As I've posted on my blog (http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/2014/06/if-these-revelations-dont-make-you.html), if the latest news about the new D&D Basic and the D&D Starter set don't end up making you admit that the new D&D is making a sufficient old-school effort, then you never ever actually could have been convinced (short of maybe Wizards announcing they're scrapping 5e entirely and will now only release the OD&D booklets in their original form, complete with a rare reproduction of one of Gary Gygax's shopping lists from 1973 so that grognards can speculate as to whether the presence of 'swiss cheese', 'baby wipes' and 'beer' on the list may have in some way influenced the origins of the game).
RPGPundit
Because then they would have nothing to complain about.
Quote from: dragoner;756283Because then they would have nothing to complain about.
Pretty much. Heck you know just about any veteran player of Dnd or some variation of it will at least give it a try anyhow.
hmmm, I've actually warmed to it a bit. A soft cover print copy of the basic rules for under $30 would carry me a lot farther than that.
But I'm not really an old schooler, I just dislike second - fourth more than I dislike OD&D and 1e. If they hadn't made the races into classes I'd even like BXCMI.
Still, I'll have to see what they've actually done with the rules. I expect there's enough modernization twaddle in there that I'll hate it. They got rid of hit dice last I heard, frankly, if they have a minion rule and got rid of hit dice I'll have to find Mearls and slap him personally because hit dice were already a minion rule.
I absolutely detested what WotC did in and around 4e. But man, it seems like they are really trying to appeal to gamers old and new with 5e.
I'm in a position where I have an absolute ton of games I still need/want to run, and that's just in the fantasy genre, including Castles & Crusades and Palladium Fantasy. But I'm likely to at least check out 5e Basic, if nothing else, to see what it's all about, and if there's anything of note to add to my game and campaign.
Quote from: Marleycat;756292Pretty much. Heck you know just about any veteran player of Dnd or some variation of it will at least give it a try anyhow.
Yeah. Mostly it is just watching the "rilly big show" of 5e's release, you don't see that everyday. Maybe it is only child syndrome, feeling you have a right to complain; I was raised by the Borg Collective, my real name is 3 of 5. Complaining was a punishable offense.
Er, didn't 4e have a starter boxed set? So does Pathfinder. I don't see the big deal or why one is "old school"
Also, I have never actually played, read, or even seen B10, so it being used for the basic set has zero bearing on my opinion of it.
OTOH, I think bounded accuracy is dumb. You give monsters ton of hit points and then lower their armor class so you hit them all the time? And this single design idea makes 5e stuff largely incompatible with previous editions.
Better than 4e, though.
Okay. I admit it. I'm totally against something I have no direct knowledge of.
What?
I dunno. I'm having a tough time hating something that isn't even out yet. It is far easier to be annoyed by the nitwits who have already decided who is and who isn't a hater based on the voices in their head.
My main resistance to 5E is primarily to avoid jumping onto a new splatbook treadmill. It is largely to avoid wasting more time and money on being a "compulsive completionist" of 5E books.
In hindsight, I'm glad I was completely clueless and away on a long hiatus during the time when 3E and the d20 glut was in full force.
"Things have quieted down...I painted myself into a corner with a pointless argument that had no merit, after I positioned myself as some kind of '5e guru' because I was a paid 'consultant'...and now the noise has died down and nobody's giving me attention any more. What to do...what to do...
Oh!
I know!
I'll gin up controversy where there is none! Fifth edition seems to be have a broad, medium-depth appeal, and they're making good faith efforts, so I'll leap into my forum and try to drum up some nastyness where none exists.
Take that grognards!"
Quote from: thedungeondelver;756310"Things have quieted down...I painted myself into a corner with a pointless argument that had no merit, after I positioned myself as some kind of '5e guru' because I was a paid 'consultant'...and now the noise has died down and nobody's giving me attention any more. What to do...what to do...
Oh!
I know!
I'll gin up controversy where there is none! Fifth edition seems to be have a broad, medium-depth appeal, and they're making good faith efforts, so I'll leap into my forum and try to drum up some nastyness where none exists.
Take that grognards!"
:hatsoff:
Quote from: ggroy;756309My main resistance to 5E is primarily to avoid jumping onto a new splatbook treadmill. It is largely to avoid wasting more time and money on being a "compulsive completionist" of 5E books.
In hindsight, I'm glad I was completely clueless and away on a long hiatus during the time when 3E and the d20 glut was in full force.
To be fair to 5E, though, it sounds like the current plan is specifically to break the treadmill. You'll still get completists but you won't get the same push to be a completist from Wizards.
Quote from: JeremyR;756303OTOH, I think bounded accuracy is dumb. You give monsters ton of hit points and then lower their armor class so you hit them all the time?
... That pretty much has nothing to do with what bounded accuracy is.
Quote from: Warthur;756321To be fair to 5E, though, it sounds like the current plan is specifically to break the treadmill. You'll still get completists but you won't get the same push to be a completist from Wizards.
I'll be taking a wait-and-see approach over the next year or so.
I hope most of the "3pp glut" and WotC proliferation will be in the form of digital-only content (whether DDI type of services and/or pdfs), and not as published paper books.
In hindsight, the 4E splatbook treadmill was actually somewhat manageable. Mostly one or two WotC books per month, and the occasional module from Goodman. (Most of the other 3pp companies dropped out of the 4E market relatively quickly, such as Mongoose, XRP, etc ... with Goodman eventually exiting too).
Quote from: ggroy;756309My main resistance to 5E is primarily to avoid jumping onto a new splatbook treadmill. It is largely to avoid wasting more time and money on being a "compulsive completionist" of 5E books.
In hindsight, I'm glad I was completely clueless and away on a long hiatus during the time when 3E and the d20 glut was in full force.
That's a valid concern to have. At least to my understanding the model they are trying to do seems to be similar to 2e or Pathfinder then 3x/4e.
Quote from: JeremyR;756303....
OTOH, I think bounded accuracy is dumb. You give monsters ton of hit points and then lower their armor class so you hit them all the time? And this single design idea makes 5e stuff largely incompatible with previous editions.
Whether it's a part of or called bounded accuracy or not (someone in this thread says it's not, and I'm not in a position to agree or disagree), that right there is one of the design decisions I like in 5e. Lower AC and higher hit points means a posse or militia can be dangerous to anything and even the most powerful PC has to be careful of running into too many Kobolds at once. High ACs mean only powerful individuals out of groups are really a threat. Whether the actual values reflect the idea once it's done is still to be seen, but I like the idea.
Quote from: JeremyR;756303OTOH, I think bounded accuracy is dumb. You give monsters ton of hit points and then lower their armor class so you hit them all the time?
Not only the armor classes get lowered, also the bonus to hit, so no "you hit all the time".
The point of bounded accuracy is to close the gap between low and high level characters and monsters. Think Rolemaster. In Rolemaster, even a 1st level goblin can kill in one strike a 15th level fighter.
QuoteOTOH, I think bounded accuracy is dumb. You give monsters ton of hit points and then lower their armor class so you hit them all the time? And this single design idea makes 5e stuff largely incompatible with previous editions.
No, the math is much flatter you also lower the to hit values. It's so that low level monsters in groups are a serious danger even to high level characters. Among many other advantages in game and out of course. And from what I have seen only 4e will be a problem in conversion.
With regards to bounded accuracy, personally I'd rather keep HP uniformly low (or incorporate a Wounds/Vitality system, or both) while keeping ACs higher. A natural 20 always hits, and if even a single arrow or sword-swipe can end a character's life then they have to be careful.
But then, I've never been a fan of the hyper-abstracted "hit points represent blocks and parries" model.
I am not sure why a free PDF of the rules is an "old school" thing? It's a concept that is connected to modern ideas of gaming and first saw light in 3e.
I still think that a copy of the Basic PDF should have been in a box set. Trust new RPGers to get into a game when you provide them everything they need in a single physical product. The idea that new RPGers need a limited "board game" like physical product to capture their interest is a modern concept that I don't agree with.
The Basic PDF being free does help the issue, but it's all still clearly a modern approach to the issue, rather than trusting that the older approach, when D&D was at its most popular, is the better one.
Does this mean that there is nothing WotC can do to convince me? No. The base ruleset of 5e looks OK to me. If they had put Basic in a box set and showed that they trusted RPGs to appeal to new RPGers as a complete physical product, I would have no gripe with them. They would have showed understanding about has always been the true the appeal of RPGs. As it is, it's really just no more than we have been getting since 2000. It's neither new or "old school". Just the same as before.
All this argument has convinced me is that some old school RPGers are so desperate to have an RPG that at least gives them lip service that they will compromise even lot and applaud whatever is dished up to them.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;756310Take that grognards!"
Yep. :)
Quote from: thedungeondelver;756310"Things have quieted down...I painted myself into a corner with a pointless argument that had no merit, after I positioned myself as some kind of '5e guru' because I was a paid 'consultant'...and now the noise has died down and nobody's giving me attention any more. What to do...what to do...
Oh!
I know!
I'll gin up controversy where there is none! Fifth edition seems to be have a broad, medium-depth appeal, and they're making good faith efforts, so I'll leap into my forum and try to drum up some nastyness where none exists.
Take that grognards!"
I came here to post this, mostly. Pundit can take his bullshit "you're with 5e or against 5e" ultimatum and shove it. I'll pass judgement on 5e when I see it, thankyouverymuch.
Quote from: The Butcher;756356I came here to post this, mostly. Pundit can take his bullshit "you're with 5e or against 5e" ultimatum and shove it. I'll pass judgement on 5e when I see it, thankyouverymuch.
Pundit's attempt to define victors and losers where there need be none, is what he has built his reputation on.
Quote from: Skywalker;756359Pundit's attempt to define victors and losers where there need be none, is what he has built his reputation on.
I know. It's the Swine thing all over again. "If you play Not RPGs you are collaborating with the Postmodernist plot to destroy Western civilization!"
I admit, there's a large part of me that wants to see 5E be a towering success ...
... where the vast majority of the new players use it to play High Romantic Fantasy, 'storygaming'-style, post-Gygaxian AD&D style games in the Dragonlance and 2E traditions. :D
Of course, I favor that style anyway, so the ironic reversal and probable apoplectic collapse of the Pundit would be just the cherry on the sundae. :)
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;756363I admit, there's a large part of me that wants to see 5E be a towering success ...
... where the vast majority of the new players use it to play High Romantic Fantasy, 'storygaming'-style, post-Gygaxian AD&D style games in the Dragonlance and 2E traditions. :D
Of course, I favor that style anyway, so the ironic reversal and probable apoplectic collapse of the Pundit would be just the cherry on the sundae. :)
:rotfl:
Quote from: RPGPundit;756280As I've posted on my blog (http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/2014/06/if-these-revelations-dont-make-you.html), if the latest news about the new D&D Basic and the D&D Starter set don't end up making you admit that the new D&D is making a sufficient old-school effort, then you never ever actually could have been convinced (short of maybe Wizards announcing they're scrapping 5e entirely and will now only release the OD&D booklets in their original form, complete with a rare reproduction of one of Gary Gygax's shopping lists from 1973 so that grognards can speculate as to whether the presence of 'swiss cheese', 'baby wipes' and 'beer' on the list may have in some way influenced the origins of the game).
Quote from: thedungeondelver;756310"Things have quieted down...I painted myself into a corner with a pointless argument that had no merit, after I positioned myself as some kind of '5e guru' because I was a paid 'consultant'...and now the noise has died down and nobody's giving me attention any more. What to do...what to do...
Oh!
I know!
I'll gin up controversy where there is none! Fifth edition seems to be have a broad, medium-depth appeal, and they're making good faith efforts, so I'll leap into my forum and try to drum up some nastyness where none exists.
Take that grognards!"
Pretty much. Is any well-known old-school blogger or personality actually saying "BOO! IHATE 5E!" or is it just people saying "I have this older game I like, and no one's shown me a reason to switch yet"? I wasn't involved in the play test and have mostly been ignoring the 5e development, but some of the things I've seen haven't made me want to play. The unified XP chart with the new lower costs to reach 2nd level is useless to me. The advantage/disadvantage system seems fine, but I notice there are also bonuses and penalties; pick one, doofus. It's got the modern ability bonus inflation. So, if I were to switch to 5e, I'd have to substitute the old XP tables and old ability bonuses, and fix the modififiers. Why not just keep playing what I'm playing?
And I'm sorry, but someone saying " the basic D&D PDF is inspired by Rules Cyclopedia " means nothing to me, and not just because I never used the Rules Cyclopedia. "Inspired" could mean practically anything. Inspired by the format? Inspired by the concept of a single gamebook? Until we actually see the book, we don't know. Hell, I'm sure some of the story game faux-school dungeon games probably claim the Rules Cyclopedia, too.
I like the fact that there will be a version of D&D that is free. I'll certainly check it out. But I chalk up the "anti-anti-5e" hysteria to the typical RPG geek rule that everyone must be hyper enthusiastic about every upcoming product at all times. The tiniest lack of commitment means you are a HATER.
Cause nothing says "old school" quite like ...
A rulebook based on a rulebook released in 1991.
An adventure based on an adventure released in 1986
A 10th level fighter getting killed by kobolds
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;756363I admit, there's a large part of me that wants to see 5E be a towering success ...
... where the vast majority of the new players use it to play High Romantic Fantasy, 'storygaming'-style, post-Gygaxian AD&D style games in the Dragonlance and 2E traditions. :D
Of course, I favor that style anyway, so the ironic reversal and probable apoplectic collapse of the Pundit would be just the cherry on the sundae. :)
+1000
(Given that must be my preferred style given I love Dragonlance as a setting and White Wolf/Onyx Path games).
Quote from: The Butcher;756356I came here to post this, mostly. Pundit can take his bullshit "you're with 5e or against 5e" ultimatum and shove it. I'll pass judgement on 5e when I see it, thankyouverymuch.
If D&D was still that important to me, I'd buy it and compare. I don't really have the time, especially when I have rulesets that work. I mean, I know the industry depends on it, but i can't imagine most of us, who have gotten along quite well, will rush one way or the other.
I'll buy it; no stress. Pundit being an instigator or not.
Quote from: talysman;756375The tiniest lack of commitment means you are a HATER.
Or the tiniest criticism that isn't even of the game itself but the corporate marketing strategy.
To 'hate' something I have to first care about it... and at this point I'm pretty much indifferent.
Quote from: Simlasa;756388Or the tiniest criticism that isn't even of the game itself but the corporate marketing strategy.
To 'hate' something I have to first care about it... and at this point I'm pretty much indifferent.
If you're complaining about the marketing strategy methinks your not. And like Windjammer have some kind of axe to grind (mostly against WotC just a bit against Pundit) like Butcher does (but his is specifically against Pundit). Interesting what you figure out just by lurking now and again isn't it?
Mine are level limits, class exclusion without reason or viable options offered like DCC, RC, LL, ACKS for example and Dnd standard vancian magic systems.
Pundit is entertaining yet provocative to me and gives me a game site where you have to be truly whacko to be banned from. But we all have axes to grind you know?:)
I don't hate 5e. I can't...because 5e has not come out yet. Since it has not come out yet, that means I haven't read 5e or played 5e yet to make any determination of whether 5e is a good game for me.
BTW, notice the last sentence. 5e, or any other game, may be a truly great game, but the only thing that matters TO ME is whether Game XYZ is a good game for me.
However, I did not enjoy the 5e playtests. I ran and/or played every playtest version at least once, and I have followed all the development of the game...and the marketing. As for the actual 5e, we will wait and see.
I do not pretend to speak for all Old Schoolers, but certainly for the AD&D Revival faction of the OSR are only interested in TSR era editions and TSR products, anything that is more radical that OSRIC isn't on the menu.
(shrugs) From my standpoint as a confirmed D&D hater, I still have to join with the vox populi and agree that hating a game that hasn't actually been released yet is well to the left of moronic.
I also think that liking a game that hasn't actually been released yet is pretty damn moronic as well.
Come to that, whipping up a jihad against or defending to the death a game that hasn't actually been released yet is a sure sign that you have way too much time on your hands.
Quote from: Ravenswing;756403I also think that liking a game that hasn't actually been released yet is pretty damn moronic as well.
Some are liking it because they participated in the playtest and assuming WOTC hasnt lied through their teeth, the final playtest was pretty darn promising after 13 years of WOTC botching things one way or another.
Unfortunately this IS Mearls and WOTC et al we are dealing with and all bets are off till the thing is on the shelves/pdf and we can see for ourselves.
But assuming no colossal blunders. Next should be pretty darn good.
That is my current view.
I really hope Next succeeds.
Quote from: Ravenswing;756403From my standpoint as a confirmed D&D hater, I still have to join with the vox populi and agree that hating a game that hasn't actually been released yet is well to the left of moronic.
Yeah... hah! There's that too. Unlike some here I had no part in the playtests and I haven't read much about the details of what's actually supposedly in the game. D&D accounts for very little of my gaming history.
So how could I be anything BUT indifferent till it arrives?
Some of the rumors have grabbed my interest but others put me off... as do some of the zealous trolls here.
Quote from: JeremyR;756303Er, didn't 4e have a starter boxed set? So does Pathfinder. I don't see the big deal or why one is "old school"
You don't see how streamlinging rules, getting rid of feats and extensive skill systems and fiddly things like prestige classes and ditching uber-focus on balance and going gridless and using a sandbox toolbox setting and basing the rules on an old school set with an old school module is more old school in nature? Really?
QuoteOTOH, I think bounded accuracy is dumb. You give monsters ton of hit points and then lower their armor class so you hit them all the time? And this single design idea makes 5e stuff largely incompatible with previous editions.
LOL that's not bounded accuracy. First, it has nothing to do with hit points. Monsters do not have inflated hit points at all, and in fact one complaint so far is that they have too few hit points (that's something being corrected in the final version, along with some math balancing for the rest of monsters).
Second, bounded accuracy involves just two things - attack bonuses, and AC. You do not hit the all the time - indeed it's hard to hit things, because attack bonus is the other thing that's been constrained. Natural scores cannot go beyond 20 without serious and very rare magic, magic weapons typically don't go beyond +1 unless they are deeply rare, and there are no fiddly little feats and such to crank to-hit either.
So no, bounded accuracy is not cranking hit points and lowering AC. In the playtest, it's worked very well. You should try it before outright dismissing it.
Quote from: ggroy;756331I'll be taking a wait-and-see approach over the next year or so.
I hope most of the "3pp glut" and WotC proliferation will be in the form of digital-only content (whether DDI type of services and/or pdfs), and not as published paper books.
In hindsight, the 4E splatbook treadmill was actually somewhat manageable. Mostly one or two WotC books per month, and the occasional module from Goodman. (Most of the other 3pp companies dropped out of the 4E market relatively quickly, such as Mongoose, XRP, etc ... with Goodman eventually exiting too).
I think if treadmill and glut is your concern, that's a wise plan. Everything points to an approach that is anti-treadmill and drastically reduced glut. But, I think it's absolutely fair to say "prove it, I will wait a year or two and see if that's true". If it's true, the game will still be there later to pick up. If it's false, then you will pat yourself on the back for having avoided it.
Another fairly safe approach would be to download the Basic rules when they come out for free, and check them out. And then if there is strong word of mouth on a particular adventure (which I am guessing will run about $15 for a hardback adventure on Amazon), maybe buy that and check it out using just the Basic rules.
Quote from: Marleycat;756349No, the math is much flatter you also lower the to hit values. It's so that low level monsters in groups are a serious danger even to high level characters. Among many other advantages in game and out of course. And from what I have seen only 4e will be a problem in conversion.
Yeah one big issue with 4e conversion will be room and corridor size. Same problem I had with converting adventures from 1e-3e for use in 4e. 4e really benefits from larger rooms, larger spaces in general, to allow for lots of movement and manipulation of foes. It can be fixed by just doubling everything, but that often breaks maps that were originally tightly designed.
As for the rest of a conversion, I guess that awaits the DMG and the "edition conversion document" they keep hinting at.
Quote from: Mistwell;756422Yeah one big issue with 4e conversion will be room and corridor size. Same problem I had with converting adventures from 1e-3e for use in 4e. 4e really benefits from larger rooms, larger spaces in general, to allow for lots of movement and manipulation of foes. It can be fixed by just doubling everything, but that often breaks maps that were originally tightly designed.
As for the rest of a conversion, I guess that awaits the DMG and the "edition conversion document" they keep hinting at.
I agree. It's the grid thing that's problematic. I'm just waiting for the conversion docs and to see if the DMG is similar to FantasyCraft before I'm totally completely a 5ver.:)
Quote from: talysman;756375Pretty much. Is any well-known old-school blogger or personality actually saying "BOO! IHATE 5E!"
Does ExploderWizard have a blog?
Quote from: talysman;756375Pretty much. Is any well-known old-school blogger or personality actually saying "BOO! IHATE 5E!" or is it just people saying "I have this older game I like, and no one's shown me a reason to switch yet"?
There are groups in the OSR who focus on a specific edition in the same chess club is focused on chess. Most of these gamers the mindset is "I am happy with the older game and see no reason to change now." Also for the most part they are not into OSR blogging or advocacy. They are there for the edition of their choice and that fine by them.
Occasionally somebody goes in there and tries to tell them they should play Go instead of Chess. That where you get most of the "stories" about old school fanatics. Some people don't get that their forum or group is about X edition and that it is OK for that to happen.
Outside of that I have to say attitude of most OSR bloggers I know, including myself, is one of cautious optimism. Wizards has built up goodwill with the reprints and PDFs. If they bring it home with the 5e release cycle I will be there cheering them along.
Once again a voice of reason I lurk at Dragonsfoot and similar every once in a while and to me (a 2/3e girl) they're sane mostly. I haven't registered because I have nothing to add honestly. They sound hopeful about 5e to me, at least in the majority.
There are several reasons why some won't consider 5E "a sufficient old-school effort."
Some are already happy with other iterations of the game. They're not potential customers of 5E, regardless of its design or marketing.
Others have a reflexive distrust, hatred even, of WotC, as the publisher of editions they hate. Some hate WotC because it's the big company in the industry, and to them the OSR is all about indie DIY.
And then there are those who have much invested in their online dogma and tribal forum identity. Just as forgists and RPG hipsters can't accept 5E because it eschews their ideal model of narrow, math-first, system-up design, those grognards who define themselves more by what they're against than what they're for will never accept a version of D&D that makes any concessions to mechanics or play modes enjoyed by people who started playing D&D after 1989. How could they, when much of the energy that fueled the OSR was a fierce reaction against modern play?
Fortunately for WotC, those groups are collectively smaller than the market of long-timer players who are looking for old-school play modes, but aren't particular wedded to every mechanic from TSR D&D. This wider group doesn't care about (nor are they even aware of) the dogma that grew around the OSR. And they don't have any particular animosity towards WotC (though they may be wary after 4E turned out so strange). If a new, in-print edition of D&D can support theatre of the mind play, features familiar classes, and is easier to run than 3E or 4E, then the quiet mass of old-schoolers players will enjoy it just fine.
Quote from: JeremyR;756303Er, didn't 4e have a starter boxed set? So does Pathfinder. I don't see the big deal or why one is "old school"
Also, I have never actually played, read, or even seen B10, so it being used for the basic set has zero bearing on my opinion of it.
OTOH, I think bounded accuracy is dumb. You give monsters ton of hit points and then lower their armor class so you hit them all the time? And this single design idea makes 5e stuff largely incompatible with previous editions.
Better than 4e, though.
As far as I know, bounded accuracy is to keep the numbers under control. You don't really need to have fighters get a +20 to hit at level 20.
HP should not be increased because accuracy is controlled.
Quote from: Bill;756448As far as I know, bounded accuracy is to keep the numbers under control. You don't really need to have fighters get a +20 to hit at level 20.
HP should not be increased because accuracy is controlled.
Bingo! How about +7? And only the fighter gets 2 attacks per round in BASIC? Yes there are adders in BASIC but think about the baseline before panicking.
Quote from: Haffrung;756447Fortunately for WotC, those groups are collectively smaller than the market of long-timer players who are looking for old-school play modes, but aren't particular wedded to every mechanic from TSR D&D. This wider group doesn't care about (nor are they even aware of) the dogma that grew around the OSR. And they don't have any particular animosity towards WotC (though they may be wary after 4E turned out so strange). If a new, in-print edition of D&D can support theatre of the mind play, features familiar classes, and is easier to run than 3E or 4E, then the quiet mass of old-schoolers players will enjoy it just fine.
Damn good job of describing me. Tip of the hat, sir.
I'll decide what I think about 5e after I download the free PDF and check out the rules.
WotC appears to be making some moves in the right direction, as far as appealing to my tastes, but I can't say any more than that at this point. I'm not anti-5e, I just haven't seen anything that makes me think I should abandon what I'm currently playing in order to adopt 5e.
QUOTE=Old One Eye;756462]Damn good job of describing me. Tip of the hat, sir.[/QUOTE]
That described me and my friends and their friends and so on and so forth. I'm just the flagbearer...there are a huge number of 2/3e players that use both systems...it looks okay so far...
Quote from: talysman;756375Pretty much. Is any well-known old-school blogger or personality actually saying "BOO! IHATE 5E!" or is it just people saying "I have this older game I like, and no one's shown me a reason to switch yet"? I wasn't involved in the play test and have mostly been ignoring the 5e development, but some of the things I've seen haven't made me want to play. The unified XP chart with the new lower costs to reach 2nd level is useless to me. The advantage/disadvantage system seems fine, but I notice there are also bonuses and penalties; pick one, doofus. It's got the modern ability bonus inflation. So, if I were to switch to 5e, I'd have to substitute the old XP tables and old ability bonuses, and fix the modififiers. Why not just keep playing what I'm playing?
And I'm sorry, but someone saying " the basic D&D PDF is inspired by Rules Cyclopedia " means nothing to me, and not just because I never used the Rules Cyclopedia. "Inspired" could mean practically anything. Inspired by the format? Inspired by the concept of a single gamebook? Until we actually see the book, we don't know. Hell, I'm sure some of the story game faux-school dungeon games probably claim the Rules Cyclopedia, too.
I like the fact that there will be a version of D&D that is free. I'll certainly check it out. But I chalk up the "anti-anti-5e" hysteria to the typical RPG geek rule that everyone must be hyper enthusiastic about every upcoming product at all times. The tiniest lack of commitment means you are a HATER.
The weird thing though is those people that say I have this old game I like so no need to change seem to produce oodles of different clones and versions of that old game. I personally would not buy a clone of AD&D because I have the AD&D books, I don't anyone to explain to me how it works in an easy to read format and I don't see any reason to "support" someone that has written such a version any more than I see the need to "support" someone that has spent his time learning White Crane in Yunnan or has learned how to forge 17th century weapons. So if the OSR was just about playing an old version of the game then why are there so many OSR games in print?
I actually think that
"...the typical RPG geek rule that everyone must be hyper enthusiastic about every upcoming product at all times. The tiniest lack of commitment means you are a HATER."isn't as common as the decision to hate the next big popular thing because it's popular and mainstream.
Quote from: jibbajibba;756466So if the OSR was just about playing an old version of the game then why are there so many OSR games in print?
The OSR has two major and one minor factions:
1. AD&D Revival - mostly focused on TSR era games and TSR era adventures and settings. They really love exploring what they loved and what they missed from the old days. They buy stuff on eBay and enjoy being collectors. They got really excited by the reprints.
2. Clone Fandom - mostly focused on TSR era D&D retroclones that houserule stuff from the TSR era that they didn't like. They really love new takes on old ideas and exploring new adventures and new products being produced by a generation of writers who missed the TSR days. They are into the PDF/POD scene and get excited when "their stuff" shows up in the FLGS.
3. Next Gen Old School - these kids are a subset of the clone fandom, but want to see non-D&D retrostuff like Stars Without Number, Mazes & Minotaurs and Arrows of Indra. For them, they want to see the boundaries of Old School pushed and new games developed. These kids are the smallest, but vocal faction.
When it comes to D&D I'm pretty old-school.
I was talking to a friend about D&D the other day, and what I'd look for in retroclones - specifically, what rules I'd look for in a retroclone for me to consider it over AD&D 1e or B/X.
The specific rules surprised him, I think, as they didn't make sense to him. They were:
1) GP for XP
2) Differing experience charts for classes
3) Association restrictions
4) Training time and magic item creation times
With the exception of the first one, it's not actually the specific rules I care about. It's a playstyle that I'm interested in that doesn't clash with those rules, and so if I see those rules removed from old-school D&D, I know that the game was designed with a playstyle in mind that I'm not interested in.
Specifically, in D&D what I'm looking for is the old-school playstyle of the open table games. Many players, some of whom show up on a given week. You have multiple characters, and decide who you're playing based on who showed up and what you're doing. Rules 2-4, even if they don't necessarily encourage it (though I'd argue at least 3 and 4 do), don't *conflict* with it.
On the other hand, rules 2-4 *all* conflict with "we're the Big Heroes that will be The Party going through some set of adventures blah blah blah." I'm not interested in that from D&D. If I want something like that, frankly I think Fate does a better job.
It's not dogma. It's chasing after a specific style of play that the hobby has, by and large, moved away from. There's certainly some crufty bits in AD&D or B/X, and I don't deny that. I'd love a version of a game built around that game style, but with a bit more overall coherence (not in the Ron Edwards sense :D).
So, I'm cautiously optimistic about 5e, but I want to see how many of those rules they maintain as a litmus test for whether the game was designed around "The Part of Big Damn Heroes on their Big Important Quest" or not.
Quote from: robiswrong;756488When it comes to D&D I'm pretty old-school.
I was talking to a friend about D&D the other day, and what I'd look for in retroclones - specifically, what rules I'd look for in a retroclone for me to consider it over AD&D 1e or B/X.
The specific rules surprised him, I think, as they didn't make sense to him. They were:
1) GP for XP
2) Differing experience charts for classes
3) Association restrictions
4) Training time and magic item creation times
With the exception of the first one, it's not actually the specific rules I care about. It's a playstyle that I'm interested in that doesn't clash with those rules, and so if I see those rules removed from old-school D&D, I know that the game was designed with a playstyle in mind that I'm not interested in.
Specifically, in D&D what I'm looking for is the old-school playstyle of the open table games. Many players, some of whom show up on a given week. You have multiple characters, and decide who you're playing based on who showed up and what you're doing. Rules 2-4, even if they don't necessarily encourage it (though I'd argue at least 3 and 4 do), don't *conflict* with it.
On the other hand, rules 2-4 *all* conflict with "we're the Big Heroes that will be The Party going through some set of adventures blah blah blah." I'm not interested in that from D&D. If I want something like that, frankly I think Fate does a better job.
It's not dogma. It's chasing after a specific style of play that the hobby has, by and large, moved away from. There's certainly some crufty bits in AD&D or B/X, and I don't deny that. I'd love a version of a game built around that game style, but with a bit more overall coherence (not in the Ron Edwards sense :D).
So, I'm cautiously optimistic about 5e, but I want to see how many of those rules they maintain as a litmus test for whether the game was designed around "The Part of Big Damn Heroes on their Big Important Quest" or not.
Wow, another reasonable post. I prefer staggered experience charts myself if we are doing 0-3e Wizards. 4/5e don't need it given they're really .3e sorcerers but with a dash of Arcana Evolved/FantasyCraft/ACKS thrown in.
And if Pundit hadn't been involved in 5e, he'd be bashing the shit out of it. Why not just admit it?
Mearls said, "Pundit, please tell me how you feel..." and Pundit rolled over like an old dog to have his belly tickled.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;756501And if Pundit hadn't been involved in 5e, he'd be bashing the shit out of it. Why not just admit it?
Mearls said, "Pundit, please tell me how you feel..." and Pundit rolled over like an old dog to have his belly tickled.
I'm not sure that's true, but i'm pretty sure he's been spunking on his keyboard for a few weeks now. ;)
I don't begrudge him feeling smug about several things he wanted to see happen, actually happen.
I quite like what i see from 5e and i'll play the basic game without compunction.
The real problem is that i have too many d&d versions to play as it is. There comes a point when you don't need anything more.
For me, that point pretty much came with 4e.
Quote from: Warthur;756321You'll still get completists but you won't get the same push to be a completist from Wizards.
In practice, I find that the "completionist" aspect is largely independent of outside forces (such as WotC's intentions and marketing plans).
For myself, the "compulsive completionist" thing is probably something that resembles an obsessive compulsive type of disorder. At best, it is something that can only be worked around in practice. So I put a lot of effort into avoiding such "treadmills" in the first place.
These days the only stuff I get into which triggers the "compulsive completionist" aspect, is when the "treadmill" is already over and/or the items of interest can be purchased at really low prices. For example, a few years ago I was reading and buying a lot of older Star Trek novels for around 25 or 50 cents per book. More recently, I've been watching and buying a lot of sci-fi/action movies on bluray/dvd for $5 each or less, and tv show bluray/dvd sets for $15 each or less. (Such as Fringe, 24, Battlestar Galactica, Babylon 5, Sliders, Quantum Leap, Farscape, Andromeda, Nikita, Remington Steele, Airwolf, Six Million Dollar Man, Heroes, X-Files, Stargate, etc ...).
I generally try to avoid "treadmills" which are presently active, and/or the items require continually spending a lot of money every month. I don't have any major money problems, but I use such self-imposed $$$ limits as a way to avoid jumping onto new treadmills in the first place. For example, I generally try to avoid buying bluray/dvd sets of tv shows which are still presently on-the-air AND are over $20 per set. This is the main reason why I have not purchased any of the "Game of Thrones" and "Doctor Who" bluray sets. (My only exception so far, is that I picked up the bluray sets of "Person of Interest" once they dipped below $20 or $25 each).
5E might be a great game, but I'm very happy with O/AD&D (and AS&SH), so I'm simply not that interested in another fantasy RPG and especially not another set of house rules for what I have. Just being the current owner of the D&D brand doesn't give WotC's latest fantasy RPG any special significance for me. If someone competent who could highlight its strengths wants to run it for me sometime, maybe at a convention, sure, I'll play for a few hours. It would have to be an earthshattering experience to pull me away from what I already have, know well and enjoy. For people still searching for a fantasy RPG that suits them (or who just like fantasy RPGs in general), I hope it meets your expectations.
I'll definitely buy, or even preorder, the 5E starter set. That said, I'm not sure how much I'll use it in the near future. I have three RPG 'itches' I want scratched:
1) D&D 3.xE, quasi-heroic 'rules-heavy' tactical 'new-school' D&D. Both me and my gaming group are very well acquainted with the rules, and some of us have invested a lot in 3.xE books. This is a kind of a 'go-to' default game for us.
2) ACKS. Old-school, but 're-imagined' old-school, particularly with well-integrated campaign economics and high-level world-affecting play options such as domain rules, an interlocking miniature wargame (Domains at War, to be released soon), rules for making undead/golems, running a thieves' guild and mercantile operations and so on. essentially B/X disassembled and then re-built and re-tuned from the ground up with a very strong emphasis on campaign play.
3) Traveller and Stars Without Number. Galactic sci-fi ranging in 'feel' from Firebly to Mass Effect/Babylon 5. I love both Classic Traveller, Mongoose Traveller and Stars Without Number.
From these, I think that the best chance for 5E to scratch an itch for me is for it to replace 3.xE as the go-to D&D-type 'new-school' game. But for it to do so, it'll have to be a significant improvement over 3.xE, so that we'll switch to it despite being highly familiary with 3.xe AND having many books for it. I don't think it'll replace ACKS soon in terms of integrated high-level and domain campaign play, and so far it has no sci-fi version on the horizon...
But I'm still optimistic.
Quote from: ggroy;756532In practice, I find that the "completionist" aspect is largely independent of outside forces (such as WotC's intentions and marketing plans).
I've long had all but two of the 1e hardbacks (missing Manual of the Planes and Oriental Adventures). At a used book store a while back, they had the Manual for a piddly $5. My wife suggested I pick it up. But I said naw, not interested in it.
Totally agree completionism has way more to do with the individual than the company or game.
Quote from: Warthur;756321To be fair to 5E, though, it sounds like the current plan is specifically to break the treadmill. You'll still get completists but you won't get the same push to be a completist from Wizards.
Exactly. Now, there's a chance they'll fail at this, that subsequent people in charge will miss the point and go right back to trying to depend on the treadmill of products for an ever increasingly-tiny group of ultra-hardcore fanatics while simultaneously alienating everyone else away from their game, but at this time, Wizards is really trying to go the opposite direction. That's part of what making your actual real Core Rules FREE is all about.
RPGPundit
Quote from: The Butcher;756356I came here to post this, mostly. Pundit can take his bullshit "you're with 5e or against 5e" ultimatum and shove it. I'll pass judgement on 5e when I see it, thankyouverymuch.
So you're not an "Anti-5e Old-schooler". Which begs the question of what are you doing in this thread?
I mean, if you're not, why do you think this song is about you?
If you are, then why not just admit it?
Either way, shit or get off the pot.
Quote from: jibbajibba;756466The weird thing though is those people that say I have this old game I like so no need to change seem to produce oodles of different clones and versions of that old game. I personally would not buy a clone of AD&D because I have the AD&D books, I don't anyone to explain to me how it works in an easy to read format and I don't see any reason to "support" someone that has written such a version any more than I see the need to "support" someone that has spent his time learning White Crane in Yunnan or has learned how to forge 17th century weapons. So if the OSR was just about playing an old version of the game then why are there so many OSR games in print?
Because old-school gaming was always about making your own stuff, too, or trying out other people's handmade stuff. Most of the retroclones aren't really exactly like one of the TSR editions; a couple are close enough, and the rest are all tweaks and houserules. And I predict that the majority of the OSR will treat the free PDF of the new Basic D&D exactly as if it were another retroclone, sifting through it for a rule or two, and familiarizing themselves with the way 5e works in case they see a 5e support product that looks interesting enough to use or adapt to their own rules.
That's pretty much what I plan, myself. I'm not planning on playing 5e myself, but I'm hoping that it's close enough to OD&D that I could allow 5e characters at my table and just use my own rules behind the screen.
I'm not planning on getting the starter set, because it's not intended for me. Unlike other people, though, the lack of chargen rules in the box doesn't bother me in the slightest. Chargen rules are actually completely unnecessary for old-school play.
Quote from: jibbajibba;756466I actually think that
"...the typical RPG geek rule that everyone must be hyper enthusiastic about every upcoming product at all times. The tiniest lack of commitment means you are a HATER."
isn't as common as the decision to hate the next big popular thing because it's popular and mainstream.
There are those who hate everything -- popularity doesn't seem to be a factor -- but they seem very few in number. They are just louder than everyone else combined.
Quote from: talysman;756375Pretty much. Is any well-known old-school blogger or personality actually saying "BOO! IHATE 5E!"
There are quite a few, now (since the Basic PDF reveal) a MINORITY, but still a significant but small group of old-schoolers, who continue to say at every turn "it isn't enough", who keep saying that because the Basic Rules aren't in the PDF, or because the cover looks too new-school or because whatever other stupid fucking reason, they will continue to think WoTC is not doing "enough" to appeal to their old-school sentiments.
But again, if YOU are not one of these people saying that "the starter set is a betrayal of everything we hold dear" or whatever, IF your position is "wait and see", or even if you've never said anything because you know the D&D will in no case be something you'll give a fuck about
so why would you waste your time writing shit about it, then WHAT I'M SAYING IS NOT ABOUT YOU.
QuoteI like the fact that there will be a version of D&D that is free. I'll certainly check it out. But I chalk up the "anti-anti-5e" hysteria to the typical RPG geek rule that everyone must be hyper enthusiastic about every upcoming product at all times. The tiniest lack of commitment means you are a HATER.
No, in this case, mindlessly and repetitively stating very loudly on this forum or on G+ that D&D has already failed or that they've betrayed us all or that they "don't trust the game" or other bullshit like that makes you a hater.
RPGPundit
Quote from: hedgehobbit;756378Cause nothing says "old school" quite like ...
A rulebook based on a rulebook released in 1991.
An adventure based on an adventure released in 1986
Ah yes, the delicious OSR-Taliban Chronological Litmus Test. So tell me, what year do you consider the true marker of holy purity? 1983? 1979? 1974? 1973-and-a-half?
What year does an RPG idea have to be from in order to be "True" in your eyes?
Go on and keep telling us all how the Rules Cyclopedia isn't old school, motherfucker.
RPGPundit
Quote from: Simlasa;756388Or the tiniest criticism that isn't even of the game itself but the corporate marketing strategy.
To 'hate' something I have to first care about it... and at this point I'm pretty much indifferent.
THEN WHY ARE YOU POSTING HERE IF THIS IS TRUE??
Seriously, if I were to start a thread saying "people who hate hispanics are assholes", would we be flooded by a chorus of people very loudly stating "I don't hate hispanics at all! How dare you?!"
Once again: either you are saying "i don't care" when really you do, in which case STOP BEING A FUCKING COWARD; or you really don't care in which case THIS IS NOT A THREAD ABOUT YOU.
Pick one, but quit wasting my fucking time (not just you, but everyone posting here to say "i'm not a hater of 5e!" and act all outraged at something that, if their statement is true, has nothing to do with them).
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;756549So you're not an "Anti-5e Old-schooler".
Your frequent use of hyperbole often makes it difficult to know what you're talking about. I don't think
anyone is an "anti-5e old-schooler" as you defined on the OP. At least not on the threads I've read on this site. But if you can produce links to and quotes from screeds by the much-vaunted fundamentalist grognards hating on 5e because it's not 1e or OD&D or Gary's grocery list, I'll acquiesce.
I am, however, fairly skeptical of 5e. I think the Basic core game might be a fantastic rules-light (not the same as "old school") D&D, but I have my doubts as to whether it'll be the "default" D&D. I remember how BECMI/RC was looked down upon by the AD&D 2e-playing majority when I got started in the hobby. I think there's a fat chance of it playing "demo" or "GURPS Lite" to the three-rulebook "complete" D&D 5e.
Releasing a free and rules-lite version of D&D is definitely a Very Good Thing. But the real test of whether WotC is doing a "sufficient Old School effort" to me, apart from game design considerations (I have yet to see the game for myself) will be in the support. Will publisher adventures and organized play support Basic D&D, or will they expect or even demand familiarity with the PHB, MM and DMG content? That, I feel, remains to be seen.
Not to mention the nature of published material. I have no reason to believe that the Old School adventure design philosophy is making a comeback, when Wolfgang Baur is writing their flagship campaign.
Quote from: RPGPundit;756551There are quite a few, n
Who?
Who, specifically.
Who.
Show us on the WizKids mini where the bad DM touched you, pundit.
Shit, as you say, or get off the pot.
But quit inventing these bogeymen that don't actually exist except somewhere in your head.
Quote from: The Butcher;756555Will publisher adventures and organized play support Basic D&D, or will they expect or even demand familiarity with the PHB, MM and DMG content? That, I feel, remains to be seen.
I'm fairly (like 90%) certain that i've seen Mearls say that WotC stuff will be produced with Basic as the only presumed other product that the customer has.
Don't know about organised play. I tune out when it's mentioned. It's nothing i've ever done or are likely to do, so i don't give a rat's arse.
Quote from: Marleycat;756450Bingo! How about +7? And only the fighter gets 2 attacks per round in BASIC? Yes there are adders in BASIC but think about the baseline before panicking.
The "baseline" looks a lot closer to old school than anything of recent years.
I mean, have the old-schoolers just forgotten the years of complaining about power-bloat??
Quote from: Haffrung;756447And then there are those who have much invested in their online dogma and tribal forum identity. Just as forgists and RPG hipsters can't accept 5E because it eschews their ideal model of narrow, math-first, system-up design, those grognards who define themselves more by what they're against than what they're for will never accept a version of D&D that makes any concessions to mechanics or play modes enjoyed by people who started playing D&D after 1989. How could they, when much of the energy that fueled the OSR was a fierce reaction against modern play?
Yes, I think that's a likely part of the problem. But I don't expect it from the OSR: I guess in part because I hope the OSR is better than the Forge, and in part because the OSR I love is not the OSR that is a "reaction AGAINST" modern play but a "reaction FOR" old-school play.
I think, actually, that sums up the key difference between groups of the OSR, between the enthusiastic and creative OSR, and the OSR-Taliban.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;756501And if Pundit hadn't been involved in 5e, he'd be bashing the shit out of it. Why not just admit it?
That's quite possible. Because if I hadn't been involved in 5e
it wouldn't look the way it does.
Since I've played an important part in helping 5e be more old-school, yes, in my absence it would probably have been a much shittier game.
So thank you for realizing that. And you're welcome.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;756556Who?
Who, specifically.
Who.
Show us on the WizKids mini where the bad DM touched you, pundit.
Shit, as you say, or get off the pot.
But quit inventing these bogeymen that don't actually exist except somewhere in your head.
Let's start with everyone on this forum who continues to pretend that the Basic Rules in PDF is enough justification to declare the whole D&D game fatally flawed. And not old-school enough.
So let's see, there is for example a 56 page thread full of people saying this right fucking here on this forum.
Quote from: The Butcher;756555I am, however, fairly skeptical of 5e. I think the Basic core game might be a fantastic rules-light (not the same as "old school") D&D, but I have my
doubts as to whether it'll be the "default" D&D.
Except, you know, that Wizards says it is. That Mike Mearls has personally told me it will be.
Of course, the plans can change, corporate assholes can take over and fuck everything up, but for RIGHT NOW, if you "have your doubts" it means you think either I, or Mike Mearls, or both of us are LIARS.
QuoteReleasing a free and rules-lite version of D&D is definitely a Very Good Thing. But the real test of whether WotC is doing a "sufficient Old School effort" to me, apart from game design considerations (I have yet to see the game for myself) will be in the support. Will publisher adventures and organized play support Basic D&D,
For the thousandth time, YES.
ALL adventures will be based only on the Basic D&D rules. And any new rules that are essential to the adventure would be added as an appendix to the Basic Rules.
Quoteor will they expect or even demand familiarity with the PHB, MM and DMG content? That, I feel, remains to be seen.
No, it doesn't; they already said IT WON'T.
Again, that might change sometime in the future, but as of right now this is not something that "remains to be seen" it is OFFICIAL POLICY.
Quote from: RPGPundit;756564Let's start with everyone on this forum who continues to pretend that the Basic Rules in PDF is enough justification to declare the whole D&D game fatally flawed. And not old-school enough.
So let's see, there is for example a 56 page thread full of people saying this right fucking here on this forum.
I've seen people say that a PDF is a flawed
marketing strategy, or that newbies will be disappointed with the starter box if I t doesn't have chargen. And I've seen people say that what they've read of 5e doesn't seem old-school enough. But I didn't see anyone in the thread in question say that 5e wasn't old-school enough because the basic rules are in PDF. Everyone in the OSR makes or buys PDFs, so why would they say something that idiotic?
And THAT is why I am in this thread, and why Butcher, DungeonDelver and others are in this thread. Not because we think you are talking about US, but because we think you are talking about NOONE.
Here is my take on the old school thing. They are not going to reset the clock to 1982. They do need to appeal to people who played 3E and 4E, so I expect there will be a blend of new mechanics and old style mechanics (what I have seen so far seems to support this). I don't think that is bad at all. It may mean if a person really is happy with basic or 1E, then 5E might not be for them, but for people who like old school and are also fans of new games too, it might be a better fit. I am trying to keep an open mind about the system. I do want to see it succeed because a popular D&D edition would mean more gaming opportunities for me. Some things, like the healing hd mechanic, are not my cup of tea, but I understand why they are in there (and my plan is to chuck stuff like that anyways). As long as it isnt built like 4E where the game is so restructured there is no point in even trying to remove elements like that i wont mind.
QuoteAnd THAT is why I am in this thread, and why Butcher, DungeonDelver and others are in this thread. Not because we think you are talking about US, but because we think you are talking about NOONE.
So you're seriously trying to pretend that there aren't people who are rabidly and decidedly anti-5e (and some of these also being people who ACT as though they could somehow be convinced and yet each new revelation just "fails" to be enough or right for them)?
That's the best rebuttal you can com up with? "lalalala there's no such thing I'm not listening to you you mean man!"?
Anyways, we all know regardless that this isn't real reason you're on this thread. The real reason is that
you can't stand my success and its eating you up inside to see me be proved right yet again.
Oh man, this is shaping up pundit-wise to be the best year ever.
So if Basic D&D will be the base of all adventures, does that mean that all NPCs in official adventures will be Fighter/Rogue/Wizard/Clerics?
Will none of them ever use feats?
Or does it use the "NPCs are not built like PCs" approach, where it wouldn't matter because the adventure writer can just write an ability in the NPC statblock rather than them having levels/classes.
This hyperbolic outrage is looking more like an advertising gimmick.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;756576So if Basic D&D will be the base of all adventures, does that mean that all NPCs in official adventures will be Fighter/Rogue/Wizard/Clerics?
Will none of them ever use feats?
Or does it use the "NPCs are not built like PCs" approach, where it wouldn't matter because the adventure writer can just write an ability in the NPC statblock rather than them having levels/classes.
Interesting question from what Pundit says I guess I could see them going several ways.
1. If NPC's are built like PC's then it'd be the core 4.
2. Or they would have to add whatever optional class in an appendix.
3. NPC's are built different then PC's.
4. Have 3pp do those kind of adventures.
I sure there's other possibilities I've not thought of also.
Pundy if you believe what you're saying in this thread you're utterly broken as a person.
However, this is you advertising, so rock on I guess?
Quote from: RPGPundit;756553THEN WHY ARE YOU POSTING HERE IF THIS IS TRUE??
Because, for better or worse, it's the topic of the moment... and you are, once again, polluting the place with your silly accusations and posturing. .
I'm 'pretty much indifferent' about 5e until Basic is actually a thing I can look at and read.
I'm NOT indifferent to you and others tossing insults and accusations and paranoia... and that's what THIS thread is about.
Quote from: jeff37923;756577This hyperbolic outrage is looking more like an advertising gimmick.
I always get that impression when The Pundit starts in with his Joe McCarthy impersonations... "I have in my hand 57 cases of individuals who would appear to be either card-carrying members or certainly loyal to the 5e Haters!"
Quote from: RPGPundit;756563That's quite possible. Because if I hadn't been involved in 5e it wouldn't look the way it does.
Since I've played an important part in helping 5e be more old-school, yes, in my absence it would probably have been a much shittier game.
So thank you for realizing that. And you're welcome.
So what has been the extent of your involvement? A couple phone calls over the course of the past couple years? Intense back and forth every week? In person trips to Renton?
Quote from: Old One Eye;756590So what has been the extent of your involvement? A couple phone calls over the course of the past couple years? Intense back and forth every week? In person trips to Renton?
Maybe 'Girl Friday' in charge of coffee and doughnuts at the Monday morning sitdowns?
Quote from: RPGPundit;756565Except, you know, that Wizards says it is. That Mike Mearls has personally told me it will be.
I'll believe it when I see it and (this is the crucial point)
when the larger D&D community buys into the company line. If fandom at large doesn't buy it and demands more and more crunch and CharOp and shit, and some suit gives in, well, it's been all for naught.
Quote from: RPGPundit;756565Of course, the plans can change, corporate assholes can take over and fuck everything up, but for RIGHT NOW, if you "have your doubts" it means you think either I, or Mike Mearls, or both of us are LIARS.
Well, thank
you for telling
me what
I think, you pretentious douchenozzle. :rolleyes:
In case you haven't noticed, the company mailing you these consultant paychecks has a history of mismanaging Dungeons & Dragons – or, at best, managing it in ways that I, personally, find uninteresting.
As a consumer, faced with promises and hype, I reserve myself the right to remain skeptical. But again, based on what I've objectively seen of the actual game so far – which is almost nothing – I have no reason to believe 5e's ability to mend D&D fandom back together, or to sell new, "official D&D" material to the OSR market they claim to be intent on capturing. Let alone switching from my current choice of games over to 5e. But again, I reserve myself the right to withhold judgement until I have the finished product on my hands.
Sorry for not squealing like a little girl every time you mention how you've single-handedly fixed D&D, but all preceding evidence points towards your corporate taskmasters Not Getting It. In the meantime, I must admit I've been enjoying these threads. The mighty Pundit, reduced to a Wizbros shill.
Sic transit gloria mundi I guess. Sorry to disappoint, Pundejo. But by all means, keep banging that drum! Maybe they'll hang your portrait under "Employee of the Month" if you bang louder.
Person A is involved to some extent in the development of a product which they are proud of and brags about it on a website that person owns.
Person B has little to no interest in the product, does not like the company producing the product, and probably has no intent to purchase the product. Person B goes to the website owned by person A, opens and reads a thread that the title pretty clearly implies is about person A bragging. Person B then lambasts person A bragging about such product that person B doesn't even want in the first place.
Did I get this right? If so, while bragging is hardly to be considered a positive character trait, seems a bit harder to respect person B's position. Just don't go poking around threads discussing a product that holds no interest for said person.
Quote from: ggroy;756532In practice, I find that the "completionist" aspect is largely independent of outside forces (such as WotC's intentions and marketing plans).
For myself, the "compulsive completionist" thing is probably something that resembles an obsessive compulsive type of disorder. At best, it is something that can only be worked around in practice. So I put a lot of effort into avoiding such "treadmills" in the first place.
For me its an urge to have the "complete game" which was part of why I quit CCGs.
But over time that shifted to "get all that interests me" such that I only have three of the "Complete" series of books from 2nd ed.
The second I hear that something is "limited" or "convention" or "promotional" exclusive tends to be where I loose interest massively.
I can well understand the urge to collect the complete game.
But when people start freaking out over their own OCD for a game that is meant to be modular... that starts to slide very fast towards the deep end.
Like when Android: Netrunner came out and a few were raging over how they were "forced" to buy a second box because they neeeeeeeeded XXX of every card and FFG was gouging them by not putting XXX of every card in the box. Nevermind that the game packed every card in the starter but some didnt have multiples. They neeeeeeded those! Ad nausium.
The rest are more sane about it. A general low level irk that you can never get the complete game. But are still happy that more product IS coming out. Rather than the select nutcases who rage because how dare the publisher make more product!
In retrospect I think for me the urge to "complete" a game tends to be directly proportionate to how much I like the game. Ease of getting the parts can be a lesser factor.
Quote from: RPGPundit;756553THEN WHY ARE YOU POSTING HERE IF THIS IS TRUE??
Why is anybody posting in this troll thread at all?
Quote from: Old One Eye;756611Did I get this right?
Nope, because this thread isn't about bragging... it's about drumming up attention and tossing around accusations.
Quote from: Natty Bodak;756619Why is anybody posting in this troll thread at all?
Fair point.
Quote from: Natty Bodak;756619Why is anybody posting in this troll thread at all?
Boredom.
Quote from: Natty Bodak;756619Why is anybody posting in this troll thread at all?
I'm running out of episodes of the
Teen Titans to watch.
Quote from: jeff37923;756625I'm running out of episodes of the Teen Titans to watch.
You could switch over to Avatar or something when you're done.
Quote from: LibraryLass;756626You could switch over to Avatar or something when you're done.
So far I've gone through
Macross Frontier, now its
Teen Titans, then
Batman Beyond. I'll have to check and see if they have
Avatar, would you recommend
Avatar or
Avatar: Legend of Korra?
Quote from: jeff37923;756628I'll have to check and see if they have Avatar, would you recommend Avatar or Avatar: Legend of Korra?
Both. Seriously.
Quote from: RPGPundit;756574So you're seriously trying to pretend that there aren't people who are rabidly and decidedly anti-5e (and some of these also being people who ACT as though they could somehow be convinced and yet each new revelation just "fails" to be enough or right for them)?
I'm sure there are a handful of extremists holding that position, but they're a weak man argument (http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/12/weak-men-are-superweapons/) and not worth bothering with. Mearls is a big boy, I'm sure he can give that criticism
exactly as much respect as it deserves without your dubious assistance.
Quote from: LibraryLass;756626You could switch over to Avatar or something when you're done.
I've only ever seen one episode of Avatar but I remember thinking it was pretty neat... not what I expected. I should go check out more of it... once I'm done watching my way through Bomb Girls.
Quote from: Omega;756614Like when Android: Netrunner came out and a few were raging over how they were "forced" to buy a second box because they neeeeeeeeded XXX of every card and FFG was gouging them by not putting XXX of every card in the box. Nevermind that the game packed every card in the starter but some didnt have multiples. They neeeeeeded those! Ad nausium.
At least ggroy recognizes that completionism is a personal weakness on his part and tries to address it as such. The geeks who have no self-discipline, and yet denounce the publication of lots of things they want as 'money-grabs' on the part of the publishers, are the sorts of obsessive and immature dweebs who give the gaming hobby a bad name. Nobody forces anyone to buy anything. Feel you need three copies of every card? Go ahead and buy them. Don't make the people who aren't obsessives pay more for an intro set in order to include 3x every card.
I'll be disappointed if WotC publishes a lot of splat books for 5E, because that will mean their resources aren't going to the kind of content I do want - setting books and adventures. But what I won't do is buy all the splat books and then piss and moan about WotC being greedy.
Quote from: RPGPundit;756563That's quite possible. Because if I hadn't been involved in 5e it wouldn't look the way it does.
I'd assumed that they'd just nodded and smiled while you and others gave feedback, and then went on to do whatever they wanted.
But if you're keen to take the blame, that's alright.
Quote from: Omega;756614Like when Android: Netrunner came out and a few were raging over how they were "forced" to buy a second box because they neeeeeeeeded XXX of every card and FFG was gouging them by not putting XXX of every card in the box. Nevermind that the game packed every card in the starter but some didnt have multiples. They neeeeeeded those! Ad nausium.
To be fair, its a bit different when there is a competitive scene like with Netrunner, where people are playing large tournaments and such. And it is reflected in the fact that FFG with later LCGs started packing max number per deck of each card so that people wouldn't have to buy multiple sets.
Quote from: Marleycat;756621Boredom.
I give Pundit props on trolling his own forum, it is sort of a masterstroke. I didn't see it at first, but I am still rather new here.
Have to agree with the OP. Unfortunately, there are SEVERAL adamant OS GM's who evidently don't feel supported enough. One of them bitches about the lack of true vancian magic. I always wonder why those folks just don't keep playing the older edition they like. My own experiences with 5E come from playing/GMing the last 2 playtest packets extensively. I already find this version preferable to both 3rd and 4th edition, by a long shot. I'm going to DL the free Basic version, and buy the starter set. I'm not sure about plunking down a ton of money on the core books, though. And, like a lot of folks, I'm worried about the inevitable splatbook bloat.
Quote from: dragoner;756648I give Pundit props on trolling his own forum, it is sort of a masterstroke. I didn't see it at first, but I am still rather new here.
Hang around for a bit. It isn't the first and it certainly won't be the last.
Quote from: Skywalker;756657Hang around for a bit. It isn't the first and it certainly won't be the last.
At 11 pages, it is quite good.
Quote from: dragoner;756660At 11 pages, it is quite good.
Pah. That's nothing. Pundit has trolled by adding an entire separate forum before.
Quote from: dragoner;756660At 11 pages, it is quite good.
good lord. This is a fucking prologue.
It was only a short paragraph that set people off too.
wow... what a troll...
I don't "Hate" 5e, I actually liked a lot about the playtest....
My problem was with the Starter Set bullshit... And that goes for ANY starter set for ANY game that does not have character creation... That includes the Edge of the Empire starter sets (both of them). They are nothing more than crippleware ad copy...
The hobby suffers from a lack of good starter sets. Only two on the market today that are actual starter sets: Dragon Age Set 1 and Pathfinder Beginner's Box; and of those two, the PBB sets the gold standard for what all Starter sets should aspire to...
Again, WoTC fucking fails to grasp the concept.... the Basic set should be what went to print... Not the Starter...
Quote from: cranebump;756655I always wonder why those folks just don't keep playing the older edition they like.
We do.
Nonetheless, each time a new edition comes out we become first curious and then disappointed. After several rounds of this we become grouchy grognards, right up until a designer flatters us by pretending to be interested in our opinions, then we roll over and let them tickle our belly, and the less humble among us will start crowing our importance.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;756576So if Basic D&D will be the base of all adventures, does that mean that all NPCs in official adventures will be Fighter/Rogue/Wizard/Clerics?
Will none of them ever use feats?
Or does it use the "NPCs are not built like PCs" approach, where it wouldn't matter because the adventure writer can just write an ability in the NPC statblock rather than them having levels/classes.
well if I were doing it and an adventure included a class in addition to the core, which will have subclasses remember, I would include that class in the adventure.
So if the game centres arround a coven of witches for example the Witch class will be included in the adventure.
NPC stats will include all feats etc italicised so you can ignore them if you aren't useing feats.
Quote from: dragoner;756648I give Pundit props on trolling his own forum, it is sort of a masterstroke. I didn't see it at first, but I am still rather new here.
Exactly.;)
Now no on can assuse me of being a 5e hater and I have activiely supported the design choice of the starter set being play out of the box and aimed and bring in new players but if there is one thing that might put me off trying 5e it would be Pundit's smug self satisfied egotistical rants.
I mean doesn't it realise what it is? Doesn't it know that most of us come to the forum in sufference of it as an evil that has to be endured that speck of shit in the sandwich we are prepared to put up with?
I took a couple of months hiatus after a particularly vomit inducing round of self congratulatory posts a while back and the current batch of wank is having a similar effect and is likely to put me off trying 5e just because.
In couldn't care less about the 5E arguments. Just posting to comment on the other aspect of the OP which is that Night's Dark Terror is the inspiration of the starter adventure. It's my favourite module of all time so I'm tremendously pleased. Can anyone (Pundit?) clarify whether its a revamp of that adventure or just the template used when designing a new adventure. I hope its the latter. A new adventure in the spirit of B10 would be awesome and reason enough for me to get the starter.
Quote from: jeff37923;756628So far I've gone through Macross Frontier, now its Teen Titans, then Batman Beyond. I'll have to check and see if they have Avatar, would you recommend Avatar or Avatar: Legend of Korra?
Both, but start with Avatar, though.
Quote from: Fiasco;756686Just posting to comment on the other aspect of the OP which is that Night's Dark Terror is the inspiration of the starter adventure. It's my favourite module of all time so I'm tremendously pleased.
FWIW Night's Dark Terror was also cited as the primary inspiration for Red Hand of Doom for 3e and Reavers of the Harkenwold for 4e. Both were good adventures but the citation gets used a lot by WotC as a way of putting a positive spin on an adventure.
Quote from: Fiasco;756686In couldn't care less about the 5E arguments. Just posting to comment on the other aspect of the OP which is that Night's Dark Terror is the inspiration of the starter adventure. It's my favourite module of all time so I'm tremendously pleased. .
I've been on a Central Oregon backwoods road trip since Friday, so I missed all that. You can imagine my disappointment when I get back and see the SJW crowd all up in arms when Mearls said that, because NDT is clearly racist.
:rolleyes:
I guess any humanoid depiction of any ethnic group that isn't western European is racist...
Quote from: jibbajibba;756684Now no on can assuse me of being a 5e hater and I have activiely supported the design choice of the starter set being play out of the box and aimed and bring in new players but if there is one thing that might put me off trying 5e it would be Pundit's smug self satisfied egotistical rants.
Yeah. From what I've heard, the cover of 5th Basis/Starter/whatever will not have a dragon on the cover. Instead it will have a picture of Pundit in a heroic pose (head and ego rather bloated) standing victorious over a pile of enemies (numbering a white wolf, assorted gnomes, Ron Edwards and an blob of hard-to-define pundithaters). His purse is brimming with consultant fee gold ™ and in the back Mike Mearls is standing, wearing a frilly dress, with tears of gratitude running down his face.
I'd buy that version of 5e. Just to stare in awe at his Alpha Male Bump.
I'll bite. I haven't seen one damn thing that makes 5e old school, but I've seen a shitload that makes it NOT old school.
The following is from my perusal of the latest playtest document, but I doubt any of the crap below has been removed.
At will damaging cantrips
Damage on a miss
Dying -, you've got to be shitting me, 3 saves at a pissant dc and you stabilize and this has to be done before you reach "a number that equals your Constitution score plus your character level expressed as a negative value. If you’re 5th level and have a 14 Constitution, for
example, you die when your hit points drop to −19." So, if the aforementioned character drops to zero, he has to make 3 saves before he fails an average of 5.4 rolls.
Short rests, healing surges renamed.
At will combat cantrips - 2d6 damage for a cleric at first level, and 1d10 and a slow for a mage. At will.
No death penalty - no con loss or other penalty for coming back from the dead.
Spells don't scale - A fireball does 6d6 damage, and an extra d6 for each LEVEL if a higher level slot is used. Yeah, no thanks.
No save or dies. Finger of death only works on mooks. Even hold person basically cancels their action for your action.
Channel divinity - The base option is okay, but the others are all excuses to give magic user spells to clerics.
Martial damage dice
Martial dice for rogues, and hell, martial dice in general. Mundane classes don't need a resource, and it's not even really a resource if it returns at the beginning of the next round. Trim the hit point bloat and this kind of damage is unnecessary. In any case, thieves shouldn't get the same abilities as the warrior classes.
Way too many fiddly class mechanics in general.
Skill die - Just more fiddly crap.
Less randomness all around. Average hit points (rounded up, of course) means every fighter will have the same hit points, differentiated only by con bonus.
By the time I trim all the above out and then some, there's no point in playing the game.
Now, the game might meet some people's expectation and be a fine game for it's target audience, but old school, my ass.
The truth of "old school" is GMs and game groups making up their own stuff, either because the game is so simple not everything is covered (eg Classic Traveller) or because the rules are such a confused self-contradictory mess that it's quicker just to make shit up (eg AD&D1e).
What you come up with during and between game sessions to cover what happens will always suit your game group better than what someone else made up, especially if it was made up by a committee.
One of Mearls' tweets about the game mentioned going through things to close up loopholes which would be exploited by munchkin rules lawyers. In other words, an exhaustive set of rules. This doesn't bode well for the quality or success of the game, it just gets too fucking much. While rules-light games don't sell well, neither do more thorough editions of other games, see for example GURPS4e compared to earlier editions. Never write rules just for the gearheads or rules lawyers.
Quote from: JRR;756742The following is from my perusal of the latest playtest document, but I doubt any of the crap below has been removed.
Skill die - Just more fiddly crap.
There is no Skill die in the latest play test document.
Quote from: jadrax;756752There is no Skill die in the latest play test document.
Good to know. I may have been looking at the penultimate version.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;756748One of Mearls' tweets about the game mentioned going through things to close up loopholes which would be exploited by munchkin rules lawyers. In other words, an exhaustive set of rules. This doesn't bode well for the quality or success of the game, it just gets too fucking much.
It's also a complete waste of time, after a while. If people like micro-optimising things, they're going to do that; if there is a choice, they're going to debate it.
Quote from: dragoner;756660At 11 pages, it is quite good.
Quote from: LordVreeg;756665good lord. This is a fucking prologue.
It has to get to 100 pages to even make it in the top ten.
Quote from: JRR;756754Good to know. I may have been looking at the penultimate version.
Still, A nice list of what is less than 'Old-School'. At will cantrips, making it so damn hard to kill a PC, and averaging HP is enough to make me wait until I have some hypothetical lull in my life...like a hospital visit or another 12-18 hour plane flight...before I even think of really tearing into these rules.
Quote from: Mistwell;756430Does ExploderWizard have a blog?
Nope.
I will probably check out 5E and read through it. Then it will most likely join 2E, 3.0E, 3.5E, and 4E on the shelf of games I'm happy to play but have no interest in running.
Quote from: Mistwell;756430Does ExploderWizard have a blog?
He doesn't text either...
or Tweet...
Regarding "RC and Old School"...
Far longer than the OSR as a "movement" there exists the notion that the "kiddiefied" Mentzer BECMI marked the end of "something". I started with Mentzer. It was years before I saw older versions of D&D. And with all my love and respect for the Mentzer approach to rules presentation, I can totally see why older generations of gamers, used to the whimsy and anarchy of Otis, saw BECMI as a turning point and sell-out, and the end of D&D as they knew it.
RC, on the other hand, took the already "sanitized" BECMI (with its Elmore Ren-Faire, proto-Second Edition look) and turned it into an (IMHO, lifeless) typical 90s, "pc", TSR "product".
Of all games of that time, I wanted to love that book more than every other, having even had a small hand in it.
I am sorry to say that in the physical artifact of the RC, the book as it is, I see nothing of what I have learned to understand as "old school". YMMV and all.
BUT!
BECMI was the product line that gave us the UK line of modules, arguably the best TSR adventures, culminating in B10.
Whether one calls their style "old school" is best left to academics. But if that is the spirit that 5e wants to support WotC picked the best role models available.
Quote from: Fiasco;756686(...) the other aspect of the OP which is that Night's Dark Terror is the inspiration of the starter adventure. It's my favourite module of all time so I'm tremendously pleased. (...) A new adventure in the spirit of B10 would be awesome and reason enough for me to get the starter.
But then... I fear that the qualities that I see as the defining elements of B10 are not the same that WotC sees, and intends to mirror...
If Ghosts of Dragonspear Castle, the 5e preview campaign, is an indication of things to come, I don't have high hopes.
I fear for the typical, 2e/3e/PF style verbosity and exposition prose instead of succinct, to the point presentation of data. I fear that WotC will need 64 pages to convey the same info that TSR packed in 32, or 24.
I fear for typical 3e/PF/4e color CGI mapping instead of the clear, iconic, Geoff Wingate/Paul Ruiz map style that graced most of the UK modules, Imagine magazine, and that was refined in Dragon Warriors and Warhammer FRP. When I think of B10 the first thing that comes to mind is that poster map with 3D sketches of broken buildings, way shrines, bridges, fantastic, yet believable and instantly describable locations.
Note that this has nothing to do with old school, or nostalgia, but with tried-and-tested, gameable, ergonomical presentation of content, of which B10 was a high point in TSR history.
But I fear that that's not what Mearls alludes to...
Quote from: Old One Eye;756590So what has been the extent of your involvement? A couple phone calls over the course of the past couple years? Intense back and forth every week? In person trips to Renton?
Regular lengthy email exchanges with Mike Mearls, plus several major phases of critique that involved writing lengthy reports breaking down the rules on a point for point basis; there have certainly been several recommendations that were instituted.
Quote from: JRR;756742[ ... list ...]
Thanks for that list, it's the most useful description I've seen of 5e to date (granted I haven't looked into specifics that hard).
QuoteDamage on a miss
Seriously? Ain't a miss a miss?
QuoteDying [...] you die when your hit points drop to −19." So, if the aforementioned character drops to zero, he has to make 3 saves before he fails an average of 5.4 rolls.
Just to clarify for me. If a PC is down to –1 HP, they get a saving throw. If they fail, they're dead? Or if they fail, they continue to hæmorrhage HP until they get to –CON? The former seems fine for me. The latter seems too kind to the PCs. But then again, what constitutes "dead" in D&D is probably one of the more house-ruled aspects of the game, so I could perhaps see this being someone's OSR D&D variant.
QuoteShort rests, healing surges renamed.
I don't know what healing surges are, but if it means healing up HP quickly after battle, this is another thing I've seen houseruled. HP are to represent strain, fatigue, chance of taking real damage, etc. etc. which is out of sync with 1 or 2 HP recovered per day.
So maybe 5e is like an OSR game in that it's like a collection of houserules on top of the classic system... but...
QuoteAt will combat cantrips - 2d6 damage for a cleric at first level, and 1d10 and a slow for a mage. At will.
[...]
Martial dice for rogues, and hell, martial dice in general. Mundane classes don't need a resource, and it's not even really a resource if it returns at the beginning of the next round. Trim the hit point bloat and this kind of damage is unnecessary. In any case, thieves shouldn't get the same abilities as the warrior classes.
I agree, the idea that "All classes should be able to participate equally/equivalently in all situations" is far from the old school. The non-combat classes should have to think outside the box in battle, just as fighters gotta find another way through a locked door.
QuoteBy the time I trim all the above out and then some, there's no point in playing the game.
I played some 3.5e/Pathfinder years back when I returned to gaming after decades of hiatus. We started houseruling away this and that, no feats... no skills... proper undead turning... and so on. At one point, I realised that the game we were left with was a mess, but underlyingly B/X. So I said screw this, dusted off by old rulebooks, and started up a B/X campaign.
Well, 5e is a different game/edition so I expect changes, some I'll like, so I won't. But I wonder, once the trimming and cutting is complete, will I be playing B/X/AD&D again?
I think 5e has a lot of potential if they sell it aggressively. I hope to see it in toy stores, department stores, book stores, all over the place. Lapsed gamers from the 80s are going to pick it up for their kids as a sort of impulse buy when birthday shopping. Our generation's got the money, our kids are the next generation of gamers, so it should all work out. I hope 5e becomes the new-old-school for those who grow up on it. Maybe it won't replace my AD&D, but that's ok, if it's good enough I'll play it if you're running it.
It's like music. My father may not have liked what I listened to as a teenager. He prefered his Chuck Berry over my Pink Floyd. But he appreciated that it was still Rock 'n' Roll, and listening to Rock 'n' Roll is a good thing.
Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;756797Regarding "RC and Old School"...
Far longer than the OSR as a "movement" there exists the notion that the "kiddiefied" Mentzer BECMI marked the end of "something". I started with Mentzer. It was years before I saw older versions of D&D. And with all my love and respect for the Mentzer approach to rules presentation, I can totally see why older generations of gamers, used to the whimsy and anarchy of Otis, saw BECMI as a turning point and sell-out, and the end of D&D as they knew it.
