TheRPGSite

I don't know how many people have been keeping up with these; but this weeks has taken a break from the usual catalog of monsters to ask for feedback on how various terms in the Monster Manual should be defined.

http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4wand/20130409#85986

Poll results are here:
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4wand/20130416#86092 (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4wand/20130416#86092)

This actually looks pretty promising, I'd say.

I love the terrain stuff (I've always loved that stuff), and like little things like how settled terrain can be woodlands as well as clear farmland frex (and settled woodland =/= wilderness forest).

The monster categories seem fine.

Like that the classic Planes look like they're making a return! Screw "Feywild" and all that unimaginative nonsense, the Great Wheel rocks!

I like the treasure table idea ("pouch", "chest" etc) too, sounds really neat!

Thus, for me, decidedly a ":)"

I think the two things that will turn me off from 5E will be:

Buy Martial Power# 1-5, buy Players handbook 1-5, etc....

and

Clunky game mechanics that slow down play.



If they promise not to do either of the above I will give 5E a serious chance.

Reinventing the wheel, part 2434234232.

Quote from: Benoist;644386Reinventing the wheel, part 2434234232.

Ding.

Quote from: Benoist;644386Reinventing the wheel, part 2434234232.

Improving on the wheel, trying to go from wooden to rubber wheels, and perhaps some shocks to absorb some bumps from the road.

Or does the Orthodox Temple of Gygax forbid variance from the one true word?

Is it just me or was there no L&L this week?

I miss the weekly whining.

Quote from: Piestrio;644410Is it just me or was there no L&L this week?

I miss the weekly whining.

Yeah, Mike Mearls is on holiday after PAX.

Quote from: Mistwell;644408Improving on the wheel, trying to go from wooden to rubber wheels, and perhaps some shocks to absorb some bumps from the road.

Or does the Orthodox Temple of Gygax forbid variance from the one true word?

You got it all wrong. Theologians don't thrive on the one true word but on the exegesis of our ancestors' holy gibberish, received from on high via the burning grapevine. In other places, it's about the one true interpretation, but around here it's the struggle itself that counts. The agonies and torments. :D

Quote from: Mistwell;644408Improving on the wheel, trying to go from wooden to rubber wheels, and perhaps some shocks to absorb some bumps from the road.

Or does the Orthodox Temple of Gygax forbid variance from the one true word?

ahahahahahahahahahahaha I swear you fucking cunts have invented this ghost story and now swap it around to each other - AND ON THE HANDLE...WAS GYGAX'S D20!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111111111111111 like it has some actual factual bearing on anything in reality ever, but shine on you crazy...well, nothing, because you're just crazy.

Quote from: Mistwell;644408Improving on the wheel, trying to go from wooden to rubber wheels, and perhaps some shocks to absorb some bumps from the road.

Or does the Orthodox Temple of Gygax forbid variance from the one true word?

It's 2003-5 all over again, I see. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=303369&postcount=103) :)

Quote from: thedungeondelver;644425ahahahahahahahahahahaha I swear you fucking cunts have invented this ghost story and now swap it around to each other - AND ON THE HANDLE...WAS GYGAX'S D20!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111111111111111 like it has some actual factual bearing on anything in reality ever, but shine on you crazy...well, nothing, because you're just crazy.

Quote from: Benoist;644430It's 2003-5 all over again, I see. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=303369&postcount=103) :)

So, to be clear, neither of you have an actual response, and just a bitch about having heard this response before.  Gee, you think if you're consistently hearing the same thing about your position, for years and years, from entirely unrelated people, maybe it rings true? I know if people always told me by breath stank, I'd check my breath rather than complaining about the people telling me my breath stank.

I am just saying maybe re-looking at the old wandering monster tables and trying to improve them isn't re-inventing the wheel, it's just trying to make it a better wheel.  If you have a reason for why those old tables were perfect as-is and should not be considered for improvement (other than martinet orthodoxy), please let me know.  That would be, you know, an actual response to my position.  I've posited your over-reactions look like adherence to some orthodoxy.  

If there is some other reason for your over-reactions, I am waiting on pins and needles to hear it.  Complaining others have told you the same thing when this has come up in the past, that it looks like your orthodoxy, just reinforces my position.  You're making it loud and clear that others have seen the exact same thing in your positions, for years.  And "It's not true, BECAUSE!" isn't a persuasive response.

Ah, I see: the wheel that is being re-invented is not the actual wheel but the discussion about the wheel that has been rolling since 2009, no 2003... perhaps since the dawn of time or 2e at least?

this IS theological!

What is the excluded middle of a wheel called - the hub..., no the nave! Invent the nave, knaves, so all them wheels and wheel-talks going round and round can serve a purpose. :)

Quote from: Mistwell;644434So, to be clear, neither of you have an actual response, and just a bitch about having heard this response before.

"If I KEEP saying the SAME THINGS over and over for MORE THAN A DECADE it MAKES THEM TRUE!"

BEEP BOOP INTERNET RESPONSE MACHINE BEEP BOOP

seriously isn't enworld missing its village idiot right now, mistwell

Quote from: Mistwell;644434So, to be clear, neither of you have an actual response, and just a bitch about having heard this response before.  

I'm neither of them, but I'll give you my response.

Fuck 5E and WotC. I'm already bored with this puppet show of a playtest.

I've found the fantasy RPG system to suit my needs and it is Pathfinder/3.x D&D and Labyrinth Lord/B&X D&D with some extra stuff stolen from MERP and Artesia.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;644442"If I KEEP saying the SAME THINGS over and over for MORE THAN A DECADE it MAKES THEM TRUE!"

BEEP BOOP INTERNET RESPONSE MACHINE BEEP BOOP

seriously isn't enworld missing its village idiot right now, mistwell

But you have not said anything yet.  They took the old wandering monster tables (he says right in the article that was his starting place) and then made some changes to adapt it to the new game.  You have a complaint about this.  Your complaint is "reinventing the wheel".  I've asked "why do you think this cannot be an improvement?"  You bitched.  I'm asking again - why is it you think this cannot be an improvement?  

You just repeating an empty complaint, totally devoid of the reasoning behind your position, isn't meaningful.  It looks like rote orthodoxy.

If you want people to think your position is not orthodoxy, MAKE A FUCKING ARGUMENT BACKING UP YOUR POSITION.  PROVIDE ANY REASON BEHIND YOUR POSITION.

Quote from: jeff37923;644447I'm neither of them, but I'll give you my response.

Fuck 5E and WotC. I'm already bored with this puppet show of a playtest.

I've found the fantasy RPG system to suit my needs and it is Pathfinder/3.x D&D and Labyrinth Lord/B&X D&D with some extra stuff stolen from MERP and Artesia.

Cool, but still does not support the position of "This is reinventing the wheel and cannot be an improvement".

Quote from: Mistwell;644449But you have not s

honey, honey...shhhh

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t894eGoymio

Quote from: Riordan;644424but around here it's the struggle itself that counts. The agonies and torments. :D

Ok, that was funny.

Just because the planes will have names doesn't mean the names won't be...
(http://art.penny-arcade.com/photos/494733791_vSJvi-L-2.jpg)

As far as the environments go, it looks more like a return then a revising.   Not sure there's anything new there, but then again, why would there be.

Now the monster types seem to be more 3e and 4e style official "mechanic tags".  That's ok, but I hope they don't go nuts with it like 3e did.

The treasure tables do actually look like an improvement, the result is the same as 1e (ie. look up the table and roll), but the types of tables are easier to wrap your head around then (A, B, H).

Quote from: Mistwell;644434I am just saying maybe re-looking at the old wandering monster tables and trying to improve them isn't re-inventing the wheel, it's just trying to make it a better wheel.  If you have a reason for why those old tables were perfect as-is and should not be considered for improvement (other than martinet orthodoxy), please let me know.  That would be, you know, an actual response to my position.  I've posited your over-reactions look like adherence to some orthodoxy.  

How is the wheel being made better exactly?

Level: Unless you are talking about dungeon level, this is pointless. Hill giants live in the fucking hills, not just (hills-med. to high level).

Terrain type: SSDD. The types of areas where monsters are found was always in the MM entry. How is telling us what grassland is an improvement?


Monster Type: Keyword categorization  nonsense. 3Etard template fodder.

Treasure type: why are pre-supposing the presence of chests, pouches, etc. Let the DM be creative as to the location of lair treasures.
 Treasure types for lairs vs individuals is fine but we already had that.


I'm not seeing any useful innovation here.

One thing that 3e bestiary had, and I think the 1e/5e bestiary'd benefit from as well, was giving monsters stats (as in strength, dexterity etc.). I have no qualm with rolling 3d6 on the fly and adding a modifier to represent Orc's actual strength, but it'd be nice to have a frame of reference.

Quote from: Benoist;644386Reinventing the wheel, part 2434234232.

Forget 2003, some of us have yellowed pieces of paper that crackle when you bend them doing the same thing.

Quote from: Mistwell;644450Cool, but still does not support the position of "This is reinventing the wheel and cannot be an improvement".

Actually, 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.

You 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.

Quote from: Rincewind1;644455One thing that 3e bestiary had, and I think the 1e/5e bestiary'd benefit from as well, was giving monsters stats (as in strength, dexterity etc.). I have no qualm with rolling 3d6 on the fly and adding a modifier to represent Orc's actual strength, but it'd be nice to have a frame of reference.

Agreed. I thought it was dumb at first, but found the monster stats to be very useful in a lot of ways that came up during play.

This stuff seems generally unobjectionable. Can you have "useful innovation" in every section of a game? If they did change it, would you be screaming about it?

Though I guess the question is, if you aren't really changing something, why bother publicizing it? I guess it's an attempt to get 4e players' feet wet since it seems like a small departure otherwise.


Re monster stats, I like having them, although it would do to think about their scaling & effects a bit more than 3e did - don't really like adding +8 or +10 to every large animal's damage rolls.

Innovative? No.

A return to form? Possibly! :)

Face it, 4e didn't Even have random encounter tables, afaik. That stuff like random encounters and random Treasure and the old Planes are returning...surely that's gotta be a good sign.

Quote from: Imp;644472Re monster stats, I like having them, although it would do to think about their scaling & effects a bit more than 3e did - don't really like adding +8 or +10 to every large animal's damage rolls.

Going by the stuff in the play-test, the plan seems to be to try and scale all the numbers back to something like they were pre 3rd ed.

