The thing is that if you don’t like it, you can modify it. If it’s better, the people you play with will be cool too.
I never understood people who hate on the RAW. Like, it’s an open concept. Make it your own. Any changes can be done at the first session, and if you have an adjustment that’s better, everyone will agree and it will catch on.
Yes! Thank you!
One Roll Engine is my obsessive small-time RPG system. I’ve always loved systems where you get to roll a heap of d10s, but more importantly it has a highly expressive and generalizable core mechanic that allows everyone to roll at once without taking turns, and attacks resolve in a dynamic fashion so that initiative order, damage, hit location, and contested rolls all happen in one roll. It’s great for gritty, fast-paced, lethal combats where you can give players a lot of freedom to get creative and stay engaged. It has great rules for easily killed mooks as well, so you can quite easily have huge numbers of enemies and allies all in one battle, and it takes far less time to resolve each turn - and a far greater proportion of that time is people talking about what they’re going to do. Reign uses ORE, and that includes rules for running companies (gangs, businesses, armies, entire countries even). I’ve used ORE variants to run occult horror, mecha, low-magic fantasy, slice of life, robot sci-fi, and more over the years. It’s a great system and I can teach 85% of what you need to play in just a few minutes.
d&d 5e is a fine system, it’s just more than i want to gm and more than my friends want to learn. so simpler systems like shadowdark or black hack are really great for us, but if your group knows d&d 5e and has fun playing it, than why the hell not just play 5e?
Exactly! Play the system everyone wants to play.
I’d love to give Shadowrun a shot at my current table, but nobody else wants it so we settled on Cyberpunk RED. I’m GM, so I can port most of the stuff I like from SR to RED. Everybody wins!
I play 5e, but:
I feel that the reason people are hating on 5e is not because the system is bad, it is almost exclusively because Wizards and Hasbro tried to fuck everyone over.
There might be certain systems that some people subjectively prefer because they do certain things in a way they prefer, but that literally doesn’t matter, that is subjective. DnD5e is practically a house name at this point. It is popular and well regarded, especially by new players. Anyone who wants to make the claim that the system is bad will have bang their subjective arguments against the steel wall that is its popularity.
So that is to say… the reason to not play 5e is because it’s important to punish WotC and Hasbro, and it’s important to support rising publishers.
alexanderthedead@lemmy.world said in A lesson so many need to learn: > Anyone who wants to make the claim that the system is bad will have bang their subjective arguments against the steel wall that is its popularity.
Yes, but this is a thing that people want to do. They want to try and dent that popularity, and they want to shift some of it towards their own preferences. It doesn’t matter that it’s a subjective opinion on what is better or what is bad, it doesn’t feel subjective to the person interjecting.
They believe their preferred game is better, they probably have had this discussion numerous times with people who have ignored them or chewed them out for trying to evangelize, and they are infinitely frustrated that others won’t see the light.
People who leave popular things behind for niche things often just have this habit of having to bury the thing they left behind. It can’t be good. The new thing is better, but the new thing is better both because it is better, and also because the old thing was just objectively bad.
People do this with a lot of things. TV shows, ice cream flavours, toys they used to play with as kids. There’s a sense of shame attached to having liked the old thing, not just a sense of joy of having found the new one. It’s one of the reasons the people they evangelize to get so defensive: They can sense that they are being judged.
Your formatting broke btw
Oh! Dread is fantastic at the thing it is good at, which is horror one-shot sessions. The rules are incredibly lightweight, which makes it nice for people who have never played and RPG before or people who just want to jump into a story. By using a real, physical Jenga tower as the mechanic everyone can see the tension building up as the story goes on and the crash always provides a good jump scare. Then there is a tension break as the tower is rebuilt but goes up again as the initial pulls for missing party members happen. I also love the 20 questions style character creation, which lets people put as much or as little work into it as they want, doesn’t get bogged down in mechanics which break immersion, and lets the GM really surprise them with difficult dilemmas.
dread is awesome, sacrificing oneself by causing an explosion to collapse a mine shaft full of giant spiders and toppling that tower is one of the coolest things i’ve seen on a table.
There are systems like Blades in the Dark that bypass all the planning phases and just let players jump into the interesting parts of the story. Better yet, it has mechanics to support this kind of play.