True enough. Even though I was only 14 when Mentzer came out, it had a very different feel from the stuff that came before, and TSR's offering at the time prompted me to move on to independent publishers and homebrewed content. I don't say that to invalidate anything published after 1984 as 'not D&D'. But there was a real shift in the tone and content of books published from that point on.
Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;756797I fear for the typical, 2e/3e/PF style verbosity and exposition prose instead of succinct, to the point presentation of data. I fear that WotC will need 64 pages to convey the same info that TSR packed in 32, or 24.
I fear for typical 3e/PF/4e color CGI mapping instead of the clear, iconic, Geoff Wingate/Paul Ruiz map style that graced most of the UK modules, Imagine magazine, and that was refined in Dragon Warriors and Warhammer FRP. When I think of B10 the first thing that comes to mind is that poster map with 3D sketches of broken buildings, way shrines, bridges, fantastic, yet believable and instantly describable locations.
Note that this has nothing to do with old school, or nostalgia, but with tried-and-tested, gameable, ergonomical presentation of content, of which B10 was a high point in TSR history.
But I fear that that's not what Mearls alludes to...
Yeah, B10 hit it out of the part in presentation, as well as content. I don't know why we don't see more of that sort of presentation - fold-out maps, cross-section illustrations, regional maps, etc. Is it a matter of cost? One innovation I am liking with WotC's recent adventures is DM screens customized with content for that adventure.
Quote from: The Butcher;756600I'll believe it when I see it and (this is the crucial point) when the larger D&D community buys into the company line. If fandom at large doesn't buy it and demands more and more crunch and CharOp and shit, and some suit gives in, well, it's been all for naught.
Yes, that's right; that's why I've been telling them again and again that they should try to take measures to avoid this situation.
QuoteSorry for not squealing like a little girl every time you mention how you've single-handedly fixed D&D, but all preceding evidence points towards your corporate taskmasters Not Getting It.
I haven't got a problem with honest trepidation based on the admittedly awful track record of WoTC over the last 6 years or so.
My problem is with dishonest brokers who act as though they somehow "would" be willing to like 5e and yet at every single turn they find something to hate about it or claim that the measures aren't enough.
QuoteIn the meantime, I must admit I've been enjoying these threads. The mighty Pundit, reduced to a Wizbros shill.
Hardly; I have also at no point in time stopped criticizing them, publicly, when I felt it was called for. I criticized them loudly for not announcing the Basic PDF first. Shit, I "drove away Monte Cook" according to some people; remember?
RPGPundit
Quote from: languagegeek;756800Thanks for that list, it's the most useful description I've seen of 5e to date (granted I haven't looked into specifics that hard).
I wouldn't take his description too seriously, several things on his list weren't in the final playtest.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;756805I wouldn't take his description too seriously, several things on his list weren't in the final playtest.
And others are only possible with a particular combination of character generation features which might not make it in to the Basic core anyway.
I guess we'll find out when the game is finally put out.
Quote from: RPGPundit;756802My problem is with dishonest brokers who act as though they somehow "would" be willing to like 5e and yet at every single turn they find something to hate about it or claim that the measures aren't enough.
Yeah, that's pretty blatant edition-warrior crap.
I'd love to support the latest edition of D&D and I'm eager to give it a fair chance. What? Rogues don't roll percentile for thieving attempts? When are those fuckers going to learn? WotC isn't getting a dime of my money!It's a mirror-image of the 4E fans who desperately want 5E to fail in order to validate their preferred system, or to prove that no edition of D&D can increase the popularity of the game in today's market. So they present an innocent facade of really hoping 5E will succeed, then wig out over an 'infamous' TPK in a playtest, or take apart mechanics in isolation to prove that the math is broken.
It's strange how some people can't openly admit they hope 5E fails. Do they think that when they pose as unbiased and earnest commentators, their criticisms are regarded as having more merit?
My experience of 5e to date:
At the outset, Mike Mearls approached me very politely and respectfully and asked me if I'd be willing to help playtest. Sure, I said. (In my opinion and experience Mike Mearls is a class act.)
Then his legal people sent me the most arrogant and unilateral document I've ever seen in my whole life and asked me to sign it. It included among other things their right to complete ownership over any rule I came up with during the period of the playtest.
I can't possibly sign that, I said. I have a game design life outside 5e.
And that was the end of it. I presume the agreement got changed at a later stage or the Pundit was offered a different version; I can't imagine he would have been willing to sign the document I saw.
So I have zero knowledge of the mechanics. I was slightly put off by the process.
WOTC can't possibly lose me as a customer, because I'm not one. I've never purchased a WOTC product in my life. (I'm either happy with the game I've got or else I'm a close-minded moron grognard, depends who you ask.) It has the opportunity to gain me as a customer if I hear positive reviews of 5e from people I trust.
Quote from: JRR;756742I'll bite. I haven't seen one damn thing that makes 5e old school,
Judging by the rest of the post, I'm guessing this is because you've got some serious bias blinders on and don't
want to see anything that resembles old school play because then you might not be able to hate it as much as you want.
For example, it's the first edition since 2e where you can play with all the core rules easily without using a single mini or battlemap or any of the tactical rules that were core of 3e and 4e (flanking, AoE, etc). It also plays just as fast as TSR era D&D as far as combat resolution goes. You can also create a character in about 5 minutes, and it can fit on a notecard. And ruleings over rules is explicitly encouraged. All things "old school" is known for.
QuoteThe following is from my perusal of the latest playtest document, but I doubt any of the crap below has been removed.
Well, you'd be incorrect on some things
QuoteAt will damaging cantrips
Damage on a miss
This was only applicable if you were a great weapon fighter, and the damage was only ability modifier damage, and Mearls has said a while ago that it's being pulled from the game because of the reaction it go. It's a very specific issue that only occurs with a specific type of PC, and not something that is a general rule.
QuoteDying -, you've got to be shitting me, 3 saves at a pissant dc and you stabilize and this has to be done before you reach "a number that equals your Constitution score plus your character level expressed as a negative value. If you’re 5th level and have a 14 Constitution, for
example, you die when your hit points drop to −19." So, if the aforementioned character drops to zero, he has to make 3 saves before he fails an average of 5.4 rolls.
what? Where the hell are you getting this from? The rules are nothing like this. If you take 0 hp, you:
* die instantly if the extra damage you take that brings you lower than 0 hp is more than your max HP
* make a death roll every round at a DC 10 (that's 50%--not pissant). If you get three failures before you get three successes, you die. If you get three successes before three failures, you're stabilized but still unconscious.
QuoteShort rests, healing surges renamed.
Again, wrong. For one, it's long rests to recover hit dice, not short rests. Correct me if I'm wrong, but healing surges have been explained to me by 4e players that every type of healing is included. Meaning, if you have 3 healing surges, you could only get healed 3 times total, even by healing potions or spells until you got those surges back. In 5e, the hit dice healing is not like that at all. It's not tied to any potion or spell. You get one HD per level per long rest to use to "catch your breath". We all agree HP are abstract and reflect not just damage but also fatigue, right? So the 2nd level 5e fighter who has 2d10 to spend total before his next long rest, and can only use those during a short rest to catch his breath, isn't so radical. It's also not like 4e's healing surges at all
QuoteAt will combat cantrips - 2d6 damage for a cleric at first level, and 1d10 and a slow for a mage. At will.
Wrong again. The ray of frost cantrip is 1d8, not 1d10, and slows target by 10ft. It also requires an attack roll. And clerics don't have an at will 2d6 magic attack.
QuoteNo death penalty - no con loss or other penalty for coming back from the dead.
Hardly anyone playing AD&D never used that rule either. Just like weapon vs. AC table.
QuoteSpells don't scale - A fireball does 6d6 damage, and an extra d6 for each LEVEL if a higher level slot is used. Yeah, no thanks.
No save or dies. Finger of death only works on mooks. Even hold person basically cancels their action for your action.
On the flip side, spells like sleep retain their usefulness for a lot longer. There are plenty of "instant kill" type of spells against low HP targets (either lower level targets, or high level targets who have been whittled down). And once again, hold person works differently than what you're implying. It has a duration up to a minute.
QuoteChannel divinity - The base option is okay, but the others are all excuses to give magic user spells to clerics.
That's been in existence since at least AD&D2e.
QuoteMartial damage dice
Martial dice for rogues, and hell, martial dice in general. Mundane classes don't need a resource, and it's not even really a resource if it returns at the beginning of the next round. Trim the hit point bloat and this kind of damage is unnecessary. In any case, thieves shouldn't get the same abilities as the warrior classes.
I guess backstab dice in AD&D2e isn't old school now? Again, this isn't a new concept, and has been around since the old school days.
QuoteWay too many fiddly class mechanics in general.
What? This doesn't make sense. There are less fiddly class mechanics in 5e than AD&D (no unique mechanics like Saving Throw tables, turn undead tables, and attack matrix was replaced with a simpler "less fiddly" base attack roll).
QuoteSkill die - Just more fiddly crap.
As noted, it doesn't exist any more
QuoteLess randomness all around. Average hit points (rounded up, of course) means every fighter will have the same hit points, differentiated only by con bonus.
The rules state clearly to roll your HD to get new HP, or
if you want, to just choose the average if that's what you prefer. The default option is the exact same as "old school" D&D, so this is an invalid complaint.
QuoteBy the time I trim all the above out and then some, there's no point in playing the game.
Now, the game might meet some people's expectation and be a fine game for it's target audience, but old school, my ass.
As you can see, you're wrong about nearly everything, so you don't need to trim out nearly as much as you think.
However, I'm sure this falls onto deaf ears since it seems you're bound and determined to not want to find anything appealing about it, and are dead set on using incorrect assumptions to justify your bias.
I prefer an old school style of play, and is why I've played 1e all these years continuous. But it should be noted that I can, and have, been playing AD&D 1e modules with 5e PCs and rules with hardly any conversion at all, and most importantly, the feel of the game is the same as when I used 1e. Hell, we had a 1e unconverted cleric as part of the party and he worked just fine. How much more old school can you get than that short of them just rewriting 5e to be AD&D 1.5?
Quote from: Haffrung;756811Yeah, that's pretty blatant edition-warrior crap. I'd love to support the latest edition of D&D and I'm eager to give it a fair chance. What? Rogues don't roll percentile for thieving attempts? When are those fuckers going to learn? WotC isn't getting a dime of my money!
It's a mirror-image of the 4E fans who desperately want 5E to fail in order to validate their preferred system, or to prove that no edition of D&D can increase the popularity of the game in today's market. So they present an innocent facade of really hoping 5E will succeed, then wig out over an 'infamous' TPK in a playtest, or take apart mechanics in isolation to prove that the math is broken.
It's strange how some people can't openly admit they hope 5E fails. Do they think that when they pose as unbiased and earnest commentators, their criticisms are regarded as having more merit?
The other side to this same coin that I admit I find frustrating are those "old school grogs" who like to say how horrible 5e is because of a couple of rules that show up in it and they shouldn't have to bother to houserule these away or modify them to what they feel better with. What? Am I to believe that these people never houseruled 1e at all? That they used every single rule appearing in the 1e PHB and DMG?
Yeah, right.
I don't have any issues with someone who says the game in general just isn't that appealing, or that they don't find an appeal in it, or that the
core structure of the rules isn't appealing (like 4e's implied reliance on maps and minis). But don't sit there and bitch about how the game is horrible because you might have to houserule a half a dozen fairly minor rules when you're houseruling twice as many rules in your preferred edition already. Clearly the houseruling isn't an issue for you.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;756816The other side to this same coin that I admit I find frustrating are those "old school grogs" who like to say how horrible 5e is because of a couple of rules that show up in it and they shouldn't have to bother to houserule these away or modify them to what they feel better with. What? Am I to believe that these people never houseruled 1e at all? That they used every single rule appearing in the 1e PHB and DMG?
Yeah, right.
For some the houseruling issue might be a matter of degree. There is also the question of why they would want to start houseruling a new system all over again when the one that has already had so much work and play invested in it still works fine.
I think the " its horrible" camp is actually fairly small, but the gap between those who would play 5E and those who want to drop their old game and start running 5E instead is still fairly large.
I don't think its horrible.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;756816The other side to this same coin that I admit I find frustrating are those "old school grogs" who like to say how horrible 5e is because of a couple of rules that show up in it and they shouldn't have to bother to houserule these away or modify them to what they feel better with. What? Am I to believe that these people never houseruled 1e at all? That they used every single rule appearing in the 1e PHB and DMG?
Yeah, right.
I don't have any issues with someone who says the game in general just isn't that appealing, or that they don't find an appeal in it, or that the core structure of the rules isn't appealing (like 4e's implied reliance on maps and minis). But don't sit there and bitch about how the game is horrible because you might have to houserule a half a dozen fairly minor rules when you're houseruling twice as many rules in your preferred edition already. Clearly the houseruling isn't an issue for you.
I’m not altogether sure AD&D is playable without at least some houseruling (Colour Spray spell e.g.) I don’t know anyone who has tried, I sure haven’t.
I can guarantee that I’ll houserule stuff in 5e (PC races).
There’s an important difference between these two. If, in 5e, I end up wanting to houserule away a bunch of stuff so that the end result is, in essence, AD&D or B/X, then there’s really no point for me playing it. In the 80s, in AD&D, I wasn’t houseruling the game to resemble something else I already had.
If, in 5e, I make a few houserules but the game is still unique and new, then 5e is worth it in my books. It would certainly be disgenuine for me or any other old-school player to claim that the “new rules must be perfect and exactly what I want or it sucks”.
Regardless, I hope 5e is the gateway drug for all kinds of new players.
Presumably no one expects 5E to turn water into wine?
Other than a 'new' shiny appeal, it would seem natural to favor the games we are familiar with.
I need to play 5E, and or run it, in a lengthy campaign before I rate 'how good it is'
Quote from: Emperor Norton;756805I wouldn't take his description too seriously, several things on his list weren't in the final playtest.
OK, well. I've got my corebooks on preorder and we'll see when we see. Thanks.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;756823For some the houseruling issue might be a matter of degree. There is also the question of why they would want to start houseruling a new system all over again when the one that has already had so much work and play invested in it still works fine.
I think the " its horrible" camp is actually fairly small, but the gap between those who would play 5E and those who want to drop their old game and start running 5E instead is still fairly large.
I don't think its horrible.
And I can understand that. I mean, I did the same thing. I could "technically" house rule 3e to where I didn't need maps or minis. So to follow my own advice, I shouldn't refuse to play the game just on that alone. However, the core aspect of the game turned me off as well (skill system, feats).
But to your point (and one OG says often), if you're having fun with your current game, why move on? I don't begrudge anyone saying they won't play 5e because they are having fun with their own game now. I'd just rather someone come out and say that instead of trying to earn Grogcredits by lambasting any new version of D&D, usually giving reasons that don't hold up under scrutiny. It seems for some people, it's not enough to say, "that's not the game for me" and leave it at that. They have to go on a screed about how horrible it is, even if those reasons aren't accurate or a bit contradictory to that person's actions.
Quote from: languagegeek;756825I can guarantee that I'll houserule stuff in 5e (PC races).
I already houserule how healing works ;)
QuoteThere's an important difference between these two. If, in 5e, I end up wanting to houserule away a bunch of stuff so that the end result is, in essence, AD&D or B/X, then there's really no point for me playing it. In the 80s, in AD&D, I wasn't houseruling the game to resemble something else I already had.
This is an absolute fair point. As an AD&D player (my favorite edition), the reason I still play 5e is because I like the things 5e adds that AD&D doesn't have. Character customization is a big one. It's not nearly as detailed as 3.x is, which I like, because if 3.x I felt like you had to study all these chains and options. 5e is more broad, so I feel I can get my customization in that fits the archetype I want without worrying about "build effectiveness" if that makes sense.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;756837I already houserule how healing works ;)
This is an absolute fair point. As an AD&D player (my favorite edition), the reason I still play 5e is because I like the things 5e adds that AD&D doesn't have. Character customization is a big one. It's not nearly as detailed as 3.x is, which I like, because if 3.x I felt like you had to study all these chains and options. 5e is more broad, so I feel I can get my customization in that fits the archetype I want without worrying about "build effectiveness" if that makes sense.
This is a big reason I'm liking what I've seen also despite not being enamored by the healing mechanics or the multiclass system. My current game for Dnd is FantasyCraft which I'm finding too complex for my current preferences despite speeding up combat and generally removing most the issues of 3x.
The bounded accuracy with the flatter math and making everything optional beyond BASIC removes a lot of the Charop out of the game which is another reason I'm liking 5e.
Quote from: YourSwordisMine;756672My problem was with the Starter Set bullshit... And that goes for ANY starter set for ANY game that does not have character creation... That includes the Edge of the Empire starter sets (both of them). They are nothing more than crippleware ad copy...
This is something I disagree with. Unless you are talking about some kind of man-to-man war game where character build choices are part of your overall strategy to win, there's absolutely no point in teaching new players how a character generation system works. It's a superfluous part of the game. The essence of a roleplaying game is making gameworld decisions through the medium of a character, not the design of the character itself. You could have a roleplaying game with fighters only all characters identical mechanically; all the differentiation between characters would be based on actions and personality.
The obsession some people have with forcing newcomers to the hobby to learn some kind of character creation system is incomprehensible.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;756779Nope.
I will probably check out 5E and read through it. Then it will most likely join 2E, 3.0E, 3.5E, and 4E on the shelf of games I'm happy to play but have no interest in running.
But! But! You were held up as THE example of an anti-5e old-schooler! YOU AREN'T ALLOWED TO BE REASONABLE!
Quote from: Sacrosanct;756816The other side to this same coin that I admit I find frustrating are those "old school grogs" who like to say how horrible 5e is because of a couple of rules that show up in it and they shouldn't have to bother to houserule these away or modify them to what they feel better with. What? Am I to believe that these people never houseruled 1e at all? That they used every single rule appearing in the 1e PHB and DMG?
That's kind of funny way of interpreting that.
If you have a game that you've houseruled, and if someone comes along with a new edition that you would have to houserule extensively to get what you want, why bother? You can skip the effort and not play the new game. A new game, or new edition of an old game, has to sell itself based on what new things it offers. If you dn't like any of the new things, it's offering nothing. Saying "you houseruled before, why nolt buy the game anyway and houserule away all the new things" is not a convincing argument.
Quote from: talysman;756856That's kind of funny way of interpreting that.
If you have a game that you've houseruled, and if someone comes along with a new edition that you would have to houserule extensively to get what you want, why bother? You can skip the effort and not play the new game. A new game, or new edition of an old game, has to sell itself based on what new things it offers. If you dn't like any of the new things, it's offering nothing. Saying "you houseruled before, why nolt buy the game anyway and houserule away all the new things" is not a convincing argument.
That wasn't what I had said. I've found that that I've needed much less houseruling in 5e than I did/do in 1e. What I said was that if you're OK with houseruling a bunch of rules in AD&D, why are you (general you) so upset about needing to houserule a
couple things in 5e?
Quote from: talysman;756856If you have a game that you've houseruled, and if someone comes along with a new edition that you would have to houserule extensively to get what you want, why bother? You can skip the effort and not play the new game. A new game, or new edition of an old game, has to sell itself based on what new things it offers. If you dn't like any of the new things, it's offering nothing. Saying "you houseruled before, why nolt buy the game anyway and houserule away all the new things" is not a convincing argument.
Quoted For Truth.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;756860That wasn't what I had said. I've found that that I've needed much less houseruling in 5e than I did/do in 1e. What I said was that if you're OK with houseruling a bunch of rules in AD&D, why are you (general you) so upset about needing to houserule a couple things in 5e?
I realize that's what you said. And that's what I find unconvincing. Sure, the AD&D GM has houseruled a bunch of stuff. So why houserule even more? Again, the selling point of a game is the new stuff. If a new game doesn't have enough new stuff to justify the time, effort, and cost of switching, that AD&D GM is not going to switch. It's pointless to argue "you did it once, so you can't use that as an excuse."
If the new game has a couple new bits that look intriguing, it's easier to add just those bits as houserules to your existing game.
Quote from: Marleycat;756332That's a valid concern to have. At least to my understanding the model they are trying to do seems to be similar to 2e or Pathfinder then 3x/4e.
Knowing what I know now, I think 2E would have been an absolute nightmare for a compulsive completionist. Especially if one was on the 2E Forgotten Realms treadmill and/or purchased everything released for 2E. (I was on a long hiatus away from tabletop rpg games during the entire 1990's).
In the case of Pathfinder, the treadmill was initially manageable. Though after awhile, it seemed annoying to continue buying further monthly Pathfinder books when I wasn't DMing anything anymore. (Independent of Paizo's high quality presentation).
I ended up jumping off the Pathfinder treadmill permanently, when they released the update of the Inner Sea campaign setting book. (The final Pathfinder title I purchased was the large Inner Sea map folio). For me, it was a convenient point to walk away. (Coincidentally the Serpent's Skull AP was just finished at the time too, which was the last Pathfinder AP I bothered buying).
Slightly earlier (circa early-2011), I had already jumped off the 4E treadmill after the 4E Essentials books were all released. But about a year later when WotC first announced 5E/Next, I ended jumping back on the 4E treadmill and purchased the rest of the 4E books released over 2011 and 2012. (IIRC, only three 4E splatbooks were released in 2012).
In those days (circa 2008 -> late-2010), being on both the 4E and Pathfinder treadmills simultaneously was becoming too cumbersome. In comparison, these days I spend a lot less $$$$ monthly on tv/movie blurays + dvds than what I use to spend monthly on 4E and Pathfinder books.
Quote from: talysman;756856This is something I disagree with. Unless you are talking about some kind of man-to-man war game where character build choices are part of your overall strategy to win, there's absolutely no point in teaching new players how a character generation system works. It's a superfluous part of the game. The essence of a roleplaying game is making gameworld decisions through the medium of a character, not the design of the character itself. You could have a roleplaying game with fighters only all characters identical mechanically; all the differentiation between characters would be based on actions and personality.
The obsession some people have with forcing newcomers to the hobby to learn some kind of character creation system is incomprehensible.
For me, character generation/creation is more about a feeling of intellectual ownership than game mechanics. Who cares if there are three other fighting men in the party and we are all mechanically the same. I rolled up THIS one and he is all mine. There are many fighters but only ONE Grogtok the Invincible!!!
Furthermore, there is no such thing as a mechanically unique character unless no other player has access to the abilities that you have.
Quote from: talysman;756856But! But! You were held up as THE example of an anti-5e old-schooler! YOU AREN'T ALLOWED TO BE REASONABLE!
It is what it is. To further trash my old school rep, I admit to currently playing in a 4E campaign that has been running for almost a year and a half.
Quote from: ggroy;756867Knowing what I know now, I think 2E would have been an absolute nightmare for a compulsive completionist. Especially if one was on the 2E Forgotten Realms treadmill and/or purchased everything released for 2E. (I was on a long hiatus away from tabletop rpg games during the entire 1990's).
In the case of Pathfinder, the treadmill was initially manageable. Though after awhile, it seemed annoying to continue buying further monthly Pathfinder books when I wasn't DMing anything anymore. (Independent of Paizo's high quality presentation).
I ended up jumping off the Pathfinder treadmill permanently, when they released the update of the Inner Sea campaign setting book. (The final Pathfinder title I purchased was the large Inner Sea map folio). For me, it was a convenient point to walk away. (Coincidentally the Serpent's Skull AP was just finished at the time too, which was the last Pathfinder AP I bothered buying).
Slightly earlier (circa early-2011), I had already jumped off the 4E treadmill after the 4E Essentials books were all released. But about a year later when WotC first announced 5E/Next, I ended jumping back on the 4E treadmill and purchased the rest of the 4E books released over 2011 and 2012.
In those days (circa 2008 -> 2011), being on both the 4E and Pathfinder treadmills simultaneously was becoming too cumbersome. In comparison, these days I spend a lot less $$$$ monthly on tv/movie blurays + dvds than what I use to spend monthly on 4E and Pathfinder books.
One of the main reasons why I'm getting rid of most of my d20 stuff is that while I collected all of the books that had what I considered cool stuff, there was no way I was going to be able to dip in to all of it. I'm not a completist with D&D, but what I had collected over 14 years was still more than I could possibly ever use. I'm an adult and my free time is limited, a game system that no longer delivers the enjoyment it once had must be pruned to allow the best use of my free time.
Quote from: talysman;756856The obsession some people have with forcing newcomers to the hobby to learn some kind of character creation system is incomprehensible.
That is because it is a strawman position created by a couple of lunatics.
Quote from: talysman;756866I realize that's what you said. And that's what I find unconvincing. Sure, the AD&D GM has houseruled a bunch of stuff. So why houserule even more? Again, the selling point of a game is the new stuff. If a new game doesn't have enough new stuff to justify the time, effort, and cost of switching, that AD&D GM is not going to switch. It's pointless to argue "you did it once, so you can't use that as an excuse."
If the new game has a couple new bits that look intriguing, it's easier to add just those bits as houserules to your existing game.
Well, you've convinced me. Since I already put the time and effort into houseruling AD&D, why should I ever play another game ever again unless it's perfect?
:rolleyes:
Quote from: ggroy;756867Knowing what I know now, I think 2E would have been an absolute nightmare for a compulsive completionist. Especially if one was on the 2E Forgotten Realms treadmill and/or purchased everything released for 2E. (I was on a long hiatus away from tabletop rpg games during the entire 1990's).
In the case of Pathfinder, the treadmill was initially manageable. Though after awhile, it seemed annoying to continue buying further monthly Pathfinder books when I wasn't DMing anything anymore. (Independent of Paizo's high quality presentation).
I ended up jumping off the Pathfinder treadmill permanently, when they released the update of the Inner Sea campaign setting book. (The final Pathfinder title I purchased was the large Inner Sea map folio). For me, it was a convenient point to walk away. (Coincidentally the Serpent's Skull AP was just finished at the time too, which was the last Pathfinder AP I bothered buying).
Slightly earlier (circa early-2011), I had already jumped off the 4E treadmill after the 4E Essentials books were all released. But about a year later when WotC first announced 5E/Next, I ended jumping back on the 4E treadmill and purchased the rest of the 4E books released over 2011 and 2012. (IIRC, only three 4E splatbooks were released in 2012).
In those days (circa 2008 -> late-2010), being on both the 4E and Pathfinder treadmills simultaneously was becoming too cumbersome. In comparison, these days I spend a lot less $$$$ monthly on tv/movie blurays + dvds than what I use to spend monthly on 4E and Pathfinder books.
I am talking from the player side I found I didn't have to buy much at all in 2e. I had like 10 books maybe. I could careless about the DM. Even with Pathfinder I think I have 5 books? I don't need anything else. For 5e I see myself getting the PHB/DMG and then waiting for player side things (Advanced Player Guide, Unearthed Arcana that kind of thing) or maybe if they do it a Dragonlance or Mystara setting book or IF they do a new setting that interests me. If they do it right I could see myself with 9-10 books and willing to buy some peripherals like mini's and whatnot.
QuoteFor me, character generation/creation is more about a feeling of intellectual ownership than game mechanics. Who cares if there are three other fighting men in the party and we are all mechanically the same. I rolled up THIS one and he is all mine. There are many fighters but only ONE Grogtok the Invincible!!!
Furthermore, there is no such thing as a mechanically unique character unless no other player has access to the abilities that you have.
Meh, I don't need to roll some dice to achieve that. Just give me whatever I will make it mine in 3 seconds.
Quote from: Marleycat;756880For 5e I see myself getting the PHB/DMG and then waiting for player side things (Advanced Player Guide, Unearthed Arcana that kind of thing)
But remember, they're not going to do any books of player empowerment stuff. And they're going to STICK TO THAT. Totally, no foolin'...
...right up to the point where they decide they'd like to make some more money now please.
Quote from: Ladybird;756889But remember, they're not going to do any books of player empowerment stuff. And they're going to STICK TO THAT. Totally, no foolin'...
...right up to the point where they decide they'd like to make some more money now please.
Do it like Pathfinder or FantasyCraft and it will be fine. Pathfinder really only has 4-5 player focused books out. The rest is either GM focused, peripherals or things that are cheaply priced and not totally needed more or less like the class books etc.
Quote from: talysman;756856If you have a game that you've houseruled, and if someone comes along with a new edition that you would have to houserule extensively to get what you want, why bother? You can skip the effort and not play the new game. A new game, or new edition of an old game, has to sell itself based on what new things it offers. If you dn't like any of the new things, it's offering nothing. Saying "you houseruled before, why nolt buy the game anyway and houserule away all the new things" is not a convincing argument.
It is for me. I houserule about 30 per cent of AD&D. It's looking like I will houserule about 10-15 per cent of 5E. So that's a gain for me. It's not as though the work is done for my AD&D houseruling either, as it's scattered in notes or in my head. And it's difficult to transmit that stuff to players. Then there's the matter of published materials - an edition of D&D where I have to make only minor changes to published materials is more appealing to me than one where I have to make substantial changes.
Quote from: Marleycat;756890Do it like Pathfinder or FantasyCraft and it will be fine. Pathfinder really only has 4-5 player focused books out. The rest is either GM focused, peripherals or things that are cheaply priced and not totally needed more or less like the class books etc.
They also have the advantage of being from smaller companies, and not needing to hit the same levels of revenue targets.
WotC are talking a good game now, because they are salespeople trying to sell us on a product by telling us what we want to hear; it's their job, they're doing it well. We'll see how long their statements last when the game is on sale.
Quote from: Ladybird;756892They also have the advantage of being from smaller companies, and not needing to hit the same levels of revenue targets.
WotC are talking a good game now, because they are salespeople trying to sell us on a product by telling us what we want to hear; it's their job, they're doing it well. We'll see how long their statements last when the game is on sale.
That and like Pundit said things could change from a corporate standpoint but for
right now they are on the correct path. I just know if it gets back to the treadmill model of previous iterations I will not be along for the ride it's just that simple. They are too many good games out there that aren't on a treadmill for me to get sucked into one that WotC creates.
Quote from: P&P;756812My experience of 5e to date:
Thanks for sharing BTW.
I'm not a 5e-hater, but I am severely annoyed by all the people talking about it in old school circles.
The idea that 5e is "old school" is a marketing gimmick. Old school is a complex term, a combination of community, play style and marketing that means very different things to different people. Some people will find that 5e is sufficiently "old school" for them. They are the people who are in the shallow end of the old school pool, playing clone games and ignoring half the rules because they really want something that's essentially like 2e or 3e without all the cruft. The RPGPundit is in the shallow end of the pool, so I really can't blame him.
What I find annoying is the people who should know better and clutter up the place with their stuff about 5e. It's going to be very different from old school D&D, even if it makes some token nods in its direction. It's like a new model car with a modern engine and some "classic" trim and paint job - at the end of the day it's a new and modern car, not a classic.
Quote from: Cadriel;756902It's like a new model car with a modern engine and some "classic" trim and paint job - at the end of the day it's a new and modern car, not a classic.
So, 5e is a PT Cruiser?
Quote from: Marleycat;756893That and like Pundit said things could change from a corporate standpoint but for right now they are on the correct path. I just know if it gets back to the treadmill model of previous iterations I will not be along for the ride it's just that simple. They are too many good games out there that aren't on a treadmill for me to get sucked into one that WotC creates.
For sure.
All it takes is a regime change at WotC, to start up the treadmill again. Especially with WotC doing regular semi-annual layoffs.
Hence this is the main reason why I'm taking a "wait and see" approach over the next year or so, before buying a single 5E book.
Quote from: JRR;756742Damage on a miss
Short rests, healing surges renamed.
Martial damage dice
Martial dice for rogues, and hell, martial dice in general. Mundane classes don't need a resource, and it's not even really a resource if it returns at the beginning of the next round. Trim the hit point bloat and this kind of damage is unnecessary. In any case, thieves shouldn't get the same abilities as the warrior classes.
Skill die - Just more fiddly crap.
Less randomness all around. Average hit points (rounded up, of course) means every fighter will have the same hit points, differentiated only by con bonus.
Each of these were changed, often in significant ways, either by the final playtest, or (from what we've been told) in the final document.
Edit - A few of the others you listed were wrong as well, like the damage numbers from the at-will cantrips, the dying rules, etc. but I see Sacro corrected those.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;756906So, 5e is a PT Cruiser?
That sounds pretty correct. Except that there's also going to be a version of the same chassis and engine with a more modern trim.
ETA: And the differences are also more apparent to people who go under the hood.
Quote from: talysman;756856This is something I disagree with. Unless you are talking about some kind of man-to-man war game where character build choices are part of your overall strategy to win, there's absolutely no point in teaching new players how a character generation system works. It's a superfluous part of the game. The essence of a roleplaying game is making gameworld decisions through the medium of a character, not the design of the character itself. You could have a roleplaying game with fighters only all characters identical mechanically; all the differentiation between characters would be based on actions and personality.
What the fuck? IT's not about the actual mechanics... Mechanics of creating a character can take a flying fuck... I'm not arguing for "Character Build" bullshit... What I am saying is there needs to be a way for players to create who they want to be in the game, using their own imagination. That could be 3d6 in order, chose Class, roll hit points. OR it could just be "Hi, my name is Tom, I am a Bus Boy at Spendel's Eatery".
RPGs are games of imagination. If you hand someone a pre-generated character then all you are doing is telling them that you can play with someone else's imagination... Giving them Character Creation rules allows the players to fully immerse into the game. Without that, you are not giving the full experience...
Quote from: Ladybird;756889But remember, they're not going to do any books of player empowerment stuff. And they're going to STICK TO THAT. Totally, no foolin'...
I can't blame the industry for the treadmill. Publishers publish books. It's their gig. There are nowhere near enough GMs anymore to justify the GM-only sales model for books.
That's why Palladium makes all books for both GMs and players, mixing setting fluff, monsters, new classes, new gear into each book, thus tantalizing both GMs and players.
Quote from: Cadriel;756902The idea that 5e is "old school" is a marketing gimmick. Old school is a complex term, a combination of community, play style and marketing that means very different things to different people.
Old School is a marketing term. Like "Classic" or "Retro", these are words used to convey nostalgia in order to increase sales. Of course, these are vague terms and thus their meanings are open to debate.
I do believe 5e appears "Old School" enough for casual players. And from that perspective, it isn't that different than DCC or Mazes & Minotaurs which have "modern" mechanics and "Old School" feel.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;756906So, 5e is a PT Cruiser?
Pretty much. And that's not a bad thing. The PT Cruiser is a fun little car, but don't pretend its a '65 Mustang.
Quote from: YourSwordisMine;756915RPGs are games of imagination. If you hand someone a pre-generated character then all you are doing is telling them that you can play with someone else's imagination... Giving them Character Creation rules allows the players to fully immerse into the game. Without that, you are not giving the full experience...
Spot on.
Quote from: Spinachcat;756916The PT Cruiser is a fun little car, but don't pretend its a '65 Mustang.
Mustangs are garbage, basically a sporty looking Pinto. Nobody expects a PT to be anything but a PT. So yeah, people are remember things a lot better than they really were.
Quote from: Cadriel;756902I'm not a 5e-hater, but I am severely annoyed by all the people talking about it in old school circles.
The idea that 5e is "old school" is a marketing gimmick. Old school is a complex term, a combination of community, play style and marketing that means very different things to different people. Some people will find that 5e is sufficiently "old school" for them. They are the people who are in the shallow end of the old school pool, playing clone games and ignoring half the rules because they really want something that's essentially like 2e or 3e without all the cruft. The RPGPundit is in the shallow end of the pool, so I really can't blame him.
What I find annoying is the people who should know better and clutter up the place with their stuff about 5e. It's going to be very different from old school D&D, even if it makes some token nods in its direction. It's like a new model car with a modern engine and some "classic" trim and paint job - at the end of the day it's a new and modern car, not a classic.
I have been playing since 1981, primarily AD&D1e, B/X, and WFRP1e. Continuous mind you. I.e., when I play RPGs even today, those are what I play. Not a clone, but the actual books. 5e allows me to play the exact same way I've been playing AD&D1e continuous now for over 30 years.
But hey, thanks for telling me that I not doing it the "one true way'...
:rolleyes:
Quote from: YourSwordisMine;756915RPGs are games of imagination. If you hand someone a pre-generated character then all you are doing is telling them that you can play with someone else's imagination...
What a load of horsehit. Imagination takes center stage when you're actually playing the game and how you interact with the PC's surroundings and figuring out ways to overcome challenges, not when you're rolling up your ability scores. For Christ's sake, Mearls isn't including a guideline with each PC telling the player exactly how they are supposed to role play that pregen in every possible scenario.
Quote from: YourSwordisMine;756915RPGs are games of imagination. If you hand someone a pre-generated character then all you are doing is telling them that you can play with someone else's imagination... Giving them Character Creation rules allows the players to fully immerse into the game. Without that, you are not giving the full experience...
C'mon. How much mechanical difference is there between two typical Lvl 1 Human fighters in B/X D&D? One might have a 17 Str and 15 Con, while the other has 16 Str and 16 Con? And the rest of the scores are largely irrelevant, unless they're lucky enough to have a high Dex.
We all have fond memories of rolling 4d6 six times and arranging the scores. But in very basic iterations of the game, there's virtually no creativity or choices in where you apply the numbers. It's what you do with the PC in play where the imagination comes on. Unless you're talking about deep PC background at character generation, which I've never considered an old-school approach to play.
Quote from: Akrasia;756917Spot on.
So what are my players saying when they ask for a pregen? Esp those new to the game.
Quote from: Cadriel;756902I'm not a 5e-hater, but I am severely annoyed by all the people talking about it in old school circles.
Are you annoyed when people talk about Dungeon Crawl Classics in old school circles? Because mechanically, it's about as big a departure from AD&D as 5E is.
Pregens and character creation are not mutual exclusive. The starter set should include both IMO.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;756923I have been playing since 1981, primarily AD&D1e, B/X, and WFRP1e. Continuous mind you. I.e., when I play RPGs even today, those are what I play. Not a clone, but the actual books. 5e allows me to play the exact same way I've been playing AD&D1e continuous now for over 30 years.
But hey, thanks for telling me that I not doing it the "one true way'...
:rolleyes:
The exact same way? Really? You've been running AD&D with d20-style skill checks for 33 years? Or you just ignore big parts of 5e's system?
Quote from: Haffrung;756927Are you annoyed when people talk about Dungeon Crawl Classics in old school circles? Because mechanically, it's about as big a departure from AD&D as 5E is.
I was annoyed when it first came out, yeah. Since then I have played it (albeit briefly) and found that it's a decent game, but scratches a very different itch than OSR games do. Honestly I think it has as much to do with Rolemaster and Warhammer Fantasy Role Playing as older D&D - and those are good games, but not really old school in the same sense as the OSR.
Goodman Games has a different relationship to the OSR than Wizards of the Coast, though. They published two products that were very important to the OSR: Michael Curtis's Dungeon Alphabet, and James Raggi's Random Esoteric Creature Generator. And they employ Michael Curtis, whose stuff I like for any system. So my annoyance is considerably lessened.
Quote from: YourSwordisMine;756915RPGs are games of imagination. If you hand someone a pre-generated character then all you are doing is telling them that you can play with someone else's imagination... Giving them Character Creation rules allows the players to fully immerse into the game. Without that, you are not giving the full experience...
Here we go with the full experience crap again. First of all just because a character is pregenerated doesn't mean leave your brain and imagination at the door. Second the character generation will be freely available in conjunction. Third the product isn't aimed at you or even meant for you. Fourth 5e is being marketed to the under 20's in an arena they're more comfortable with (multiple platforms with a heavy online component).
Do I totally agree with their strategy? No, I would have put character gen in the box instead of online but I don't need it in any case and don't care about the product given I'm not their target audience.
Quote from: Cadriel;756932The exact same way? Really? You've been running AD&D with d20-style skill checks for 33 years? Or you just ignore big parts of 5e's system?
So what makes a game "old school" is the lack of a standard d20 roll? Funny. I thought is was more about playstyle, and having rules that help promote that playstyle.
Silly me...
Quote from: Haffrung;756927Are you annoyed when people talk about Dungeon Crawl Classics in old school circles? Because mechanically, it's about as big a departure from AD&D as 5E is.
I consider "old-school" to be more about *how* the game is played (what kind of decisions the players have to make on a regular basis, basically) more than a specific rules implementation.
(That's not an endorsement or criticism of either DCC or 5e)
Old school is negative AC, 1 HP at 1st level, and a 10' pole. :D
Quote from: robiswrong;756939I consider "old-school" to be more about *how* the game is played (what kind of decisions the players have to make on a regular basis, basically) more than a specific rules implementation.
(That's not an endorsement or criticism of either DCC or 5e)
I agree with this it's why I consider DCC old school because it's got that 10 foot pole high lethality vibe going on.
Quote from: Skywalker;756931Pregens and character creation are not mutual exclusive. The starter set should include both IMO.
Hell yeah.
Quote from: robiswrong;756939I consider "old-school" to be more about *how* the game is played (what kind of decisions the players have to make on a regular basis, basically) more than a specific rules implementation.
The problem is I agree with you and thus 4e is an Old School game since that's how I run 4e.
I run OD&D, 4e and Dark Heresy from the same perspective, but DH isn't on anyone's radar as an "Old School" game.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;756938So what makes a game "old school" is the lack of a standard d20 roll? Funny. I thought is was more about playstyle, and having rules that help promote that playstyle.
Silly me...
You said "the exact same way." Apparently you meant that 5e and AD&D let you play in the same "playstyle" - whatever that means to you. Which, if you ignore or change big chunks of the rules for one or both of those games, I suppose is true.
I believe Sacrosanct.
I have players who are in both my OD&D and my 4e games. They talk about how I run both games in almost the same manner. For them, whatever they feel is "Old School" is coming through in the playstyle for both games, regardless of mechanics.
Now, in all honesty, some games are easier to run with an "old school" feel.
That, and what that feel is will certainly vary by the perceiver of that.
I mean, I'm a munchkin - by which I mean I picked up the game in the early 80s as a 10-12 year old. I was lucky enough to get to play in a truly old-school game (run by a friend's father), which completely changed my perceptions.
"Old-school" as in "what I played in as a teenager" and "old-school" as in "what the adults were doing when I first picked the game up" are two utterly different things.
Quote from: Spinachcat;756953I believe Sacrosanct.
I have players who are in both my OD&D and my 4e games. They talk about how I run both games in almost the same manner. For them, whatever they feel is "Old School" is coming through in the playstyle for both games, regardless of mechanics.
See, this needs some more explaining. 4e and 5e are both substantially less lethal than OD&D, and playing OD&D like you are expected to play 4e would get you killed very quickly.
So are you toning down OD&D's lethality, or ramping it up in 4e, or are you really playing differently in the two?
Outside of first through maybe third level, I find that in D&D lethality (at least from monsters) is more determined by what opponents your PCs are dealing with than anything else.
That said, yeah, at first level there's a certain level of "instakill" that's possible in TSR D&D that's simply not there in 4e. I don't consider low-level "instakill" to really be the primary determinant of old-school play, though.
Quote from: robiswrong;756955Now, in all honesty, some games are easier to run with an "old school" feel.
.
I agree with this 100%. I mean, for me, a big part of "old school" is rulings not rules. Which naturally is harder to do when you have a game that clearly tells you what to do in just about every situation. I understand 4e to be this way.
Also, I should note that 5e is most definitely not an old school game because it's new. It hasn't even come out yet. That being said, I will take issue with anyone who handwaves away statements that 5e can be played in an old school style as just players being in the shallow end of the pool. That's ridiculous.
5e allows me to play in a style exactly like I do in AD&D or WFRP 1e, and have been in 30+ years:
* fast combat
* fast chargen
* rulings not rules
* no minis or maps needed
* encounters...well...encountered at the players' pace, not defined by guidelines or rules of X per day
Quote from: Marleycat;756943I agree with this it's why I consider DCC old school because it's got that 10 foot pole high lethality vibe going on.
I killed half the party in our opening 5e game last week. And they weren't bullshit zero level characters either. 5e is plenty lethal as it is.
Quote from: Spinachcat;756953I believe Sacrosanct.
I have players who are in both my OD&D and my 4e games. They talk about how I run both games in almost the same manner. For them, whatever they feel is "Old School" is coming through in the playstyle for both games, regardless of mechanics.
I run every game the same as well. Just started a Deadlands classic campaign last weekend. My approach as GM is identical to how I would approach AD&D.
I find it baffling that, apparently, GM's somehow completely change their approach to the game when running different systems. To do so would seem odd. Guess some folks find the rules more dominant to the game session than the GM or something? I dunno how that phenomena works.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;756959I agree with this 100%. I mean, for me, a big part of "old school" is rulings not rules. Which naturally is harder to do when you have a game that clearly tells you what to do in just about every situation. I understand 4e to be this way.
"Rulings not rules" comes from a document that is
explicitly arguing against 3e-style d20 skill rolls. 5e has those skills as a central part of the system. Claiming that it supports "rulings not rules" means you either ignore a substantive part of how the game works, which you could do in 3.x as well, or you do not understand what you are saying.
Seriously, read the document again (http://files.meetup.com/1772989/quick_primer_for_old_school_gaming.pdf). It says literally:
You don't have a "spot" check to let you notice hidden traps and levers, you don't have a "bluff" check to let you automatically fool a suspicious city guardsman, and you don't have a "sense motive" check to tell you when someone's lying to your character.In the playtest documents I have for 5e, the skill list includes Bluff, Sense Motive, and Spot. It is literally no different from 4e in that regard.
Now, I'm not saying there is anything
wrong with liking 5e. Just that it is literally the exact opposite of what Matt Finch was writing about when he talked about rulings not rules.
QuoteAlso, I should note that 5e is most definitely not an old school game because it's new. It hasn't even come out yet. That being said, I will take issue with anyone who handwaves away statements that 5e can be played in an old school style as just players being in the shallow end of the pool. That's ridiculous.
When you say you are about "rulings not rules" and then tout a game with an integrated d20-style skill system like 5e, to me that means you don't know what you are talking about. That's why I said people who like 5e and find it scratches the same itch are on the shallow end of the pool. This isn't an insult, it's just a statement that you are not deeply engaged with old school rules and their implications.
Quote5e allows me to play in a style exactly like I do in AD&D or WFRP 1e, and have been in 30+ years:
* fast combat
* fast chargen
* rulings not rules
* no minis or maps needed
* encounters...well...encountered at the players' pace, not defined by guidelines or rules of X per day
And that is pretty much what I see as the shallow end of the OSR pool: playing it because it's a decent, fast, light game system instead of understanding what the rules are and the implications of changing them.
Quote from: Old One Eye;756961I run every game the same as well. Just started a Deadlands classic campaign last weekend. My approach as GM is identical to how I would approach AD&D.
Yeah, I run just about everything identical, why change success? :D
Quote from: Cadriel;756962"Rulings not rules" comes from a document that is explicitly arguing against 3e-style d20 skill rolls. 5e has those skills as a central part of the system. Claiming that it supports "rulings not rules" means you either ignore a substantive part of how the game works, which you could do in 3.x as well, or you do not understand what you are saying.
Seriously, read the document again (http://files.meetup.com/1772989/quick_primer_for_old_school_gaming.pdf). It says literally:
You don’t have a “spot” check to let you notice hidden traps and levers, you don’t have a “bluff” check to let you automatically fool a suspicious city guardsman, and you don’t have a “sense motive” check to tell you when someone’s lying to your character.
In the playtest documents I have for 5e, the skill list includes Bluff, Sense Motive, and Spot. It is literally no different from 4e in that regard.
Yay! Yet another person who spouting stuff off about 5e without having the recent playtest docs. Newsflash: you don't have those skills in the packets either.
What you
do have in the playtest are guidelines around ability checks and how they relate to certain tasks you want to do. Want to search for traps? OK, that's a perception related task, so it falls under wisdom. Make a wisdom check. Do you know what other game had ability checks? AD&D1e. Guess that wasn't an old school game either...
Now, there are "skills" in the game that are tied to backgrounds, but all those do is give you a bonus to your ability check. They're also completely optional. 5e absolutely allows to you skip those checks altogether and just role play out the scenario if you want.
QuoteNow, I'm not saying there is anything wrong with liking 5e. Just that it is literally the exact opposite of what Matt Finch was writing about when he talked about rulings not rules.
1. Matt wasn't at my game table in 1981, and he's hardly the end all, be all definitive judge on what is old school play and what isn't, thank you very much. That primer is just one man's opinion, nothing else
2. Congrats on being exactly the kind of person Pundit was talking about here
Quote from: RPGPundit;756802My problem is with dishonest brokers who act as though they somehow "would" be willing to like 5e and yet at every single turn they find something to hate about it or claim that the measures aren't enough.
RPGPundit
You've managed to sqeeze in "I'm not a 5e hater, but.." and "I'm not saying there's anything wrong with 5e..." while then immediately trashing it (inaccurately to boot).
3. "Rulings not rules" means to most people, including myself, that the DM comes up with a ruling on the spot for a scenario where there either isn't a rule, or where he or she doesn't want to look it up. 5e very much allows you do that.
QuoteWhen you say you are about "rulings not rules" and then tout a game with an integrated d20-style skill system like 5e, to me that means you don't know what you are talking about.
One of us doesn't know what he's talking about, and it's not me. Maybe you should go back and reread what's actually in the playtest docs. And while you're at it, check your "one-true-wayism' crap at the door.
Quote from: Cadriel;756962"Rulings not rules" comes from a document that is explicitly arguing against 3e-style d20 skill rolls. 5e has those skills as a central part of the system.
Not really. This is part of the modularity. They want to make the game adaptable to how different people want to play. To that end, skills are optional, except for the Rogue (natch). Unlike in 3e and 4e, skills are not a separate resolution system, but extra flavor on top of the basic ability check for those who want it. And the basic ability check is just a handy rule to use when needed, which goes back as far as Moldvay Basic.
So if you're into detailed skills, you can go with that. If you're into rulings, not rules, there's nothing preventing you from playing that way in 5e. Just as NWPs were not absolutely necessary in AD&D nor General Skills in RC.
The goal of 5e is configurability. If old school is your style, you can easily configure it that way. If 3e is your style you can configure it that way. But throwing in all the extra options used to configure the game like 3e and then saying, "This isn't old school! It's 3e!" strikes me as disingenuous.
To whit, a MAJOR part of old school D&D is turn-based exploration. It's an integral part of OD&D, BD&D, AD&D and AD&D 2nd Ed. It is not in 3e nor 4e at all. It is a part of 5e.
Quote from: Cadriel;756962"Rulings not rules" comes from a document that is explicitly arguing against 3e-style d20 skill rolls. 5e has those skills as a central part of the system. Claiming that it supports "rulings not rules" means you either ignore a substantive part of how the game works, which you could do in 3.x as well, or you do not understand what you are saying.
Seriously, read the document again (http://files.meetup.com/1772989/quick_primer_for_old_school_gaming.pdf). It says literally:
Bwaahahahahahaha!
I just pulled up the doc, and on the first page (which you conveniently did not quote here), it states in regards to rulings vs rules:
Most of the time in old-style gaming, you don'
t use a rule; you make a ruling. It's easy
to understand that sentence, but it takes a flash
of insight to really "get it." The players
can describe any action, without needing to l
ook at a character sheet to see if they "can"
do it. The referee, in turn, uses common sense
to decide what happens or rolls a die if he
thinks there's some random element involved,
and then the game moves on.I'm laughing because that is almost word for word how it's described in 5e. Oh man, you fail so hard with your
own reference. :rotfl:
Hmm...I'm not convinced 5E will 'unify the D&D fanbase', but it looks like it may fracture and perhaps even destroy the 'old school' movement. :)
Of course, I've said for years that 4E revealed divisions more than it created them, and it's looking like 5E may be doing the same, given some of the arguments here. Cadriel, is the 'deep engagement' the kind of logistics-centered play that some have said emerges from careful attention to the details of the OD&D rules?
Quote from: Iosue;756970To that end, skills are optional, except for the Rogue (natch). Unlike in 3e and 4e, skills are not a separate resolution system, but extra flavor on top of the basic ability check for those who want it.
Skills are not optional in the latest playtest draft. Skills are a less extensive mechanic than 3e and 4e as they are pre-packaged into Backgrounds. However, Backgrounds are one of the four core aspects of any PC.
So, in 5e, you can make an Ability roll or, if you have a Skill, an Ability roll with a Proficiency bonus.
5e's approach is merely an extension (and continued reduction) of the same mechanic in 3e and 4e. In 3e, you purchased each bonus through skill ranks. In 4e, you got to choose X Skills of a specific Class list for a set bonus.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;756969Yay! Yet another person who spouting stuff off about 5e without having the recent playtest docs. Newsflash: you don't have those skills in the packets either.
032013 Backgrounds and Skills.pdf - first page.
QuoteWhat you do have in the playtest are guidelines around ability checks and how they relate to certain tasks you want to do. Want to search for traps? OK, that's a perception related task, so it falls under wisdom. Make a wisdom check. Do you know what other game had ability checks? AD&D1e. Guess that wasn't an old school game either...
Ability checks were described as a way to handle things in Moldvay Basic, but not correlated to skills. They don't appear in AD&D 1e before expansion rulebooks from the late 1980s, and are definitely not in the Dungeon Master's Guide.
QuoteNow, there are "skills" in the game that are tied to backgrounds, but all those do is give you a bonus to your ability check. They're also completely optional. 5e absolutely allows to you skip those checks altogether and just role play out the scenario if you want.
Well, sure, 3e does too. Does that mean it's exactly the same as an older edition of D&D if you just ignore everything you don't like?
Quote1. Matt wasn't at my game table in 1981, and he's hardly the end all, be all definitive judge on what is old school play and what isn't, thank you very much. That primer is just one man's opinion, nothing else
You're the one who invoked "rulings not rules" to define old school in defense of a game that, by the material we've seen so far,
explicitly and directly contradicts the exact document where that particular phrase comes from. That's asinine.
Quote2. Congrats on being exactly the kind of person Pundit was talking about here
You've managed to sqeeze in "I'm not a 5e hater, but.." and "I'm not saying there's anything wrong with 5e..." while then immediately trashing it (inaccurately to boot).
And I give a shit about what the Pundit says because .... ?
Quote3. "Rulings not rules" means to most people, including myself, that the DM comes up with a ruling on the spot for a scenario where there either isn't a rule, or where he or she doesn't want to look it up. 5e very much allows you do that.
The only RPG I can think of that doesn't allow you to do that is The World of Synnibar, which explicitly forbids house rules.
QuoteOne of us doesn't know what he's talking about, and it's not me. Maybe you should go back and reread what's actually in the playtest docs. And while you're at it, check your "one-true-wayism' crap at the door.
Who said anything about "one true way"? Play whatever way floats your boat, it's no skin off my back. But if you go around talking about how 5e is old school, it shows that you don't really have much appreciation of how different it is from old school games in ways that matter in play.
Quote from: Cadriel;756976032013 Backgrounds and Skills.pdf - first page.
You do realize that 092013 would be the last playtest packet right? And the one that is most like the rules we are getting. So using a packet that was 6 months behind in the process is pretty silly for determining what is actually going to be in the game.
Nobody really knows for sure what EXACTLY is going to be in what comes out (at least, no one who isn't under an NDA), but we can at least try and use the most up to date information.
(And honestly, considering the Basic Game is only going to have 4 classes/4 races, I'm not sure if skill proficiencies will actually enter into it with the exception of perhaps the rogue. And defined skill checks with the rogue have been around for so long I would laugh if you called that "not Old school")
Quote from: Skywalker;756974Skills are not optional in the latest playtest draft. Skills are a less extensive mechanic than 3e and 4e as they are pre-packaged into Backgrounds. However, Backgrounds are one of the four core aspects of any PC.
So, in 5e, you can make an Ability roll or, if you have a Skill, an Ability roll with a Proficiency bonus.
5e's approach is merely an extension (and continued reduction) of the same mechanic in 3e and 4e. In 3e, you purchased each bonus through skill ranks. In 4e, you got to choose X Skills of a specific Class list for a set bonus.
No 5e basically runs skills like C&C with 2-3 skills in a background package which is purely optional like feats and multi-classing. Even IF you use defined skills it just adds a proficiency bonus similar to 2e. Why would you use defined skills when ability checks are just easier and faster? Unless you're going for s 3/4e configuration of course.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;756973Cadriel, is the 'deep engagement' the kind of logistics-centered play that some have said emerges from careful attention to the details of the OD&D rules?
That's part of it; really I see OD&D as an exploration game with a domain-ruling endgame. I see 5e as a monster-fighting game with no particular endgame of any interest. You see this most clearly in the reward system: OD&D gives you XP for finding treasure, while 5e gives you XP for killing monsters. The incentives should change how the game is played, if the players have any real skill; in OD&D avoiding combat is preferable, while in 5e it's pretty much unavoidable. And the rest of the game really stems forth from this: in OD&D PCs are not built to withstand multiple combats at low level, whereas in 5e they are. There are combat rules in OD&D, but they are really obstacles en route to the treasure; while in 5e, there are exploration rules, but they are just to spice things up between monster fights.
Now, many people
played older D&D as a monster-fighting game. And it was kind of bad at that, so they hacked it in various ways until it worked like they wanted it to. And that's why so many people thought 3e had finally gotten it right - they finally had the monster-fighting game they had always wanted. And some people play OSR clones as "light" versions of the monster-fighting game, with extra lethality for spice. There's nothing wrong with that, but a lot of the driving force behind the OSR was when people figured out what a relatively small number of people had known all along, namely how the game was originally written to be played - and that this was actually quite a bit of fun, if a lot different from how we had grown up playing it.
Keep digging Cadriel. The more you post, the clearer it is that you don't know what you're talking about.
:popcorn:
Quote from: Emperor Norton;756978You do realize that 092013 would be the last playtest packet right? And the one that is most like the rules we are getting. So using a packet that was 6 months behind in the process is pretty silly for determining what is actually going to be in the game.
No, I don't; the last one I have is dated 060713 but the Backgrounds and Skills PDF is dated 032013. So could you check? Did the 092013 Backgrounds and Skills remove Bluff, Sense Motive, and Spot?
QuoteNobody really knows for sure what EXACTLY is going to be in what comes out (at least, no one who isn't under an NDA), but we can at least try and use the most up to date information.
Sure, please feel free to.
Quote(And honestly, considering the Basic Game is only going to have 4 classes/4 races, I'm not sure if skill proficiencies will actually enter into it with the exception of perhaps the rogue. And defined skill checks with the rogue have been around for so long I would laugh if you called that "not Old school")
There's an opinion out there in OSR circles that the game was better without the Thief. For instance, in Philotomy's Musings (reproduced here (http://save.vs.totalpartykill.ca/grab-bag/philotomy/), it's one of the texts that was very influential on the OSR):
.... in particular I think that having no Thief class has a positive effect on the game, eliminating the special skills and making all the PCs active participants in searching, stealthy-movement, et cetera.I wouldn't say you're not old school if you use the thief; it would certainly disqualify my own game which uses B/X. I just think it's ironic to bandy about "rulings not rules" for a game that has Bluff, Sense Motive and Spot checks which are specifically shot down in "A Quick Primer...".
Quote from: Sacrosanct;756814Judging by the rest of the post, I'm guessing this is because you've got some serious bias blinders on and don't want to see anything that resembles old school play because then you might not be able to hate it as much as you want.
Well, you'd be incorrect on some things
Yeah, looks like I was looking at the playtest document from August.
On damage on a miss:
QuoteThis was only applicable if you were a great weapon fighter, and the damage was only ability modifier damage, and Mearls has said a while ago that it's being pulled from the game because of the reaction it go. It's a very specific issue that only occurs with a specific type of PC, and not something that is a general rule.
It's still in the final playtest document. If this is gone, great, but the mere fact it was on the board at all tells me something about the designer's supposed "old school" mentality.
Quotewhat? Where the hell are you getting this from? The rules are nothing like this. If you take 0 hp, you:
* die instantly if the extra damage you take that brings you lower than 0 hp is more than your max HP
* make a death roll every round at a DC 10 (that's 50%--not pissant). If you get three failures before you get three successes, you die. If you get three successes before three failures, you're stabilized but still unconscious.
3 rolls before you die is pissant. And you can't even kill an unconscious pc without carrying around a ballista. A fifth level fighter will have 34 hit points. You will have to do 35 points of damage to kill him. A greatsword does 2d6 damage. Good luck with that. Otherwise, you have to hit him 3 times.
QuoteAgain, wrong. For one, it's long rests to recover hit dice, not short rests.
"A short rest is a period of downtime, at least 1 hour long, during which you catch your breath, eat, drink, and clean and bind wounds. You can spend one
or more of your Hit Dice during a short rest, up to your maximum number of
Hit Dice. For each Hit Die you spend in this way, roll the die and add your
Constitution modifier to it. You regain hit points equal to the total. You can
decide to spend an additional Hit Die after each roll. Once you have spent
all your Hit Dice, you must complete a long rest to regain them."
So a fifth level fighter gets to heal 5d10 hit points from scarfing down an MRE.
QuoteWrong again. The ray of frost cantrip is 1d8, not 1d10, and slows target by 10ft. It also requires an attack roll. And clerics don't have an at will 2d6 magic attack.
It doesn't matter if it's 1d4. An unlimited magical attack makes magic decidedly UNmagical. One mage can kill a thousand zombies without breaking a sweat.
QuoteHardly anyone playing AD&D never used that rule either. Just like weapon vs. AC table.
I have played in hundreds of games over the years. Not once was that rule not used. In fact, the 1e DMG states: "Yet one die roll you should NEVER tamper with is the SYSTEM SHOCK ROLL to be raised from the dead."
QuoteOn the flip side, spells like sleep retain their usefulness for a lot longer. There are plenty of "instant kill" type of spells against low HP targets (either lower level targets, or high level targets who have been whittled down). And once again, hold person works differently than what you're implying. It has a duration up to a minute.
It does look like they have the right idea with sleep. It appears there is no save. Instant kill spells against creatures that it is not needed against, whoopee. On hold person: Again, I had the August version of the playtest, so I admit my comments were wrong there, but, hold person still grants a save EACH round until broken. It also only affects ONE target.
On Channel divinity:
QuoteThat's been in existence since at least AD&D2e.
Exactly.
QuoteI guess backstab dice in AD&D2e isn't old school now? Again, this isn't a new concept, and has been around since the old school days.
My experience with 2e is little. But I don't remember backstab dice. I remember a damage multiplier pretty much identical to 1E. That said, I was bitching about the martial dice mechanic, which seems to be removed from the latest version. The only problem I have with sneak attack as is, as it only requires having "advantage" over your opponent. I don't know how easy it is to have advantage, so I can't really comment there; however, sneak attack should require sneaking, not the bullshit flanking crap from 3e.
QuoteWhat? This doesn't make sense. There are less fiddly class mechanics in 5e than AD&D (no unique mechanics like Saving Throw tables, turn undead tables, and attack matrix was replaced with a simpler "less fiddly" base attack roll).
Glancing at a table is now considered fiddly? Also, just because the version of the game I like had some fiddly mechanics does not make it okay for the next version to do so.
QuoteThe rules state clearly to roll your HD to get new HP, or if you want, to just choose the average if that's what you prefer. The default option is the exact same as "old school" D&D, so this is an invalid complaint.
If the option exists, it will be used. This is not an add on "module" but the default. It would be silly to roll hit points over taking the 6 every level (for a fighter).
QuoteAs you can see, you're wrong about nearly everything, so you don't need to trim out nearly as much as you think.
I was wrong about a few things. I freely admit it. But most of it was close enough to the final version. Assuming the document I now have is the final one. It is titled 10-14-13.
QuoteHowever, I'm sure this falls onto deaf ears since it seems you're bound and determined to not want to find anything appealing about it, and are dead set on using incorrect assumptions to justify your bias.
Most of my assumptions still stand. At will damage spells. Average hit points. Healing surges. No save or dies. Almost impossible to die and no penalty if you DO manage to die.
None of those mechanics reflect an old school style of game.
QuoteI prefer an old school style of play, and is why I've played 1e all these years continuous. But it should be noted that I can, and have, been playing AD&D 1e modules with 5e PCs and rules with hardly any conversion at all, and most importantly, the feel of the game is the same as when I used 1e. Hell, we had a 1e unconverted cleric as part of the party and he worked just fine. How much more old school can you get than that short of them just rewriting 5e to be AD&D 1.5?
Look, I get some of you like the game. I'm glad you do, but the only way it's even remotely old school is when compared to 3e or 4e. Compared to an actual old school game, especially an old school D&D game, it's not even in the same ballpark.
Quote from: Skywalker;756974Skills are not optional in the latest playtest draft. Skills are a less extensive mechanic than 3e and 4e as they are pre-packaged into Backgrounds. However, Backgrounds are one of the four core aspects of any PC.
So, in 5e, you can make an Ability roll or, if you have a Skill, an Ability roll with a Proficiency bonus.
5e's approach is merely an extension (and continued reduction) of the same mechanic in 3e and 4e. In 3e, you purchased each bonus through skill ranks. In 4e, you got to choose X Skills of a specific Class list for a set bonus.
No 5e basically runs like C&C with 2-3 skills in a background package which is purely optional like feats and multi-classing.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;756984Keep digging Cadriel. The more you post, the clearer it is that you don't know what you're talking about.
Right, because your "playstyle" and "don't one true way me" is clearly the pinnacle of old school RPG thought. If you said "check your one true way at the door" to Gary Gygax in 1981, he'd have torn you a new asshole.
Quote from: Cadriel;756982That's part of it; really I see OD&D as an exploration game with a domain-ruling endgame. I see 5e as a monster-fighting game with no particular endgame of any interest.
This mentality confuses me. The DM runs the game in the manner they choose. The rules ... well, they don't run the game.
I certainly would never claim any XYZ-school ideology, but my 3e and 4e games have played out a heck of a lot like Finch's primer. As does everything else I have ever run, including the 5e playtest.
Quote from: Cadriel;756990Right, because your "playstyle" and "don't one true way me" is clearly the pinnacle of old school RPG thought. If you said "check your one true way at the door" to Gary Gygax in 1981, he'd have torn you a new asshole.
Doesn't sound like a person I would be interested in playing with then. You do know his attitude about games and gaming changed, evolved and matured and dare I say it, he grew up?
Quote from: Marleycat;756981No 5e basically runs skills like C&C with 2-3 skills in a background package which is purely optional like feats and multi-classing. Even IF you use defined skills it just adds a proficiency bonus similar to 2e. Why would you use defined skills when ability checks are just easier and faster? Unless you're going for s 3/4e configuration of course.
You just repeated back to me everything I said, and said it was disagreeing with me :confused: The only difference between us is the claim that its optional. That's not reflected in the final playtest document I have. Are you able to cite the reference?
As for C&C, yes, I agree that that would be a continuation of the 3e>4e>5e line in further reducing the mechanic that originated in 3e. However, even in C&C, its a modern mechanic.
Quote from: Cadriel;756957See, this needs some more explaining. 4e and 5e are both substantially less lethal than OD&D, and playing OD&D like you are expected to play 4e would get you killed very quickly.
So are you toning down OD&D's lethality, or ramping it up in 4e, or are you really playing differently in the two?
I run lethal games in general, so whatever I run, there's probably a much higher death chance with me than many other GMs.
4e is surprisingly lethal due to environmental and monster on-going damage. You'd be surprised how quickly 5 Poison damage per round starts turning into a clusterfuck at low levels. Remember that death happens at Negative Bloody, so if you have 40 HP, you die at -20.
See I love 4e because I am a minis wargame buff so a small skirmish boardgame is nasty fun for me. 4e monsters are designed to compliment each other's powers so a smart 4e GM can really maximize the power of monsters + terrain to challenge PCs.
OD&D's lethality at mid-to-high levels isn't the grindhouse you see at lower levels. However, I do acknowledge that there is no 1st level OD&D character in 4e. A 1st level 4e character is about a 3rd level (maybe 4th) OD&D character so its no possible to do a 1:1 comparison with 0e and 4e.
So far in the playtests, the 5e characters at 1st level look like 2nd level AD&D characters. Less powerful than 4e, but not 0e mooks either.
Also, I am a big believer in "there are things worse than death" so if a player thinks "I'm playing 4e, I'm a superhero" they are in trouble at my table.
Quote from: Cadriel;756976And I give a shit about what the Pundit says because .... ?
...because Pundit saved D&D!!! Get with the program Cadriel, the new pantheon is Gygax -> Pundit -> Arenson.
Quote from: Cadriel;756990Right, because your "playstyle" and "don't one true way me" is clearly the pinnacle of old school RPG thought. If you said "check your one true way at the door" to Gary Gygax in 1981, he'd have torn you a new asshole.
no, I said that because
a) you don't seem to be aware of what the actual rules are in 5e
b) you are being quite random in how you apply what things are old school and what aren't. Half of the things you mention that make 5e not old school exist as far back as the early 80s.
c) you're selectively using only parts of your own reference material, while ignoring those that directly contradict you
so yeah, you're using completely arbitrary reasoning to tell other people what "real" old school is while making dickish comments about other people not doing it the right way (shallow end of the pool)
Quote from: JRR;756987And you can't even kill an unconscious pc without carrying around a ballista. A fifth level fighter will have 34 hit points. You will have to do 35 points of damage to kill him.
To
instantly kill a PC. From full HP. The way the rule works is if a single blow does more damage than your max, at any time, it kills you.
You can't kill a 5th level fighter in 1e with a greatsword in a single blow either.
QuoteIt doesn't matter if it's 1d4. An unlimited magical attack makes magic decidedly UNmagical. One mage can kill a thousand zombies without breaking a sweat.
Got it. Harry Potter=Unmagical. Doctor Strange=Unmagical. Totally. Absolute muggles, them.
For that matter, who says without breaking a sweat? The rules don't put a limit on the total number of times a fighter can swing his greatsword, does that mean the fighter can kill a thousand zombies without breaking a sweat?
Quote from: Old One Eye;756993This mentality confuses me. The DM runs the game in the manner they choose. The rules ... well, they don't run the game.
I certainly would never claim any XYZ-school ideology, but my 3e and 4e games have played out a heck of a lot like Finch's primer. As does everything else I have ever run, including the 5e playtest.
If the rules don't influence the game and how the players are playing it ... well, I don't know what to say to you. Why not just play Risus and skip all the bullshit? It's dramatically cheaper than any edition of D&D.
Quote from: Skywalker;756995You just repeated back to me everything I said, and said it was disagreeing with me :/ The only difference between us is the claim that its optional. That's not reflected in the playtest document I have.
As for C&C, yes, I agree that that would be the next in the line if you wanted to continue to further reduce the mechanic from 3e. Even in C&C, its a modern mechanic added to an old school system.
Who cares if you don't consider it old school the point is the BASIC game skills wise does exactly what Moldvay did. The old school Cadriel is talking about is completely subjective, and one specific playstyle of it and just one on many opinions within the OSR. We aren't even talking about people that play older editions of Dnd and have no clue that OSR exists or know it exists but don't care what they say like myself for example.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;756984Keep digging Cadriel. The more you post, the clearer it is that you don't know what you're talking about.
:popcorn:
I'm kind of curious - what part of the "treasure getting game vs. monster killing game" post do you actually disagree with?
Quote from: Old One Eye;756993I certainly would never claim any XYZ-school ideology, but my 3e and 4e games have played out a heck of a lot like Finch's primer. As does everything else I have ever run, including the 5e playtest.
Yeah, the Pathfinder game I play in is feeling pretty 'old school' to me... and that's obviously because of the GM.
I get the impression that the GM would rather be running some earlier version but one of the players is a serious optimizer and put his foot down.
Quote from: LibraryLass;756998Got it. Harry Potter=Unmagical. Doctor Strange=Unmagical. Totally. Absolute muggles, them.
Also, apparently Medusa and Ghosts, both of which exist in D&D, are unmagical, what with their at will magical abilities and all.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;757003Also, apparently Medusa and Ghosts, both of which exist in D&D, are unmagical, what with their at will magical abilities and all.
Also, Demons. And Beholders.
Quote from: LibraryLass;756998To instantly kill a PC. From full HP. The way the rule works is if a single blow does more damage than your max, at any time, it kills you.
You can't kill a 5th level fighter in 1e with a greatsword in a single blow either.
Got it. Harry Potter=Unmagical. Doctor Strange=Unmagical. Totally. Absolute muggles, them.
For that matter, who says without breaking a sweat? The rules don't put a limit on the total number of times a fighter can swing his greatsword, does that mean the fighter can kill a thousand zombies without breaking a sweat?
Of course because you know Old School must mean rules not rulings or no fatigue because there's no fatigue rules or somesuch ridiculouslessness.
Quote from: LibraryLass;756998To instantly kill a PC. From full HP. The way the rule works is if a single blow does more damage than your max, at any time, it kills you.
You can't kill a 5th level fighter in 1e with a greatsword in a single blow either.
Got it. Harry Potter=Unmagical. Doctor Strange=Unmagical. Totally. Absolute muggles, them.
For that matter, who says without breaking a sweat? The rules don't put a limit on the total number of times a fighter can swing his greatsword, does that mean the fighter can kill a thousand zombies without breaking a sweat?
Of course because you know Old School must mean rules not rulings or no fatigue because there's no fatigue rules or somesuch ridiculouslessness.
Part of old school by Cadriel and his faction of OSR is that part of the charm is seeing how long you survive being a wizard by not doing anything an actual wizard does until around 5th level give or take, it's a little like Mage the Ascension taken overboard on that specific issue.
Luckily because experience points are made by gold pieces and not killing any threat to humans that could be permanent and virtually deadly depending on if the DM includes money beyond the threat to humanity left in among the bones of his latest dinner.