Outside of Planescape, the Great Wheel was pretty lame and that's why you rarely saw any mention of planar stuff back in 1e adventures. The best known plane adventure "Demon Web Pits" is a tack on location to the Great Wheel.

The 4e cosmology is far superior for actual play because the various planes invade and effect the world and thus explain the presence of many monsters.

Quote from: Mistwell;644408IOr does the Orthodox Temple of Gygax forbid variance from the one true word?

That's the sound of Gygaxian ass sucking! Or as Gygax acolytes call it, the breakfast of champions.

Quote from: Spinachcat;644482That's the sound of Gygaxian ass sucking! Or as Gygax acolytes call it, the breakfast of champions.

It's good that you're not bitter. :D

Quote from: CRKrueger;644487It's good that you're not bitter. :D

Bitter like Gygax' asshole's taste? :P

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.

Quote from: Piestrio;644552Just so you know I find it hard to take anyone seriously who uses that Oberoni Fallacy nonsense line. But I'll try.

...right, because we shouldn't have convenient shorthand? You apparently know what I meant, so that can't be your problem.

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

Your line in the sand is utterly arbitrary. You have to recognize this.

I mean... fucking hell. Apparently categorizing monsters into broad groups is killing the heart and soul of what makes a game an RPG? What the fuck is this nonsense?

Why the fuck have rules at all? If the goal is for "groups to explore the game on their own terms," then I posit that any rule set is going to be unnecessarily restrictive and bending towards a "standardized experience." So there you go - rules are bad and destroy gaming, so to hell with 'em.

Quote from: Mistwell;644554This 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.

That's a straw man and you know it.

"Hey, leave some room for creativity and personalization within the structure of the game" /= "NO CHANGE EVAR!"

It's not an argument against change but against strict codification and endless math-terbation.

I don't think keywording is some great bad, as long as it does not attempt to force some templates onto monsters, etc. etc, as it seemed with 3e. A template that adds just a few thing, rather than is a 2 - page monstrocity needed to apply to a monster, is a fine guideline in my book.

Keywords are fine as long as they are guidelines to me, and they aren't 4e "Mooks, Bosses" style keywrds.

Quote from: Piestrio;644557It's not an argument against change but against strict codification and endless math-terbation.

Oh this is such asinine horseshit.

There is so much stupid-ass math in earlier editions of D&D, it's not fucking funny. I was reading through the 1e Wilderness Survival Guide the other day, and that was a clusterfuck of rules and numbers.

Seriously, we're talking about a goddamn game where someone thought it was a brilliant idea to differentiate between magical fire and non-magical fire. But apparently trying to say that all undead are of a given kind, and we're going to broadly classify them as "undead," that is somehow "strict codification"?

Quote from: GnomeWorks;644556...right, because we shouldn't have convenient shorthand? You apparently know what I meant, so that can't be your problem.

No, it's a bit of edition warring straw manning made up by people who either refuse or are to dumb to understand a critique.

Just because you don't like a rule or it doenst do what you like within your personal playstyle doesn't mean it's broken.

QuoteYour line in the sand is utterly arbitrary. You have to recognize this.

I mean... fucking hell. Apparently categorizing monsters into broad groups is killing the heart and soul of what makes a game an RPG? What the fuck is this nonsense?

Why the fuck have rules at all? If the goal is for "groups to explore the game on their own terms," then I posit that any rule set is going to be unnecessarily restrictive and bending towards a "standardized experience." So there you go - rules are bad and destroy gaming, so to hell with 'em.

Christ. Is personalization such a foreign concept to you? Is finding joy in ambiguity?

Why is this autism like reflex of "IF WE ALLOW ANY DIVERGENCE FROM RAW OR DO ANYTHING NOT 100% STRUCTURED BY THE RULES WE MIGHT AS WELL JUST CIRCLE JERK" always the first go-to for you guys?

Quote from: Rincewind1;644559I don't think keywording is some great bad, as long as it does not attempt to force some templates onto monsters, etc. etc, as it seemed with 3e. A template that adds just a few thing, rather than is a 2 - page monstrocity needed to apply to a monster, is a fine guideline in my book.

Keywords are fine as long as they are guidelines to me, and they aren't 4e "Mooks, Bosses" style keywrds.

Alone it's not so bad, but it's part of death by a thousand cuts.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;644545I'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.

Take yer oberoni fallacy turn it sideways and stick it up your candy ass. :p

Ok seriously I'm tired of this " people today couldn't figure out how to play B/X" bullshit.

Assumptions and tropes? You mean like apprpoaching D&D as NOT D&D, as some kind of heroic fantasy story hour?

D&D is pretty straightforward and consistent. Trying to turn it into every desired type of fantasy game just fucks it up.

PCs explore damgerous places.

PCs die fairly regularly. New PCs join.  Thats D&D. This idea of the generic fantasy "party" that adventures together remaining in leveled lockstep, supported by rules ensuring that one little wanker doesn't get to have an ounce more fun than some other guy is just fine as a premise for a fantasy game. But....

That isn't D&D.

So with regard to the whole wandering monster thing, if the playstyle it supports is storywank hour with PCs adventuring in thier little level appropriate comfy zones ensuring thier daily resources refresh enough so that they don't get home late for supper then its all for naught.

Quote from: Piestrio;644562No, it's a bit of edition warring straw manning made up by people who either refuse or are to dumb to understand a critique.

No, it is a recognition of the fact that saying X can be fixed at the table level does not excuse X being broken/unusable/nonsensical to begin with.

Anything can be fixed or changed at the table. The DM shouldn't have to.

QuoteIs personalization such a foreign concept to you?

You're drawing the line at what is personalized and what isn't arbitrarily. It's a stupid argument. Why is the ability to "personalize" monsters, through the lack of keywords, so much more important than the ability to personalize how paladins behave?

QuoteIs finding joy in ambiguity?

Removal of ambiguity is what rules are for. It's so that we don't devolve to "cops and robbers." So, no, ambiguity is generally bad and should be avoided. Ambiguity isn't a bonus or something to be sought out, it should be removed as reasonably as is possible.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;644565Take yer oberoni fallacy turn it sideways and stick it up your candy ass. :p

Yes, yes. You're old and get pissy when people use terminology that differs from whatever Gygax pulled out of his rectum.

QuoteOk seriously I'm tired of this " people today couldn't figure out how to play B/X" bullshit.

Oh sure, they could. But why the fuck would you bother? Honestly, that was... what, the 70's? What the fuck else did kids have to do back then?

The environment is different. If you don't recognize that, I don't know what the hell else to say to you.

QuoteAssumptions and tropes? You mean like apprpoaching D&D as NOT D&D, as some kind of heroic fantasy story hour?

...this is idiotic.

Saying that an undead creature is of an undead "creature type" isn't going to destroy the damn game.

Your concerns that Next may not be D&D may be valid elsewhere. I don't know, I haven't really spent that much time with it. But that's not the discussion at hand.

Quote from: Piestrio;644564Alone it's not so bad, but it's part of death by a thousand cuts.

Meh. To me those things are like Nazgul - their only power is the fear/distaste we have for them. Keywords aren't a problem, problem is whether they will be intrusive or not. Right now it's a storm in a bottle.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;644566No, it is a recognition of the fact that saying X can be fixed at the table level does not excuse X being broken/unusable/nonsensical to begin with.

Anything can be fixed or changed at the table. The DM shouldn't have to.

News flash: the people disagreeing with you DON'T think X is broken.

Again, just because YOU have an issue with a rule doesn't mean that everyone does or that it's "broken".

QuoteYou're drawing the line at what is personalized and what isn't arbitrarily. It's a stupid argument. Why is the ability to "personalize" monsters, through the lack of keywords, so much more important than the ability to personalize how paladins behave?

Dude the Paladin IS ambiguous, that's why there have always been arguments about it. *sigh*

Paladins at Bill's table act differently than paladins at Gina's table and that's a GOOD thing.

QuoteRemoval of ambiguity is what rules are for. It's so that we don't devolve to "cops and robbers." So, no, ambiguity is generally bad and should be avoided. Ambiguity isn't a bonus or something to be sought out, it should be removed as reasonably as is possible.

At least your honest, props for that.

Again, leaving room for ambiguity and creativity within a framework /= "LOL, we shouldn't have any rules DUR!".

Keywords alone are not really a problem, they are just one part of a mentality ("ambiguity is generally bad and should be avoided") that I think robs the game of something special.

Here we will simply forever disagree.

Quote from: Piestrio;644557That's a straw man and you know it.

I repeated back to you the words you used, and it's a strawman?

Quote"Hey, leave some room for creativity and personalization within the structure of the game" /= "NO CHANGE EVAR!"

Wait, now keywords leave no room for creativity and personalization? Fuck dude, my examples of how they are useful is THEY MAKE PERSONALIZATION EASIER.  If you, as a DM, want to give a player or a class or a magic item or an NPC the ability to "track aberrations" for example, it's MUCH easier for you to know what that means if the monsters have an "Aberration" tag on them.  

You can then customize further.  You don't have to include all of them with the tag, but it gives you a great starting point. Sure, you could "just figure it out yourself as you go", but that involves more work that's unnecessary when you could shorten your work load with a simple tag to start from.  

You can even use that tag, and click sort on a list (because these tags will find their way into electronic tools of some sort), and now you have your starting list.  You can then easily choose which monsters to remove, if you don't want them included.  And if you think the list should include some more monsters, you can then list just the things that might be similar to aberrations, like monstrosity, and choose a few of those to move over to your personal aberrations list.  

These are just simple tools that make the life of the DM easier.  It does not force people to do anything with them, but if you want to personalize something, they make that personalization easier for a lot of people.

QuoteIt's not an argument against change but against strict codification and endless math-terbation.

There is no math involved with keywords as a concept, so fuck that complaint.  As for strict codification, why do you view it as strict? Something can belong to multiple categories, and then there is a catch-all category when something doesn't fit another category nicely.  There's plenty of flexibility there.

Quote from: Piestrio;644571News flash: the people disagreeing with you DON'T think X is broken.

Again, just because YOU have an issue with a rule doesn't mean that everyone does or that it's "broken".

We are talking about tagging monsters as being members of broad classifications.

It's not like we're talking about maintaining 4e's power system, or making major mechanical changes to the way the game plays. We're talking about making it easier to classify monsters, and to add effects relevant to those classifications.

This is such a minor, simple thing.