“Simulation” type RPGs can be done on computers these days with much more detailed and satisfying tactical combat, but narrative-focused games that play more like an episodic show is where the really interesting TTRPG stuff is happening in my opinion.
When it come to more traditional RPGs, I really like Pathfinder 2E for the following reasons:
- It scales very well from level 1-20. The math just works
- Encounter design and balancing is easy for the busy GM
- All of the classes are good, there aren’t any trap classes
- Teamwork is highly encouraged through class and ability design
- Degrees of success/failure
- Easy, free access to the rules
- The ORC license
- https://pathbuilder2e.com/
- Pathfinder Society Organized play is very well done and well supported by Paizo
- Women wear reasonable armor
- The rune system for magic weapons/armor
- And so many more
Plus, I don’t know any other system that lets me pull my intestines out of my abdomen and use them like a lasso to climb a cliff when I forgot my rope at home.
The biggest “con” to PF2 is that it is decidedly not 5e, and people expecting it to work like 5e will have a bad time. AC generally hangs within 1 or 2 points for the entire party at a specific level, same for enemies. It is rarely a good idea to just walk up to the enemy and face tank them. Moving around is big for survivability. Synergy with other party members can be huge too. Sometimes that thing you can do doesn’t sound like a big buff or debuff, but if several party members are doing complementary buffs/debuffs it can turn the tide.
Plus, I don’t know any other system that lets me pull my intestines out of my abdomen and use them like a lasso to climb a cliff when I forgot my rope at home.
Nitpick: more narrative systems like Fate let you do this, but then you typically don’t get a lot of crunch. Plus it can vary if your group isn’t on the same wavelength about what’s cool and appropriate for the story.
The synergy part is so huge. PF2 is very strongly based around making your party as awesome as possible instead of just making your character individually powerful, which I think trips up a lot of people coming from other systems or video games.
OMG yes. I was trying to figure out how to say that but couldn’t put it into words, but you perfectly put together what I was thinking.
It definitely trips up people who usually just look at RPGBot to build their characters out from levels 1 - 20 before the first session. That’s how I made my build choices, and it was a pretty significant stumbling block for me when I made the switch.
The blue options aren’t always the best options, because the best options depend on what everyone else is doing.
- Encounter design and balancing is easy for the busy GM
- Teamwork is highly encouraged through class and ability design
ngl, you’re selling it.
Anything that improves combat is a win in my book. I’ve switched to Cyberpunk RED, and I’m discovering that good combat is hard to make in either system, but encouraging teamwork is a nice way to take a little load off the GM.
The bestiary is also really good (and free!). There are thousands of enemies, most of which have solid gimmicks that tell you straight from the stat block how you can best run the creature. And the they’re balanced to the same levels as players, so encounter power budgets are very intuitive.
The game gets a bit of a bad rap for having “nitpicky” rules, but people often seem to fail to recognize that the rules are spelling out how people already usually resolve things, rather than introducing something novel. It’s written in a very systematized way, and people aren’t used to reading about their intuitive experiences in systematized language.
The game’s broader community’s obsession with rules orthodoxy doesn’t help…
thousands of enemies, most of which have solid gimmicks that tell you straight from the stat block how you can best run the creature
That’s exactly what I want. I spent so much time looking at https://www.themonstersknow.com/ when DMing 5e. I like encounter design, but I feel like I had to work hard to make it passable, rather than work hard to make it excellent.
It’s with noting that the adventure paths and Paizo one-shots are also all very well-written (from the perspective of a novice GM). I’ve sat down with a group of 11yo kids after giving the adventure a 15-minute glance and been able to run a pretty decent session with next to no prep time.
I’ve also found that it’s really easy to convert D&D 3.x and PF1 modules to the system. Not so easy that thought and care doesn’t need to be put into it, but most creatures are based off of the 3e monsters, and there’s a similar philosophy of DC adjustments. So, you get both Paizo’s catalogue of well designed adventure books, as well as a massive back catalogue of classic favourites that you can dig out for a relatively modest effort.
That sounds great!
I ended up using a remix of the 5e Waterdeep: Dragonheist module because it really didn’t work for me. It would be a nice change to use a well-written module.
I’ve Cyberpunk RED’s Tales of the RED to be hit or miss. Some adventures are great, but many are meh.
