5 ms·

These are the most common options available at the stables in Aelondar. If you’re interested in more exotic mounts or transportation methods, they may be harder

These are the most common options available at the stables in Aelondar. If you’re interested in more exotic mounts or transportation methods, they may be harder to find and come at a higher cost. ... tenzin rolled a 18 investagation looking for more exotic mounts With Tenzin’s keen eye for detail, he notices a small, discreet stable towards the back of the market, guarded by a heavy wooden gate. As he approaches, an elderly woman, who appears to be the stable’s owner, greets him. “Ah, you have a good eye, young one,” she says with a smile. “You must be looking for something special. I do have some exotic mounts for those with discerning tastes and a willingness to pay.” Honestly, this seems like a reasonable outcome. ChatGPT says they might be hard to find, character rolls an 18, and he finds them. What do you think should have been the response? "No, you don't get to roll to search for them"? The DM set up a potential hidden item, the player rolled high enough to find it, voila. Compare to when he's trying to steal one of them. He rolls high enough stealth, but fails animal handling. To avoid being caught, he has another roll that allows him to cause chaos by opening up a stall and allowing him to escape. That all seems like a pretty well fleshed out scenario.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
fauxpause_ 4y ago
I think this is a classic baby DM script tbh. Rolling to find mounts at a vendor is dumb. You should only roll for significant challenges with meaningful differences where failure is meaningfully likely and interesting in its own right. If failing makes a situation less interesting it shouldn’t be an option. Shopping is actually the bigger problem. It’s like asking players to watch other players navigate a menu one by one. And currency doesn’t scale. A lot of campaigns start with a shopping session and then the group falls apart so you never last long enough to get to shopping session 2. Interactions with the law are also a red flag. It’s a fine possible narrative of course, but when the DM and presumably other players want to do something interesting, and another player wants to do petty or egregious and otherwise irrelevant crime… that’s annoying to everyone else. You really need to be careful about giving an opportunity for that to happen. DMing is hard
- dcow 4y ago
  Respectfully, I think you're flavoring the DM role quite a bit. The DM in my current campaign often requires checks for things even when there's no obvious downside. The implicit downside is that the character who fails has to find a new way through the situation, change strategy, etc. IMO it adds to the game to have more roles and more probability based outcomes. You have to balance letting the characters do whatever they want with some level of rails to keep the game on track.
  - fauxpause_ 4y ago
    Shrug. I think it’s a bad practice. People can have a lot of fun regardless of course. It is most “bad” for things like perception, and persuasion. In D&D specifically it creates awkward scenarios where one player is very good at things that come up all the time and has a high chance of succeeding at things unless he rolls truly terribly. In my experience players have an moment of confusion and then elation when they ask an NPC to do something, grab dice to roll persuasion, and then the DM tells them to put the dice down because the NPC just agrees with their line of thinking without a number telling them to. But yes it is all subjective.
    - dcow 4y ago
      > It is most “bad” for things like perception, and persuasion. In D&D specifically it creates awkward scenarios where one player is very good at things that come up all the time and has a high chance of succeeding at things unless he rolls truly terribly. But, what's the point of the traits in the first place if everyone is equally good at figuring stuff out and sweet talking because there are no checks? How is it awkward when one player is better than others at a specific task because of their stats? That just seems like role playing basics to me... I'm not saying you're absolutely wrong perhaps you've DM'd some campaigns where players don't like the imbalance. A good DM reads the party, of course. And I'm not saying there isn't flexibility in when a check makes sense and when it doesn't. Nobody likes things to be overbearing either. But there's got to be some reason for the stats, right? I mean the same doesn't really make sense for combat. You wouldn't generally give an enemy advantage rolling against a high AC party member just to even out the damage, would you? Otherwise AC doesn't mean anything. (Not saying you can't make up a reason for an enemy to have inspiration to try an land a hit on the tank for fun, but the idea with a higher AC is that you get hit less often.)
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
all2 4y ago
I've been pondering layering the DMGPT over a world simulation back end with character and simulation cards that prompt the AI in how it should behave. I think this might make for a more persistent and cohesive experience. It would also facilitate conversations, questing, actual relationships between NPCs, etc.
- techdragon 4y ago
  One of the reasons I’m downloading LLaMA is to toy around with this idea. If it’s any good I don’t want to be limited by ChatGPT and their API and pricing model.
fho 4y ago
> The DM set up a potential hidden item, the player rolled high enough to find it, voila. I think the point here is that the "DM" has not set this up. From how I interacted with ChatGPT, and I have roleplayed with it before, it basically "Yes, and ..."-es everything you throw at it. In general this is good GM advice, but here it is "Yes, and ..." to a point were you can basically ask for anything and it will give it to you. E.g. say the party is in a remote keep at the edge of the wildernis, the closest city is several days away. I would assume that if you ask ChatGPT to go to "the bakery" because you want some fine deserts it will gladly let you do that even though such a place does not make sense in a remote keep.
- obiefernandez 4y ago
  I think you're wrong about this. We experimented with nonsensical/cheating in other sessions and it's aware of your context and doesn't let you do stuff that you can't do. (Try it yourself and see. Quite mindblowing and defies the whole "only a super fancy markov chain" thing that some critics throw at it.)
  - fho 4y ago
    Hmm ... might be GPT4 over GPT3.5? I have not tried the former for roleplaying yet.
- obiefernandez 4y ago
  See this comment too https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35380063 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35380063