QuoteAgain, leaving room for ambiguity and creativity within a framework /= "LOL, we shouldn't have any rules DUR!".

Really? Because looking at your arguments, that's the logical conclusion of your position.

You are drawing arbitrary lines in the sand for where you want the ambiguity to begin. Given that those lines are arbitrary, there is no reason to not push back against them.

Why have classes? They needlessly restrict creativity. Removal of classes would also increase ambiguity, making a wide number of game elements significantly less predictable. That might make it more fun.

Quote from: Piestrio;644571Keywords alone are not really a problem...

So eat a bag of shut the fuck up and focus your energy on things you view as a real problem.  

Christ, how much more proof would I need of "you're bitching about change purely out of some orthodoxy" than you admitting you don't even have a problem with the thing we're talking about, you're just worried there might be some other problems somewhere else? Cool dude, when those other things come up, you let us know when you have a real problem with them.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;644574Why have classes? They needlessly restrict creativity. Removal of classes would also increase ambiguity, making a wide number of game elements significantly less predictable. That might make it more fun.

I saw Diaglo argue for that once, when he claimed all classes are just variations on "Fighting Man" to begin with.

It's true though.  Why include a wizard and cleric at all? Why not just include some broad ideas for how spells could work, and leave it to each DM to personalize the single class presented however they see fit and make their own wizard-like and cleric-like classes, right? Putting those labels and rules just stifles creativity and personalization!

Quote from: Mistwell;644572I repeated back to you the words you used, and it's a strawman?

Don't lie. It demeans you.

You quoted my words and then assigned a meaning to them that suited your argument

QuoteWait, now keywords leave no room for creativity and personalization? Fuck dude, my examples of how they are useful is THEY MAKE PERSONALIZATION EASIER.  If you, as a DM, want to give a player or a class or a magic item or an NPC the ability to "track aberrations" for example, it's MUCH easier for you to know what that means if the monsters have an "Aberration" tag on them.  

What part of "one small part of a larger problem" is so difficult for you to understand?

QuoteYou can then customize further.  You don't have to include all of them with the tag, but it gives you a great starting point. Sure, you could "just figure it out yourself as you go", but that involves more work that's unnecessary when you could shorten your work load with a simple tag to start from.  

I'm sorry that you consider that "work".

Quote from: GnomeWorks;644574We are talking about tagging monsters as being members of broad classifications.

It's not like we're talking about maintaining 4e's power system, or making major mechanical changes to the way the game plays. We're talking about making it easier to classify monsters, and to add effects relevant to those classifications.

This is such a minor, simple thing.

See above. It's one small part of a larger problem.

QuoteReally? Because looking at your arguments, that's the logical conclusion of your position.

You are drawing arbitrary lines in the sand for where you want the ambiguity to begin. Given that those lines are arbitrary, there is no reason to not push back against them.

Why have classes? They needlessly restrict creativity. Removal of classes would also increase ambiguity, making a wide number of game elements significantly less predictable. That might make it more fun.

"I liked the ambiguous ending of Inception"

"WARRRRGARRBBBBLE! Why even have movies if you like ambiguity so much!"

"I like the ambiguous use of language in 'The love that dare not speak its name'"

"WARRRRGARRBBBBLE!! Why even use words if you're not going to be CLEAR"

"I enjoy the enigmatic smile on Da Vinchi's Mona Lisa"

"WARRRRGARRBBBBLE11!!1 Why even paint if you're not going to clearly and plainly depict an image!"

Quote from: Mistwell;644576So eat a bag of shut the fuck up and focus your energy on things you view as a real problem.  

Christ, how much more proof would I need of "you're bitching about change purely out of some orthodoxy" than you admitting you don't even have a problem with the thing we're talking about, you're just worried there might be some other problems somewhere else? Cool dude, when those other things come up, you let us know when you have a real problem with them.

*sigh*

It's one small part of a larger problem.

Quote from: Wolf, Richard;644549I'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.

Sans magical detection false-positives you have Crypt Things & Pseudo-undead.

The main problems with 3e monster types & templates are

- remembering to apply them (and factoring in what happens when you do), and

- stacking them.

Mostly, computational overhead.

As far as restricting creativity goes, sure, they could, but it's pretty hard to tell that they had a major effect on 3e monsters. The later monsters that came up in that edition were pretty crap, it's true, but that always happens. The writers just run out of gas. And it's not as if 1e monsters didn't contain the seeds of the "keyword" business: demon, devil, elemental, undead, giant-class...

Quote from: Piestrio;644582I'm sorry that you consider that "work".

I think now we're getting to the heart of it.

Others have tried to explain how the world has changed since the 70s that impact the game for most people.  I suspect you're not getting it, because you can write that sentence with a straight face and not understand what we're talking about.

I have a kid, a wife, pets, and a job that takes upwards of 12 hours a day.  Any small "free" time I get is typically devoted to spending time with my child and wife.  There is very little left for game prep.  Any tool that makes that prep go faster is one I will at least strongly consider.  

Yes, deciding which monsters are aberrations and which are not, is work.  That stopped being an exercise that would be more desirable than doing other things more than a decade ago.

For MOST people who are going to play this game, that's the case.  Not the details of course, but the time aspect.  Even 12 year olds do not have the free time we had in the 70s, and have more choices for entertainment than we had in the 70s as well.  Across the board, young and old, there is less time on average to dwell on tiny details like "what's my list of aberrations".

So if there is a tool that reduces the time needed for that task, so people can focus on more important details and actually playing, it's a good thing.

It's work dude.  If it's not work for you, you have much more free time than most players of this game, in this age.

Quote from: Mistwell;644598I think now we're getting to the heart of it.

Others have tried to explain how the world has changed since the 70s that impact the game for most people.  I suspect you're not getting it, because you can write that sentence with a straight face and not understand what we're talking about.

I have a kid, a wife, pets, and a job that takes upwards of 12 hours a day.  Any small "free" time I get is typically devoted to spending time with my child and wife.  There is very little left for game prep.  Any tool that makes that prep go faster is one I will at least strongly consider.  

Yes, deciding which monsters are aberrations and which are not, is work.  That stopped being an exercise that would be more desirable than doing other things more than a decade ago.

For MOST people who are going to play this game, that's the case.  Not the details of course, but the time aspect.  Even 12 year olds do not have the free time we had in the 70s, and have more choices for entertainment than we had in the 70s as well.  Across the board, young and old, there is less time on average to dwell on tiny details like "what's my list of aberrations".

So if there is a tool that reduces the time needed for that task, so people can focus on more important details and actually playing, it's a good thing.

It's work dude.  If it's not work for you, you have much more free time than most players of this game, in this age.

1) I wasn't alive in the 70's.

2) it's not "work" in the sense that it doesn't actually have to take any time at all to decide unless you want it to by obsessively cataloging all the monsters it will and won't work against ahead of time.

In my games I might give someone a Sword of Abomination slaying. That might give someone a +5 vs. abominations. Done.

There is no need for a list of "abominations", it really truly can be adjutcated on the fly with nothing lost ("I attack the twelve armed, writhing mass. Do I get my bonus vs. abominations?") Yes. No. Either way it isn't "work" by any meaningful definition.

Furthermore it's FUN for the player (and the GM) to slowly figure out what this thing actually does via play. Fun that's lost when it all boils down to a checklist in a book.

If that doesn't work for YOU, if YOU need to obsessively detail every last affected creature then yeah that sounds like it would suck and be a lot of "work" but that's on YOU.

In my experience Wandering Monster Tables have been a big GM time saver. Initially you front-load the effort, but the stochastic selection out of a spectrum really saves so much time. There's no "session encounter design" for huge swaths of the world because players understand that wilderness regions bring their own spectrum of hazards. It's like delegating to an automated program that players self-trigger.

Another benefit is adding in a "designed encounter" that circulates in an area with a set cycle helps keep my bookkeeping down. I'm already keeping a time record, if things fall outside that, no "special designed" encounter. This foists onto players a lot of responsibility to manage their own fun. Want to meet that wandering peddler, specific bandit band, cackling BBEG? Ask around for gossip about what's his average schedule's been.

I think people misunderstand how these tools save GM time and just see it as old school busywork. There really is a method to the madness.

Quote from: Piestrio;644601There is no need for a list of "abominations", it really truly can be adjutcated on the fly with nothing lost ("I attack the twelve armed, writhing mass. Do I get my bonus vs. abominations?") Yes. No. Either way it isn't "work" by any meaningful definition.

Precisely, having a creature-type "keywork" allows you to eschew the list by containing the description of the creature to the stat block. Where the DM has easy reference, and the player can go about swinging his sword of abomination slaying any which way.

Now I would agree that needing to hone the definition of say "aberration" down to a restrictive and pre-defined set of universally conveyed abilities (i.e. "all aberrations have a +x to blah blah balh") -is- wrong headed.

I just fear such keyword and templating will lead to design that triggers off it. That path lies CCG comborrificness. It's WotC, I just feel it in my bones that'll be the end result.
:(

Quote from: Mistwell;644502Wait, 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?

Because I already have MY fantasy gaming covered. You can keep sucking on WotC's teat hoping that the curdled and soured milk will become
delicious cream again, but I've gotten my fantasy RPG itch scratched elsewhere already.

Quote from: Mistwell;644502Counter-argument TO WHAT? Neither of them said why they objected - they just voice a blanket objection.

So what? I was only speaking for myself.

Quote from: Mistwell;644502And gee Jeff, thanks for the needless ad-hominem attack.

You're welcome.

Quote from: Mistwell;644502And, 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).  

tl;dr

Quote from: Mistwell;644502What 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?

What do I do for a living? I'm a tabletop role-playing gamer and general nerd. To make money, I do different things.

While I have worked at a local game store, I have never owned one. I can tell you that the local chain game stores are doing poorly because they are not stocking games that are selling.

Any other personal information of mine that you would like? :D

Quote from: GnomeWorks;644569Oh sure, they could. But why the fuck would you bother? Honestly, that was... what, the 70's? What the fuck else did kids have to do back then?

The environment is different. If you don't recognize that, I don't know what the hell else to say to you.

Just to point out the obvious here.

You do know that people from a long time ago also enjoyed sex as much as people enjoy sex do today, right?

The environment may be different, but the people are still the same. Actually, I believe a very strong case could be made that B/X D&D is more suited to today's time-limited environment than more complex games.

Quote from: Piestrio;644582"I liked the ambiguous ending of Inception"

"WARRRRGARRBBBBLE! Why even have movies if you like ambiguity so much!"