Quote from: Cadriel;756962"Rulings not rules" comes from a document that is explicitly arguing against 3e-style d20 skill rolls. 5e has those skills as a central part of the system. Claiming that it supports "rulings not rules" means you either ignore a substantive part of how the game works, which you could do in 3.x as well, or you do not understand what you are saying.
Seriously, read the document again (http://files.meetup.com/1772989/quick_primer_for_old_school_gaming.pdf). It says literally:
...Now, I'm not saying there is anything wrong with liking 5e. Just that it is literally the exact opposite of what Matt Finch was writing about when he talked about rulings not rules.
The Holy Writ you reference is just some guy musing about D&D. Matt Finch is no more an authority on old-school D&D than Sacrosanct or I.
Quote from: Cadriel;756976Who said anything about "one true way"? Play whatever way floats your boat, it's no skin off my back. But if you go around talking about how 5e is old school, it shows that you don't really have much appreciation of how different it is from old school games in ways that matter in play.
You mean different from how a bunch of circle-jerks on the internet have defined old-school D&D in the last six or seven years.
Quote from: Cadriel;756982That's part of it; really I see OD&D as an exploration game with a domain-ruling endgame...
Now, many people played older D&D as a monster-fighting game. And it was kind of bad at that, so they hacked it in various ways until it worked like they wanted it to. And that's why so many people thought 3e had finally gotten it right - they finally had the monster-fighting game they had always wanted. And some people play OSR clones as "light" versions of the monster-fighting game, with extra lethality for spice. There's nothing wrong with that, but a lot of the driving force behind the OSR was when people figured out what a relatively small number of people had known all along, namely how the game was originally written to be played - and that this was actually quite a bit of fun, if a lot different from how we had grown up playing it.
And that sums up the issue my issue with the OSR. It's not just a bunch of guys describing how they play D&D, or played back in the day. To folks like you, it's a fundamentalist revival with prophets and holy tomes, catechisms and commandments. You're not sharing your enthusiasm for how you played D&D - you're in the grips of a born-again conversion. A bunch of grognards read forum comments by Gygax, Menzter, and sundry hangers-on from a hobby clique 40 years ago, and distilled those comments into the True Ways of Yore. And now you denounce watered-down versions of old-school play. Out of what - shame that you didn't play the 'right' way back in the day?
There is no true old-school way to play D&D. No shallow OSR or deep OSR. There's just a bunch of forum nerds who enjoy being part of a movement indulging in garden variety one-true-way-ism.
Quote from: Marleycat;757000Who cares if you don't consider it old school the point is the BASIC game skills wise does exactly what Moldvay did.
So, you agree that Background and Skills are no longer optional in 5e?
The approach in 5e is not the same as in Moldvay. In Moldvay, an ability roll did not include a universal mechanic to reflect a PC's proficiency beyond the ability score itself. The DM was left to determine modifiers at his or her discretion.
In 5e, a player may expect the proficiency bonus to apply if a certain skill is applicable to a situation, regardless of the DM's discretion. Its an extension , albeit a much simpler version, of the shift seen in 3e and 4e.
Edit: For the record, I don't think Moldvay's approach is better than 5e's. Just not sure why people are looking to attribute Moldvay-like qualities to this aspect of 5e, except to annoy people who prefer the Moldvay approach (which seems to be the OP was also trying to achieve).
Quote from: Cadriel;756999If the rules don't influence the game and how the players are playing it ... well, I don't know what to say to you. Why not just play Risus and skip all the bullshit? It's dramatically cheaper than any edition of D&D.
Playstyle and rules are two different things. I can and do have rules preferences betwixt and among games while still running each in the same playstyle.
I also firmly believe the extent to which rules influence the game is vastly overstated in online discussions. As one example, I have never seen players game any differently whether XP came from gold, killing critters, completing missions, roleplaying in character, get fixed amounts per game night, or simply level up when everyone at the table felt it was time. I have tried all those methods over the years with varying players, never meant a damn in regards to what they do.
Not to mention I am a self-professed fan of the D&D brand. All other rpgs are sideline sprinkles.
Quote from: Old One Eye;757013I also firmly believe the extent to which rules influence the game is vastly overstated in online discussions. As one example, I have never seen players game any differently whether XP came from gold, killing critters, completing missions, roleplaying in character, get fixed amounts per game night, or simply level up when everyone at the table felt it was time. I have tried all those methods over the years with varying players, never meant a damn in regards to what they do.
Yep. We played with GP as XP. And players still wanted to kill every monster in the dungeon (eventually). Why? Because killing monsters is fun. I've run my game working out XP to the second decimal point, and I've run my game leveling up every third session. And there's no difference in the behaviour of the players.
Quote from: Haffrung;757011And that sums up the issue my issue with the OSR. It's not just a bunch of guys describing how they play D&D, or played back in the day. To folks like you, it's a fundamentalist revival with prophets and holy tomes, catechisms and commandments. You're not sharing your enthusiasm for how you played D&D - you're in the grips of a born-again conversion. A bunch of grognards read forum comments by Gygax, Menzter, and sundry hangers-on from a hobby clique 40 years ago, and distilled those comments into the True Ways of Yore. And now you denounce watered-down versions of old-school play. Out of what - shame that you didn't play the 'right' way back in the day?
There is no true old-school way to play D&D. No shallow OSR or deep OSR. There's just a bunch of forum nerds who enjoy being part of a movement indulging in garden variety one-true-way-ism.
Or, you know, we actually started talking about games, playing them and having fun. Then it became about money and got messy and now we have idiots claiming that 5e is a victory for the OSR.
Quote from: Haffrung;757014Yep. We played with GP as XP. And players still wanted to kill every monster in the dungeon (eventually). Why? Because killing monsters is fun. I've run my game working out XP to the second decimal point, and I've run my game leveling up every third session. And there's no difference in the behaviour of the players.
My suspicion is that whole swaths of folk have their opinions more influenced by what they read online rather than from actually playing a damn game.
Quote from: Skywalker;757012So, you agree that Background and Skills are no longer optional in 5e?
The approach in 5e is not the same as in Moldvay. In Moldvay, an ability roll did not include a universal mechanic to reflect a PC's proficiency beyond the ability score itself. The DM was left to determine modifiers at his or her discretion.
In 5e, a player may expect the proficiency bonus to apply if a certain skill is applicable to a situation, regardless of the DM's discretion. Its an extension , albeit a much simpler version, of the shift seen in 3e and 4e.
Edit: For the record, I don't think Moldvay's approach is better than 5e's. Just not sure why people are looking to attribute Moldvay-like qualities to this aspect of 5e, except to annoy people who prefer the Moldvay approach (which seems to be the OP was also trying to achieve).
From my understanding background and defined skills are options not core like 3/4e especially 4e. I do agree that's what Pundit meant.
Quote from: Cadriel;757016Or, you know, we actually started talking about games, playing them and having fun. Then it became about money and got messy and now we have idiots claiming that 5e is a victory for the OSR.
Who has said this? Or is this just another, "I can't actually back up anything I've said, and can't refute anything you've said, so I'll just make shit up" response that we're seeing way too often now?
Quote from: languagegeek;7568001: Seriously? Ain't a miss a miss?
2: Just to clarify for me. If a PC is down to –1 HP, they get a saving throw. If they fail, they're dead? Or if they fail, they continue to hæmorrhage HP until they get to –CON? The former seems fine for me.
3: I don’t know what healing surges are, but if it means healing up HP quickly after battle, this is another thing I’ve seen houseruled. HP are to represent strain, fatigue, chance of taking real damage, etc. etc. which is out of sync with 1 or 2 HP recovered per day.
4: Well, 5e is a different game/edition so I expect changes, some I’ll like, so I won’t. But I wonder, once the trimming and cutting is complete, will I be playing B/X/AD&D again?
1: This was announced likely removed. It was a single track for a fighter with great weapon. A miss still clipped the target for -gasp!!!- your STR modifier... that all, that is what the outrage was over. That is what was removed.
2: When you hit 0 HP you go unconscious. At - your HP total, you die. Each round you are at 0 or negative HP you make a save vs death. on a 9 or less you gain a sort of death point. Three successes and you stabilize at 1 hp. Three fails means you die. If you are hot while at 0 or less you have to make a death roll too.
3: In Next you get a sort of pool based on your HD. With a short rest of 1 hour you can spend some of those HD to try and catch your breath as it were. Say you've lost 6 HP and you get time to do a short rest. If you were level 2 you could spend 1 or 2 HD and hope you roll well. I am a mage level 2, I am down 6 HP and we can do a short rest. I spend my 2 DH for the day and get a 1 and a 6 (I just rolled that by the way) so I recover 6 HP.
4: Hard to say. Basic looks to very much have a BX feel to it right out the gate. No feats, no extra classes, etc. Feats by the way are misnamed in Next. They are more like class tweaks. See my commentary on my charging shield bashing Mage. heh.
Quote from: Marleycat;757018From my understanding background and defined skills are options not core like 3/4e especially 4e. I do agree that's what Pundit meant.
My impression is that they are definitely optional, and even if they weren't, they're nothing like skills were used in 3e. The most recent playtest is very explicit in that anyone can try any skill or task they want, just roll the dice (ability check) and be done with it. But if you do use backgrounds and their accompanying skills, add your proficiency bonus to your die roll.
So in my opinion and in my experience playing 5e, it very much plays exactly like I play (ed) AD&D1e.
1e: Want to do a task? Either role play it out, or make an ability check and DM fiat tells you the in game result based on how you did
5e: Want to do a task? Either role play it out, or make an ability check and DM fiat (as expressed by a DC value) tells you the in game result based on how you did.
The only difference is in 1e you rolled a d20 and wanted to get below your ability score, and in 5e, you roll a d20 and add your ability modifier. Insignificant difference because the feel of the game isn't changed one whit.
I'm just shocked that back in '81, I wasn't really playing D&D the right way, but in some futurist "new school" way that wouldn't show up for almost 20 years later...
Quote from: Old One Eye;757017My suspicion is that whole swaths of folk have their opinions more influenced by what they read online rather than from actually playing a damn game.
Or more exactly ignored whole swaths of the game when actually PLAYING the game. I know we did and everyone did to one degree or another. The Cult of RAW really started to take hold late in 2e's lifecycle and grew in 3x and became full bloom in 4e. And it seems in some factions of the OSR.:)
Quote from: Sacrosanct;757022The most recent playtest is very explicit in that anyone can try any skill or task they want, just roll the dice (ability check) and be done with it.
Which is also true in 4e, right? You get a set bonus if you have the skill, just like the proficiency bonus, otherwise its an ability roll.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;757020Who has said this?
I think he's referring to this:
Quote from: RPGPundit;753837By the very traditionalist definition, 5e, even the Basic version, certainly will not be an "OSR" product.
However, it is seriously informed by Old School, and that's a huge victory.
I'm not clear how The Pundit means that but I have seen other people claiming similar... such as in this thread: http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=544385
Quote from: Skywalker;757026Which is also true in 4e, right? You get a set bonus if you have the skill, just like the proficiency bonus, otherwise its an ability roll.
I'm afraid I can't speak to 4e. All I know is that in the early 80s with 1e and B/X, it was common for the DM to ask us to do an ability check and then narrate what happened based on the die roll. So it's not like a new concept in 5e or anything.
Quote from: Skywalker;757026Which is also true in 4e, right? You get a set bonus if you have the skill, just like the proficiency bonus, otherwise its an ability roll.
Yep. The primary difference being that 3e/4e placed a larger difference between the unskilled, average ability score PC and the skilled, high ability score PC than 5e. With DCs taking such into account.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;757020Who has said this? Or is this just another, "I can't actually back up anything I've said, and can't refute anything you've said, so I'll just make shit up" response that we're seeing way too often now?
Are you a fucking idiot?
"This is the victory of Old-school thinking over all else, and I don't mind if I take more than a little credit for the lobbying I have done to create and hold this vision as a Consultant." - D&D 5e BASIC/Core Rules: I Told ALL of You So! (http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/2014/05/i-told-all-of-you-so.html)
Quote from: Sacrosanct;757022My impression is that they are definitely optional, and even if they weren't, they're nothing like skills were used in 3e. The most recent playtest is very explicit in that anyone can try any skill or task they want, just roll the dice (ability check) and be done with it. But if you do use backgrounds and their accompanying skills, add your proficiency bonus to your die roll.
So in my opinion and in my experience playing 5e, it very much plays exactly like I play (ed) AD&D1e.
1e: Want to do a task? Either role play it out, or make an ability check and DM fiat tells you the in game result based on how you did
5e: Want to do a task? Either role play it out, or make an ability check and DM fiat (as expressed by a DC value) tells you the in game result based on how you did.
The only difference is in 1e you rolled a d20 and wanted to get below your ability score, and in 5e, you roll a d20 and add your ability modifier. Insignificant difference because the feel of the game isn't changed one whit.
I'm just shocked that back in '81, I wasn't really playing D&D the right way, but in some futurist "new school" way that wouldn't show up for almost 20 years later...
So identical to 2e but roll over not under even with skills it works like proficiencies. Also Omega is right 5e looks like a modernized B/X, or maybe RC to me.
Quote from: Haffrung;757011The Holy Writ you reference is just some guy musing about D&D. Matt Finch is no more an authority on old-school D&D than Sacrosanct or I.
More to the point, the Old School Primer was essentially there to explain to people used to skill systems how to play Swords & Wizardry without such a system. It's exemplary of what Finch thinks is the most interesting way to use such rule systems (in lieu of, say, the Moldvay suggestion of doing an ability check and moving on), but not much more than that.
Quote from: Skywalker;757012So, you agree that Background and Skills are no longer optional in 5e?
No, completely optional. What it is not is something that will be put in the PHB -- they will include the rules in the Basic game, and use those to build on further optional models. But it is a non-load bearing wall. Ignore skills completely and it will not complicate chargen or effect any class other than the Rogue. And if you want a Rogue with thief skills, it's easy-peasy to just use the skill rules for the rogue.
QuoteIn 5e, a player may expect the proficiency bonus to apply if a certain skill is applicable to a situation, regardless of the DM's discretion. Its an extension , albeit a much simpler version, of the shift seen in 3e and 4e.
A player may expect the proficiency bonus to apply if a certain skill is applicable to a situation
if the DM is using skills. If he's not, and he's communicated this to the player, then the player expecting such is the asshole.
QuoteJust not sure why people are looking to attribute Moldvay-like qualities to this aspect of 5e, except to annoy people who prefer the Moldvay approach (which seems to be the OP was also trying to achieve).
Because, at it's
essence it's exactly what Moldvay suggests. Want to roll to see if something can be done? Choose an ability score and roll. That's it. That's the "skill system" in 5e. Everything else is just add-ons to people who want greater complexity/granularity. That's why the game describes a check as, say, "Strength (Athletics)". The rules then
tell you: can it just be done, without a roll? Don't roll. As DM rule that it was successful. Want to roll to provide a chance of failure? Make it an ability check (Moldvay style). Want to break things down into granular skills? Have them make an ability check + a bonus if they have the Athletics skill.
So this is the disingenuousness. The game, offering something for everybody, says "You can do this old school or new school. Here's how." And then people say, "It's not old school. It talks about new school stuff!"
And if the "OP" in question is me, because I made a comparison to Moldvay, then "annoy people who prefer the Moldvay approach" is bullshit, because
I prefer the Moldvay approach. It's exactly why the nominal presence of skills in 5e don't bother me, because unlike in 3e and 4e, they aren't an entirely separate resolution system. I can ignore all that skill bullshit and just have players make occasional ability checks as I deem needed? Shit, that's just like Moldvay, and that's awesome.
Quote from: Old One Eye;757029Yep. The primary difference being that 3e/4e placed a larger difference between the unskilled, average ability score PC and the skilled, high ability score PC than 5e. With DCs taking such into account.
Yep, that gap has been decreasing over time as they flatten the math, which is more in line with pre-3e editions of D&D (and a good thing).
Quote from: Iosue;757033No, completely optional.
Cool. Do you have a citation? Or is it based on that you chose to just ignore it?
Quote from: Iosue;757033And if the "OP" in question is me...
No, it was a reference to Pundit.
Quote from: Cadriel;757030Are you a fucking idiot?
"This is the victory of Old-school thinking over all else, and I don't mind if I take more than a little credit for the lobbying I have done to create and hold this vision as a Consultant." - D&D 5e BASIC/Core Rules: I Told ALL of You So! (http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/2014/05/i-told-all-of-you-so.html)
That blog post was based on this thread which is Pundit trolling you and guys like you.;)
Quote from: Skywalker;757034Yep, that gap has been decreasing over time as they flatten the math, which is more in line with pre-3e editions of D&D (and a good thing).
Totally agree. And such flattening of math is what makes it feel similar to the older ability score checks as anyone can at least make an attempt, rather than 3e/4e where specialization is more emphasized.
Quote from: Old One Eye;757038Totally agree. And such flattening of math is what makes it feel similar to the older ability score checks as anyone can at least make an attempt, rather than 3e/4e where specialization is more emphasized.
4e (and SW Saga) had already effectively removed this issue of specialisation that arose in 3e. 5e takes it a little further, but not as significantly as those two iterations did. IMO this further supports that 5e's approach is to improve on the shift in the mechanics first introduced by 3e, even if some older D&D inspiration has also been adopted, like the flattened math.
Is this enough to claim 5e's treatment of abilities is exactly like Moldvay? No. You can identify and talk about the similarities but 5e is demonstrably different. Those differences can be good and bad depending on what you like. But its not hard to foresee that in a thread designed to troll certain old school players, pretending that the differences don't exist (even if you are happy to ignore chunks of 5e to achieve it) is just going to further antagonise them.
Quote from: YourSwordisMine;756915What the fuck? IT's not about the actual mechanics... Mechanics of creating a character can take a flying fuck... I'm not arguing for "Character Build" bullshit... What I am saying is there needs to be a way for players to create who they want to be in the game, using their own imagination. That could be 3d6 in order, chose Class, roll hit points. OR it could just be "Hi, my name is Tom, I am a Bus Boy at Spendel's Eatery".
RPGs are games of imagination. If you hand someone a pre-generated character then all you are doing is telling them that you can play with someone else's imagination... Giving them Character Creation rules allows the players to fully immerse into the game. Without that, you are not giving the full experience...
That was basically my stance too. A pregen you could put your own name and backstory on is fine. But taking away even that seems too restricted if the game isnt specifically meant to play specific characters.
I do not agree with that move at all. But it is minor. And we do not know if the starter has options like a simple
"These are pregens with names and histories. But if you want you can name and backstory them how you would prefer."
A simple entry like that gives back the player at least the option for self expression as it were.
But in the end the starter is going to get left behind pretty fast so the point may be moot.
We will know soon enough.
Quote from: Cadriel;756999Why not just play Risus and skip all the bullshit?
BTW everybody, RISUS is actually a cool game. Worth a peek.
http://www222.pair.com/sjohn/risus.htm
S. John Ross is a good author.
Quote from: Marleycat;757025The Cult of RAW really started to take hold late in 2e's lifecycle and grew in 3x and became full bloom in 4e. And it seems in some factions of the OSR.:)
Cult of RAW has always existed. It used to be called "rules lawyering" - and it probably showed its ugly head from the earliest days.
Quote from: Skywalker;757035Cool. Do you have a citation? Or is it based on that you chose to just ignore it?
All citations can be found on July 15th when the BASIC PDF hits. Until then, we're all just spanking it over playtests.
I don't know about "making sufficient old school effort," but I will freely admit that I never had any intention of buying 5th edition simply because I'm still happy with the game I'm playing.
Of course I don't consider myself "Anti 5e" either, merely "don't give a crap one way or the other."
Quote from: Old Geezer;757046Of course I don't consider myself "Anti 5e" either, merely "don't give a crap one way or the other."
You sir are an outlier, I consider you about as OSR as myself. You frankly don't count because you're not buying anything so you say, so why give a shit about your preferences? It's not 1978 anymore so move along already.
Should you drink my pee now? Is that the correct term? Or wasn't that Old School enough? Get off my lawn already!:)
Quote from: Cadriel;756976032013 Backgrounds and Skills.pdf - first page.
Ability checks were described as a way to handle things in Moldvay Basic, but not correlated to skills. They don't appear in AD&D 1e before expansion rulebooks from the late 1980s, and are definitely not in the Dungeon Master's Guide.
Dragon Magazine #1. "How To Use Non-Prime-Requisite Character Attributes". You can also find references to attribute checks in the spells dig (Dex save) and phantasmal killer (Int save). The henchmen and specialized hirelings section can be used to determine what can or cannot be done, and how long it takes, for a wide array of crafts and lores, and the Assassin Spying Table other situations where difficulty and level of the character attempting it are issues. It's all there, if you know where to look and have an inclination to use it.
Quote from: Mistwell;757049Dragon Magazine #1. "How To Use Non-Prime-Requisite Character Attributes". You can also find references to attribute checks in the spells dig (Dex save) and phantasmal killer (Int save). The henchmen and specialized hirelings section can be used to determine what can or cannot be done, and how long it takes, for a wide array of crafts and lores, and the Assassin Spying Table other situations where difficulty and level of the character attempting it are issues. It's all there, if you know where to look and have an inclination to use it.
But 0/1/2e NEVER had options EVAR! It's against the OSR Taliban credo doncha know? Nobody played RAW before 3e before then it was DIY recipe of 0/1/2e plus houserules on top in the overwhelming majority.
And THAT is a major reason why I like 5e. It's trying to turn the clock back and be FantasyCraft for 1/2/3/4e. It's trying to be a
configurable game not
compatible per se. It's a huge distinction.
And that ladies and gents would be
MY definition of the "full Dungeons and Dragons experience".
Quote from: Marleycat;757052But 0/1/2e NEVER had options EVAR! It's against the OSR Taliban credo doncha know? Nobody played RAW before 3e before then it was DIY recipe of 0/1/2e plus houserules on top in the overwhelming majority.
Amen! Preach it!
Quote from: Mistwell;757049Dragon Magazine #1. "How To Use Non-Prime-Requisite Character Attributes". You can also find references to attribute checks in the spells dig (Dex save) and phantasmal killer (Int save). The henchmen and specialized hirelings section can be used to determine what can or cannot be done, and how long it takes, for a wide array of crafts and lores, and the Assassin Spying Table other situations where difficulty and level of the character attempting it are issues. It's all there, if you know where to look and have an inclination to use it.
But 0/1/2e NEVER had options EVAR! It's against the OSR Taliban credo doncha know?
Quote from: robiswrong;757001I'm kind of curious - what part of the "treasure getting game vs. monster killing game" post do you actually disagree with?
You don't think you're gonna get an answer to that one, are you?
Better watch it, you may become a grognard before this thread is over. :p
Quote from: Marleycat;757047You sir are an outlier, I consider you about as OSR as myself. You frankly don't count because you're not buying anything so you say, so why give a shit about your preferences? It's not 1978 anymore so move along already.
Should you drink my pee now? Is that the correct term? Or wasn't that Old School enough? Get off my lawn already!:)
I sympathize, it must be very difficult for you realizing you'll never be as awesome as I am.
Quote from: LibraryLass;756998You can't kill a 5th level fighter in 1e with a greatsword in a single blow either.
When he's at zero hit points? In 1e he's already dead. Or optionally, he dies at minus 3. In Next, a 5th level fighter whose max hit points are 35, but is currently at 0 hit points, has to take 35 points of damage IN A SINGLE BLOW to kill him. Ant other damage is treated as a failed death save. So it will take 3 hits to kill him, unless you manage to do 35 points of damage in one or two hits.
"Damage at 0 Hit Points.
Each time a creature with 0 hit points takes damage, it suffers a death
roll failure. If the damage equals the creature's hit point maximum, it dies."
Quote from: Old Geezer;757064I sympathize, it must be very difficult for you realizing you'll never be as awesome as I am.
I already figured you weren't all that smart why confirm it in public? I give you age but that's about it.;)
Quote from: Spinachcat;757043All citations can be found on July 15th when the BASIC PDF hits. Until then, we're all just spanking it over playtests.
True :) I am going off the latest Playtest draft, which WotC confirmed is significantly what we will be getting, except for some monster balancing and math fixing. I was wondering if anything further had been said to back up the claim that Background and Skills were optional given this.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;756959I agree with this 100%. I mean, for me, a big part of "old school" is rulings not rules. Which naturally is harder to do when you have a game that clearly tells you what to do in just about every situation. I understand 4e to be this way.
Your understanding is... incomplete. "Rulings not rules' isn't really a thing in 4E, but neither is 'rules not rulings'. Rulings and rules coexist. The DMG has a page that basically says "The rules can't cover everything. Make a ruling." I find myself doing this quite often.
I expect the next edition will essentially do the same thing.
Quote from: JRR;757065When he's at zero hit points? In 1e he's already dead. Or optionally, he dies at minus 3. In Next, a 5th level fighter whose max hit points are 35, but is currently at 0 hit points, has to take 35 points of damage IN A SINGLE BLOW to kill him. Ant other damage is treated as a failed death save. So it will take 3 hits to kill him, unless you manage to do 35 points of damage in one or two hits.
"Damage at 0 Hit Points.
Each time a creature with 0 hit points takes damage, it suffers a death
roll failure. If the damage equals the creature's hit point maximum, it dies."
At zero hit points he's still unconscious and thus not contributing to the fight. The functional difference is minimal, especially since even if you don't continue whaling on him he's got a 50% chance of bleeding out.
Quote from: Marleycat;757067I already figured you weren't all that smart why confirm it in public? I give you flatulence but that's about it.;)
Fixed yer typo.
Quote from: Marleycat;757052But 0/1/2e NEVER had options EVAR! It's against the OSR Taliban credo doncha know? Nobody played RAW before 3e before then it was DIY recipe of 0/1/2e plus houserules on top in the overwhelming majority.
This whole notion of an "OSR Taliban" should die in a fire.
"Rulings not rules" was a protest against 3e and the style of play its central mechanic created. Yes, there were optional mechanics in OD&D, B/X, and 1e that are vaguely similar if you squint and look sideways, but no hard and fast rules for things like Bluff or Sense Motive. You can handwave it away in 5e, but in the same sense you can also handwave it away in 3e. The problem is that it's there and players are going to expect it to be a standard part of how the system works. I don't want someone at my table who feels entitled to a Bluff or Sense Motive roll because the rules say they're there.
Quote from: Marleycat;757037That blog post was based on this thread which is Pundit trolling you and guys like you.;)
I've been thinking about it, and I really think it comes down to dungeon exploration versus monster fighting games. The OSR formed because people read about old dungeon exploration games, and wanted to do them ourselves. But putting up ourselves as "old school" attracted a lot of people who had played the older editions as monster fighting games, which was probably the play style of the majority of gamers from 1976 or so onward.
5e is philosophically very different from OD&D, but it is probably better at supporting that majority play style of monster-fighting. So for people who were never into the whole exploration thing to begin with, there is probably no substantial difference, and in fact 5e is probably better for them. More power to them. They should go and play 5e, and I'm happy for them if it is what they want.
What I reject, and reject with a "go fuck yourself," is the idea that playing in the exploration playstyle is somehow invalid, and that our philosophical differences with how 5e is built are invalid because it's good for the monster-fighting crowd. We built our own communities to discuss the kind of games we like, and publish material for them, we are happy with our games and don't need or want 5e. WotC could have built a dungeon exploration game that I would have been happy with, but it wouldn't have had a strong majority appeal. And it would've been pointless, since I already have OD&D and B/X D&D.
There are people in the OSR who will go over to 5e. They should. More power to them - people should play the better rule set for the kind of game they want to play. But trying to shame the OSR about playing the way we like, and the fact that 5e was never going to be that, is a dick move.
You're missing the point when you talk about the Hasbro toy company "proving" that this time D&D will be different. Maybe it's different now. Maybe it will stay that way forever. Or maybe some line on a chart will go south or some pencil pusher or exec who doesnt give a rat's ass about RPGs will do any one of a thousand things in his power to single-handedly screw the whole thing up. Whatever. I'm not interested. The chance to prove themselves was called 4e, the Nintendo of RPGs. There are too many other good games out there made by, quality controlled by, and feeding the families of people who have the balls to put their necks out and write independent games for me to waste my time on hardcover splatbooks edited for the 10-15 demographic.
Quote from: Haffrung;756925C'mon. How much mechanical difference is there between two typical Lvl 1 Human fighters in B/X D&D? One might have a 17 Str and 15 Con, while the other has 16 Str and 16 Con? And the rest of the scores are largely irrelevant, unless they're lucky enough to have a high Dex.
We all have fond memories of rolling 4d6 six times and arranging the scores. But in very basic iterations of the game, there's virtually no creativity or choices in where you apply the numbers. It's what you do with the PC in play where the imagination comes on. Unless you're talking about deep PC background at character generation, which I've never considered an old-school approach to play.
Not important, mechanics are. Reading comprehension, failed you have. :)
Quote from: Old One Eye;756993This mentality confuses me. The DM runs the game in the manner they choose. The rules ... well, they don't run the game.
I certainly would never claim any XYZ-school ideology, but my 3e and 4e games have played out a heck of a lot like Finch's primer. As does everything else I have ever run, including the 5e playtest.
While it is true that the DM influences the style of game, at some point if the goals of play are too misaligned with the game rules then an awful lot of work becomes necessary to get the game you are looking for.
4E is a game of fantasy superheroes. Running it like AD&D is possible but it takes quite a bit of effort. Its much easier to just
play AD&D in the first place.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;757003Also, apparently Medusa and Ghosts, both of which exist in D&D, are unmagical, what with their at will magical abilities and all.
There are differences (or at least there should be) between inherently magical creatures, and those who study magic and learn to control it in limited ways. If you like the idea that wizards are creatures of magic in your campaign then have at it. I will choose a system with different assumptions.
Quote from: LibraryLass;757075At zero hit points he's still unconscious and thus not contributing to the fight. The functional difference is minimal, especially since even if you don't continue whaling on him he's got a 50% chance of bleeding out.
The bleeding out chance isn't the problem. The big glaring problem is if you whack a helpless bleeding foe with a greatsword (taking a round of your time to do so)
there is no appreciable effect.That a helpless bleeding foe is virtually immune to getting splatted because he is "out of the fight" is the kind of shit that makes the whole system feel stupid.
Congratulations, Pundit. This whole thread is a magnificent troll. Well played, sir. :)
Quote from: robiswrong;757001I'm kind of curious - what part of the "treasure getting game vs. monster killing game" post do you actually disagree with?
My comment wasn't directed specifically at that comment. Notice there was no quote I was responding to in my post. My comment was directed at most of his other posts in general.
Oh lookie! Posts like this:
Quote from: Cadriel;757078Yes, there were optional mechanics in OD&D, B/X, and 1e that are vaguely similar if you squint and look sideways, but no hard and fast rules for things like Bluff or Sense Motive..
Last time I checked there were hard and fast rules for things called Non Weapon Proficiencies in 1e, which, while technically mechanically different, were essentially the same thing as a skill in any other edition: "Here is a mechanical rule for you to resolve a task you want your player to attempt".
This kind of thing is what I'm talking about. Half the things Cadriel is bitching about that makes 5e impossible to play in an old school way also existed way back in 1e, but he refuses to acknowledge it. I say refuse, because NWP has been pointed out to him more than once and yet here he is again acting like it never existed. And when pressed, he keeps shifting his goals posts as to what OSR actually means that one would get whiplash trying to keep up.
That's also why I made the comment that he's trying to say
his way of playing D&D is the only way, thus the one-true-wayism bullshit.
"The bleeding out chance isn't the problem. The big glaring problem is if you whack a helpless bleeding foe with a greatsword (taking a round of your time to do so) there is no appreciable effect.
That a helpless bleeding foe is virtually immune to getting splatted because he is "out of the fight" is the kind of shit that makes the whole system feel stupid."
Is there actually no effect? I would assume that when you hit a helpless enemy you coup de grace them, or at least get a critical hit or max damage.
Quote from: JRRWhen he's at zero hit points? In 1e he's already dead. Or optionally, he dies at minus 3. In Next, a 5th level fighter whose max hit points are 35, but is currently at 0 hit points, has to take 35 points of damage IN A SINGLE BLOW to kill him. Ant other damage is treated as a failed death save. So it will take 3 hits to kill him, unless you manage to do 35 points of damage in one or two hits.
"Damage at 0 Hit Points.
Each time a creature with 0 hit points takes damage, it suffers a death roll failure. If the damage equals the creature’s hit point maximum, it dies.
In my head there's like a little "percent chance I will buy D&D Next."
For awhile this thread and a few other revelations were making that creep up above 50%...
This post alone has brought it down well below again (unless someone with more knowledge of the system can make a proper case for this... is there really no coup-de-grace?).
Quote from: Bill;757109"The bleeding out chance isn't the problem. The big glaring problem is if you whack a helpless bleeding foe with a greatsword (taking a round of your time to do so) there is no appreciable effect.
That a helpless bleeding foe is virtually immune to getting splatted because he is "out of the fight" is the kind of shit that makes the whole system feel stupid."
Is there actually no effect? I would assume that when you hit a helpless enemy you coup de grace them, or at least get a critical hit or max damage.
Yeah, it's a stupid rule and makes no sense that stabbing an unconscious dude with a sword has the same effect as pricking them with a knife (each time an unconscious PC takes damage while at 0 hp is a failure. 3 failures = death).
But on the flip side, it's also super easy to apply the stated rules for monsters to PCs as well. I.e., this rule:
"...have the monster die at 0 hit points rather than making it roll a death roll."
And not worry about it. It seems pretty odd to me that a single rule like that, one that's super easy to ignore and use the stated optional rule, to make someone say, "Well! That does it! I would have played the game before, but definitely not now!"
Quote from: Sacrosanct;757113Yeah, it's a stupid rule and makes no sense that stabbing an unconscious dude with a sword has the same effect as pricking them with a knife (each time an unconscious PC takes damage while at 0 hp is a failure. 3 failures = death).
But on the flip side, it's also super easy to apply the stated rules for monsters to PCs as well. I.e., this rule:
"...have the monster die at 0 hit points rather than making it roll a death roll."
And not worry about it. It seems pretty odd to me that a single rule like that, one that's super easy to ignore and use the stated optional rule, to make someone say, "Well! That does it! I would have played the game before, but definitely not now!"
That sounds like a rule specifically to keep pc's from dying once they are 'down'
This is very much a play style issue; some want death looking over their shoulder at every turn, others want the pc's to survive being cut down in battle.
Personally I would have to lean toward helpless people being killed easily, unless encased in adamantite field plate vs a weak weapon.
Quote from: Steerpike;757110This post alone has brought it down well below again (unless someone with more knowledge of the system can make a proper case for this... is there really no coup-de-grace?).
Going on the last play test packet:
'
Damage at 0 Hit Points. Each time a creature with 0 hit points takes damage, it suffers a death roll failure. If the damage equals the creature's hit point maximum, it dies.'
If you fail three death saves, you die (These do not have to be concurrent)
Note also that attacks on Unconscious opponents count as having Advantage.
It is certainly not the most brutal system in existence, but it is also pretty far from no appreciable effect.
Quote from: Bill;757114Personally I would have to lean toward helpless people being killed easily, unless encased in adamantite field plate vs a weak weapon.
That's my philosophy. Instead of counting damage as a one of three needed failures, count it as all in one. I.e., if you're bleeding out, regardless of how many failures you've had, if you take damage from an attack, you're done.
See my sig on my feelings about that.
Quote from: jadrax;757115Going on the last play test packet:
'Damage at 0 Hit Points. Each time a creature with 0 hit points takes damage, it suffers a death roll failure. If the damage equals the creature's hit point maximum, it dies.'
If you fail three death saves, you die (These do not have to be concurrent)
Note also that attacks on Unconscious opponents count as having Advantage.
It is certainly not the most brutal system in existence, but it is also pretty far from no appreciable effect.
For 'realism' it should probably be 'damage equal to the creatures CON, not max HP'
A high level fighter taking a dirt nap is not really harder to kill than an average joe taking a dirt nap.
I can see incidental or area of effect damage using the rules, but someone who wants to finish you off and spends the round doing so...bye bye.
Quote from: CRKrueger;757118I can see incidental or area of effect damage using the rules, but someone who wants to finish you off and spends the round doing so...bye bye.
That sounds pretty much ideal to me.
You can plausibly say a prone body might not take the full effect from a fireball, but when a fighter takes three rounds to finish off an unconsious orc...welll
Holy shit, they're coming out of the woodwork. Did someone at the Knights and Knaves Alehouse call a jihad?
Quote from: Sacrosanct;757022I'm just shocked that back in '81, I wasn't really playing D&D the right way...
Of course you weren't playing the right way in '81. Haven't the OSR Taliban taught you anything? The right way to play D&D wasn't discovered until a bunch of grognards heard the Word on the internet in 2007.
Quote from: Cadriel;757078This whole notion of an "OSR Taliban" should die in a fire.
As the person who coined the term, I'm happy to say it's people like you who keep it alive with your reactionary dogma, appeals to tradition, and born-again fervour.
Quote from: Cadriel;757078"Rulings not rules" was a protest against 3e and the style of play its central mechanic created. Yes, there were optional mechanics in OD&D, B/X, and 1e that are vaguely similar if you squint and look sideways, but no hard and fast rules for things like Bluff or Sense Motive. You can handwave it away in 5e, but in the same sense you can also handwave it away in 3e. The problem is that it's there and players are going to expect it to be a standard part of how the system works. I don't want someone at my table who feels entitled to a Bluff or Sense Motive roll because the rules say they're there.
Do you really have people at
your table who feel entitled to a Bluff or Sense Motive roll? Or does the very idea that other people out there enjoy that stuff feel like a rejection of what you like?
Quote from: Cadriel;757083I've been thinking about it, and I really think it comes down to dungeon exploration versus monster fighting games. The OSR formed because people read about old dungeon exploration games, and wanted to do them ourselves. But putting up ourselves as "old school" attracted a lot of people who had played the older editions as monster fighting games, which was probably the play style of the majority of gamers from 1976 or so onward.
So it was formed by a bunch of disaffected gamers who wanted to get back to the most harsh fundamentals of the earliest era of D&D as a reaction against the softness and indulgence of the modern gaming culture. Gee, that's nothing like the Taliban.
Quote from: Cadriel;757083What I reject, and reject with a "go fuck yourself," is the idea that playing in the exploration playstyle is somehow invalid, and that our philosophical differences with how 5e is built are invalid because it's good for the monster-fighting crowd.
Who in this thread has said anything about exploration being an invalid playstyle? It's a fine playstyle. What people here are challenging is this notion that it's the 'true' way to play old-school D&D. It isn't. It's the way that a bunch of forum-wonks have seized on in the last 7-8 years, mainly as ascetic reaction against a modern gaming culture that they hate as corrupt and indulgent.
Quote from: Cadriel;757083We built our own communities to discuss the kind of games we like, and publish material for them, we are happy with our games and don't need or want 5e. WotC could have built a dungeon exploration game that I would have been happy with, but it wouldn't have had a strong majority appeal. And it would've been pointless, since I already have OD&D and B/X D&D.
There are people in the OSR who will go over to 5e. They should.
Our own community? Going over? Fuck man, this sounds like some kind of cult. I remember when being a D&D grognard meant reading about cool adventures on the Necromancer Games forums and getting jazzed up about the Wilderlands reprint. When did it become a fucking identity?
Quote from: Ghost;757084You're missing the point when you talk about the Hasbro toy company "proving" that this time D&D will be different. Maybe it's different now. Maybe it will stay that way forever. Or maybe some line on a chart will go south or some pencil pusher or exec who doesnt give a rat's ass about RPGs will do any one of a thousand things in his power to single-handedly screw the whole thing up. Whatever. I'm not interested. The chance to prove themselves was called 4e, the Nintendo of RPGs. There are too many other good games out there made by, quality controlled by, and feeding the families of people who have the balls to put their necks out and write independent games for me to waste my time on hardcover splatbooks edited for the 10-15 demographic.
And there we have it. Learned to play after 1976? Under 16 when you started playing? Enjoy commercial production values? The OSR don't need you 'round, anyhow.
Quote from: Bill;757117For 'realism' it should probably be 'damage equal to the creatures CON, not max HP'
A high level fighter taking a dirt nap is not really harder to kill than an average joe taking a dirt nap.
Yes, although as most of the monster power scaling is done by increasing their Damage, that could mean you are a lot more likely to die as you increase in level.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;757097Not important, mechanics are. Reading comprehension, failed you have. :)
The stats you generate at character generation are simply mechanics. It's what you do with the character in play that constitutes role-playing. Desperately shifting goal-posts, you are.
Quote from: Bill;757119That sounds pretty much ideal to me.
You can plausibly say a prone body might not take the full effect from a fireball, but when a fighter takes three rounds to finish off an unconsious orc...welll
Well, to be pedantic, you wouldn't have that scenario as monsters die at 0 hp. It's only PCs (and maybe primary villains) who use the unconscious rule.
Quote from: Haffrung;757120Who in this thread has said anything about exploration being an invalid playstyle? It's a fine playstyle. What people here are challenging is this notion that it's the 'true' way to play old-school D&D. It isn't. It's the way that a bunch of forum-wonks have seized on in the last 7-8 years, mainly as ascetic reaction against a modern gaming culture that they hate as corrupt and indulgent..
I like exploration play; it's one of the reasons why I stuck with AD&D instead of the implied "you will have X encounters per day" that WoTC D&D has. What I'm trying to say is that in 5e, you
can play exploration rather than monster-hack if you want. That's how I play it. And I think it's bunk that someone like Cadriel keeps chiming in that you can't play 5e in an old school style because of X, Y, and Z (which also appear in 1e, so it's baffling why he keeps bringing them up as reasons).
I get how a game like 4e lends to a playstyle where the actual combat encounter takes most of the gaming session, and that you're supposed to have X encounters per day. I get how that rubs against the playstyle of AD&D. But what I keep trying to say is that in 5e, that's all gone. You can play that way if you want, but you can also just as easily play it like you do with AD&D. It gets old when someone who not only hasn't even played 5e, but doesn't even have the right rules insists on telling me I'm doing it wrong and there's no way I could play 5e in an old school way.
For Christ's sake man, I ran a group through A0-A4 with one of the players playing an unconverted 1e cleric alongside 5e PCs using 5e's ruleset and it worked fine. How much more compatible with old school play can they get?
Quote from: Haffrung;757122The stats you generate at character generation are simply mechanics. It's what you do with the character in play that constitutes role-playing. Desperately shifting goal-posts, you are.
Mechanics aren't important. That's why the "5e is so old school" crowd and the OSR crowd keep on buying rulebooks.
Quote from: Haffrung;757122The stats you generate at character generation are simply mechanics. It's what you do with the character in play that constitutes role-playing. Desperately shifting goal-posts, you are.
Intellectual ownership of your in-game playing piece was what I was talking about. How this playing piece is generated or created and what it is capable of mechanically don't matter.
The important bit is " I'm playing this persona that I made up to represent myself in the game" instead of " I'm playing the red pawn".
What the rules say your character can accomplish doesn't make him/her special. Your character is special because it did not exist before you created it, and now it exists and can take on a life of its own.
That has been my position all along. What has shifted exactly?
Quote from: Exploderwizard;757126Intellectual ownership of your in-game playing piece was what I was talking about. How this playing piece is generated or created and what it is capable of mechanically don't matter.
The important bit is " I'm playing this persona that I made up to represent myself in the game" instead of " I'm playing the red pawn".
What the rules say your character can accomplish doesn't make him/her special. Your character is special because it did not exist before you created it, and now it exists and can take on a life of its own.
That has been my position all along. What has shifted exactly?
You have given what you're saying in the above works exactly the same whether you rolled some dice to create your character (playing piece) or started with a pregen both are just numbers until you take control.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;757123Well, to be pedantic, you wouldn't have that scenario as monsters die at 0 hp. It's only PCs (and maybe primary villains) who use the unconscious rule.
And I strongly suspect rules for alternatives will be right there in the MDG.
QuoteBut what I keep trying to say is that in 5e, that's all gone. You can play that way if you want, but you can also just as easily play it like you do with AD&D.
We hope. That'll be clearer once we start getting a look at the DMG.
QuoteFor Christ's sake man, I ran a group through A0-A4 with one of the players playing an unconverted 1e cleric alongside 5e PCs using 5e's ruleset and it worked fine. How much more compatible with old school play can they get?
Is 1E AD&D really old school, though? :)
From my perspective (hostile witness to the OSR, raised in Middle School play, strong devotee of Paladins & Princesses), Cadriel's defining Old School as a bit further out on the extremes than you are.
Hypothesis: D&D as it has evolved has developed three major poles of mechanics and playstyle interaction--Exploration/Logistics, Character Building/Strategy, and Combat/Tactics. There are theoretically other possible poles out there--Interaction, Storytelling, etc.--but so far, no edition has really pushed any one of those poles mechanically.
Of all editions, OD&D sits closest to the Exploration pole, 3.5/Pathfinder to the Character Building pole, and 4E to the Combat/Tactics pole. The other editions tend to fall into the middle area between those three, although often drifting closer to one or two of those poles.
The OSR, as I understand it, pushes the game closer to the Exploration pole and pulls further away from the Character Building pole--the relation to the Combat pole is the one that varies the most. The question, it seems to me, is largely 'where are the boundaries'--is just 'closer to Exploration, farther from CharBuild than 3.X' enough to be OSR, or does it have to prioritize Exporation to a certain degree?
Quote from: Marleycat;757129You have given what you're saying in the above works exactly the same whether you rolled some dice to create your character (playing piece) or started with a pregen both are just numbers until you take control.
That depends upon the presentation of the pregen.
If it is a fully fleshed out character with a name, background , etc. then you ARE playing the red pawn.
If it is just some stats that you flesh out then there is a chance to make it something of your own.
Quote from: Marleycat;757129You have given what you're saying in the above works exactly the same whether you rolled some dice to create your character (playing piece) or started with a pregen both are just numbers until you take control.
Given that the pregens in the 5E Starter Set will include names, personalities, Ideals, Flaws and Bonds, I can see where Exploderwizard is coming from--all elements of the Starter Set characters will be pregenerated, not just the mechanical side.
On the other hand, those elements make it much easier to understand a character and provide springboards for playing him, so it fits with the 'pick up and play' approach of the Starter Set. It may also help provide a shared experience and sense of community as players meet each other and discuss the similarities and differences of how they played given pregens. And once they've gotten a taste of 'playing a D&D character', the next step is obviously 'create your own character'--which points them to the free Basic Rules.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;757130Is 1E AD&D really old school, though? :)
I consider it as such. Anyone who considers only OD&D old school seems to me as someone who has narrowed it down to such a small level that it by definition means only a tiny percentage of gamers ever played old school D&D, even if you took this sample in 1984.
It would be like saying that playing the Atari 2600 and Intellivision aren't old school video games, and you haven't played old school video games if you played them, but would have had to play Magnavox's Odyssey in order to qualify.
Quote from: Haffrung;757120As the person who coined the term, I'm happy to say it's people like you who keep it alive with your reactionary dogma, appeals to tradition, and born-again fervour.
Ignored. Die in a fire.
Quote from: Cadriel;757143Ignored. Die in a fire.
What a mature reaction.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;757108Last time I checked there were hard and fast rules for things called Non Weapon Proficiencies in 1e, which, while technically mechanically different, were essentially the same thing as a skill in any other edition: "Here is a mechanical rule for you to resolve a task you want your player to attempt".
This kind of thing is what I'm talking about. Half the things Cadriel is bitching about that makes 5e impossible to play in an old school way also existed way back in 1e, but he refuses to acknowledge it. I say refuse, because NWP has been pointed out to him more than once and yet here he is again acting like it never existed. And when pressed, he keeps shifting his goals posts as to what OSR actually means that one would get whiplash trying to keep up.
That's also why I made the comment that he's trying to say his way of playing D&D is the only way, thus the one-true-wayism bullshit.
Non-weapon proficiencies were a late addition in 1e. They appear in Oriental Adventures, which was late-stage TSR Gygax, and reflects a definite change in philosophy in the game. They don't exist in the first five books, which many (if not most) AD&D 1e gamers today consider to be the only ones worth using.
When "pressed" I am consistent - I consider OD&D an exploration game, and AD&D and B/X D&D to more or less remain exploration games, while the majority of players want D&D to be a monster-fighting game. There's "no one true way" about this, but it
is the reason why OD&D works like it does, and to a lesser extent why AD&D and B/X D&D work like they do. To the extent that I'm a part of the OSR, it's because it is the community that talks about these exploration games. People who wanted it to be a monster-fighting game spent a lot of time fighting against the rules to get it to work that way.
For the monster-fighting people, 5e is a good thing. It gives them a system that is a much better fit for their games than OD&D is. But it's not a good exploration game in the style of OD&D. You see this in the experience point numbers; if I sneak around the monsters, grab the treasure and run, in OD&D I am getting full XP for the encounter, but in 5e I'm not (unless I can convince the DM to give me something for cleverness).
Many people have
always played OD&D and AD&D and B/X D&D in this monster-fighting game method. It's not playing it "wrong." It does mean there is friction between the game's rules (which are designed around exploration) and the way it is being played; this friction is eased with house rules, or workarounds, which have been part of the game from the start.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;757144What a mature reaction.
Calling somebody terrorists does not get mature reactions. Sorry.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;757130Hypothesis: D&D as it has evolved has developed three major poles of mechanics and playstyle interaction--Exploration/Logistics, Character Building/Strategy, and Combat/Tactics. There are theoretically other possible poles out there--Interaction, Storytelling, etc.--but so far, no edition has really pushed any one of those poles mechanically.
Of all editions, OD&D sits closest to the Exploration pole, 3.5/Pathfinder to the Character Building pole, and 4E to the Combat/Tactics pole. The other editions tend to fall into the middle area between those three, although often drifting closer to one or two of those poles.
I can get on-board with that hypothesis. So in this case, the issue is whether a given grognard considers OSR to mean OD&D. Most don't. And since the number of potential customers out there expecting 5E to run a strictly OD&D logistics and exploration game is vanishingly small, I think the degree of support for exploration play offered by 5E will be sufficient for most old-schoolers. Certainly for those of us who got onboard 'late' in the game after 1978.
5vengers Assemble!
Quote from: jeff37923;7571555vengers Assemble!
No kidding.
Bored now. I've said my peace on 5e here, anyone who wants to actually discuss can do so on a site that's not toxic.
Quote from: Cadriel;757149Non-weapon proficiencies were a late addition in 1e. They appear in Oriental Adventures, which was late-stage TSR Gygax, and reflects a definite change in philosophy in the game. They don't exist in the first five books, which many (if not most) AD&D 1e gamers today consider to be the only ones worth using.
It came out in the middle of AD&D1e's run, not a late edition. Once again, shifting goalposts when it's not convenient for you. Also, mechanical ability checks for resolving tasks were around since at least 1976, with the very first Dragon Magazine. I swear, you are on a huge roll about ignoring things that existed in your own "source material". First the very first paragraph in Finches Primer about what rulings vs rules means, and now this.
QuoteWhen "pressed" I am consistent - I consider OD&D an exploration game, and AD&D and B/X D&D to more or less remain exploration games, while the majority of players want D&D to be a monster-fighting game. There's "no one true way" about this, but it is the reason why OD&D works like it does, and to a lesser extent why AD&D and B/X D&D work like they do. To the extent that I'm a part of the OSR, it's because it is the community that talks about these exploration games. People who wanted it to be a monster-fighting game spent a lot of time fighting against the rules to get it to work that way.
For the monster-fighting people, 5e is a good thing. It gives them a system that is a much better fit for their games than OD&D is. But it's not a good exploration game in the style of OD&D. You see this in the experience point numbers; if I sneak around the monsters, grab the treasure and run, in OD&D I am getting full XP for the encounter, but in 5e I'm not (unless I can convince the DM to give me something for cleverness).
Wrong again. Seriously, go read the fucking packet before you post again, because you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about. My earlier post advising you to read the rules? You should seriously do that. 5e explicitly says you get XP for "overcoming" an encounter, which can be done doing exactly what you just described. It also explicitly tells you how to award XP for things other than actual monsters. And it also has an expansive section on exploration, which...wait for it....allows someone to play it in the same style they play OD&D in if exploration is your big deal.
I swear, the more you post, the more ignorant you are coming off as, and that's an accomplishment at this point.
Quote from: Bobloblah;757157No kidding.
Using the same insult that was used for 4e (4vengers) is really weak sauce. Especially since 4 looks like an 'A' and 5 doesn't even come close.
But typical Jeff. In a drunken haze he can't actually refute any points anyone has actually said, but throws insults around like he's clever. He's RPGSite's pet monkey, nothing more.
Quote from: Cadriel;757158Bored now. I've said my peace on 5e here, anyone who wants to actually discuss can do so on a site that's not toxic.
The site is pretty rough, but only a few fucktards are actually toxic.
You have to understand, 5E isn't out yet and the playtest may or may not reflect the final published product, but that hasn't stopped the idiots from drawing lines in the sand and deciding who is and who is not a True Believer. It makes their strawman arguements easier when they only use the ideas from the voices in their heads.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;757159You should seriously do that. 5e explicitly says you get XP for "overcoming" an encounter, which can be done doing exactly what you just described. It also explicitly tells you how to award XP for things other than actual monsters. And it also has an expansive section on exploration, which...wait for it....allows someone to play it in the same style they play OD&D in if exploration is your big deal.
This is true. NEXT has an entire section in the packet devoted to this aspect of adventuring.
It kinda amuses me that there is a need for those types of rules...
But! I'm old and jaded and there are people out there who have never played that way, so some hand-holding is no bad thing at all.
Quote from: jeff37923;757161The site is pretty rough, but only a few fucktards are actually toxic.
You have to understand, 5E isn't out yet and the playtest may or may not reflect the final published product, but that hasn't stopped the idiots from drawing lines in the sand and deciding who is and who is not a True Believer. It makes their strawman arguements easier when they only use the ideas from the voices in their heads.
Hey Sacrosanct...I don't really care about your feud with jeff37923, but I've seen an awful lot of posting matching the quote above. The similarities to bygone exchanges with the likes of Abyssal Maw, Seanchai, and Pseudoephedrine are pretty striking - you just don't know the rules, you're just a Grognard and that game you like is irrelevant, don't be stupid you can just houserule it - I mean, I get that you like it, but that doesn't mean that every expression of dislike or ambivalence needs to be met with a dissertation on why the poster is wrong for disliking something about it. And just because some are off the deep end in their dislike of what we know so far about 5E (although I've seen precious few who fit this bill) doesn't mean everyone who isn't glowing is out to kill your new favourite game.
For myself, I'm (as I have been for some time) cautiously optimistic. I've said for a while that 5E doesn't need to be anyone's favourite edition, just most people's 2nd or 3rd favourite, to be a real winner. Combining that with an easy buy-in (which WotC appears to have covered) and we'll maybe see the hobby back into a period of real expansion. One can hope, at least. None of this changes the fact that it isn't (with what's presently known) particularly old-school - it's just more old school than anything in the past two decades, which is not the same thing.
Quote from: cranebump;757163This is true. NEXT has an entire section in the packet devoted to this aspect of adventuring.
I will have to see what makes it into the game. What I remember from the packets was a lame system in which everyone chose an 'exploration task' from a list of options then tried to beat a number on a d20 essentially turning the last bastion of freeform play into a choose action/make a roll resolution mechanic.
The implementation may have changed, I don't know.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;757166The implementation may have changed, I don't know.
The fact that this can be said about everything from every single playtest packet is part of the problem. If one's problem with, or love of, 5E is based on something other than the general thrust of what's been seen up to this point (like, oh, I don't know...rules specifics?) then there is the real potential for major disappointment.
Quote from: Bobloblah;757165Hey Sacrosanct...I don't really care about your feud with jeff37923, but I've seen an awful lot of posting matching the quote above. The similarities to bygone exchanges with the likes of Abyssal Maw, Seanchai, and Pseudoephedrine are pretty striking - you just don't know the rules, you're just a Grognard and that game you like is irrelevant, don't be stupid you can just houserule it - I mean, I get that you like it, but that doesn't mean that every expression of dislike or ambivalence needs to be met with a dissertation on why the poster is wrong for disliking something about it. And just because some are off the deep end in their dislike of what we know so far about 5E (although I've seen precious few who fit this bill) doesn't mean everyone who isn't glowing is out to kill your new favourite game.
.
You seem to be confused as to what's actually being argued here. I've never once said everyone is wrong if they don't like it. In fact, I've explicitly said more than once that I've had no issues with normal criticism because I've criticized it myself.
No, what's being argued here is someone like me saying, "You know, you can totally play 5e in an old school style, and here's why" and someone like Cadriel chiming in and saying that you can't, citing reasoning that either a) isn't true of 5e rules, b) also existed in the very games he qualifies as old school, or c) both.
So you've got it backwards. It's not me telling everyone they are wrong for not liking 5e. It's the others saying 5e doesn't do the things it actually does do. It's others saying that any defense of 5e (which I'm going to do if someone is blatantly making up bullshit about it) means you're somehow a fanboi of it. You're doing it yourself right now with this post.
But I have said that things some people don't like can easily be houseruled. That doesn't make me a fanboi of 5e. That only means I'm treating it like every other edition of D&D to have come before it, and being consistent. So yeah, I can't see the logic is someone throwing a fit about needing to houserule one or two things when their favorite edition they have dozens of houserules, and I don't see the logic in the reasoning behind that of, "I've already put the effort into my current game, and I won't houserule anything else" because that statement implies that once you learn an RPG, you should never play another one (because every rpg will need to be houseruled at some level; they all have before).
Quote from: Sacrosanct;757160Using the same insult that was used for 4e (4vengers) is really weak sauce. Especially since 4 looks like an 'A' and 5 doesn't even come close.
But typical Jeff. In a drunken haze he can't actually refute any points anyone has actually said, but throws insults around like he's clever. He's RPGSite's pet monkey, nothing more.
Oh can we call you 5aviors then?
Quote from: Sommerjon;757170Oh can we call you 5aviors then?
:rotfl:
Quote from: Sommerjon;757170Oh can we call you 5aviors then?
I like it!
Quote from: Sommerjon;757170Oh can we call you 5aviors then?
This meets with my approval!
5aviors forever!
Quote from: Emperor Norton;757144What a mature reaction.
As opposed to...
Quote from: Haffrung;757120Holy shit, they're coming out of the woodwork. Did someone at the Knights and Knaves Alehouse call a jihad?
Quote from: Bobloblah;757165I mean, I get that you like it, but that doesn't mean that every expression of dislike or ambivalence needs to be met with a dissertation on why the poster is wrong for disliking something about it.
Is that really what's happening here? Nobody is saying everyone should like 5E. But when people make criticisms about it based on a near-absolute ignorance of what was in the playtests and disclosed by the 5E team, they're not going to have any credibility.
Quote from: Bobloblah;757165None of this changes the fact that it isn't (with what's presently known) particularly old-school - it's just more old school than anything in the past two decades, which is not the same thing.
But that's the crux of the matter, isn't it? For a lot of people, being more old-school than 3E or 4E most certainly is enough. And for others, even AD&D as it was played in 1982 isn't
true old-school D&D.
So how about this for a start - let's stop pretending anyone owns the term 'old-school'. It means different things to different people. And it's apparent a lot of those who defend its most hardcore definition didn't even play back in 1975; they're parroting a credo they read on the internet.
Quote from: CRKrueger;757179As opposed to...
Idk, I just find putting people on ignore funny. Its like sticking your fingers in your ears.
Not that I think that Haffrung was being all that mature either, but the whole calling out that he is ignoring someone just makes me think of a 5 year old.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;756646I'd assumed that they'd just nodded and smiled while you and others gave feedback, and then went on to do whatever they wanted.
But if you're keen to take the blame, that's alright.
This is so far from reality its idiotic. It postulates a scenario where the head-guy of the new edition bothered to personally read and then provide detailed responses, follow-up questions, and subsequent responses to the same, to a a report that's dozens of pages long on the initial rules-set; and where his company pays out thousands of dollars, just to "humor" me.
And what I love about this argument is that its part of the pundit-haters' desperate efforts to keep clinging to their constant but ever-slipping fantasy that I'm "irrelevant" in the hobby; except if anything, it would only make me MORE relevant if it was true. Because I mean shit, if they went to all that trouble because I'm a good writer, thinker, and reviewer of RPGs with good ideas, that would surely make me relevant; but if they went to all that trouble ONLY because they wanted to say that the RPGPundit was a consultant and/or were somehow trying to "buy me out" so I'd say nice things about them and not attack them, wouldn't that make me unbelievably SUPER-RELEVANT?! I mean, if they needed to bribe me just to make sure I wouldn't speak ill of them, it would suggest a level of power and influence on my behalf far greater than if they just hired me because I know what I'm talking about when I talk about RPGs.
So you believe what you like there, buddy. Either way it makes me look impressive.
Quote from: Fiasco;756686In couldn't care less about the 5E arguments. Just posting to comment on the other aspect of the OP which is that Night's Dark Terror is the inspiration of the starter adventure. It's my favourite module of all time so I'm tremendously pleased. Can anyone (Pundit?) clarify whether its a revamp of that adventure or just the template used when designing a new adventure. I hope its the latter. A new adventure in the spirit of B10 would be awesome and reason enough for me to get the starter.
I'd rather be cautious how much I say about that just now, but I trust more information will be coming out about it fairly soon.
I can say that there will be multiple dungeons plus a sandbox wilderness area.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;757182Idk, I just find putting people on ignore funny. Its like sticking your fingers in your ears.
Not that I think that Haffrung was being all that mature either, but the whole calling out that he is ignoring someone just makes me think of a 5 year old.
Oh I see what you mean, yeah announcing the ignore list always strikes me as grade school schoolyard level stuff. Nyah Nyah (sticks out tongue).
Quote from: Sacrosanct;757133I consider it as such. Anyone who considers only OD&D old school seems to me as someone who has narrowed it down to such a small level that it by definition means only a tiny percentage of gamers ever played old school D&D, even if you took this sample in 1984.
Yo. :D
"Old School" means you played the game before the rules were published.
Now get me a beer.
(If somebody takes the above post seriously that's their problem, not mine.)
Quote from: RPGPundit;757183It postulates a scenario where the head-guy of the new edition bothered to personally read and then provide detailed responses, follow-up questions, and subsequent responses to the same, to a a report that's dozens of pages long on the initial rules-set; and where his company pays out thousands of dollars, just to "humor" me.
I don't think Kyle postulated or insinuated such a scenario - but onto the more interesting part. This is where we finally get to hear what's behind your consultancy - a report consisting of 'dozen of pages' followed up by emails. I understand all that's behind your NDA wall right now. But what about August? Are you willing to go public with your feedback, so we can all see how yours shaped the game?
I'm not asking you to post private emails drafted by third parties, just to ask you to post content written by yourself that - you claim - made a difference to how 5e turned out.
And for the record, my group provided 'dozens of pages' of playtest feedback on 13th Age, which I sent to Rob Heinsoo. Him and I were briefly in email exchange earlier about what in the ruleset didn't work, and I can see that the final version handles that better. Does that license attributing to me that I had a direct hand in how the game turned out? I don't think so, because it postulates I was the only person who was in their closed playtest to point it out to them. And I say that even though I have it, in email from Heinsoo, where he thanks me for pointing it out.
Why do I mention that story? Because after the NDA closed, I came onto this forum and
posted my entire playtest feedback, since I hoped it would be interesting for others to read and perhaps make up their mind about the game. (I never bought or played the final version when it was released.)
All I'm asking you to do is the same. Because that contribution would be informative, civilized, and put your content, not your persona out there first. Are you willing to take that step? Are you willing to show us your relevance?
I genuinely hope you are.
Quote from: Cadriel;757078This whole notion of an "OSR Taliban" should die in a fire.
This whole notion of things on the internet should die in a fire, should die in a fire.
Quote from: Mistwell;757222This whole notion of things on the internet should die in a fire, should die in a fire.
This whole notion of things on the internet should die in a fire, should die in a fire; should die in a fire.
People get too upset over other people being upset. Let them fight it out.
Quote from: Old Geezer;757203Yo. :D
"Old School" means you played the game before the rules were published.
Now get me a beer.
(If somebody takes the above post seriously that's their problem, not mine.)
So does that mean there were like 110 "old school" players on the entire planet? :D
Quote from: Old Geezer;757203(If somebody takes the above post seriously that's their problem, not mine.)
I guess you don't want your beer, then. :D
Quote from: Marleycat;757225So does that mean there were like 110 "old school" players on the entire planet? :D
Sounds as good a definition as any, and means that anyone else claiming it is just a poser.
Quote from: Ladybird;757236Sounds as good a definition as any, and means that anyone else claiming it is just a poser.
Works for me.
Quote from: Mistwell;757222This whole notion of things on the internet should die in a fire, should die in a fire.
Fight fire with fire? :rolleyes:
Quote from: Ladybird;757236Sounds as good a definition as any, and means that anyone else claiming it is just a poser.
Strike a pose, there's nothing to it
Vogue!
I intend to buy the Starter, download the PDF, play it some, and see if it can replace Pathfinder for me and my crew. Something more rules-light but still modern D&D would be nice, nice, nice.
But I am fully prepared to 'hate 5e' if they fail to provide an OPEN game. I could care less if it is FREE. FREE is a matter of money, and having a job I'll have more of that on Friday. OPENness is either there or it isn't. I quickly jumped to a 'hating 4e' position based solely on the GSL, and the actual feedback on the game itself only reinforced that. I've never played it, though I have considered it, as a sort of tourism thing.
That said, the only blog I've personally seen that declared 5e DOA did so based on their reading of the licensing buzz. "No OGL for third party publishers makes 5e irrelevant" or something similar.
To me that's a much bigger issue than Bluff checks, and one that you can't houserule away, as far as I know.
Quote from: mcbobbo;757248I intend to buy the Starter, download the PDF, play it some, and see if it can replace Pathfinder for me and my crew. Something more rules-light but still modern D&D would be nice, nice, nice.
But I am fully prepared to 'hate 5e' if they fail to provide an OPEN game. I could care less if it is FREE. FREE is a matter of money, and having a job I'll have more of that on Friday. OPENness is either there or it isn't. I quickly jumped to a 'hating 4e' position based solely on the GSL, and the actual feedback on the game itself only reinforced that. I've never played it, though I have considered it, as a sort of tourism thing.
That said, the only blog I've personally seen that declared 5e DOA did so based on their reading of the licensing buzz. "No OGL for third party publishers makes 5e irrelevant" or something similar.
To me that's a much bigger issue than Bluff checks, and one that you can't houserule away, as far as I know.
You'll forgive my saying so, I hope, but that seems like a strange thing to base your opinion of a game around.
Quote from: LibraryLass;757256You'll forgive my saying so, I hope, but that seems like a strange thing to base your opinion of a game around.
I've pretty much lost interest in any new D&D/D20-like game that isn't OGL (or some other truly open license). Even OSR games that aren't don't interest me much. If I can't reuse it in my open stuff and publish it, I have a very hard time putting my money down for it.
Part of this is principle and part of it simply recognition that no new game is likely to replace what any of my go-to D&D-like games so the ability to reuse a new game's rules in my own stuff is about the only way to justify spending money on a new D&D-like game.
Quote from: RPGPundit;757183This is so far from reality its idiotic. [...]
And what I love about this argument is that [...]
So you believe what you like there, buddy. Either way it makes me look impressive.
Okay, so we'll blame you for 5e.
I'm cool with that.
just to weigh in, since I havent been here for a while ( Somehow I actually fell into a Life these past few months, not sure how that happened):
I have no opinion on 5e, but fwis I appreciate its attmpt to reverse the damage done by 4th. In the end though, Im not the target audience for the game or any edition of D&D: I write, play & run my own games these days. I got bored with other people's imaginations a while ago in life. I have enough inspiration to create on my own.
That said, I hated 4th not because it bore no resemblance to the D&D I played growing up, not because the rules were bad, not because Im an OSR fanboy, but because Im sick of meeting new gamers who dont know how to roleplay. If 5e does anything to improve that, its got my kudos even if I never bother to crack open the cover.
Quote from: RandallS;757258I've pretty much lost interest in any new D&D/D20-like game that isn't OGL (or some other truly open license). Even OSR games that aren't don't interest me much. If I can't reuse it in my open stuff and publish it, I have a very hard time putting my money down for it.
Part of this is principle and part of it simply recognition that no new game is likely to replace what any of my go-to D&D-like games so the ability to reuse a new game's rules in my own stuff is about the only way to justify spending money on a new D&D-like game.
But everyone knows you, Kyle and OG are complete outliers and literally have no intention of trying any other iterations of Dnd games in good faith. You literally have no voice in the debate as far as everyone beyond yourselves care about. We get it already. Be happy in the knowledge that you're in fact the 1% everyone wants to be.
Really? Oh okay. Well, I am glad you know me better than I do. The only thing more comforting than that is the thought of cuddling up to an Alpha Male Bump.
Alternately, I took a look at the 5e stuff they put out, and it's just not any fucking good.
Quote from: Sommerjon;757170Oh can we call you 5aviors then?
I think that's the best one yet. 3tards, 4vengers, and 5aviors. Kudos for nailing a nickname that I think will stick.
Quote from: Simlasa;757224This whole notion of things on the internet should die in a fire, should die in a fire; should die in a fire.
People get too upset over other people being upset. Let them fight it out.
No see this whole notion of things on the internet should die in a fire, should die in a fire, should die in a fire, that notion should also die in a fire!
I'm not upset mang. I just think that phrase has played out. Time to move on to "should choke in a vat of quicksand" or something new. Enough fire death...it's boring by now.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;757271Really? Oh okay. Well, I am glad you know me better than I do. The only thing more comforting than that is the thought of cuddling up to an Alpha Male Bump.
Alternately, I took a look at the 5e stuff they put out, and it's just not any fucking good.
Anytime sir. *curtsies*
See the deal is I want a
configurable game not a
compatible game to 0/1/2/3e. To me 5e is fitting that desire. I played those other games and EVERY last one of them have enough issues that I moved beyond them but have certain good things I prefer. I am a middle school gamer which is in fact WotC's target audience.
I play and run FantasyCraft and it's required to pick and choose which options are in play just to start a game much like GURPS. I prefer that, I want that. It's basically like 2e, you pick and choose and GO!
Quote from: mcbobbo;757248I intend to buy the Starter, download the PDF, play it some, and see if it can replace Pathfinder for me and my crew. Something more rules-light but still modern D&D would be nice, nice, nice.
But I am fully prepared to 'hate 5e' if they fail to provide an OPEN game. I could care less if it is FREE. FREE is a matter of money, and having a job I'll have more of that on Friday. OPENness is either there or it isn't. I quickly jumped to a 'hating 4e' position based solely on the GSL, and the actual feedback on the game itself only reinforced that. I've never played it, though I have considered it, as a sort of tourism thing.
That said, the only blog I've personally seen that declared 5e DOA did so based on their reading of the licensing buzz. "No OGL for third party publishers makes 5e irrelevant" or something similar.
To me that's a much bigger issue than Bluff checks, and one that you can't houserule away, as far as I know.
Weird. By that logic, you'd hate most things in life that you like right now. You'd certainly hate 1e and 2e and B/X and such. You'd hate most video games, most social media, most message boards. Heck, you'd hate cars, and television, and computers. There is precious little you wouldn't hate. Because "open" is an extremely tiny percentage of the marketplace for anything.
I dunno, this "I only buy OGL" sounds too hipster to me. Too close to "I only buy GMO-free organic gluten-free foods made in nations with living wages for farm workers".
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;757271Really? Oh okay. Well, I am glad you know me better than I do. The only thing more comforting than that is the thought of cuddling up to an Alpha Male Bump.
Alternately, I took a look at the 5e stuff they put out, and it's just not any fucking good.
Yeah but you don't play RPGs anymore, so what the fuck would you know?
Quote from: Mistwell;757273Time to move on to "should choke in a vat of quicksand" or something new. Enough fire death...it's boring by now.
I still like 'suck a bag of dicks'... but I suppose that's old too... howsabout bringing back 'eat shit and die!'
Quote from: Mistwell;757276Yeah but you don't play RPGs anymore, so what the fuck would you know?
Hey, it's been two weeks. When it's been two years you can say that :)
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;757279Hey, it's been two weeks. When it's been two years you can say that :)
Heh. :D
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;757279Hey, it's been two weeks. When it's been two years you can say that :)
Pussy. Pundit is DM'ing while he posts here. Pundit is DM'ing while he sleeps - he roles a series of dice before he goes to bed, writes down the results, and then players interpret his grunts, snorts, twitches and other stirrings while he slumbers and reference his die results and a series of random tables to adjudicate encounters. You should ask him about the great slurping snore God TPK, and the epic wind giant event. He'll tell you all about it - while he DMs, because he can multi-task that way.
Quote from: LibraryLass;757233I guess you don't want your beer, then. :D
D'oh! * cries *
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;757279Hey, it's been two weeks. When it's been two years you can say that :)
"Rationalizations are more important than sex."
"NOTHING is more important than sex!"
"Oh yeah? When's the last time you went two weeks without a rationalization?"
-- The Big Chill
Quote from: Exploderwizard;757131That depends upon the presentation of the pregen.
If it is a fully fleshed out character with a name, background , etc. then you ARE playing the red pawn.
If it is just some stats that you flesh out then there is a chance to make it something of your own.