If you’re looking to run a cyberpunk setting with Pathfinder, I’d recommend checking out Starfinder 2e. It’s currently wrapping up playtesting, and will be out in late July. It uses the core PF2 rules and is fully compatible with them, but a new set of classes, ancestorys and equipment for a science fantasy setting. If I ever run Shadowrun again I’ll probably use Starfinder as the rules.
Neat! Thanks for mentioning that.
For me it’s the 3 actions per turn. So much nicer to still have a turn even after I rolled an attacked and missed.
How did I forget to put that on my list? I love not worrying about action types and if I can do this action as this other kind of action. I just have to count to three.
I looked into playing briefly but it seemed more complicated and confusing than 5e which my players can already barely handle.
I’d argue it’s not more complex, just different. Once you play 3 action combat you’ll never want to go back.
People get intimidated by the depth of PF2e, but just remember that DnD5e/N is also a fairly complex system where you only reference specific rules when you need to, same as PF2e. The advantage is that PF2e is (in my opinion) more cohesive and better covers edge cases.
The downside of PF2 is if you try to engage with the core of the online community with this “rules for if I want/need them” attitude, someone will come out of the shadows to shank you.
There’s a rabid “by the rules, and all the rules” cohort within the community, and they are pretty effective at chasing new players away.
I’ve always felt the community was extremely kind and welcoming, personally. The publisher even goes out of their way to support and represent LGBTQ+ in their official worldbuilding.
There’s always going to be elitists in every hobby of course, they do exist in PF2e as well. But it’s not the majority by any stretch.
I don’t know. My experience with the community has been a lot of people yelling “You’re playing my fantasy XCOM board game wrong. You should probably play a rules-light game,” and no one stepping up to challenge them.
Hmmm, I’m very sorry to hear that, honestly. I’d say the average PF2e player takes it a bit more seriously than the average DnD5e/N player, but not a whole lot.
Perhaps it’s the part of the community you engaged with? Obviously every forum/chat server is going to have it’s own flavor. The older communities that started with PF1e and still focus there are going to be more elitist in general just because of how PF1e came to be and it’s target audience. But PF2e is much more widely targeted.
Discord isn’t free, private, or open source, but it does host several great PF2e communities I participate in if you’d like a recommendation. But if you are just sharing your personal experience and aren’t looking for a “solution”, that’s totally valid and I completely respect that.
I’d argue DnD is no different and we only see it less because half the DnD player base is busy home brewing Pathfinder content into 5e
Fair. I definitely haven’t engaged with the 5e community to the same extent I have with the PF2 one. I never became a special interest to me the way Pathfinder has.
I haven’t seen a lot of that, but what I have seen comes down to organized play vs home games. The online community has a very strong organized play culture, which requires closely adhering to RAW and fairly strict guidelines for play in order to keep the ability to jump and character into any table of a random session. I’ve found that being clear about if this is a Society game or a home game helps to avoid those misunderstandings.
Any play podcast recs? Maybe listening to a few games will give me a better sense than just reading.
Hells Rebels on the Find the Path Presents feed. Hands down.
If you like a little more silly/lewd Glass Cannon campaign 2 is a lot of fun.
Mortals & Portals is very good. They made the decision to use PF2e like 2 weeks before they started recording, and learned the game on the fly. Sometimes they trip over the rules, but they also illustrate how to fail forward in that regard.
They also run it as a Theatre of the Mind game, which a lot of people will try to convince you isn’t really feasible. They fease it just fine, so I like it as an example.
Narrative Declaration also has several campaigns on YouTube. Rotgrind and Rotgoons are campaigns set in a gritty homebrew world. They had an aborted Abomination Vaults campaign that started off with the game’s beginner box. They’re currently running Rusthenge, which is a different beginner’s adventure. They also have a series of “teaching Pathfinder 2e to VTubers” campaigns, which… They’re good, but they’re just the beginner’s box over and over again, with different cartoon variety streamers. They use Foundry, and play gridded combat.
I think that the perceived complexity, particularly for people coming from 5e comes down to two issues.
There’s A Rule For That 5E leaves a lot of things to GM fiat, while in Pathfinder there is probably a specific rule. Now, the rule is going to be the same systemic rule that is used everywhere else and probably be the way you’d want to resolve it anyway, but there mere existence of the rule makes it seem like there is a lot of complexity.