"I like the ambiguous use of language in 'The love that dare not speak its name'"

"WARRRRGARRBBBBLE!! Why even use words if you're not going to be CLEAR"

"I enjoy the enigmatic smile on Da Vinchi's Mona Lisa"

"WARRRRGARRBBBBLE11!!1 Why even paint if you're not going to clearly and plainly depict an image!"

These examples are idiotic. Attempting to compare passively-consumed media with participatory media, like TTRPGs and video games, is ignorant at best and deliberately misleading at worst.

Ambiguity in film, art, and literature is one thing, but also is not always a good thing. Inception caught a lot of flak for their ending: it wasn't edgy, deep, or brilliant, it was generally perceived as a lame cop-out. Sure, you could argue that it "makes you think," but honestly, what it was attempting to convey wasn't terribly "deep," in a philosophical sense.

Ambiguity in games is not a good thing. If we don't know how to resolve Bob's attack against a goblin because the rules are unclear, that's not a bonus, that bogs down play, potentially even leading to an argument between the players. Now we've disrupted the flow of the game all because of ambiguity.

QuoteIn my games I might give someone a Sword of Abomination slaying. That might give someone a +5 vs. abominations. Done.

There is no need for a list of "abominations", it really truly can be adjutcated on the fly with nothing lost ("I attack the twelve armed, writhing mass. Do I get my bonus vs. abominations?") Yes. No. Either way it isn't "work" by any meaningful definition.

If you acknowledge that, over time, you're going to have it work against some creatures and not others, then you're doing exactly the same thing as keywords are doing, just prolonging the process and putting the onus on the table, rather than the designer.

And you know damn well that it is not a simple yes/no. While some creatures may clearly fall into the category of "abomination," some may be some edge-base, and the player who is using that weapon will argue about it to get the most advantage out of the weapon possible. Not only that, but the DM may not be sure, and possibly need a bit to puzzle it out - now, again, we're wasting time at the table making adjudications. All because... you wanted to do at run-time what could have been coded in to begin with?

Quote from: jeff37923The environment may be different, but the people are still the same. Actually, I believe a very strong case could be made that B/X D&D is more suited to today's time-limited environment than more complex games.

The younger generation has more media and more options for entertainment today than was available in the 70s, on an exponential scale. Hell, even just talking TTRPGs, they have a plethora of options available, as compared to back in the day.

They do not have time for this ill-defined horseshit, or scads of nonsensical mechanics, if only because if it doesn't work the first time, they can move on to something else with minimal effort.

Quote from: jeff37923;644635Actually, I believe a very strong case could be made that B/X D&D is more suited to today's time-limited environment than more complex games.

Oh absolutely agreed. Also, I guess B/X D&D would likely be the D&D variant best suited for a 9-5 working adult. You know, personally, I've found that coming home from work there I don't have all that energy. All those statblocks and whatnot in 3x...no. Just no...and AD&D while "my" game is also rather complicated sometimes...argh.

So, yeah. If anything, what WotC should do is make something like B/X...

Quote from: The Ent;644638So, yeah. If anything, what WotC should do is make something like B/X...

Except that already exists. What, exactly, would be the point?

Not only that, but if they do that, I'd guarantee that the vast majority of 3e and 4e players walk away from the game.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;644640Except that already exists. What, exactly, would be the point?

Well that's a point.

Re-print it, maybe. Maybe with new art for the kids (allthough Morgan Ironwolf's hairdo is actually pretty hip :D).

Quote from: GnomeWorksNot only that, but if they do that, I'd guarantee that the vast majority of 3e and 4e players walk away from the game.

I don't really care so much about 4e players and 3e players have Pathfinder anyway (wich is a good game, I gotta say).

This furball is about whether or not monsters should be ....tagged in the blog post sense, is that right?

Quote from: The Traveller;644642This furball is about whether or not monsters should be ....tagged in the blog post sense, is that right?

I guess so.

Quote from: The Ent;644641Re-print it, maybe.

...they already have. They are, at this moment, doing that.

QuoteI don't really care so much about 4e players and 3e players have Pathfinder anyway (wich is a good game, I gotta say).

I don't really care about 2e, 1e, or B/X players, because they already have 2e, 1e, or B/X.

We can do this all day. It's not productive.

Quote from: The TravellerThis furball is about whether or not monsters should be ....tagged in the blog post sense, is that right?

In essence, yes.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;644645In essence, yes.

Hoy...

Quote from: GnomeWorks;644645...they already have. They are, at this moment, doing that.

They're reprinting B/X? :) I though they were just making them available as PDFs...
(Now I want them to reprint BECMI 'cause I'd love to have that full set with the gorgeous Elmore art and whatnot :D)

Quote from: GnomeWorksI don't really care about 2e, 1e, or B/X players, because they already have 2e, 1e, or B/X.

We can do this all day. It's not productive.

Possibly not.

That said, I personally agree with the folks that think 4e =/= D&D, and while I hate neither the system nor the folks playing it...it's not for me and, I suspect, that's true for most folks around here. A D&D game must be recognizably D&D.

I actually like most of what I've seen of Next this far though, unlike most folks both here and other places I won't name. It seems, so far, likely it will end up as a product that can be recognized as D&D.

The one tag I always thought was stupid was Aberration.  Gimme a plus 2 sword,of Aberration slaying.  Just silly.  It's classifying something by the fact that it can't be classified and then applying something universally to that group of unique entities.

The other stuff doesn't bother me, Rangers had a big list of what was "humanoid" back in the day, the classification wasn't as in your face is all.  WotC does have a tendency to take stuff like this off the deep end though.

Quote from: The Ent;644649They're reprinting B/X? :) I though they were just making them available as PDFs...

I have literally seen the reprinted copies with my own eyes. 1e and 2e.

QuoteThat said, I personally agree with the folks that think 4e =/= D&D, and while I hate neither the system nor the folks playing it...it's not for me and, I suspect, that's true for most folks around here. A D&D game must be recognizably D&D.

While I tend to agree, that doesn't make the position less asinine, or less idiotic in regards to understanding the TTRPG market.

4e also had a number of useful innovations. Ignoring them just because the overall game was terrible is foolish.

Quote from: CRKrueger;644650The one tag I always thought was stupid was Aberration.  Gimme a plus 2 sword,of Aberration slaying.  Just silly.  It's classifying something by the fact that it can't be classified and then applying something universally to that group of unique entities.

Well, once you accept that keywords can be useful, then we can get into the specifics of how its implemented.

In general, I'd agree with your problem with aberrations. I'd much prefer it if they approached them the same way they dealt with rangers taking humanoids as a favored enemy in 3e - you have to take the subtype, too. Then just give every aberration its own subtype: bam, problem solved. Rangers can hate abberation (mind flayers), but that doesn't give them squat against aboleths, and swords that hate aboleths don't bother mind flayers.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;644651I have literally seen the reprinted copies with my own eyes. 1e and 2e.

I have too (and even made the mistake of buying the reprinted Unearthed Arcana :-/)

And 0d&d is of course getting reprinted in a collector's box type deal in november.

Haven't seen or heard anything about B/X being reprinted though.

Quote from: GnomeWorksWhile I tend to agree, that doesn't make the position less asinine, or less idiotic in regards to understanding the TTRPG market.

4e also had a number of useful innovations. Ignoring them just because the overall game was terrible is foolish.

I dunno. 4e doesn't seem to have been a success. Unlike 3e, wich was a huge success and still is (PF). Thus keeping lots of 4eisms might not seem a good idea. Even if some stuff like "non-religious healer" is nifty, say.

Quote from: GnomeWorksWell, once you accept that keywords can be useful, then we can get into the specifics of how its implemented.

In general, I'd agree with your problem with aberrations. I'd much prefer it if they approached them the same way they dealt with rangers taking humanoids as a favored enemy in 3e - you have to take the subtype, too. Then just give every aberration its own subtype: bam, problem solved. Rangers can hate abberation (mind flayers), but that doesn't give them squat against aboleths, and swords that hate aboleths don't bother mind flayers.

That's more logical yes, but the problem is that it can water down the whole keyword thing wich sorta removes the reason to have it in the first place :-/

Quote from: The Ent;644653Haven't seen or heard anything about B/X being reprinted though.

I don't know, and honestly don't care. I don't really see why WotC is reprinting older editions, anyway. That crowd seems to have generally puts it eggs in the OSR basket, and it's unlikely they will come back to D&D unless it directly matches what they want - and given that they have the OSR, that would seem to be a bad move on WotC's part, as they would lose their 4e audience (and potentially lose out on recapturing their 3e audience).

QuoteI dunno. 4e doesn't seem to have been a success. Unlike 3e, wich was a huge success and still is (PF). Thus keeping lots of 4eisms might not seem a good idea. Even if some stuff like "non-religious healer" is nifty, say.

We don't have access to numbers. However I am willing to accept the idea that 4e was moderately successful, insofar as bringing new players to the game - I know someone who has only played 4e, and she seemed to enjoy it, while she did not join my 3e games.

4e had plenty of interesting innovations that, while the application sucked, were good in theory. Non-magical healing... I'll admit that I'm having problems coming up with anything beyond that, but I'm sure there are more "diamonds in the rough" where that came from.

Mearls is an idiot when it comes to execution, but his theory is usually rather interesting. He is just utterly incapable of doing anything effective with it.

QuoteThat's more logical yes, but the problem is that it can water down the whole keyword thing wich sorta removes the reason to have it in the first place :-/

Nonsense. It's just getting more granular. And when adding categorizations, there will almost necessarily be a category that becomes the "grab-bag" category for things that don't fit anywhere else.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;644654I don't know, and honestly don't care. I don't really see why WotC is reprinting older editions, anyway. That crowd seems to have generally puts it eggs in the OSR basket, and it's unlikely they will come back to D&D unless it directly matches what they want - and given that they have the OSR, that would seem to be a bad move on WotC's part, as they would lose their 4e audience (and potentially lose out on recapturing their 3e audience).