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

fauxpause_ 4y ago

I think this is a classic baby DM script tbh. Rolling to find mounts at a vendor is dumb. You should only roll for significant challenges with meaningful differences where failure is meaningfully likely and interesting in its own right. If failing makes a situation less interesting it shouldn’t be an option. Shopping is actually the bigger problem. It’s like asking players to watch other players navigate a menu one by one. And currency doesn’t scale. A lot of campaigns start with a shopping session and then the group falls apart so you never last long enough to get to shopping session 2. Interactions with the law are also a red flag. It’s a fine possible narrative of course, but when the DM and presumably other players want to do something interesting, and another player wants to do petty or egregious and otherwise irrelevant crime… that’s annoying to everyone else. You really need to be careful about giving an opportunity for that to happen. DMing is hard

dcow 4y ago
Respectfully, I think you're flavoring the DM role quite a bit. The DM in my current campaign often requires checks for things even when there's no obvious downside. The implicit downside is that the character who fails has to find a new way through the situation, change strategy, etc. IMO it adds to the game to have more roles and more probability based outcomes. You have to balance letting the characters do whatever they want with some level of rails to keep the game on track.
- fauxpause_ 4y ago
  Shrug. I think it’s a bad practice. People can have a lot of fun regardless of course. It is most “bad” for things like perception, and persuasion. In D&D specifically it creates awkward scenarios where one player is very good at things that come up all the time and has a high chance of succeeding at things unless he rolls truly terribly. In my experience players have an moment of confusion and then elation when they ask an NPC to do something, grab dice to roll persuasion, and then the DM tells them to put the dice down because the NPC just agrees with their line of thinking without a number telling them to. But yes it is all subjective.
  - dcow 4y ago
    > It is most “bad” for things like perception, and persuasion. In D&D specifically it creates awkward scenarios where one player is very good at things that come up all the time and has a high chance of succeeding at things unless he rolls truly terribly. But, what's the point of the traits in the first place if everyone is equally good at figuring stuff out and sweet talking because there are no checks? How is it awkward when one player is better than others at a specific task because of their stats? That just seems like role playing basics to me... I'm not saying you're absolutely wrong perhaps you've DM'd some campaigns where players don't like the imbalance. A good DM reads the party, of course. And I'm not saying there isn't flexibility in when a check makes sense and when it doesn't. Nobody likes things to be overbearing either. But there's got to be some reason for the stats, right? I mean the same doesn't really make sense for combat. You wouldn't generally give an enemy advantage rolling against a high AC party member just to even out the damage, would you? Otherwise AC doesn't mean anything. (Not saying you can't make up a reason for an enemy to have inspiration to try an land a hit on the tank for fun, but the idea with a higher AC is that you get hit less often.)

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

all2 4y ago

I've been pondering layering the DMGPT over a world simulation back end with character and simulation cards that prompt the AI in how it should behave. I think this might make for a more persistent and cohesive experience. It would also facilitate conversations, questing, actual relationships between NPCs, etc.

techdragon 4y ago
One of the reasons I’m downloading LLaMA is to toy around with this idea. If it’s any good I don’t want to be limited by ChatGPT and their API and pricing model.

fho 4y ago

> The DM set up a potential hidden item, the player rolled high enough to find it, voila. I think the point here is that the "DM" has not set this up. From how I interacted with ChatGPT, and I have roleplayed with it before, it basically "Yes, and ..."-es everything you throw at it. In general this is good GM advice, but here it is "Yes, and ..." to a point were you can basically ask for anything and it will give it to you. E.g. say the party is in a remote keep at the edge of the wildernis, the closest city is several days away. I would assume that if you ask ChatGPT to go to "the bakery" because you want some fine deserts it will gladly let you do that even though such a place does not make sense in a remote keep.

obiefernandez 4y ago
I think you're wrong about this. We experimented with nonsensical/cheating in other sessions and it's aware of your context and doesn't let you do stuff that you can't do. (Try it yourself and see. Quite mindblowing and defies the whole "only a super fancy markov chain" thing that some critics throw at it.)
- fho 4y ago
  Hmm ... might be GPT4 over GPT3.5? I have not tried the former for roleplaying yet.
obiefernandez 4y ago
See this comment too https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35380063 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35380063