Provided the red pawn is allowed to decide not to move forward a square but instead arrange a secret meeting with the Black rook and agree to sell out the Red King in exchange for a horse and a promotion to Knight from where he can ride to the Shimmering Sea and sell the horse and book passage on a cargo ship heading for Talaglossa and when on board he can seduce the Privateer captain of the ship promising to reveal the secret of the lost island of Semtos where there are diamonds the size of hens eggs and when nearing the island he can slit her throat and slip away on a row boat carrying all her treasure and jewels then to meet up with Captain Rohas who he has been secretly been communicating with via telepathy since boarding the ship.
If the red pawn can do all that then you are correct its exactly the same.
Quote from: Mistwell;757285Pussy. Pundit is DM'ing while he posts here.
Well, he is certainly
playing a role here, and he always stays in character :)
Quote from: One Horse Town;757164But! I'm old and jaded and there are people out there who have never played that way, so some hand-holding is no bad thing at all.
I think one of D&D's big mistakes is the 3 book model. I am no fan of 2e or 3e, but those DMGs are treasure troves of great info for DMs, and the 4e DMG was probably one of the best written. But most DMs gloss over the DMG, whereas the GM section in other core books does get read.
Its amazing how often I read on forums about DM trouble with D&D, but don't see these same discussions from CoC GMs or Traveller, Shadowrun or most other RPG GMs.
Quote from: Gabriel2;757125Mechanics aren't important. That's why the "5e is so old school" crowd and the OSR crowd keep on buying rulebooks.
LOL! So true. I fully admit that I am "all about the DIY", but I have a bookcase full of RPG books and I will buy more every year.
Quote from: Mythmere;757104Congratulations, Pundit. This whole thread is a magnificent troll. Well played, sir. :)
His alpha bump glows with pride!
But hey, he gets to celebrate. I am happy to poke at Pundy, but I give him kudos on the consulting gig, and if they did listen to anything he said (which none of us will ever really know), then he should be proud.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;757097The bleeding out chance isn't the problem. The big glaring problem is if you whack a helpless bleeding foe with a greatsword (taking a round of your time to do so) there is no appreciable effect.
That a helpless bleeding foe is virtually immune to getting splatted because he is "out of the fight" is the kind of shit that makes the whole system feel stupid.
Er, Im pretty darn sure getting wacked with a greatsword while at negative HP is sure as heck contributing to your negative damage total and when you hit that you die even if you were on your way to waking up.
Course that may change in the print. But in the playtest at least theres nothing stopping someone from making extra sure you are extra dead.
Quote from: Bill;757114That sounds like a rule specifically to keep pc's from dying once they are 'down'
This is very much a play style issue; some want death looking over their shoulder at every turn, others want the pc's to survive being cut down in battle.
Personally I would have to lean toward helpless people being killed easily, unless encased in adamantite field plate vs a weak weapon.
Easy enough to alter though to a more lethal method.
And yes it feels way too over-protective, especially for fighters. But. It does allow for some Rasputin level comebacks if the fighter is lucky.
And in real life normal people have been shot or stabbed while down to make sure they were dead and still somehow lived through even multiple wounds. So its not as far fetched as it seems and that three-strikes-your-dead part means even a little kobold can finish off a level 20 fighter with a few pokes.
So depending on how you look at it, the rule makes sense in some ways and doesnt in others. YMMV at its finest.
Quote from: Cadriel;757149Non-weapon proficiencies were a late addition in 1e. They appear in Oriental Adventures, which was late-stage TSR Gygax, and reflects a definite change in philosophy in the game. They don't exist in the first five books, which many (if not most) AD&D 1e gamers today consider to be the only ones worth using.
Um... page 12 of the DMG. Player character non-professional Skills?
Quote from: Omega;757312Um... page 12 of the DMG. Player character non-professional Skills?
He isn't counting that because it's easy to ignore :) unlike NWP which are specifically optional in 2e or the skills system in 5e which may or may not be optional but is certainly impossible to ignore.
As an aside and apropos of nothing in particular I get a bit annoyed with the OSR. I think I play pretty old school just like I did in 1980 it just its a different old school to these guys and thanks to its focus on character and roleplay over combat or exploration its the old school that won the first war and led to 2e berfore the charoppers won EW2 and the tactical combater won EW3
So as far as I can tell the OSR are the only edition warriors that never won an edition war....
Quote from: Mistwell;757275Weird. By that logic, you'd hate most things in life that you like right now. You'd certainly hate 1e and 2e and B/X and such. You'd hate most video games, most social media, most message boards. Heck, you'd hate cars, and television, and computers. There is precious little you wouldn't hate. Because "open" is an extremely tiny percentage of the marketplace for anything.
I dunno, this "I only buy OGL" sounds too hipster to me. Too close to "I only buy GMO-free organic gluten-free foods made in nations with living wages for farm workers".
Er, yeah. There's no explanation for how "open" makes the game play better or helps you do anything with it, unless you're wanting to publish material for the game.
Quote from: jibbajibba;757319So as far as I can tell the OSR are the only edition warriors that never won an edition war....
It's true. The OSR is like the Americans trying and failing yet again to deal with an insurgency. We have such overwhelming force and moral right on our side, yet we keep drawing or losing! 2e was Korea. 3.5 was the commies in Vietnam. 4e was Afghanistan, dear god, the T4liban.
We're probably going to 5yria next. Fuck me, those guys eat people's hearts!
Oh well, at least we've still got our cheetos.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;757324It's true. The OSR is like the Americans trying and failing yet again to deal with an insurgency. We have such overwhelming force and moral right on our side, yet we keep drawing or losing! 2e was Korea. 3.5 was the commies in Vietnam. 4e was Afghanistan, dear god, the T4liban.
We're probably going to 5yria next. Fuck me, those guys eat people's hearts!
Oh well, at least we've still got our cheetos.
;)
Bloody aussies ....
Aussies assist the Americans in all their losing wars. We're loyal that way.
We'll help out with the OSR, too.
We hold these truths to be self-evident,
That all players are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Dice, Snacks and the pursuit of Hack,
That to secure these rights, Game Masters are instituted among Gamers, deriving their just powers from the consent of those who couldn't be bothered running a Game that night,
That whenever any System of Game becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Game, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Fun and Hack.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Game Systems long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that Gamers are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Game Systems to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Railroading Point-Buy, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such a Game System, and to provide new Game Systems for their future Fun.
Quote from: Ghost;757084There are too many other good games out there made by, quality controlled by, and feeding the families of people who have the balls to put their necks out and write independent games for me to waste my time on hardcover splatbooks edited for the 10-15 demographic.
Anyone who relies on a small press self-published RPG to feed their family is exercising such an incredible level of irresponsibility that I question whether they're even a safe pair of hands to raise said family in the first place. It's like taking the kids' college fund to a casino and letting it all ride on a single turn of the roulette wheel - except the roulette wheel is more likely to give you a big fat payout.
Quote from: RandallS;757258I've pretty much lost interest in any new D&D/D20-like game that isn't OGL (or some other truly open license). Even OSR games that aren't don't interest me much. If I can't reuse it in my open stuff and publish it, I have a very hard time putting my money down for it.
Part of this is principle and part of it simply recognition that no new game is likely to replace what any of my go-to D&D-like games so the ability to reuse a new game's rules in my own stuff is about the only way to justify spending money on a new D&D-like game.
Sure, but:
a) That doesn't mean that the game in question is a bad game, simply that it's published under a business model that's incompatible with your needs.
b) Most people have no serious interest in commercially publishing their game stuff.
mcbobbo's statement implied that he'd turn his nose up the game if it doesn't have an OGL, no matter how good it was, which unless he is also a publisher makes absolutely no sense.
Quote from: Mistwell;757272I think that's the best one yet. 3tards, 4vengers, and 5aviors. Kudos for nailing a nickname that I think will stick.
To go along with 0ldsters, 1nsurgents, 2urtles, Bald Xaviers, and Bitter Egotistical Complainers Moaning Incessantly?
Quote from: Mistwell;757275I dunno, this "I only buy OGL" sounds too hipster to me. Too close to "I only buy GMO-free organic gluten-free foods made in nations with living wages for farm workers".
The OGL to me is useful for publishers, but there's a small crowd of people who believe in "open gaming" like it's a paradigm or a philosophy, and that anybody who doesn't release under that term is of lesser status.
It's like people complaining about DRM. I can even understand it, especially when it causes problems, but for the most part I've had very few issues with Steam, Uplay, Origin, Windows Activation, etc. But I get sick of seeing people protest--give 1 star to games with a review that just is one sentence criticizing the DRM, etc. But considering how popular many of the AAA games are, I think for most people it's not as big an issue as the minority make out. What's more important overall is the game itself and how it plays and performs.
But unlike DRM, which can actually prevent you from playing if things go wrong, why would OGL really matter. Even though TSR was strict with copyright violations on the Internet--nobody was ever prevented from creating stuff among their game groups, or playing the games. And that's truly what the majority of people want. To play, not to publish for either ego or monetary compensation. And WoTC can get enough goodwill IMO with a fan license that allows them to post stuff online for free, without giving away the store.
Quote from: Warthur;757330It's like taking the kids' college fund to a casino and letting it all ride on a single turn of the roulette wheel - except the roulette wheel is more likely to give you a big fat payout.
Sad. True. And both truly sad and sadly true.
Quote from: Marleycat;757270But everyone knows you, Kyle and OG are complete outliers and literally have no intention of trying any other iterations of Dnd games in good faith. You literally have no voice in the debate as far as everyone beyond yourselves care about. We get it already. Be happy in the knowledge that you're in fact the 1% everyone wants to be.
I think the number of players and GMs happy enough with their current version of D&D that they are unlikely to switch to the latest new edition every time WOTC publishes one is at least a bit higher than 1%. I will admit that people who are extremely unlikely to buy a D&D-like/D20-like game unless its rules are 99+% open game content under the OGL (or similar open license) is probably under 1%, however. :)
Why shouldn't I have a voice in the debate? My opinion on a particular set of rules is just as valid as anyone elses (even if I am not in WOTC's target market) and my almost 40 years of playing D&D and other RPGs means that I have a lot of experience to base those opinions on. Perhaps my opinions are not of interest to WOTC because I'm not their "target market" but I really don't think that not being some corporation's target market means I need to keep my opinions to myself.
I haven't said much about 5e because I haven't seen 5e. From the later playtests and what has been said officially about 5e, I don't think I will be switching to 5e. However, until I see the final version for myself, I can't say much more than that.
Judging from all corners of the internet 5e might just set a world record for people buying stuff just to see what it's like. Makes no difference to them of course, it's all money in the bank for WotC.
Quote from: Cadriel;757149When "pressed" I am consistent - I consider OD&D an exploration game, and AD&D and B/X D&D to more or less remain exploration games, while the majority of players want D&D to be a monster-fighting game.
The thing about OD&D is that it isn't about anything other than playing a character in a fantasy setting. It an exploration game to you because that how you or your group run it. Other referee and other groups (like myself) run it differently. What OD&D does is give specific support to creating wildernesses, dungeons, and for a end game involving establishing a stronghold/barony.
But they are not rules that the referee uses to adjudicate with. They are aides to help the referee in creating a campaign. If the referee is willing to put into the work he can come up with just about any fantasy campaign he wants with OD&D or AD&D 1st.
The idea that they are games focused on exploration is because that what most gamers wound up using classic D&D for. Blackmoor started out as a medieval miniature campaign focused on individual characters. The Blackmoor dungeon became the most popular element of the players and soon became one of the main focuses of the campaign.
There was this flexible set of rules that can be used to make a wide variety of campaigns. Dungeons and exploration were the types that wound up being the most popular.
This why I see anybody say classic D&D is about something I see it as pretty as bullshit. If classic D&D is about something is because the referee or gaming group made their campaigns that way.
Quote from: JRT;757335But unlike DRM, which can actually prevent you from playing if things go wrong, why would OGL really matter.
The OGL allows others companies to produce supplements and adventures -- giving players more choice. WOTC is generally considered crap at writing D&D adventures, for example. The 3.x OGL allowed others to fill that need and even produce adventures that do not match WOTC's current vision for adventures (like the Dungeon Crawl Classics adventures for 3.x which tried to provide "old school" like adventures for "new school" 3.x) which can help support playstyles that WOTC does not see enough potential profit in.
Quote from: One Horse Town;757345Judging from all corners of the internet 5e might just set a world record for people buying stuff just to see what it's like. Makes no difference to them of course, it's all money in the bank for WotC.
Not necessarily unprecedented--3E was a big hit, and 4E's initial release was even bigger. I expect curiosity and a desire to keep 'current' with what the biggest name in the industry was doing were part of that.
Quote from: mcbobbo;757248I intend to buy the Starter, download the PDF, play it some, and see if it can replace Pathfinder for me and my crew. Something more rules-light but still modern D&D would be nice, nice, nice.
But I am fully prepared to 'hate 5e' if they fail to provide an OPEN game. I could care less if it is FREE. FREE is a matter of money, and having a job I'll have more of that on Friday. OPENness is either there or it isn't. I quickly jumped to a 'hating 4e' position based solely on the GSL, and the actual feedback on the game itself only reinforced that. I've never played it, though I have considered it, as a sort of tourism thing.
That said, the only blog I've personally seen that declared 5e DOA did so based on their reading of the licensing buzz. "No OGL for third party publishers makes 5e irrelevant" or something similar.
To me that's a much bigger issue than Bluff checks, and one that you can't houserule away, as far as I know.
That is rather strange. TSR D&D wasn't OPEN. It isn't like you can't make your own stuff and share it with friends anyway, you just may not be able to make stuff to SELL. For the majority of hobbyists who aren't trying to make a living from game material, this is just fine.
Sometimes I think people just want someone to blame if they don't become successful game designers.
" Well I would have several products out there if WOTC had an open license." :rolleyes:
If the lack of an open license turns a large portion of potential player base away then WOTC will have learned something. We shall see.
Quote from: jibbajibba;757293Provided the red pawn is allowed to decide not to move forward a square but instead arrange a secret meeting with the Black rook and agree to sell out the Red King in exchange for a horse and a promotion to Knight from where he can ride to the Shimmering Sea and sell the horse and book passage on a cargo ship heading for Talaglossa and when on board he can seduce the Privateer captain of the ship promising to reveal the secret of the lost island of Semtos where there are diamonds the size of hens eggs and when nearing the island he can slit her throat and slip away on a row boat carrying all her treasure and jewels then to meet up with Captain Rohas who he has been secretly been communicating with via telepathy since boarding the ship.
If the red pawn can do all that then you are correct its exactly the same.
The red pawn could also do any of that if it were blue, black, purple, etc. the main difference being that the pawn was dreamed up by the player and not selected from a stack.
Being happy with your in-game playing piece is important. In WOW there is no mechanical difference between members of the same race/class combo, yet players will spend quite a bit of time futzing with the face, eyes, hair, and other piddly details. Heck, they will even spend real in-game currency to go to the hair salon and change hairstyles once in a while. This has no effect on their ability to meet the challenges of the game, yet for some it is an obsession. Likewise collecting pets that serve no function other than to look cute.
Quote from: Mistwell;757285Pussy. Pundit is DM'ing while he posts here. Pundit is DM'ing while he sleeps - he roles a series of dice before he goes to bed, writes down the results, and then players interpret his grunts, snorts, twitches and other stirrings while he slumbers and reference his die results and a series of random tables to adjudicate encounters. You should ask him about the great slurping snore God TPK, and the epic wind giant event. He'll tell you all about it - while he DMs, because he can multi-task that way.
And he invents whole RPGs in his dreams (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=2804)...
Quote from: One Horse Town;757345Judging from all corners of the internet 5e might just set a world record for people buying stuff just to see what it's like.
No, that would have been 3e. That one was dirt-cheap with 19.95 $ and I sold more than half of my stock to gamers that were not D&D players - and while some of them reported back that they tried it most of them stayed with their non-D&D game of choice.
Plus: 5e Basic will be free. No need to buy anything.
Quote from: Ladybird;757321Er, yeah. There's no explanation for how "open" makes the game play better or helps you do anything with it, unless you're wanting to publish material for the game.
Isn't that the truth and they're so obvious about it. Well for myself thanks to the 3x mess I never want to see a full OGL it made no sense then and even less now. WotC should have a two tiered model....
1. Fan made stuff freely available
2. A short list of preferred professional companies contracted out that keep like 90-95% of the profits on their products
None of this free for all churning out trash every month.
Quote from: RandallS;757339I think the number of players and GMs happy enough with their current version of D&D that they are unlikely to switch to the latest new edition every time WOTC publishes one is at least a bit higher than 1%. I will admit that people who are extremely unlikely to buy a D&D-like/D20-like game unless its rules are 99+% open game content under the OGL (or similar open license) is probably under 1%, however. :)
Why shouldn't I have a voice in the debate? My opinion on a particular set of rules is just as valid as anyone elses (even if I am not in WOTC's target market) and my almost 40 years of playing D&D and other RPGs means that I have a lot of experience to base those opinions on. Perhaps my opinions are not of interest to WOTC because I'm not their "target market" but I really don't think that not being some corporation's target market means I need to keep my opinions to myself.
I haven't said much about 5e because I haven't seen 5e. From the later playtests and what has been said officially about 5e, I don't think I will be switching to 5e. However, until I see the final version for myself, I can't say much more than that.
No voice was over the top I give you that.
Quote from: estar;757347The thing about OD&D is that it isn't about anything other than playing a character in a fantasy setting. It an exploration game to you because that how you or your group run it. Other referee and other groups (like myself) run it differently. What OD&D does is give specific support to creating wildernesses, dungeons, and for a end game involving establishing a stronghold/barony.
The loot-and-scoot dungeon is the approach to the game some people at the outset took. By 1979 it was already being eclipsed by other play modes. It's a fun way to play, and one of the achievements of the OSR was to go back and revive that play mode. But let's not pretend it's the be-all and end-all of old-school D&D, or that it's the way the game is supposed to be played.
Quote from: estar;757347This why I see anybody say classic D&D is about something I see it as pretty as bullshit. If classic D&D is about something is because the referee or gaming group made their campaigns that way.
Exactly. The notion that monster-bashing (or intrigue, or plane-hopping) isn't old-school D&D is an exceedingly narrow outlook. 5E won't be a failure for old-school play if it supports modes other than exploring megadungeons with teams of hirelings, and seeking out treasure while avoiding combat at all costs (though there's nothing in the rules that I've seen stopping you from playing that way).
Quote from: Mistwell;757272I think that's the best one yet. 3tards, 4vengers, and 5aviors. Kudos for nailing a nickname that I think will stick.
... or the Last Edition Warrior. Only time will tell.
Quote from: Mistwell;757275... I dunno, this "I only buy OGL" sounds too hipster to me. Too close to "I only buy GMO-free organic gluten-free foods made in nations with living wages for farm workers".
Quote from: Ladybird;757321Er, yeah. There's no explanation for how "open" makes the game play better or helps you do anything with it, unless you're wanting to publish material for the game.
Quote from: Warthur;757331... mcbobbo's statement implied that he'd turn his nose up the game if it doesn't have an OGL, no matter how good it was, which unless he is also a publisher makes absolutely no sense. ...
Quote from: Marleycat;757369...
None of this free for all churning out trash every month.
There's nothing wrong with having a preference at the same time as accepting that the world doesn't match your preferences. I love Netflix, and it pisses me off that I can't (mostly) use it on Linux (my preferred OS when I can), but that doesn't stop me from realizing that if I want to watch streaming movies, I'm still best served by Netflix and a Windows or Mac installation. This all comes across as another "Perfect is the enemy of best" kind of thing (seems to be my theme today).
I prefer and give preference to open projects. The best way to get my support for a kickstarter is to add the line "will be released through an open license upon successful funding." But that doesn't stop me from buying really good closed stuff. As usual in this place there is a HUGE excluded middle being ignored.
Quote from: RandallS;757349The OGL allows others companies to produce supplements and adventures -- giving players more choice. WOTC is generally considered crap at writing D&D adventures, for example. The 3.x OGL allowed others to fill that need and even produce adventures that do not match WOTC's current vision for adventures (like the Dungeon Crawl Classics adventures for 3.x which tried to provide "old school" like adventures for "new school" 3.x) which can help support playstyles that WOTC does not see enough potential profit in.
Agreed. As well, the OGL+SRD brought in new companies who used it to build themselves up and provide new products and ideas. I'm not a huge fan of 3.PF but I like that we have Pathfinder in the hobby. Mutants and Masterminds is another. FantasyCraft wouldn't exist without it (and it is indeed awesome, though I'll likely never run it). And there are plenty others.
I don't personally consider the OGL an "open" license, but I'm happy it's "open-enough." It's not perfect, but it was likely the best we were going to get.
Quote from: JRT;757335The OGL to me is useful for publishers, but there's a small crowd of people who believe in "open gaming" like it's a paradigm or a philosophy, and that anybody who doesn't release under that term is of lesser status.
Because for them the issue is about freedom and fairness.
More than a few author likes to think their work is a special snowflake that to keep it pure and pristine it has to be protected. Coupled with that are holder of popular IP who want to have a monopoly to keep the gravy train going.
But the desire to protect one's work or to make profit is not what makes it unfair. It is the fact that we all build on our ancestors work. JK Rowling built on fantasy and english boarding school tropes, Disney plunders folklore and legend, and so on. It is only fair that they give back to balance what they taken.
There is tension between the two and the common sense solution is to grant the exclusive right, the monopoly over a work to the author for a LIMITED time. But today limited time means life + 75 to 95 years. And while limited it blatantly unfair. If that rule was in effect during the 19th century, Disney would not have been able to produce many of their films.
Luckily thanks to some nutjob fanatics notably Richard Stallman, a hack was developed that uses the existing copyright system to liberate content. Thus open licenses were born starting with the GNU General Public License leading to Creative Commons and the Open Game License.
Again some get passionate about it because freedom is something that people can get passionate about even when it is about publishing or writing stuff for games.
I personally strongly believe that the duration of copyright should be greatly reduced to something like 50 or so years. However I do not believe that buying and using closed works is morally wrong. But I place a lot of what I write under open licenses and encourage others to do the same. I know the source of my material and the right thing to do is give back as freely as it was given to me.
Quote from: Brander;757393I prefer and give preference to open projects. The best way to get my support for a kickstarter is to add the line "will be released through an open license upon successful funding." But that doesn't stop me from buying really good closed stuff. As usual in this place there is a HUGE excluded middle being ignored.
Ignored for a good reason: we weren't responding to people who'd prefer it if D&D 5E were open but could live with it if it were closed and good enough in other respects, we were responding to people whose stance was that if there were no OGL, that'd be a dealbreaker.
Quote from: Warthur;757402Ignored for a good reason: we weren't responding to people who'd prefer it if D&D 5E were open but could live with it if it were closed and good enough in other respects, we were responding to people whose stance was that if there were no OGL, that'd be a dealbreaker.
I didn't get the impression that actually described anyone in this thread. But I'm open to the possibility that what I'm seeing as strong preference could actually be staunch protest.
Quote from: estar;757397I personally strongly believe that the duration of copyright should be greatly reduced to something like 50 or so years. However I do not believe that buying and using closed works is morally wrong. But I place a lot of what I write under open licenses and encourage others to do the same. I know the source of my material and the right thing to do is give back as freely as it was given to me.
Good talk. I'm in agreement.
I want an OGL so that there is more stuff being created outside of corporate oversite... more of the punk/DIY piggybacking (parasitizing) on the mainstream D&D. There'd be lots of uninspired trash but also some great stuff that might not otherwise get made... as happened with D20.
Not that that affects whether or not I'd play/like 5e... but it would be a big bonus and might tip me over if I were on the fence.
I am a old Grognard and looking forward to 5 e. I hate 4 e so from what I have heard and seen 5 e should be fairly decent.
Quote from: jibbajibba;757293Provided the red pawn is allowed to...
It sounds like the concern there is more railroaded adventures than pregens.
I'll agree with that - pregens don't bother me too much, but railroads do.
Quote from: Brander;757393I don't personally consider the OGL an "open" license, but I'm happy it's "open-enough." It's not perfect, but it was likely the best we were going to get.
I assume you're looking for a "viral" clause like in the GPL?
Quote from: robiswrong;757436It sounds like the concern there is more railroaded adventures than pregens.
I'll agree with that - pregens don't bother me too much, but railroads do.
I assume you're looking for a "viral" clause like in the GPL?
Mearls did say the Starter Set has a lot of hand holding intentionally. And I have heard conflicting opinions about how easy or hard it would be to outright remove the background/hooks of the pregens.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;757328Aussies assist the Americans in all their losing wars. We're loyal that way.
We'll help out with the OSR, too.
We hold these truths to be self-evident,
That all players are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Dice, Snacks and the pursuit of Hack,
That to secure these rights, Game Masters are instituted among Gamers, deriving their just powers from the consent of those who couldn't be bothered running a Game that night,
That whenever any System of Game becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Game, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Fun and Hack.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Game Systems long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that Gamers are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Game Systems to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Railroading Point-Buy, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such a Game System, and to provide new Game Systems for their future Fun.
Well done, the saddest part is 95% percent of the US couldn't tell you what document that is, or have the vocabulary to explain it.
Quote from: Gunslinger;757377... or the Last Edition Warrior. Only time will tell.
Feh, people have been predicting the new edition will be the flaming death of D&D since 1e was published.
And there were a lot more times they had cause to think it might really be than this one.
Quote from: Brander;757393Agreed. As well, the OGL+SRD brought in new companies who used it to build themselves up and provide new products and ideas. I'm not a huge fan of 3.PF but I like that we have Pathfinder in the hobby. Mutants and Masterminds is another. FantasyCraft wouldn't exist without it (and it is indeed awesome, though I'll likely never run it). And there are plenty others.
Exactly! Pathfinder is the reason 4e died as quickly as it did. Competition is an awesome force in a capitalist economy. A system where compatible products can be sold means alternatives will be available. This cannot be a bad thing so long as you're free to pick and choose what you buy.
Quote from: Simlasa;757404Good talk. I'm in agreement.
I want an OGL so that there is more stuff being created outside of corporate oversite... more of the punk/DIY piggybacking (parasitizing) on the mainstream D&D. There'd be lots of uninspired trash but also some great stuff that might not otherwise get made... as happened with D20.
Not that that affects whether or not I'd play/like 5e... but it would be a big bonus and might tip me over if I were on the fence.
This, too. It might be a well made and enjoyable game. MAID might be as well. But we all draw lines somewhere. For me trying to put the OGL genie back in the bottle is reprehensible.
I doubt anyone will ever pay me for my work on an RPG, but I still prefered the courage of Dancey and crew over the GSL. So if it comes down to OGL (Pathfinder) or 'free' (5e basic with no OGL) I may well stick to the former. The latter would have to absolutely blow my socks off...
Quote from: Warthur;757332To go along with 0ldsters, 1nsurgents, 2urtles, Bald Xaviers, and Bitter Egotistical Complainers Moaning Incessantly?
Nice!
Quote from: Marleycat;757438Mearls did say the Starter Set has a lot of hand holding intentionally. And I have heard conflicting opinions about how easy or hard it would be to outright remove the background/hooks of the pregens.
It's not the background hooks. It's does encounter A lead directly to B, and to C and D and E etc. etc., or are there places for the players to make decisions beyond "which orc do I attack this round?"
4e died because it was a tactical skirmish game masquerading as an RPG. Pathfinder wasn't the direct or only reason.
Quote from: Brander;757393There's nothing wrong with having a preference at the same time as accepting that the world doesn't match your preferences. I love Netflix, and it pisses me off that I can't (mostly) use it on Linux (my preferred OS when I can), but that doesn't stop me from realizing that if I want to watch streaming movies, I'm still best served by Netflix and a Windows or Mac installation. This all comes across as another "Perfect is the enemy of best" kind of thing (seems to be my theme today).
Say what now? We watch Netflix through my Chromebook, which is built on a Linux system.
Quote from: Marleycat;7574864e died because it was a tactical skirmish game masquerading as an RPG. Pathfinder wasn't the direct or only reason.
Assuming that's not an off topic, 'weakman' argument (love that new phrase btw), it isn't what I said:
Pathfinder is the reason 4e died
as quickly as it did.
I am absolutely convinced that there would have been more effort to fix 4e were there not another company outselling them with an old version of their own product.
Even if you still don't think there's a point there, I still prefer a world where I can at least feel like I am doing the right thing.
Quote from: robiswrong;757483It's not the background hooks. It's does encounter A lead directly to B, and to C and D and E etc. etc., or are there places for the players to make decisions beyond "which orc do I attack this round?"
That I have no idea but I would guess that it's a railroad not a sandbox because it's meant to lead into Tyranny of Dragons.
Quote from: mcbobbo;757489Assuming that's not an off topic, 'weakman' argument (love that new phrase btw), it isn't what I said:
Pathfinder is the reason 4e died as quickly as it did.
I am absolutely convinced that there would have been more effort to fix 4e were there not another company outselling them with an old version of their own product.
Even if you still don't think there's a point there, I still prefer a world where I can at least feel like I am doing the right thing.
Good enough, I prefer something between OGL and GSL.
Quote from: Marleycat;757492Good enough, I prefer something between OGL and GSL.
The OGL is directly responsible for one of your favorite games, FantasyCraft. How can you not like it? FC couldn't be the game it is with the GSL or D20 license.
Quote from: robiswrong;757436...
I assume you're looking for a "viral" clause like in the GPL?
Yeah, more or less, though it would have been fine if it's viral nature was limited to only be viral to the expression of game mechanics. It seemed to want to be, but in practice it sure wasn't. I think if you can't go through a document and more or less trivially pull an SRD out of the open content bits, then it's not open enough for me. Some products were great and some publishers DID create SRDs, which was wonderful and why I'm willing to call it "open-enough" as opposed to "open."
Quote from: CRKrueger;757493The OGL is directly responsible for one of your favorite games, FantasyCraft. How can you not like it? FC couldn't be the game it is with the GSL or D20 license.
I know. But I prefer a middle ground and CraftyGames wasn't fly by night and fully capable of getting licensed.
Quote from: Mistwell;757487Say what now? We watch Netflix through my Chromebook, which is built on a Linux system.
http://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/chromium-os-faq
"Google Chrome OS includes some binary packages which are not allowed to be included in the Chromium OS project. A non-exhaustive list:
...
Netflix Instant
..."
It's the binary (non-open) Google Chrome OS portions of your chromebook that makes Netflix work, not the Linux bits.
That said, Linux users have developed workarounds and it has steadily gotten easier, but this isn't due to Netflix, it's due to Linux aficionados.
Quote from: Marleycat;757496I know. But I prefer a middle ground and CraftyGames wasn't fly by night and fully capable of getting licensed.
Unless someone at WotC didn't like CraftyGames or their ideas. What might have worked better for you would be something like a "WotC Approved" license alongside the rest so you could ignore anything unapproved by WotC.
Quote from: Marleycat;757496I know. But I prefer a middle ground and CraftyGames wasn't fly by night and fully capable of getting licensed.
It's not a question of money, it's a question of content. They couldn't have made FC under the D20 or GSL, period, it's too divergent. They were originally going to publish under D20 for the initial draft, but by the time the final license came out, it was too restrictive for the changes they wanted to make.
FantasyCraft under this theoretical "middle ground" that you prefer would not exist.
Quote from: Marleycat;7574864e died because it was a tactical skirmish game masquerading as an RPG. Pathfinder wasn't the direct or only reason.
It is a fine RPG other notable systems OD&D, Fantasy Trip, etc are little more than a set of combat rules with some character detail thrown in.
D&D 4e problem was it presentation not its rules. It was High Fantasy 24/7 which turned it into a one trick pony. The exception based design could have been used to develop other types of fantasy but Wizards opted not too.
I am making a point of this because this mistake can be easily repeated regardless of system complexity. A 24/7 High Fantasy lite rules system would have run into similar problem as 4e did.
Dogpile on Marley time! Hey Estar, could you explain in more detail for me?
Quote from: Marleycat;757512Dogpile on Marley time! Hey Estar, could you explain in more detail for me?
I think similar, or tangential, to what we were discussing in another thread.
Rules are expressions of the settings and games they are built for, though I disagree with some of what Estar says.
It does only a few things well, basically building a uber-heroic combat balanced game. It has the advantage of hindsight, and they did not take advantage of this.
Quote from: estar;757509D&D 4e problem was it presentation not its rules. It was High Fantasy 24/7 which turned it into a one trick pony. The exception based design could have been used to develop other types of fantasy but Wizards opted not too.
I am making a point of this because this mistake can be easily repeated regardless of system complexity. A 24/7 High Fantasy lite rules system would have run into similar problem as 4e did.
That's an interesting idea, but don't you think the focus on combat (to the near exclusion of everything else, and/or coupled with the mishandling of Skill Challenges), and possibly, to a lesser degree, the emphasis on miniatures, were bigger problems?
I'm not sure "high fantasy" was the general public's gripe. And in their defense they did release 4e Dark Sun, though I can see how you might consider that too little, too late.
Quote from: Marleycat;757512Dogpile on Marley time! Hey Estar, could you explain in more detail for me?
(possible) Translation: 4e was over the top "cinematic" combat nigh wall to wall. The system as presented ended up being a sort of passive limiter. Other types of play were pushed to the side or nigh eliminated unless a DM worked to curb the combat side.
Another reason for 4e's failure was WOTC antagonized players right out the gate. First impressions can be the most important. Bad word of mouth only re-inforced that initial impression for some.
Quote from: Omega;757519(possible) Translation: 4e was over the top "cinematic" combat nigh wall to wall. The system as presented ended up being a sort of passive limiter. Other types of play were pushed to the side or nigh eliminated unless a DM worked to curb the combat side.
Another reason for 4e's failure was WOTC antagonized players right out the gate. First impressions can be the most important. Bad word of mouth only re-inforced that initial impression for some.
That makes a kind of sense to me but not really because High Fantasy includes epic romance and sweeping politics also. It's not just the big magic. Dragonlance=High Fantasy while Forgotten Realms=High Magic there's a difference to me.
As to WotC's behavior? Spot on.
Quote from: Marleycat;757525That makes a kind of sense to me but not really because High Fantasy includes epic romance and sweeping politics also. It's not just the big magic. Dragonlance=High Fantasy while Forgotten Realms=High Magic there's a difference to me.
As to WotC's behavior? Spot on.
4e (not to belabor) had no real rules that included romance or politics in their balancing of the classes, therefor those were not really supported by the game. A skilled GM could include them in the game but the rules did not support it.
Quote from: Marleycat;757525That makes a kind of sense to me but not really because High Fantasy includes epic romance and sweeping politics also. It's not just the big magic. Dragonlance=High Fantasy while Forgotten Realms=High Magic there's a difference to me.
As to WotC's behavior? Spot on.
Like alot of terms. High Fantasy, depending on who you ask, either means different things, or has lost any meaning it might have had.
High Fantasy as it was originally described to me in Literature Class was worlds where the fantasy elements were really ramped up. Magic EVERYWHERE, monsters crawling out of the woodwork, big battles and oft lots of them. Some types of D&D slide that way. Some of Clark Ashton Smith's stories have that feel.
Low fantasy was where magic was more subdued, monsters were present but not around every corner. More swordplay, less spellplay. Hobbit leans more to low fantasy for example. Magic and monsters are fairly subdued. Some of the Conan stories have that feel.
Middle Fantasy as I think it was once termed was the bridge between. Its what most D&D campaigns used to be and sometimes still are. Magic is prevalent and there are plenty of monsters. But both in defined ways. Conan stories oft have that mid-fantasy feel.
Just my observation from ages past.
Quote from: Brander;757497http://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/chromium-os-faq
"Google Chrome OS includes some binary packages which are not allowed to be included in the Chromium OS project. A non-exhaustive list:
...
Netflix Instant
..."
It's the binary (non-open) Google Chrome OS portions of your chromebook that makes Netflix work, not the Linux bits.
That said, Linux users have developed workarounds and it has steadily gotten easier, but this isn't due to Netflix, it's due to Linux aficionados.
Ah, I see. Bummer.
Well, for what it is worth, I love my Acer Chromebook C720! Under $200, worth every penny. We stream Netflix from it through our Chromecast to the TV, and it looks fantastic.
I don't think high fantasy was 4e's problem
I mean, Deities & Demigods was often used as a monster manual. Both for OD&D and AD&D
Quote from: Exploderwizard;757360The red pawn could also do any of that if it were blue, black, purple, etc. the main difference being that the pawn was dreamed up by the player and not selected from a stack.
Being happy with your in-game playing piece is important. In WOW there is no mechanical difference between members of the same race/class combo, yet players will spend quite a bit of time futzing with the face, eyes, hair, and other piddly details. Heck, they will even spend real in-game currency to go to the hair salon and change hairstyles once in a while. This has no effect on their ability to meet the challenges of the game, yet for some it is an obsession. Likewise collecting pets that serve no function other than to look cute.
But as you know the point I was manking was that you can roleplay just as well with a pregen as you can with a character you created yourself.
The roleplay part doesn't depend on how you obtain your peice be it off the shelf or bespoke it depends on what you do with it and how you play it. Since there is zero limitation on how you do that the roleplay part of the process is largely unimpinged by the origin of the peice.
Now what you really won't like is the dungeon that comes in the starter set. Becuase I can bet you penny to a pound that the majority of it will be a railroady game with a strong narative arc and lots of prebuilt PC hooks.
If you think about it the only way you can expect someone with zero rpg experience to pick up a box skim the rules and start playing is if the adventure starts with a text box to read out that puts the players in the middle of the adventure and kinds of guides them through it.
What they want to highlight is how the PCs are integrated into the game how they are part of a living breathing world because that is a differentiator between rpgs and board games. They have pregens with premade hooks deliberately to show this you are supposed to get to the tavern and meet your cousin who passes you a lot of info about your aunt because those things help construct a world and that is their driver.
Now if its well constructred there will be a strong narative arc
and an opportunity for some sandbox type play and exploration but that isn't the goal of the start set the goal of the starter set is to show how a DM can construct a world around the PCs and make it real and living and impacted by their actions.
A totally sandbox adventure relies on a lot of DM prep or improv. Neither of these are going to be things you can expect from a new player with no RPG experience especially if you want to get them playing straight out of the box.
Quote from: Marleycat;757512Dogpile on Marley time! Hey Estar, could you explain in more detail for me?
D&D 4e overall design was inspired by Magic the Gathering. Take a simple core system then build on it with extras (powers, skills, feats) that are described as EXCEPTION to the rules of the core system.
Magic the Gathering leveraged this by making each release of the products something different. The MtG of today is not the same game I played in the mid 90s. The core rules are largely the same but the mix of extras (cards, effects, etc) are changed. But by knowing the core rules I can figure out quickly what the new stuff does by looking at the cards and a list of terms.
By varying the mix Wizards freshens the game without the edition problem and the exception based design makes it easy for players to figure what something does without refering to a voluminous rule book.
Also Magic the Gathering varied the backstory fluff. By combining specific exception and fluff text they could make an expansion feel different both in game mechanics and in story tropes.
D&D 4e didn't do this. They came out with one set released in dribbles and drabs (the various PHBs) and that it. While Essentials simplified the mechanics it still didn't change the feel of the game. That it was high fantasy superheroes 24/7.
Understand I played a campaign of 4e. Ran several one shots as well. Even with the full force of my sandbox techniques it still wind up feeling like fantasy superheroes.
Third party publishers tried to vary things but a combination of circumstances meant their efforts didn't have any effect.
The most important of which is the Achilles heel of exception based design. it is easy to add a new extra (power, skill, etc) but to make a complete set is a royal pain in the ass. The main problem is figuring out all the interaction of the extras which goes up geometrically with the most stuff you put in. Twice the additions means four times the work in testing them.
This the flaw of 4e that people rarely talk about. Unlike classic D&D or 3.X it was a lot of work on the part of the referee to direct a 4e campaign into using a different set of tropes. Wizards was no help in this with their supplements. My guess most people say fuck it and move on to a new system.
Quote from: The Butcher;757517That's an interesting idea, but don't you think the focus on combat (to the near exclusion of everything else, and/or coupled with the mishandling of Skill Challenges), and possibly, to a lesser degree, the emphasis on miniatures, were bigger problems?
It is no more of an issue with 4e than it was with OD&D, Fantasy Trip, GURPS with all the options, or any other RPGs where the bulk of the rules are devoted to combat or combat rules have a lot of detail.
The way I view it is that there is the game which you need to use to resolve actions. And then the roleplaying which involves interacting with the setting (other PCs, NPCs, etc) Actions by and large need concrete rules in order to run a campaign that fair.
Roleplaying in contrast, the rules are at best an aide. But they are not needed. You don't need a rule to say that your character walk across the tavern to talk to the pretty barmaid. The game could have social interaction mechanics, or just an attribute, or the referee could adjudicate solely on the basis on what you have your character say. This is why some people can run a hack and slash campaign with OD&D as the rules. And others can run Game of Thrones with OD&D as the rules.
The house mechanic in the ASOIAF RPG are great but they are not necessary in the way knowing how charismatic your characters is at speaking to the court in King's Landing or what odds he has in hitting a White Walker.
Quote from: Marleycat;757512I'm not sure "high fantasy" was the general public's gripe. And in their defense they did release 4e Dark Sun, though I can see how you might consider that too little, too late.
Instead of Esstential or rather along with Esstential they should have launched books that explicitly supported alternative tropes. Dark Fantasy, Low Fantasy, Game of Thrones fantasy, etc, etc. They should have revamped organized play to where each seasons feature a new trope or subgenre. Get you audience to see the flexibility of the system and give them the support to use the game in the manner they see fit. There was too much "This is how fantasy ought to be" from Wizards during 4e.
Quote from: Omega;757539Like alot of terms. High Fantasy, depending on who you ask, either means different things, or has lost any meaning it might have had.
High Fantasy as it was originally described to me in Literature Class was worlds where the fantasy elements were really ramped up. Magic EVERYWHERE, monsters crawling out of the woodwork, big battles and oft lots of them. Some types of D&D slide that way. Some of Clark Ashton Smith's stories have that feel.
Low fantasy was where magic was more subdued, monsters were present but not around every corner. More swordplay, less spellplay. Hobbit leans more to low fantasy for example. Magic and monsters are fairly subdued. Some of the Conan stories have that feel.
Middle Fantasy as I think it was once termed was the bridge between. Its what most D&D campaigns used to be and sometimes still are. Magic is prevalent and there are plenty of monsters. But both in defined ways. Conan stories oft have that mid-fantasy feel.
Just my observation from ages past.
See what I mean? Was is that hard to define? Ok, now convince me 4e is nothing beyond a modernized tactical skirmish game again? Go on please, I'll be here.
Thanks Estar for explaining but I do still disagree. You termed it wrong. What you're describing is Superhero not High Fantasy (remember I'm a woman the two are miles apart to me). Essentials actually was on the right track but by then I didn't care.
Quote from: Marleycat;757562See what I mean? Was is that hard to define? Ok, now convince me 4e is nothing beyond a modernized tactical skirmish game again? Go on please, I'll be here.
Why not make the argument that it is? You are the one with the accusation.
Is it because most of the rules focus on combat? Is it because there aren't a lot of rules around roleplaying?
If so, OD&D was also nothing beyond a tactical skirmish game.
Whether you liked 4e is immaterial, it was still an RPG.
To show what I am talking about with exception based system. I was working on a version of the Majestic Wilderlands for 4e. I didn't get very far but one thing I was doing is using races as combination of culture AND race. These are the only ones I finalized.
HUMAN (Beggar)
Outcast they wander the Wilderlands and are the masters of intrigue.
RACIAL TRAITS
Average Height:5´ 4˝â€“6´ 0˝
Average Weight: 115–200 lb.
Ability Scores:+2 to one ability score of your choice
Size:Medium
Speed: 6 squares
Vision:Normal
Languages: Tharian, choice of two others
Scrounging Knowledge: At 1st level, you choose a at-will power from a class different than yours. You can use that power as an encounter power.
Education of the Road: You are trained in Streetwise
Dodging Sticks & Stones :+1 to Reflex
Skill Bonuses: +2 Insight, +2 Thievery, Trained Streetwise
Consult with Contacts: Once a day you can consult your contacts and get your questions answered
(There was a table showing how many question you can get answers for with a streetwise check)
Beggars are outcasts of Tharian society. Horseless and without clan or honor they wander the land where they eke out a subsistence life. To survive they have learn to trade in information and secrets. Many have banded together in small groups for protection and companionship. A few of these groups have turned to smuggling and blackmail
HUMAN (Tharian)
The thunder of hooves echo throughout theWilderlands as the horselords of the Tharian Clans ride to conquest.
RACIAL TRAITS
Average Height:5´ 8˝â€“6´ 4˝
Average Weight: 140–240 lb.
Ability Scores:+2 to one ability score of your choice
Size:Medium
Speed: 6 squares
Vision:Normal
Languages:Tharian, choice of one other
Skill Bonuses: +2 Insight, +2 Thievery, Trained Streetwise
Bonus At-Will Power: You know one extra at-will power from your class.
Strength of the Warror: You gaining training in either Athletics or Endurance
Born in the Saddle: You gain the Mounted Combat feat.
A Hardy People : +1 Reflex, +1 Will, +1 to Defense of choice.
The Tharian Clans were formerly nomadic horsemen but since the conquest of Eastgate they settled on great estates become known as the horselords. They have extended their control over much of this region of the continent. They will fight for clan and honor at the least excuse. Only the authority of the Overlord keeps war from breaking out among the clans. Even then vendettas and duels are not uncommon. A Tharian most prized possessions are his horse and his riding gear. They take great pride in their mounts and will endeavor to give their horses the finest care and the best gear.
Human (Peasant)
A strong hardy people, they are the backbone of civilization
Racial Abilities
Average Height: 5' 6" – 5'10"
Average Weight: 135 – 180
Ability Score: +2 to Constitution
Burst of Energy: (racial power)
After the long grind of the day, you find it within yourself to get that last burst of energy to finish the harvest.
Encounter Free Action Personal
Effect: +5 to the Healing Surge of Second Wind or +2 to Fortitude Defense until the end of your next turn.
Trained in Endurance
+2 to Fortitude Defense
The peasant is not the downtrodden wretch so commonly depicted. His life is hard but he takes pride in the accomplishments of his village. He knows that he has far more food, and wealth than the wretches that live in the wilderness or city slums. He takes pride in his community and in growing food.
I could blame the GSL for why I stop writing for the project but in reality I saw just how much work it was to write a package of character options for an exception based design. I decided it wasn't worth the time and worked on other projects.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;757566Whether you liked 4e is immaterial, it was still an RPG.
The specific reason is that D&D 4e was still a game where a player can attempt anything that he can do as his character with his actions adjudicated by a human referee. Any games that does that is an RPG no matter how lite or how little the rules cover.
The Blackmoor campaign started out with a set of rules cobbled together from the various miniature wargames that Dave Arneson played. Some of the session were nearly indistinguishable from a session of miniature wargaming.
But what set Dave's game apart was the fact the sessions didn't involve the players playing out a preset scenario. Instead Dave allowed his players to do whatever their characters could do. This is why Blackmoor was the first tabletop roleplaying campaign.
D&D 4e is no different in this aspect. What D&D 4e doesn't provide is a lot of details on resolving actions outside of combat. Which is why I when I reviewed 4e on my blog way back, I stated outright that 4e in some respect is a throwback all the way to OD&D.
I dont think thats what set Blackmoor apart. Many wargames Ive played dont involve preset scenarios. I think it was more the identification between the player & a single model rather than as a third person "general" commanding many troops. But Blackmoor wasnt the first at that either in any case.
Quote from: TristramEvans;757572I dont think thats what set Blackmoor apart. Many wargames Ive played dont involve preset scenarios. I think it was more the identification between the player & a single model rather than as a third person "general" commanding many troops. But Blackmoor wasnt the first at that either in any case.
Dave allowed his players to do whatever their characters could do.This is what set Blackmoor apart from its progenitors. The Brausteins sort of had it but it wasn't a campaign but a single scenario. There were free form campaigns mixing Diplomacy for grand strategy and miniature wargaming to resolve battles but they didn't focus on individual characters.
Dave's Blackmoor Campaign was the first to put it all together in the form we recognize as tabletop roleplaying and is exhaustively documented in Playing at the World (http://www.amazon.com/Playing-at-World-Jon-Peterson/dp/0615642047/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1402544059&sr=8-1)
Quote from: Emperor Norton;757566Why not make the argument that it is? You are the one with the accusation.
Is it because most of the rules focus on combat? Is it because there aren't a lot of rules around roleplaying?
If so, OD&D was also nothing beyond a tactical skirmish game.
Whether you liked 4e is immaterial, it was still an RPG.
I never saw 0e. I have one of the other iteriem versions (Moldvay or Holmes) because of Jeff. I actually first played when UA was published and actually became a gamer when 2e was out. So start explaining...slowly and in detail. Assume I'm a middle school type if it helps. Also assume I like learning about the history of Dnd but am quite happy not thinking it's the one and only way to play or view DnD.:)
I guess that means you get why I hate 4e beyond the obvious? Convince me my opinion isn't wrong already but keep it simple for us dummies. 4r was a fancy Monopoly or miniature wargame in my opinion.... go!
Quote from: Marleycat;757575I never saw 0e. I have one of the other iteriem versions because of Jeff I actually first played when UA was published and actually became a gamer when 2e was out. So start explaining...slowly and in detail. Assume I'm a middle school type if it helps.
OD&D was divided into three books.
Vol I: Men & Magic
Vol II: Monsters & Treasure
Vol III: The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures
Men & Magic had
Explained what a campaign is.
Characters (six stats, three classes; Fighter, Cleric, Magic-User)
Races (Humans, Elves, Dwarves, and Hobbits)
Languages
Non-player characters
Equipment
Leveling
The Alternative Combat System (d20 roll high use the combat matrix to find the number)
Saving Throws
Spell List
Magic Research (very sketchy)
Monster & Treasure had
Reference Tables
List of Monsters
Magic Items Tables
List of Treasure and Magic Items
The Underworld and Wilderness Adventure had
The Underworld (i.e. the Dungeon)
How to place monsters & treasures
How to adjudicate movement in the Underworld.
Monster by Level Table
Avoiding Monsters
The Wilderness
Wandering Monsters in Wildernesses
Evading Monsters
Constructing Castles and Strongholds
Hiring Specialists and Men at Arms
Using Rumors and Legends
What the PCs has to do to support themselves
Baronies
Land Combat
Aerial Combat
Naval Combat
Aquatic Monsters
Healing
Game Time
No Skills, or social interaction, there were some notes on morale and retaining hirelings but that as far as it went. All the list of stuff (monsters, items, etc) had one or two sentance discriptions like this
GOBLINS: These small monsters are as described in CHAINMAIL. They see well in darkness or dim light, but when they are subjected to full daylight they subtract -1 from their attack and morale dice. They attack dwarves on sight. Their hit dice must always equal at least one pip.
Fear: The Wand effects all creatures within a cone-shaped area eminating from it 6" outwards to a base 3" wide. All within it must make their saving throw as against magic or be panicked and flee.
I recommend downloading the Swords & Wizardry White Box (http://www.swordsandwizardry.com/whitebox.htm) to get a better sense of how OD&D operated.
Again Estar to the rescue. I now see I would have to heavily houserule to achieve 0e but it's possible because I RUN FantasyCraft.:)
Besides 0e isn't my goal. Again thank you Estar for actually detailing it.helps me understand the OSR a bit better.
Quote from: estar;757574 Dave allowed his players to do whatever their characters could do.
This is what set Blackmoor apart from its progenitors. The Brausteins sort of had it but it wasn't a campaign but a single scenario. There were free form campaigns mixing Diplomacy for grand strategy and miniature wargaming to resolve battles but they didn't focus on individual characters.
Dave's Blackmoor Campaign was the first to put it all together in the form we recognize as tabletop roleplaying and is exhaustively documented in Playing at the World (http://www.amazon.com/Playing-at-World-Jon-Peterson/dp/0615642047/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1402544059&sr=8-1)
Well, thats the thing. It was documented. Albeit much much later after the D&D rules were printed. Everything else is lost to history, except for some occasional undetailed acknowledgements that even Braunstein was a variation of something hobbyists had done fpr years w/o it being codified or documented. In the end we have only a finite paper trail that starts maybe a cèntury or 2 after the stuff actually originated. But thats the same with Wargames as anyone who has read Little Wars & Tristram Shandy knows.
Quote from: Marleycat;757562See what I mean? Was is that hard to define? Ok, now convince me 4e is nothing beyond a modernized tactical skirmish game again? Go on please, I'll be here.
Dont look to me for that answer.
Far as I could tell from what little I've seen of 4e. Yes, it was a tactical minis game disguised as a RPG. Its Macho Women With Guns. Which gets listed as an RPG but is just a minis game. Well, cardboard bimbos game, but same-same. ahem... 4e D&D GW was the same. Just streamlined down to something sane. But the boxed adventures read just like a scirmish scenario. Place units here here and here, heroes enter the battlefield here. Then on to the next battle map.
Surely you could play it without all that. But as presented I can totally see where someone would label it a minis wargame.
Such is.
Next had none of that feel in the playtest. But it looks like WOTC will be pushing the blind buy random minis gag again so they might get stupid and try to leverage the books to be more dependant on minis somehow. Probably not this time. But it is WOTC and anything stupid is possible at the 11th hour.
Quote from: Omega;757583Next had none of that feel in the playtest. But it looks like WOTC will be pushing the blind buy random minis gag again so they might get stupid and try to leverage the books to be more dependant on minis somehow. Probably not this time. But it is WOTC and anything stupid is possible at the 11th hour.[/QUOTECorret. I tend to to think positive about 5e though.:)Wow! That post was unreadable.. let me rephrase..let me rephrase...I agree with yoy. Understand 5e is trying to out FantasyCraft....FantasyCraft it's all about configuration not not compatibility. This could get interesting.
Quote from: TristramEvans;757582Well, thats the thing. It was documented. Albeit much much later after the D&D rules were printed. Everything else is lost to history, except for some occasional undetailed acknowledgements that even Braunstein was a variation of something hobbyists had done fpr years w/o it being codified or documented.
That no longer accurate or true. As it turned out Gygax, Arneson and others put out newsletters and along with other written materials that survived in the hands of collectors. What make Jon Peterson work unique that he was able to find and read a lot of this. This due to the internet and sites that caters to collectors like the Acaeum.
Again you need to read Playing at the World. You may not agree with Peterson's conclusions but he lays it all out with footnotes referencing where he found his facts.
Quote from: Marleycat;757581Besides 0e isn't my goal. Again thank you Estar for actually detailing it.helps me understand the OSR a bit better.
Your're welcome. It is spareness of the original rules that lead to the OSR's mantra of Rulings not Rules. Players still want to have their character talk to the pretty barmaid.
How do you figure out how well the characters handles it? The referee has no choice to come up with something based on the few mechanics that exist. For most it will likely involve a charisma check of some sort. Do this enough it becomes second nature to how you referee.
This is in contrast to games like GURPS which likely do have rules that you can use to tell the players how well his character does in talking to the pretty barmaid.
GURPS has those rules because one of its goals is allow players to make characters that are better than other characters at talking to pretty barmaids. More generally GURPS slice and dices characters creation fine enough so you can make the exact character you want in terms of mechanics.
I personally started with AD&D, jump to GURPS for a good 20 years and now back with OD&D for the most part. Early on with AD&D I adopted a rule of speaking in first person for my players and describe then roll. I carried that over to GURPS.
But it wasn't until I started running OD&D and read Matt Finch's Old School Primer I "got" running classic AD&D. During my earliest campaign I get frustrated when there wasn't a rule to cover what I had to adjudicate. But after reading the Old School Primer and the section on Rulings not Rules that I became comfortable in running lite system like classic D&D.
Because rulings not rules dovetailed nicely into my requirement that players describe first and roll second that I been doing for several decades. The difference is that with a lite system I have to come up with the mechanics. Where with GURPS or Runequest the mechanics is likely in the book to be used for adjudication.
Now I still PREFER GURPS and similar system over OD&D, AD&D 1st or the Majestic Wilderlands hybrid I been running. I like the detail, I like the fact that nearly all the characters features have a mechanical effect.
I now recognize that none of that necessary or important to running a good tabletop roleplaying campaign. It is just a personal preference. Important for personal enjoyment but that about it.
So when people go a game doesn't have blah or needs X or isn't a roleplaying game. I say bullshit, it just personal preference speaking.
The only thing required for a tabletop roleplaying campaign is the ability for the players to attempt anything their character can do with a human referee to adjudicating their action. The only mechanical requirement implied by this is that you have to describe what characters can do.
Everything else is personal preference.
Quote from: estar;757586That no longer accurate or true. As it turned out Gygax, Arneson and others put out newsletters and along with other written materials that survived in the hands of collectors. What make Jon Peterson work unique that he was able to find and read a lot of this. This due to the internet and sites that caters to collectors like the Acaeum.
Again you need to read Playing at the World. You may not agree with Peterson's conclusions but he lays it all out with footnotes referencing where he found his facts.
Read it. Im talking about things long before any of that. Like the reactions in fanzines to Braunsteins in the early 70s talking about how people had. already been playing those sorts of games in the 50s. Do a little digging, youll find obscure references to what are pbviously proto-rpgs spanning back to Victorian times & older. PatW is a great history of d&d, but thats not what Im referring to. Im referring to the points where wargames blurred the line with what we would now call rpgs. Even at the time D& D was first published it was still regarded as a variation of a wargame, the idea of rpgs as a separate hobby came later (& was probably largely due to wargamer snobbery all things considered). Anyways, if this isnt stuff you know about or have investigated on your own I can see why youd be confused.
nm
Quote from: ggroy;756309My main resistance to 5E is primarily to avoid jumping onto a new splatbook treadmill. It is largely to avoid wasting more time and money on being a "compulsive completionist" of 5E books.
In hindsight, I'm glad I was completely clueless and away on a long hiatus during the time when 3E and the d20 glut was in full force.
Resistance is futile honey.. configuration not compatibility is the deal.:)
For example,, I want to play a Bladeinger... (High Elf Bard.. war college subclass no multiclass needed unless I say so). It may get ridiculous otherwise..3e multiclmassing is so wrong.:)
Personally I will change it to 2e style quick. The Bard is ridiculously overpriced. I had to shutup as this poor girl on the WotC boards was whining her bard couldn't be in combat.... really? Seriously?
Bards are like Palidans in 5e, they have 2x attacks and swift spells.
Quote from: TristramEvans;757589Do a little digging, youll find obscure references to what are pbviously proto-rpgs spanning back to Victorian times & older.
Would those have any relation to the 'Toy Theaters' that were very popular back then, early 1800s on up to the 70s... people performing roles in plays, with paper figures, for their own amusement at home?
Quote from: Simlasa;757594Would those have any relation to the 'Toy Theaters' that were very popular back then, early 1800s on up to the 70s... people performing roles in plays, with paper figures, for their own amusement at home?
Not sure about that, but I'd recommend checking out Floor Games by H. G. Wells, which was written more than 100 years ago. Many people consider Wells one of the father's of miniature wargaming because of his book Little Wars. Floor Games compliments that book, and has rather more role-playing elements.
Here is a link to an HTML version of the text.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3690/3690-h/3690-h.htm (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3690/3690-h/3690-h.htm)
Quote from: Marleycat;757585I tend to to think positive about 5e though.:)
Im thinking positive of Next and well... not so positive of WOTC.
Quote from: Omega;757608Im thinking positive of Next and well... not so positive of WOTC.
Logical given they've screwed the pooch more then humanly possible. I just ignore it and promised myself just ONE more chance.
Quote from: Marleycat;757611Logical given they've screwed the pooch more then humanly possible. I just ignore it and promised myself just ONE more chance.
I;ll give WOTC a little slack though. They WANT movies and TV series out and currently cant. That problem is still out of their hands it seems.May be why there hasnt been any advertising too. But that last is more likely just WOTC's standard substandard handling.
Quote from: Marleycat;757611Logical given they've screwed the pooch more then humanly possible. I just ignore it and promised myself just ONE more chance.
Although they did ensure D&D didn'd disappear entirely when they took on the failing TSR and they also ensured through the OGL that there would always be a version of D&D in print no matter what happened to them as a company.
And they have decided to release the entire nww basic game as a free pdf...
So cut them some slack :)
Quote from: estar;757561Instead of Esstential or rather along with Esstential they should have launched books that explicitly supported alternative tropes. Dark Fantasy, Low Fantasy, Game of Thrones fantasy, etc, etc. They should have revamped organized play to where each seasons feature a new trope or subgenre. Get you audience to see the flexibility of the system and give them the support to use the game in the manner they see fit. There was too much "This is how fantasy ought to be" from Wizards during 4e.
They were starting to move in that direction--remember the announced 4E-based Ravenloft game that we were supposed to get in late 2011? But then they hit the "PANIC!" button and scrapped a whole bunch of products in order to get started on Next.
As someone who likes 4E, although actual play experience is thin, I think its lack of overwhelming success (I don't like the word 'failure' for a game that sold out its initial release and went through at least 8 printings of the Player's Handbook in 5 years :) ) was a combination of several factors:
- Doubling down on the 'brand identity' and 'core D&D experience' tropes that they'd been building since WotC took over and underestimating the desire for a game with broader applicability.
- At the same time, pushing things a little too far from the traditional D&D mythos--refreshing for those of us who were sick of the Greyhawk/Planescape Axis of Lawful Neutrality :), but problematic for those attached to it.
- The miniatures-centric focus of the game combined with the lack of widely and immediately available alternatives, creating the impression of a high cost barrier to entry.
- A stream of minor but continuous errata creating a sense of instability in the rules.
- An excessive focus on player option support in the first couple of years, with lackluster to dreadful adventures while Paizo was producing high-quality stuff.
- The existence of a competitor with previous edition compatability, a devoted fan base that felt alienated by WotC, high production values, and access to major distribution channels right out of the gate.
- An economic downturn just as the new edition was finding its feet.
- A fanbase ripe for fracturing and embitterment that created a narrative of "an MMO on tabletop" and similar things that the game never managed to fully recover from.
Quote from: estar;757577The Underworld and Wilderness Adventure had
The Underworld (i.e. the Dungeon)
How to place monsters & treasures
How to adjudicate movement in the Underworld.
Monster by Level Table
Avoiding Monsters
The Wilderness
Wandering Monsters in Wildernesses
Evading Monsters
Constructing Castles and Strongholds
Hiring Specialists and Men at Arms
Using Rumors and Legends
What the PCs has to do to support themselves
Baronies
Land Combat
Aerial Combat
Naval Combat
Aquatic Monsters
Healing
Game Time
I really hope 5E has sections on Avoiding and Evading Monsters - ideally, in the PHB. It opens up so much scope for sandbox play, and puts the responsibility for PC survival squarely in the hands of the players.
Quote from: TristramEvans;757589Anyways, if this isnt stuff you know about or have investigated on your own I can see why youd be confused.
I aware of it, it just not relevant to the initial development of Braustein or Blackmoor and hence D&D. Which D&D broaden it reaches beyond early 70s miniature gaming community the earlier forms of roleplaying got mixed in.
With Welsey, Arneson, and Gygax it is clear what influenced them when you have all their letters, zines, and newletters laid out in front of you. The main surprise for me was the importance of Diplomacy to the development of roleplaying. And the development of the campaign.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;757633As someone who likes 4E, although actual play experience is thin, I think its lack of overwhelming success (I don't like the word 'failure' for a game that sold out its initial release and went through at least 8 printings of the Player's Handbook in 5 years :) ) was a combination of several factors:
- Doubling down on the 'brand identity' and 'core D&D experience' tropes that they'd been building since WotC took over and underestimating the desire for a game with broader applicability.
- At the same time, pushing things a little too far from the traditional D&D mythos--refreshing for those of us who were sick of the Greyhawk/Planescape Axis of Lawful Neutrality :), but problematic for those attached to it.
- The miniatures-centric focus of the game combined with the lack of widely and immediately available alternatives, creating the impression of a high cost barrier to entry.
- A stream of minor but continuous errata creating a sense of instability in the rules.
- An excessive focus on player option support in the first couple of years, with lackluster to dreadful adventures while Paizo was producing high-quality stuff.
- The existence of a competitor with previous edition compatability, a devoted fan base that felt alienated by WotC, high production values, and access to major distribution channels right out of the gate.
- An economic downturn just as the new edition was finding its feet.
- A fanbase ripe for fracturing and embitterment that created a narrative of "an MMO on tabletop" and similar things that the game never managed to fully recover from.
Good list. I'd add:
- A system-up design approach, which underestimated how much 'feel' really does matter to a game with as long a history as D&D. I can see how the complaints that it's D&D for people who never liked D&D before are sometimes warranted.
Quote from: Haffrung;757648I really hope 5E has sections on Avoiding and Evading Monsters - ideally, in the PHB. It opens up so much scope for sandbox play, and puts the responsibility for PC survival squarely in the hands of the players.
And if it doesn't? Are you going to be able to handle players who want to evade or avoid monsters?
I am asking these question because your question is framed in the way that reflects the most problematic aspect of today's hobby. The idea that if the rule mechanics doesn't exist the character can't do something.
Gamers need to hammered on the head that the first rule of tabletop RPGs is that players can attempt anything their character can do. The rules are just an aide to the adjudication of what the player are attempting to do not the focus like they are in a board game or wargame.
Now as for D&D 5e, the interrim rules distributed with the modules do not have specific mechanics for evasion or avoidance. What the rules do have a section with mechanics on Encountering Creatures and advice that includes avoidance as an option. It success depends on the circumstances of the encounter.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;757633- An excessive focus on player option support in the first couple of years, with lackluster to dreadful adventures while Paizo was producing high-quality stuff.
I thought the only WotC 4E module that seemed ok was Thunderspire Labyrinth. The others seemed kinda bland and generic.
At the time when I was DMing 4E, I was using some stuff from the Pathfinder APs and modules, which were relatively easy to adapt to 4E at lower levels.
Quote from: estar;757651And if it doesn't? Are you going to be able to handle players who want to evade or avoid monsters?
I am asking these question because your question is framed in the way that reflects the most problematic aspect of today's hobby. The idea that if the rule mechanics doesn't exist the character can't do something.
My players are fine with evasion and avoidance. I'm more concerned about the default play culture and how it will affect published material. From comments in the Q&As, it sounds like the initial adventures will take an old-school approach, where there are encounters that PCs will simply have to avoid or flee from. That's good to hear. But if this proves baffling to players accustomed to 3E and 4E, and we get all sorts of reports of TPKs and 'broken' dungeon design, that could hurt the reception of 5E, and maybe push WotC back into an encountardized balance uber alles approach. Which would be a shame. So better that WotC be explicit about avoiding encounters right in the PHB to prepare gamers for that approach to play. Because for better or worse, there is a very large portion of the player base who assume all encounters are supposed to be beatable at-level.
Quote from: TristramEvans;757589Read it. Im talking about things long before any of that. Like the reactions in fanzines to Braunsteins in the early 70s talking about how people had. already been playing those sorts of games in the 50s. Do a little digging, youll find obscure references to what are pbviously proto-rpgs spanning back to Victorian times & older. PatW is a great history of d&d, but thats not what Im referring to. Im referring to the points where wargames blurred the line with what we would now call rpgs. Even at the time D& D was first published it was still regarded as a variation of a wargame, the idea of rpgs as a separate hobby came later (& was probably largely due to wargamer snobbery all things considered). Anyways, if this isnt stuff you know about or have investigated on your own I can see why youd be confused.
Off the top of my head (some already mentioned here):
Postal Diplomacy
Midgard II
Some of Tony Bath's stuff, perhaps (Hyboria)
HG Wells Floor Games
Bronte sisters imaginative world-building
1st-person-perspective military wargaming (Map Maneuvers and Tactical Rides, discussed on my blog)
(Korns War in Miniature?)
Poli-sci/RAND-type Cold War exercises
Is there anything I'm missing? Because I'm intrigued by your report of fanzine discussion but I can't think of much that specifically matches that description.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;757633As someone who likes 4E, although actual play experience is thin, I think its lack of overwhelming success (I don't like the word 'failure' for a game that sold out its initial release and went through at least 8 printings of the Player's Handbook in 5 years :) ) was a combination of several factors:
I think there was at least one more issue: length of combat. One of the complaints I saw a lot of about 3.x was "combat takes too long". WOTC seemed to ignore that complaint in designing 4e, apparently (from what I remember reading) deciding that most of the people saying that really did not mean they wanted short combats, but rather were fine with long combats as long as they were not spending a lot of time waiting for other people to take turns (i.e. they had more stuff to do in combat). Unfortunately, it seems like a lot of people really did mean they wanted much shorter combats.
WOTC designers apparently still did not get this even in the early stages of 5e design because they expressed surprise at at very positive reaction to the much shorter combat times in early playtests. From an interview with Mike Mearls (http://amazingstoriesmag.com/2013/03/interview-with-a-wizard-mike-mearls/) in Amazing Stories in early 2013:
QuoteWhat we found through the playtest process, though, was that people like quick fights. They like them a lot, it turns out. A battle is part of the game, a point of resolution in the grander scheme of things, not the entire point of the game. That kind of philosophical revelation has been really big for us in working on the game. We might've ended up spending weeks adding detail to the combat system, never realizing that the typical D&D player simply wasn't interested in that level of detail.
Quote from: Haffrung;757653My players are fine with evasion and avoidance. I'm more concerned about the default play culture and how it will affect published material.
The only solution to that is to vary what presented each season or product cycle. Don't stop at the corebook demonstrate it in your supplements and adventures.
I think Pathfinder has a particular feel but to Pazio credits they vary where their adventures paths are place and their choices of fantasy tropes to incorporate.
Quote from: Haffrung;757653From comments in the Q&As, it sounds like the initial adventures will take an old-school approach, where there are encounters that PCs will simply have to avoid or flee from. That's good to hear. But if this proves baffling to players accustomed to 3E and 4E, and we get all sorts of reports of TPKs and 'broken' dungeon design, that could hurt the reception of 5E, and maybe push them back into an encountardized balance uber alles approach. Which would be a shame. So better that WotC be explicit about avoiding encounters right in the PHB to prepare gamers for that approach to play. Because for better or worse, there is a very large portion of the player base who assume all encounters are supposed to be beatable at-level.
I am more encouraged by the fact that organized play will have its own booklet. I hope means that recognizes that organized play has it own particular requirements over home campaigns.
Quote from: RandallS;757656I he complaints I saw a lot of about 3.x was "combat takes too long". WOTC seemed to ignore that complaint in designing 4e, apparently (from what I remember reading) d
4e combat took as long as combat in GURPS with all the options. And that no mean feat.
It got to the point where when I played a four hour convention game I could predict exactly how the session would flow.
Initial Roleplaying
First Combat
Interim Roleplaying
Second Combat
Wrapup Roleplaying
Quote from: RandallS;757656I think there was at least one more issue: length of combat. One of the complaints I saw a lot of about 3.x was "combat takes too long". WOTC seemed to ignore that complaint in designing 4e, apparently (from what I remember reading) deciding that most of the people saying that really did not mean they wanted short combats, but rather were fine with long combats as long as they were not spending a lot of time waiting for other people to take turns (i.e. they had more stuff to do in combat). Unfortunately, it seems like a lot of people really did mean they wanted much shorter combats.
This was the main thing that was really annoying as one went up in levels.
If I were to ever DM a 4E game again, I would stop at around level 3 or 4. After level 5 or so, combat was just taking too long.
Quote from: ggroy;757659This was the main thing that was really annoying as one went up in levels.
If I were to ever DM a 4E game again, I would stop at around level 3 or 4. After level 5 or so, combat was just taking too long.
4E combat was too long in my opinion, but it's really due to the HP and damage output being designed around that horrid '5 battles before long rest' concept.
If you halve everything's HP, pc and monster, and double everything's damage output, and ban the few overpowered cheesy builds, its much better.
That being said, I suspect 5E will make 4E obsolete.
Quote from: RandallS;757656I think there was at least one more issue: length of combat. One of the complaints I saw a lot of about 3.x was "combat takes too long". WOTC seemed to ignore that complaint in designing 4e, apparently (from what I remember reading) deciding that most of the people saying that really did not mean they wanted short combats, but rather were fine with long combats as long as they were not spending a lot of time waiting for other people to take turns (i.e. they had more stuff to do in combat). Unfortunately, it seems like a lot of people really did mean they wanted much shorter combats.
WOTC designers apparently still did not get this even in the early stages of 5e design because they expressed surprise at at very positive reaction to the much shorter combat times in early playtests. From an interview with Mike Mearls (http://amazingstoriesmag.com/2013/03/interview-with-a-wizard-mike-mearls/) in Amazing Stories in early 2013:
Really? My bad I forgot if it fits with your ideals of course it's true.
Lets just not mention that mearls hires 'old school consultants' then announces wow looks like everyone does want to play this way, how prophetic of him....
Quote from: Marleycat;757562See what I mean? Was is that hard to define? Ok, now convince me 4e is nothing beyond a modernized tactical skirmish game again? Go on please, I'll be here.
Why, you wont change your mind.
Quote from: RandallS;757656I think there was at least one more issue: length of combat. One of the complaints I saw a lot of about 3.x was "combat takes too long". WOTC seemed to ignore that complaint in designing 4e, apparently (from what I remember reading) deciding that most of the people saying that really did not mean they wanted short combats, but rather were fine with long combats as long as they were not spending a lot of time waiting for other people to take turns (i.e. they had more stuff to do in combat). Unfortunately, it seems like a lot of people really did mean they wanted much shorter combats.
Good point. 3E had long and disproportionate combats, where the druid could reportedly take up as much time as everyone else put together. 4E was much more evenly proportioned, but still long.
