It is comical how when an OSR rules set re-uses or tweaks an OD&D or B/X mechanic, it's praised as judicious and true to the original spirit of the game. But when WotC does the same thing, it's dismissed as derivative or unnecessary. Why the double-standard, folks? I can't imagine it's because who releases a mechanic, book, or rules-set is much more important to a lot of folks in RPG geekdom than the actual content. That would be uncharitable.

Quote from: jeff37923;644458Actually, it does, because if it was not reinventing the wheel and was an improvement, then I would be still paying attention to the WotC puppet show playtest.

Wait, how would you know if something is or is not an improvement, if you admit you're not paying any attention to it?  Nobody here is arguing "all of 5e is an improvement", we're discussing a specific article...which apparently you are saying you did not read?

QuoteYou are just at a loss to articulate a rational counter-arguement. Which, in itself, is pretty sad for someone who identifies himself as a lawyer.

Counter-argument TO WHAT? Neither of them said why they objected - they just voice a blanket objection.

And gee Jeff, thanks for the needless ad-hominem attack.  And, while I am a lawyer, I don't identify myself that way (though others do).  I don't do much practice of law these days (just a handful of clients), and any time I am asked what I do for a living I answer that I run a clothing manufacturing company (and have, for years now).  

What do you do for as living, Jeff? I think you once said you ran a local game store? Is that right, and if so, how is that going?

Quote from: Haffrung;644493It is comical how when an OSR rules set re-uses or tweaks an OD&D or B/X mechanic, it's praised as judicious and true to the original spirit of the game. But when WotC does the same thing, it's dismissed as derivative or unnecessary. Why the double-standard, folks? I can't imagine it's because who releases a mechanic, book, or rules-set is much more important to a lot of folks in RPG geekdom than the actual content. That would be uncharitable.

Yeah that does seem to be what's going on here.  Well, with some.  Some object to those OSR rule set re-uses and tweaks as well.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;644453Monster Type: Keyword categorization  nonsense. 3Etard template fodder.

I fail to see why the use of keywords to help define monsters is a bad thing.

I can understand the response to 3e's abuse of templates. It was a nifty concept at first, much like prestige classes, but - as with many of 3e's concepts - rapidly got out of hand.

But keywording monster types seemed like a pretty solid idea. Makes things like a cleric's turn undead a lot clearer, don't you think?

Quote from: GnomeWorks;644507I fail to see why the use of keywords to help define monsters is a bad thing.

I can understand the response to 3e's abuse of templates. It was a nifty concept at first, much like prestige classes, but - as with many of 3e's concepts - rapidly got out of hand.

But keywording monster types seemed like a pretty solid idea. Makes things like a cleric's turn undead a lot clearer, don't you think?

Don't you understand, it's nonsense and 3etard! He need not explain beyond that.  You just have to accept it's mentally deficient in some way. Never mind that it allows for a lot of things you can use to customize your game, like speak with X, control X, summon X, track X, knowledge X, often associates with X, sort chart of monsters by X, etc..  If there is the potential to use X in a bad way, then you must assume that bad way is the only way it will be used, and not even contemplate any positive uses.

Quote from: Mistwell;644517If there is the potential to use X in a bad way, then you must assume that bad way is the only way it will be used.

Well, to be fair, a designer really should consider the ways in which something can be abused.

In 3e, creature type got sort of abused, towards the end. Templates initially were an interesting concept, but - as I said - got rapidly out of hand. Add to that the whole "X augmented Y" thing, and... ugh. And "deathless" were kinda stupid.

So there is definitely room to be concerned about it, especially since we still have Mearls at the helm, and he's not exactly known for being able to pull his head out of his ass when it comes to design.

But in general, the knee-jerk type reactions here do seem a bit unwarranted. Categorization is a useful thing. I admit that it does sort of remove some of the mystique from creatures... but honestly that cat's pretty far from the damn bag anyway, at this point, so I don't see any harm in grouping critters like this.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"

RE: "keywords"

Quote from: Piestrio;644527"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"

RE: "keywords"

So why is this consistency foolish?

I am seeing a lot of platitudes and very little reasoning.

Quote from: Mistwell;644530So why is this consistency foolish?

I am seeing a lot of platitudes and very little reasoning.

