No worries!

To be honest if you hadn’t asked, I may not have watched it myself.

The classes are introduced at 0:13:00.

Daredevil is:

an active, bouncing around the battlefield kind of martial combatant, who loves to push people, shove them around, get in over their head. Taking big risks and hoping to get big rewards.

Slayer is:

a class that is all about slaying monsters. Takes some inspiration from the PF1 slayer class but it isn’t a direct update of that…the slayer is all about marking specific quarries as a van Helsing or a Beowulf might, and then when you defeat them you can claim trophies from them to augment your weapons and armour.

I’m sure the remaining 1:36:00 tells you something about them, but that’s the core of it. They said the playtest should be available in Demiplane, Foundry, or at pathfinderplaytest.com from 9:00 am (US Pacific Time) on the 17th.

They start actually playing a game at 0:20:00.

Yeah this is V5, first published in 2018 when the term “alt-right” was current. Before they just became the mainstream right.

I don’t know if this quote is from the original release or a later revision, though. Shortly after V5’s release, White Wolf was shut down because of systemic issues. Multiple rather extreme right-wing references made their way into the original book, including Russian anti-gay purges in Chechnya and options to play as neonazis. I think there might have been allegations more directly against senior White Wolf staff.

So Paradox, the owners of White Wolf, disbanded the company of White Wolf and brought production of all World of Darkness in-house (plus contracted out to third-parties, like Renegade). Changing options to make tjen more inclusive and remove harmful ones was done during this time.

Just last year, Paradox reconstituted White Wolf under a team that had been working under Paradox’s World of Darkness team.

I’ll just say: my first RPG was 4e, a bit over a year after I started playing that, 5e came out and I immediately switched.

I’ve played a bunch of others here and there, but the next relevant one is Pathfinder 1e. I hated it. After my brief experience of that, you could not pay me to play 3.5 or PF1 again.^[1] But I switched to PF2e in 2023 after disliking the direction 5e was moving in (including but not limited to the OGL drama), and I absolutely love it. It feels like it gives me everything 5e was supposed to.

It has vancian spellcasting, which I don’t love, but have to admit at least provides more legitimate diversity than 5e’s quasi-vancian system. (With true spontaneous casters mixed with true prepared slot casters, and archetype choices that allow a more 5e-style approach, for the cost of an archetype feat.) Apart from spell slots, there isn’t much that prevents a party from keeping going forever. Healing is pretty readily accessible, and most other stuff recharges on a 10 minute rest, if not instantly. Outside of spell slots, there isn’t really any sense of attrition.

The three-action economy is a genius solution to a number of awkward design problems in 4e and 5e (and, from what I gather, 3.5/pf1). Though as a GM, I tend to be relatively generous in terms of what I count as costing an action, because RAW is a bit onerous at times (one action to get an item out of the bag, then another action to use it? Nah, no thanks. Players have a hard enough time deciding to use expendable items as it is.) 4 degrees of success is excellent and should really be the bare minimum going forward in most RPGs with a “success/fail” mechanic. And while I’m not a fan of the inevitable consequences (large numbers of weak enemies have zero chance against a party, and sandbox type worlds become impossible to run, with challenges needing to be tailored to within 2 or 3 levels of the party to be achievable), or the burden it places upon GMs (a requirement to give out a pretty specific progression of magic items, unless you use a variant rule that does away with a lot of the flavour in order to automate the maths), 2e’s maths ends up really tight, and it feels really good when you are designing challenges specifically for your party as it currently stands.

PF2e has a lot of rules for specific things, but to be honest, outside of combat I tend to do it the same way I did in 5e and 4e. As GM I see what the players are trying to do, I decide an appropriate skill and DC, and I have them roll. I rarely bother with more complicated specific rules and subsystems. This is the same reason I genuinely quite liked 4e and never had any time for people who argue things like “it should have been called D&D Tactics” or “it was only a combat game, not a roleplaying game”. I want rules to be light outside of combat.

Ah ok. So in a way it’s kind of like Pathfinder to D&D? Pretty similar mechanically (I noticed in the Drivethru page that it’s dice pool d10 skill+attribute), made by a former third-party publisher.