QuoteWOTC designers apparently still did not get this even in the early stages of 5e design because they expressed surprise at at very positive reaction to the much shorter combat times in early playtests. From an interview with Mike Mearls (http://amazingstoriesmag.com/2013/03/interview-with-a-wizard-mike-mearls/) in Amazing Stories in early 2013:
Bear in mind, Mearls really made his name in the industry with Iron Heroes, and apprenticed under Monte Cook, who came from an Iron Crown background. I'm not surprised that a heavy focus on combat and magic was part of that, and given the other factors--miniatures use and the HP model of D&D combat (with a reduced emphasis on sudden death)--I see where the longer combat came from.
Quote from: Bill;757662That being said, I suspect 5E will make 4E obsolete.
I wouldn't count on it. 5E is probably going to be a more accessible and less focused system than 4E, although I think 4E's accessibility problems have more to do with a mix of presentation and legacy elements than the design itself. But unless those modules in the DMG are really robust, 5E won't do the same kind of things as 4E, so I expect a lot of people who like 4E will hang on it for its own purposes even if they also adopt 5E.
D&D 5e looks ok from what I've seen. What do 4e players think of it though?
Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;757725D&D 5e looks ok from what I've seen. What do 4e players think of it though?
Varied reactions. Depends on how into 4e they were.
Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;757725D&D 5e looks ok from what I've seen. What do 4e players think of it though?
I am a 4E player; played and ran campaigns for 4-5 years.
5E looks better to me, but I need a closer look to be sure.
Then again, I did about half of my 4e gridless and without minis.
And I like 1E better. Still had tons of fun with 4E.
Quote from: Bill;7576624E combat was too long in my opinion, but it's really due to the HP and damage output being designed around that horrid '5 battles before long rest' concept.
If you halve everything's HP, pc and monster, and double everything's damage output, and ban the few overpowered cheesy builds, its much better.
That being said, I suspect 5E will make 4E obsolete.
If OD&D's still not obsolete, I don't imagine 4e's about to be either.
Quote from: LibraryLass;757741If OD&D's still not obsolete, I don't imagine 4e's about to be either.
Not for everyone, but probably for me. I will only play 4E when friends demand it. I find it very hard to get people to play 1E but it's all too easy to get people to play pathfinder and 4e. Blah.
Quote from: estar;757658Initial Roleplaying
First Combat
Interim Roleplaying
Second Combat
Wrapup Roleplaying
You managed two combats in four hours? Damn, good on you!
Quote from: Bill;7576624E combat was too long in my opinion, but it's really due to the HP and damage output being designed around that horrid '5 battles before long rest' concept.
I dunno, the biggest slowdown I saw was just *how damn long* everyone's turn took, which then snowballed as people zoned out, making their turns take even longer.
I mean, there's two factors to combat length, right? Number of turns to resolve combat, and the length of each turn. Practically, your suggestion makes sense, but if I was starting from scratch I'd probably focus more on shortening the turns, as that can become (easily) ten minutes where a given player is just bored.
In TSR-era D&D, how long does a typical turn take? A few seconds? I was seeing multiple minute turns in 4e on a regular basis. Even GURPS turns were quicker, GURPS combat just took so long because the number of turns to resolve things was pretty high.
Quote from: robiswrong;757743You managed two combats in four hours? Damn, good on you!
I dunno, the biggest slowdown I saw was just *how damn long* everyone's turn took, which then snowballed as people zoned out, making their turns take even longer.
I mean, there's two factors to combat length, right? Number of turns to resolve combat, and the length of each turn. Practically, your suggestion makes sense, but if I was starting from scratch I'd probably focus more on shortening the turns, as that can become (easily) ten minutes where a given player is just bored.
In TSR-era D&D, how long does a typical turn take? A few seconds? I was seeing multiple minute turns in 4e on a regular basis. Even GURPS turns were quicker, GURPS combat just took so long because the number of turns to resolve things was pretty high.
4E has a lot going on depending on the particular characters. Lots of interupty actions off turn, statuses to track 'until someones next turn or until a save is made', and a core design that assumes combat takes quite a few rounds (Healing is nearly a bottomless well in many cases).
I agree it helps a ton if players know their own character abilities (should be obvious, but nooooo. Soooo difficult to be prepared when its your turn :)
But the core design is really not quick enough, and I have experimented with the 1/2 hp x2 damage and it feels so much better. Especially for a Dark Sun/ Conanish setting.
In five years 4E will be a cult game. Not a lot of people playing it, but very dedicated fans. The lack of any other RPGs out there that do the same thing is what will keep it alive in the long run.
Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;757725D&D 5e looks ok from what I've seen. What do 4e players think of it though?
Ran several 4e campaigns, including my best D&D campaign to date. In my circles we still appreciate the fun we had, but we have to admit we burned out on the complexity and length of combat, especially as more and more real life intruded. Our reaction to 3e/Pathfinder is similar. Most of us are eager to try a much lighter system.
I mean, we'll play 4e or Pathfinder if it's the only game in town, but our feet will drag a little.
I suspect our reaction is much more common than 4vengers and paizo fanatics realize, and WotC might have calculated for that.
I think the biggest issue with 4e is that to move at any speed, everyone has to REALLY know what is going on in combat, and have down their character sheets.
Also, certain party setups would make things slow down even more. A party with 2 "defenders", 2 "leaders", and 1 "controller" would turtle down and make combat take forever. Replace 1 defender and 1 leader with 2 strikers and the whole game speeds up tremendously.
I played with a group that really really had it down, and we could finish a decent sized combat in 30min-hour.
Its a good game for what it is (an rpg with a strong tactical grid based combat), but that isn't what a lot of people want, and it especially isn't what a lot of people want out of D&D.
(I still think that the core of the game could make an excellent XCOM game though)
Quote from: Emperor Norton;757763(I still think that the core of the game could make an excellent XCOM game though)
A crying shame that X-Crawl never got done in 4e, that's what the damn thing would be perfect for. I'd play the hell out of that bitch.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;757763Its a good game for what it is (an rpg with a strong tactical grid based combat), but that isn't what a lot of people want, and it especially isn't what a lot of people want out of D&D.
I don't dislike 4e, and I generally agree with your assessment.
I also think there's an issue with 4e of things just not working like previous editions - healing being limited by surges, saving throws meaning something utterly different, damage and hit point ranges not really being comparable, etc. It was kinda like things looked like D&D until they took this weird left turn and you found yourself going "okay, I don't understand this", which is much worse than something that's just utterly foreign in the first place - kind of the uncanny valley effect.
It also didn't help that a lot of 3.x fans *really really* like the charop subgame, and 4e took pains to significantly downplay that part of it.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;757328...
We hold these truths to be self-evident,
...
Hilarious! (and awesome).
Quote from: CRKrueger;757471Well done, the saddest part is 95% percent of the US couldn't tell you what document that is, or have the vocabulary to explain it.
It's the amendment, yes?
Quote from: jibbajibba;757617Although they did ensure D&D didn'd disappear entirely when they took on the failing TSR and they also ensured through the OGL that there would always be a version of D&D in print no matter what happened to them as a company.
And they have decided to release the entire nww basic game as a free pdf...
So cut them some slack :)
Well said. I can forgive one utterly shit edition, on balance.
Quote from: trechriron;757772Hilarious! (and awesome).
It's the amendment, yes?
...Point proven.
It's the Declaration of Independence.
Quote from: Fiasco;757773Well said. I can forgive one utterly shit edition, on balance.
5hit Edition?
Quote from: LibraryLass;757774...Point proven.
It's the Declaration of Independence.
Ouch...that hurt...
Yeah, my HS classes tend to think all quotes come from the Constitution, and don't seem to realize the Bill of Rights is part of a larger document. Of greater concern, most of them don't know what's in the 1st amendment. They certainly don't understand how "free speech" actually works, and when it comes to the 2nd amendment, well...I live in Texas. 'Nuff said?
Quote from: LibraryLass;757774...Point proven.
It's the Declaration of Independence.
I think that was a joke.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;757780I think that was a joke.
Maybe. Sarcasm can be hard to catch in text. Sorry, Trech!
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;757780I think that was a joke.
Maybe. When Trechriron is in 'comedian' mode there's usually a lot more 'Fuck' and references to 'boobies.'
Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;757725D&D 5e looks ok from what I've seen. What do 4e players think of it though?
From the editing, writing style, and layout - except for the 3e'ish looking tables - 5e looks to me like 4.Essentials parred down. So if, like me, you regretted the step from 4.0 to 4.Essentials class and rules design, the overall direction is not too great. But it's certainly not as disappointing as losing an edition you like (4.0) half way through its development cycle (ca. 2011).
Which isn't to say 5e can't be a great game in its own right. It looks neat, I just haven't heard compelling reasons as to which need exactly it serves, and why it's significantly better than 4.0 or WhiteBox Swords&Wizardry. I look forward to reviews etc in the fall, and as stated previously am likely in the customer target group of 5e adventures if they convert well to 4.0 and are worth their time.
Quote from: Sommerjon;757665Really? My bad I forgot if it fits with your ideals of course it's true.
Lets just not mention that mearls hires 'old school consultants' then announces wow looks like everyone does want to play this way, how prophetic of him....
Combats took too fucking long, dude. Been true since 3E and 4E made it even worse. Sure some people really love the in depth tactical chessboard approach but most don't or at least not all the time.
Quote from: Windjammer;757849Which isn't to say 5e can't be a great game in its own right. It looks neat, I just haven't heard compelling reasons as to which need exactly it serves, and why it's significantly better than 4.0 or WhiteBox Swords&Wizardry. I look forward to reviews etc in the fall, and as stated previously am likely in the customer target group of 5e adventures if they convert well to 4.0 and are worth their time.
Well first off a game is a game, it can better or worse in terms of presentation or clarity but for the game it a matter of personal preference whether it is "better" or a gamer.
It not like technology where better means faster, smaller, cheaper, or more functional. At best progress in gaming means there are no more choices in designing a game. Wether a particular choice is "better" depends on what you are trying to do with the game.
So what is Wizards trying to do with D&D 5e? I believe that it is to offer a version of D&D where the core is quick to learn and allows for the action to be quickly to be resolved. But still has enough option so that not all characters of a particular type are the same. I believe they are not going to focus on the rules as they did with 3.X and 4 e. Instead focus more on adventures and the experience of playing D&D.
For that the 5e rules are better than 4e and 3e as they can fade easier into the background rather be front and center.
Quote from: estar;757875So what is Wizards trying to do with D&D 5e? I believe that it is to offer a version of D&D where the core is quick to learn and allows for the action to be quickly to be resolved. But still has enough option so that not all characters of a particular type are the same. I believe they are not going to focus on the rules as they did with 3.X and 4 e. Instead focus more on adventures and the experience of playing D&D.
For that the 5e rules are better than 4e and 3e as they can fade easier into the background rather be front and center.
This. I would expect to see a great deal of modularity and options in additional supplements, a la 2E. The "Basic" version of the game will be released for free in .pdf form, and you can supposedly use just that, if you want, forever. That's what they announced, anyway.
Quote from: cranebump;757889I would expect to see a great deal of modularity and options in additional supplements, a la 2E. The "Basic" version of the game will be released for free in .pdf form, and you can supposedly use just that, if you want, forever. That's what they announced, anyway.
That has me wondering if, a year or so from now, I might have the Basic and like 5e on that level... but still be shut out of being on board because the majority of groups are going to just pick up the core books and turn all the options on.
So I'll have a modern 'official' version of D&D I want to play... but the same narrow trough of willing players to pull from as I have with other, more obscure games. I'll be in... but still out. MY D&D still won't be 'real' D&D to most Players.
Not that that is something that actually worries me or that I see as a mark against 5e.
I suppose it could be the Big Tent by having a lot of smaller tents under it... but are they all going to be throwing their poo at each other?
Quote from: Simlasa;757909That has me wondering if, a year or so from now, I might have the Basic and like 5e on that level... but still be shut out of being on board because the majority of groups are going to just pick up the core books and turn all the options on.
So I'll have a modern 'official' version of D&D I want to play... but the same narrow trough of willing players to pull from as I have with other, more obscure games. I'll be in... but still out. MY D&D still won't be 'real' D&D to most Players.
Not that that is something that actually worries me or that I see as a mark against 5e.
I suppose it could be the Big Tent by having a lot of smaller tents under it... but are they all going to be throwing their poo at each other?
The way I view it is fuck player expectations but don't be a dick about it.
The hobby would a lot better off if everybody realizes that rules are just the tools to use to implement somebody idea for a campaign. That the part they should praise or bitch about is not the rules but the campaigns and adventures being run.
A good campaign/adventure will redeem a bad set of rules.
A good set of rules will never redeem a bad campaign/adventure.
Quote from: robiswrong;757769It also didn't help that a lot of 3.x fans *really really* like the charop subgame, and 4e took pains to significantly downplay that part of it.
They banked on the same addictive features baked into Magic and it backfired...
I'm a dyed-in-the-wool old-schooler, and I see lots of things in 5e that might just pull me away from the Rules Cyclopedia.
I really like bounded accuracy. The numbers get seriously, disturbingly, laughably out of whack in 3e and 4e, but they can also come quite close to broken in high-level TSR D&D. I'm hoping that 5e keeps everything well within the range of a d20 roll. And I really, really want low-level monsters to stay relevant as threats to high-level PCs! I want to keep orcs in the story without having to go through the trouble of building 10th level orc warriors.
I really like how spells are shaping up in 5e. Honestly, this is the area where 5e really has something to offer me that OD&D doesn't. I like the concentration and attunement mechanics. I really like the idea of an HP threshold on save-or-suck-it spells. I adore 5e's take on vancian magic, where you memorize a small repertoire of spells and then use the spells-per-day slots like differently-leveled-MPs for casting (and scaling the effect) on the fly.
I'm quite fond of the notion that I can play this game with or without feats; and that if I do allow my players to select feats, I can trust that they'll be big and impactful and not just some piddly little +2 modifier to something that we all now have to know about and keep track of, buried away in an index of a thousand similarly meaningless little widgets.
But trumping all of that by a league and more as the crow flies, the vindication is just oh so sweet. When 4th edition came out and WotC's hamfisted marketing pissed off so many people by brazenly insulting the players of all the earlier editions up through 3rd, I wrote a post on EN World predicting that when 5th edition finally came out, the backlash against 4th edition and its bizarre innovations would be extreme. And here we are. New Coke is dead, long live Coca-Cola Classic.
5th edition heralds the end of "agenda-driven" game design infecting D&D. All of the fanboys over at TBP and WizCom who like their D&D to be niche and narrow get to watch helplessly while their fine-tuned, small-tent wargame shrivels and dies on the branch. Best of all, in a few month's time, the current D&D will be a game that these people consider backwards and retrograde. I sense an enormous tension within the faction of 4e-diehards (are they still called "4vengers"?) between the love of their progressive, innovative, gamist-agenda edition and the and the smug need to belong to the current in-crowd. When 5e comes out and this tension is forced to snap, my schadenfreude will be boundless.
Quote from: Simlasa;757909That has me wondering if, a year or so from now, I might have the Basic and like 5e on that level... but still be shut out of being on board because the majority of groups are going to just pick up the core books and turn all the options on.
So I'll have a modern 'official' version of D&D I want to play... but the same narrow trough of willing players to pull from as I have with other, more obscure games. I'll be in... but still out. MY D&D still won't be 'real' D&D to most Players.
Not that that is something that actually worries me or that I see as a mark against 5e.
I suppose it could be the Big Tent by having a lot of smaller tents under it... but are they all going to be throwing their poo at each other?
You will be fine because IF 5e is successful in it's goal to be configurable it's all about the particular campaign, It will work alot like 2e or Fantasycraft the DM will just say we are running BASIC and players will buy in if your campaign is any good. Or she'll say we are running with these options on like feats but no multiclassing or multiclassing but no feats or any number of configurations (like 2e or FC you can't have all the options in use).
If 5e is successful likely you'll have a player or three with the PHB and you will get a chance to look at the other options or subclasses and say "hey I like that one it's in" or maybe they even have the DMG and then you see if you'd like to alter the baseline (like running low magic, or old style healing etc). There will be workarounds to keep you current and in the loop if you want to be.
Quote from: Simlasa;757909That has me wondering if, a year or so from now, I might have the Basic and like 5e on that level... but still be shut out of being on board because the majority of groups are going to just pick up the core books and turn all the options on.
So I'll have a modern 'official' version of D&D I want to play... but the same narrow trough of willing players to pull from as I have with other, more obscure games. I'll be in... but still out. MY D&D still won't be 'real' D&D to most Players.
Not that that is something that actually worries me or that I see as a mark against 5e.
Possible. I'm given to understand that it happened to some degree in the 80s, with the split between Basic and Advanced. That was before my time, though, and the two games grew a lot closer together in the post-Gygax era (2nd Edition backed off of the 'all rules are official and must be adhered to' philosophy, and BECMI included a bunch of optional expansions.)
This may be undercut, however, if WotC stays true to their goal of 'modules will be designed using Basic as the baseline', at least for major releases and organized play. Specific settings may default to some or many options turned on, but for the first time in nearly 20 years, they may make the game's customizability a selling point. (It was back in the late TSR days. I have documentation. :) )
QuoteI suppose it could be the Big Tent by having a lot of smaller tents under it... but are they all going to be throwing their poo at each other?
Well, if John Quixote's post is any indication ... I dread the transformation of a nasty segment of the OSR into 5atanists.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;757931Well, if John Quixote's post is any indication ... I dread the transformation of a nasty segment of the OSR into 5atanists.
"5atanists". I like that. But I do feel the need to clarify that I'm not being pro-5e so much as I'm being anti-4e. It really must be understood that my entire post is coming from the perspective of a 100% negative, partisan, ideologue 4bortion h4ter.
From the Origins panel on D&D 5e:
There is a sidebar on THAC0 in the DMG.
The DMG is sort of a hackers guide to the game, how to tweak it to match the game you want.
Quote from: Mistwell;757945From the Origins panel on D&D 5e:
There is a sidebar on THAC0 in the DMG.
The DMG is sort of a hackers guide to the game, how to tweak it to match the game you want.
I just cross posted the whole thread here in it's own topic so people could look it over without it getting lost in this thread.
Quote from: Mistwell;757945The DMG is sort of a hackers guide to the game, how to tweak it to match the game you want.
THAT description goes a long way to selling me on buying the book I had no intention of buying.
If 5e actually ends up being as modular/customizable as you're making it sound... that would be pretty cool. It's one of the many things I like about BRP as well.
Quote from: Fiasco;757856Combats took too fucking long, dude. Been true since 3E and 4E made it even worse. Sure some people really love the in depth tactical chessboard approach but most don't or at least not all the time.
Well guess what genius when you have escalating AC and Hitpoints without corresponding damage to match, combats will take longer. Doesn't matter if it is 1e or 4e.
Quote from: robiswrong;757743You managed two combats in four hours? Damn, good on you!
In TSR-era D&D, how long does a typical turn take? A few seconds? I was seeing multiple minute turns in 4e on a regular basis. Even GURPS turns were quicker, GURPS combat just took so long because the number of turns to resolve things was pretty high.
Shit. Two combats in four hours is impressive?
In OD&D I run a turn in a minute or two, and typically have four to five combats per hour in the dungeon.
Sounds like a SWAT team doing room clearance drills.
Quote from: Old Geezer;758046Shit. Two combats in four hours is impressive?
In OD&D I run a turn in a minute or two, and typically have four to five combats per hour in the dungeon.
Yep, in many systems that's viable. Not so much in D&D 3/4.
Quote from: robiswrong;758066Yep, in many systems that's viable. Not so much in D&D 3/4.
Or Earthdawn... neat setting but damn, those combats could eat up entire sessions. Pathfinder feels alot faster in comparison... though we're still relatively low level, maybe the kludge is yet to come.
Quote from: Old Geezer;758046Shit. Two combats in four hours is impressive?
In OD&D I run a turn in a minute or two, and typically have four to five combats per hour in the dungeon.
It's worth noting that one approach isn't any more combat-intensive than the other. Two 90-minute combats in a four hour session is the same amount of time spent in combat as a session with 18 10-minute combats.
Quote from: Haffrung;758149It's worth noting that one approach isn't any more combat-intensive than the other. Two 90-minute combats in a four hour session is the same amount of time spent in combat as a session with 18 10-minute combats.
Except that instead of 18 combats you could have had 2 and then done some other fun stuff as well... where the longer combats just eat up the entire session.
One plus is that 90 minute combats would have me avoiding fights unless absolutely necessary.
Quote from: Simlasa;758156Except that instead of 18 combats you could have had 2 and then done some other fun stuff as well... where the longer combats just eat up the entire session.
One plus is that 90 minute combats would have me avoiding fights unless absolutely necessary.
90 minute combats just bore me. Give me 18 ten minute combats any day so I can actually do the other stuff in the game that actually interests me.
Quote from: Haffrung;758149It's worth noting that one approach isn't any more combat-intensive than the other. Two 90-minute combats in a four hour session is the same amount of time spent in combat as a session with 18 10-minute combats.
You get more accomplished in the latter than the former.
Quote from: Haffrung;758149It's worth noting that one approach isn't any more combat-intensive than the other. Two 90-minute combats in a four hour session is the same amount of time spent in combat as a session with 18 10-minute combats.
Yes and no. Typically with a single long combat encounter, each person's turn also is much longer than a quicker battle. And when each person's turn is longer, there is longer time between turns. It sucks if you're sitting there for five minutes just waiting for your turn. That's how crosstalk and internet browsing during the game become problems.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;758168Yes and no. Typically with a single long combat encounter, each person's turn also is much longer than a quicker battle. And when each person's turn is longer, there is longer time between turns. It sucks if you're sitting there for five minutes just waiting for your turn. That's how crosstalk and internet browsing during the game become problems.
Exactly. Short combats where everyone can more or less stay involved the entire time are preferable to me.
Also, its easier to run games in their time slots with shorter combats. When running 4E I remember having to end sessions 30 or more minutes early if a fight were about to happen because I knew we wouldn't have time to resolve it.
Systems with quick resolution are more flexible with regard to combat/non-combat play mix. If the PCs were about to enter a combat with 30 minutes to go in B/X, we could resolve it before the end of the session instead of stopping short.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;758259When running 4E I remember having to end sessions 30 or more minutes early if a fight were about to happen because I knew we wouldn't have time to resolve it.
Yeah, I've seen that a lot with our Earthdawn and Pathfinder games. Not so bad though because it ends up feeling like a cliffhanger and you know the next session is going to start off with a bang (a slow motion bang).
Quote from: Sommerjon;758032Well guess what genius when you have escalating AC and Hitpoints without corresponding damage to match, combats will take longer. Doesn't matter if it is 1e or 4e.
No shit Sherlock, but so does adding tons of extra rules and then welding the whole mess to a grid. Combats have been getting slower since 1E and 4E managed to be even worse than 3E or PF in that regard. On top of all the finicky movement rules and combat options they added those shitty little conditions and markers to keep track of. WOTC massively misread the market and I'm hopefull that 5E goes some way to redressing the balance.
I'm currently playing in a high level PF game and combats can be very long and painful due to the complexity. Thank god the party is generally open to non combat solutions.
Quote from: Haffrung;757011You mean different from how a bunch of circle-jerks on the internet have defined old-school D&D in the last six or seven years.
Sadly, this was largely true for a very long time. However, as the OSR has expanded, its become less true, because more and more people are co-opting it to broaden the horizon beyond "a very specific style we want to imagine was the only way anyone played in the 70s and early 80s".
QuoteAnd that sums up the issue my issue with the OSR. It's not just a bunch of guys describing how they play D&D, or played back in the day. To folks like you, it's a fundamentalist revival with prophets and holy tomes, catechisms and commandments. You're not sharing your enthusiasm for how you played D&D - you're in the grips of a born-again conversion. A bunch of grognards read forum comments by Gygax, Menzter, and sundry hangers-on from a hobby clique 40 years ago, and distilled those comments into the True Ways of Yore. And now you denounce watered-down versions of old-school play.
True, to some people in the OSR. But that's why I want to distinguish between Old-School in general and the extremists. Not everyone is trying to read the tea-leaves from Gary Gygax's old mug-stains. Some people are instead saying that there's not just one style, there's a whole spectrum of what was Old-School, and a lot of it is about making use of certain mechanics while avoiding certain others; the big tent that invites new variations of classic concepts, and not a tiny limited club for retrograde holdouts of the one true faith.
RPGPundit
Quote from: Fiasco;758388No shit Sherlock, but so does adding tons of extra rules and then welding the whole mess to a grid. Combats have been getting slower since 1E and 4E managed to be even worse than 3E or PF in that regard. On top of all the finicky movement rules and combat options they added those shitty little conditions and markers to keep track of. WOTC massively misread the market and I'm hopefull that 5E goes some way to redressing the balance.
I'm currently playing in a high level PF game and combats can be very long and painful due to the complexity. Thank god the party is generally open to non combat solutions.
Guess what. The kids nowadays aren't you. They have grown up in a mass media environment. Full of video games, computers games, apps, etc. The morons of 5e are fucking deluding themselves if they think these kids are going to be interested in a game where the whole character fits on a business card.
Quote from: Sommerjon;758438Guess what. The kids nowadays aren't you. They have grown up in a mass media environment. Full of video games, computers games, apps, etc. The morons of 5e are fucking deluding themselves if they think these kids are going to be interested in a game where the whole character fits on a business card.
My daughter would. But then again she plays and has imagination. So simple is better for her. We can nerdify her in due time.
Quote from: Sommerjon;758438Guess what. The kids nowadays aren't you. They have grown up in a mass media environment. Full of video games, computers games, apps, etc. The morons of 5e are fucking deluding themselves if they think these kids are going to be interested in a game where the whole character fits on a business card.
Hang on, are you arguing that because kids have grown up in a culture of instant gratification via mass media they would pick a more complex, longer, more abstracted game over a less complex one? That's... counterintuitive.
Quote from: Sommerjon;758438Guess what. The kids nowadays aren't you. They have grown up in a mass media environment. Full of video games, computers games, apps, etc. The morons of 5e are fucking deluding themselves if they think these kids are going to be interested in a game where the whole character fits on a business card.
Actually in my current game where all the players are in their 20s avid computer game fans who have only played RPGs with me.... the characters all fit on little post-it notes.
Strength:
Warfare:
Endurance:
Psyche:
Powers : 1 or 2 powers per PC
Noted Skills: 1 or 2 skills per PC
Items: Most PCs have an item or 2 one has 3
Quote from: smiorgan;758453Hang on, are you arguing that because kids have grown up in a culture of instant gratification via mass media they would pick a more complex, longer, more abstracted game over a less complex one? That's... counterintuitive.
that's sommerjon
Quote from: Marleycat;758448My daughter would. But then again she plays and has imagination. So simple is better for her. We can nerdify her in due time.
I makes me giggle that people here think less = more imagination
Who woulda thunkit that for thousands of centuries humans had better imaginations then we do now.:rolleyes:
Quote from: smiorgan;758453Hang on, are you arguing that because kids have grown up in a culture of instant gratification via mass media they would pick a more complex, longer, more abstracted game over a less complex one? That's... counterintuitive.
I said nothing about instant gratification via mass media. This new generation didn't grow up on Pong or Texas Instrument text games. The new games are
more complex, longer, more abstracted These games allow them to build their avatar as they see fit, using all sorts of concepts like; combat options, abilities, powers, looks, etc, etc. You know all of those 'complexities' that hurts[people here] little noggins.
Quote from: Sommerjon;758470I makes me giggle that people here think less = more imagination
Who woulda thunkit that for thousands of centuries humans had better imaginations then we do now.:rolleyes:
I said nothing about instant gratification via mass media. This new generation didn't grow up on Pong or Texas Instrument text games. The new games are more complex, longer, more abstracted These games allow them to build their avatar as they see fit, using all sorts of concepts like; combat options, abilities, powers, looks, etc, etc. You know all of those 'complexities' that hurts[people here] little noggins.
Like 4e! We get it... seriously though never call my child stupid again ok? I may have no money for me but don't go there given she's smarter then myself about computer things.
Quote from: Marleycat;758471Like 4e! We get it... seriously though never call my child stupid again ok? I may have no money for me but don't go there given she's smarter then myself about computer things.
Show me where I called you kid stupid.
Quote from: Sommerjon;758470I said nothing about instant gratification via mass media. This new generation didn't grow up on Pong or Texas Instrument text games. The new games are more complex, longer, more abstracted These games allow them to build their avatar as they see fit, using all sorts of concepts like; combat options, abilities, powers, looks, etc, etc. You know all of those 'complexities' that hurts[people here] little noggins.
Ah, OK. You're equating diversity of choice with diversity of system. Yeah, some people get deeper into games and will relish more gameplay options. That's not "mass media", that's a niche.
You did say mass media. Mass media equals diversity of communication, that's all. Arguably for effective mass media communication the individual messages must be simplified, not made more complex.
Also the modern equivalent of Pong is not WoW, it's similar pick-up-and-play games like Angry Birds.
Quote from: smiorgan;758475Ah, OK. You're equating diversity of choice with diversity of system. Yeah, some people get deeper into games and will relish more gameplay options. That's not "mass media", that's a niche.
No I'm equating game complexity of what we had in the 1970s to what our children have in the 2010s.
Quote from: smiorgan;758475You did say mass media. Mass media equals diversity of communication, that's all. Arguably for effective mass media communication the individual messages must be simplified, not made more complex.
Mass Media: any of the means of communication, as television or newspapers, that reach very large numbers of people.
How much mass media was there for gamers in 1978 compared to 2014?
Quote from: smiorgan;758475Also the modern equivalent of Pong is not WoW, it's similar pick-up-and-play games like Angry Birds.
You're missing the point.
Quote from: Sommerjon;758438Guess what. The kids nowadays aren't you. They have grown up in a mass media environment. Full of video games, computers games, apps, etc. The morons of 5e are fucking deluding themselves if they think these kids are going to be interested in a game where the whole character fits on a business card.
Guess what, 4E was such a failure that WOTC preferred to have no current edition for two years than trying to push that shit uphill. It simply wasn't D&D for most people who liked D&D. Ironically it was the edition that was meant to appeal to this 'younger generation' you describe.
Yeah man, that is why when they made Mass Effect 2, they stripped out 90% of the complication of the original. (Even though I LIKED all the video game RPG elements in ME1 that got stripped out).
Most people considered ME2 an improvement gameplay wise over ME1. But sure, think that video gamers don't enjoy streamlining.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;758259When running 4E I remember having to end sessions 30 or more minutes early if a fight were about to happen because I knew we wouldn't have time to resolve it.
Yeah, that is an issue. Happened to me on Saturday.
Quote from: Fiasco;758492Guess what, 4E was such a failure that WOTC preferred to have no current edition for two years than trying to push that shit uphill. It simply wasn't D&D for most people who liked D&D. Ironically it was the edition that was meant to appeal to this 'younger generation' you describe.
Yep. Look at boardgames - the popular hobby games today are way simpler and faster-playing than the Avalon Hill games in the 80s and 90s. Turns out the younger generation wants bang for the buck in time and effort. 4E Essentials wasn't just an appeal to traditional D&D players, but an effort to make the game more accessible to new players. It was too little too late, and now we have a new edition where WotC have finally come to their senses and decided to hitch their wagon to the booming tabletop gaming hobby instead of uber-nerd math wonks who spend their Friday nights optimizing PCs.
Quote from: Haffrung;758574Yep. Look at boardgames - the popular hobby games today are way simpler and faster-playing than the Avalon Hill games in the 80s and 90s. Turns out the younger generation wants bang for the buck in time and effort.
It's not just the younger generation. A lot of the folks who played those long monster games did so back when they were kids... with loads of free time and not a lot of other entertainment options pulling for their attention. Now those same guys are older with kids and jobs and even if they'd like to play a big long game they just don't have the time. Over on The Miniatures Page you see that sentiment expressed all the time... people in general nowadays want faster games.
Quote from: Simlasa;758577It's not just the younger generation. A lot of the folks who played those long monster games did so back when they were kids... with loads of free time and not a lot of other entertainment options pulling for their attention. Now those same guys are older with kids and jobs and even if they'd like to play a big long game they just don't have the time. Over on The Miniatures Page you see that sentiment expressed all the time... people in general nowadays want faster games.
Absolutely. Britannia was considered a casual beer and pretzels game back when it was published by AH. I bought the FFG reprint a few years ago, and it has only hit the table once once because I don't know how I can fit in a game that:
A) Takes more than 8 hours to play.
B) You need to play multiple times with the same group to understand where the different nations appear, who is really in the lead at any given time, and which nations you need to be trimming back.
Longer, more complex boardgames like Here I Stand are now played almost exclusively online over a period of months.
Quote from: Marleycat;758448My daughter would.
Wait. Haven't you told us time and time again that you're in middle school?
Quote from: robiswrong;758587Wait. Haven't you told us time and time again that you're in middle school?
OH! That would explain a lot... here I was imagining she was some menopausal housewife.
Quote from: robiswrong;758587Wait. Haven't you told us time and time again that you're in middle school?
Nice! :D
I suppose it would be too much to ask to have someone provide any sort of supporting evidence that shows a correlation between technology level and desire for complex tabletop game mechanics.
I could look at AD&D (which is a very complex and poorly presented game for those mechanics) and see how it was immensely popular despite technology being primitive compared to today and come to the conclusion that such a claim (by Sommerjon) is full of shit.
But that's just me.
Quote from: Simlasa;758577It's not just the younger generation. A lot of the folks who played those long monster games did so back when they were kids... with loads of free time and not a lot of other entertainment options pulling for their attention. Now those same guys are older with kids and jobs and even if they'd like to play a big long game they just don't have the time. Over on The Miniatures Page you see that sentiment expressed all the time... people in general nowadays want faster games.
It's only a single data point, but I'd like to add that, if I ever get a chance to play one of those long complicated games, it's going to be one I kept on my shelf, waiting to play for several years.
As to the original topic, I'm a inveterate AD&D 1e player and DM who ran 3e/3.5 for 3 or 4 years, after which, I decided I didn't want DM it anymore (though I played in a campaign for a few years after that). When 4e came along, I played the in-store demo when it was released, flipped through the core books, and decided it wasn't for me. I pretty much it ignored after the first couple months, other than poking fun at the monsters, which all seemed to be named stuff like "Hellfire Jet Nozzle Elemental Dire Grizzly Bear (Fire Commander 2)" or somesuch.
I signed up for the 5e playtest, but really never had time to look anything over, beyond a few minutes here and there. So really, I don't have much of an idea what is going on with 5e. When the PDF is released on 7/15, I'll pull it down and have a look. If it reads okay, I'll probably crock up an adventure and run it off-grid at GenCon, then decide whether I like it or not. It will have to be really, really damn good to replace AD&D (and Astonishing Swordsmen and Sorcerers of Hyperborea) as my game of choice.
To be honest, I don't expect it to be "old school" in any way, but I'm willing to evaluate the game on it's own merits and weaknesses, rather than a direct function to function comparison up and down the line. And frankly, all of this talk about what parts of 3e or 4e are in it, or how close it tracks to the look/feel fit/finish of old school D&D is pointless. The game will either win over enough people to be considered a success, or it won't, based it's own merits.
Quote from: Sommerjon;758485No I'm equating game complexity of what we had in the 1970s to what our children have in the 2010s.
Mass Media: any of the means of communication, as television or newspapers, that reach very large numbers of people.
How much mass media was there for gamers in 1978 compared to 2014?
You're missing the point.
Missing the point? No, I get your point.
The mass media you keep banging on about just makes gamers more aware of choice.
Gamers who favour complexity will do so regardless of what they're aware of in media. All media awareness does is allow them to make an informed choice. These are still niche preferences. "Mass media" is irrelevant.
But you're implying that mass media somehow funnels all gamers towards a single preference. That's absurd.
The kids had Pong. Now they have Angry Birds and WoW. That's the point. If they only wanted WoW there would be no Angry Birds.
Quote from: francisca;758612It's only a single data point, but I'd like to add that, if I ever get a chance to play one of those long complicated games, it's going to be one I kept on my shelf, waiting to play for several years.
I swear to god, one day, Twilight Imperium 3rd is hitting my table.
Just as a heads-up for those not paying too fine attention to fifth edition news, the initial incomplete "draft" release of the 5E Basic D&D pdf will actually be available on July 3rd. This is a detail that gets lost in the release date shuffle for reasons that aren't really important.
The 7/3 document will only contain chargen; the text will come straight from the PHB, which went to the printers last week. On August 8th this doc will be expanded with further content from the DMG. It may or may not receive further additions through November, when the DMG is finally released.
The Basic D&D pdf will most likely start out as a simple black & white text document without much or any art, much like the playtest packets. However, at the end of the year, after the DMG releases and R&D has some customer feedback, they may "finalize" Basic D&D. However, Mike Mearls hasn't committed to anything after the DMG release date, so far.
Expect the Basic D&D pdf to be in a draft document form, in at least its appearance, through the end of the year.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;758621I swear to god, one day, Twilight Imperium 3rd is hitting my table.
It's so worth it, and, with either 3 or 4 experienced players, playable in a reasonable amount of time (e.g. less than 4 hours). I'd recommend a session or two of just trying a few turns (in other words not spending an entire evening struggling through your first game) until everyone gets the hang of it. The replacement order cards from the first expansion are also a good idea.
Quote from: kurtomatic;758622Just as a heads-up for those not paying too fine attention to fifth edition news, the initial incomplete "draft" release of the 5E Basic D&D pdf will actually be available on July 3rd. This is a detail that gets lost in the release date shuffle for reasons that aren't really important.
The 7/3 document will only contain chargen; the text will come straight from the PHB, which went to the printers last week. On August 8th this doc will be expanded with further content from the DMG. It may or may not receive further additions through November, when the DMG is finally released.
The Basic D&D pdf will most likely start out as a simple black & white text document without much or any art, much like the playtest packets. However, at the end of the year, after the DMG releases and R&D has some customer feedback, they may "finalize" Basic D&D. However, Mike Mearls hasn't committed to anything after the DMG release date, so far.
Expect the Basic D&D pdf to be in a draft document form, in at least its appearance, through the end of the year.
Thanks, I'll keep an eye out for it.
Quote from: Fiasco;758492Guess what, 4E was such a failure that WOTC preferred to have no current edition for two years than trying to push that shit uphill. It simply wasn't D&D for most people who liked D&D. Ironically it was the edition that was meant to appeal to this 'younger generation' you describe.
4e isn't the failure that people here desperately need it to be.
That doesn't mean they didn't fuck up 4e. They did.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;758551Yeah man, that is why when they made Mass Effect 2, they stripped out 90% of the complication of the original. (Even though I LIKED all the video game RPG elements in ME1 that got stripped out).
Most people considered ME2 an improvement gameplay wise over ME1. But sure, think that video gamers don't enjoy streamlining.
Yeah lets post one game series that definitely needed some streamlining and try to use that as proof that ALL video gamers enjoy streamlining.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;758606I suppose it would be too much to ask to have someone provide any sort of supporting evidence that shows a correlation between technology level and desire for complex tabletop game mechanics.
I could look at AD&D (which is a very complex and poorly presented game for those mechanics) and see how it was immensely popular despite technology being primitive compared to today and come to the conclusion that such a claim (by Sommerjon) is full of shit.
But that's just me.
Immensely popular, I love that every time you knuckleheads say that. Funny.
Yeah the supporting evidence about 5e is they hire consultants that aggressively espouse a particular playstyle of tsr D&D, and wonders of wonders the public playtests ALL show that EVERYONE else wants that as well.......how fucking convenient.
Quote from: smiorgan;758618Missing the point? No, I get your point.
The mass media you keep banging on about just makes gamers more aware of choice.
Gamers who favour complexity will do so regardless of what they're aware of in media. All media awareness does is allow them to make an informed choice. These are still niche preferences. "Mass media" is irrelevant.
But you're implying that mass media somehow funnels all gamers towards a single preference. That's absurd.
The kids had Pong. Now they have Angry Birds and WoW. That's the point. If they only wanted WoW there would be no Angry Birds.
Um, no I'm not the one banging on about mass media, that would be you. I said "
They have grown up in a mass media environment." Mass Media: any of the means of communication, as television or newspapers, that reach very large numbers of people.
Kids nowadays have a fuck-ton more options when it comes to gaming information. They are no longer limited to Bobby down the street and a magazine or two. Now they have access to blogs, youtube channels, webzines, Bobby down the street, multiple magazines, forums, company websites, twitch, etc, etc.
Never said mass media somehow funnels all gamers towards a single preference.
I am implying and stating that these kids don't feel that combat options, feats, abilities, powers, etc. is badwrongfun. They've been exposed to this since they first picked up a tablet, controller, handheld, or mouse. They ain't us.
Quote from: Sommerjon;758652Immensely popular, I love that every time you knuckleheads say that. Funny.
In terms of a tabletop game? It was. It had a popularity explosion. You can't deny that. Well, I suppose
you could, but you've never been one for credibility anyway.
I'll also note that in your response to my quote, there is a decided lack of any evidence to support your point like I asked.
Noted.
Quote from: Sommerjon;7586524e isn't the failure that people here desperately need it to be.
.
Lol.
Quote from: Sommerjon;758652Kids nowadays have a fuck-ton more options when it comes to gaming information. They are no longer limited to Bobby down the street and a magazine or two. Now they have access to blogs, youtube channels, webzines, Bobby down the street, multiple magazines, forums, company websites, twitch, etc, etc.
Resources most of them don't avail themselves up because, just as in the past, most gamers want to just show up and start playing. Hardcores may have more grist for the optimizing mill, but WotC has thankfully concluded D&D can't be a commercially successful mainstream game if they cater it towards the uber-nerds. Just as the boardgaming hobby took off when it reached past the Advanced Squad Leader and Starfleet Battles market and made games you can teach in 10 minutes and play in 90 minutes, D&D needs to find traction with the same casual tabletop gamers who consider a game something they do with their friends rather than something they read and analyze and tweak on their lonesome.
Quote from: Haffrung;758663Resources most of them don't avail themselves up because, just as in the past, most gamers want to just show up and start playing. Hardcores may have more grist for the optimizing mill, but WotC has thankfully concluded D&D can't be a commercially successful mainstream game if they cater it towards the uber-nerds. Just as the boardgaming hobby took off when it reached past the Advanced Squad Leader and Starfleet Battles market and made games you can teach in 10 minutes and play in 90 minutes, D&D needs to find traction with the same casual tabletop gamers who consider a game something they do with their friends rather than something they read and analyze and tweak on their lonesome.
Absolutely. In order for your hobby to churn in a positive direction, the game has to be approachable enough for complete newbies.
People thinking "huh, maybe I'll give this a try" aren't going to want to read three 300-page tomes before they can get around to *actually playing*.
Quote from: Sommerjon;758652Um, no I'm not the one banging on about mass media, that would be you. I said "They have grown up in a mass media environment." Mass Media: any of the means of communication, as television or newspapers, that reach very large numbers of people.
Ah, right. You're not talking about
mass media, you're talking about a
mass media environment. Totally different thing. My bad.
QuoteKids nowadays have a fuck-ton more options when it comes to gaming information. They are no longer limited to Bobby down the street and a magazine or two. Now they have access to blogs, youtube channels, webzines, Bobby down the street, multiple magazines, forums, company websites, twitch, etc, etc.
Yeah, no disagreement here, and it's great that kids can make informed choices. Shame that most of the choices are like a hundred different flavours of warm diarrhea, but still.
QuoteNever said mass media somehow funnels all gamers towards a single preference.
Fair play, you didn't. I inferred that from the way you're conflating choice with preference.
QuoteI am implying and stating that these kids don't feel that combat options, feats, abilities, powers, etc. is badwrongfun.
Now, if you'd just said the above and left it at that, you'd have no disagreement from me. Absolutely right, not only do kids have more choice, they aren't encumbered by the politics of those choices. They're not us. Spot on.
But since we've agreed the kids have all these choices, and aren't sandbagged by edition politics, who are you to say how they will or will not react to the next edition of the game? The whole tone of your argument seems to be that:
- the kids have choice, and
- some choices are high complexity and high configuration, therefore
- the kids will prefer high complexity and high configuration, and thus
- 5e reducing complexity is a retrograde step, for marketing to the kids
I mean, I can provide a counter argument:
- the kids have a lot of choice, and
- the kids tend to change allegiances to games quickly, and
- human beings are limited by working memory, and
- if a kid wants to get started quickly, the game mustn't be overly complex, therefore
- kids will pick games that they can learn quickly, and
- 5e driving towards simplification is a positive step in marketing to kids.
Both of these arguments are fallacious. They don't take into account the motivation to learn. In a wider context of TeH Ma55 M3dia they also don't account for all the other things kids could be doing with their time.
Even given complexity vs. simplicity, there's a matter of *when* do you make people deal with the complexity.
In most video games, you start out making relatively simple choices - I want this loadout, or I want to be this other class. Additional choices and build options get added in over time, instead of being front-loaded.
In Diablo, you start with "class". In ME, you start with one mechanical choice (class) and a number of background choices that are more "narrative" in impact. In Elder Scrolls, you pretty much start with race and class unless you go the (optional) custom route. WoW? Race/class. Most shooters start out with simple loadouts, and grant additional customization over time.
And while all of these eventually change into much more complex builds (though Blizzard seems to be moving towards streamlining), they don't force the complexity on you up front. I can't think of a single mainstream computer game that does any more.
So I don't think it's so much a matter of "how much complexity" as a whole, but more a matter of "how much do I need to learn to start actually playing the game?"
Quote from: robiswrong;758668I can't think of a single mainstream computer game that does any more.
I was watching my friend play Skyrim today. He's not very far into it but when he leveled up and flipped to the possible options to develop it seemed like there were a LOT of things to choose from... it looked fairly complex to me, similar to what I've seen of Pathfinder.
Not that it phased him at all... not that I think it was 'too much'.
Neverwinter Nights was my first exposure to 3e and 'feats' and such and that pretty much left me cold because I felt like I was expected to closely examine all the options and figure out which one was 'best'... and I had not interest in that. I'm wondering if Skyrim would hit me the same way.
When I level up in Pathfinder I usually just go with whatever sounds good and in character... which sometimes brings groans from the groups charop guy.
Quote from: Simlasa;758719I was watching my friend play Skyrim today. He's not very far into it but when he leveled up and flipped to the possible options to develop it seemed like there were a LOT of things to choose from... it looked fairly complex to me, similar to what I've seen of Pathfinder.
Again, you don't get all those choices up-front. Your initial choices are minimal. The further you get, the more choices you get.
And really, how many feat/spell/etc. choices do you get at 1st level in Pathfinder? How big is the list? At any given point, how many choices do you have to choose between?
Even the more complex games usually start you out with choosing between about 3 options, and will open up to *maybe* 10-12 at a time later on.
Quote from: robiswrong;758726Again, you don't get all those choices up-front. Your initial choices are minimal. The further you get, the more choices you get.
OK, I wasn't sure... I wasn't there when he started but he said he wasn't very far into it. All I saw was him getting his ass handed to him by some giants... then lvling up and what looked like a shitloads of options.
QuoteAnd really, how many feat/spell/etc. choices do you get at 1st level in Pathfinder? How big is the list? At any given point, how many choices do you have to choose between?
I'm not sure, but it sure seems like a lot to me... not that that is a bad thing, as long as I don't get 'analysis paralysis' over it.
Quote from: Haffrung;758574Yep. Look at boardgames - the popular hobby games today are way simpler and faster-playing than the Avalon Hill games in the 80s and 90s. Turns out the younger generation wants bang for the buck in time and effort. 4E Essentials wasn't just an appeal to traditional D&D players, but an effort to make the game more accessible to new players. It was too little too late, and now we have a new edition where WotC have finally come to their senses and decided to hitch their wagon to the booming tabletop gaming hobby instead of uber-nerd math wonks who spend their Friday nights optimizing PCs.
Actually we are seeing an upswing in interest in more complex games. Younger players are getting progressively fed up with being treated as knuckle dragging ADD 5 year olds.
Quote from: Simlasa;758730I'm not sure, but it sure seems like a lot to me... not that that is a bad thing, as long as I don't get 'analysis paralysis' over it.
This is what 5e is trying to limit even WITH every option turned to 11. You really should entertain yourself by lurking WotC/TBP/ENWorld just to watch the CharOP guys twist like a pretzel. Paralysis Analysis is really something they're trying to eliminate. Their goal is make is to make it exciting and quick. To play not theorycraft. PLAY!!! Balance is an important goal but not the UR-Goal like 4e.
They're backloading classes.....multi-classing, feats, even backgrounds and skills are completely optional.
Quote from: Fiasco;758492Guess what, 4E was such a failure that WOTC preferred to have no current edition for two years than trying to push that shit uphill. It simply wasn't D&D for most people who liked D&D. Ironically it was the edition that was meant to appeal to this 'younger generation' you describe.
People love to exaggerate about what happened with 4e. It's true 4e didn't meet WOTC's expectations and only appealed to half the then-current D&D players (and that was a fuck-up, one of a series of fuck-ups). It's true they ditched it short of their intended support length. But what's not true is that it was some huge financial failure. It financially was good in the short term, and did attract a good number of younger players (and Mearls recently explained that the game skews much younger than many on message boards think). But they could see in the long term it could never support their desired goal of a multimedia empire, so they needed a new plan which could further that larger more-sustainable goal.
You know how they were able to go 2 years while publishing nothing new and focusing just on that new goal with no mass layoffs? Because people continued to support DDI in such huge numbers that the funds from that led to a profit for the department to support their full set of developers in making a new game without touching 4e for that time and just putting out some reprints of some older stuff.
So yes, 4e was a failure - it didn't achieve the goals WOTC set for it. But no, 4e was not an "utter" financial failure like so many like to pretend it was. It's not that they didn't want to "push that shit up hill", it's that they didn't
need to because that shit was making enough money to cover several years with no need for more.
Quote from: robiswrong;758668So I don't think it's so much a matter of "how much complexity" as a whole, but more a matter of "how much do I need to learn to start actually playing the game?"
Yes, agree. You could argue that the earlier levels in D&D
should do the job of training players how to use low level powers, so they can make specialisation choices later (that's how I remember Diablo II) and expand their gameplay options in the way they want.
The way I see it games have two types of overhead. There's the one-time learning cost (covering all the terminology, how to roll dice, etc.), then there's the ongoing cost of going through the procedures (which affects how long each player takes in their turn, and therefore how much waiting time).
You can optimise both of these with introductory kits, play aids, etc. But there will be a limit to how much you can optimise turn length, even when everyone is up to speed on the rules. Also people will tolerate paying the one-time cost of learning the rules, but they need to be particularly motivated to pay the ongoing procedural cost. Forgetting the politics of
your favourite edition of D&D young people may be more motivated than older ones to pay the costs of learning and continuing to play -- but then that motivation may have nothing to do with
liking the game and everything to do with the established norms of the group they play with, how much money they've invested in their books, etc.
If 5e achieves shorter turn times (as implied by the Mearls interview linked above) then everyone benefits. I'll look into 5e for this reason, even though I can't stand the earlier editions.
Quote from: Mistwell;7587441: People love to exaggerate about what happened with 4e.
2: It's true 4e didn't meet WOTC's expectations and only appealed to half the then-current D&D players (and that was a fuck-up, one of a series of fuck-ups).
3: It's true they ditched it short of their intended support length.
4: But what's not true is that it was some huge financial failure. It financially was good in the short term, and did attract a good number of younger players (and Mearls recently explained that the game skews much younger than many on message boards think).
5: But they could see in the long term it could never support their desired goal of a multimedia empire, so they needed a new plan which could further that larger more-sustainable goal.
6: You know how they were able to go 2 years while publishing nothing new and focusing just on that new goal with no mass layoffs? Because people continued to support DDI in such huge numbers that the funds from that led to a profit for the department to support their full set of developers in making a new game without touching 4e for that time and just putting out some reprints of some older stuff.
7: So yes, 4e was a failure - it didn't achieve the goals WOTC set for it. But no, 4e was not an "utter" financial failure like so many like to pretend it was. It's not that they didn't want to "push that shit up hill", it's that they didn't need to because that shit was making enough money to cover several years with no need for more.
1: To a point, yes.
2: Id say it met WOTCs exprctations. It just didnt meet the players. And WOTC lost probably alot more than half their playerbase that time. But indeed they started off on a bad note and things went downhill from there.
3: Correct. Under other circumstances it would have followed per the 5 year plan and been phased out for 5th around now.
4: If I recall correctly from a WOTC rep. It sold well, but was overprinted at some point, thus causing a loss or at least no net gain. I've heard others state it undersold in the long term. At a guess then it sold well at girst. Then the word of mouth got around and sales plummeted.
5: Hard to say. How many PC products came out using 4e as a basis?
6: Actually they didnt. They coasted on what they had, and pushed board games for a while as an interem measure. Lords of Waterdeep apparently did fairly well, possibly Castle Ravenloft/Ashardalon/Drizzt. Not sure. Doesnt look like there is much drift between the RPG and CCG funds so likely no help there.
7: If 4e had been doing that well they would not have canned it. Rather WOTC saw the flood of players moving to Pathfinder and the subsequent jump Pazio got in absorbing as many of the refugees as they could attract. The writing was on the wall and WOTC would have been foolish to keep producing a game that was driving their customers over to the COMPETITION! That kids is the sign of abysmal failure. And their attempts to slap patch were too little too late.
Next so far seems the logical response. Move things back to nearly AD&D levels with some 2-3e in there. But without the excesses. IF it works it may well attract players back to WOTC. Hard to say after players have been so long with 3e. effectively 14 years.
We will see how this goes in a few weeks.
Wonder what Pazio's reaction is/was/will be to this?
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;757633- A stream of minor but continuous errata creating a sense of instability in the rules.
I agree with this point (and more or less all the other points on your list), except I'd quibble about "minor" - some of that errata was fairly major. (In particular, the entire skill challenge system seemed to be broken on release.)
Quote from: Omega;758772If 4e had been doing that well they would not have canned it. Rather WOTC saw the flood of players moving to Pathfinder and the subsequent jump Pazio got in absorbing as many of the refugees as they could attract. The writing was on the wall and WOTC would have been foolish to keep producing a game that was driving their customers over to the COMPETITION! That kids is the sign of abysmal failure. And their attempts to slap patch were too little too late.
I also think the fact that a sizeable number of the actual D&D staff were unhappy with it was also a big issue in them wanting to do something new. If you are Hasbro, and every time you have a meeting your huge best selling author(s) are telling you what the insignificant games designers are doing is crap, and then when you talk to the insignificant game designers they do not seem that keen on sticking with a project born by a bunch of people you largely fired some years ago, it is kind of an encouragement to order some changes.
Quote from: Simlasa;757909That has me wondering if, a year or so from now, I might have the Basic and like 5e on that level... but still be shut out of being on board because the majority of groups are going to just pick up the core books and turn all the options on.
If Wizards set it up right, it should be 100% possible to run a Basic character at any table, so provided you understand your own character you don't really need to give two shits about whatever charop malarkey the other players at the table are getting into provided you have a broad handle on their general area of competence.
I'm not sure it's been proven that a vast majority of 3e/Pathfinder fans want to move away from that game. Wizards must be banking on people that don't currently play the game. I think a lot of 3e players like the bells and whistles. If I were Paizo, I would just carry on. Wizards problem is the new edition every five to eight years. It'd be amazing to see Paizo carry on with Pathfinder as is for more than ten years.
Quote from: Mistwell;758744It's true they ditched it short of their intended support length.
Was there ever an official 4E support length stated on or off the record by WotC ?
Quote from: ggroy;758815Was there ever an official 4E support length stated on or off the record by WotC ?
No--but they did cancel and reschedule a lot of products in 2011.
I strongly suspect 4E was profitable, but not profitable
enough, and the loss of market share to Pathfinder, combined with other factors (design difficulties or differences of philosophy that Mearls and others have mentioned, the issues with getting DDI up and running) convinced them to move in a new direction. I notice that the support philosophy has moved closer to the later 3E era of 'license out material to trusted comrades working from a WotC-designed style sheet' than the 4E-era centralization or the OGL's 'set up the tentpoles and let everyone else do the little stuff'.
Quote from: Warthur;758797If Wizards set it up right, it should be 100% possible to run a Basic character at any table, so provided you understand your own character you don't really need to give two shits about whatever charop malarkey the other players at the table are getting into provided you have a broad handle on their general area of competence.
That's what they keep saying any way. But like they say, "the proof of the pudding is in the eating." We'll find out when we see it after all the expansions are released that allow for more complex character choices. The only thing we have to go off of right now are the playtest comparisons between a PC who doesn't use skills or feats playing in a group with PCs who do. I have done that, and didn't really notice a major difference. The only advantage I saw was that PCs using skills got a prof bonus to certain checks, where the "basic" PC just used baseline ability checks without a prof bonus.
Heck, I ran a 1e cleric in a group of 5e PCs with only changing AC to ascending and replacing saving throws, so I'm pretty confident someone using a basic PC alongside a group of PCs with all the bells and whistles turned on would do just fine.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;758819That's what they keep saying any way. But like they say, "the proof of the pudding is in the eating." We'll find out when we see it after all the expansions are released that allow for more complex character choices. The only thing we have to go off of right now are the playtest comparisons between a PC who doesn't use skills or feats playing in a group with PCs who do. I have done that, and didn't really notice a major difference. The only advantage I saw was that PCs using skills got a prof bonus to certain checks, where the "basic" PC just used baseline ability checks without a prof bonus.
Heck, I ran a 1e cleric in a group of 5e PCs with only changing AC to ascending and replacing saving throws, so I'm pretty confident someone using a basic PC alongside a group of PCs with all the bells and whistles turned on would do just fine.
Special Snowflake gamers would have big issues running that 1E cleric but they are not the audience for Basic, I guess. I suspect that sooner or later power creep will move the bells and whistles characters significantly ahead of the basic versions but that might only be several years down the track. Only time will tell.
Quote from: Fiasco;758919Special Snowflake gamers would have big issues running that 1E cleric but they are not the audience for Basic, I guess. I suspect that sooner or later power creep will move the bells and whistles characters significantly ahead of the basic versions but that might only be several years down the track. Only time will tell.
For full disclosure, the 1e cleric was somewhat underpowered compared to the 5e one, using the 5e system, largely because of lack of Channel Divinity. But the player didn't seem to really give a shit, and it did work OK. As long as he had fun, that's what matters.
Quote from: Endless Flight;758801I'm not sure it's been proven that a vast majority of 3e/Pathfinder fans want to move away from that game.
It's not really something you can prove, particularly given how much it depends on personal opinion that will in large part be guided by what they think of a new edition that hasn't come out yet for them to look at.
I think there is less brand loyalty in this business than many think. Even from some who say "I really love company X!" I think a lot of it is influenced by inertia, the new shiny, curiosity, rumor, money on hand, and other fairly ephemeral influences.
Quote from: ggroy;758815Was there ever an official 4E support length stated on or off the record by WotC ?
I think "cancelling announced books" is good enough proof for me at least that it was cancelled short of expected duration.
Quote from: Mistwell;758938I think "cancelling announced books" is good enough proof for me at least that it was cancelled short of expected duration.
I think there was some indication that a DMG3 was planned but never released.
Quote from: Omega;758772Wonder what Pazio's reaction is/was/will be to this?
They will ride out the initial 5e excitement. Then they will do what they do best - cater to their audience by giving them cool shit to buy.
Quote from: Endless Flight;758801I'm not sure it's been proven that a vast majority of 3e/Pathfinder fans want to move away from that game.
We will see. Ask again in June 2015.
Personally, I believe that if an AD&D 2.5e existed by another company in 2000, then a large contingent of 1e/2e fans would have just kept buying and playing AD&D. Just like a large contingent of 3e fans are happy continuing with Paizo.
Quote from: Endless Flight;758801Wizards must be banking on people that don't currently play the game.
That would require a ritual unheard of in the RPG industry, a strange arcane magic called "marketing"...
Quote from: Endless Flight;758801It'd be amazing to see Paizo carry on with Pathfinder as is for more than ten years.
They can't. Publishers need new editions. Pathfinder 2e will be here soon enough, but it won't be a radical departure. Just 3.75 becoming 3.85e but with enough player goodies baked into the books to entice buyers.
Quote from: Spinachcat;758962They can't. Publishers need new editions. Pathfinder 2e will be here soon enough, but it won't be a radical departure. Just 3.75 becoming 3.85e but with enough player goodies baked into the books to entice buyers.
It will be interesting to see if this is true. As I understand it, the vast majority of Pazio's income comes from subscribers to their adventure paths, not core book sales. So while thouse subscription numbers hold up, I am not sure why they would want to risk driving people away with a 3.5 style half edition.
Quote from: jadrax;759038It will be interesting to see if this is true. As I understand it, the vast majority of Pazio's income comes from subscribers to their adventure paths, not core book sales. So while thouse subscription numbers hold up, I am not sure why they would want to risk driving people away with a 3.5 style half edition.
+1 for it not being about core book. I don't play PF, but I have purchased some of their other products (decks for one thing).
I am not sure if this has been posted, but here's the Fighter's Character Sheet from the Starter Set: http://ow.ly/i/5X4Jr
Backgrounds and Skills are presented as much a part of the PC as Class and Abilities, just as they were in the final playtest document.
Actually, it looks a lot like a 4e Character Sheet in regard to Skills (with a handful of 3e Skills thrown back in - Animal Handling, Investigate, Performance, Sleight of Hand and Survival), which is a good thing IMO as I liked 4e's streamlined and cut down Skill list.
Quote from: Skywalker;759214I am not sure if this has been posted, but here's the Fighter's Character Sheet from the Starter Set: http://ow.ly/i/5X4Jr
Backgrounds and Skills are presented as much a part of the PC as Class and Abilities, just as they were in the final playtest document.
Actually, it looks a lot like a 4e Character Sheet in regard to Skills (with a handful of 3e Skills thrown back in - Animal Handling, Investigate, Performance, Sleight of Hand and Survival), which is a good thing IMO as I liked 4e's streamlined and cut down Skill list.
Yeah I like the streamlined skill list too.
But did you read the traits?
"My flattery makes those I talk to feel wonderful and important".
"I don't like to get dirty..."
Geesh, release the whole game already so I can make my own fighter that doesn't sound like a prom queen.
IMHO n all...
Quote from: MonsterSlayer;759218But did you read the traits?
Yep. They gave me a nice FATE/Dungeon World vibe TBH
I didn't mind the tone though. He is a noble after all. In fact, his Noble Background Power is probably the most interesting thing about the PC.
I also saw that he has a proficiency in "playing cards" :)
Quote from: Skywalker;759219Yep. They gave me a nice FATE/Dungeon World vibe TBH
I didn't mind the tone though. He is a noble after all. In fact, his Noble Background Power is probably the most interesting thing about the PC.
I also saw that he has a proficiency in "playing cards" :)
OK but let me ask you an honest question.
If you were releasing a game with pre gen characters only and you had to pick the traits to represent the iconic traits of a fantasy RIG fighter.
Would you pick those?
I know I'm flirting with the OSR Taliban label but even my wife went BWAHAHA! in that context.
Quote from: MonsterSlayer;759222Would you pick those?
Point taken.
I expect WotC are also trying to showcase the versatility of Backgrounds and Traits as a way of narratively flavouring the PC, even to the point of impacting the mechanics. These are new kids on the block and all.
Quote from: Skywalker;759223Point taken.
I expect WotC are also trying to showcase the versatility of Backgrounds and Traits as a way of narratively flavouring the PC, even to the point of impacting the mechanics. These are new kids on the block and all.
I think you are absolutely correct. I like to add flavor to characters and roll play. But I don't think the kids playing Skyrim are going to look at that and go "oh cool take on a fighter bro".
I could be completely off base.
But I doubt this will have the intended effect of quelling discussion on their marketing.
There will be two pre-gen fighters in the starter set. I assume the other will have different traits.
Quote from: Haffrung;759226There will be two pre-gen fighters in the starter set. I assume the other will have different traits.
True. And thankfully the PDF at the same time.
I think I kind of like the character sheet format. I can't quite put my finger on why, though.
I wonder if that format will make it through for the regular blank sheets or if it's something specific to the pre-gens.
Quote from: Skywalker;759214I am not sure if this has been posted, but here's the Fighter's Character Sheet from the Starter Set: http://ow.ly/i/5X4Jr
Backgrounds and Skills are presented as much a part of the PC as Class and Abilities, just as they were in the final playtest document.
Actually, it looks a lot like a 4e Character Sheet in regard to Skills (with a handful of 3e Skills thrown back in - Animal Handling, Investigate, Performance, Sleight of Hand and Survival), which is a good thing IMO as I liked 4e's streamlined and cut down Skill list.
It seems OK. It looks like it's a cross between D&D 2e and Star Wars Saga. An example would be the Second Wind trait. I'm a fan of the condition track in Saga and I don't believe it's in 5e, although I could be mistaken.
Quote from: Endless Flight;759235An example would be the Second Wind trait.
Second Wind is almost identical to the same mechanic in 4e, which is what the Star Wars Saga equivalent turned into, except only Fighters have it and the words "per Encounter" become "until you have had a short or long rest."
There's no condition track in 5e though.
Quote from: Skywalker;759240Second Wind is almost identical to the same mechanic in 4e, which is what the Star Wars Saga equivalent turned into, except only Fighters have it and the words "per Encounter" become "until you have had a short or long rest."
There's no condition track in 5e though.
So they are not using second wind for all the classes?
I thought at some point they were trying to eliminate the "must have a cleric in the party". Do you know what other healing options they have?
Quote from: MonsterSlayer;759242So they are not using second wind for all the classes?
I thought at some point they were trying to eliminate the "must have a cleric in the party". Do you know what other healing options they have?
Between hit dice healing, some class features (like second wind), and feats (healer and divine initiate), you can have a decent amount of healing options without having a cleric in the party.
But they're just really good at it.
Quote from: Skywalker;759240Second Wind is almost identical to the same mechanic in 4e,
LOL no it's not. 4e it was spend a healing surge to regain hit points (based on a different type of formula) and gain a +2 bonus to all defenses until the start of the character's next turn.
Quote from: Mistwell;759245LOL no it's not. 4e it was spend a healing surge to regain hit points (based on a different type of formula) and gain a +2 bonus to all defenses until the start of the character's next turn.
Yeah, it is missing the +2 to Defences. Not sure there is anything of significance in how the HP healed are calculated though.
Quote from: MonsterSlayer;759242So they are not using second wind for all the classes?
Only Fighters get Second Wind from the playtest document.
Quote from: Skywalker;759247Yeah, it is missing the +2 to Defences. Not sure there is anything of significance in how the HP healed are calculated though.
2nd wind doesn't heal hit points. They are temp hit points, like the AID spell. 1d6+level, disappearing after 5 minutes.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;7592492nd wind doesn't heal hit points. They are temp hit points, like the AID spell. 1d6+level, disappearing after 5 minutes.
Interesting. They were temporary HP in the final playtest, but the wording has changed here to simply regain HP. It will be interesting to see if that's a shift due to the Starter Set or shift from the Playtest.
Here's the text comparison (with the +2 Defences removed) on which I noticed the similarity. Make your own call:
QuoteYou can use a bonus action to regain hit points equal to 1d10 + your fighter level. Once you use this feature, you must finish a short or long rest before you can use it again.
QuoteAs a standard action, you can spend a healing surge to regain hit points. When you do, you regain hit points equal to your healing surge value. You can use your second wind once per encounter.
I think I like the way Saga does it. Isn't it when you go below half your hit points you can regain your Con or a 1/4 of your HP back, whichever is higher, once per day?
Quote from: Skywalker;759250Interesting. They were temporary HP in the final playtest, but the wording has changed here to simply regain HP. It will be interesting to see if that's a shift due to the Starter Set or shift from the Playtest.
Here's the text comparison (with the +2 Defences removed) on which I noticed the similarity. Make your own call:
Ah, I didn't remember how they worded it on the pregen. That's probably the accurate one then, and not the playtest
Quote from: Endless Flight;759251I think I like the way Saga does it. Isn't it when you go below half your hit points you can regain your Con or a 1/4 of your HP back, whichever is higher, once per day?
That's right. The biggest shift was it was only once a day, rather than based on encounter/rests.
What is hilarious now is that I am a little dissapointed that the pregen does not come with a pregen name.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;759243Between hit dice healing, some class features (like second wind), and feats (healer and divine initiate), you can have a decent amount of healing options without having a cleric in the party.
But they're just really good at it.
Or....Bards, Druids, Fighter with warlord subclass, wizard or paladin with cleric multi-class and other combinations or choices less obvious.
Quote from: Skywalker;759247Yeah, it is missing the +2 to Defences. Not sure there is anything of significance in how the HP healed are calculated though.
It doesn't spend the healing surge resource, it does not calculate the benefit the same way or increase in levels the same way, it does not take a full action, it does not give you defense, it is not tradeable for other mechanics...
Quote from: Omega;759256What is hilarious now is that I am a little dissapointed that the pregen does not come with a pregen name.
Call him" Bob" you can even say or spell it backwards. ;)
Quote from: Haffrung;759226There will be two pre-gen fighters in the starter set. I assume the other will have different traits.
The other Fighter will be an archer IIRC.
Quote from: Skywalker;759275The other Fighter will be an archer IIRC.
Correct. Should be interesting.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;7592492nd wind doesn't heal hit points. They are temp hit points, like the AID spell. 1d6+level, disappearing after 5 minutes.
It it possible!? Are they using Temp hp in a more 'realistic' manner? Good.
One of the things in 4E I disliked was non magic healing. Such as, a Warlord yells 'Walk it off!' and his wounded ally is actually healed.
That should have been temp hp.
Quote from: Skywalker;759255That's right. The biggest shift was it was only once a day, rather than based on encounter/rests.
I would prefer that abilities like 'second wind' 'action point' 'hero point' whatever be daily.
Quote from: Bill;759315It it possible!? Are they using Temp hp in a more 'realistic' manner? Good.
One of the things in 4E I disliked was non magic healing. Such as, a Warlord yells 'Walk it off!' and his wounded ally is actually healed.
That should have been temp hp.
Hopefully we have seen the last of the shout healer abomination.
But the Second Wind thing for the fighter is permanent HP. Maybe the Warlord subclass works with temporary hit points? I would be ok with that or at least willing to try it out to see if it fits my playstyle before just saying NO!
Quote from: Bill;759315It it possible!? Are they using Temp hp in a more 'realistic' manner? Good.
.
I was looking at the most recent playtest docs. it looks like they changed it in the starter set to actually be a sort of healing mechanic.
Which is OK. It's just a smaller amount, and fits with the name. I.e., if hp loss is also due to fatigue, then a "second wind" that allows some recovery of lost hp makes more sense than using your second wind to get more temp hp before the battle even starts.
Having seen the character sheet for that pregen, I can easily see why anyone wanting a real "old school" game would find 5e pretty lacking.
Myself, I like new school and old school (the only D&D edition I didn't care for was 3e). I thought the 5e playtest was nothing short of a complete mess that didn't have a clue what it wanted to be, but will certainly look at the actual product to determine whether or not it would be useful.
But the pregen sheet looks pretty firmly to be in the new school camp, somewhere between a mash-up of 3e and 4e. So if I really only liked AD&D or earlier, I wouldn't see a lot in 5e that I liked from that.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;759345I was looking at the most recent playtest docs. it looks like they changed it in the starter set to actually be a sort of healing mechanic.
Which is OK. It's just a smaller amount, and fits with the name. I.e., if hp loss is also due to fatigue, then a "second wind" that allows some recovery of lost hp makes more sense than using your second wind to get more temp hp before the battle even starts.
Well, it should be called 'I am such a bad assed warrior I am ignoring the pain from my wounds'
'Second Wind' is not an ideal name in my opinion.
Quote from: jgants;759371Having seen the character sheet for that pregen, I can easily see why anyone wanting a real "old school" game would find 5e pretty lacking.
Myself, I like new school and old school (the only D&D edition I didn't care for was 3e). I thought the 5e playtest was nothing short of a complete mess that didn't have a clue what it wanted to be, but will certainly look at the actual product to determine whether or not it would be useful.
But the pregen sheet looks pretty firmly to be in the new school camp, somewhere between a mash-up of 3e and 4e. So if I really only liked AD&D or earlier, I wouldn't see a lot in 5e that I liked from that.
It's all about presentation of the character sheet though. I did a pregen barbarian the other day that was hand written on a 3x5 notecard. Can't get any more old school than that.
Quote from: Bill;759372Well, it should be called 'I am such a bad assed warrior I am ignoring the pain from my wounds'
'Second Wind' is not an ideal name in my opinion.
Speaking of non-ideal terms, I am still cranky about "sneak attack". The way it works now, it has nothing to do with being sneaky. For example, you can apply sneak attack damage as long as you go before the target in the initiative round (assassin rogues). I much prefer "precision attack" as a more appropriate term.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;759377It's all about presentation of the character sheet though. I did a pregen barbarian the other day that was hand written on a 3x5 notecard. Can't get any more old school than that.
Speaking of non-ideal terms, I am still cranky about "sneak attack". The way it works now, it has nothing to do with being sneaky. For example, you can apply sneak attack damage as long as you go before the target in the initiative round (assassin rogues). I much prefer "precision attack" as a more appropriate term.
'Quick Attack' might have been a good name too.
Quote from: Bill;759315...
One of the things in 4E I disliked was non magic healing. Such as, a Warlord yells 'Walk it off!' and his wounded ally is actually healed.
...