Close, But Not Quite Because 5e and PF2 have a lot in common, players with a lot of 5e experience will assume that something works the same way as in 5e when it doesn’t. This can lead to gameplay feeling like walking in a field of rakes. I ran into this with a new player who had listened to a lot of 5e podcasts and picked up some 5e rules that they tried to use, like attacks of opportunity.
FWIW, I’ve been running a game with a group of new players, most of whom have never played an RPG before and they seem to be handling it fairly well. Well, once I talked with the person who listened to all of the 5e podcasts.
Exactly this.
The game’s rules are, mostly, simple, intuitive, consistent, and predictable. In fact, the rules very often seem to follow from the fiction presented at the table! Sometimes, they do it too well, even – I’ve seen people complain about Trip being Athletics vs Reflex rather than Acrobatics or Fortitude, but as someone who’s taken judo and karate lessons, Athletics vs Reflex is 100% right.
The rules follow the fiction at the table, and that means 9 times out of 10, if you know the fiction being presented, you can just ask for the roll that makes sense to you. No need to look anything up.
The game is also moderately systematized, and functional. That is, a lot of what 5e DMs would just treat as “roll skill against DC” is formalized into an “Action” with a concrete name. These actions act like mathematical or programming functions, in that they can take parameters. So, it’s not “Trip”, it’s “Trip (Athletics)”. If your character comes out of left field and does something acrobatic, or even magical, that I think would cause a creature to stumble and fall, then I will leverage “Trip (Acrobatics)” or “Trip (Arcana)”, which now makes it an Acrobatics or Arcana roll vs Reflex. This means “Trip (x)” is actually “Roll x vs Reflex. On a success, the target falls prone, on a… etc.”
Super flexible, and super intuitive. But formalized, and only presented with the default option, so it looks both complicated and rigid.
I started running the game for 8 year olds, though, and they picked it up very quickly. I do my best to run sessions totally in-fiction, but that honestly gets broken every other turn or so.
Without saying anything negative about D&D 5e, let me tell you about two of my personal favorites:
The Dark Eye
Under the name “Das Schwarze Auge”, this is one of the most popular systems in Germany and has existed since the mid 80s and the latest edition has been available in English for about a decade now. There are dozens of source books and hundreds of official campaigns and standalone adventures, all set in the same world and a single ongoing canon (apart from a few early works that have been retconned). There are decades of detailed in-world history that you can use as a background for your own campaign if you want or selectively ignore if you want to focus on your own interpretation of what the world should look like.
Mechanics-wise it’s a lot less board-game-like than some 70s/80s/90s systems while not going the full “storytelling first” route that many more moderns systems seem to prefer. On top of the eight basic attributes, characters can select from a pool of skills and feats that cover everything from combat to magic to social interaction to crafts and hobbies. The system focuses a lot less on combat than other high fantasy systems and it’s absolutely viable to have a group of purely social-focused characters that never get into a single fight but still get to use a lot of the system’s mechanics.
Overall it’s relatively complex if you want to use absolutely every rule but at the same time very versatile and can be customized to your playstyle.
Opus Anima / Opus Anima Investigation
Sadly out of print and never officially translated to English so I’ll focus on the one thing that works without the official setting: it’s one of the simplest systems I’ve ever seen. It uses a pool of D2s (odd/even on D6, coins, red/black cards, whatever you have on hand) where the number of dice is determined by a basic attribute and a skill that can be combined however the situation requires. Dexterity + mechanics to build something, perception + mechanics to recognize a mechanism, knowledge + mechanics to understand the underlying principles or remember who invented something. To avoid experienced characters failing an easy check out of pure bad luck, everything over 10 dice is not rolled but gives half a success (rounded up) automatically. That’s it. That’s the whole system.
Thank you for writing about Das Schwarze Auge. It’s such a great game and world.
For anyone (thinking about) playing The Dark Eye:
Check out the character manager/creator Optolith, it’s wonderful!
Oh yeah, big shoutout to @elyukai@mastodon.social and the whole team for creating the best ttrpg software I‘ve ever used.
I absolutely live The Dark Eye in every aspect except for its combat! About half of my campaigns are run in that system and I absolutely love the amount of customization it allows for your characters.
I was recently introduced to Death in Space.