I'm positive to it myself. They do have the bonus of getting osr people who haven't got the originals into the game, as the prices on used books of old versions of d&d have really rocketed the last couple years. Wich is another reason to be happy with this, I mean the november re-issue of od&d is fairly costly yes but it's still what, 50%, maybe closer to 25% or 20% of what I'd have to pay for it used. I mean, don't get me wrong, as an example, OSRIC say does streamline some things, but 1e is 1e, and having the actual game is cool yes? Not sure I get the idea behind reprinting 3e other than it was hugely successful and it might let them take some money off Paizo as in "why get PF when you can get the original 3e" but since imo PF is actually better than 3e at what 3e does that's different (YES, OSRIC does some stuff better than the original 1e too but the difference is much much smaller, and when it comes to some other games, well, while Dark Dungeons is awesome, is there a reason to get it if you could say get BECMI instead? (Note: I used BECMI as the example here instead of RC because while RC seems more loved here and other places like at TBP as well the main difference to me is that BECMI has better art ;) allthough there's something to say for having it all in a book rather than a bunch of leaflets I suppose)).

Quote from: GnomeWorksWe don't have access to numbers. However I am willing to accept the idea that 4e was moderately successful, insofar as bringing new players to the game - I know someone who has only played 4e, and she seemed to enjoy it, while she did not join my 3e games.

It was fairly successful. If it wasn't D&D it'd be a fantastic success. Being D&D, I'd say "fairly successful". It did bring some new gamers. Whether these are, as some put it "people who've always hated D&D and now love 4e because 4e =/= D&D"...well. I dunno, is it relevant? Only insofar as they'd dislike a more D&D take on D&D I suppose but...that said I don't care too much.

Quote from: GnomeWorks4e had plenty of interesting innovations that, while the application sucked, were good in theory. Non-magical healing... I'll admit that I'm having problems coming up with anything beyond that, but I'm sure there are more "diamonds in the rough" where that came from.

Non-magical healing. We agree on that one, yes. It was a good idea.

Can't think of any other interesting innovations in the game myself.
Some would argue the daily/encounter/whatever powers or the xmas gift take on treasure but man. Not I.

Quote from: GnomeWorksNonsense. It's just getting more granular.

Wich is what I think many people here are suspicious about, since lots of granularity/detail = 3x to many people.

Quote from: GnomeWorksAnd when adding categorizations, there will almost necessarily be a category that becomes the "grab-bag" category for things that don't fit anywhere else.

"Monstrosity".

Quote from: Opaopajr;644624I just fear such keyword and templating will lead to design that triggers off it. That path lies CCG comborrificness. It's WotC, I just feel it in my bones that'll be the end result.
:(

This. The WOTC track record for not going full retard on rules obsession isn't so good.

Quote from: jeff37923;644635Just to point out the obvious here.

You do know that people from a long time ago also enjoyed sex as much as people enjoy sex do today, right?

The environment may be different, but the people are still the same. Actually, I believe a very strong case could be made that B/X D&D is more suited to today's time-limited environment than more complex games.

Amen. For those who want to sort through 500+ pages of rules just to pretend to be an elf, Pathfinder is waiting.

Saying that people are different now is saying what exactly? That people no longer care to use thier imaginations when playing games of make believe so the designers should do all thier imagining for them?

Fact is, the market is already filled up with games like this so D&D wouldn't really stand out.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;644637The younger generation has more media and more options for entertainment today than was available in the 70s, on an exponential scale. Hell, even just talking TTRPGs, they have a plethora of options available, as compared to back in the day.

They do not have time for this ill-defined horseshit, or scads of nonsensical mechanics, if only because if it doesn't work the first time, they can move on to something else with minimal effort.

Exactly, so yet another heavy mechanical tabletop videogame is just going to get lost in the crowd.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;644651I have literally seen the reprinted copies with my own eyes. 1e and 2e.

Ok so you have proven that you have no idea what the fuck B/X actually is.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;644666Exactly, so yet another heavy mechanical tabletop videogame is just going to get lost in the crowd.

???

So we're arguing about the distinction between:

Skeleton (Keywords: Undead) : Lorem ipsum.

and

Skeleton : Lorem ipsum. This creature is undead and so these rules apply...

Both methods do the same damn thing. You can add other undead creatures just as easily. You can make non-undead skeletons just as easily, or undead with only some of the properties of being undead, whatever. If you feel that keywords are a threat to your creativity, well, your creativity obviously isn't as impressive as you thought.

And there are already rules and keywords and templating that triggers off creature types; Turn Undead, for example. Detect Evil. If you've created "Skeletal Mages", or whatever, and your notes have said "These are skeletons", that's a keyword.

What keywords do is make it faster to tell, at a glance, what is going to apply and what won't, without needing to dig through a block of text.

Quote from: Ladybird;644673???

So we're arguing about the distinction between:

Skeleton (Keywords: Undead) : Lorem ipsum.

and

Skeleton : Lorem ipsum. This creature is undead and so these rules apply...

Both methods do the same damn thing. You can add other undead creatures just as easily. You can make non-undead skeletons just as easily, or undead with only some of the properties of being undead, whatever. If you feel that keywords are a threat to your creativity, well, your creativity obviously isn't as impressive as you thought.

And there are already rules and keywords and templating that triggers off creature types; Turn Undead, for example. Detect Evil. If you've created "Skeletal Mages", or whatever, and your notes have said "These are skeletons", that's a keyword.

What keywords do is make it faster to tell, at a glance, what is going to apply and what won't, without needing to dig through a block of text.

WOTC can use whatever words they want, key or otherwise. Really if they are dumb enough to think that buzzwords and catchphrases like "wandering monsters" are going to be enough to recapture the lost fanbase then they will be dissappointed.

If the essence of the game behind all the fancy wording is crap then all the old school buzzwords in the world won't save it.

Quote from: Piestrio;644552Or is the drive for a standardized experience so great that we need to toss out what makes RPGs unique in the first place?

Only if the standardization is mandatory. I'll just ignore what I don't find useful.

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 isn't 1978. They're trying to make 5E accessible to 15 and 20 year olds today. I know that makes you feel old and grumpy, but how can you expect a company that wants to earn a profit to behave differently?

Also, AD&D had all sorts of unnecessary shit that in the Monster Manual entries. Frequency, number appearing. Just look at treasure type. I mean, why couldn't groups just figure all that shit out on their own? The answer is they could. But some people wanted mechanical support for determining how often and how many monsters they would encounter, and what kind of treasure they would have.

Heck, what is alignment except an unnecessary tag?

Quote from: Ladybird;644673You can make non-undead skeletons just as easily

So those would be... skeletons?

But yeah this bitter debate wins the silliest pedantry over minutae award 2013, and it's not even May.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;644666Ok so you have proven that you have no idea what the fuck B/X actually is.

Oh noes, I'm sorry, I lost track of the ever-so-slightly different piles of horseshit that are older editions.

Good job on calling me out on that. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Haffrung;644676This isn't 1978. They're trying to make 5E accessible to 15 and 20 year olds today.

BUT BUT BUT 4e!

Quote from: Imp;644594And it's not as if 1e monsters didn't contain the seeds of the "keyword" business: demon, devil, elemental, undead, giant-class...

Ranger bonus against humanoids, anyone? Clearly, such cut-and-dried categorization poisoned any efforts at running a freewheeling, discretionary game at the table.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;644678Oh noes, I'm sorry, I lost track of the ever-so-slightly different piles of horseshit that are older editions.

Good job on calling me out on that. :rolleyes:

Protip: You will be taken more seriously if you at least appear to know what the hell you're talking about.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;644680Protip: You will be taken more seriously if you at least appear to know what the hell you're talking about.

You're arguing against the concept of identifying broad monster classifications as some sort of slippery slope towards extreme mechanization type deal.

I don't think I'm the one who needs to worry about being taken seriously.

Not only that, but there have already been a couple instances of people talking about 3e mechanics on this particular topic that clearly have no idea what they're talking about. That seems a significantly worse problem than not being able to tell the difference between B/X (whatever that is, not like I particularly care) and 1e.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;644681I don't think I'm the one who needs to worry about being taken seriously.

Indeed, with output such as

Quote from: GnomeWorkNot only that, but there have already been a couple instances of people talking about 3e mechanics on this particular topic that clearly have no idea what they're talking about. That seems a significantly worse problem than not being able to tell the difference between B/X (whatever that is, not like I particularly care) and 1e.

and

Quote from: GnomeWorkOh noes, I'm sorry, I lost track of the ever-so-slightly different piles of horseshit that are older editions.

you obviously don't care about being taken seriously as anything except possibly a troll...

It is debatable, and highly opinion based which versions of dnd are 'good' or 'bad'.

I don't see any reason to label one version objectively better than another.

Assuming the version is distinct.

Quote from: Bill;644689It is debatable, and highly opinion based which versions of dnd are 'good' or 'bad'.

I don't see any reason to label one version objectively better than another.

Assuming the version is distinct.

Indeed, it's silly to debate wich ed is better or worse. Doesn't mean people won't debate it, of course, especially since emotion is bound to be involved...but yeah, it's silly. I suppose one can say that some editions are better at certain playstyles than others, or that some will push the play towards certain styles more than others.

Personally I find that 4e, while functional enough just isn't for me, while 3x has a bunch of big problems (Pathfinder seems better but maaaaan...hundreds and hundreds of the pages...;)) allthough it also got cool stuff.

I think the rest of the editions are basically equally good.
Well okay I haven't read or played OD&D so can't comment
(But will after I get that sweet sweet box come November...)

Quote from: The Ent;644683you obviously don't care about being taken seriously as anything except possibly a troll...

Oh right, I forgot. Talking shit about 4e is completely acceptable, even expected, but bashing the holy writ of Gygax automatically makes someone a troll.

Yes, for whatever reason I was equating and/or confusing B/X with 1e. Sorry, my bad, but guess what, all that shit predates me by roughly a decade, so it all kind of runs together. Can you get the fuck over it now?

Quote from: GnomeWorks;644693Oh right, I forgot. Talking shit about 4e is completely acceptable, even expected, but bashing the holy writ of Gygax automatically makes someone a troll.

Yes, for whatever reason I was equating and/or confusing B/X with 1e. Sorry, my bad, but guess what, all that shit predates me by roughly a decade, so it all kind of runs together. Can you get the fuck over it now?

The difference here, is that I both played and ran 4E. When I am talking about some aspect of the game it is from firsthand experience.

Talking shit about games that you have zero experience with is why I cannot take you seriously because you are really just talking out of your ass.

If someone has played the older editions and still prefers the later ones I can accept that. That is a preference based upon an informed opinion.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;644695Talking shit about games that you have zero experience with is why I cannot take you seriously because you are really just talking out of your ass.