I know it's an age old issue, but the problem has always been "WTF is a Hit Point?"
I am a big fan of a wounds/vitality type solutions instead of hit points, but I get why it wouldn't feel like D&D to a lot of people.
Quote from: Fiasco;759318Hopefully we have seen the last of the shout healer abomination.
I am YELLING YOUR WOUNDS CLOSED!
(Objectively the best D&D rules ever, folks! :hatsoff: )
Quote from: Brander;759465I know it's an age old issue, but the problem has always been "WTF is a Hit Point?"
I am a big fan of a wounds/vitality type solutions instead of hit points, but I get why it wouldn't feel like D&D to a lot of people.
I am also. If they would just say the Warlord heals temp points or whatever that may help alot. The the real point is nobody has a clue what a hit point actually is in Dnd because it refuses to go for a more realism type healing model. You get simulationist (which is boring to the majority) or just gamist (which most have big issues with) so they try and stride the middle and it's just a muddled mess because you can't EVAR change Dnd is coming from some faction somewhere.
Quote from: Brander;759465I know it's an age old issue, but the problem has always been "WTF is a Hit Point?"
I am a big fan of a wounds/vitality type solutions instead of hit points, but I get why it wouldn't feel like D&D to a lot of people.
It works for me. And for lots of people. One of the first things any D&D based system features once its unshackled from the traditional D&D HP compromise is a Vitality/Wounds system (True20, FantasyCraft, etc.) . I house rule that HP are vitality, and use a critical hits/wounds system. And it looks like there will be some kind of optional wound system in the 5E DMG, and if it's sound I may use that instead.
Quote from: Haffrung;759476It works for me. And for lots of people. One of the first things any D&D based system features once its unshackled from the traditional D&D HP compromise is a Vitality/Wounds system (True20, FantasyCraft, etc.) . I house rule that HP are vitality, and use a critical hits/wounds system. And it looks like there will be some kind of optional wound system in the 5E DMG, and if it's sound I may use that instead.
If there is and it's good then I am on it! FantasyCraft uses a W/V model so I am used to it.
Quote from: Haffrung;759476It works for me. I house rule that HP are vitality, and use a critical hits/wounds system. And it looks like there will be some kind of optional wound system in the 5E DMG, and if it's sound I may use that instead.
The simplest system I have used in dnd at times in the past is that the hp you gain in your lifetime up to your Constitution stat value are the 'real' hp, and the rest are from 'experience' and represent the abstract ability to be hard to kill.
But mainly it's just better to not overthink the HP too much.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;759377It's all about presentation of the character sheet though. I did a pregen barbarian the other day that was hand written on a 3x5 notecard. Can't get any more old school than that.
Except that Greywulf did that (index-card char sheet) for 4E, and I did it for Pathfinder. It's do-able, but not indicative that the game in question can't have an 'old school vibe'. I personally tried such arguments on these boards with 4e, and let's just say few people around here find them ... persuasive. ;-)
I'm with jgants though - in terms of presentation, the game is very close to 3.x and 4.Essentials, and the character sheet of the pre-gens would be along similar lines. (Not so much the blank char-sheet that (iirc) Enworld crowned as the winner of a fan contest.) I mean, look at the formatting of the equipment tables - they are straight out of the 3.x PHB.
In terms of content, though, it could be very different. But I still think 5e basic turned out to be a more involved game than might have been expected.
The character sheet seems to support the idea that 5e is a simplified 3e core, using design clarity WotC learned from 4e and underlying values/math from pre-3e D&D.
I personally think this is a good result, as 5e is meant to be D&D for all D&D players and the most widely liked version of D&D released (so it will be everyone's 2nd best version of D&D, if not 1st).
Quote from: Skywalker;759240Second Wind is almost identical to the same mechanic in 4e, which is what the Star Wars Saga equivalent turned into, except only Fighters have it and the words "per Encounter" become "until you have had a short or long rest."
I thought it was interesting that they kept the "per encounter" stuff, but just rephrased it to "until you take a short or long rest." Which is, mechanically, identical.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;759243Between hit dice healing, some class features (like second wind), and feats (healer and divine initiate), you can have a decent amount of healing options without having a cleric in the party.
Presentation aside, it's one of the better additions from 4e.
Quote from: Bill;759372Well, it should be called 'I am such a bad assed warrior I am ignoring the pain from my wounds'
'Second Wind' is not an ideal name in my opinion.
Eh, I tend to look at hit points more as stamina anyway. The idea of taking an axe to the face and shrugging it off doesn't really work for me.
(Of course, that falls apart when you start dealing with falling damage, etc., but what the hell).
Quote from: robiswrong;759518I thought it was interesting that they kept the "per encounter" stuff, but just rephrased it to "until you take a short or long rest." Which is, mechanically, identical.
Mechanically identical, but "natural" looking enough to bamboozle a portion of the people who thought "disassociated mechanics!" was a valid argument when arguing about a game with Hit Points.
I guess some sacred cows must be paid lip service to, and some people subconsciously want to be tricked into having fun.
In practice, there's a distinction. In the last playtest, a short rest takes an hour. That means that it's a defined choice with consequences, not an automatic way to keep at full HP.
Quote from: Cadriel;756990Right, because your "playstyle" and "don't one true way me" is clearly the pinnacle of old school RPG thought. If you said "check your one true way at the door" to Gary Gygax in 1981, he'd have torn you a new asshole.
I didn't give a shit about what Gary had to say in 1981 when it was actually 1981; why would I care now?
Quote from: robiswrong;759518I thought it was interesting that they kept the "per encounter" stuff, but just rephrased it to "until you take a short or long rest." Which is, mechanically, identical.
The designers have commented that short rest and long rest can mean whatever you want in your campaign - an hour, or a night, or a week. In my playtest, a short rest was 15 mins and a long rest was consecutive nights in a secure place like a castle or inn.
Of course, the issue with this kind of variable stuff is how it will be handled in organized play (which I personally don't care about) and published adventures (which I do care about).
You know, I gotta admit, this is the last board I figured I'd read the Meat Points fallacy on.
Quote from: Mistwell;758938I think "cancelling announced books" is good enough proof for me at least that it was cancelled short of expected duration.
Actually, I think in the intro of the 4e PHB, the game is specifically referred to as the engine that will drive DnD for the next decade.
Quote from: Gib;759552Actually, I think in the intro of the 4e PHB, the game is specifically referred to as the engine that will drive DnD for the next decade.
"The Young New D&D. Never lost a battle due to GM imbalance."
"Forever young."
(http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20140416134515/gameofthrones/images/thumb/2/22/Roose-Bolton-402-Promotional.jpg/333px-Roose-Bolton-402-Promotional.jpg)
Quote from: LibraryLass;759550You know, I gotta admit, this is the last board I figured I'd read the Meat Points fallacy on.
By that, I assume you mean the idea that HP = actual wounds?
Quote from: robiswrong;759559By that, I assume you mean the idea that HP = actual wounds?
Yes. It's why I prefer a wounds and vitality system for Dnd.
Quote from: Bill;759372Well, it should be called 'I am such a bad assed warrior I am ignoring the pain from my wounds'
'Second Wind' is not an ideal name in my opinion.
"We saw the sword go through your head! How are you still alive???"
"hah! hah! hah! My brain is so compact that the sword only nicked it!"
Quote from: Gib;759527I didn't give a shit about what Gary had to say in 1981 when it was actually 1981; why would I care now?
Yeah, people act like Gary Gygax was Ronald Reagan or something. :D
Quote from: LibraryLass;759550You know, I gotta admit, this is the last board I figured I'd read the Meat Points fallacy on.
Mmmm, meat points, that's good. lol
Quote from: dragoner;759572Mmmm, meat points, that's good. lol
Over on the WotC boards it's known as Meat vs Inspiration.
Quote from: LibraryLass;759550You know, I gotta admit, this is the last board I figured I'd read the Meat Points fallacy on.
You missed a few threads then.
Sometimes you get the distinct impression that people who bitch about HP never even read the DMG entry on it. Certainly true in the board gaming groups. People all but freaking out at the mere mention of the satan HP because its evil wrong thinking and players have to be protected from it!
I exaggerate. But not by much unfortunately.
Quote from: Marleycat;759573Over on the WotC boards it's known as Meat vs Inspiration.
As in inspiration points? Why?
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;759520I guess some sacred cows must be paid lip service to, and some people subconsciously want to be tricked into having fun.
More charitably, we could say "presentation matters"
Quote from: Gib;759527I didn't give a shit about what Gary had to say in 1981 when it was actually 1981; why would I care now?
"I don't care what Gary says, I'm just going to use the rules Gary wrote!"
Quote from: dragoner;759580As in inspiration points? Why?
I dunno. I mean, it's not like there's real-world precedence for people taking enough abuse that they fall down unconscious and then get back up without actual internal injuries. Like, 15 times in a row.
Oh. Wait.
Quote from: robiswrong;759582I dunno. I mean, it's not like there's real-world precedence for people taking enough abuse that they fall down unconscious and then get back up without actual internal injuries. Like, 15 times in a row.
Oh. Wait.
I'm guess this is where 'toon, comes in?
As far as what Gary said, it was the 70's and 80's, being a rebel was cool. At high school as freshmen we even had to watch Rebel Without a Cause in class; "what does the monkey mean?"
Quote from: dragoner;759587I'm guess this is where 'toon, comes in?
As far as what Gary said, it was the 70's and 80's, being a rebel was cool. At high school as freshmen we even had to watch Rebel Without a Cause in class; "what does the monkey mean?"
I was thinking boxing.
Quote from: robiswrong;759588I was thinking boxing.
Ah, ok.
Quote from: dragoner;759580As in inspiration points? Why?
I shout your hand healed!!! (Warlord).
Quote from: Marleycat;759593I shout your hand healed!!! (Warlord).
Ha! :)
Quote from: Marleycat;759568Yes. It's why I prefer a wounds and vitality system for Dnd.
As do I, because it sidesteps the argument well. Hopefully it'll be in the DMG.
(Though I don't mind using HP in a group that can come to an accord on what they are.)
Quote from: Marleycat;759593I shout your hand healed!!! (Warlord).
I liked Mearl's tweak on on it: "I shout your arm back on!"
I really liked the warlord class and have no problem with the abstract nature of HP by the way.
Quote from: robiswrong;759588I was thinking boxing.
Those are real injuries coupled with exhaustion. They get knocked out because their brain has been rattled inside their skull for twelve rounds. It can take weeks for them to beback to normal (sometimes longer).
The issue with glossing over HP and allowing stufff like healing surges is that different groups have always explained HP differently. For people who saw HP as mainly luck and energy, healing surge mechanics didnt present any problems, for those who saw them as including wounds they presented a huge issue. A lot of gamers took HP loss on a case by case basis, allowing the GM to describe what happened based on the character's hp total, hp damage done and method of attack (in my groups the GM saying a 21 hop guy who took 20 points of damage from a sword just took a deep wound to tye stomache and feels himself starting to slump, wouldn't be uncommon). Obviously HP are abstract and imperfect, you can rip apart this description by pointing to other cases and aspects if the game. But people still did and do run D&D this way. So when you make it a core rule that a guy can be shouted back to health or just will himself back to health, for someone like me it is incredibly jarring to how i play the game and forces me to understand HP in a way that I havent for twenty plus years of gaming.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;759466I am YELLING YOUR WOUNDS CLOSED!
(Objectively the best D&D rules ever, folks! :hatsoff: )
4E has a healing power called 'Rub some dirt on it!'
Nothing like some dirt in a sword wound to fix you right up!
Quote from: Omega;759569"We saw the sword go through your head! How are you still alive???"
"hah! hah! hah! My brain is so compact that the sword only nicked it!"
Just use willpower to stop a greataxe blade from splitting your skull.
Quote from: LibraryLass;759684As do I, because it sidesteps the argument well. Hopefully it'll be in the DMG.
(Though I don't mind using HP in a group that can come to an accord on what they are.)
I, too, prefer a division of Stamina/Body, and would like to see a simple way to render that. Critical hits could remove STA and Body. You could get HP's "shouted" back into you (inspiration), but they wouldn't heal those bruised ribs. You might last longer, but you'd still be fighting at some sort of disad. Not sure it works with 5th, but certainly, every PC having body=CON is a simple way of doing things. Take a crit, lose HP's and some amount of Body. You take a negative for x/amount of Body damage, you get a -1 (it can be 1 for 1, 2 for 1, whatever). Require healing effects to administer X/number of points to affect body (say 10 per BP or something). It becomes easier to visualize your character dragging himself through battle thanks to high Stamina, even while fighting through those heinous wounds. Also allows for faster HP recovery, since Stamina is HP's. You could even base recovery on Body, so that current Body loss makes recovery slower. Lots of benefits to an approach like that.
That said, I don't have a problem with HP's as they are. An option to expand on that notion would not be unwelcome, though.
Quote from: Windjammer;759505In terms of content, though, it could be very different. But I still think 5e basic turned out to be a more involved game than might have been expected.
At the risk of reigniting the controversy, the lack of character generation rules in Basic was my first hint, really.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;759712The issue with glossing over HP and allowing stufff like healing surges is that different groups have always explained HP differently. For people who saw HP as mainly luck and energy, healing surge mechanics didnt present any problems, for those who saw them as including wounds they presented a huge issue. A lot of gamers took HP loss on a case by case basis, allowing the GM to describe what happened based on the character's hp total, hp damage done and method of attack (in my groups the GM saying a 21 hop guy who took 20 points of damage from a sword just took a deep wound to tye stomache and feels himself starting to slump, wouldn't be uncommon). Obviously HP are abstract and imperfect, you can rip apart this description by pointing to other cases and aspects if the game. But people still did and do run D&D this way. So when you make it a core rule that a guy can be shouted back to health or just will himself back to health, for someone like me it is incredibly jarring to how i play the game and forces me to understand HP in a way that I havent for twenty plus years of gaming.
Yep. You can easily tell which interpretation people fall into based on their reactions to something like the warlord's ability to heal.
If you take the AD&D definition of hit points (being luck, experience, and fatigue making up most of that value, especially at higher levels), then the warlord's ability makes perfect sense. Shouting inspiration does have a very real effect of motivating people with extra energy. Sort of ironic that 1e definition fits the 4e explanation very well, since it's usually the old school crowd that has the biggest issue with that power.
But then you've got the other side, who view hp mostly as damage (how most people I know actually viewed hp in 1e and not by the defined term). This includes myself. During combat, the DM narrated the effect of the attack in terms of physical damage, regardless of how many hp were lost. A 1 hp attack? Scratch. The orc hit you for max damage? His sword pierced your side deeply. That sort of thing. And for people in this group, the warlord's power makes no sense at all.
My homebrew wound system:
HP are vitality. When knocked below zero, roll d20 and subtract value below zero. For example, if at 6 HP and take 9 damage, roll d20 - 3.
11-20: Lightly Wounded. -4 to AC and all rolls (in 5E, I would just call that Disadvantage). Remove with Cure Lt Wounds, or with successful Fort/Con save after night's rest.
1-10: Seriously Wounded. -10 to AC and all rolls and 1/2 movement. Remove with Cure Serious Wounds, or with successful Fort/Con save after a week's rest.
0 or lower: Dying. Fort/Con save each round or die. If stabilized, now Critically Wounded. Combat ineffective and 1/2 movement. Remove with Cure Critical Wounds, or with three successful Fort/Con saves after a week's rest each.
This system is perfectly compatible with non-magical 'healing', because that healing is really just invigoration (rest and morale). It can boost your HP from 7 to 15. But it won't heal a wound.
Quote from: The Butcher;759771At the risk of reigniting the controversy, the lack of character generation rules in Basic was my first hint, really.
Windjammer is completely correct 5e will be moderately complex but nothing like 3/4e. It looks like character generation is nearer to RC/2e.
1. Standard Array or roll dice (I would suggest 4d6 d-1)
2. Pick race/subrace
3. Pick background (if using)
4. Pick class/arrange scores/pick spells etc
5. Buy equipment (ala carte or in a package)
6. Roll for HP
7. Fill out character sheet
You can get more complex by using Bonds, Flaws, Ideals, and Traits. Feats if used aren't picked before 4th level if you don't use it for a stat bump. Multiclassing is optional also. Not totally 5 minutes for a beginner but nobody should be taking an hour or more like 3/4e.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;759774Yep. You can easily tell which interpretation people fall into based on their reactions to something like the warlord's ability to heal.
If you take the AD&D definition of hit points (being luck, experience, and fatigue making up most of that value, especially at higher levels), then the warlord's ability makes perfect sense. Shouting inspiration does have a very real effect of motivating people with extra energy. Sort of ironic that 1e definition fits the 4e explanation very well, since it's usually the old school crowd that has the biggest issue with that power.
But then you've got the other side, who view hp mostly as damage (how most people I know actually viewed hp in 1e and not by the defined term). This includes myself. During combat, the DM narrated the effect of the attack in terms of physical damage, regardless of how many hp were lost. A 1 hp attack? Scratch. The orc hit you for max damage? His sword pierced your side deeply. That sort of thing. And for people in this group, the warlord's power makes no sense at all.
Middle ground and the only thing that makes sense :)
a blow that does 10% of yout Hit points is a scratch one that does 50% is a major blow. So the orc hit the 20 HP fighter for 6 its a decent hit. He hits the 4 hp Wizard its a killer blow and he his the 12the level guy with 90 HP and its a scratch.
Think of damage as % of HP and make healing match that paradigm.
Quote from: jibbajibba;759807Think of damage as % of HP and make healing match that paradigm.
I tend to think of anything that doesn't knock you to zero as bruising/minor lacerations at most. Because one good hit from a sword is going to killify you pretty effectively.
Quote from: robiswrong;759817I tend to think of anything that doesn't knock you to zero as bruising/minor lacerations at most. Because one good hit from a sword is going to killify you pretty effectively.
Yup. The final duel from the film
Rob Roy illustrates this quite nicely. Rob only "hit" Cunningham ONCE.
That was plenty. :)
Quote from: robiswrong;759817I tend to think of anything that doesn't knock you to zero as bruising/minor lacerations at most. Because one good hit from a sword is going to killify you pretty effectively.
One approach and provided in your games natural healing is rapid you are being consistent.
I tend to follow a wound/fatigue model myself.
However if you read descriptions of how that mighty blow was diverted at the last moment by skill and became a cut etc that are used to describe HP then thinking of damage as a % of the total HP available is the only system that works with the rules as written (well if you change healing to level HP per day or some such to have some sort of % type recovery)
Quote from: jibbajibba;759822However if you read descriptions of how that mighty blow was diverted at the last moment by skill and became a cut etc that are used to describe HP then thinking of damage as a % of the total HP available is the only system that works with the rules as written (well if you change healing to level HP per day or some such to have some sort of % type recovery)
Well, really, how often in most games do long-term healing rules come into effect? They're kind of a joke.
I completely agree with the idea that the hit, as a percentage of total hit points, will change how I describe a hit. A shot doing 50% damage will be described similarly, whether it's a level 1 or level 10 character taking that damage, and regardless of whether the damage is actually 4 hp or 40 hp.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;759774Yep. You can easily tell which interpretation people fall into based on their reactions to something like the warlord's ability to heal.
If you take the AD&D definition of hit points (being luck, experience, and fatigue making up most of that value, especially at higher levels), then the warlord's ability makes perfect sense. Shouting inspiration does have a very real effect of motivating people with extra energy. Sort of ironic that 1e definition fits the 4e explanation very well, since it's usually the old school crowd that has the biggest issue with that power.
But then you've got the other side, who view hp mostly as damage (how most people I know actually viewed hp in 1e and not by the defined term). This includes myself. During combat, the DM narrated the effect of the attack in terms of physical damage, regardless of how many hp were lost. A 1 hp attack? Scratch. The orc hit you for max damage? His sword pierced your side deeply. That sort of thing. And for people in this group, the warlord's power makes no sense at all.
I'm sorry but a healing voice doesn't seem any crazier to me than a healing touch, regardless of which abstraction you are using. I mean, really.
I think, as with most RPG stuff, the bitching and butthurt come first the bullshit rational comes later.
Fuck, these 5e threads are proof enough of that.
Quote from: Gib;759852I'm sorry but a healing voice doesn't seem any crazier to me than a healing touch, regardless of which abstraction you are using. I mean, really.
I think, as with most RPG stuff, the bitching and butthurt come first the bullshit rational comes later.
Fuck, these 5e threads are proof enough of that.
If they are both magical or divine in nature, then they are not different. If one guy is summoning the power of his cause god and the other guy just shouting words of inspiration there is an enormous difference. If it doesnt bother you or you justify as both are supernatural, that is fine. But it isnt a minor detail and these kinds of powers trip people up for a reason.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;759858But it isnt a minor detail
I disagree; it is a pea under an infinite pile of mattresses.
Well it would be a bit more humorous if "ok, which one of you wants to play the masseuse?" became a regular question at D&D tables
Quote from: Imp;759867Well it would be a bit more humorous if "ok, which one of you wants to play the masseuse?" became a regular question at D&D tables
War Masseuse is a way better class name than Cleric.
See, that's the thing. Assuming that shouting at someone magically heals gaping wounds is very illogical. It makes no sense.
But before I even get there, I have to get past the idea that you can take multiple full hits with an axe and continue fighting as if nothing happened. That's just as illogical.
The only thing that makes any kind of consistent sense to me is that HP don't actually mean "meat points". They pretty much, in my mind, represent everything *else*, because a single good shot is gonna take you down, no matter what. They're luck, getting winded/stunned, minor cuts, whatever. They're closer to a boxer taking blows and falling down (unless he can rest for thirty seconds!) than they are to actually getting your "meat" hacked apart.
So while I'll admit that shouting to knit bones makes absolutely zero sense, for that to be a concern I'd have to get past the nearly as illogical statement that a warrior can withstand multiple full axe strikes to the body without faltering. And I can't get past that.
But if we assume that HP really do mean being winded, minor cuts and bruises, etc? Yeah, I can totally see an inspiring shout giving somebody the ability to hold on further than they would otherwise.
Quote from: robiswrong;759870See, that's the thing. Assuming that shouting at someone magically heals gaping wounds is very illogical. It makes no sense.
Said no Football Coach, evar.
:D
Quote from: Gib;759864I disagree; it is a pea under an infinite pile of mattresses.
No, it really isn't. If you like healing surges and warlords that is totally cool with me. Maybe they don't disrupt the game for you at all. I personally do find them very disruptive because of the distinction between mundane healing and magical healing. And it isn't a minor point for me, it was something that really kept out at me the moment I read the 4E PHB.
Quote from: jeff37923;759880Said no Football Coach, evar.
:D
Walk it off!
Quote from: Sacrosanct;759774If you take the AD&D definition of hit points (being luck, experience, and fatigue making up most of that value, especially at higher levels), then the warlord's ability makes perfect sense. Shouting inspiration does have a very real effect of motivating people with extra energy. Sort of ironic that 1e definition fits the 4e explanation very well, since it's usually the old school crowd that has the biggest issue with that power.
I agree with the irony that 4E actually makes more sense of the original Gygaxian definition of hit points than many of the actual rules in previous editions, especially with the emphasis on proportionality in healing and on triggering effects--and did anyone notice the few points in the rules where specific injuries worked in a similar way, triggering a proportional loss of HP rather than a fixed amount of damage? (See the rules for taking out body parts under the Hand and Eye of Vecna writeups in the DMG.)
But was it really the old school crowd that had the most problems with martial/inspirational healing? I haven't been tracking the players in the Endless Edition War, but I got the impression that complaint came mostly from the Spellcasting & Simulation crowd, which overlaps primarily with AD&D and 3.X fans but is not strictly identifiable with 'Old School', whatever that is this year. :)
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;759891But was it really the old school crowd that had the most problems with martial/inspirational healing? I haven't been tracking the players in the Endless Edition War, but I got the impression that complaint came mostly from the Spellcasting & Simulation crowd, which overlaps primarily with AD&D and 3.X fans but is not strictly identifiable with 'Old School', whatever that is this year. :)
I think a lot of it boils down to that the idea of 'martial healing' directly counters 30-year-old (at the time) assumptions about healing being a magical thing. Breaking assumptions like that very frequently triggers a backlash.
30 years ago we knew that HP was an abstract concept that didn't map one to one to "real damage" like physical injury. Were they wonky? Sure, but we dealt with it.
Quote from: dragoner;75989530 years ago we knew that HP was an abstract concept that didn't map one to one to "real damage" like physical injury. Were they wonky? Sure, but we dealt with it.
The thing is they were very flexible. The GM could describe HP loss in a variety of ways depending on the situation. Like I said earlier, losing 20 HP when you have 21, might be described as a horribly debilitating wound by the GM. It is broad, abstract and rough in ways, but that description can work for a lot of groups. The healing surge and the inspirational healing of the warlord got in the way of that, because a moment later your guy could be up and okay without the intervention of magical healing. Under the 4E rules, I felt like I lost that flexibility.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;759896Under the 4E rules, I felt like I lost that flexibility.
I can see that, but I've skipped over 4e; I think the rule is funny, somewhat in humorous way. But that path lies danger of when having a laugh becomes the game making a mockery of itself.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;759896The thing is they were very flexible. The GM could describe HP loss in a variety of ways depending on the situation. Like I said earlier, losing 20 HP when you have 21, might be described as a horribly debilitating wound by the GM. It is broad, abstract and rough in ways, but that description can work for a lot of groups. The healing surge and the inspirational healing of the warlord got in the way of that, because a moment later your guy could be up and okay without the intervention of magical healing. Under the 4E rules, I felt like I lost that flexibility.
This is why I prefer health/vitality systems because it accommodates both definitions.
I recently started following the 5e chatter after a long hiatus from RPG boards. I've been so busy working on my own system, I haven't really paid any attention to 5e. I have known it's coming, but to me D&D had become simply a player filter -- a useful service to the RPG industry.
But reading the whole 5e debate for the first time in a while, I found myself confronted with earnestly-worded questions with this basic premise: "Why are so many people refusing to consider D&D 5th edition?"
Why?
Then I realized: "That's me they're talking about."
And then I asked myself: "Am I being fair?"
I mean, it's a whole new edition. Wizards of the Coast, subsidiary of Hasbro Toy Company has released several press releases through their media outlets insisting that one of their primary focuses for this edition of their popular roleplaying product line will be recognizing and embracing the "Old School" trend and harnessing aspects of earlier editions that will increase enjoyment, not only for fans of older editions, but a newer generation of gamers who might be surprised by some facets of traditional games from which the modern RPG originated.
I guess I had failed to consider that everyone from the staff editors to the management team of Wizards of the Coast, to even the corporate officers of Hasbro could be sincere and working hard to deliver a new edition that I should consider seriously.
So, in fairness, I decided to give Wizards of the Coast and Dungeons and Dragons another look. It's been a while, so I decided to start at the beginning. I went to their website and took a few minutes to see what Wizards of the Coast had to say about their products. Here's what they had to say about their gaming products:
"We create great branded play experiences. At Wizards, everything starts with great stories, great art, and innovative game play. Our brands offer the lifestyle gamer with compelling play experiences across multiple media, platforms, and expressions.
From Magic the Gathering, the first and most widely played Trading Card Game (TCG), to Dungeons & Dragons, the roleplaying game that started an entire new category and culture, each of our brands delivers a unique entertainment value to our fan communities including books, novels, animated TV series, movies, video games, board games, apparel and much more."
Well...maybe I had been too judgmental. As a lifestyle gamer, I am always looking for compelling expressions, and if their brands do offer the compelling play experiences they claim, I am just plain foolish to reject them out of hand, especially if those experiences are offered across multiple media and platforms in addition to expressions. I had completely forgotten that Dungeons and Dragons had started an entire new category--and if I am going to be playing a roleplaying game, isn't it just common sense to choose one with the supplemental promise of animated TV series, movies, and much more?
I was intrigued. I saw that the employees live and work in Seattle, and can take half days on Fridays to enjoy playing the imaginative products they create. They have this dragon statue called Mitzy that guards the entrance to their lobby, LOL. Maybe I misjudged them.
So I decided to look into 4th edition to see what their team of staff writer/gaming enthusiasts developed last time around. It is the same team after all. There have been a few changes, but their bench is solid. Fortune Magazine recently named Wizards of the Coast one of the 100 Best Companies to Work for in the U.S. This kind of business ethic attracts and keeps loyal corporate employees and allows them to focus more on their creativity with less stress and worry.
Well, enough about them. What did I find in 4th edition? It's just like they said. Did you realize that in 4th edition, when you reach 11th level, if you play a human character, at 11th level you can choose a Racial Paragon Path instead of another Paragon Path. For instance, you can choose the Adroit Explorer Racial Paragon Path. Here is how they explain the Adroit Explorer (one of many other Racial Paragon Paths):
"The unknown has an inexplicable hold on you. Your greatest ambition is to discover, to unearth, to explore. You are the perfect expression of the human tendency to comb the world in search of knowledge and power, infused with an almost superhuman determination. This determination is central to your nature—a drive that propels you to work harder, fight longer, and strive for more than you should be able to attain through your own merits. You are not satisfied until you have achieved complete victory in your endeavors, and you develop powers to help you achieve your goals. Your will only grows stronger when your back is against the wall, and you fight all the harder, making sure you win the day."
It goes on...
"Whether you are motivated by a thirst for knowledge of the world's most ancient civilizations, a hunger for long-lost secrets of arcane power, a drive to conquer and settle the world in the name of Erathis, or a lust for gold and glory, you're willing to face great danger to achieve your goals. Thanks to your single-minded dedication, you usually manage to escape from danger in one piece, even if you survive only by the skin of your teeth!"
Pretty great, right? That's not all. The Adroit Explorer Racial Paragon Path grants the powers "Destined for Greatness" and "Bloodied Greatness."
If you can believe it, all the Racial Paragon Paths are just as good as this! There's the Ancestral Incarnate Path, the Bloodfury Savage, the Fey Beguiler, the Firstborn of Moradin, I mean the list just goes on and on and on, each of them with their own unique powers like "Unbound Assault" and "Frothing Madness" and "Murderous Rage" and "Beguiling Bolt" and "Sly Offensive" and "Clinging Breath" and "Imperious Presence."
Wow. I could go on all day. This is only some of what they have for 11th level Racial Paragon Paths. They just have so many unique powers. Powers and spells, and feats, and skills. Did you realize there is a power that lets you reach into the formless arcane void and recall a spell or power that you have already expended?
Maybe I have been too hasty. After all, Wizards of the Coast does have the experience. D&D is the industry standard. They have more loyal players than another other game. I guess I'm just going to have to admit it. A grognard is a gronard after all. If you can't give Wizards of the Coast a chance, then you then you (insert something that has nothing to do with evaluating content here).
Quote from: Ghost;759903I recently started following the 5e chatter after a long hiatus from RPG boards. I've been so busy working on my own system, I haven't really paid any attention to 5e. I have known it's coming, but to me D&D had become simply a player filter -- a useful service to the RPG industry.
But reading the whole 5e debate for the first time in a while, I found myself confronted with earnestly-worded questions with this basic premise: "Why are so many people refusing to consider D&D 5th edition?"
Why?
Then I realized: "That's me they're talking about."
And then I asked myself: "Am I being fair?"
I mean, it's a whole new edition. Wizards of the Coast, subsidiary of Hasbro Toy Company has released several press releases through their media outlets insisting that one of their primary focuses for this edition of their popular roleplaying product line will be recognizing and embracing the "Old School" trend and harnessing aspects of earlier editions that will increase enjoyment, not only for fans of older editions, but a newer generation of gamers who might be surprised by some facets of traditional games from which the modern RPG originated.
I guess I had failed to consider that everyone from the staff editors to the management team of Wizards of the Coast, to even the corporate officers of Hasbro could be sincere and working hard to deliver a new edition that I should consider seriously.
So, in fairness, I decided to give Wizards of the Coast and Dungeons and Dragons another look. It's been a while, so I decided to start at the beginning. I went to their website and took a few minutes to see what Wizards of the Coast had to say about their products. Here's what they had to say about their gaming products:
"We create great branded play experiences. At Wizards, everything starts with great stories, great art, and innovative game play. Our brands offer the lifestyle gamer with compelling play experiences across multiple media, platforms, and expressions.
From Magic the Gathering, the first and most widely played Trading Card Game (TCG), to Dungeons & Dragons, the roleplaying game that started an entire new category and culture, each of our brands delivers a unique entertainment value to our fan communities including books, novels, animated TV series, movies, video games, board games, apparel and much more."
Well...maybe I had been too judgmental. As a lifestyle gamer, I am always looking for compelling expressions, and if their brands do offer the compelling play experiences they claim, I am just plain foolish to reject them out of hand, especially if those experiences are offered across multiple media and platforms in addition to expressions. I had completely forgotten that Dungeons and Dragons had started an entire new category--and if I am going to be playing a roleplaying game, isn't it just common sense to choose one with the supplemental promise of animated TV series, movies, and much more?
I was intrigued. I saw that the employees live and work in Seattle, and can take half days on Fridays to enjoy playing the imaginative products they create. They have this dragon statue called Mitzy that guards the entrance to their lobby, LOL. Maybe I misjudged them.
So I decided to look into 4th edition to see what their team of staff writer/gaming enthusiasts developed last time around. It is the same team after all. There have been a few changes, but their bench is solid. Fortune Magazine recently named Wizards of the Coast one of the 100 Best Companies to Work for in the U.S. This kind of business ethic attracts and keeps loyal corporate employees and allows them to focus more on their creativity with less stress and worry.
Well, enough about them. What did I find in 4th edition? It's just like they said. Did you realize that in 4th edition, when you reach 11th level, if you play a human character, at 11th level you can choose a Racial Paragon Path instead of another Paragon Path. For instance, you can choose the Adroit Explorer Racial Paragon Path. Here is how they explain the Adroit Explorer (one of many other Racial Paragon Paths):
"The unknown has an inexplicable hold on you. Your greatest ambition is to discover, to unearth, to explore. You are the perfect expression of the human tendency to comb the world in search of knowledge and power, infused with an almost superhuman determination. This determination is central to your nature—a drive that propels you to work harder, fight longer, and strive for more than you should be able to attain through your own merits. You are not satisfied until you have achieved complete victory in your endeavors, and you develop powers to help you achieve your goals. Your will only grows stronger when your back is against the wall, and you fight all the harder, making sure you win the day."
It goes on...
"Whether you are motivated by a thirst for knowledge of the world's most ancient civilizations, a hunger for long-lost secrets of arcane power, a drive to conquer and settle the world in the name of Erathis, or a lust for gold and glory, you're willing to face great danger to achieve your goals. Thanks to your single-minded dedication, you usually manage to escape from danger in one piece, even if you survive only by the skin of your teeth!"
Pretty great, right? That's not all. The Adroit Explorer Racial Paragon Path grants the powers "Destined for Greatness" and "Bloodied Greatness."
If you can believe it, all the Racial Paragon Paths are just as good as this! There's the Ancestral Incarnate Path, the Bloodfury Savage, the Fey Beguiler, the Firstborn of Moradin, I mean the list just goes on and on and on, each of them with their own unique powers like "Unbound Assault" and "Frothing Madness" and "Murderous Rage" and "Beguiling Bolt" and "Sly Offensive" and "Clinging Breath" and "Imperious Presence."
Wow. I could go on all day. This is only some of what they have for 11th level Racial Paragon Paths. They just have so many unique powers. Powers and spells, and feats, and skills. Did you realize there is a power that lets you reach into the formless arcane void and recall a spell or power that you have already expended?
Maybe I have been too hasty. After all, Wizards of the Coast does have the experience. D&D is the industry standard. They have more loyal players than another other game. I guess I'm just going to have to admit it. A grognard is a gronard after all. If you can't give Wizards of the Coast a chance, then you then you (insert something that has nothing to do with evaluating content here).
Can I assume the TL;DR version is: Could suck, but it might also be awesome. Let's wait and see.
VS
Wow, that totally sounds like a paid-for puff piece. Down to the inclusion of the corporate mottos and shit.
Really, you had to quote that entire post?
Quote from: Marleycat;759902This is why I prefer health/vitality systems because it accommodates both definitions.
I like that for many games. For D&D I still prefer HP, and just kind of gloss over the finer details.
Quote from: robiswrong;759908Wow, that totally sounds like a paid-for puff piece. Down to the inclusion of the corporate mottos and shit.
It sounds sarcastic to me.
Quote from: robiswrong;759908Wow, that totally sounds like a paid-for puff piece. Down to the inclusion of the corporate mottos and shit.
WotC never has PR that good. Ghost's post is freaking masterclass compared to the PR they've done for a decade.
Jesus Wept
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;759916I like that for many games. For D&D I still prefer HP, and just kind of gloss over the finer details.
Yeah Dnd is weird like that. If you change too much it's no longer Dnd but the problem is different things mean Dnd to different people. I don't envy WotC's task.
I took it as sarcasm. My eyes started to glaze over when he got to the power titles and descriptions.
Quote from: Endless Flight;759959I took it as sarcasm. My eyes started to glaze over when he got to the power titles and descriptions.
Clearly sarcasm. But yeah, painful to read! What a toilet of an edition.
...Cool story, bro?:confused:
Quote from: LibraryLass;759971...Cool story, bro?:confused:
Ghost is pure old school. It was obvious sarcasm.
I'm not old school, I'm anti-suck, and I can't believe that anyone is willing to buy something WotC puts out. The hatred many hold for them was hard-earned and well-deserved and WotC defenders are the nutty ones, not so-called grognards. I play all kinds of games, but if you buy into a new edition from a corporate-owned publishing company, you deserve what you get, which will be a product designed with the primary design priciple of netting Hasbro the most amount of money. That means rules bloat, limiting content to what can be grasped by the mind of an American 12-year old, and a whole host of other staggeringly unacceptable factors which nobody in this conversation should need explained to them.
You can go ahead and purchase their garbage if you want, just stop acting like people who are done with WotC are conspiracy nuts or something. The truth is that those who play WotC at this point are the definition of sheep. Beat them over the head, spit in their faces, but they'll be back next edition like clockwork. It's laughable.
Quote from: Ghost;759983I'm not old school, I'm anti-suck, and I can't believe that anyone is willing to buy something WotC puts out. The hatred many hold for them was hard-earned and well-deserved and WotC defenders are the nutty ones, not so-called grognards. I play all kinds of games, but if you buy into a new edition from a corporate-owned publishing company, you deserve what you get, which will be a product designed with the primary design priciple of netting Hasbro the most amount of money. That means rules bloat, limiting content to what can be grasped by the mind of an American 12-year old, and a whole host of other staggeringly unacceptable factors which nobody in this conversation should need explained to them.
You can go ahead and purchase their garbage if you want, just stop acting like people who are done with WotC are conspiracy nuts or something. The truth is that those who play WotC at this point are the definition of sheep. Beat them over the head, spit in their faces, but they'll be back next edition like clockwork. It's laughable.
Perfect.:)
I would call you Ghost Whisperer but that would be too easy and obvious.
You can call me Ghost Whisperer. You can call me grognard. You can call me Taliban. You can tell me I was touched in the wrong place. I've already seen all that. But misdirection won't disguise the suck of WotC. All I have to do is go back and quote more of their text until you cringe.
Quote from: Ghost;759989You can call me Ghost Whisperer. You can call me grognard. You can call me Taliban. You can tell me I was touched in the wrong place. I've already seen all that. But misdirection won't disguise the suck of WotC. All I have to do is go back and quote more of their text until you cringe.
Sorry for trying to compliment you. So dance monkey dance.. you entertain me. Please continue.:)
TBH whether WOTC has access to a level of writing talent that'll make their books interesting/inspiring/not-stone-stupid has been one of my more major concerns going into this new edition. The tiny bits of 5e I've read so far suggest it'll be better than 4e but still kinda dry. But who knows.
or monkey...I would really like to figure out a way to be called the gaming Hittite but I can't see a way to work that out. The Hittites are historically the coolest sounding bad-guys.
Quote from: Ghost;760001or monkey...I would really like to figure out a way to be called the gaming Hittite but I can't see a way to work that out. The Hittites are historically the coolest sounding bad-guys.
Well your avatar is a good start.:)
Spear and Shield are your friends.
Quote from: Marleycat;760003Well your avatar is a good start.:)
Spear and Shield are your friends.
He's like Humongus Amongus. :D
Come on, there were plenty of hockeymask-wearing Hittite mass-murderers. Hockey was very big in Asia Minor. I'm...I'm a Hittite blacksmith.
You're like the Ayatollah of rock and rolla. :D
Quote from: Ghost;760017Come on, there were plenty of hockeymask-wearing Hittite mass-murderers. Hockey was very big in Asia Minor. I'm...I'm a Hittite blacksmith.
Wait... you mean you arent Casey Jones???? :eek:
Aheh.
I think some of us are cutting WOTC some slack because we participated in the platest and so far the way they are handling the release has been overall positive. With a few bumps of course.
But this is WOTC and Mearls we are talking about and their past actions means all bets are off. Doling out of bits and pieces of info. Chirped buzzwords. etc. Things that make some of us twitch just that little bit each time.
We will see where this goes. I'll remain sceptically optimistic till proven pessimistically right. heh-heh.
At first I liked the art for 5e, when it was kinda pixar-ish, but all the stuff recently is pretty bland (though better than 3rd, which I guess isnt saying much).
All the rules debate just makes me bored. My only rules question regarding 5e is : can new players jump into playing without having to learn any of the rules? If so, great. Of not, its inferior to any edition published 20+ years ago, end of story. But no, Im not a grognard, I just play lots of games other than D&D.
Quote from: Ghost;760017Come on, there were plenty of hockeymask-wearing Hittite mass-murderers. Hockey was very big in Asia Minor. I'm...I'm a Hittite blacksmith.
Who am I to disagree I'm just a Communications officer from the far future. :D
Quote from: Marleycat;759975Ghost is pure old school. It was obvious sarcasm.
I stand by my perplexity.
What was the point of this little play, exactly?
Quote from: LibraryLass;760055I stand by my perplexity.
What was the point of this little play, exactly?
To use sarcasm, slanted reporting and cherry-picked statements to demonstrate the degeneracy of post-Gygax/WotC/New School gaming and, by implication, establish the moral superiority of Old School Right-Thinking Pure Hobbyist D&D.
I mean, look at quotes like this that demonstrate such contempt for anyone who wants to publish their own stuff:
"[A]lthough we may concede their right to exist (however dependent they may be on D&D's audience), we would caution the prospective buyer to consider their true value and not to be confused with those items which bear the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS ... name and constitute the official D&D family of products."
Or the dependence on the supplement treadmill:
"It is also very important to keep abreast of what is happening in the world of adventure gaming"--obviously a thinly veiled shill for "keep buying our products!"
And don't forget how they fail to understand the deep and rich premises and philosophical traditions of the game, such as this howler on alignment:
"After all, life itself is law and order, so death is a desirable end. Therefore, life can only be justified as a tool by which order is combatted, and in the end it too will pass into entropy."
Those all have a Gygaxian ring to them...confirmed in the last case, which tbh I thought was "not bad at all".
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;760073To use sarcasm, slanted reporting and cherry-picked statements to demonstrate the degeneracy of post-Gygax/WotC/New School gaming and, by implication, establish the moral superiority of Old School Right-Thinking Pure Hobbyist D&D.
Or use WotC own words to show them as what they are: a gaming company that's just an extension of a brand warehouse company, and wonder how people think it can be any different then the crap that's come before. Not a single OSR specific sentiment expressed in that post.
I may not agree with the sentiment, but again, it's not that hard to read, is it?
Quote from: LibraryLass;760055I stand by my perplexity.
What was the point of this little play, exactly?
I'd figure to mock everyone involved or troll. It's what's done here in certain situations or for a laugh.
It's all so difficult to understand. Life's mysteries and whatnot.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;760073To use sarcasm, slanted reporting and cherry-picked statements to demonstrate the degeneracy of post-Gygax/WotC/New School gaming and, by implication, establish the moral superiority of Old School Right-Thinking Pure Hobbyist D&D.
No. He quote mined a web-preview of 4E's Player's Handbook 2, which I might add (as a
fan of 4E) was the edition's high point on the
mechanical side. Mearls called it 'his finest'. (I think it was
Rob Heinsoo's 'finest', and pretty awful of Mearls to push Heinsoo off the front cover, but anyhow.) As for the book's prose, Wolfgang Baur put it best in his review (http://www.koboldquarterly.com/k/article205.php): the company is treating its customers as idiots. And that's coming from the man who's now writing modules for 5E. So the
only thing I fault the above poster for is being five years late and being pretty smug about it.
Quote from: Wolfgang BaurLanguage and the Dumb: WotC Goes Emo?
There's no polite way to say this, but a lot of the writing and language in PHB2 are just a little stupid. This isn't restricted to things like the (embarrassingly bad, half-page-long) index, but rather it's about the low quality of the prose throughout.
The paragon path for the elf Twilight Guardian starts with "Despoiler! Feel nature's wrath!". The Druid entry starts "I am the seeker. I am the stalker. I am the storm." Both strike me as better left as flavor text on a Magic card than inspirational material for serious D&D players. Maybe it's just the prevalence of elfy-welfy stuff around the Primal source that's getting under my skin, but...
Well, fantasy writing has always made room for bombast and overblown, purple prose, but this book cranks it up a couple notches. Words like "peril" and "supplicate" are dropped into sentences that really don't need them; almost every tagline is "ferocious" or "erupting" or "assaulting". These are not huge problems; individually, they're pebbles. But even enough pebbles can be a problem.
It reminds me of some of the worst examples from the White Wolf books of the 90s. Hell, some of the Primal language in particular would be right at home in a Werewolf supplement. Ah, well, flavor is not a 4E strong point, but we're heading into the realm of comedy this time out. I found myself laughing fairly often, usually not a good sign.
Beyond the pulp diction, there's plenty of other examples of the flavor just not synching up with the mechanics, or failures of language and mythmaking. The devas are reincarnation-flavored and derived from Hindu myth, but their suggested names include Biblical nods like Samel and Zachar (Samuel and Zacharia).
There's the lurking sense that the designers are cribbing from bad manga, rather than building on the shoulders of the D&D game's own mythos. That's a lost opportunity, and it's a shame that a game that once prized itself on appealing to an educated audience is no longer even aiming for that. Basically, the PHB2 assumes you are sort of an idiot, whereas Gygax always assumed you were smarter than the average reader. The shift leaves me a little offended.
Quote from: Arminius;760078Those all have a Gygaxian ring to them...confirmed in the last case, which tbh I thought was "not bad at all".
I'm inclined to agree with you, and including it was probably reaching. I came across it last night and was just struck by, after seeing people complain about the 'misrepresentation' of Chaos in 2E and 4E, seeing the description of CN in the 1E DMG as only a hairs'-breadth removed from Chaotic Evil.
But then, I came in in the Middle School and with far too much exposure to the Dragonlance novels, which tended to portray Neutrality as Wiser and More Tolerant Good. Talk about whiplash. :)
And you're two-thirds right. One of those quotes was
not Gygax, although it comes from a book with his name on the cover. :)
Quote from: Mistwell;756420Another fairly safe approach would be to download the Basic rules when they come out for free, and check them out. And then if there is strong word of mouth on a particular adventure (which I am guessing will run about $15 for a hardback adventure on Amazon), maybe buy that and check it out using just the Basic rules.
I'll definitely be skimming through the first 5E AP with the "Hoard of the Dragon Queen" and "Rise of Tiamat" modules, largely to see whether it could be useful for non-5E purposes. (Probably at a nearby big box bookstore or gaming store).
If it's railroady like the first several Pathfinder APs, then I'll take a pass. (Don't need to buy any more high quality produced railroads).
Quote from: dragoner;760020You're like the Ayatollah of rock and rolla. :D
I'm now reading all his posts in Humungus' voice. It's only a matter of time before be calls us all puny fools :-)
Quote from: Windjammer;760099No. He quote mined a web-preview of 4E's Player's Handbook 2, which I might add (as a fan of 4E) was the edition's high point on the mechanical side. Mearls called it 'his finest'. (I think it was Rob Heinsoo's 'finest', and pretty awful of Mearls to push Heinsoo off the front cover, but anyhow.) As for the book's prose, Wolfgang Baur put it best in his review (http://www.koboldquarterly.com/k/article205.php): the company is treating its customers as idiots. And that's coming from the man who's now writing modules for 5E. So the only thing I fault the above poster for is being five years late and being pretty smug about it.
Truly a shame. 4e so obviously not only failed to tie the mechanics to the setting, it was more than clear the designers never had that goal.
Take 4e, rename everything to something other then self-parody, then re-publish as a miniatures wargame with a good mini publisher, they'd seriously be competing hard with the big boys.
Mechanically, they had their shit wired, unfortunately, that's really all they had.
Quote from: Fiasco;760132I'm now reading all his posts in Humungus' voice. It's only a matter of time before be calls us all puny fools :-)
Ok, that's hilarious, you're right. lol
BTW, despite the full retard labeling that went on in the 5e threads, Windjammer again has proven himself (although anyone with two brain cells to rub together who actually reads his posts needs no proof) to be not an ideologue.
This is guy who plays and is quite fond of 4e, yet when a very sarcastic criticism of the game arises, what does he do? Agrees that WotC made some mistakes and the criticism is valid. You know, what honest people do who aren't being petty, passive-aggressive cunts.
In the height of the 4e wars who was the one who refuted the most 4venger lies with actual facts and quotes? - Windjammer
Christ, Windjammer's facts vs. Abyssal Maw's bullshit became an actual RPGsite trope after this classic post by Hairfoot (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=367745&postcount=546) (those who cannot remember the past...).
Who is the one that despite his admiration for Rob Heinsoo was the first to point out how Heinsoo doubled down on the over generous nature of HPs and Healing of 4e in the new game 13th Age? - Windjammer
Windjammer being labeled an Anti-5e fanatic was the stupidest statement made in the 5e tempest-in-a-toilet, and brother, that's saying something.
Quote from: CRKrueger;760146BTW, despite the full retard labeling that went on in the 5e threads, Windjammer again has proven himself (although anyone with two brain cells to rub together who actually reads his posts needs no proof) to be not an ideologue.
This is guy who plays and is quite fond of 4e, yet when a very sarcastic criticism of the game arises, what does he do? Agrees that WotC made some mistakes and the criticism is valid. You know, what honest people do who aren't being petty, passive-aggressive cunts.
In the height of the 4e wars who was the one who refuted the most 4venger lies with actual facts and quotes? - Windjammer
Christ, Windjammer's facts vs. Abyssal Maw's bullshit became an actual RPGsite trope after this classic post by Hairfoot (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=367745&postcount=546) (those who cannot remember the past...).
Who is the one that despite his admiration for Rob Heinsoo was the first to point out how Heinsoo doubled down on the over generous nature of HPs and Healing of 4e in the new game 13th Age? - Windjammer
Windjammer being labeled an Anti-5e fanatic was the stupidest statement made in the 5e tempest-in-a-toilet, and brother, that's saying something.
Uninfortunately that was probably me.
Given I started reading some of his past posts. Though I stand by my opinion that his issue is not against 5e but WotC.
Quote from: Windjammer;757221I don't think Kyle postulated or insinuated such a scenario - but onto the more interesting part. This is where we finally get to hear what's behind your consultancy - a report consisting of 'dozen of pages' followed up by emails. I understand all that's behind your NDA wall right now. But what about August? Are you willing to go public with your feedback, so we can all see how yours shaped the game?
There were actually two reports, and there were not just a few emails; there's been a considerable amount of exchange back and forth, in detail. We aren't talking "did you get it?/yeah got it" here.
In any case, I don't know what kind of deal you had with the 13th age people. Were you a paid consultant?
I am, and as such didn't just sign an NDA but also a contract, and I'd have to check but I'm fairly sure I can't go posting a report to the general public that I wrote to WoTC as terms of the contract in question.
I'm sorry, but this isn't fucking kiddy-hour over here, or amateur-hour. This is fucking Hasbro we're talking about here.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;760196I'm sorry, but this isn't fucking kiddy-hour over here, or amateur-hour. This is fucking Hasbro we're talking about here.
RPGPundit
This IS the company that makes toys & games for children right? :D
In light of this fact, your above statement made me giggle.
Quote from: CRKrueger;760146BTW, despite the full retard labeling that went on in the 5e threads, Windjammer again has proven himself (although anyone with two brain cells to rub together who actually reads his posts needs no proof) to be not an ideologue.
This is guy who plays and is quite fond of 4e, yet when a very sarcastic criticism of the game arises, what does he do? Agrees that WotC made some mistakes and the criticism is valid. You know, what honest people do who aren't being petty, passive-aggressive cunts.
In the height of the 4e wars who was the one who refuted the most 4venger lies with actual facts and quotes? - Windjammer
Christ, Windjammer's facts vs. Abyssal Maw's bullshit became an actual RPGsite trope after this classic post by Hairfoot (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=367745&postcount=546) (those who cannot remember the past...).
Who is the one that despite his admiration for Rob Heinsoo was the first to point out how Heinsoo doubled down on the over generous nature of HPs and Healing of 4e in the new game 13th Age? - Windjammer
Windjammer being labeled an Anti-5e fanatic was the stupidest statement made in the 5e tempest-in-a-toilet, and brother, that's saying something.
Yeah, I've always found him to be a pretty reasonable poster, even when I don't agree with him.
Also, I wonder what AM is up to? It doesn't look like he's posted here in a long time. I wonder if he's sticking with 4e or making the jump, or went a different direction?
That's probably one of the most regrettable things in my eyes about the 4e Wars. Before 4e, the conversation was different, and he was a positive part of that.
Quote from: Ghost;759983I'm not old school, I'm anti-suck, and I can't believe that anyone is willing to buy something WotC puts out. The hatred many hold for them was hard-earned and well-deserved and WotC defenders are the nutty ones, not so-called grognards. I play all kinds of games, but if you buy into a new edition from a corporate-owned publishing company, you deserve what you get, which will be a product designed with the primary design priciple of netting Hasbro the most amount of money. That means rules bloat, limiting content to what can be grasped by the mind of an American 12-year old, and a whole host of other staggeringly unacceptable factors which nobody in this conversation should need explained to them.
The purpose of every company is to make the most amount of money possible. If some companies fail to make a profit it's only because they're not selling something enough customers really want.
Quote from: Ghost;759983You can go ahead and purchase their garbage if you want, just stop acting like people who are done with WotC are conspiracy nuts or something. The truth is that those who play WotC at this point are the definition of sheep. Beat them over the head, spit in their faces, but they'll be back next edition like clockwork. It's laughable.
That's some incredible mental gymnastics you undertake to convince yourself that people who buy WotC products are sheep. Not everyone in this hobby suffers from the kind of nerdfury that inspires them to volcanic eruptions of rage over a game publisher. Beating over the head? Spitting in faces? Most of the people I game with couldn't even the name the publishers of D&D. It's just a fucking game, you loon.
People who like things you don't like aren't sheep. You don't have any special insight into RPGs or D&D. Like many nerds in this hobby, you seem to carry around a lot of insecurity and resentment that the stuff you like is not as popular as you want it to be. Forget about WotC. Forget about sheep. Play a game you like and ignore the rest.
Quote from: Ghost;759983I'm not old school, I'm anti-suck, and I can't believe that anyone is willing to buy something TSR puts out. The hatred many hold for them was hard-earned and well-deserved and TSR defenders are the nutty ones, not so-called grognards. I play all kinds of games, but if you buy into a new edition from a corporate-owned publishing company, you deserve what you get, which will be a product designed with the primary design priciple of netting TSR the most amount of money. That means rules bloat, limiting content to what can be grasped by the mind of an American 12-year old, and a whole host of other staggeringly unacceptable factors which nobody in this conversation should need explained to them.
I heard this exact argument back in the 2E days, and it seems variants of them date right back to declarations in Alarums & Excursions in the OD&D era about how D&D was too important to leave to Gary Gygax and that the fans should rise up and make the game their own.
D&D has been a commercial concern right from the very dawn of the hobby and nobody can claim that they have played a non-corporate version of the game unless they were part of Dave and Gary's early groups. (So, that'd be Old Geezer and pretty much nobody else posting here.) It's funny how some of the exact same complainers who liked to say shit about T$R suddenly embraced TSR-era editions of the game for the sake of saying "Fuck you" to Wizards.
Quote from: Warthur;760263I heard this exact argument back in the 2E days, and it seems variants of them date right back to declarations in Alarums & Excursions in the OD&D era about how D&D was too important to leave to Gary Gygax and that the fans should rise up and make the game their own.
D&D has been a commercial concern right from the very dawn of the hobby and nobody can claim that they have played a non-corporate version of the game unless they were part of Dave and Gary's early groups. (So, that'd be Old Geezer and pretty much nobody else posting here.) It's funny how some of the exact same complainers who liked to say shit about T$R suddenly embraced TSR-era editions of the game for the sake of saying "Fuck you" to Wizards.
Which is even funnier when you consider that WotC saved D&D when TSR was bankrupt and through the OGL ensured that whatever happened to them as a company in the future there would always be a version of D&D that was available to everyone to play something that no iteration of TSR from the earliest days would have considered.
I'm fully aware of why they're doing it. And it's obviously effective. I'm simply saying that they are doing it. If it makes some people like me react strongly against it, then that's a consequence and a reaction to something. Maybe you don't consider the content in 4e insulting when you read it. I do. Maybe that makes me a loon. But that junk they sell is junk and there's a good reason lots of people don't like it. Not for some inexplicable reason. Not because they are taliban, Nazis, grognards, or anything else. It's because the stuff you have to read to play the game is awful.
There's an other side of the street to "don't tell me that what I like isn't fun" - and calling people that criticize something you like Taliban crosses to that side of the street. You're a sheep and I'm a loon is far enough.
Quote from: Haffrung;760254you seem to carry around a lot of insecurity and resentment that the stuff you like is not as popular as you want it to be.
It's kind of funny, if you look at some of the more enthusiastic posters on different boards for 5e, they all seem to fit a pattern, someone who has been on the "outside" of the current D&D players group because they didn't like 3e or 4e. There's some of the "Finally, a D&D I can play." enthusiasm about it, but there were always D&D's you could play, so why the enthusiasm
now?
Perhaps because they want to be back on the
inside?
Not sure the "Gaming Identity" charge is being leveled at the right people.
I'm sure for many, the ability to get into a group if they play a more popular game, is certainly a factor.
Also, the "WotC has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory for 14 years, maybe I'll wait and see on this one." is probably the dominant opinion here if you add up all the different posts.
@CRKrueger - thanks for the vote of confidence. To be fair, I'm not upset at WotC generally, or 5e particularly, but at the handling of D&D since Heinsoo left. I don't think Mearls is a good steward, though he's certainly better than Slavicsek. Mearls' handling of the skill challenge tornado (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?447574-necro-Anatomy-of-Failed-Design-Skill-Challenges/page6) in 2009 on tBP was awful. In that thread, he evaded any responsibility for the DMG 1 skill challenge fail, and promised they're working on fixing the thing in DMG 2. A little bit later, and Mearls gave the green light to selling
another non-playtested, broken version of the same mechanic a year later, for again hard earned cash, just as Trollman predicted.
That, right there, is everything one ever needs to know about Mearls. He is literally on record for saying he'll fix a mechanic, and then screw you over again. That's awful. I was a huge Mearls fanboy up to DMG 1 - when I bought it and tried playing its core mechanic, I realized I was just getting screwed over. Then I saw the tBP thread and thought, wow he's really a smug prick, and just groping for excuses, but let's give him a third (!) chance. And then DMG 2 hit and I knew he was a sham and an untrustable cretin with
no design capability. Seriously - he had had years of doing the right thing, and chose not to. And he asked money for it. That, right there, is pretty much the single most awful thing that can happen to the game that defines the RPG market. It's irresponsible, and its self-aggrandizement pushing out genuine talent. So Mearls pushing out Heinsoo and co. is not simply a moral issue - it's a tragedy for the game. Essentials was just another cluster fuck, and 5e - so far - has all the same trappings. No mathtest, just a feel good concept community test. Sorry, but the writing is on the wall. Again.
So when people write my posts are ideologically coloured or whatever, I ignore them, because it's pretty obvious they have no
clue about WotC' recent history and customer interaction. And by recent I don't mean, in the last three months. No, five to six years, and going.
For all I care, Mearls did the opportunistically right thing with 5e. He bought out a couple of guys with an online ego problem, and asked them to parade around as 'consultants' to vent good things in the blogosphere about a game that
wasn't even designed yet. For all we know, Zak and Pundit haven't even seen the final ruleset themselves, or ever before. That's what they got bought for. Not because they're actually solid playtesters. So, if people think that that was a smart move to get us a solidly tested game - well, good luck!
I'm uncertain where the 'D&D team' is going, as Wyatt jumped ship just yesterday, and with Cordell and Baker gone, there's literally no one left who I think has any design credentials. It's really poor leadership and poor handling of what is an
exceptional game, and I think given time, history will be quite harsh in its final judgement of Mearls, his never ending excuses, and his unethical displacment of far superior design talent at WotC.
Quote from: Windjammer;757221This is where we finally get to hear what's behind your consultancy - a report consisting of 'dozen of pages' followed up by emails. I understand all that's behind your NDA wall right now. But what about August? Are you willing to go public with your feedback, so we can all see how yours shaped the game?
I'm not asking you to post private emails drafted by third parties, just to ask you to post content written by yourself that - you claim - made a difference to how 5e turned out.
Quote from: RPGPundit;760196There were actually two reports, and there were not just a few emails; there's been a considerable amount of exchange back and forth, in detail. We aren't talking "did you get it?/yeah got it" here.
In any case, I don't know what kind of deal you had with the 13th age people. Were you a paid consultant?
I am, and as such didn't just sign an NDA but also a contract, and I'd have to check but I'm fairly sure I can't go posting a report to the general public that I wrote to WoTC as terms of the contract in question.
I'm sorry, but this isn't fucking kiddy-hour over here, or amateur-hour. This is fucking Hasbro we're talking about here.
You're replying on June 22 to a question I posed on June 10. So I think it's safe to say that you could have easily checked the actual details, but chose not to. This doesn't invite confidence, but I understand you'd rather remain evasive. Whatever.
I guess we can always check the PHB credits in August to see whom WotC deemed worthy of a personal mention.
I wouldn't say that it bothers me that the games I like aren't as popular as I want them to be as much as that the games I hate are way more popular than I think they should be. When 4e came out it took me two minutes of skimming through to see that it was garbage and I haven't bothered with it since, so no I don't think I have some special insight into it. It certainly doesn't take special insight. The Pundit is one of 5e's main defenders here. All I have to do is open and read a bit from the Arrows of Indra to know that he is fully well aware of how bad 4e sucks because the text of his game shows me that his game is the opposite. It's smart and thought-provoking and he respects his reader. He knows 4e sucked as well as I do. Now he and alot of other people are busy claiming that 5e resistance is a sign of some psychological deficiency. Why they are doing that is beyond my powers of insight.
What I do know is that the best prediction of future behavior is past behavior coupled with incentive. I know WotC's past behavior, and as noted a few posts earlier, I know their incentive. Given these factors, it would be foolish to suggest that 5e "deserves another chance" or that it deserves anything besides my contempt.
Oh I know, here I am on theRPGsite arguing about games again, dancing like a monkey and erupting like a volcano about something so trivial as a game. I'd better clear out of here and let the sane people get back to what they normally would be doing if I weren't here.
Quote from: CRKrueger;760299It's kind of funny, if you look at some of the more enthusiastic posters on different boards for 5e, they all seem to fit a pattern, someone who has been on the "outside" of the current D&D players group because they didn't like 3e or 4e. There's some of the "Finally, a D&D I can play." enthusiasm about it, but there were always D&D's you could play, so why the enthusiasm now?
Perhaps because they want to be back on the inside?
Not sure the "Gaming Identity" charge is being leveled at the right people.
I'm sure for many, the ability to get into a group if they play a more popular game, is certainly a factor.
Also, the "WotC has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory for 14 years, maybe I'll wait and see on this one." is probably the dominant opinion here if you add up all the different posts.
You know, when it looks like you are defending the guy who just said that anyone interested in 5e is a sheep, it really erodes any position you might actually have.
Are you really wanting to double down on your position so hard, you will back up people who are making 5e skeptics look like nutjobs?
You know, when Marley goes absolutely nutty, I don't back her up. Because generally you are right about when she goes off the deep end. Because I have no intention of tying my perspective to someone trying to sink the ship.
Maybe you should think of doing the same?
Quote from: Ghost;760279You're a sheep and I'm a loon is far enough.
That's it! I'm having mutton with loon sauce for dinner tonight!!!
Quote from: Emperor Norton;760315You know, when it looks like you are defending the guy who just said that anyone interested in 5e is a sheep, it really erodes any position you might actually have.
Are you really wanting to double down on your position so hard, you will back up people who are making 5e skeptics look like nutjobs?
You know, when Marley goes absolutely nutty, I don't back her up. Because generally you are right about when she goes off the deep end. Because I have no intention of tying my perspective to someone trying to sink the ship.
Maybe you should think of doing the same?
He calls them sheep, he gets called a loon. Sticks and stones. I bought the Starter Set because it was $11.66 on Amazon with free shipping due to Prime and I'm actually interested in seeing if WotC screwed the pooch again. $11.66 and a free download is a lot less to pay to see then 3 hardbound full color books.
If the Hittite thinks I'm a sheep,
he's a moron. It's clear from his opening post, he's padding his opinions with entertaining sarcasm, so whatever. His broader point, without the hyperbole though, sticks and has teeth.
Is Windjammer a loon or a nutjob? He provides more logical analysis then any random dozen posters here combined and doesn't call anyone a sheep. However, unlike a lot of current 5e supporters who tuned out, he was plugged in to WotC 4e and subscribed to all the updates, read the news and posts, followed the firings, layoffs and leavings, knows who was responsible for what mechanics in the books, and generally is a 4e expert because he was a very involved fan of the system. Based on how Mearls handled 4e, Windjammer has no faith in WotC handling of 5e, and sees the same type of moves behind the scenes.
Now Windjammer goes farther to imply that Zak and Pundit weren't really involved in affecting the mechanics, they served merely to shut the OSR up and get two very vocal opponents of the system with audiences to be on board, or at least muzzle them due to NDA. Is he right? Only time will tell.
So Hittite thinks anyone being optimistic about 5e is being a fool because they will screw up just like 4th, and even bothering with them is stupid. He may very well be right, but it's costing me very little to find out.
Windjammer thinks anyone being optimistic about 5e is being a fool because Mearls will screw up just like 4th. He may very well be right, but it's costing me very little to find out.
In either case, there is precedent for their opinions. Seeing as how WotC deliberately and with obvious intent went out of their way to purposely fire the old schoolers as customers, it is surprising that they are getting as much positive traction as they are for a ruleset
not yet released.
BTW, the Ford/Chevy thing, not very accurate a comparison. Ford puts out a lemon, you're going to be a little skeptical before you buy another Ford. I think you probably do just a wee bit of research and find out they didn't put out a lemon now and have a class-winning product. The only thing that accurately matches WotC and 4e is really New Coke.
As far as Pundit's involvement, I'd have to say while I agree he's being a bit of a putz lately on the whole OSR Taliban thing, that points in my opinion, to him actually being involved at some point.
If you look at his anti-grognard anger as "Look you knuckle-dragging fuckers, I got Mearls to actually listen about old school stuff for the first time in 14 years and this is the closest you're ever going to get to the Red Box from Hasbro and it's FREE, so just shut the fuck up and download the goddamn thing before you sacrifice it on the altar of JMal." it makes more sense.
Why he didn't just say this, I have no fucking idea.
Quote from: CRKrueger;760325If you look at his anti-grognard anger as "Look you knuckle-dragging fuckers, I got Mearls to actually listen about old school stuff for the first time in 14 years and this is the closest you're ever going to get to the Red Box from Hasbro and it's FREE, so just shut the fuck up and download the goddamn thing before you sacrifice it on the altar of JMal." it makes more sense.
Why he didn't just say this, I have no fucking idea.
Either you've missed the past
forever, or you're one heck of a sunny-eyed optimist. :D
From what little I've seen of 5e, I find it promising, so it's going to get a go from me. The rest is the usual palaver.
Quote from: JamesV;760328Either you've missed the past forever, or you're one heck of a sunny-eyed optimist. :D
From what little I've seen of 5e, I find it promising, so it's going to get a go from me. The rest is the usual palaver.
There's usually a discernable method to the Pundit's madness, and it's usually not what the people at storygames.com, purple or the drive-by detractors say.
As an OSR author, with the Taliban stuff, he's shitting where he eats, and he doesn't seem to realize that when all the anti-grognard people who will never buy his games jump and defend 5e along with him, doing the Grogstomp Victory Dance, he's annoying his audience for no reason. Unless he's trying to supplant JMal as the "Pope of the New OSR" and the "Hero who beat Hasbro", which really would be fucking crazy. his current posts are making no sense to me. I don't see the angle, and whatever you think about him, he usually has one.
It is pretty clear though, that he's confident that 5e will vindicate him, so again, this points to him actually having input and the game actually being something old schoolers will like.
It's the only angle I see in all this.
Quote from: CRKrueger;760331"Look you knuckle-dragging fuckers, I got Mearls to actually listen about old school stuff for the first time in 14 years and this is the closest you're ever going to get to the Red Box from Hasbro and it's FREE, so just shut the fuck up and download the goddamn thing before you sacrifice it on the altar of JMal."
...It's the only angle I see in all this.
I think you put it well, and while it's a bit of a foot-bullet to the big tent aspirations of 5e, it also fits in with Pundit's steady "OSR Taliban" rhetoric of the past few years.
Quote from: Ghost;760313I wouldn't say that it bothers me that the games I like aren't as popular as I want them to be as much as that the games I hate are way more popular than I think they should be.
Well, that's an incredibly shitty attitude to take. Why expend so much energy being mad at other people's fun when you could be promoting your own fun?
Because I'm a Hittite and that's what we do.
What flipped my switch is the idea that there's something wrong with thinking what I think or expressing it. My "crazy rant" has already been dismissed multiple times as "old-school" lock-step. I play Shadowrun and Runequest 6 right now. I'm not old school, though I like 1e (?) along with alot of other stuff, and I'm not a Taliban trying to force you to do anything. My opinion, and the opinion of plenty of other people, that refusing to buy or consider 5e, is a logical choice.
You will notice that for all the eye-tearing over my "sheep" comment, not a single person, no matter how optimistic has contested my prediction that 5e will be written for 10-12 year olds or that every page of it will be swollen and bloated just to fill space (sort of like my posts). D&D isn't the only one who bloats their books. Hackmaster does it but they have the courtesy to make the text they bloat it with some of the best reading in roleplaying. D&D just crams the pages full of sludge that makes no sense. I don't like that, so I complain. So here we are.
The only response to this is the "defense" that Hasbro is a company and companies are there to make money.
Yep. From sheep. Sheep who know they are buying junk and nevertheless go back and buy it. Sheep like being sheep and don't like being called sheep. They jostle around uncomfortably in their pens when you call them that. But they're still sheep. Nobody's apologizing for calling anti-5e critics taliban. Don't expect me to give a damn if you don't like being a sheep.
Quote from: Warthur;760339Well, that's an incredibly shitty attitude to take. Why expend so much energy being mad at other people's fun when you could be promoting your own fun?
He's like anyone else here who has ever made a negative or criticizing post about something they don't like or that bothers them? Shall I check your post history for prime examples? ;)
Thumper's Mom doesn't own the site, Bill the Butcher does.
Oh yeah, he said something against 5e, he's not allowed to have an opinion, and when he does it's some kind of extreme outlier, right? :rotfl:
EDIT: Ok, so maybe he is a little extreme.
Quote from: Ghost;760347Because I'm a Hittite and that's what we do.
What flipped my switch is the idea that there's something wrong with thinking what I think or expressing it. My "crazy rant" has already been dismissed multiple times as "old-school" lock-step. I play Shadowrun and Runequest 6 right now. I'm not old school, though I like 1e (?) along with alot of other stuff, and I'm not a Taliban trying to force you to do anything. My opinion, and the opinion of plenty of other people, that refusing to buy or consider 5e, is a logical choice.
You will notice that for all the eye-tearing over my "sheep" comment, not a single person, no matter how optimistic has contested my prediction that 5e will be written for 10-12 year olds or that every page of it will be swollen and bloated just to fill space (sort of like my posts). D&D isn't the only one who bloats their books. Hackmaster does it but they have the courtesy to make the text they bloat it with some of the best reading in roleplaying. D&D just crams the pages full of sludge that makes no sense. I don't like that, so I complain. So here we are.
The only response to this is the "defense" that Hasbro is a company and companies are there to make money.
Yep. From sheep. Sheep who know they are buying junk and nevertheless go back and buy it. Sheep like being sheep and don't like being called sheep. They jostle around uncomfortably in their pens when you call them that. But they're still sheep. Nobody's apologizing for calling anti-5e critics taliban. Don't expect me to give a damn if you don't like being a sheep.
...so it begins...
:popcorn:
BTW, if you think I'm a sheep, fuck yer mama.
I for one, think D&D 5E ain't that baaaaaaaad (chew, chew).
Quote from: CRKrueger;760331There's usually a discernable method to the Pundit's madness, and it's usually not what the people at storygames.com, purple or the drive-by detractors say.
As an OSR author, with the Taliban stuff, he's shitting where he eats, and he doesn't seem to realize that when all the anti-grognard people who will never buy his games jump and defend 5e along with him, doing the Grogstomp Victory Dance, he's annoying his audience for no reason. Unless he's trying to supplant JMal as the "Pope of the New OSR" and the "Hero who beat Hasbro", which really would be fucking crazy. his current posts are making no sense to me. I don't see the angle, and whatever you think about him, he usually has one.