Keywords in particular, I don't have much of an opinion on the article as a whole.

They add nothing to the actual game and pigeonhole design.

They serve no function but to mechanize something better left to DM/group discretion (i.e. if you seriously need a tag "undead" to figure out if turn undead will work on a monster then god help you).

Furthermore they pidgonhole design (what keyword does this monster fit?) so you either end up adjusting a monster to fit the mechanics (compromising creativity) or endlessly multiplying keywords (defeating their origional purpose).

It's consistency for consistency's sake despite drawbacks, thus foolish.

Quote from: Haffrung;644493It is comical how when an OSR rules set re-uses or tweaks an OD&D or B/X mechanic, it's praised as judicious and true to the original spirit of the game. But when WotC does the same thing, it's dismissed as derivative or unnecessary. Why the double-standard, folks? I can't imagine it's because who releases a mechanic, book, or rules-set is much more important to a lot of folks in RPG geekdom than the actual content. That would be uncharitable.

this

If this was talking about the rules for the OSR darling of the week Overly Pretentious Copy & Paste (tm) it would be a whole different story.

Quote from: Piestrio;644533They serve no function but to mechanize something better left to DM/group discretion (i.e. if you seriously need a tag "undead" to figure out if turn undead will work on a monster then god help you).

I'll see your Oberoni Fallacy, and raise you defensive programming.

Not every DM is going to walk into the game with the background the vast majority of people here have. Not only that, but these days, new players are going to be coming in with an entirely different set of assumptions and tropes they've adjusted to, whereas - in the OD&D days - there wasn't really anything else the game could be compared to. You took its prejudices and ran with them, oftentimes - I imagine - figuring out its assumptions the hard way.

Also, Mistwell made the point more eloquently than I could - "talk with X," "protection from X," these spells are all made significantly more helpful if monsters are categorized in some fashion.

As for them being pidgeonholes... yes, that is certainly one way to see labels. Another is to recognize that things can be grouped, and separated according to various features. "These ones are large," you might say, "and these ones small." We categorize things to better understand the world. So, too, should we categorize monsters, so that we can make the rules interact with them better.

I'm really surprised there aren't Fake-Out Undead that appear to be undead in every way and respond to magical detection as undead, but are either immune or strengthened by Turn Undead because it's exactly the kind of thing I expect out of D&D.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;644545I'll see your Oberoni Fallacy, and raise you defensive programming.

Just so you know I find it hard to take anyone seriously who uses that Oberoni Fallacy nonsense line. But I'll try.

QuoteNot every DM is going to walk into the game with the background the vast majority of people here have. Not only that, but these days, new players are going to be coming in with an entirely different set of assumptions and tropes they've adjusted to, whereas - in the OD&D days - there wasn't really anything else the game could be compared to. You took its prejudices and ran with them, oftentimes - I imagine - figuring out its assumptions the hard way.

Is that such an aweful thing that every DM and group will explore the game on their own terms? Will infuse the game with their own assumptions? Will collaboratively create something unique?

Is that such a bad thing?

Or is the drive for a standardized experience so great that we need to toss out what makes RPGs unique in the first place?

QuoteAlso, Mistwell made the point more eloquently than I could - "talk with X," "protection from X," these spells are all made significantly more helpful if monsters are categorized in some fashion.

Or the group and the GM can just figure it out to their own satisfaction. It's what everyone did back in the bad old days.

Quote from: Piestrio;644552Or the group and the GM can just figure it out to their own satisfaction. It's what everyone did back in the bad old days.

This is an excuse that could be used to dislike any change at all.  Which is why I said it's some sort of orthodoxy.  "Just figure it out like we had to, back in the day" is about as weak a defense as they come.

Quote from: Mistwell;644517Don't you understand, it's nonsense and 3etard! He need not explain beyond that.  You just have to accept it's mentally deficient in some way. Never mind that it allows for a lot of things you can use to customize your game, like speak with X, control X, summon X, track X, knowledge X, often associates with X, sort chart of monsters by X, etc..  If there is the potential to use X in a bad way, then you must assume that bad way is the only way it will be used, and not even contemplate any positive uses.

This is precisely what keywording and designing RAW down to the ....nth decimal place does.