If someone has played the older editions and still prefers the later ones I can accept that. That is a preference based upon an informed opinion.

I've played 1e through 4e.

As I said - I mistook B/X for 1e.

This hobby has too many fucking acronyms.

Quote from: The Ent;644690Indeed, it's silly to debate wich ed is better or worse. Doesn't mean people won't debate it, of course, especially since emotion is bound to be involved...but yeah, it's silly. I suppose one can say that some editions are better at certain playstyles than others, or that some will push the play towards certain styles more than others.

Personally I find that 4e, while functional enough just isn't for me, while 3x has a bunch of big problems (Pathfinder seems better but maaaaan...hundreds and hundreds of the pages...;)) allthough it also got cool stuff.

I think the rest of the editions are basically equally good.
Well okay I haven't read or played OD&D so can't comment
(But will after I get that sweet sweet box come November...)

White Box costs $101.24  on Amazon with free shipping (to US anyway)
I want it, but I really can't spare the 100 dollars right now.
I need a winning lottery ticket.

Quote from: jeff37923;644634What do I do for a living? I'm a tabletop role-playing gamer and general nerd. To make money, I do different things.

While I have worked at a local game store, I have never owned one. I can tell you that the local chain game stores are doing poorly because they are not stocking games that are selling.

Any other personal information of mine that you would like? :D

Why yes, how does one make a living as a tabletop role-playing gamer and general nerd?  Honest question, not looking to poke at you or anything.  My work is relatively boring, and I like hearing about work that isn't :)

Quote from: GnomeWorks;644640Except that already exists. What, exactly, would be the point?

Not only that, but if they do that, I'd guarantee that the vast majority of 3e and 4e players walk away from the game.

Hey! Hey! There is a 3.x Player right here who is advocating B/X! Hey!

Quote from: GnomeWorks;644678Oh noes, I'm sorry, I lost track of the ever-so-slightly different piles of horseshit that are older editions.

Congrats on shooting yourself in the foot.

Quote from: Mistwell;644716Why yes, how does one make a living as a tabletop role-playing gamer and general nerd?  Honest question, not looking to poke at you or anything.  My work is relatively boring, and I like hearing about work that isn't :)

My real name is Jeff Hopper and I am a writer.

Try a search engine.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;644566Removal of ambiguity is what rules are for.

This is the dividing line, isn't it?

The ongoing argument over Time constraints versus fear of WorldofMagicWarcraftTheCataloguing seems just a side battle here, with standard exclusion of middle ground.

But unambiguous rules as the only way rules can/need/have to be - that's where the beef is.

My take on this:
In general I'd agree that rules are supposed to be as unambiguous as possible in just about any kind of game. Originally, even Gygax, as wargamer, must have seen it that way. But for various reasons he didn't quite succeed (to put it mildly). Amazingly, these ambiguous, badly (yet beautifully) written rules didn't deter the game's success, on the contrary. The unplanned outcome was something completely novel: An adult game where the (unspoken) social contract and spur of the moment took precedence over RAW. Because RAW was neither possible nor aimed at (flexibility and individual adaptability was).

That was an original and unique aspect of DnD that changed over time and finally got thrown over board on principle - by the Magic rules wizards of WotC whose success was based on a game that effortlessly juggled more rules than any other game before had ever had (if you see each single card as extension of the rules). By, among other things, extensive keywording...

I'm overly fond of analogies, so here goes: On the one hand there's the highly ambiguous, short and to the point US constitution abjudicated by a body of elderly GMs and their rulings (incidentally, with just about as many women and non-whites as in the general rpg population), on the other there are the water-tight continental European constitutions (3e) and EU regulations (4e).

Which way is better? Be careful: that is no question, that is a trap...
:p

I am looking at some BECIM books, and decided to see if they had descriptors on their monsters.  So I'm looking at the Companion DM book, and...

Almost all of them have the descriptor, in the first paragraph of the description of the monster.

Here are some examples:

Actaeon: Manlike
Adaptor: Humanoid
Athach: Giant Humanoid
Beholder, Undead (descriptor in the title)
Devilfish: Undersea
Dinosaur, Aquatic (descriptor in the title)
etc..

All they did is repeat that word, found in the first paragraph, up closer to the name of the monster.  And, then made these descriptors more uniform.  So instead of "Undersea" and "Aquatic" it's just "Aquatic".  That's it...that is the change we're talking about that has people bothered, that they repeat a descriptor found in the body text closer to the name of the creature for ease of organization, and made them more uniform.  It's an incredibly minor change.

This thread should surprise me, but doesn't.

1) When they repackage old mechanics as new, they aren't looking to impress the OSR. They're looking to make old stuff accessible to new players (3.x and 4e fans unfamiliar with prior editions). Calling them "pouches," "chests," etc. just makes the high-level flyby a little prettier for people who would have no idea what the hell to make of "Treasure Table A" because they can't very well put all the (half finished) treasure tables themselves in the article. They aren't re-inventing the wheel. They're presenting the wheel to a bunch of people who haven't heard of it yet, and maybe putting a card in the spokes to grab these peoples' attention.

2) Tagging monsters as part of an archetypical group is, by itself, fine. Myself, I'd like to see them treated properly as tags instead of as categories (so you can have humanoid undead and animal undead without worrying about templates and "x augmented y", and so that you can have tag-free monsters) but it's really no big deal at all. As it stands, it's a handy way to say "these spells work on these targets." And that's more or less it. I'm not getting the rage over that.

Quote from: jeff37923;644722My real name is Jeff Hopper and I am a writer.

Try a search engine.

Stellar Reaches fanzine author?

Quote from: Mistwell;644727Stellar Reaches fanzine author?

I got golf and God. :D

Quote from: GnomeWorks;644693Oh right, I forgot. Talking shit about 4e is completely acceptable, even expected, but bashing the holy writ of Gygax automatically makes someone a troll.

Yes, for whatever reason I was equating and/or confusing B/X with 1e. Sorry, my bad, but guess what, all that shit predates me by roughly a decade, so it all kind of runs together. Can you get the fuck over it now?

What, you're a 90s kid? Wow...now I feel old :rotfl:

I can see your POV, to a degree. However you gotta understand that talking shit about Games lots of folks here love while at the same time showing very clearly that you know nothing about them (to the point of not knowing the difference between AD&D and B/X) is pretty darn irritating and is bound to sour the mood. :nono:

For the record, I've read and played 4e and thus know what it is like. ;)

Quote from: jeff37923;644721Congrats on shooting yourself in the foot.

The ensuing rage of "OMG how could you ever possibly confuse one for the other" horseshit got to me.

This also smacks of the whole "nuh uh, there's like 10 editions of D&D" crap that I've heard spewed around before (not pointing fingers, and it's been awhile, but I know I've heard that number). Old-schoolers can't agree among themselves what constitutes an "edition," so getting all bent out of shape about someone mistaking one for the other in a tangent seems incredibly idiotic.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;644697I've played 1e through 4e.

As I said - I mistook B/X for 1e.

This hobby has too many fucking acronyms.

Don't feel bad, I played those versions and I still amn't quite clear on which came when, on account of not giving a crap. ;)

Quote from: GnomeWorks;644737...so getting all bent out of shape about someone mistaking one for the other in a tangent seems incredibly idiotic.

Especially to the guy who doesn't know what edition of D&D he is talking about.

Quote from: Mistwell;644727Stellar Reaches fanzine author?

Quote from: One Horse Town;644728I got golf and God. :D

Why can't it be all of the above?

Quote from: jeff37923;644739Especially to the guy who doesn't know what edition of D&D he is talking about.

Maybe I've just decided to block race-as-class from my memory considering just how fucking stupid that concept is.

Fucking happy now, asshole? Guess what, I'm aware of some of the conceits of Basic vs AD&D. I - somehow - misread someone talking about B/X as 1e. I have owned up to it several fucking times already, now can you quit being a fucking tool and move on?

Fucking hell.

Quote from: Mistwell;644724I am looking at some BECIM books, and decided to see if they had descriptors on their monsters.  So I'm looking at the Companion DM book, and...

Almost all of them have the descriptor, in the first paragraph of the description of the monster.

Here are some examples:

Actaeon: Manlike
Adaptor: Humanoid
Athach: Giant Humanoid
Beholder, Undead (descriptor in the title)
Devilfish: Undersea
Dinosaur, Aquatic (descriptor in the title)
etc..

All they did is repeat that word, found in the first paragraph, up closer to the name of the monster.  And, then made these descriptors more uniform.  So instead of "Undersea" and "Aquatic" it's just "Aquatic".  That's it...that is the change we're talking about that has people bothered, that they repeat a descriptor found in the body text closer to the name of the creature for ease of organization, and made them more uniform.  It's an incredibly minor change.

If it will make more people feel better by having that descriptor next to the monster name then sure why not, so long as that descriptor doesn't come with mechanical baggage on how such creatures of that type work mechanically such as standard HD type, associated other keywords that are attached, etc.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;644742Maybe I've just decided to block race-as-class from my memory considering just how fucking stupid that concept is.

....and many elf adventurers cried into thier pillows that night. :p

Quote from: Exploderwizard;644743...so long as that descriptor doesn't come with mechanical baggage on how such creatures of that type work mechanically such as standard HD type, associated other keywords that are attached, etc.

See, now, this? This is a reasonable reason for not wanting the keywords.

I would tend to agree. I think that there could be some things easily defined by keyword - what, exactly, I'm not sure - but yes, creature type should be a relatively simple concept that doesn't come with a whole lot of associated baggage. Using it purely for classification purposes and interaction with other mechanics (turn undead, etc) seems sensible enough.

I don't think the article got into the implications of the keywords, though. I'll admit I didn't read through it too carefully.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;644744....and many elf adventurers cried into thier pillows that night. :p

(http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/35376006.jpg)

Quote from: GnomeWorks;644742Maybe I've just decided to block race-as-class from my memory considering just how fucking stupid that concept is.

Fucking happy now, asshole? Guess what, I'm aware of some of the conceits of Basic vs AD&D. I - somehow - misread someone talking about B/X as 1e. I have owned up to it several fucking times already, now can you quit being a fucking tool and move on?

Fucking hell.

You know, a good round of golf while communing with God will help that blood pressure problem....

Quote from: Exploderwizard;644743If it will make more people feel better by having that descriptor next to the monster name then sure why not, so long as that descriptor doesn't come with mechanical baggage on how such creatures of that type work mechanically such as standard HD type, associated other keywords that are attached, etc.