Things that I like about it:
- it’s a simple system
- it’s got cool lore (the universe is dying, aberrations are infiltrating the local solar system, all ships and technology is scavenged)
- it’s got some overlapping mechanics with 5e, which makes introducing it simple (advantage, d20 checks, etc)
- it’s got some nice rules for ship combat, space walks, etc
- combat turns are basically just go next if you have something, then the enemies do their thing, and players coordinate on whatever works best for them
My fiancé was running it, but lost the time to continue running it. I might take over with my own group soon.
People are very bad at explaining what they like about things, because usually they like things in contrast to things they don’t like. And people who do identify what they like positively often just get told that their input isn’t welcome, either.
The problem isn’t whether someone is focusing on negative aspects of what you’re playing or the positive aspects of what they are, it’s that discussions about minority systems are often just puked up onto people who weren’t asking. The conversation is often:
“Hey, how can I do [thing] in [game I’m playing]?”
“[Game you’re playing] sucks at [thing]/isn’t designed for [thing]. You should play [something else].”
“But I like [game I’m playing], and don’t want to convert to a whole new system.”
This means not only is the asker’s question being totally ignored, but they’re being hit with – sometimes even bombarded by – value judgements they weren’t interested in.
This is called the X/Y problem. You ask “how do I use X to do Y”, and the answer is you don’t. You don’t even want to. You want to do Y, and just assumed that X is how you’d do it. So the answer might actually be “don’t use X.”
To some people, they see your question as “How can I do [thing] in [game that does not do thing]?” Since they see it as an inherently flawed question, they try to fix your root issue and explain how to do [thing]. It’s not the answer you wanted, but it might be the one you need.
I will admit, some people just like to shit on [game you’re playing], and will take every opportunity to hype up [game they’re playing]. But just as often, I see people defending [game they’re playing] just because they’re already playing it. And there is no harm in playing multiple games.
I have a game on my shelf built for pure fight scenes that can’t do downtime (Panic at the Dojo), and a game built for wholesome slice-of-life that doesn’t let you do combat (Golden Sky Stories). They simply cannot do what the other does, and I wouldn’t like either of them as much if they did.
The thing is, this applies much less firmly to an imagination game where you can easily bolt on a sub-system to do that one thing you wanted to do differently than, say, if someone wants to beat in a screw with a hammer.
And yes, maybe there are people who want to gut their whole game and rebuild it from scratch for some reason, just because they really love sailing on their ship of Thesus, and would be better served by trying a new system. But if they don’t want to do that, someone trying to redirect the conversation in that direction are going to be viewed as hostile and smug, not helpful.
I have seen people try to add systems to D&D to let them play Dragon Age within the system. I have then turned my head to the left and looked at the Dragon Age RPG on my shelf. If you want to play Dragon Age as a TTRPG, I’ll tell you the easiest way to do that. No gutting, no retrofitting, no ship of Theseus…
If you see that as hostile, that’s on you.
It’s not on them, though. They didn’t ask if there was a Dragon Age RPG, they asked if they could play Dragon Age in D&D.
Those are different questions.
And here’s the thing. You can’t really tell them “no”, because they know it’s an imagination game where the rules are whatever the table decides upon. They’re not asking if, they are asking how.
Like, there are ways to reditect people, but just ignoring their question to jump straight to their underlying problem when they don’t acknowledge that solution doesn’t open them up to listening. It shuts them down, it makes them defensive, and it ultimatelt makes them hostile to your suggestions.
That’s not “on them”, because that’s a “you’re kind of shit at communicating” problem.
See, that’s the point of the XY problem. They asked the wrong question.
Playing Dragon Age in D&D simply would not work. Even after a significant amount of effort, you’d either end up with something entirely unlike Dragon Age or something that barely resembles D&D. So I have to tell them “no” or I’m lying. And if someone stops listening and considers me hostile because I’m not willing to lie to them, then it’s absolutely on them.
They didn’t ask the wrong question, though. You’re seeing a solution they do not want and do not care about then blaming them for not listening to the unsolicited advice.
The problem isn’t on their end.
No, they definitely asked the wrong question. If they ask “how can I do [thing]”, it assumes it’s possible to do [thing]. But if they can’t do [thing], the question is invalid, and there is no correct answer.
Honestly, the way you put it, it’s like they don’t actually want to fix the problem. They just want their solution to be right. Anyone who doesn’t tell them what they want to hear is the REAL problem, even if what they want to hear is a lie.
Do you want me to lie?
