them the elevator pitch for the game, share the house rules. Someone asks "who is healer?" Someone else might ask "who is melee?". And suddenly everyone is sharing their character, built without any further input from the rest of the group! I've tried to stress I don't now how many times that "party creation" is even more important than "character creation", but if synergies happen, it seems almost by accident that they do!

 

[The Shadow]

Why oh why is it so hard to have a good Session Zero?

Try requiring each PC to already know at least one of the others. Ask them how they know each other and how they feel about their prior interactions.

Or heck, sometimes it's fun to have them all come from the same small village! "You've known each other your whole lives. What made you decide to adventure together?"

That won't necessarily lead them to create a balanced party, but it has a way of getting them to think as a team.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Why oh why is it so hard to have a good Session Zero?

i'd say the most obvious answer to me is that they simply don't need to coordinate their characters like they needed to in earlier editions, characters are well rounded enough to not immediately fail outside of their class' specific niche and the adventures are flexible enough to not require a specific class as the solution to a given problem, a party of four wizards is a viable party in 5e whereas in earlier editions they probably would have been reduced to salsa by the first pack of goblins they encountered, you don't need the designated cleric pumping out heals and the fighter up front tanking the hits for the rogue and the wizard, so the players can all just design the character they want in session 0 and figure that it'll all work out whatever they bring to the table.

 

[Emoshin]

Why oh why is the next edition of D&D codenamed OneD&D?

Has WoTC revealed any clue as to what the "One" part means? Is it going be modular, like WoTC used to talk about in the days of D&D Next? Or is it going to be "One" united multi-media ecosystem? Or we just don't know?

 

[Jer]

Why oh why is the next edition of D&D codenamed OneD&D?

Has WoTC revealed any clue as to what the "One" part means? Is it going be modular, like WoTC used to talk about in the days of D&D Next? Or is it going to be "One" united multi-media ecosystem? Or we just don't know?

I don't think WotC has revealed anything other than a general desire for everyone who thinks of "D&D" to think they're included whenever Wizards is talking about D&D (there may be different different editions, but it's all "one game" is definitely a thing I've heard someone say, possibly Jeremy Crawford?). But the obvious answer to this one for me is because the branding is there to pre-emptively stop people from calling it "sixth edition" - they really want people who have invested in 5e to keep playing the game as they change things around and so they don't want the language around the upcoming release to preemptively turn into an edition war and schism the wonderfully large new player base they've built up.

(This contrasts with previous edition shifts where a new edition coincided with a nadir in sales for the previous edition. So advertising the game as "new and improved" was a way to draw players who had wandered away back to check out the changes.)