Oh wait, TCO hates it?

MAN 5E IS THE BEST GAME EVER!

Quote from: thedungeondelver;677904Oh wait, TCO hates it?

MAN 5E IS THE BEST GAME EVER!

I'm never quite sure whether I like D&D Next because of the rules et al. or simply because of the buthurt and weeping that surronds it on pro 4E forums. Thinking about it; it is actually more of the latter!

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;677897How is that storywank?  That's how I do things all the time.  It's the players rolling the dice and the GM interpreting the results.  Just because there's not a set DC doesn't mean that it's "storywank."

Player: I want to break down the door.
DM: Roll a Strength test.
Player: I got a seventeen.
DM: Okay, you break down the door easily.

vs.

Player: I got a six.
DM: You thump the door but you can't break it open.

vs.

Player: I got an eleven.
DM: The door creaks and groans as you kick it.  It's not down yet, but you can roll again next round with advantage.

Omg storygamezzzzzzzzzz.

Yeah, I agree with you.  I've been playing more than 30 years myself, and it's not uncommon for us to look at a die roll without having a hard fast "make it or miss it" line drawn, but instead we interpret the die result much in the same way you just described.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;677899What they need to realize is that their "D&D for everybody" goal is what is bringing 5E down. "Everybody" involves groups of people with multiple mutually exclusive needs and desires who can't be reasonably served by a single game.

They either need to make a single, smaller game and commit to it being "what D&D is going to be going forward" or start thinking about multiple D&D lines.

For once you're right.  Anything 4e related needs to get shitcanned, for two reasons:

a) 4e was the least "D&D" of all versions.  Might be a good game on it's own in a vacuum, but for the brand and history of what makes D&D D&D?  Sucked balls.  If you don't like D&D, don't play it.  But don't try to make it into a whole other game and shit in the face of all those thousands of people who do like D&D

b) it was, by WoTC's own admission, a failure.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;677897How is that storywank?  That's how I do things all the time.  It's the players rolling the dice and the GM interpreting the results.  Just because there's not a set DC doesn't mean that it's "storywank."

Player: I want to break down the door.
DM: Roll a Strength test.
Player: I got a seventeen.
DM: Okay, you break down the door easily.

vs.

Player: I got a six.
DM: You thump the door but you can't break it open.

vs.

Player: I got an eleven.
DM: The door creaks and groans as you kick it.  It's not down yet, but you can roll again next round with advantage.

Omg storygamezzzzzzzzzz.

The lament of those who can't assign odds prior to the success roll.

Without knowing what is needed prior to rolling there are is no objective success or failure, merely a grey area that sloshes around, ebbing and flowing according to what the GM wants to happen, i.e. storygaming.

QuoteOriginally Posted by thecasualoblivion
Early on in 5E's development I came to the conclusion that they were designing the game for people who wanted a game similar to AD&D, but not AD&D itself. A modernized AD&D. Nothing 5E has done has changed that conclusion.

Couldn't it be said that 3E was a game for people who wanted something similar to AD&D but not AD&D itself? Contrary to revisionist history, AD&D wasn't some kind of poisoned brand. People who didn't like AD&D wouldn't have been interested in 3E in the first place.

Now, 3E did develop a very different play culture and play modes than AD&D - mainly the character optimization metagame. But that wasn't really the intent of the designers, or part of the initial appeal of 3E.

And it's perfectly understandable why WotC could see the market appeal of a modernized take on the most commercially successful iteration of the game. Their real gamble is over how much of the success of the 3E was from selling books to guys who spend their Friday nights mapping out their Drow Ranger/Assassin/Sorcerors to level 20.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;677915The lament of those who can't assign odds prior to the success roll.

Without knowing what is needed prior to rolling there are is no objective success or failure, merely a grey area that sloshes around, ebbing and flowing according to what the GM wants to happen, i.e. storygaming.

That is a ridiculous leap in logic.  The DM is not changing what happens based on what he desires; he is interpreting the die roll.  You don't need to have a hard rule or DC for everything.  That's videogame logic.

Quote from: Haffrung;677916Couldn't it be said that 3E was a game for people who wanted something similar to AD&D but not AD&D itself? Contrary to revisionist history, AD&D wasn't some kind of poisoned brand. People who didn't like AD&D wouldn't have been interested in 3E in the first place.

Now, 3E did develop a very different play culture and play modes than AD&D - mainly the character optimization metagame. But that wasn't really the intent of the designers, or part of the initial appeal of 3E.

And it's perfectly understandable why WotC could see the market appeal of a modernized take on the most commercially successful iteration of the game. Their real gamble is over how much of the success of the 3E was from selling books to guys who spend their Friday nights mapping out their Drow Ranger/Assassin/Sorcerors to level 20.

I'd say the answer is both, and I'd also say that 5E is only doing a good job catering to one side of things.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;677922That is a ridiculous leap in logic.  The DM is not changing what happens based on what he desires; he is interpreting the die roll.

Die roll. Tea leaves. Goat entrails. Whatever.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;677922You don't need to have a hard rule or DC for everything.  That's videogame logic.

Agreed. Some tasks don't require a roll at all. Some actions can succeed based on the cleverness with which they are executed.

Without knowing what is needed prior to the roll, how does the GM know what success is? Does the required number go up if Bob drank the last coke? Does is get lower if Dave is on fire tonight and you want his awesome streak to continue?

This is the same issue as ignoring the unwanted results of die rolls rolled into a package of greater acceptance because the fudging is done on the other end of the roll.

QuoteWithout knowing what is needed prior to the roll, how does the GM know what success is?

He eyeballs it.

QuoteDoes the required number go up if Bob drank the last coke? Does is get lower if Dave is on fire tonight and you want his awesome streak to continue?

That sounds like bad DMing, which no amount of rules will fix.  There's a reason the game comes with suggested DCs along with the advice to eyeball it.

I am pretty sure Exploderwizard, in his decades of gaming, had made DM interpretations on the fly in the context of dice rolls.

I think he's just being pissy for being pissy's sake at this point.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;677957I am pretty sure Exploderwizard, in his decades of gaming, had made DM interpretations on the fly in the context of dice rolls.

I think he's just being pissy for being pissy's sake at this point.

I freely admit to doing so in the distant past. Thats why I know about the kind of stuff that can creep into your judgement in the split second you are eyeballing something.

Quote from: 1989;677163Progress? In an RPG?

RPGs are games, you tool, not computers. They don't evolve like hardware. You choose a game based on whether you think it's fun or not.

Mark the date and time.  I am agreeing wholeheartedly with 1989.  I shall consult the star charts and confirm an unusual alignment of the planets.

Quote from: Haffrung;677890However, they do seem to be backtracking on that principle with the last couple packets. I'm concerned that Next will be designed for whoever shouts loudest in the final weeks of the playtest.

I wish people would realise that these are play TEST packets. They're testing stuff. I don't quite understand how anyone cannot understand that. They're not only testing the core game, they're testing the modular aspects of it as well. That means to some people it appears clunky. The designers, however, know what is and isn't part of the core and modular versions and how everything can, does, doesn't, won't, could, maybe fit together at the end.

The idea that each packet represents the final product or that even there is some sort of progression from one packet to another rather than each packet being seen as an individual test scenario, is kinda silly.

...says the poster who declared D&Dnext was the " most comprehensive Single-volume rpg"...

Quote from: TristramEvans;678078...says the poster who declared D&Dnext was the " most comprehensive Single-volume rpg"...

You just can't let that go, can you. Do you still suck on your mother's teat?