My current DM despises 5e
I think it’s because 3.5 offers such a ludicrous bag of dickfuckery for the GM to employ at their leisure it’s literally like hanging out with someone who insists on cleaning their guns with company over.
I just want to play cyberpunk red again.
We’re RPG player, we have a long tradition of trolling each others, AD&D player will tell that Vampire is the opposite of a RPG while WOD player will reply that AD&D is a boardgames and that it misses the role play element to be called RPG.
But all this trolling tend to be all fun, and not many people would straight up refuse D&D game (even I, play it like once a decade, there is so many other game out there and so few time)
I know I straight up refuse to play pathfinder because until this thread I’ve never seen anyone ever recommend Pathfinder without actively shitting on dnd. If I did then maybe I’d have tried it some point in the past few years. Taken up the many offers to play in a pathfinder game. But I hard refuse everytime. If they just said how pathfinder does stuff better, that’d be fine. But it always devolves into what dnd does worse and the endless nitpicking and complaints. No longer is pathfinder the focus. The focus becomes bitching about everyone under the sun that dnd does to the point pathfinder doesn’t even get mentioned anymore. It’s not what it does better. Every convo I’ve seen isn’t about how good pathfinder is but how bad dnd is and that level of negativity being focused on constantly just to recommend you play their game instead has always made my skin crawl. Should stand on its merits, not its competitions failures. If you can’t do that then I’m not sure what the point of it is other than “HAHA DND GET FUCKED”
Modern iterations? Daggerheart. Full stop. 🤷🏼♂️
I’m partial to Fate.
It’s very open. You don’t have to worry about looking up the right class or feats. You just describe what you want to play, and if the group thinks it’s cool and a good fit for the story, you’re basically done.
Now, the downside is this requires a lot more creativity up front. A blank page can be intimidating.
I like that players have more control over the outcome. You can usually get what you want, even if you roll poorly, but it’s more of a question of what you’re willing to pay for it.
Every roll will be one of
- succeed with style
- succeed
- a lesser version of what you want
- succeed at a minor cost
- succeed at a major cost
- (if you roll badly and don’t want to pay any costs) fail, don’t get what you want
It’s a lot more narrative power than some games give you. I don’t like being completely submissive to the DM, so I enjoy even as a player being able to pitch “ok I’m trying to hack open this terminal… how about as a minor cost I set off an alarm?” or “I’m trying to steal his keys and flubbed the roll… How about as a major cost I create a distraction, get the keys, but drop my backpack by accident. Now I’m disarmed, have no tools, and they can probably trace me with that stuff later. But I got the keys!”.
It’s more collaborative, like a writer’s room, so if someone proposes a dud solution the group can work on it.
The math probability also feels nice. You tend to roll your average, so there’s less swinginess like you’ll get in systems rolling one die.
The dungeon master can do whatever the fuck they feel like. It’s their game. These systems are suggestions, inspiration, not law. I don’t get why people get so hung up on the particular rules of some edition
the games i like allow the players to have collaboration in storytelling and worldbuilding as part of the game mechanics (e.g. fabula points in Fabula Ultima)
in general, i agree. it’s just a game and more often than not the system encourages you to tweak it to fit your group. however, i feel like there are times when people fight against the system by trying to hack it apart and rebuild it in their image. while i don’t directly discourage this, sometimes this is done at a detriment and without consideration for balance or fun. if you like the changes you’ve made to your favorite system, and it works well at the table, then keep doing that. but if you’re looking for ways to trim the fat, or like the ideas but not the mechanics, then there are so many more options to choose from than monolithic popular game.
i think it’s okay to point out to people that there are systems that already exist that solves their specific problems. that’s more than likely why they exist in the first place. and this goes especially for those who are new to ttrpgs in general, as there are lots of fantastic options for introducing people to the scene. i readily encourage people to try new things and experience how different systems make changes to the formula to fit their purpose.
speaking purely as a gm, and this is my personal preference, i don’t want to fight a system to make it do what i want. if it doesn’t, and that’s a detriment to my personal playstyle, then it’s likely not the system for me. i’m not married to any one set of rules, nor do i want more work to make any one system solve all my problems. if someone else wants to do that, finds enjoyment in that, and does it well, then more power to them.
I’m actually planning a twoshot of DC20 next week. So hopefully I will be able to do just that.
From everything I’ve been reading I’ve liked quite a bit, hopefully it works just as well in practice.