It is pretty clear though, that he's confident that 5e will vindicate him, so again, this points to him actually having input and the game actually being something old schoolers will like.
It's the only angle I see in all this.
While he's an OSR author, does anyone actually ever talk about his OSR product? The threads he started in Arrows of Indra are pretty dead. It's a good game, but no one really cares about it (and even he doesn't seem to be supporting it with any follow up products or adventures).
OTOH, by playing up his consulting status on 5e, he can associate himself with something relevant.
I do the same thing - I like to say that I was in a Tom Cruise movie. What I rarely admit was that it was Days of Thunder, one of his worst.
Quote from: JeremyR;760353While he's an OSR author, does anyone actually ever talk about his OSR product? The threads he started in Arrows of Indra are pretty dead. It's a good game, but no one really cares about it (and even he doesn't seem to be supporting it with any follow up products or adventures).
OTOH, by playing up his consulting status on 5e, he can associate himself with something relevant.
I do the same thing - I like to say that I was in a Tom Cruise movie. What I rarely admit was that it was Days of Thunder, one of his worst.
Yeah but Robert Duvall was great.
Quote from: Ghost;760347My opinion, and the opinion of plenty of other people, that refusing to buy or consider 5e, is a logical choice.
It is logical--if you grant your premise that WotC's product has been consistently bad, poorly written, etc. The problem, at least from my perspective, is that you're treating that as blindingly self-evident, when it is in fact a matter of taste, or at least open to debate. And since
de gustibus non est disputandum, thank you and good night. :)
Quote from: JeremyR;760353(and even he doesn't seem to be supporting it with any follow up products or adventures).
I just want to clarify that Pundit is the writer and designer, not the publisher (which is Bedrock games). Putting out support material isn't his responsibility or his decision. There has definitely been an interest in follow-up material and the only reason we haven't done so is because we are a small publisher and have other commitments in our pipeline presently. Down the road, when our pipeline is clear, if the right idea for an Indra book comes along and Pundit is willing to write it, we'd be happy to work with him again.
Quote from: Cadriel;757149When "pressed" I am consistent - I consider OD&D an exploration game, and AD&D and B/X D&D to more or less remain exploration games, while the majority of players want D&D to be a monster-fighting game. There's "no one true way" about this, but it is the reason why OD&D works like it does, and to a lesser extent why AD&D and B/X D&D work like they do. To the extent that I'm a part of the OSR, it's because it is the community that talks about these exploration games. People who wanted it to be a monster-fighting game spent a lot of time fighting against the rules to get it to work that way.
I think that this is just an artifact of the experience point system. In a Pathfinder adventure path, 90% of the XP will be obtained from killing things. Sneaking through a module without actually defeating the creatures within is a recipe for disaster in the next installment.
So you get more of what you reward people for.
Quote from: JeremyR;760353While he's an OSR author, does anyone actually ever talk about his OSR product?
My hat's off to Pundy for creating Arrows of Indra. From what I've seen, it looks very well done, but FOR ME (and maybe others) I just don't have any frame of reference for Indian mythos and fantasy since I haven't read any.
In my mind - and I may be quite wrong - I think Arrows of Indra needs and Adventure Path that showcases the setting and what makes AoI both Like-D&D and Not-Like-D&D. AKA, a "WTF do I do with AoI" that hand holds the GM through 1-3 levels.
Also, I still wonder about promoting the game on Indian websites. Or heck, why not mail a copy to Big Bang Theory for Raj to play?
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;760358Putting out support material isn't his responsibility or his decision. There has definitely been an interest in follow-up material and the only reason we haven't done so is because we are a small publisher and have other commitments in our pipeline presently.
Fuck that! It's 2014 and if there's interest in a product, you run motherfucker run as fast as you can to promote your whatever - game, band, restaurant, whatever. Capturing mindspace is hard and you gotta build fast and furious on your initial successes.
If there's interest in Arrows of Indra, put Pundy to work ASAP. Put his ass on a hamster wheel and get some supplements out of him. You can always kickstarter it for funds if you have an audience. Even doing a $1-$3k KS that you know you will hit would be good stuff.
And hey, with Pundy's involvement in 5e, it probably makes sense to do a AoI conversion to 5e whenever the SRD/OGL/License/whatever for that arrives.
Quote from: CRKrueger;760348He's like anyone else here who has ever made a negative or criticizing post about something they don't like or that bothers them? Shall I check your post history for prime examples? ;)
I've been pretty consistent about promoting my own fun (or at least saying "I don't find that fun") rather than saying "you should not find that fun". If you want to go trawling for anything which clearly contradicts that go ahead but advance warning: I will laugh at you for wasting your time and dismiss any example you come up with as momentary sloppy writing on my part.
QuoteOh yeah, he said something against 5e, he's not allowed to have an opinion, and when he does it's some kind of extreme outlier, right? :rotfl:
EDIT: Ok, so maybe he is a little extreme.
I'm not responding him to saying that he personally dlslikes 5E, I'm responding to him saying that the "wrong" games are popular, which is tantamount to
him saying that other people shouldn't like PF/5E/whatever.
Quote from: Windjammer;760309@CRKrueger - thanks for the vote of confidence. To be fair, I'm not upset at WotC generally, or 5e particularly, but at the handling of D&D since Heinsoo left. I don't think Mearls is a good steward, though he's certainly better than Slavicsek. Mearls' handling of the skill challenge tornado (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?447574-necro-Anatomy-of-Failed-Design-Skill-Challenges/page6) in 2009 on tBP was awful. In that thread, he evaded any responsibility for the DMG 1 skill challenge fail, and promised they're working on fixing the thing in DMG 2. A little bit later, and Mearls gave the green light to selling another non-playtested, broken version of the same mechanic a year later, for again hard earned cash, just as Trollman predicted.
That, right there, is everything one ever needs to know about Mearls. He is literally on record for saying he'll fix a mechanic, and then screw you over again. That's awful. I was a huge Mearls fanboy up to DMG 1 - when I bought it and tried playing its core mechanic, I realized I was just getting screwed over. Then I saw the tBP thread and thought, wow he's really a smug prick, and just groping for excuses, but let's give him a third (!) chance. And then DMG 2 hit and I knew he was a sham and an untrustable cretin with no design capability. Seriously - he had had years of doing the right thing, and chose not to. And he asked money for it. That, right there, is pretty much the single most awful thing that can happen to the game that defines the RPG market. It's irresponsible, and its self-aggrandizement pushing out genuine talent. So Mearls pushing out Heinsoo and co. is not simply a moral issue - it's a tragedy for the game. Essentials was just another cluster fuck, and 5e - so far - has all the same trappings. No mathtest, just a feel good concept community test. Sorry, but the writing is on the wall. Again.
So when people write my posts are ideologically coloured or whatever, I ignore them, because it's pretty obvious they have no clue about WotC' recent history and customer interaction. And by recent I don't mean, in the last three months. No, five to six years, and going.
For all I care, Mearls did the opportunistically right thing with 5e. He bought out a couple of guys with an online ego problem, and asked them to parade around as 'consultants' to vent good things in the blogosphere about a game that wasn't even designed yet. For all we know, Zak and Pundit haven't even seen the final ruleset themselves, or ever before. That's what they got bought for. Not because they're actually solid playtesters. So, if people think that that was a smart move to get us a solidly tested game - well, good luck!
I'm uncertain where the 'D&D team' is going, as Wyatt jumped ship just yesterday, and with Cordell and Baker gone, there's literally no one left who I think has any design credentials. It's really poor leadership and poor handling of what is an exceptional game, and I think given time, history will be quite harsh in its final judgement of Mearls, his never ending excuses, and his unethical displacment of far superior design talent at WotC.
You're replying on June 22 to a question I posed on June 10. So I think it's safe to say that you could have easily checked the actual details, but chose not to. This doesn't invite confidence, but I understand you'd rather remain evasive. Whatever.
I guess we can always check the PHB credits in August to see whom WotC deemed worthy of a personal mention.
You make some interesting points and I'm certainly not going to defend Mearls. However, you conveniently ignore the fact that whatever his design credentials, Heinsoo took D&D and fucked with it to the point most of us no longer recognized it as D&D. I also have little patience with the maths argument. Maths and balance are only moderately useful but always are trumped by what happens at the table. From my admittedly limited reading of the final playtest it appears that 5E addresses my two chief concerns. Unwinding most of the abominations of 4E or at least making them more palatable and addressing issues of excessive complexity and time to resolve combat.
As for you continued jibes at The Pundit, fair enough but it comes off as personal rather than objective. Regardless of his delay in responding, I'm willing to bet that his communication with WOTC would be covered by an NDA as you damn well know and to claim otherwise is intellectually dishonest of you.
Your no doubt meritorious but unpaid assistance with 13th age is not comparable.
Quote from: Spinachcat;760365Fuck that! It's 2014 and if there's interest in a product, you run motherfucker run as fast as you can to promote your whatever - game, band, restaurant, whatever. Capturing mindspace is hard and you gotta build fast and furious on your initial successes.
If there's interest in Arrows of Indra, put Pundy to work ASAP. Put his ass on a hamster wheel and get some supplements out of him. You can always kickstarter it for funds if you have an audience. Even doing a $1-$3k KS that you know you will hit would be good stuff.
And hey, with Pundy's involvement in 5e, it probably makes sense to do a AoI conversion to 5e whenever the SRD/OGL/License/whatever for that arrives.
That isn't how we do things. Initially we did approach games something like that but Bill and I felt it led to lower quality material so we shifted to a reduced release schedule the year we put out Servants of Gaius. This pace works much better for us.
Quote from: CRKrueger;760348He's like anyone else here who has ever made a negative or criticizing post about something they don't like or that bothers them? Shall I check your post history for prime examples? ;)
Thumper's Mom doesn't own the site, Bill the Butcher does.
Oh yeah, he said something against 5e, he's not allowed to have an opinion, and when he does it's some kind of extreme outlier, right? :rotfl:
EDIT: Ok, so maybe he is a little extreme.
Jesus Christ. You're act is old. I seriously question you are the same. So back off already or stop boring me. You choose. Isn't it amazing that everyone has choices?
I watch you and many others just PA everyone that doesn't agree with you like it's a law. Then we have Windjammer that hates WotC and makes it goal to take pot shots at Pundit any chance he gets? It's OLD. Impress me already.
Quote from: Windjammer;760309That, right there, is everything one ever needs to know about Mearls. He is literally on record for saying he'll fix a mechanic, and then screw you over again. That's awful. I was a huge Mearls fanboy up to DMG 1 - when I bought it and tried playing its core mechanic, I realized I was just getting screwed over. Then I saw the tBP thread and thought, wow he's really a smug prick, and just groping for excuses, but let's give him a third (!) chance. And then DMG 2 hit and I knew he was a sham and an untrustable cretin with no design capability. Seriously - he had had years of doing the right thing, and chose not to. And he asked money for it. That, right there, is pretty much the single most awful thing that can happen to the game that defines the RPG market. It's irresponsible, and its self-aggrandizement pushing out genuine talent. So Mearls pushing out Heinsoo and co. is not simply a moral issue - it's a tragedy for the game. Essentials was just another cluster fuck, and 5e - so far - has all the same trappings. No mathtest, just a feel good concept community test. Sorry, but the writing is on the wall. Again.
I'm uncertain where the 'D&D team' is going, as Wyatt jumped ship just yesterday, and with Cordell and Baker gone, there's literally no one left who I think has any design credentials. It's really poor leadership and poor handling of what is an exceptional game, and I think given time, history will be quite harsh in its final judgement of Mearls, his never ending excuses, and his unethical displacment of far superior design talent at WotC.
1: This is simmilar to how two former WW designers referred to Mearls. The RPG equivalent of a "social climber". As said elsewhere. Mearls will chirp whatever trendy buzzwords he thinks is "in" now and that stance will flit from one to the next.
2: For fucks sake NOT Cordell and Baker again! Please god no! Individually they do great work. But together they somehow totally botched 4e D&D GW more than White Wolf did.
Quote from: Marleycat;760378Jesus Christ. You're act is old. I seriously question you are the same. So back off already or stop boring me. You choose. Isn't it amazing that everyone has choices?
I watch you and many others just PA everyone that doesn't agree with you like it's a law. Then we have Windjammer that hates WotC and makes it goal to take pot shots at Pundit any chance he gets? It's OLD. Impress me already.
Why bother? The only reason you're here
as you've stated multiple times is because you're bored, you've also
said multiple times you're only posting for the lolz, and as soon as Football Season starts, you'll vanish, so who gives a fuck?
When you're nothing but a "me-too" poster with a "side" and your own "side" starts saying you're getting crazy, and you can't tell anymore when someone is agreeing with you because you wade into every thread like a drunken soccer hooligan spoiling for a fight...it's time to look for the lolz elsewhere or just preferably get a grip for Christ's sake.
Quote from: CRKrueger;760381Why bother? The only reason you're here as you've stated multiple times is because you're bored, you've also said multiple times you're only posting for the lolz, and as soon as Football Season starts, you'll vanish, so who gives a fuck?
When you're nothing but a "me-too" poster with a "side" and your own "side" starts saying you're getting crazy, and you can't tell anymore when someone is agreeing with you because you wade into every thread like a drunken soccer hooligan spoiling for a fight...it's time to look for the lolz elsewhere or just preferably get a grip for Christ's sake.
You do know just because you're being an ass I have decided to actually participate here during Football season just to keep you in check? Seriously, you're off in the Twilight Zone currently. All about a version of the game almost guaranteed to be as old or older than yourself. It's just stupid. But it seems fitting when you think about it given I'd win any bet that you will give 5e a serious try.
And that sir is why I'm a 5e supporter and posting and pissing you off.
Quote from: CRKrueger;760381Why bother? The only reason you're here as you've stated multiple times is because you're bored, you've also said multiple times you're only posting for the lolz, and as soon as Football Season starts, you'll vanish, so who gives a fuck?
When you're nothing but a "me-too" poster with a "side" and your own "side" starts saying you're getting crazy, and you can't tell anymore when someone is agreeing with you because you wade into every thread like a drunken soccer hooligan spoiling for a fight...it's time to look for the lolz elsewhere or just preferably get a grip for Christ's sake.
Nobody likes a Renfield. Not even Dracula.
Quote from: MarleycatDance Monkey Dance!
Quote from: MarleycatIt's Marley World, you just live in it.
Quote from: Marleycat;760378Stop boring me.
Quote from: Marleycat;760378Impress me already.
I'm the one whose act is old?
Quote from: CRKrueger;760350...so it begins...
:popcorn:
BTW, if you think I'm a sheep, fuck yer mama.
no no no. That is "Fuck you ewe." :cheerleader:
aheh.
Though he has a point. 5e reactions has been like watching a very watered down version of the Games Workshop cultists vs resistance fighters at times.
GW Fans are cattle willingly walking into the slaughterhouse.
5e Sheep (5heep?) will fight if given a reason. (Or no reason.) They are just hard to motivate.
Quote from: Omega;760385GW Fans are cattle willingly walking into the slaughterhouse.
Oh sweet god yes, and the FFG version can be just as bad.
5aviors and 5heep. I like it's it very...Bethlehem. :D
Quote from: CRKrueger;760384I'm the one whose act is old?
No, I wouldn't be too concerned. She's off her nut in the last couple days.
Quote from: Warthur;760366I'm responding to him saying that the "wrong" games are popular, which is tantamount to him saying that other people shouldn't like PF/5E/whatever.
I didn't say that exactly. What I said was that 4e sucked so bad it pissed me off and I want to see consequences. Just like I want to see the HSBC banksters prosecuted and in jail for laundering drug money, I want to see WotC go belly up so that people are forced to spend their money on other, better games instead. There's only one guy that can really drive it home:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHs3XuTqQSg
Quote from: CRKrueger;760384I'm the one whose act is old?
And again what is your actual point, pot to kettle? It's a game nothing more.
Quote from: Ghost;760390I didn't say that exactly. What I said was that 4e sucked so bad it pissed me off and I want to see consequences. Just like I want to see the HSBC banksters prosecuted and in jail for laundering drug money, I want to see WotC go belly up so that people are forced to spend their money on other, better games instead. There's only one guy that can really drive it home:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHs3XuTqQSg
if a company puts out a game that you don't like, don't play it. Simple as that. It's a freaking game, not laundering drug money. People aren't forced to spend their money on 4e. Holy...
Quote from: Bobloblah;760388No, I wouldn't be too concerned. She's off her nut in the last couple days.
Not exactly but I do admit I'm revving my post style up for football season a bit.:)
I'm at least honest unlike many others and that is why it's a trigger. If only CR would admit it instead of trolling me.....it might actually contribute to the conversation in any given thread beyond my personal amusement.
See the joke is.....we actually agree on everything game wise except 5e. It actually helps cut my boredom because I already know he's overstating everything just like myself just to see a reaction at this point.
Quote from: Omega;760385GW Fans are cattle willingly walking into the slaughterhouse.
I know I'm a Warhammer sheeple and GW is something worse than a slaugherhouse. And they've got a new edition out!!!
It's tough on the wargame crowd. Most of our gameplay at FLGS revolves around demos, store tournaments and regional tourneys. Thus, its always about the new edition. I'm part of the Oldhammer crew - people who like edition X of Warhammer and still play it - but we are an extreme minority - way smaller than the OSR.
The best us Oldhammer guys do is play GW's secondary games that only had one core edition and now lives online - AKA stuff like Mordheim, Necromunda, and previously Blood Bowl. We still get to play at FLGS, but its novelty demos and nostalgia gaming.
And we're minis whores!!! So just when us Sheeple say "fuck you GW", those bastards at Citadel release the most wonderful new shiny toy evar!!!
Quote from: Ghost;760390What I said was that 4e sucked so bad it pissed me off and I want to see consequences.
A game pissed you off??? Really?
Here's a consequence for you: lots and lots of gamers have had, and will continue to have, loads of fun playing D&D 4e or 4e successors like 13th Age and worse, we're gonna do it without your permission!!!
Quote from: MonsterSlayer;759222OK but let me ask you an honest question.
If you were releasing a game with pre gen characters only and you had to pick the traits to represent the iconic traits of a fantasy RIG fighter.
Would you pick those?
I know I'm flirting with the OSR Taliban label but even my wife went BWAHAHA! in that context.
Interesting. I kind of liked the way that the Human noble came out.
I thought it was interesting . . .
Quote from: Votan;760401Interesting. I kind of liked the way that the Human noble came out.
I thought it was interesting . . .
I know why I do(it's quite WH 1/2e to me) but why for you?
i
Quote from: Spinachcat;760400I know I'm a Warhammer sheeple and GW is something worse than a slaugherhouse. And they've got a new edition out!!!
It's tough on the wargame crowd. Most of our gameplay at FLGS revolves around demos, store tournaments and regional tourneys. Thus, its always about the new edition. I'm part of the Oldhammer crew - people who like edition X of Warhammer and still play it - but we are an extreme minority - way smaller than the OSR.
The best us Oldhammer guys do is play GW's secondary games that only had one core edition and now lives online - AKA stuff like Mordheim, Necromunda, and previously Blood Bowl. We still get to play at FLGS, but its novelty demos and nostalgia gaming.
And we're minis whores!!! So just when us Sheeple say "fuck you GW", those bastards at Citadel release the most wonderful new shiny toy evar!!!
A game pissed you off??? Really?
Here's a consequence for you: lots and lots of gamers have had, and will continue to have, loads of fun playing D&D 4e or 4e successors like 13th Age and worse, we're gonna do it without your permission!!!
Oldhammer is freaking awesome by the way. The nicest group of online geeks Ive had the pleasure pf associating with in years. Seriously tempted to fly across the pond at some point to attend one of the conventions at Foundry. And I have a Fimir army finally! Glee! Yes Oldhammer is everything the OSR should be but aint.
Quote from: Spinachcat;760400A game pissed you off??? Really?
Here's a consequence for you: lots and lots of gamers have had, and will continue to have, loads of fun playing D&D 4e or 4e successors like 13th Age and worse, we're gonna do it without your permission!!!
Careful, you'll make him pop something.
Quote from: Spinachcat;760400and worse, we're gonna do it without your permission!!!
Oh no you aren't. I give you my permission. Proceed.
Quote from: Ghost;760390I didn't say that exactly. What I said was that 4e sucked so bad it pissed me off and I want to see consequences. Just like I want to see the HSBC banksters prosecuted and in jail for laundering drug money, I want to see WotC go belly up so that people are forced to spend their money on other, better games instead. There's only one guy that can really drive it home:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHs3XuTqQSg
Because this is totally a proportionate response to someone writing a game you dislike.
They're getting off easy.
http://www.hark.com/clips/yfhxflnnhj-i-want-your-blood-and-i-want-your-souls
Sometimes the worst punishment is getting what you want.
Quote from: Opaopajr;760432Sometimes the worst punishment is getting what you want.
What makes a man like the Hittite? What makes him do the things he does?
A man like the Hittite has got a great big hole, right in the middle of him. He can never post enough, or link enough, or inflict enough sarcasm to ever fill it.
What does he need? Revenge. For what? Bein' born.
Quote from: Ghost;760347Because I'm a Hittite and that's what we do.
What flipped my switch is the idea that there's something wrong with thinking what I think or expressing it. My "crazy rant" has already been dismissed multiple times as "old-school" lock-step. I play Shadowrun and Runequest 6 right now. I'm not old school, though I like 1e (?) along with alot of other stuff, and I'm not a Taliban trying to force you to do anything. My opinion, and the opinion of plenty of other people, that refusing to buy or consider 5e, is a logical choice.
You will notice that for all the eye-tearing over my "sheep" comment, not a single person, no matter how optimistic has contested my prediction that 5e will be written for 10-12 year olds or that every page of it will be swollen and bloated just to fill space (sort of like my posts). D&D isn't the only one who bloats their books. Hackmaster does it but they have the courtesy to make the text they bloat it with some of the best reading in roleplaying. D&D just crams the pages full of sludge that makes no sense. I don't like that, so I complain. So here we are.
The only response to this is the "defense" that Hasbro is a company and companies are there to make money.
Yep. From sheep. Sheep who know they are buying junk and nevertheless go back and buy it. Sheep like being sheep and don't like being called sheep. They jostle around uncomfortably in their pens when you call them that. But they're still sheep. Nobody's apologizing for calling anti-5e critics taliban. Don't expect me to give a damn if you don't like being a sheep.
If someone is screaming invectives at the walls, they really shouldn't take the fact that no one cares to actually argue with them as a sign that they are right.
Oh, I get it, he's playing a cheap parody of the Pundit, except the Pundit actually backs his shit up with arguments and isn't so keen on revenge fantasies.
Windjammer, where can I find a really good recent breakdown of 5e's remaining math issues according to critics? I want to like this edition, but I want to be informed and prepared when the time comes to make a final decision between it and some other D&D.
Quote from: Spinachcat;760400Here's a consequence for you: lots and lots of gamers have had, and will continue to have, loads of fun playing D&D 4e or 4e successors like 13th Age and worse, we're gonna do it without your permission!!!
I wish both of you the best of luck!
Quote from: Gib;759852I'm sorry but a healing voice doesn't seem any crazier to me than a healing touch, regardless of which abstraction you are using. I mean, really.
I think, as with most RPG stuff, the bitching and butthurt come first the bullshit rational comes later.
Fuck, these 5e threads are proof enough of that.
Well, a healing voice fueled by divine magic is essentially a healing touch fueled by divine magic.
But a warrior screaming at you that has no divine magic should not heal your stab wounds.
Shout healing is ok for temp hp though.
The existence of the"shout-heal" is a good reason to have a pair of damage pools--structural and, for lack of a better term, "plot armor" (hp's).
Quote from: Ghost;760390I didn't say that exactly. What I said was that 4e sucked so bad it pissed me off and I want to see consequences. Just like I want to see the HSBC banksters prosecuted and in jail for laundering drug money, I want to see WotC go belly up so that people are forced to spend their money on other, better games instead. There's only one guy that can really drive it home:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHs3XuTqQSg
Let it go, man, just let it go.
I suspect that this has less to do with any actual harm that 4E has caused you than the fact you just simply are addicted to your overcharged amygdlya. That hate feels
good, doesn't it? It's almost like you're mad at WOTC for ending 4E, taking away your hate object.
Damn man, go game instead.
Quote from: Bill;760462Well, a healing voice fueled by divine magic is essentially a healing touch fueled by divine magic.
But a warrior screaming at you that has no divine magic should not heal your stab wounds.
Shout healing is ok for temp hp though.
When we get an RQ-defined style hit point in D&D, then that will hold true. If you want real simulationism, go RuneQuest. D&D has always been a narrative game in that feature.
I loves me my shouty healy warriors. Warlords were so popular that they are coming back as Commanders for Next.
Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;760494When we get an RQ-defined style hit point in D&D, then that will hold true. If you want real simulationism, go RuneQuest. D&D has always been a narrative game in that feature.
I loves me my shouty healy warriors. Warlords were so popular that they are coming back as Commanders for Next.
Sorry, I don't agree.
Magic healing is not the same as a non magic warrior shouting encouragement.
If it was a Paldin with a divine magic healing shout, sure.
The abstract hp is not relevant here.
Its about magic vs non magic.
I also like warlords; I just think they should 'buff' or bestow temp hp.
Quote from: Warthur;760443Oh, I get it, he's playing a cheap parody of the Pundit, except the Pundit actually backs his shit up with arguments and isn't so keen on revenge fantasies.
Right. Well I'm still waiting for someone to disagree with either of my two premises but with all your stupid bullshit you probably forgot about them. And none of these new ducks that are quacking have addressed them either and they won't because they can't because I'm objectively correct. Lots of talk but no actual substance. You girls make me yawn.
Hmm, here's where I like the idea in theory, but the implementation isn't thought through enough.
If HPs are part non-physical, fatigue, morale, etc, then it makes sense that a Commander could "heal" not his troops flesh, but their faltering morale, giving them an emotional boost that gets them fired up, adrenaline and emotion pushing away the fatigue and doubt, etc...
The problem with this is that then shouldn't stuff like Fear, Intimidate, etc do HP damage? Usually mental effects end up being penalties, not HP damage.
So I think a non-magical permanent HP heal that doesn't involve physical rest opens a can of worms that, like WotC frequently does, give one special power or ability to create or balance a class, without giving thought to what that does to the rest of the game when you follow the logic through to its natural conclusion.
But to tell you the truth, I don't necessarily have a problem with Morale as Hps, it worked to great effect in LotRO, but tossing in one or two powers instead of a system probably isn't the best way to do it.
So even though I don't have a problem with the mechanic in theory, without a substantial change to the HP system I don't think it fits. I agree with Bill that it would have worked much better as a temporary boost, even over full hps, kind of like a rage effect or something.
Quote from: CRKrueger;760502Hmm, here's where I like the idea in theory, but the implementation isn't thought through enough.
If HPs are part non-physical, fatigue, morale, etc, then it makes sense that a Commander could "heal" not his troops flesh, but their faltering morale, giving them an emotional boost that gets them fired up, adrenaline and emotion pushing away the fatigue and doubt, etc...
The problem with this is that then shouldn't stuff like Fear, Intimidate, etc do HP damage? Usually mental effects end up being penalties, not HP damage.
So I think a non-magical permanent HP heal that doesn't involve physical rest opens a can of worms that, like WotC frequently does, give one special power or ability to create or balance a class, without giving thought to what that does to the rest of the game when you follow the logic through to its natural conclusion.
But to tell you the truth, I don't necessarily have a problem with Morale as Hps, it worked to great effect in LotRO, but tossing in one or two powers instead of a system probably isn't the best way to do it.
So even though I don't have a problem with the mechanic in theory, without a substantial change to the HP system I don't think it fits. I agree with Bill that it would have worked much better as a temporary boost, even over full hps, kind of like a rage effect or something.
For me its an issue of trivializing magic healing with a non magic source.
D&D HP are very abstract. They always will be, always have been. People will never agree because mostly it comes down to subjective opinion from table to table how each person personally views them.
Best we can do is shrug our shoulders and say "Yeah, I'm good with shouty healing" or "Nah, it doesn't feel right to me" and just move on.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;760506D&D HP are very abstract. They always will be, always have been. People will never agree because mostly it comes down to subjective opinion from table to table how each person personally views them.
Best we can do is shrug our shoulders and say "Yeah, I'm good with shouty healing" or "Nah, it doesn't feel right to me" and just move on.
Or we can distinguish magic form non magic healing. I don't like them to be the same.
Its got little to do with the hp being abstract, in my opinion.
Quote from: Ghost;760500Right. Well I'm still waiting for someone to disagree with either of my two premises but with all your stupid bullshit you probably forgot about them.
Why would anyone expect that an actual argument with you would be any more entertaining, enlightening, or stimulating than watching you stomp around ranting like a Mad Max villain?
That's what I thought.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B05INM57xO8
Quote from: Ghost;760500Right. Well I'm still waiting for someone to disagree with either of my two premises but with all your stupid bullshit you probably forgot about them. And none of these new ducks that are quacking have addressed them either and they won't because they can't because I'm objectively correct. Lots of talk but no actual substance. You girls make me yawn.
Can you paraphrase your two premises for me? This is s huge thread to sift through.
Quote from: Bill;760509Or we can distinguish magic form non magic healing. I don't like them to be the same.
Its got little to do with the hp being abstract, in my opinion.
How do we know it isnt magical shouting? Or has some element of magic to it like Bard music?
Quote from: Omega;760520How do we know it isnt magical shouting? Or has some element of magic to it like Bard music?
Because it comes from a fighter subclass. I'd be fine with it if were temporary points. I can accept it as inspiration, courage, moral, heroic stand or something like that no problem.
Quote from: CRKrueger;760299It's kind of funny, if you look at some of the more enthusiastic posters on different boards for 5e, they all seem to fit a pattern, someone who has been on the "outside" of the current D&D players group because they didn't like 3e or 4e. There's some of the "Finally, a D&D I can play." enthusiasm about it, but there were always D&D's you could play, so why the enthusiasm now?
Perhaps because they want to be back on the inside?
Not sure the "Gaming Identity" charge is being leveled at the right people.
I game with my friends, who pretty much follow my lead when it comes to D&D. I don't play at stores, or look for new groups, and take part in organized play. So I don't have any investment in being part of the 'in' group.
I'm enthusiastic about 5E because for the first time in over 20 years, the license-holders of D&D are publishing a version of the game that suits my preferences. 5E bears a striking resemblance to the homebrew version of D&D I've been working on for a couple years. This means not only that my players will have professionally published rules set that suits our playstyle, but I can look forward to published adventures and support material that I can use whole-cloth, instead of having to convert to my preferred rules.
As to why I take shots at some critics of 5E, it's because so much of the criticism comes from edition warring, one-true-wayism, and nerdfury. I opted out the 4E edition wars because it was immediately clear that 4E wasn't a game for me, so I simply ignored it (though I've since played Essentials and quite enjoy it). I find these outbreaks of nerdfury fascinating and bizarre. They have so little to do with actual gaming. My other hobby is boardgaming, and I don't see anything close to the level of resentment, anger, and belligerence in that hobby as I do in RPGs.
Quote from: CRKrueger;760299Also, the "WotC has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory for 14 years, maybe I'll wait and see on this one." is probably the dominant opinion here if you add up all the different posts.
But even much of the hatred of WotC isn't rational. They made an edition of a game you didn't like? Then don't play it. 4E didn't make me feel anything about WotC because I don't get emotional about companies publishing products that I don't want. And much of the hatred of WotC comes from people who are ideologically opposed to big professional companies being involved in their hobby. The merits of 5E as a system are irrelevant if you think anything published a big company is crap driven by greed. Another mystery of the RPG hobby is why so many indie gamers who espouse a DIY ethic get all in a lather about what WotC publishes. If you don't buy commercial RPG products, why in fuck to you give a shit one way another about what WotC does?
Nobody has criticized anyone here for saying they're not interested in 5E because they don't like X, Y, or Z in their games. But much of the criticism of 5E has fuck all to do with what's actually in the game.
Quote from: Omega;760520How do we know it isnt magical shouting? Or has some element of magic to it like Bard music?
Usually I would go by the class description.
Quote from: Bill;760517Can you paraphrase your two premises for me? This is s huge thread to sift through.
Sure.
1. 5e, just like 4e, will be written for the mind of a ten year old. Not the smart ten year olds that were originally attracted to 1e back in the day, exactly because it was smarter than anything else that was out there, but average and below average pre-teens. That means Pixarish evil villains, Boris-and-Natasha grade dialogue, plots that won't cause nightmares or force parents to field uncomfortable questions.
2. 5e, just like 4e, will be larded with insultingly bad filler text. Not the usual filler text of other games that are written with a wink and a nudge between gamers who know that to stay in business there has to be some padding but at least that padding is fun to read. I mean a tons of mind-numbing, stomach-turning sludge, rules bloat on a Chicago graft scale.
These two things will happen and nobody here that publishes an independent game would even consider writing their own product with either of these two design models because they have
a. Integrity
b. Self-respect
but Wizards of the Coast will follow this design model for perfectly logical and obvious reasons, that they can sell the most amount of books doing so. But as a consequence, what they are about to produce is garbage. That's not an opinion, as so many people like to say. It's a fact. It will be junk. I am not Taliban. I'm not "telling" anyone to do or not do anything. You are free to buy D&D Next just like you are free to vote for Sarah Palin. I am making a logical statement that nobody with any intellectual honesty can refute:
"5e will be garbage."
I don't know why everyone will buy it. There's a reason, probably many, but none of them is because it deserves to be bought unless you're too young to go to high school.
This, in answer to the idea, that 5e should just be given a chance. The answer, objectively, is "no, it should not."
Editing this in just in case another person gets it in his head to ask why I'm posting again:
"if the latest news about the new D&D Basic and the D&D Starter set don't end up making you admit that the new D&D is making a sufficient old-school effort, then you never ever actually could have been convinced (short of maybe Wizards announcing they're scrapping 5e entirely and will now only release the OD&D booklets in their original form, complete with a rare reproduction of one of Gary Gygax's shopping lists from 1973 so that grognards can speculate as to whether the presence of 'swiss cheese', 'baby wipes' and 'beer' on the list may have in some way influenced the origins of the game).
Yes...I'd be slightly less demanding than this. I'd settle for a mildly interesting product with an "old school" sticker on it if that makes them happy.
(https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/5984772352/h2597C15D/)
Translation: Don't listen to Air Supply, like Crass is way cooler, dude.
Yep, heard that before.
But D&D is going to have 1000 times the players of an indie game.
Ergo the sheep comment.
And...roll nonsense reel:
Ultimately, all I want is to play a game.
Quote from: Ghost;760533Ergo the sheep comment.
I'll reply to your post before the edit (the one that said you didn't expect any less of an answer).
What do you expect? When one of your arguments is that 5e sucks because it's not edgy enough to make parents feel icky talking about it (I'm assuming you want the glory days back when D&D was associated with satanism and the like), people aren't going to take your position seriously. Especially when you double down on the stupid by saying only people too young/stupid to know better will play it.
That's why I'm not sure at this point if you're just a troll, or someone with legitimate mental issues.
Quote from: Ghost;760529Sure.
1. 5e, just like 4e, will be written for the mind of a ten year old. Not the smart ten year olds that were originally attracted to 1e back in the day, exactly because it was smarter than anything else that was out there, but average and below average pre-teens. That means Pixarish evil villains, Boris-and-Natasha grade dialogue, plots that won't cause nightmares or force parents to field uncomfortable questions.
2. 5e, just like 4e, will be larded with insultingly bad filler text. Not the usual filler text of other games that are written with a wink and a nudge between gamers who know that to stay in business there has to be some padding but at least that padding is fun to read. I mean a tons of mind-numbing, stomach-turning sludge, rules bloat on a Chicago graft scale.
These two things will happen and nobody here that publishes an independent game would even consider writing their own product with either of these two design models because they have
a. Integrity
b. Self-respect
but Wizards of the Coast will follow this design model for perfectly logical and obvious reasons, that they can sell the most amount of books doing so. But as a consequence, what they are about to produce is garbage. That's not an opinion, as so many people like to say. It's a fact. It will be junk. I am not Taliban. I'm not "telling" anyone to do or not do anything. You are free to buy D&D Next just like you are free to vote for Sarah Palin. I am making a logical statement that nobody with any intellectual honesty can refute:
"5e will be garbage."
I don't know why everyone will buy it. There's a reason, probably many, but none of them is because it deserves to be bought unless you're too young to go to high school.
This, in answer to the idea, that 5e should just be given a chance. The answer, objectively, is "no, it should not."
Regardless of rule content, I do fear that we will see another " see spot run" writing level for 5E. That said, I will reserve the garbage label for post release.
The chances are slim but I can hope to be pleasantly surprised.
Quote from: dragoner;760532Translation: Don't listen to Air Supply, like Crass is way cooler, dude.
Yep, heard that before.
But D&D is going to have 1000 times the players of an indie game.
Though there is somewhat of a point in there.
The old "Do we simplify for an expanded audience" debate goes back to when the first 1000 copies of OD&D sold out in six months instead of six years. Gary, Rob, et al were amazed when somebody proposed a module for the first time; for them, creating the world was the fun part, and "why have us do any more of your imagining for you?"
But very soon it became obvious that modules
sold, and Gary decided to act like a businessman instead of a gamer; "if modules are what sell, we will make modules." So "dumbing down the game" goes WAY back.
In fact, dumbing down EVERYTHING goes way back.
Quote from: Old Geezer;760543Though there is somewhat of a point in there.
The old "Do we simplify for an expanded audience" debate goes back to when the first 1000 copies of OD&D sold out in six months instead of six years. Gary, Rob, et al were amazed when somebody proposed a module for the first time; for them, creating the world was the fun part, and "why have us do any more of your imagining for you?"
But very soon it became obvious that modules sold, and Gary decided to act like a businessman instead of a gamer; "if modules are what sell, we will make modules." So "dumbing down the game" goes WAY back.
In fact, dumbing down EVERYTHING goes way back.
For the simple fact it works. Did I buy Crass records when I was a kid? Yes I did. Ultimately that scene became "indier than thou" in who could pull out the more esoteric band reference and no longer about the music. For D&D back then, I bought Greyhawk, the modules, etc.; but also have a ton of worlds I drew up. It isn't one way or another, the modules were cool to steal ideas from, such as monsters that you wouldn't see until the MM2. The G/D/Q series was fairly genius, and the D stuff opened up the whole underworld, with the Ilithid Drow conflict.
Quote from: Ghost;760529Sure.
1. 5e, just like 4e, will be written for the mind of a ten year old. Not the smart ten year olds that were originally attracted to 1e back in the day, exactly because it was smarter than anything else that was out there, but average and below average pre-teens. That means Pixarish evil villains, Boris-and-Natasha grade dialogue, plots that won't cause nightmares or force parents to field uncomfortable questions.
2. 5e, just like 4e, will be larded with insultingly bad filler text. Not the usual filler text of other games that are written with a wink and a nudge between gamers who know that to stay in business there has to be some padding but at least that padding is fun to read. I mean a tons of mind-numbing, stomach-turning sludge, rules bloat on a Chicago graft scale.
These two things will happen and nobody here that publishes an independent game would even consider writing their own product with either of these two design models because they have
a. Integrity
b. Self-respect
but Wizards of the Coast will follow this design model for perfectly logical and obvious reasons, that they can sell the most amount of books doing so. But as a consequence, what they are about to produce is garbage. That's not an opinion, as so many people like to say. It's a fact. It will be junk. I am not Taliban. I'm not "telling" anyone to do or not do anything. You are free to buy D&D Next just like you are free to vote for Sarah Palin. I am making a logical statement that nobody with any intellectual honesty can refute:
"5e will be garbage."
I don't know why everyone will buy it. There's a reason, probably many, but none of them is because it deserves to be bought unless you're too young to go to high school.
This, in answer to the idea, that 5e should just be given a chance. The answer, objectively, is "no, it should not."
Editing this in just in case another person gets it in his head to ask why I'm posting again:
"if the latest news about the new D&D Basic and the D&D Starter set don't end up making you admit that the new D&D is making a sufficient old-school effort, then you never ever actually could have been convinced (short of maybe Wizards announcing they're scrapping 5e entirely and will now only release the OD&D booklets in their original form, complete with a rare reproduction of one of Gary Gygax's shopping lists from 1973 so that grognards can speculate as to whether the presence of 'swiss cheese', 'baby wipes' and 'beer' on the list may have in some way influenced the origins of the game).
Yes...I'd be slightly less demanding than this. I'd settle for a mildly interesting product with an "old school" sticker on it if that makes them happy.
You may be right, but I would need to read the 5E books to decide.
Now, this: "I am making a logical statement that nobody with any intellectual honesty can refute:"
Well, if one accepts your two premises as fact, and if one thinks the game should be written at a higher level, sure.
How long till the books are out?
I dunno guys, griping about the writing style and the existence of filler text seems like a complaint about the experience of reading the rulebooks, rather than playing the game. Obviously, a nice-to-read rulebook is a bonus, but I still wonder how much actual play our Hittite actually enjoys.
For what it's worth, the samples released so far from the Starter Set don't seem to talk down to the reader at all to me and appear refreshingly information-dense. And that's for the product which is supposed to be soft-pitched for younger players.
This is the first version of D&D from WotC that has a Command spell where you do not have to pick from a list of preselected commands. That is the opposite of 'dumbing down' to my mind.
Quote from: jadrax;760556This is the first version of D&D from WotC that has a Command spell where you do not have to pick from a list of preselected commands. That is the opposite of 'dumbing down' to my mind.
That is indeed a good sign and a reason to have to some hope. :)
It's about accessibility. The B/X version of the game was easily accessible, and I assume that's what the new BASIC is shooting for, as well. The writing of the playtest materials, in my view, is no better or worse than any other version of the game I've read (and I've read them all). I'm not worried about the supposed intellectual level of the material, because the idea behind any rules set should be, first and foremost, clarity. We ARE talking about reference materials here, after all. Folks need to understand the rules to use them. A writer who constantly writes over the head of his intended audience isn't likely to keep an audience for long.
(P.S. Folks really need to stop using the word "objectively" when it's completely obvious their arguments are subjective).
Quote from: Bill;760552You may be right, but I would need to read the 5E books to decide.
Now, this: "I am making a logical statement that nobody with any intellectual honesty can refute:"
Well, if one accepts your two premises as fact, and if one thinks the game should be written at a higher level, sure.
How long till the books are out?
Starter Set and basic character creation hits preferred stores in ten days, PHB and the rest of Basic are in August, MM is September or October, I think, DMG is November.
I would be disappointed but not terribly surprised if WotC maintains its lowered expectations about the audience reading level.
So we got...
Quote from: Opaopajr;760588I would be disappointed but not terribly surprised if WotC maintains its lowered expectations about the audience reading level.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;760541Regardless of rule content, I do fear that we will see another " see spot run" writing level for 5E. That said, I will reserve the garbage label for post release.
The chances are slim but I can hope to be pleasantly surprised.
Quote from: Old Geezer;760543Though there is somewhat of a point in there.
Quote from: Bill;760552You may be right, but I would need to read the 5E books to decide.
Then we get...
Quote from: Warthur;760553I still wonder how much actual play our Hittite actually enjoys.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;760540That's why I'm not sure at this point if you're just a troll, or someone with legitimate mental issues.
Why is one group getting responded to, and one group getting mocked? I can't figure it out. :idunno:
I'll find out who's right when the Starter Set arrives.
QuoteI'll find out who's right when the Starter Set arrives.
Good idea.
Quote from: CRKrueger;760607Why is one group getting responded to, and one group getting mocked? I can't figure it out. :idunno:
Hey, if the diction level of the rules fluff is a make-or-break issue for you, then feel free to carry on and share your concerns.
But I gotta chuckle that some of the same folks making these complaints praise Moldvay and Mentzner basic to the skies - rules that made no bones whatsoever about targeting 10-14 year olds. Ghost implied that D&D was already crap by the time those editions were published, so at least he's consistent. But we can't have grognard infighting, eh? Gotta close ranks against the infidels.
Quote from: Haffrung;760613Hey, if the diction level of the rules fluff is a make-or-break issue for you, then feel free to carry on and share your concerns.
But I gotta chuckle that some of the same folks making these complaints praise Moldvay and Mentzner basic to the skies - rules that made no bones whatsoever about targeting 10-14 year olds. Ghost implied that D&D was already crap by the time those editions were published, so at least he's consistent. But we can't have grognard infighting, eh? Gotta close ranks against the infidels.
He called me a sheep and I told him to go fuck his mama. You want me to respond with movie links? I can do that.
He could be 100% right about WotC putting out shit that reads like they're targeting a dumb 10 year old, and put out suckass module after suckass module. It could be perfectly workable text. I don't think anyone thinks it will actually be good writing...but it could be I guess.
The point is, he's not exactly alone for thinking WotC is gonna screw the pooch again, and it's not exactly rocket science to figure out why he's not the only one with that opinion either.
All this feigned "Where does this maniac get these ideas" crap is deserving of getting mocked. I mean a clip of DeNiro as Capone gets a "like that is a proportionate response".
People are so used to responding to the other side, they keep doing it even when the other side is making fun of them, it's kind of hilarious actually, even if I'm gonna read the Starter Set and Basic.
I like passionate writing. I am amused by purple prose. Now that's an interesting thing, because in this modern age Xtreme! is a dominant marketing paradigm, and marketspeak is anything but passionate to me.
When I read some older MtG flavor text, or L5R flavor text, there's some good passionate tidbits in there. Even in modern MtG you'll have the occasional passionate writing about the block set world that does feel intriguing, amid Mountain Dew-esque Purple Prose. And as labyrinthine older TSR writing can be, it oozes passion while avoiding being "overly tumescent" (obviously, having never read the novels, I assume they do not apply here).
Now how come WotC's D&D modules and core books' writing seem to have only gotten worse over the years? Cost? Deliberate market focus? Marketing and Technical Writing depts. doubling as the writing creatives?
Quote from: Opaopajr;760638Now how come WotC's D&D modules and core books' writing seem to have only gotten worse over the years? Cost? Deliberate market focus? Marketing and Technical Writing depts. doubling as the writing creatives?
It's probably because they don't employ a bunch of wanna-be-writers like TSR did.
*ducks and runs for cover*
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;760451Windjammer, where can I find a really good recent breakdown of 5e's remaining math issues according to critics? I want to like this edition, but I want to be informed and prepared when the time comes to make a final decision between it and some other D&D.
I hope to search and link (on this site) such stuff post-release. The usual suspects dropped 5e pretty early after the first playtest packages, but I'm confident they'll give the game a good shake when it comes out. I'll be watching especially for Justin Alexander's blog and a pretty small subset of posters on TheGamingDen (with Trollman himself you have to read nearly everything between the lines and with a grain of salt, so there's too much agenda to be taken at face value). Thirdly, if we're lucky, some segments in the loyal 5e playerbase will create critical playtest reports on how the game holds up to prolongued olay (think of Mike Schley and his analysis of epic tier for 4e). So there's much to look forward to, and no great rush in buying. Pundit himself indicated he won't switch his home campaigns to 5e anytime soon.
Quote from: Haffrung;760613But I gotta chuckle that some of the same folks making these complaints praise Moldvay and Mentzner basic to the skies - rules that made no bones whatsoever about targeting 10-14 year olds.
Well there is a difference between targeting kids and talking down to 'em.
From what I have seen the 5e material is on the good side of this fence, but given past trends maintaining skepticism is an understandable stance.
You get people who don't care at all about the writing, of course, and that's fine but it just means they're more easily satisfied, not that writing is a categorically irrelevant part of RPG books...
If you're going to raise your chin coldly in the air and disdain me for not just waiting until 5e comes out, then I've got to ask:
Just what exactly is the point of posting that opinion in a thread with the name: "Anti-5e Old-Schoolers: Why not just admit it" that goes on..."As I've posted on my blog, if the latest news about the new D&D Basic and the D&D Starter set don't end up making you admit that the new D&D is making a sufficient old-school effort, then you never ever actually could have been convinced"
and goes on with some unbelievably sarcastic baiting of the issue.
Don't get me wrong. I love the sarcasm. And despite all the belly-aching about sarcastic posts and it being the reason nobody can stand up to my very simple assertion...
The Pundit's sarcasm is half the reason you are here. He is twice as interesting to read as anything else here because he is entertaining even when he is wrong.
So I'm sarcastic. Why don't you stomp on me for it by shoving my argument back down my throat? Because you can't that's why.
The point of the thread (in case that's not what you're here for) as far as I can tell is to discredit 5e haterz..loosely tying it to some sort of old school fanaticism. Well, I happen to be a 5e hater that is not an old school fanatic so excuse me if I feel like responding to the OP, and if I use sarcasm to do it, I hope it doesn't confuse you too much.
Boil down what the OP is putting forth and I think you get something like, "based on what WotC's official releases so far amounts to, you are shown to be a little nutty if you still won't admit that WotC is making a decent attempt at something you should give a try."
My basic response to that is "based on the past couple of decades of shlock from WotC, no I'm not nutty to assume that 5e will be nothing more than more shlock."
It may be that 5e is awesome. Even if it is, that's not a logical assumption given the crap they've been dishing out for so long. I do not understand why anyone is waiting expectantly to give it the benefit of the doubt by buying their stuff. I know lots of people are, but I renew my assertion that whatever the reason are, they are not because it makes any sense to expect anything better than what they've shown capable of producing over the past many years.
If 5e qualifies as a decent product that isn't insultingly bad I would be surprised, and then I would say, okay, I can understand now, given this new evidence, why the people to whom playing WOTC seems so important would spend their money on this branded gaming experience material.
I still wouldn't buy or use it myself however, unless it is actually better material than RQ6, Hackmaster, MERP, or any of dozens of games I can name off the top of my head that are all excellent, including the OP's own material which is fucking excellent.
So...yeah, go ahead and wait for 5e to come out. Don't jump the gun for God's sake and bother addressing my sarcastic (and coincidentally impenetrable) argument which is direct response to the original post. I now return you to your regularly scheduled nonsense.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfZTzcDFZ98
Quote from: CRKrueger;760620The point is, he's not exactly alone for thinking WotC is gonna screw the pooch again, and it's not exactly rocket science to figure out why he's not the only one with that opinion either.
.
He's not alone in thinking WoTC may screw this up, but I'm pretty sure he is alone (or near alone) to say the reasoning behind why 5e sucks is because it's not enough like FATAL or doesn't have enough demon worshipping instructions in it. OK, he didn't say that specifically, but he did say it's because parent's didn't feel icky enough when talking about it (harkening back to the fearmongering of the 80s).
And that's worthy of mockery.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;760662He's not alone in thinking WoTC may screw this up, but I'm pretty sure he is alone (or near alone) to say the reasoning behind why 5e sucks is because it's not enough like FATAL or doesn't have enough demon worshipping instructions in it. OK, he didn't say that specifically, but he did say it's because parent's didn't feel icky enough when talking about it (harkening back to the fearmongering of the 80s).
And that's worthy of mockery.
Meaning it was targeted at children, not that it wasn't targeted at Venger Satanis. Really, this is where we're gonna go with this now, not evil enough? Ok, whatever.
I'm sure he meant D&D should be edgy again. :rolleyes: Although Pundit himself has said better a satanist rep then a 40year old virgin one.
5E is already a decent product. We'll have to see if the final iteration is as well. It's patently obvious in the playtest that the designers are making real attempts to emulate old school play. The only way to know this is to actually read and play the packets. Obviously, some folks will choose not to support the company that produces the product, regardless of the product's quality. I understand this. There are certain movies I won't see because I have no respect for the writers. I have a problem supporting NC Soft because they dropped City of Heroes. What I won't do, however, is shoot down something NC Soft is behind without actually checking it out (Wildstar, for instance--didn't really dig it; Guild Wars? Not bad). I guess my point is that track record only goes so far. Any criticism of the company does not automatically apply to their latest product. All that criteria leads to is blanket generalization.
Quote from: CRKrueger;760665Meaning it was targeted at children, not that it wasn't targeted at Venger Satanis. Really, this is where we're gonna go with this now, not evil enough? Ok, whatever.
I'm sure he meant D&D should be edgy again. :rolleyes: Although Pundit himself has said better a satanist rep then a 40year old virgin one.
Let's avoid any misquoting. Here is his actual reason why 5e sucks:
Quote from: Ghost;760529Sure.
1. 5e, just like 4e, will be written for the mind of a ten year old. Not the smart ten year olds that were originally attracted to 1e back in the day, exactly because it was smarter than anything else that was out there, but average and below average pre-teens. That means Pixarish evil villains, Boris-and-Natasha grade dialogue, plots that won't cause nightmares or force parents to field uncomfortable questions.
.
And to be frank, that's a mock worthy reason.
Quote from: Ghost;760651The point of the thread (in case that's not what you're here for) as far as I can tell is to discredit 5e haterz..loosely tying it to some sort of old school fanaticism. Well, I happen to be a 5e hater that is not an old school fanatic so excuse me if I feel like responding to the OP, and if I use sarcasm to do it, I hope it doesn't confuse you too much.
The point of the thread is to make a distinction between those with concrete criticisms of 5E, and those who, for a variety of reasons, are strongly predisposed to hate 5E, regardless of the content of the game itself.
By your own admission, you fall into the latter camp. You hate WotC, so regardless of the makeup of the game itself, you already hate 5E. Why not just admit it?
Quote from: Sacrosanct;760673And to be frank, that's a mock worthy reason.
Oh really? Because that's what AD&D 2nd did, and what it often receives flack for. I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure I've seen you post about the stupidity of TSR's Code of Ethics.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;760673And to be frank, that's a mock worthy reason.
Like a PG-13 movie for a mind of a ten year old might be you mean? :rolleyes:
Mock what you want, that's the word that got you all pissy, after all, but don't kid yourself that you're gonna fool anyone into thinking a return to the Satanic Craze is what was meant.
Quote from: Bobloblah;760676Oh really? Because that's what AD&D 2nd did, and what it often receives flack for. I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure I've seen you post about the stupidity of TSR's Code of Ethics.
Quote from: CRKrueger;760677Like a PG-13 movie for a mind of a ten year old might be you mean? :rolleyes:
Mock what you want, that's the word that got you all pissy, after all, but don't kid yourself that you're gonna fool anyone into thinking a return to the Satanic Craze is what was meant.
Saying the game sucks based largely on not giving nightmares to kids and not making parents answer uncomfortable questions seems like legitimate reasons to you both?
That's a hill you're really willing to defend?
Okay...
Somehow I doubt it, because I'm pretty sure you both think there are good games out there that neither give kids nightmares nor force parents to answer uncomfortable questions, but you're just circling the grognard wagons at this point.
He's being mocked cause he is acting like a nutbar. Just like Pundit has been mocked in every single one of these threads, because he is also acting like a nutbar.
I've never argued with Pundit (that I remember, maybe I have and later blocked it out), and I have no interest in arguing with Ghost either. Because I guarantee I wouldn't get a reasonable discussion from either.
I find it more telling that just because he is a skeptic of 5e (putting it lightly) that you are defending his stupid ass, than that pro-5e people are mocking him.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;760680He's being mocked cause he is acting like a nutbar. Just like Pundit has been mocked in every single one of these threads, because he is also acting like a nutbar.
I've never argued with Pundit (that I remember, maybe I have and later blocked it out), and I have no interest in arguing with Ghost either. Because I guarantee I wouldn't get a reasonable discussion from either.
I find it more telling that just because he is a skeptic of 5e that you are defending his stupid ass, than that pro-5e people are mocking him.
I don't care who is mocking him, I'm just getting sick of the lies and misrepresentations that seem to float around all the 5e discussions like flies on shite. Here's an example:
Quote from: Haffrung;760675The point of the thread is to make a distinction between those with concrete criticisms of 5E, and those who, for a variety of reasons, are strongly predisposed to hate 5E, regardless of the content of the game itself.
By your own admission, you fall into the latter camp. You hate WotC, so regardless of the makeup of the game itself, you already hate 5E. Why not just admit it?
On that same page:
Quote from: Ghost;760651It may be that 5e is awesome. Even if it is, that's not a logical assumption given the crap they've been dishing out for so long.
Quote from: Ghost;760651If 5e qualifies as a decent product that isn't insultingly bad I would be surprised, and then I would say, okay, I can understand now, given this new evidence, why the people to whom playing WOTC seems so important would spend their money on this branded gaming experience material.
So yeah he hates it. Irrationally and without thought no matter what game they actually release...or actually not that at all.
Sacrosanct's bullshit is another example. Believe me, I'd love to stop coming in here and pointing out Freshman level Propaganda, English and Logic to everyone, but it seems it's necessary.
You should try having a logical discussion with anyone. You and I succeed, despite our clashes in the Narrative Wars of 2013.
Quote from: honesttiago;7606685E is already a decent product. We'll have to see if the final iteration is as well. It's patently obvious in the playtest that the designers are making real attempts to emulate old school play. The only way to know this is to actually read and play the packets. Obviously, some folks will choose not to support the company that produces the product, regardless of the product's quality. I understand this. There are certain movies I won't see because I have no respect for the writers. I have a problem supporting NC Soft because they dropped City of Heroes. What I won't do, however, is shoot down something NC Soft is behind without actually checking it out (Wildstar, for instance--didn't really dig it; Guild Wars? Not bad). I guess my point is that track record only goes so far. Any criticism of the company does not automatically apply to their latest product. All that criteria leads to is blanket generalization.
dont agree that it's a decent product up to now but point taken
Quote from: Ghost;760686dont agree that it's a decent product up to now but point taken
How the hell can you say one way or another if 5e is a decent product? It ain't out yet, and very few people have seen anything resembling final rules!
Quote from: CRKrueger;760685Sacrosanct's bullshit is another example. Believe me, I'd love to stop coming in here and pointing out Freshman level Propaganda, English and Logic to everyone, but it seems it's necessary.
.
bwaaahahahaahahahaha :rotfl:
Oh man, stop with the irony. That's too funny.
This? You're trying to give lessons on intellectual honesty and logic to other people? You? The same guy who thinks there is no mathematical difference between 2d8 and (1d8+1d8)?
Fucking rich.
Also, you never answered my question, but only took a shot at me. Look at his actual words. That's what I used, and quoted for you just so you couldn't chickenshit your way out of accusing others of misrepresenting him.
Oh wait, you did anyway...
Do you really think that D&D not giving nightmares to players and not forcing parents to answer uncomfortable questions is one of the most important reasons 5e sucks? (It was under his #1 bullet point, so it's not a leap to assume he thinks it is one of the most important reasons. That, and he only gave a few, of which that was one of them)
Man up, grab your nuts, and just answer the question. Because that's the position you're so adamantly defending here by arguing with me, because my point is, "No, they are not. In fact, those are mock worthy reasons." You obviously disagreed with me, so explain yourself.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;760688This? You're trying to give lessons on intellectual honesty and logic to other people? You? The same guy who thinks there is no mathematical difference between 2d8 and (1d8+1d8)?
Uh.
In most cases, 2d8 means "take one d8, and add it to the result of another d8".
So, yeah, that would be the same as 1d8 + 1d8.
It would only be different if you thought 2d8 meant "take a single d8, and multiply the result by two". Which would be very uncommon usage.
...
you're just yanking our chains, right?
Quote from: Sacrosanct;760679Saying the game sucks based largely on not giving nightmares to kids and not making parents answer uncomfortable questions seems like legitimate reasons to you both?
That's a hill you're really willing to defend?
There you go, that's the Strawmanning disingenuous fuck I know you can be. You shouldn't hide behind that veneer of civility.
The point was, WotC will be targeting 10 year old children with the writing level, with nothing that would worry a parent or cause the child to ask an uncomfortable question. You automatically go to Satanic Craze, but the same sentence also fits with Homosexuality, Transgenderism, Religious Intolerance, Slavery, Islamic Jihad vs. Christian Crusaders or any topic that games like Pathfinder deal with every day and movies that are PG-13 do as well, but 10-year olds might not do so well with.
You can't argue that point. It's impossible to argue that point until the game comes out. SO, instead you manufacture this "You want D&D to be the game that scares children and makes parents fear.", which obviously isn't the intent of the sentence.
Same exact shit as was done to Exploderwizard, and to a lesser degree, Jeff, the HA HA HA guy from Japan (can't remember your name now, sorry dude) and just about everyone else who has something to say besides sunshine and roses about 5e.
You don't like people saying they're mocking you (rofl you think this is bad, should see G+), then stop being a goddamn parody of a Fox News anchor when you post about 5e.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;760679Somehow I doubt it, because I'm pretty sure you both think there are good games out there that neither give kids nightmares nor force parents to answer uncomfortable questions, but you're just circling the grognard wagons at this point.
Funny how all the 5aviors who are not addressing any of the actual points automatically cast anyone who disagrees with them as being the one who puts on the Team Jersey.
Even Emperor Norton (who agreed that Marley was going crazy) evaluates everything I say based on "side".
If all people are going to do is look for a Team Jersey, then once the enemy is pointed out, comb through looking for bullshit points to make, what's the fucking point?
Quote from: robiswrong;760691Uh.
In most cases, 2d8 means "take one d8, and add it to the result of another d8".
So, yeah, that would be the same as 1d8 + 1d8.
It would only be different if you thought 2d8 meant "take a single d8, and multiply the result by two". Which would be very uncommon usage.
...
you're just yanking our chains, right?
He was saying there was no difference *in the game* between one attack for 2d8 and two attacks for 1d8. The actual answer of course depends on the situation, the HPs of the creatures you are facing, etc... Math does not tell the story. The funny part though is that the two attacks for 1d8 (the fighter) actually gives the fighter greater tactical decisions, which went with the point he was making, but he was, of course, too stupid and wound up to see it.
Of course, he's been outed again as the childish bitch he is, so he's going to bring an argument from X number of threads ago here to try and smokescreen with sheer pointless sentences the fact that this latest post is pure strawman bullshit.
Apparently he missed the memo where if you actually post bwaaahahahaahahahaha to your opponent, you've already proven to all you have no actual point and everything that follows is meaningless bullshit.
Quote from: robiswrong;760691Uh.
In most cases, 2d8 means "take one d8, and add it to the result of another d8".
So, yeah, that would be the same as 1d8 + 1d8.
It would only be different if you thought 2d8 meant "take a single d8, and multiply the result by two". Which would be very uncommon usage.
...
you're just yanking our chains, right?
No. The context was who can do more damage per round, a mage with a 2d8 damage spell, or a fighter with two attacks of 1d8 each, assuming the hit% is the same for both and no other modifiers. When I said the average was the same, CK, in his typical fashion, attacked me for being an idiot for thinking so.
Quote from: CRKrueger;760692There you go, that's the Strawmanning disingenuous fuck I know you can be. You shouldn't hide behind that veneer of civility.
Protip: It's not a strawman so literally show you his quote, and ask, "do you agree with this or not? I give two fucks what you think his intent was, I am going by his actual words. That's not a strawman you moron. In fact, it's you who are resorting to a strawman by turning his argument into something it actually wasn't.
By the way, this is a strawman as well. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds, apparently.
QuoteFunny how all the 5aviors who are not addressing any of the actual points automatically cast anyone who disagrees with them as being the one who puts on the Team Jersey.
And I'll note, you never did actually answer my question.
So not only are you an idiot who doesn't know the meaning of words he's throwing around, you have no integrity or guts either.
Your mama must be proud.
So unless you manage to find the balls to answer this question:
Do you think not giving players nightmares or making parents answer uncomfortable questions are legitimate reasons to say D&D sucks?
Shut up.
This is still going?
Honestly, CRK if you see no value in trying to break up his tribalism - why continue?
Because it strikes me as conflict.
Quote from: CRKrueger;760695He was saying there was no difference *in the game* between one attack for 2d8 and two attacks for 1d8. The actual answer of course depends on the situation, the HPs of the creatures you are facing, etc... Math does not tell the story. The funny part though is that the two attacks for 1d8 (the fighter) actually gives the fighter greater tactical decisions, which went with the point he was making, but he was, of course, too stupid and wound up to see it.
Of course, he's been outed again as the childish bitch he is, so he's going to bring an argument from X number of threads ago here to try and smokescreen with sheer pointless sentences the fact that this latest post is pure strawman bullshit.
Apparently he missed the memo where if you actually post bwaaahahahaahahahaha to your opponent, you've already proven to all you have no actual point and everything that follows is meaningless bullshit.
Wrong again. The context of that discussion was very clear from the get go. It was clearly a white room comparison of average damage per round capacity. Nice attempt at a spin though.
You're integrity just keeps getting better and better :rolleyes:
And
you were the one to bring it up, not me, with your little "I'm tired of always bringing up logic..." So naturally I showed how that statement was ludicrous.
Gonna answer my question, by the way?
Quote from: robiswrong;760687How the hell can you say one way or another if 5e is a decent product? It ain't out yet, and very few people have seen anything resembling final rules!
TL;DR - Based on past performance it can't be. The only possible answer of course is to wait and see who's right. That won't stop everyone, despite their dislike of 3e and 4e to claim past performance is no predictor of future results, so incessant non-arguments take the place. Do keep up. :D
Quote from: CRKrueger;760695The funny part though is that the two attacks for 1d8 (the fighter) actually gives the fighter greater tactical decisions, which went with the point he was making, but he was, of course, too stupid and wound up to see it.
I actually did mention that later, when I talked about the mathematical difference between the two options. (spike damage vs reliability + versatility). In just about every way, 2 attacks for 1d8 is better. Even before the adding of strength mod.
I like talking about math a lot. Even if its only tangentially important in RPGs (its important that the math does what it says it does). I really wish there wasn't a stigma about math talk in RPGs because people did the DPR is god type stuff in 3.x/4e etc.
Math in context is what is important, and DPR removes so much context.
Heh, are you so stupid you forgot there was a search function?
Quote from: CRKrueger;754190...and you need to get out of the white room. I give you a 50% to inflict 100pts of damage or I give you 4 50% chances to inflict 25pts of damage. Which one will you use? Depends entirely on the situation and what you're facing.
Yeah I was the one whiterooming and not talking about tactically at the table.
I told you before man, you're not smart enough for this, give it up. A man's got to know his limitations. As hard as it is to do, I actually feel bad for you, because you have absolutely no idea how you're making yourself look.
Which question, your ridiculous strawman question of am I defending making children have nightmares and parents fear D&D? That question, I already answered it, the question is laughable bullshit.
You actually think that's clever don't you? I mean you really do. Wow.
Quote from: CRKrueger;760706Yeah I was the one whiterooming and not talking about tactically at the table.
You're correct. While averages are the same, there's situations where 1d8 * 2 is superior.
Specifically, if you have an enemy that has 1hp left, and a 50% chance to hit, 2 1d8 attacks is far better than a single 2d8 attack (not even talking about splitting them for the moment).
A single 2d8 attack has a 50% chance of missing. The chance of missing with two 50% attacks is only 25%. And since the damage is irrelevant, there you go.
On the other hand, if you need 9 damage or more, you're better off with the single large attack, as you have a 50% of getting both damage dice with it, and only a 25% of getting both damage dice with the two attacks.
This is a good example of the general failure of "average damage per round". It's a useful metric, but it's not the only one.
Quote from: robiswrong;760707You're correct.
Kinda funny, that's what people said the first time too, and then Sac attacked everyone for not knowing basic math, get ready, here it comes.
Or he'll tuck his tail between his legs, ignore you and keep ranting at me for misrepresenting the exact quotes I made. :D
Quote from: CRKrueger;760692Even Emperor Norton (who agreed that Marley was going crazy) evaluates everything I say based on "side".
To be fair, I think your side is more Anti-Sacrosanct/Marley than Anti-5e. And I do think they go a bit wonky sometimes. Marley moreso, but Sacrosanct gets a little weird occasionally.
Ghost is a little over the deep end in the other direction though.
And here, I'll even go so far as to argue against his point. Not because I think he will actually listen, but because I think you are rational enough to have a discussion about it.
First, he judges everything based on what he says is the latest from them, which is a bunch of 4e stuff, which really isn't the latest stuff from them. The idea that no one knows what 5e will be like is pretty inaccurate. While yes, we don't know the exacts, we aren't completely in the dark here. The playtests were about, and unless they changed some things drastically, we have a decent idea of what it will be like.
The second thing is that the material provided with the playtest, what was the suggestions of adventures to play? Did they have disneyesque curled moustache villain plots written up? No, the bulk of what they had was conversion docs for old D&D modules that they were selling on drivethru. Are we saying old D&D modules are too kiddy for us?
And the writing in the playtest itself? It was utilitarian, but didn't talk down to anyone.
And on top of everything else, even if the game IS written for 10 year olds, what matters in the game isn't the writing, its the game itself. And if the rules work, I don't care how they are written. And we've seen a lot of the rules. I like a lot of what I've seen. Maybe they overhaul what was in the playtest so much it will be completely unrecognizable, but I doubt it.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;760704I actually did mention that later, when I talked about the mathematical difference between the two options. (spike damage vs reliability + versatility). In just about every way, 2 attacks for 1d8 is better. Even before the adding of strength mod.
The original context was who can inflict more damage per round, on average and at max. In that context, 2d8 damage and 1d8+1d8 will give the same results assuming all other factors are equal. So there isn't a difference, in the context which we were talking about.
Quote from: CRKrueger;760706Heh, are you so stupid you forgot there was a search function?
Yeah I was the one whiterooming and not talking about tactically at the table.
I told you before man, you're not smart enough for this, give it up. Wow.
You need to follow your own advice. We clearly set the parameters of the discussion, and when you chimed in with your basic failure at math and were called out on it, you then decided to change the argument to fit your position.
That's called shifting the goal posts.
And I'll note you still haven't answered my question. Too chickenshit? Why am I not surprised.
Quote from: robiswrong;760707You're correct. While averages are the same, there's situations where 1d8 * 2 is superior.
Specifically, if you have an enemy that has 1hp left, and a 50% chance to hit, 2 1d8 attacks is far better than a single 2d8 attack (not even talking about splitting them for the moment).
A single 2d8 attack has a 50% chance of missing. The chance of missing with two 50% attacks is only 25%. And since the damage is irrelevant, there you go.
On the other hand, if you need 9 damage or more, you're better off with the single large attack, as you have a 50% of getting both damage dice with it, and only a 25% of getting both damage dice with the two attacks.
This is a good example of the general failure of "average damage per round". It's a useful metric, but it's not the only one.
But again, the context of that discussion was very clearly "who can do more damage per round?" And in that case, the answer is the same. CK's just changing his criteria yet again rather than what was actually discussed. THe thread's there for anyone who wants to read it.
The bottom line is if hit% is the same, mathematically
X=hit %, y=damage
x(2y) = xy+xy
That's what we were evaluating.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;760710To be fair, I think your side is more Anti-Sacrosanct/Marley than Anti-5e.
You can choose to believe this or not, but it's not my side. I would not be having arguments with Sacrosanct and Marley if they would stop misrepresenting people's points and climbing all over every single post from a 5e detractor.
Do
you think Hittite was saying that 5e is going to suck because it won't give children nightmares and make parent's fear? Is that how you
honestly read the nature of that paragraph?
Quote from: Emperor Norton;760710And I do think they go a bit wonky sometimes. Marley moreso, but Sacrosanct gets a little weird occasionally.
Is he being weird now? He keeps asking if I will answer his question that I've answered twice now. Should I do it a third time?
Quote from: Emperor Norton;760710Ghost is a little over the deep end in the other direction though.
To tell you the truth, I think he came in with the sarcastic arguments because what are straight arguments going to get him from the peanut gallery? Honest debate? From some yeah, but not from the Noise Brigade.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;760710First, he judges everything based on what he says is the latest from them, which is a bunch of 4e stuff, which really isn't the latest stuff from them.
True, it's pretty clear from his writing he tossed down the PHB in disgust and never picked it up again.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;760710The idea that no one knows what 5e will be like is pretty inaccurate. While yes, we don't know the exacts, we aren't completely in the dark here. The playtests were about, and unless they changed some things drastically, we have a decent idea of what it will be like..
True, but then again, I liked the original 3.0 handbook and adventure on disk when I got it, it was later that the wheels came off the wagon.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;760710The second thing is that the material provided with the playtest, what was the suggestions of adventures to play? Did they have disneyesque curled moustache villain plots written up? No, the bulk of what they had was conversion docs for old D&D modules that they were selling on drivethru. Are we saying old D&D modules are too kiddy for us?
I think it's pretty clear he's going off of 4e, not the playtest.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;760710And the writing in the playtest itself? It was utilitarian, but didn't talk down to anyone.
Ditto above.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;760710And on top of everything else, even if the game IS written for 10 year olds, what matters in the game isn't the writing, its the game itself. And if the rules work, I don't care how they are written. And we've seen a lot of the rules. I like a lot of what I've seen. Maybe they overhaul what was in the playtest so much it will be completely unrecognizable, but I doubt it.
Here's where I disagree with you, I think the text can set the tone. The voice of the author does matter in what it conveys to the reader. I m on record as liking Hackmaster 5, but Hackmaster 4 was tough to get into, no matter how much I liked the mechanics, the constant onslaught of required by license parody spellings and language was a tad much. Read Wolfgang Baur's review of the DMG which Windjammer linked to. Gary did not write at a grade school level, but grade school is when I read the books and I got it ok. I expect the text to be simple, but I don't expect it to be childish.
Now if you want reread the last few pages, and show me where people were making the logical arguments you were and asking the logical questions you were asking. If people were doing that, I'd be talking about RQ6 Combat Styles.