Agreed

Quote from: jeff37923;644747You know, a good round of golf while communing with God will help that blood pressure problem....

Didn't that lead to an electrocution?

Quote from: jeff37923;644740Why can't it be all of the above?

OK, sent you a friend request on FB (feel free to reject if so inclined).

And damn, you're not at all a fatbeard.  My entire perception of your identity is shattered.  I now have to re-make it as "Decent looking bloke who writes cool shit for a living".  That won't be nearly as fun in the short term.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;644749Didn't that lead to an electrocution?

Only if you use Bill Murray as your caddy. Lightning never strikes Dan Akroyd, use him instead.

Quote from: jeff37923;644751Only if you use Bill Murray as your caddy. Lightning never strikes Dan Akroyd, use him instead.

I don't really want to hang out with a guy running around with an unlicensed nuclear accelerator on his back.

Quote from: Mistwell;644750OK, sent you a friend request on FB (feel free to reject if so inclined).

And damn, you're not at all a fatbeard.  My entire perception of your identity is shattered.  I now have to re-make it as "Decent looking bloke who writes cool shit for a living".  That won't be nearly as fun in the short term.

And you have been punk'd, Traveller style.

(I'm actually a TV weatherman in Ottawa.)

Quote from: GnomeWorks;644753I don't really want to hang out with a guy running around with an unlicensed nuclear accelerator on his back.

It isn't a real nuclear accelerator. We just have him wear it so we can keep the beer handy in a cold spot that nobody wants to touch.

Quote from: jeff37923;644754And you have been punk'd, Traveller style.

(I'm actually a TV weatherman in Ottawa.)

Whatever dude.  A simple no would suffice.  :)

Quote from: Mistwell;644758Whatever dude.  A simple no would suffice.  :)

No, it wouldn't.

See, I wasn't important enough to you to try and befriend on Facebook when you didn't think I was a published author with a sizeable following in Southern California. But as soon as you thought that I was, your entire attitude towards me changed. This tells me that you are a social climbing suck up looking for connections to network.

Luckily, I am unimportant in the grand scheme of things and can go on my merry little Clark Kent way.

Quote from: Opaopajr;644603In my experience Wandering Monster Tables have been a big GM time saver. Initially you front-load the effort, but the stochastic selection out of a spectrum really saves so much time. There's no "session encounter design" for huge swaths of the world because players understand that wilderness regions bring their own spectrum of hazards.

Not only that. Encounter tables are a useful part of setting description, succinct and to the point.
Granted, some GMs prefer flavorful prose to get the hang of a place, region, or situation but I can handle a weighted list much better in the heat of action.

Quote from: jeff37923;644761No, it wouldn't.

See, I wasn't important enough to you to try and befriend on Facebook when...

When I didn't know your name.

Come on dude.  You're overthinking. You said your name, so I added you on facebook.  That's it.  Had nothing at all to do with what you do for a living.  Ask around - there are others here I have on Facebook, and as far as I know none of them are famous or writers.  Anyone here wants to add me on FB, or wants me to add them, just let me know.  I am a FB slut that way.  My only standard is "I have some interactions with this person".  That's it.

As for you having a "sizable following in Southern California", I have no idea what that means.  I've never heard of that fanzine before.  I have not played any form of Traveller since the early 1980s or late 1970s (I have nothing against the game - I am just completely disassociated from it).  If you have a following out here, I am not aware of it.

Plus, why on earth would I need to network? I am not in the gaming industry, nor do I have any desire to be in that industry.  I am not a writer, beyond covering some panels at comic-cons for my buddy's website when he asks me for an extra hand. My business makes and sells graduation caps and gowns, judicial gowns, and choir robes.  So unless you're graduating, a school administrator, a judge, or in a choir, why would I want to network with you?  And frankly, even if you are one of those things, I don't do networking - I pay salespeople for that shit.  My wife is an actress though, so if you're a casting director or a producer, then I might consider sucking up on her behalf...but I wouldn't do it well, as I am not so good at sucking up.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;644742. . . [N]ow can you quit being a fucking tool and move on?

The irony is palpable.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;644767The irony is palpable.

Lest anyone forget, this spectacular pileup was because of a disagreement over whether monsters should be called undead or filed under undead.

Quote from: The Traveller;644770Lest anyone forget, this spectacular pileup was because of a disagreement over whether monsters should be called undead or filed under undead.

And the outcome?

Quote from: Exploderwizard;644743If it will make more people feel better by having that descriptor next to the monster name then sure why not, so long as that descriptor doesn't come with mechanical baggage on how such creatures of that type work mechanically such as standard HD type, associated other keywords that are attached, etc.

Quote from: Mistwell;644748Agreed

Quote from: GnomeWorks;644745This is a reasonable reason for not wanting the keywords.

:rotfl:

I think that whole discussion was a bit on the silly side myself...:D

Quote from: GnomeWorks;644640Except that already exists. What, exactly, would be the point?

Not only that, but if they do that, I'd guarantee that the vast majority of 3e and 4e players walk away from the game.

Why? After all, your Asbergers satisfying rules also already exist...

I find it cute that some members of the 3E and most especially the 4E crowd are getting their panties in a twist about any criticism or hint that their favourite rules are going to be dropped by the new edition. Or that, heaven forbid, a rules innovation could actually be a step backwards.

News Flash. 4E was the worst edition of D&D ever by several empirical criteria such as sales, longevity, etc.

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;644763Not only that. Encounter tables are a useful part of setting description, succinct and to the point.
Granted, some GMs prefer flavorful prose to get the hang of a place, region, or situation but I can handle a weighted list much better in the heat of action.

Very true. For example, there are so many creatures in the monster manual labeled in the Temperate Forested region with a Diurnal cycle you'd think it'd be a random mishmash. If you never read up on what random tables were trying to achieve it would be overwhelming data. The tool was described on how the GM selects what makes sense for that region and works the table from there.

It is on the GM to make the tables and give them a logical label. So Bucolic Urban Park is different from Dense Heath Goblin Forest, or Misty Fae Copse, or Hilly Evergreen Forest. I don't have to design CR/DL appropriate encounters when you walk into the Misty Fae Copse; you as a player should expect some mid-high level fae to mess your shit up. And that's actually liberating to both me as a GM, because I don't have to coddle my players and lovingly overcraft encounters, and to my friends as players, because they are free to take risks on their own terms -- and be responsible for that choice.

Quote from: Fiasco;644782Why? After all, your Asbergers satisfying rules also already exist...

Did I argue that 5e should copy 3e or 4e? Oh no, that's right, I didn't. Way to strawman, dumbass.

Each edition has something to offer. I can point to clear examples in 3e and 4e, because I have the most experience with them. I have significantly less experience with 1e and 2e, and no experience with anything older than that, so I can't comment on them extensively nor sufficiently enough to say what their piece of the 5e pie "should" be.

My problem is that a number of folks here seem to hold the opinion that older editions "hold the key," as it were, to 5e's success. I disagree with that premise not on the notion that the older editions are objectively inferior (I don't give two shits about them, but that is just my opinion), but that the environment in which a new edition is going to be released in is vastly different than the environment D&D sprang from, and that this must be taken into consideration.

This is further confounded by the community-at-large's incredibly fucking baffling idea that the media that supposedly informed 4e and the mechanics Mearls shat are somehow intrinsically tied together. I guess it's just willful ignorance, or some other ridiculous mental contortions. New is not bad, old is not bad; bad is bad, and each edition has its share of shit and idiocy. The goal should be to try to avoid the idiocy and focus on the good parts, and what can be improved upon from there.

Could someone explain to me in concise and simple language what's objectionable/controversial in the linked article? I don't understand what is causing the furore.

Quote from: Melan;644890Could someone explain to me in concise and simple language what's objectionable/controversial in the linked article? I don't understand what is causing the furore.

Hoters gotta hate...

Quote from: Melan;644890Could someone explain to me in concise and simple language what's objectionable/controversial in the linked article? I don't understand what is causing the furore.

Hi Melan, good to see you around, but don't let your senses come between a good argument, eh? ;). I underlined the direct answer to your question, for your convenience

Mention of 3e - style monster mechanics/keywords in the article causes comments that could and probably should be interpreted as "why not just use 1e monsters lackluster mechanics. (EDIT: And as jibbajibba pointed, a rather good argument about the usual masqarade in game design of the new old)" that lead to a broader interpretation of them by some as a notion that once again, DnD is abandoning it's foundation. Then, opposition to those statements raise, which, then again, result in a tempest in a teapot with your usual picks of D20 Of Forum Warrioring arguments.

And I in no ways abscond myself from such ways - I mean, don't mention Apocalypse World around me, eh heh.

Quote from: Melan;644890Could someone explain to me in concise and simple language what's objectionable/controversial in the linked article? I don't understand what is causing the furore.

the complaints seem to be.
i) It's just the same as the old 1e stuff so adds no real innovation but cilaims it does
ii) By havingcategories of creatures such as undead, dragons, giants that are used a bit like creature labels in MtG, so a thing could be an Undead Human Soldier and so might be affected by things that affect humans, undead or soldiers for example. This apparently is some sort of aspergers exercised in excessive rule control that removes people of free will, tries to enforce a draconian straight-jacket that reduces DM cantrol and crushes the imagination with its jack booted approach. Or you could ignore it or use it however you like.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;644743If it will make more people feel better by having that descriptor next to the monster name then sure why not, so long as that descriptor doesn't come with mechanical baggage on how such creatures of that type work mechanically such as standard HD type, associated other keywords that are attached, etc.

Quote from: JamesWyattThe Dungeons & Dragons world is populated by a staggering variety of creatures, from a multitude of intelligent races to animate plants, from celestials and fiends from other planes of existence to undead corpses given new life through terrible necromancy. In the bestiaries of this world, all these creatures are grouped into various types.

That's key to how we've tried to think about type: from the perspective of a medieval bestiary. If some monk in a library somewhere set out to put together a catalog of known monsters, what would the chapters be? If we come to a monster and aren't sure about its type, we try to think about what chapter it would belong in. It's not perfect, but it's a useful way to think about it.

A creature's type says something about its creation or origin, its nature, and its place in the world. In and of itself, it does not say anything about how the creature interacts with the rules of the game. That said, some spells, magic items, feats, class features, and other rules elements do interact with creature types. A magic circle spell, for example, is designed to keep fiends and undead at bay, while a dragon-slaying sword is, as you would expect, most effective against dragons.