Being designed for crossover from the start is interesting. They’ve obviously got Vampire, Werewolf, and Mage equivalents, but I’m not sure what the Outcasts or Dead are. Wraith and Mummy? (Or vice versa?)

I also wonder about theme. Each of the WoD games have pretty strong themes. Vampire asks: what does it mean to be human? It deals with human-like political and interpersonal conflicts through the lens of the supernatural. Werewolf is about protecting nature and deals with topics like ecoterrorism vs industrialism. Mage is more esoteric and about what reality is, and how our sense of the real is created. Wraith is about death and what it means to our lives. Etc. Each game has its own unique and quite strong theming that makes it stand out from the others. Not saying that a competitor needs to have the same themes, but for me the appeal of all these is that the themes are so strong. Does Curseborne manage to keep strong themes while also enabling cross-play?

Sorry, this post is the first I’ve heard of Curseborn. What is it exactly?

I’m broadly familiar with Vampire: The Masquerade, and aware of Vampire: The Requiem as a failed attempt at rebooting/simplifying that game’s universe but I don’t really know any of the specifics.

Yeah, I have to fight the temptation not to fix typos sometimes!

The biggest thing preventing me from doing something like this is that I like having my players do a recap of the previous session, as a way to help me know what caught their attention the most/what mattered to them.

I guess you could still do this, especially if you really lean into the idea that the reporter is presenting an extremely biased/limited recap.

Well at least that means you got a couple of years of using it when others couldn’t. Not like you bought it last week!

I wonder if they’d get back to you if you explained the predicament to Paizo customer support.

Don’t thank me, thank @Andonome@lemmy.world, who created it and shared it to !rpg@ttrpg.network!

I don’t think many people will disagree with me when I say: if you’ve bought it legally already, there’s nothing immoral about getting help from Anna.

Avatar is the only PbtA system I’ve ever read (and never played or GMed any), but do systems have a significant amount of mechanics unique to each system, or is it all mostly flavour on top of the same system?

My initial reaction was confusion or intrigue, but the more I think about it, the more it makes sense.

I can definitely see that Avatar might be a system that makes sense for Star Wars. Combat is largely martial arts based, with magical ability to affect things at a distance. Plus non magic using characters (with weapons or technology) are important.

Narratively, the idea of balance is incredibly important in both worlds, and the balance mechanic is pretty core to the Avatar RPG. Three of the four core stats (focus, harmony, and passion) are super important in the existing Star Wars lore, and creativity is hardly a huge stretch to add.

omg that is so adorable. Purrsday and Pawsley Addams!

Absolute legend.

Like I told the other user, I actually very frequently don’t do true alt text, but instead write a transcription in the body of the post. I do it using the Lemmy spoiler syntax:

::: spoiler Transcription
[the transcription here]
:::

But one could also just write the transcription directly, especially if it’s relatively short and unlikely to obstruct sighted users’ experience too much.

It’s unfortunate that some apps (including the official one, Jerboa) don’t support the official “alt text” field, and they definitely should, but even the web’s alt text field is rather limited to use for full transcriptions.

Personally I often use the body to add a transcription (not to different from what I put in my comment above), rather than use true “alt text”. The main reason is that I often want to write more than the amount that feels appropriate for an alt text (including having paragraphs), but the visibility of it is an added advantage.

I don’t know if Lemmy has any plans to ever show alt text

It honestly shouldn’t be that hard. Just use both alt and title text properties, the latter of which shows up on hover, and on mobile at the top of the OS’s default long press menu.

But I do agree that the tools should be made to assist. Mastodon basically yells at users to add alt text. Pixelfed already does my suggestion of mirroring the alt text to the title text.

I could ask for nothing more.

I honestly wouldn’t have bothered commenting if not to reply to this, but since this was there, I’ll add that there is something one could ask for: alt text/transcription, for the sake of accessibility for blind and visually impaired users. It’s something I see a lot more on Lemmy than I ever did on Reddit, but we could still be a lot better at it. I always try to do it with my own image posts, and often on images in comments, but unfortunately a couple of the most prolific posters of text-based images rarely do it.

edit: here’s the bluesky post

😭