So what you are saying is a bunch of people were getting their panties in a twist over absolutely jack shit.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;644901So what you are saying is a bunch of people were getting their panties in a twist over absolutely jack shit.

Yeah! :D

Thanks for the answers, folks!:)

And welcome back, Rincewind1!

Quote from: Emperor Norton;644901So what you are saying is a bunch of people were getting their panties in a twist over absolutely jack shit.

Well, this is the internet, so... business as usual, I suppose.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;644901So what you are saying is a bunch of people were getting their panties in a twist over absolutely jack shit.

With WOTC's track record regarding D&D, if something CAN be fucked up, it will be. If ever this were to change in actual produced products as opposed to just soapboxing in articles then perhaps attitudes will change.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;644912Well, this is the internet, so... business as usual, I suppose.

This is also absolutely true.

Far be it from me to expect WotC's record of trippable Gelatinous Cubes get in the way of my concerns about their potential mismanagement of taggable keywords.
:p

Quote from: Opaopajr;645084Far be it from me to expect WotC's record of trippable Gelatinous Cubes get in the way of my concerns about their potential mismanagement of taggable keywords.
:p

I understand what they were going for, from a design standpoint, but... yeah. That was fucking stupid.

Though I would argue that that wasn't due to an abuse of keywording, so much as it was the whole "special snowflake" horseshit... people would've complained about their powers not functioning on oozes, even though it made no sense for them to do so, so they just let it slide rather than have sensible mechanics.

Hell, in this case, keywords would've made it easier to fix: "Oozes are immune to the Prone condition." Bam, done.

I don't know, I'm just being neither optimistic or pessimistic until after its released. I mean getting indignant over a possibility that they already stated in the original article wasn't what they were doing just seems...

It just seems weird. Maybe its because I have to actually read a game before I can assume its shit...

Listening to arguments about whether you can trip a currently flying creature (or ooze), whinging about needing flying fighters to go against dragons (arrows? wuh?), and the coinciding concession of trippable Gelatinous Cubes and Hopping Dragons, et al...

... let me just say, though 5e game may be good, WotC's track record of listening to its customers and shitting up its product in spineless attempts to appease leaves me with the experience to have...

... lowered expectations.

However, I do look forward to being pleasantly surprised. Fair enough?:D

Quote from: GnomeWorks;645086Hell, in this case, keywords would've made it easier to fix: "Oozes are immune to the Prone condition." Bam, done.

True. Keywords in the hands of a firm authority can be a very useful tool.

However, no amount of singular source statute patching will catch up to the efficiency of diffused source common sense judgment. (Case in point, the reams of WotC errata) "Nothing is foolproof for fools are so ingenious." That's one place where the argument towards favoring GM Judgment does very well.

The taggable keywords are already being mismanaged.
A single "Type" is a gross simplification of how monsters work since it includes its biology (outsider, elemental, undead, construct, living) its shape (humanoid, ooze, aberration), some specific feature of its biology (plant, dragon), WTF subcategories (yuan-ti being 'cursed', so they count as monstrosities rather than humanoids) and then piles on inconsistent categories to fit in all the leftovers (aberration, Beast which includes somewhat dragon-like reptiles, regular mammals like horses, and things that are almost as weird as aberrations - squids or whatever).

If a proneizing power ran off the 'Ooze' keyword, its still basically going to work on the Fire Ooze, which would be an Elemental but still amorphous. Or is green slime an Ooze or a Plant for purposes of killing it with weedkiller? Vice versa a power that works on humanoids because of their shape (Iron Bands of Bilarro or something maybe, or 2E psychokinetic 'control body') should work equally well on a mummy [Undead] or a mind flayer for the most part [Aberration].

The keyword system is going to be a horrible mess unless they ditch the idea that every monster has or needs a category, and let things have no type or multiple types if necessary.

Well, D&D fans perhaps never experienced the joy of taxonomy wars, as any biologist has had the fortune to endure. I oh ever so do look forward to the taxonomy classification battles of imaginary creatures. When whole "Kingdoms" and "Phylum" get renamed and shifted there'll be much colorful language exchanged.

As a flexible, completely optional tool for a GM at their specific table, cool. Might make their life easier. But I worry about the RPGA/Society influence and how WotC will likely bend to them. And afterwards, I will be quite entertained. I mean, really, why is a bugbear neither bug nor bear...

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;645092The taggable keywords are already being mismanaged.
A single "Type" is a gross simplification of how monsters work since it includes its biology (outsider, elemental, undead, construct, living) its shape (humanoid, ooze, aberration), some specific feature of its biology (plant, dragon), WTF subcategories (yuan-ti being 'cursed', so they count as monstrosities rather than humanoids) and then piles on inconsistent categories to fit in all the leftovers (aberration, Beast which includes somewhat dragon-like reptiles, regular mammals like horses, and things that are almost as weird as aberrations - squids or whatever).

If a proneizing power ran off the 'Ooze' keyword, its still basically going to work on the Fire Ooze, which would be an Elemental but still amorphous. Or is green slime an Ooze or a Plant for purposes of killing it with weedkiller? Vice versa a power that works on humanoids because of their shape (Iron Bands of Bilarro or something maybe, or 2E psychokinetic 'control body') should work equally well on a mummy [Undead] or a mind flayer for the most part [Aberration].

The keyword system is going to be a horrible mess unless they ditch the idea that every monster has or needs a category, and let things have no type or multiple types if necessary.

If they take MtG's approach, treating keywords more as tags for effects rather than effects themselves, and allowing for keyword mixing as per modern magic (Goblin Soldier Lord, for example), it may work quite well.

Quote from: Rincewind1;645101If they take MtG's approach, treating keywords more as tags for effects rather than effects themselves, and allowing for keyword mixing as per modern magic (Goblin Soldier Lord, for example), it may work quite well.

I've never played magic. Oh, I expect keywords could work, if they could have more than one per monster; currently they've just based it off 3Es system though (where every monster had to have a type) without thinking it through.

Quote from: Mistwell;644764When I didn't know your name.

Come on dude.  You're overthinking. You said your name, so I added you on facebook.  That's it.  Had nothing at all to do with what you do for a living.  Ask around - there are others here I have on Facebook, and as far as I know none of them are famous or writers.  Anyone here wants to add me on FB, or wants me to add them, just let me know.  I am a FB slut that way.  My only standard is "I have some interactions with this person".  That's it.

As for you having a "sizable following in Southern California", I have no idea what that means.  I've never heard of that fanzine before.  I have not played any form of Traveller since the early 1980s or late 1970s (I have nothing against the game - I am just completely disassociated from it).  If you have a following out here, I am not aware of it.

Plus, why on earth would I need to network? I am not in the gaming industry, nor do I have any desire to be in that industry.  I am not a writer, beyond covering some panels at comic-cons for my buddy's website when he asks me for an extra hand. My business makes and sells graduation caps and gowns, judicial gowns, and choir robes.  So unless you're graduating, a school administrator, a judge, or in a choir, why would I want to network with you?  And frankly, even if you are one of those things, I don't do networking - I pay salespeople for that shit.  My wife is an actress though, so if you're a casting director or a producer, then I might consider sucking up on her behalf...but I wouldn't do it well, as I am not so good at sucking up.

Oh, for fuck's sake.

For those of you out there who might be as dense as Mistwell, I have the following. No, I am not the creative force behind Freelance Traveller (http://www.freelancetraveller.com/) or Stellar Reaches (http://stellarreaches.nwgamers.org/issues/), although my articles have appeared in both (And you should download them all and read them because there is SFRPG gold in those free PDFs).  I am also not the author of several books on golf and God that are popular in Southern California, mainly because I find golf boring and God all too often misrepresented. I am not a weatherman in Ottawa. I do share the same name as these guys do and am glad because it keeps weasels like Mistwell from hounding me across the internet, as they seem to always be attracted to the bigger fish.

It took me forever to read through this fucking thread.  Honestly, looking at the article I have a lot of trouble understanding why any old school gamer wouldn't be fucking overjoyed at the perspective they're taking here.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Opaopajr;645090Listening to arguments about whether you can trip a currently flying creature (or ooze), whinging about needing flying fighters to go against dragons (arrows? wuh?), and the coinciding concession of trippable Gelatinous Cubes and Hopping Dragons, et al...

Golden ones.

Arrows? We don't need no stinkin' arrows. Besides, when I can't use my sword, I'm deprotagonised.

Quote from: Rincewind1;645838deprotagonised.

In retrospect, I find it hard to wrap my head around how 4e abandoned the concept of the versatile fighter in its initial release. Prior to that, having a ranged weapon, for any class, at all times, just in case, seemed vitally important.

Though I will admit flying is cooler, if less practical.

Quote from: jeff37923;645137Oh, for fuck's sake.

For those of you out there who might be as dense as Mistwell, I have the following. No, I am not the creative force behind Freelance Traveller (http://www.freelancetraveller.com/) or Stellar Reaches (http://stellarreaches.nwgamers.org/issues/), although my articles have appeared in both (And you should download them all and read them because there is SFRPG gold in those free PDFs).  I am also not the author of several books on golf and God that are popular in Southern California, mainly because I find golf boring and God all too often misrepresented. I am not a weatherman in Ottawa. I do share the same name as these guys do and am glad because it keeps weasels like Mistwell from hounding me across the internet, as they seem to always be attracted to the bigger fish.

You seem to have lumped me in with a whole bunch of other people.  All I asked was if you were the guy who contributed to Stellar Reaches.  The answer is, apparently, yes.  I didn't mention golf, Weathermen, Ottawa, or God, that was other people.  I'm sorry you are having trouble keeping track of the conversation you're having with people here.  

I didn't hound you - I send an invite on FB, to you (and it is you), and told you you're free to decline if you so choose.  That's it.  I've done that same thing with many others, and many others have done it with me.  You're the first, the very first, to take something personal from it.  Are you just a drama queen or something?  You are, to me, that guy Jeff who I have animated discussions with on therpgsite.com sometimes.  That's it.  

You gave me your name and told me to Google it.  I did that, found the Traveller articles, and asked if you were that guy.  If you have a problem with people Googling your name and asking about what they find, THEN DON'T FUCKING GIVE PEOPLE YOUR NAME AND TELL THEM TO GOOGLE YOU.

Can we let at least some ridiculousness rest? I've been getting my Hasbro hate on and y'all are harshing my buzz.