Rob, what I really said was...
Quote from: CRKrueger;754165Yeah, the only difference was the strength bonus of the fighter, which you assumed was +3. And the fighter had to attack twice to do that instead of once, so two chances to miss versus 1 so your math was wrong on top of it.
So my response to "Wizards do as much damage as Fighters" was him using a str bonus for the fighter. When you don't have a str bonus, the overall damage is the same AND since the fighter has to attack twice, as you proved yourself, it alters the math. That's what I said, read the quotes, it's all there, this isn't purple where you can hide what was said.
Quote from: CRKrueger;760719Is he being weird now? He keeps asking if I will answer his question that I've answered twice now. Should I do it a third time?.
Where did you answer it?
Here is his actual words:
Quote from: Ghost;760529Sure.
1. 5e, just like 4e, will be written for the mind of a ten year old. Not the smart ten year olds that were originally attracted to 1e back in the day, exactly because it was smarter than anything else that was out there, but average and below average pre-teens. That means Pixarish evil villains, Boris-and-Natasha grade dialogue, plots that won't cause nightmares or force parents to field uncomfortable questions.
.
So kindly show me where you said you either agreed or disagreed with those words. Not some strawman interpretation you had of them, but of those actual words.
I ask again. Answer in plain English, if you've got the guts.
Do you think 5e sucks in large part because it doesn't cause nightmares or forces parents to field uncomfortable questions?
You sure like to accuse others of misrepresenting arguments, but right here, right now, I'm using the actual words. The only one changing words around is you.
I disagreed with that part of his statement and you jumped on me for it, implying that you felt they were legitimate. So I ask you again, are those legitimate reasons to say the game sucks?
Because if not, then why in God's name are you even arguing with me?
Quote from: CRKrueger;760720Rob, what I really said was...
So my response to "Wizards do as much damage as Fighters" was him using a str bonus for the fighter. When you don't have a str bonus, the overall damage is the same AND since the fighter has to attack twice, as you proved yourself, it alters the math. That's what I said, read the quotes, it's all there, this isn't purple where you can hide what was said.
What part of "hit% of the mage and fighter are the same" don't you get? Is this yet another math fail? Because attacking twice does not alter the math. I think you need to go back to basic algebra class.
Hint:
If hit% = 50%, then on average, 50% (2d8) is the same as 50% (1d8) + 50% (1d8)
Let me use colors. If the average damage is 4.5 points per d8:
.5(2*4.5) is the same as .5(4.5) + .5(4.5). Both answers are 4.5
I even used that exact example in the other thread, and here you are again, apparently not getting it.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;760721Where did you answer it?
Here is his actual words:
So kindly show me where you said you either agreed or disagreed with those words. Not some strawman interpretation you had of them, but of those actual words.
I ask again. Answer in plain English, if you've got the guts.
Do you think 5e sucks in large part because it doesn't cause nightmares or forces parents to field uncomfortable questions?
You sure like to accuse others of misrepresenting arguments, but right here, right now, I'm using the actual words. The only one changing words around is you.
I disagreed with that part of his statement and you jumped on me for it, implying that you felt they were legitimate. So I ask you again, are those legitimate reasons to say the game sucks?
Because if not, then why in God's name are you even arguing with me?
You really think that yelling a false statement again and again is going to make it true. One last time for the cheap seats...
What you are claiming was said was not the message conveyed by that paragraph. Therefore asking me whether I am defending a non-existent meaning is asinine. You threw up a strawman attack, then asked me to walk into a laughably obviously constructed question.
I don't care how pathetic your high school debate team was to make you think you're clever but you're not. You're not fooling anyone. Keep on shining though.
Quote from: CRKrueger;760724You really think that yelling a false statement again and again is going to make it true. One last time for the cheap seats...
What you are claiming was said was not the message conveyed by that paragraph. Therefore asking me whether I am defending a non-existent meaning is asinine.
I don't care how pathetic your high school debate team was to make you think you're clever but you're not. You're not fooling anyone. Keep on shining though.
So that's a "no", you don't have the guts to answer. Color me jack lack of surprise. I'd also love to hear your explanation why it's a false statement when I'm literally using his exact argument and exact words. I'm not even paraphrasing. I've literally pointed to his statement with a direct quote.
Are you high or something?
* positions archers covering the exits *
* sets thread on fire *
Quote from: CRKrueger;760720AND since the fighter has to attack twice, as you proved yourself, it alters the math.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;760704I actually did mention that later, when I talked about the mathematical difference between the two options.
Quote from: robiswrong;760707On the other hand, if you need 9 damage or more, you're better off with the single large attack, as you have a 50% of getting both damage dice with it, and only a 25% of getting both damage dice with the two attacks.
This is getting painful to watch.
It is painful to watch, because the people you quoted said statements that were dependent other criteria first before you even got to the math. You said it alters the math without being scenario specific initially. That's a pretty big difference in logic.
I'm really sorry I have to repeat this again, but in the following equation:
X = chance to hit
Y = damage
There absolutely is no change to the result going from
x(2y)
to x(y) + x(y)
Plug in whatever fucking numbers you want for x and y, but the result of the math does not change. This is first grade stuff here for fuck's sake.
You know what? Fuck it. Show me CK where if the hit% is the same for both mage and fighter, and the mage does one attack for 2d8 and fighter 2 attacks at 1d8 each, the average damage (or max damage) is different. Show me just one example in an equation. You've said two attacks change the math. So show me in an equation.
As I said earlier...
Quote from: CRKrueger;760692The point was, WotC will be targeting 10 year old children with the writing level, with nothing that would worry a parent or cause the child to ask an uncomfortable question. You automatically go to Satanic Craze, but the same sentence also fits with Homosexuality, Transgenderism, Religious Intolerance, Slavery, Islamic Jihad vs. Christian Crusaders or any topic that games like Pathfinder deal with every day and movies that are PG-13 do as well, but 10-year olds might not do so well with.
Asked and answered, again. You're taking one phrase out of a sentence in the worst possible light to fit your attack, ignoring the rest of the sentence as well the one preceding it which sets the context, just like an intellectual coward who has no real argument.
Go ahead and make all the internet tough guy remarks you want, it's easy for all to see who's being the real coward here. If they weren't mocking you before, they sure as hell are now.
Quote from: CRKrueger;760731As I said earlier...
Asked and answered, again. You're taking one phrase out of a sentence in the worst possible light to fit your attack, ignoring the rest of the sentence as well the one preceding it which sets the context, just like an intellectual coward who has no real argument.
Go ahead and make all the internet tough guy remarks you want, it's easy for all to see who's being the real coward here. If they weren't mocking you before, they sure as hell are now.
I'm taking the sentence as written.
You're the one taking an interpretation of it to fit your argument as evidenced by comparing your subjective interpretation and comparing it word for word to the original statement. Of the two of us, I have used his actual words. You have not but changed them. Do you know what that is called?
And you have the gall to say I'm the one who's not being intellectually honest?
You're a piece of work, that's for sure. At least the goons at SA are getting a kick out of this, because you're off the rails.
I think the weirdest part of the argument going on right now is that CRKrueger's point actually supports what Sacrosanct was pointing out to begin with: The Wizard doesn't match the Fighter in constant combat ability in 5e's playtest.
So like... I'm not sure what Sacrosanct is trying to prove.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;760732You're a piece of work, that's for sure. At least the goons at SA are getting a kick out of this, because you're off the rails.
Crying to them for support because everyone here is laughing at you? How's Ettin doing?
Quote from: Hittite5e, just like 4e, will be written for the mind of a ten year old. Not the smart ten year olds that were originally attracted to 1e back in the day, exactly because it was smarter than anything else that was out there, but average and below average pre-teens. That means Pixarish evil villains, Boris-and-Natasha grade dialogue, plots that won't cause nightmares or force parents to field uncomfortable questions.
SO the options are...
1. He wants D&D to be as you put it like FATAL, with Demon Worshipping rituals.
2. He meant anything a 10 year old's parent might not want them to be exposed to, like half the Pathfinder APs. Whichever.
How convenient that since you can not logically argue about WotC's writing of a book that hasn't come out yet, you seize on any pathetic attempt you can to make the idea itself look silly or to attack a different idea entirely.
Just like you did with Exploderwizard
Just like you did with Benoist.
No, I'm not going to let you get away with it without at least pointing it out. I didn't let Abyssal Maw get away with his shit, I sure as hell am not going to let you, who is far more ignorant and less skilled get away with it.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;760735So like... I'm not sure what Sacrosanct is trying to prove.
Right now the general railing and counter-railing is dragging me into TL;DR territory.
Then again, at this point in the movie, they should both say that they hate each other then proceed start to make out furiously, so there's hope for future entertainment.
Quote from: CRKrueger;760736Crying to them for support because everyone here is laughing at you? How's Ettin doing?
SO the options are...
1. He wants D&D to be as you put it like FATAL, with Demon Worshipping rituals.
2. He meant anything a 10 year old's parent might not want them to be exposed to, like half the Pathfinder APs. Whichever.
How convenient that since you can not logically argue about WotC's writing of a book that hasn't come out yet, you seize on any pathetic attempt you can to make the idea itself look silly or to attack a different idea entirely.
Just like you did with Exploderwizard
Just like you did with Benoist.
No, I'm not going to let you get away with it without at least pointing it out. I didn't let Abyssal Maw get away with his shit, I sure as hell am not going to let you, who is far more ignorant and less skilled get away with it.
Jesus fuck dude, the only thing I said was that saying 5e sucks because it doesn't give kids nightmares or forces parents to answer uncomfortable questions (you know, the words that were actually said) were laughable reasons to hate 5e. Because
those reasons are.
And now you honestly think you're on some sort of crusade to "not let me get away with it" and bring up Benoist and EW? I did what to them? Show me? Because at this point, the movie going on in your head isn't the one the rest of us are watching.
BTW, I'm still waiting for you to show me how the math result is changed going from x(2y) to x(y) + x(y). I'd
love to see you prove that.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;760735I think the weirdest part of the argument going on right now is that CRKrueger's point actually supports what Sacrosanct was pointing out to begin with: The Wizard doesn't match the Fighter in constant combat ability in 5e's playtest.
So like... I'm not sure what Sacrosanct is trying to prove.
What about the other argument? Since I methodically responded to every point you made and honestly agreed with the ones I thought were true, it's not quite in the spirit of this discussion we're having to let that one slip by, don't you think?
Quote from: Old Geezer;760727* positions archers covering the exits *
* sets thread on fire *
I believe CR, Ghost, and Sacrosanct are doing a fine job of it by themselves already.
Quote from: CRKrueger;760741What about the other argument? Since I methodically responded to every point you made and honestly agreed with the ones I thought were true, it's not quite in the spirit of this discussion we're having to let that one slip by, don't you think?
Well, in most cases you agreed with me, so there is very little to discuss beyond, yeah, I agree.
On how the game is written... It depends on what you do with it. I mean, at my table, I'm more than likely one of only 2 people who has even read the rulebooks, so the tone will be pretty much whatever I decide it is. And what matters the most to me isn't if it was written towards 10 year olds or 50 year olds, its whether the book is organized well, and whether the rules are clear and easy to reference. (Now, not because rules are law, but because its easier to know how I want to adjust and what I want to fudge, etc. when I know the base of the game to start with).
So maybe it does matter to you if the game is written for 10 year olds rather than adults, but its individual to the person.
Also, this is all based on the idea that 5e will be written in a way that talks to players like they are idiots. Its an "EVEN IF" argument, and I don't think its a thing that is even going to happen.
Even 4e wasn't that bad. The Dark Sun setting book for instance, felt like Dark Sun and you can't write Dark Sun while maintaining the level of kiddy saturday morning cartoon style that Ghost seems to think every 4e book had for some reason.
Quote from: Haffrung;760675The point of the thread is to make a distinction between those with concrete criticisms of 5E, and those who, for a variety of reasons, are strongly predisposed to hate 5E, regardless of the content of the game itself.
By your own admission, you fall into the latter camp. You hate WotC, so regardless of the makeup of the game itself, you already hate 5E. Why not just admit it?
Yes. I admit that. At this point it would take a lot to get me back. Especially since there are so many great games out there.
I never argued that I dont fall into that camp. I argue that it's a perfectly reasonable position, not lunacy. Not fascism. Not anything besides learning from experience that WotC makes junk.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;760758Well, in most cases you agreed with me, so there is very little to discuss beyond, yeah, I agree.
On how the game is written... It depends on what you do with it. I mean, at my table, I'm more than likely one of only 2 people who has even read the rulebooks, so the tone will be pretty much whatever I decide it is. And what matters the most to me isn't if it was written towards 10 year olds or 50 year olds, its whether the book is organized well, and whether the rules are clear and easy to reference. (Now, not because rules are law, but because its easier to know how I want to adjust and what I want to fudge, etc. when I know the base of the game to start with).
So maybe it does matter to you if the game is written for 10 year olds rather than adults, but its individual to the person.
Also, this is all based on the idea that 5e will be written in a way that talks to players like they are idiots. Its an "EVEN IF" argument, and I don't think its a thing that is even going to happen.
Even 4e wasn't that bad. The Dark Sun setting book for instance, felt like Dark Sun and you can't write Dark Sun while maintaining the level of kiddy saturday morning cartoon style that Ghost seems to think every 4e book had for some reason.
I meant what you perceived the intent of the "D&D should be evil" paragraph to be, actually. :)
Quote from: robiswrong;760687How the hell can you say one way or another if 5e is a decent product? It ain't out yet, and very few people have seen anything resembling final rules!
eh...he stated the positive first that it was a decent product so far. I was responding to his statement. I agree with you therefore, that no, we DONT agree that 5e is a decent product and both for the same reason that IT ISNT OUT YET.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;760730I'm really sorry I have to repeat this again, but in the following equation:
X = chance to hit
Y = damage
There absolutely is no change to the result going from
x(2y)
to x(y) + x(y)
Plug in whatever fucking numbers you want for x and y, but the result of the math does not change. This is first grade stuff here for fuck's sake.
If you have one attack with a 60% chance to hit for 2d8... there's a 60% chance to do 2d8, and 40% chance to do nothing.
If you have two attacks, each with a 60% chance to hit for 1d8... the math gets a little weirder. Because it's not a 60% chance for 2d8 and 40% chance for nothing.
So you start with a .6 for the first attack to deal damage. To match the damage, you have to hit again, so it's only a .36 to deal 2d8 damage total (because you have to hit - 60% - then you have to hit
again).
The fighter is more likely to deal some damage, than the wizard. Both attacks missing has a 16% chance of occurring, instead of the wizard's 40% chance of missing. But the wizard has a better chance of dealing 2d8 damage.
So to summarize:
Wizard2d8 - 60%
0 - 40%
Fighter2d8 - 36%
1d8 - 52%
0 - 16%
Quote from: GnomeWorks;760769So to summarize:
Wizard
2d8 - 60%
0 - 40%
Fighter
2d8 - 36%
1d8 - 52%
0 - 16%
DPR ends up being the same. .60 (4.5*2) = .60(4.5) + .60(4.5).
But that's over time. Where it varies significantly (assuming no other bonuses, DR, etc.) is in how likely it is you'll do a particular amount of damage the *next* round (or several).
When did I say anything about FATAL or demonworshipping?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xR-FLwonazA
I
Quote from: Ghost;760763Yes. I admit that. At this point it would take a lot to get me back. Especially since there are so many great games out there.
I never argued that I dont fall into that camp. I argue that it's a perfectly reasonable position, not lunacy. Not fascism. Not anything besides learning from experience that WotC makes junk.
And that is completely subjective not a fact like you keep saying. Wishing isn't fact. You could say in my opinion but you instead state it like it's an objective fact so it all falls apart from there.
Quote from: robiswrong;760772DPR ends up being the same. .60 (4.5*2) = .60(4.5) + .60(4.5).
I am not so sure... I mean, yes, that is a correct use of multiplication.
I guess I'm just not sure that your representation of the fighter's attacks is how it would actually look, mathematically. The total damage is dependent on which attacks hit and miss, which makes them dependent events (I believe), not independent, as they are in your formula.
(.6 * [4.5 * 2]) = 5.4
(.36 * [4.5 * 2]) + (.52 * 4.5) = 3.24 + 2.34 = 5.58
Quote from: Marleycat;760774And that is completely subjective not a fact like you keep saying. Wishing isn't fact. You could say in my opinion but you instead state it like it's an objective fact so it all falls apart from there.
An opinion is subjective. A fact is a fact. To argue that what I said is not objectively true, you would first have to declare that:
1. you do not agree that WotC designs it's "branded play experiences" for 10 year olds - or - that you enjoy playing games that are designed that way
- and -
2. that WotC products are not larded with poorly written bloat
once a single person decides to claim this, that is the point at which my statement becomes subjective. I credit everyone reading this by asserting that my premise is objective and not subjective.
If you were ten I would not make this assertion.
The fighter has the slight advantage that he can drop 2 opponents in the one round. His damage, over time, will be to greater effect than the wizards. Plus he does at least some damage more often and gets to roll more dice.
Are there crits? If so he will crit more often as well.
Quote from: Fiasco;760795The fighter has the slight advantage that he can drop 2 opponents in the one round. His damage, over time, will be to greater effect than the wizards. Plus he does at least some damage more often and gets to roll more dice.
Are there crits? If so he will crit more often as well.
Ya, not arguing that there aren't advantages to using two attacks. There definitely are.
Not to mention that if you're adding any kind of bonus to that damage - Strength, specialization, whatever - making more attacks is just better.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;760769If you have one attack with a 60% chance to hit for 2d8... there's a 60% chance to do 2d8, and 40% chance to do nothing.
If you have two attacks, each with a 60% chance to hit for 1d8... the math gets a little weirder. Because it's not a 60% chance for 2d8 and 40% chance for nothing.
So you start with a .6 for the first attack to deal damage. To match the damage, you have to hit again, so it's only a .36 to deal 2d8 damage total (because you have to hit - 60% - then you have to hit again).
The fighter is more likely to deal some damage, than the wizard. Both attacks missing has a 16% chance of occurring, instead of the wizard's 40% chance of missing. But the wizard has a better chance of dealing 2d8 damage.
So to summarize:
Wizard
2d8 - 60%
0 - 40%
Fighter
2d8 - 36%
1d8 - 52%
0 - 16%
this is a common error, similar to the one where someone says if you flip a coin three times and it comes up heads twice in a row, the the odds of it coming up heads a third time has decreased, when in fact the odds are always 50%. This is why we have equations.
x(2y) is exactly the same as x(y) + x(y). You simply cannot deny that basic math fact.. So when we ask, "does the mage do more damage than a fighter per round (which implies values taken over more than just one round)", we look at the equation.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;760779(.6 * [4.5 * 2]) = 5.4
(.36 * [4.5 * 2]) + (.52 * 4.5) = 3.24 + 2.34 = 5.58
I think you're math's off on the possibilities for the 1d8. Above, you've listed the total possibilities at 16/36/52. That adds to 104%. The 16% and 36% cases are trivial, so the hitting once case must actually be 48%, which would make sense (.6*.4 + .4*.6).
(.52 * 4.5) - 2.16
3.24 + 2.16 = 5.4
So we end up with the same as 2d8.
But, really, the math is just .6*1d8 + .6*1d8. Long term they're equivalent (barring DR, etc.), but short term it can make a big difference.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;760800Ya, not arguing that there aren't advantages to using two attacks. There definitely are.
Not to mention that if you're adding any kind of bonus to that damage - Strength, specialization, whatever - making more attacks is just better.
The single big attack has its only advantage when you *really really* need as much damage as possible in the next round.
Quote from: CRKrueger;760764I meant what you perceived the intent of the "D&D should be evil" paragraph to be, actually. :)
Aha, oh, sorry. I just assumed Ghost was saying that everything was going to be written Saturday Morning Cartoon Style from the 80s. Which I think is a pretty weirdly unfounded assumption, but there is a lot of ground between FATAL and Carebears.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;760801this is a common error, similar to the one where someone says if you flip a coin three times and it comes up heads twice in a row, the the odds of it coming up heads a third time has decreased, when in fact the odds are always 50%.
Because you're presenting it incorrectly, and implying that I'm using the gambler's fallacy, when I'm not (at least not attempting to).
If the situation is, "what is the chance of flipping three heads in a row," the chance of that is 12.5%.
Yes, if a coin flips two heads prior to the next flip, the next flip has a 50/50 chance of being either, because the prior flips have no impact on the next, because you're setting it up as an independent event.
When you start with the three flips, there is a 12.5% chance that they'll all be heads. As you go through the flips, that percentage changes, because once an event has been determined, it's either a straight 1 or 0 in the math, rather than the percentage it was because it hadn't happened yet.
I am not convinced that this scenario - the damage output of two separate attacks - should be calculated as being independent of each other. But it's not relevant, because...
Quote from: robiswrong;760803I think you're math's off on the possibilities for the 1d8. Above, you've listed the total possibilities at 16/36/52. That adds to 104%. The 16% and 36% cases are trivial, so the hitting once case must actually be 48%, which would make sense (.6*.4 + .4*.6).
...damnit, you're right. My bad, they do wind up being equal.
Sorry, I thought I'd double-checked my math accurately before getting into this. Apparently not so much.
But this exchange should illustrate why people still have this argument. :p
Quote from: Sacrosanct;760801So when we ask, "does the mage do more damage than a fighter per round (which implies values taken over more than just one round)", we look at the equation.
If it requires equations like this and a good understanding of probability, it's possible it's a bit too complicated.
Hit, do damage. Miss, do no damage. It's worked for four decades or so, I don't see any reason to change it now.
if you were talking about only one round, I can see your point. But we're talking about "per round", which implies averages. If the fighter hits on half of all his attacks, he does 1d8 damage per round. Just like the mage when you added .the damage on a per round basis. Both average 4.5 points every round. The end result is the same for both.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;760813If it requires equations like this and a good understanding of probability, it's possible it's a bit too complicated.
This complexity is under the hood. There shouldn't be any reason for players or GMs to have to ask these questions - it should just kind of happen that fighters are the best at
fighting, and that should happen.
From a design standpoint, though, this is an important mathematical exercise. Do the numbers support what we want to happen?
Quote from: Sacrosanct;760814if you were talking about only one round, I can see your point. But we're talking about "per round", which implies averages. If the fighter hits on half of all his attacks, he does 1d8 damage per round. Just like the mage when you added .the damage on a per round basis. Both average 4.5 points every round. The end result is the same for both.
I think I follow... but I also am starting to feel like you're conflating "average" and "half." If the hit rate is exactly 50%, I'm there with you; but if it's not, those aren't going to be the same thing, and will have different effects on the two damage outputs.
At least, I think so. It's been a bit since I took stats, and since I got some basic math wrong earlier, I'm willing to admit that my confidence here is significantly less-than-certain.
as long as the hit% is the same, and as long as the fighter has twice the attacks but half the damage dice, the avg will always be the same, no matter what # you use for the hit%
Quote from: Sacrosanct;760824as long as the hit% is the same, and as long as the fighter has twice the attacks but half the damage dice, the avg will always be the same, no matter what # you use for the hit%
...okay, that is sensible.
That means that this math works in a
very specific instance, though. So if the fighter is using a d10 weapon, it stops working, and you have to get more involved in the math, yes? Or if the fighter gets another attack... etc etc.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;760829...okay, that is sensible.
That means that this math works in a very specific instance, though. So if the fighter is using a d10 weapon, it stops working, and you have to get more involved in the math, yes? Or if the fighter gets another attack... etc etc.
The expected output of a weapon in terms of DPR is going to be (average hit) * (chance to hit).
Average hit is easily calculated as (min + max / 2).
Other systems (roll and keep, pools, etc.) get more complex, but basic DPR is pretty trivial. Changing the damage die to a d10 doesn't really change much in the math except for the average damage (which goes to 5.5).
I was specifically talking about the comparison between the mage and the fighter that's been going on. The only reason they're equal is because mage damage = fighter damage * 2, and fighter attacks = mage attacks * 2.
Quote from: Marleycat;760523Because it comes from a fighter subclass. I'd be fine with it if were temporary points. I can accept it as inspiration, courage, moral, heroic stand or something like that no problem.
But the ranger and the paladin are fighter sub-classes (or once were) and they get magical effects.
And considering the absurd amounts of multi-classing in 3rd... How would anyone ever know what is or isnt magical?
Quote from: Emperor Norton;760806Aha, oh, sorry. I just assumed Ghost was saying that everything was going to be written Saturday Morning Cartoon Style from the 80s. Which I think is a pretty weirdly unfounded assumption, but there is a lot of ground between FATAL and Carebears.
I admitted to the hyperbole in that very post I made that comment. However, when you use terms like "giving nightmares" and "making parents feel uncomfortable talking about it", that typically means you're leaning more towards the FATAL side than Carebears.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;760845I admitted to the hyperbole in that very post I made that comment. However, when you use terms like "giving nightmares" and "making parents feel uncomfortable talking about it", that typically means you're leaning more towards the FATAL side than Carebears.
The original cartoon I was going to reference was Sunbow GI Joe. I admit I exaggerated a bit myself in the other direction, aha.
The way to phrase it is that the wizard & the fighter's damage in one round has the same max, min, and mean, but the wizard's has a higher standard deviation.
Over multiple rounds, the cumulative max, min, and mean will stay the same, and the s.d. of the cumulative damage will converge to the same value for both.
Anyway, I think Ghost is funny.
Quote from: Ghost;760529Sure.
1. 5e, just like 4e, will be written for the mind of a ten year old. Not the smart ten year olds that were originally attracted to 1e back in the day, exactly because it was smarter than anything else that was out there, but average and below average pre-teens. That means Pixarish evil villains, Boris-and-Natasha grade dialogue, plots that won't cause nightmares or force parents to field uncomfortable questions.
2. 5e, just like 4e, will be larded with insultingly bad filler text. Not the usual filler text of other games that are written with a wink and a nudge between gamers who know that to stay in business there has to be some padding but at least that padding is fun to read. I mean a tons of mind-numbing, stomach-turning sludge, rules bloat on a Chicago graft scale.
3: "5e will be garbage."
I don't know why everyone will buy it. There's a reason, probably many, but none of them is because it deserves to be bought unless you're too young to go to high school.
4: This, in answer to the idea, that 5e should just be given a chance. The answer, objectively, is "no, it should not."
5: Editing this in just in case another person gets it in his head to ask why I'm posting again:
"if the latest news about the new D&D Basic and the D&D Starter set don't end up making you admit that the new D&D is making a sufficient old-school effort, then you never ever actually could have been convinced (short of maybe Wizards announcing they're scrapping 5e entirely and will now only release the OD&D booklets in their original form, complete with a rare reproduction of one of Gary Gygax's shopping lists from 1973 so that grognards can speculate as to whether the presence of 'swiss cheese', 'baby wipes' and 'beer' on the list may have in some way influenced the origins of the game).
Yes...I'd be slightly less demanding than this. I'd settle for a mildly interesting product with an "old school" sticker on it if that makes them happy.
Lets see. Heres my thoughts from someone with valid reasons to grind multiple axes.
1: The starter is dumbed down. Mearls even states this was a design goal. Personally I think it is too dumbed down and goes against the one of the baser philosophies of D&D and most RPGs - to treat players no matter the age as if they have more than two brain cells to rub together.
Basic though is not dumbed down. It is just the basics and probably more or less what BX was before. Base classes, but fairly robust rules.
The books will be where all the complexity goes.
2: Hard to say yet. But you are probably right. We will not know till the stuff is released. Though personally I am not overly thrilled with some of the statements previously on various elements and changes. Dragonborn was the first one yo make me go... ugh!. Was not impressed AT ALL with some later bacground reveals. Other parts seemed fine so it 50/50. We will see where this all goes.
3: I dont think it will be garbage based on what we know so far. The Starter will be useless to many. But useful to others. Absolutely YMMV and in the end probably irrelevant to Basic and full versions. I think Basic is going to be pretty good overall once its all out. It is the books and modules though where we will see what WOTC and Mearls are really up to. Though WOTC is outsourcing some parts to other companies.
People will buy it because A: They arent aware of WOTCs past and current stunts. Or dont care B: Mearls is good at spin doctoring and chirping buzzwords. C: They liked what they saw in the playtest. D: Basic is FREE!!!
That last part defeats all. Free. Yes, its watered down. But it is watered down to a past version that set the bar for ease of play that others built on.
4: Does WOTC deserve another chance? Why are we lining their pockets just so they can botch it again? For some, because the initial product will likely be viable, possibly the most viable version of D&D since 2nd ed. Or because they will only buy the core stuff and then stop before WOTC begins the botch-o-rama.
5: So far Next has had some elements of that old-school feel. For me it feels alot like BX with some BECMI. And Basic seems to be confirming that.
It also has some new twists that to me seem really interesting. WOTC is also dipping into other designers cookie jars for ideas and examples of how to do things. And so it is having a more alive feel I guess.
X: Is WOTC going to steal defeat from the jaws of victory yet again? Probably. This IS WOTC we are talking about. But I think NEXT is going to be very interesting and so I say have a look at basic and then sit back and enjoy the ride till the train wrecks.
Then take photos afterwards.:cheerleader:
Quote from: Arminius;760860Anyway, I think Ghost is funny.
I really don't know how to process anything besides contempt and suspicion. Please keep all positive comments to yourself.
Quote from: Old Geezer;760543Though there is somewhat of a point in there.
The old "Do we simplify for an expanded audience" debate goes back to when the first 1000 copies of OD&D sold out in six months instead of six years. Gary, Rob, et al were amazed when somebody proposed a module for the first time; for them, creating the world was the fun part, and "why have us do any more of your imagining for you?"
But very soon it became obvious that modules sold, and Gary decided to act like a businessman instead of a gamer; "if modules are what sell, we will make modules." So "dumbing down the game" goes WAY back.
In fact, dumbing down EVERYTHING goes way back.
True. But the moduels do not treat you like a moron. And several require a fair amout of thinking and even improving to handle. For many DMs modules save on the workload. Or act as a frame to build on. Or are absolutely vital to those poor sods forced into the role of DM who have no skill for it. THEY desperately need modules.
And some see modules as insight into the game world, even if none was intended.
So modules do not = dumbed down.
Well least not till the mid 90s.
all i know is that the blurbs for the two new dragon-based modules sound silly and overblown if theyre intended for level one/low level parties. reminds me alot of the Sunless Citadel, that ridiculous module they kicked off 3.0 with, so painfully bad I couldnt run it for my group.
I guess I feel a little bad making such a big attack on 5e. I know people want it to be a good experience like the old days. It's what pisses me off about WotC the most. They have all the resources to do something awesome. They just never do it.
Quote from: Warthur;760553I dunno guys, griping about the writing style and the existence of filler text seems like a complaint about the experience of reading the rulebooks, rather than playing the game. Obviously, a nice-to-read rulebook is a bonus, but I still wonder how much actual play our Hittite actually enjoys.
For what it's worth, the samples released so far from the Starter Set don't seem to talk down to the reader at all to me and appear refreshingly information-dense. And that's for the product which is supposed to be soft-pitched for younger players.
I agree. But slogging through some of White Wolf's rulebooks was a pain and a half because of all the prose in the way. Compared to say Rifts and all Palladium books which are an absolute breeze to sift through because the rules and the background are neatly separated.
Quote from: Bobloblah;760639It's probably because they don't employ a bunch of wanna-be-writers like TSR did.
*ducks and runs for cover*
Say what we will of them. But TSR era was outstanding for giving new writers a chance and it was the springboard for more than a few future authors. Especially if you remember TSR also ran Amazing Stories for a while.
Quote from: Ghost;760793An opinion is subjective. A fact is a fact. To argue that what I said is not objectively true, you would first have to declare that:
1. you do not agree that WotC designs it's "branded play experiences" for 10 year olds - or - that you enjoy playing games that are designed that way
- and -
2. that WotC products are not larded with poorly written bloat
once a single person decides to claim this, that is the point at which my statement becomes subjective. I credit everyone reading this by asserting that my premise is objective and not subjective.
If you were ten I would not make this assertion.
Ah, the "Humpty Dumpty" defense, first exhibited by Lewis Carrol.
Quote from: Ghost;760866all i know is that the blurbs for the two new dragon-based modules sound silly and overblown if theyre intended for level one/low level parties. reminds me alot of the Sunless Citadel, that ridiculous module they kicked off 3.0 with, so painfully bad I couldnt run it for my group.
I guess I feel a little bad making such a big attack on 5e. I know people want it to be a good experience like the old days. It's what pisses me off about WotC the most. They have all the resources to do something awesome. They just never do it.
Don't feel bad, feel embarrassed. 5E may it may not be shut but you definitely come across as petulant. Your arguments boil down to "I hate WOTC!"
I mean fair enough but that is not the way to honestly assess a rules set.
Quote from: Fiasco;760874Don't feel bad, feel embarrassed. 5E may it may not be shut but you definitely come across as petulant. Your arguments boil down to "I hate WOTC!"
I mean fair enough but that is not the way to honestly assess a rules set.
Look at his definitions of "objective" and "subjective" and you will realize honesty enters nowhere into this.
Quote from: Ghost;760866all i know is that the blurbs for the two new dragon-based modules sound silly and overblown if theyre intended for level one/low level parties.
FWIW, my understanding is the first one is supposed to take you up to fifth level or so and the second takes it up to... 15? Somewhere in the teens. So it's not like a couple of 2nd-level so and sos are supposed to be fighting Tiamat or anything on that level.
Though a scale like that, it's possible they may be too ambitious.
Quote from: Omega;760843But the ranger and the paladin are fighter sub-classes (or once were) and they get magical effects.
And considering the absurd amounts of multi-classing in 3rd... How would anyone ever know what is or isnt magical?
But Paladins, Rangers, Bards have always had magic it's just that the Ranger can actually heal now. The Bard and Paladin could always do it. The Druid could from at least 2e and I bet in 1e also.
Everybody could do about anything in 3e especially if you multiclassed. And well we all know about 4e and my third favorite class behind the Shielding Swordmage and the Invoker (a real Moses cleric type). Would be the "lazy" warlord. They're really 2e Bard like without the reniessance faire crap.
Quote from: Ghost;760763At this point it would take a lot to get me back. Especially since there are so many great games out there.
There's no reason to play ANY EDITION unless THAT EDITION is fun for your and your crew. If 5e did not have the D&D name attached, these threads would never exist.
Start a thread talking about some of these "many great games." I always like hearing about what people are actually playing.
Quote from: Old Geezer;760876Look at his definitions of "objective" and "subjective" and you will realize honesty enters nowhere into this.
Brother he ain't the only one, you skipped a lot of posts. At least he's doing it sarcastically to wind people up he thought was being a jackass. Something you have never been known to be banned for doing of course... :D
the rules sets arent their problem. it's the only thing the ever get right.
I'll admit to not getting the humpty dumpty lewis carrol reference, but i'm pretty sure it doesnt involve anyone owning both my core premises
Quote from: Ghost;760895I'll admit to not getting the humpty dumpty lewis carrol reference, but i'm pretty sure it doesnt involve anyone owning both my core premises
Quote from: Through The Looking Glass"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
Quote from: Ghost;760888the rules sets arent their problem. it's the only thing the ever get right.
You mean to tell us that your entire objection to 3.x and 4e (and the source of your skepticism of 5e) is purely a matter of not being presented in the way you like... which from what I can infer is either "deliberately inaccessible" or "grimdark enough to scare parents' groups"?
I... what.
Quote from: Ghost;760895I'll admit to not getting the humpty dumpty lewis carrol reference, but i'm pretty sure it doesnt involve anyone owning both my core premises
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
Quote from: Ghost;760866all i know is that the blurbs for the two new dragon-based modules sound silly and overblown if theyre intended for level one/low level parties. reminds me alot of the Sunless Citadel, that ridiculous module they kicked off 3.0 with, so painfully bad I couldnt run it for my group.
I guess I feel a little bad making such a big attack on 5e. I know people want it to be a good experience like the old days. It's what pisses me off about WotC the most. They have all the resources to do something awesome. They just never do it.
I agree its a bit bombastic. But from what seen so far. It sounds like the modules sweep from first and take the players all the way to something like 15th? Like a really good campaign.
As for WOTC having the resources...
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. We know from past product that Hasbro sometimes has WOTC on a tight budget leash for some projects. Others not. Viable designers seems the real problem and WOTC has the occasional problem of hanging on to the competent ones.
Quote from: Omega;760869Say what we will of them. But TSR era was outstanding for giving new writers a chance and it was the springboard for more than a few future authors. Especially if you remember TSR also ran Amazing Stories for a while.
Meh...late TSR employed a bunch of writers whose actual writing (i.e. novels) I found to be very poor. A bunch of hacks, really. While a lot of these individuals could craft a decent sentence for a module or setting book, many of them had no notion of what was actually useful in a module or setting book. Instead they tried to tell stories that they probably would have rather been writing as fiction.
To be completely fair, Paizo, which is immensely successful with their adventure paths, suffers from the inclusion of enormous amounts of useless text in their products, too.
Quote from: Bobloblah;760950Meh...late TSR employed a bunch of writers whose actual writing (i.e. novels) I found to be very poor. A bunch of hacks, really. While a lot of these individuals could craft a decent sentence for a module or setting book, many of them had no notion of what was actually useful in a module or setting book. Instead they tried to tell stories that they probably would have rather been writing as fiction.
To be completely fair, Paizo, which is immensely successful with their adventure paths, suffers from the inclusion of enormous amounts of useless text in their products, too.
Well you throw the kids in the deep end and see which ones sink or not. TSR tossed alot of kids. :(
Quote from: LibraryLass;760877FWIW, my understanding is the first one is supposed to take you up to fifth level or so and the second takes it up to... 15? Somewhere in the teens. So it's not like a couple of 2nd-level so and sos are supposed to be fighting Tiamat or anything on that level.
Who introduced this idea of modules or "campaigns" that aren't just scaled for a certain level but actually promise to progress a party from X to Y? I haven't checked whether the TSR lettered sequences were for successively higher-leveled parties, which would imply it, somewhat, but whenever I see this it seems dumb.
Quote from: Arminius;760957Who introduced this idea of modules or "campaigns" that aren't just scaled for a certain level but actually promise to progress a party from X to Y? I haven't checked whether the TSR lettered sequences were for successively higher-leveled parties, which would imply it, somewhat, but whenever I see this it seems dumb.
None of the early one I have ever stated that that I recall.
Tyranny of Dragons is the first one I have seen with that sort of blurb. But is it really so? Or is that just come new buzzword for saying the modules are for levels 1-5, 6-10, and 11-15? (assuming there are three.)
Quote from: Arminius;760957Who introduced this idea of modules or "campaigns" that aren't just scaled for a certain level but actually promise to progress a party from X to Y? I haven't checked whether the TSR lettered sequences were for successively higher-leveled parties, which would imply it, somewhat, but whenever I see this it seems dumb.
Well if you look at this list you see numerous examples of a series of modules that took a party from X low level to Y higher level.
https://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/modcode.html
However it Paizo ,starting with their Dungeon Magazine adventure paths, who honed this into a fine art and set the standard.
But if you want to get technical it can be blamed on Blackmoor and Greyhawk as the two original campaigns were built around dungeons that started with 1st level characters on the first level of the dungeon. And the deeper you go the tougher the dungeon became.
The published adventures just follow the natural consequences of this idea of progression. Instead of a first level you got a village with a ruined moathouse. Instead of a 2nd and 3rd level you got a valley full of caves with monsters, and so on up to the point you are deep underground about to enter a city fill of dark elves.
You know what? I'm sorry CK, Jeff, and EW. I really am.
For years I was in the trenches with you in the great edition war against the SJW, 4vengers, 3tards, Denners, Goons, and many other armies as they charged across the barren landscape that is the D&D edition battlefield. You embraced me as comrade in arms, agreed with what I had to say about those enemies who couldn't think for themselves and were touched by bad DMs. You nodded your heads in agreement when I lept up with you from the trenches to meet these foes with shouts of, "You don't need to be a special snowflake! PC death happens! Deal with it!" Our chronicled records over the past few years tell the story over and over again about our battles together; about our trusted alliance.
Yes, those were the days. Years spent on the same side, and embraced by the "old school" crowd. Then it happened. I committed a grave sin. I dared enjoy a game. But not any game. A game put out by WoTC, and the most modern iteration of D&D. Suddenly those hand shakes turned to accusations of being a "5avior"; a fanboi. Suddenly, just like that, I went from accepted ally to enemy. The wound that truly hurts is that I wasn't just anyone who liked it. No, it was "one of your own" who dared like it.
So I offer my apologies that you feel like I'm your girlfriend who spurned you. That you feel so betrayed that you can't think rationally and suddenly think everything before was a lie. I can say how that's not true. How I still have 1e as one of my favorite editions. How I prefer rulings over rules, or how I have distaste for entitled charop players. But just like the girlfriend who left you, that won't matter. You won't believe it. I dared enjoy 5e and gasp...even defended it against irrational criticism (a cardinal sin in tactics of edition warring), and for that, I have committed the ultimate sin and broken the circle.
So circle the wagons, my old friends. Set the pikes. Protect your sacred ability to sling vitriol at an edition you don't like. Heaven forbid if another "grognard" dares cross the lines and enjoys a modern WoTC game. Because apparently one cannot enjoy TSR era D&D and 5e as well. Not someone who was considered an ally in the trenches with you.
We had some good times, but alas, apparently I hurt you too deeply.
(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/64288000/jpg/_64288267_2664968.jpg)
Quote from: Bobloblah;760950Meh...late TSR employed a bunch of writers whose actual writing (i.e. novels) I found to be very poor. A bunch of hacks, really. While a lot of these individuals could craft a decent sentence for a module or setting book, many of them had no notion of what was actually useful in a module or setting book. Instead they tried to tell stories that they probably would have rather been writing as fiction.
To be completely fair, Paizo, which is immensely successful with their adventure paths, suffers from the inclusion of enormous amounts of useless text in their products, too.
Indeed. Considering the bar for publishing a fantasy novel in the 80s and 90s was remarkably low, writers who couldn't even break into that market were pretty much hacks. And they didn't even bring what you might hope from creative literary types - originality, imagination, and nuanced characters - because the genre was so derivative. Shit, the Hickmans and their ilk not only drove me away from buying D&D modules, they drove me away from fantasy fiction.
As for adventure paths, James Jacobs himself has acknowledged that half the market for the paths are from people who read them but don't play, and Paizo has to keep those customers happy.
Quote from: Arminius;760957Who introduced this idea of modules or "campaigns" that aren't just scaled for a certain level but actually promise to progress a party from X to Y? I haven't checked whether the TSR lettered sequences were for successively higher-leveled parties, which would imply it, somewhat, but whenever I see this it seems dumb.
All of the connected series (G series, A series, U series, etc) feature a progression in suggested level. They're the template the industry has been following ever since.
Quote from: estar;760960Well if you look at this list you see numerous examples of a series of modules that took a party from X low level to Y higher level.
https://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/modcode.html
However it Paizo ,starting with their Dungeon Magazine adventure paths, who honed this into a fine art and set the standard.
But if you want to get technical it can be blamed on Blackmoor and Greyhawk as the two original campaigns were built around dungeons that started with 1st level characters on the first level of the dungeon. And the deeper you go the tougher the dungeon became.
The published adventures just follow the natural consequences of this idea of progression. Instead of a first level you got a village with a ruined moathouse. Instead of a 2nd and 3rd level you got a valley full of caves with monsters, and so on up to the point you are deep underground about to enter a city fill of dark elves.
Exactly. The Keep on the Borderlands is explicit that PCs should be wary of tackling the higher caves until they're higher level. But once they've cleared the lower caves, they should have become strong enough to tackle the higher ones. Defeat at-level threat --> progression of level --> progression of threat.
The true sandbox has always been exceedingly rare in published adventures.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;760973You know what? I'm sorry CK, Jeff, and EW. I really am.
For years I was in the trenches with you in the great edition war against the SJW, 4vengers, 3tards, Denners, Goons, and many other armies as they charged across the barren landscape that is the D&D edition battlefield. You embraced me as comrade in arms, agreed with what I had to say about those enemies who couldn't think for themselves and were touched by bad DMs. You nodded your heads in agreement when I lept up with you from the trenches to meet these foes with shouts of, "You don't need to be a special snowflake! PC death happens! Deal with it!" Our chronicled records over the past few years tell the story over and over again about our battles together; about our trusted alliance.
Yes, those were the days. Years spent on the same side, and embraced by the "old school" crowd. Then it happened. I committed a grave sin. I dared enjoy a game. But not any game. A game put out by WoTC, and the most modern iteration of D&D. Suddenly those hand shakes turned to accusations of being a "5avior"; a fanboi. Suddenly, just like that, I went from accepted ally to enemy. The wound that truly hurts is that I wasn't just anyone who liked it. No, it was "one of your own" who dared like it.
So I offer my apologies that you feel like I'm your girlfriend who spurned you. That you feel so betrayed that you can't think rationally and suddenly think everything before was a lie. I can say how that's not true. How I still have 1e as one of my favorite editions. How I prefer rulings over rules, or how I have distaste for entitled charop players. But just like the girlfriend who left you, that won't matter. You won't believe it. I dared enjoy 5e and gasp...even defended it against irrational criticism (a cardinal sin in tactics of edition warring), and for that, I have committed the ultimate sin and broken the circle.
So circle the wagons, my old friends. Set the pikes. Protect your sacred ability to sling vitriol at an edition you don't like. Heaven forbid if another "grognard" dares cross the lines and enjoys a modern WoTC game. Because apparently one cannot enjoy TSR era D&D and 5e as well. Not someone who was considered an ally in the trenches with you.
We had some good times, but alas, apparently I hurt you too deeply.
(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/64288000/jpg/_64288267_2664968.jpg)
Well, for what it's worth, Sac, I'm in agreement with you about 5E. I've enjoyed it a great deal, much more than 3E or 4E. It's not TSR through-and-through, but for me, it runs simple and fast, so the feel is there. I would think that, if I loved 1E so much, I'd just stick to that game, period, and not worry about 5th. I imagine a lot of the venom we're seeing is more about the company than the game. I could be wrong on that, of course. There ARE some people who have tried 5th and don't care for it (I can think of one in particular who posts on the Wizard's forum all the time about the sins of 5th [martial healing being one of them]). I honestly think the final iteration will be a very good game. If it isn't, well, there are plenty of options available, a lot of them free.
Quote from: Haffrung;760976The true sandbox has always been exceedingly rare in published adventures.
Absolutely, for the reasons so ably described before. I also think the idea of threat/level progression is reinforced by our video game culture. The modules and such begat the current mode, and now it feeds back on itself. Modern players expect challenges to be within reach, for the most part.
Funny story, but ran a couple of OS sessions recently, and a player decided during character downtime (waiting 9 days for some contacts to show up) to do some hunting in a particularly dangerous area, rather than just jump 9 days ahead. He wanted to bring back horns/hides, etc. to sell in the nearby keep. I told him that the WM chart I was using wasn't level specific (I used a random generator created through Wizardawn). I also told him the area was dangerous as hell. So he traipsed out there, in all his level 1 Ranger glory, alone, hunting for a few days, and eventually rolled a WM. I let him roll the monster type and he got a Black Dragon. As he had just killed his valuable prey, I decided said Dragon saw the dead animal and thought "hey! free lunch!" and swooped in. Player tried to hide, had bonuses to hide in the wilderness, I gave him a situational modifier to hide (since the dragon really just wanted the dead animal). Dude failed his check. Dragon spotted him and, out of plain ol' nonchalant malice, sprayed him down with a gout of acid. Lunch AND desert.:-)
Quote from: Sacrosanct;760973Then it happened. I committed a grave sin. I dared enjoy a game. But not any game. A game put out by WoTC, and the most modern iteration of D&D... Heaven forbid if another "grognard" dares cross the lines and enjoys a modern WoTC game. Because apparently one cannot enjoy TSR era D&D and 5e as well.
Funny, eh? It shows that for a lot of forum grogs, your identity isn't what you like so much as what you loathe. Apparently you're not an old-schooler if you like AD&D
and 5E. And that's a hang-up that's peculiar to RPGs and D&D. In the historical wargaming hobby, which first used the term 'grognard' to refer to long-time gamers, grognards have no problem at all enjoying and praising modern games. Playing a 30 year old hex and counter SPI game and a modern GMT card-driven game is not considered mutually-exclusive. There might be some wargamers who prefer traditional hex-and-counter games. But they don't shit all over those who enjoy newer games, and they certainly don't consider someone who has been playing for 30 years no longer a grognard if he enjoys newer games also.
Quote from: Haffrung;760976The true sandbox has always been exceedingly rare in published adventures.
Because it's difficult to achieve. Unlike a homebrew campaign, where creating a sandbox is fairly easy, in published adventures you're limited by page count. You can only put in so much while at the same time having an overall plot and progression points in that plot. Sandbox means the players can do whatever they want, really, and there is no way you can cover all of these scenarios in a limited page count.
Not saying it can't be done, just that it's a challenge because of that.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;760973You know what? I'm sorry CK, Jeff, and EW. I really am.
Good. Now cut out the shit that followed it.
You, Kreuger and Marleycat have been stinking the place up for a couple of weeks now.
I think a module or "campaign" that features a variety of challenges, even if they're clearly labelled for PC benefit and demarcated spatially, is quite different from a linear progression of encounters that scale in sequence.
The first model is robust in the face of TPK for example.
I don't really know TSR modules very well but even if successive modules in the G series are scaled for higher-level characters, I wonder how the individual modules are structured internally, compared to the Paizo stuff. That is,
Does either of them feature expected leveling up *within* the adventure?
How linear is the sequence of events; how much of the content is mandatory; how much can be bypassed?
The idea promised by the word "module" is that it's *modular*. That's the justification I took for marketing them at the time--you could drop them into the middle of an existing setting to fill in content. That doesn't really seem to be the case now.
Quote from: One Horse Town;760991Good. Now cut out the shit that followed it.
You, Kreuger and Marleycat have been stinking the place up for a couple of weeks now.
He won't. Neither will Haffrung, pretending that I care about a purity test, or Marley with, who the hell knows what she's gonna go off on at this point, or the rest of this new "anti-grognard" crew, but if you actually bothered to read the posts you would have seen that the cause of the stink, in almost all cases had a falsehood or some other sophistry at the center, and not mine. You don't want that level of discernment here, fine, consider it cut out.
Quote from: Arminius;760992I don't really know TSR modules very well but even if successive modules in the G series are scaled for higher-level characters, I wonder how the individual modules are structured internally, compared to the Paizo stuff. That is,
Does either of them feature expected leveling up *within* the adventure?
How linear is the sequence of events; how much of the content is mandatory; how much can be bypassed?
They're not big enough to level during the module (except maybe G3). I think the expected progression is you gain a level after each module.
It's tough to say how much of the G series is mandatory, as the whole point of the adventures are to render the giant threat ineffective. Your goal in each is to take out enough of the giants, along with their leadership, to break up the 'tribe', and then find out the secret force behind them. To do that, you have to clear out about two-thirds of the monsters in each lair, find a map to the next lair, and carry on.
The big difference in modern adventure design, exemplified by Paizo's APs, is scripted set-piece encounters. After you defeat one enemy, an NPC steals the maguffin and takes to another place, etc. etc. While you could say the sequence of G1, G2, G3, D1, D2, D3 is a railroad, there's far more scope within those modules for free will than there is in APs.
Quote from: Arminius;760992The idea promised by the word "module" is that it's *modular*. That's the justification I took for marketing them at the time--you could drop them into the middle of an existing setting to fill in content. That doesn't really seem to be the case now.
Some modules are more modular than others. There's nothing stopping you from using G2 as a standalone dungeon. And of course the non-series modules like C1 and S2 are meant to be used standalone. A4, where you start as prisoners on the dungeons of the slave lords, would be trickier.
So even if we stipulate that sandbox campaigns weren't published in volume bitd (top of my head: Wilderlands, X2, Griffin Mt., arguably individual cities if sufficiently detailed such as City State or Haven, Harn) there has been a shift in the context for which modules are written. In the past they were more modular and compatible with home brew sandboxes. Now they're more standalone and linear; the adventure is the campaign, which has also come to mean the events surrounding the progression of a specific group of PCs from 0 to N.
Quote from: LibraryLass;760907"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
Well that's the crux of the word objective now isn't it. That's where all this silly sematic horseshit comes from in the first place that has everyone clinging to their dictionaries like old women at the idea that someone can take away their right to assert anything as an equally valid "opinion."
A fact is a fact. Just because you believe a fact is false does not make it an opinion, no matter what nursery rhyme you back it up with. My entire extended family is of the "opinion" that evolution and climate change are hoaxes. That doesn't change the fact that they are OBJECTIVELY wrong. That just makes them a group of fucking idiots.
Nobody here believes that what WotC has been producing over the past decade is anything but garbage. That's because it is OBJECTIVELY true that that is the case. There are alot of people outside this site that do have the opinion that what WotC has been producing is not garbage. That doesn't affect the reality that they are wrong and I'm not going to pretend it does so that people who like to spout bullshit can do so claiming an equally valid opinion.
THAT is what you're used to dismissing as the "Humpty Dumpty" defense? How pathetic.
http://www.hark.com/clips/fqvksvkkcx-you-got-nothing
Quote from: Arminius;761014So even if we stipulate that sandbox campaigns weren't published in volume bitd (top of my head: Wilderlands, X2, Griffin Mt., arguably individual cities if sufficiently detailed such as City State or Haven, Harn) there has been a shift in the context for which modules are written. In the past they were more modular and compatible with home brew sandboxes. Now they're more standalone and linear; the adventure is the campaign, which has also come to mean the events surrounding the progression of a specific group of PCs from 0 to N.
Yes. It was just another step from crafting a module of a particular locale or adventure to crafting the entire campaign, including backgrounds, NPCs, and world-shaking events. Read the Paizo forums some time. A lot of gamers absolutely love the epic stories presented in the adventure paths. Like the Keep on the Borderlands in days of yore, an AP like the Rise of Runelords has become a shared experience for the community. Only it's not a shared experience of a dungeon locale, but of allies and enemies, secrets and betrayals, invasions and climactic battles against world-devouring foes.
I would check out Paizo's forums more often but the layout and navigation is nearly impossible to deal with.
Quote from: Ghost;760895I'll admit to not getting the humpty dumpty lewis carrol reference, but i'm pretty sure it doesnt involve anyone owning both my core premises
It addresses your central premise directly...
"once a single person decides to claim this, that is the point at which my statement becomes subjective. "No. That is not what "subjective" means, nor does someone stating a contrary opinion suddenly create an ontological change making what was a "fact" suddenly become "subjective."
DO try to keep up.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;760973I committed a grave sin. I dared enjoy a game. But not any game. A game put out by WoTC, and the most modern iteration of D&D. Suddenly those hand shakes turned to accusations of being a "5avior"; a fanboi. Suddenly, just like that, I went from accepted ally to enemy. The wound that truly hurts is that I wasn't just anyone who liked it. No, it was "one of your own" who dared like it.
I played Dungeon World and quite liked it.
If somebody I know ran a 5E game I'd play it. If somebody ran a 4E game I'd play it. If somebody ran a 2E game I'd play it. (I will not play 3E or 3.5 because I have.)
But I'm not gonna BUY anything. That's a different issue.
Quote from: Marleycat;760878They're really 2e Bard like without the reniessance faire crap.
Singing out of tune, drinking way too much watered-down overpriced wine, and eating charred turkey legs?
:D
Quote from: Haffrung;760976As for adventure paths, James Jacobs himself has acknowledged that half the market for the paths are from people who read them but don't play, and Paizo has to keep those customers happy.
Either Jim Dunnigan or Redmond Simonson of SPI said that they had two categories of customers; those who wanted a fun to play game, and those who wanted tons of reference material to read about the game, and that it was virtually impossible to please both groups with the same game.
[/QUOTE]
The true sandbox has always been exceedingly rare in published adventures.[/QUOTE]
Well, many published adventures were tournament scenarios, where you MUST establish a definite winner among multiple teams. "Whoevers corpse hits the ground furthest from the entrance" is a valid way to get a winner, so a linear killing ground module is an easy way to run a tournament.
I do not know if they started by publishing tournament modules deliberately, but the demand was so high for modules at the peak that anything that could be sold, was sold. Tournament modules let you double dip; first you used them in the tournament, then you sold them.
Quote from: One Horse Town;760991Good. Now cut out the shit that followed it.
You, Kreuger and Marleycat have been stinking the place up for a couple of weeks now.
Jebus, the melodrama just keeps on coming...
Quote from: CRKrueger;760886Brother he ain't the only one, you skipped a lot of posts. At least he's doing it sarcastically to wind people up he thought was being a jackass. Something you have never been known to be banned for doing of course... :D
D'oh!
Ironically, though, it seems the most likely cause for a permaban at That Place will be "pretending to be surprised when people play differently from you."
Or, in other words, being sarcastic. Of all the shit I pulled that they could have legitimately crunched my peener for, "being snarky" is NOT what I expected.
Quote from: Haffrung;760985Funny, eh? It shows that for a lot of forum grogs, your identity isn't what you like so much as what you loathe. Apparently you're not an old-schooler if you like AD&D and 5E. And that's a hang-up that's peculiar to RPGs and D&D. In the historical wargaming hobby, which first used the term 'grognard' to refer to long-time gamers, grognards have no problem at all enjoying and praising modern games. Playing a 30 year old hex and counter SPI game and a modern GMT card-driven game is not considered mutually-exclusive. There might be some wargamers who prefer traditional hex-and-counter games. But they don't shit all over those who enjoy newer games, and they certainly don't consider someone who has been playing for 30 years no longer a grognard if he enjoys newer games also.
And at a small convention, you'll have people running, and playing in, games like TRACTICS side by side with Flames of War and Command Decision.
If a game is not out yet, do you like that game or do you like the hype surrounding that game?
D&D5E is not out yet, regardless of the playtest, because the playtest may or may not represent the final game.
Quote from: Old Geezer;761044Either Jim Dunnigan or Redmond Simonson of SPI said that they had two categories of customers; those who wanted a fun to play game, and those who wanted tons of reference material to read about the game, and that it was virtually impossible to please both groups with the same game.
There's still a big division in wargames today between those meant to be played competitively head-to-head and those mainly punched and played around with solo alongside a book. There's only a problem when a buyer mistakes one for the other (for example, expecting a Richard Berg game to be competitively balanced).
Quote from: Old Geezer;761044Well, many published adventures were tournament scenarios, where you MUST establish a definite winner among multiple teams. "Whoevers corpse hits the ground furthest from the entrance" is a valid way to get a winner, so a linear killing ground module is an easy way to run a tournament.
I do not know if they started by publishing tournament modules deliberately, but the demand was so high for modules at the peak that anything that could be sold, was sold. Tournament modules let you double dip; first you used them in the tournament, then you sold them.
I don't think it's a coincidence that most of the sandbox modules that were published back in the day were put out by Judges Guild. TSR seemed to be much more active in creating and running tournament events. It's hard to imagine City State of the Invincible Overlord, Tegel Manor, or even the Dark Tower run as a tournament event.
I've always wondered about the G-series, though. I know they were written for tournament play. But were they all run and played in sequence over a single event, or individually over three conventions?
Quote from: jeff37923;761051If a game is not out yet, do you like that game or do you like the hype surrounding that game?
D&D5E is not out yet, regardless of the playtest, because the playtest may or may not represent the final game.
But aren't we supposed to pretend we gave it a fair chance, then trash it?
Quote from: Bill;761053But aren't we supposed to pretend we gave it a fair chance, then trash it?
I guess, but only if you feel like being squashed in to someone else's definition of you.
Right now, the 5aviors are doing a good job of making people uninterested in playing a game with assholes, pregenerated as a fanbase.
Quote from: Bill;761053But aren't we supposed to pretend we gave it a fair chance, then trash it?
There definitely seems to be a different standard going here.
"5e sucks. It's gonna suck because x, y, z"
"I happen to like it."
"How can you like it, it's not even out yet."
o_O
Quote from: Old Geezer;761042Singing out of tune, drinking way too much watered-down overpriced wine, and eating charred turkey legs?
:D
I was thinking about the silly clothes but that works also.
Quote from: Marleycat;761056I was thinking about the silly clothes but that works also.
Look at the Cavalier, they decided to go from the 15th to the 17th century in one fell swoop.
Quote from: Old Geezer;761040It addresses your central premise directly...
"once a single person decides to claim this, that is the point at which my statement becomes subjective. "
No. That is not what "subjective" means, nor does someone stating a contrary opinion suddenly create an ontological change making what was a "fact" suddenly become "subjective."
DO try to keep up.
You're right. And none of that changes the fact that up til now WotC has produced garbage, that it's a fact, or that nobody is disputing it by disagreeing with my #1 and #2. Don't try to confuse me with logic. Go find a 12 year old to run you through an epic storyline that takes you from 1st to 20th in 8 hours and quote them some nursery rhymes while you're at it, and don't confuse my stupidity for dishonesty again or boy will I...
(walks away disoriented and drops the perfect soundclip (http://www.hark.com/clips/yqsmfvwqdz-i-havent-killed-anybody) for Old Geezer at his feet)
Quote from: Old Geezer;761044Well, many published adventures were tournament scenarios, where you MUST establish a definite winner among multiple teams. "Whoevers corpse hits the ground furthest from the entrance" is a valid way to get a winner, so a linear killing ground module is an easy way to run a tournament.
I do not know if they started by publishing tournament modules deliberately, but the demand was so high for modules at the peak that anything that could be sold, was sold. Tournament modules let you double dip; first you used them in the tournament, then you sold them.
The anecdotes from Bob Bledsaw, Bill Owens, and other has left me with the impression that nobody thought that adventures (and setting products) would sell. That during that time the first tournament modules were being written and run.
That when Judges Guild took off along continued feedback it was only natural to the one things that had some work done, the tournament modules.
From then on it became a self fulfilling prophecy that the proper way of presenting a adventure was like a tournament module.
Quote from: dragoner;761057Look at the Cavalier, they decided to go from the 15th to the 17th century in one fell swoop.
Is that a Class ability? Time Travel
Quote from: Arminius;760992The idea promised by the word "module" is that it's *modular*. That's the justification I took for marketing them at the time--you could drop them into the middle of an existing setting to fill in content. That doesn't really seem to be the case now.
Right. At some point "modules" stopped being "here's some stuff you can put in your campaign" and became "here's your entire campaign".
Quote from: Bill;761062Is that a Class ability? Time Travel
I am not sure martial classes should be able to Time Travel as a mundane ability, it seems a bit too close to 4th edition for my liking.
Quote from: jadrax;761066I am not sure martial classes should be able to Time Travel as a mundane ability, it seems a bit too close to 4th edition for my liking.
The truly important question is it the Time Travel is an At Will, or an Encounter power.
Quote from: Bill;761062Is that a Class ability? Time Travel
I think it is a cherry picking tropes from different times ability, esp swinging wildly away from medieval fantasy. Not that Roundheads and Lobster Tails vs Cavaliers couldn't be fun; they were introducing limited firearms as well.
Bards, unlike the ren-faire types, actually were competent warriors from Scottish and Irish history, iirc. Not as entertainers as much, but as oral historians.
Quote from: Bill;761071The truly important question is it the Time Travel is an At Will, or an Encounter power.
Well, according to the ALLMIGHTY PLAYTEST, it depends on whether or not the pregen has the appropriate magic item, because their bonuses and powers stack.
Quote from: robiswrong;761065Right. At some point "modules" stopped being "here's some stuff you can put in your campaign" and became "here's your entire campaign".
Yes, the early ones seemed centered around locales in Greyhawk.
Quote from: Ghost;761058Don't try to confuse me with logic.
:D
Game, set, and match, kids. Thank you, thank you.
God damn, good to know I've still got it.
Quote from: Old Geezer;761077:D
Game, set, and match, kids. Thank you, thank you.
God damn, good to know I've still got it.
WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING HERE ENGAGED IN TYPED SPARRING WHEN YOU COULD BE DOING YOUR KICKSTARTER FOR YOUR BOOK?!?
GO KICKSTART YOUR BOOK!!
Damnit man, if you don't write the fucking thing then how can we give you money for it?
:D
Quote from: Bill;761071The truly important question is it the Time Travel is an At Will, or an Encounter power.
At-will but you need a TARDIS.
Quote from: Haffrung;761024Yes. It was just another step from crafting a module of a particular locale or adventure to crafting the entire campaign, including backgrounds, NPCs, and world-shaking events. Read the Paizo forums some time.
Just another step? I don't think so. It's a paradigm shift. A while back we were attributing it to (okay, blaming it on) Margaret Weis & Tracy Hickman.
http://www.the-prussian-gamer.de/index.php?topic=2306.0
Quote from: Marleycat;761081At-will but you need a TARDIS.
Enemies have to make a fear save when they hear the groaning and wheezing sound.
Quote from: Bill;761088Enemies have to make a fear save when they hear the groaning and wheezing sound.
So, whenever I eat chili, then?
Quote from: Old Geezer;761096So, whenever I eat chili, then?
You said it not me.:)
Quote from: Old Geezer;761077:D
Game, set, and match, kids. Thank you, thank you.
God damn, good to know I've still got it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0nyOyrprIs
Quote from: Ghost;761016Well that's the crux of the word objective now isn't it. That's where all this silly sematic horseshit comes from in the first place that has everyone clinging to their dictionaries like old women at the idea that someone can take away their right to assert anything as an equally valid "opinion."
A fact is a fact. Just because you believe a fact is false does not make it an opinion, no matter what nursery rhyme you back it up with. My entire extended family is of the "opinion" that evolution and climate change are hoaxes. That doesn't change the fact that they are OBJECTIVELY wrong. That just makes them a group of fucking idiots.
Nobody here believes that what WotC has been producing over the past decade is anything but garbage. That's because it is OBJECTIVELY true that that is the case. There are alot of people outside this site that do have the opinion that what WotC has been producing is not garbage. That doesn't affect the reality that they are wrong and I'm not going to pretend it does so that people who like to spout bullshit can do so claiming an equally valid opinion.
THAT is what you're used to dismissing as the "Humpty Dumpty" defense? How pathetic.
http://www.hark.com/clips/fqvksvkkcx-you-got-nothing
No value statement can ever be a statement of fact. Your argument rests on your statement "everything WotC has produced is garbage." That's not an objective statement. I think quoting sales figures comparing Paizo to Wizards with regards to tabletop stuff might provide support that they haven't pleased the tabletop crowd. Certainly scrapping the last edition entirely is an admission that they believe 4E was unprofitable. The product itself is quite good for what it does. Not enough people liked it for Hasbro's tastes. Maybe it's the "art house film" of the D&D line. I didn't personally care for it, but my opinion of it isn't objective in any way. Neither is yours. Even saying it is good for what it does is subjective.
Quote from: jeff37923;761054I guess, but only if you feel like being squashed in to someone else's definition of you.
Right now, the 5aviors are doing a good job of making people uninterested in playing a game with assholes, pregenerated as a fanbase.
I've provided my opinion of the rules I've actually played. I have a mostly favorable opinion of them. I have about 35 years experience playing these games, so my opinion isn't skewed by a lack of knowledge. I realize I can't speak for the final edition, but I've played every packet so far, and, based on that I liked whee they were going. I don't think stating that makes me an asshole. On the other hand, folks slamming the thing without ever testing it...
Quote from: jeff37923;761074Well, according to the ALLMIGHTY PLAYTEST, it depends on whether or not the pregen has the appropriate magic item, because their bonuses and powers stack.
Their stated premise was that you should be able to run without magic items at all. Not sure if this holds true if the final product, and, to be honest, the magic section of the play tests was very sparse as far as items presented. They did have a neat little section for generating random item attributes. It also appeared that they were aiming for "width" on magic items rather than "height" (keeping the pluses low, but allowing the item to do a few more things). Not sure they stuck to that. As I said, the section was rather sparsely populated with examples. I don't recall seeing anything more than a +3 however.
Quote from: jeff37923;761051If a game is not out yet, do you like that game or do you like the hype surrounding that game?
D&D5E is not out yet, regardless of the playtest, because the playtest may or may not represent the final game.
You can make informed guesses based upon the playtests. You know what most people already do with a whole bunch of decisions.
Quote from: honesttiago;761111No value statement can ever be a statement of fact. Your argument rests on your statement "everything WotC has produced is garbage." That's not an objective statement. I think quoting sales figures comparing Paizo to Wizards with regards to tabletop stuff might provide support that they haven't pleased the tabletop crowd. Certainly scrapping the last edition entirely is an admission that they believe 4E was unprofitable. The product itself is quite good for what it does. Not enough people liked it for Hasbro's tastes. Maybe it's the "art house film" of the D&D line. I didn't personally care for it, but my opinion of it isn't objective in any way. Neither is yours. Even saying it is good for what it does is subjective.
Geezer caught me saying both:
1. Once a single person decides to claim this, that is the point at which my statement becomes subjective.
and
2. A fact is a fact. Just because you believe a fact is false does not make it an opinion.
at the same time.
I refuse to further defend my position under mandates of "guy rules" and cede the field to his standard.
Quote from: Ghost;761127Geezer caught me saying both:
1. Once a single person decides to claim this, that is the point at which my statement becomes subjective.
and
2. A fact is a fact. Just because you believe a fact is false does not make it an opinion.
at the same time.
I refuse to further defend my position under mandates of "guy rules" and cede the field to his standard.
For the record, if you said "I have not liked their products for the last X number of years, and I fear that 5e will contain more of the crap I don't like," we'd all be on your side.
No accounting for taste, as my grandfather used to say. You don't like what you don't like, and you like what you like, and that's really about all there is to it. (Generic "you".)
well sure. that would just be too easy. no yelling. no screaming. no gunfire. what's the point in that?
Quote from: Ghost;761145well sure. that would just be too easy. no yelling. no screaming. no gunfire. what's the point in that?
:-D You make a good point, sir. Well played... (heheheheheh)
Well, if it helps any, I concede that it's a fact some people really don't like WotC, and that a lot of us, even those of us who are positive about 5th, are more than likely still holding our breath (I know I am).
Quote from: Ghost;761145well sure. that would just be too easy. no yelling. no screaming. no gunfire. what's the point in that?
We get more quickly to the drinking beer and farting.
Quote from: Bill;761062Is that a Class ability? Time Travel
If you multiclassed as a Chronomancer? Yes? :cool:
Quote from: honesttiago;761113I've provided my opinion of the rules I've actually played. I have a mostly favorable opinion of them. I have about 35 years experience playing these games, so my opinion isn't skewed by a lack of knowledge. I realize I can't speak for the final edition, but I've played every packet so far, and, based on that I liked whee they were going. I don't think stating that makes me an asshole. On the other hand, folks slamming the thing without ever testing it...
I don't consider you one of the 5aviors.
Hell, I don't have any idea who you are. This is the first post of yours I've seen.
Quote from: honesttiago;761114Their stated premise was that you should be able to run without magic items at all. Not sure if this holds true if the final product, and, to be honest, the magic section of the play tests was very sparse as far as items presented. They did have a neat little section for generating random item attributes. It also appeared that they were aiming for "width" on magic items rather than "height" (keeping the pluses low, but allowing the item to do a few more things). Not sure they stuck to that. As I said, the section was rather sparsely populated with examples. I don't recall seeing anything more than a +3 however.
OK, you need to get your sense of humor checked.....
Quote from: honesttiago;761111No value statement can ever be a statement of fact. Your argument rests on your statement "everything WotC has produced is garbage." That's not an objective statement. I think quoting sales figures comparing Paizo to Wizards with regards to tabletop stuff might provide support that they haven't pleased the tabletop crowd. Certainly scrapping the last edition entirely is an admission that they believe 4E was unprofitable. The product itself is quite good for what it does. Not enough people liked it for Hasbro's tastes. Maybe it's the "art house film" of the D&D line. I didn't personally care for it, but my opinion of it isn't objective in any way. Neither is yours. Even saying it is good for what it does is subjective.
And of course in "everything WotC has produced" he's including 3.X - an edition so successful that Paizo were able to make the #1 selling RPG of the 4E era by reprinting it with errata and some house rules.
Quote from: Windjammer;760640I'll be watching especially for Justin Alexander's blog and a pretty small subset of posters on TheGamingDen (with Trollman himself you have to read nearly everything between the lines and with a grain of salt, so there's too much agenda to be taken at face value).
I would take Justin Alexander with a grain of salt too, as I personally find his obsession with his "disassociated mechanics" to be madness. And yes, I've read his explanations of it, and his revised explanations of it. Still a heap of cognitive dissonance to me.
Quote from: jeff37923;761233OK, you need to get your sense of humor checked.....
Oh, you were joking when you called folks assholes? I get it. Ha...ha....ha... (Clears throat)...ha....
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;761245I would take Justin Alexander with a grain of salt too, as I personally find his obsession with his "disassociated mechanics" to be madness. And yes, I've read his explanations of it, and his revised explanations of it. Still a heap of cognitive dissonance to me.
Because being able to trip a slime creature or deliver a haymaker punch once a day make SO much sense. :rolleyes:
Quote from: CRKrueger;761283Because being able to trip a slime creature or deliver a haymaker punch once a day make SO much sense. :rolleyes:
Isnt tripping a geleatinous cube kinda like rolling a d6? :D
As for the once a day punch. There was a simmilar issue in Dragon Storm.
Base explanation was that perhaps youve been haymakering all day. The ine you spent the feat/skill/once-a-day on was the really special one. Like Rock-emSock-em Robots...:cool:
Quote from: honesttiago;761246Oh, you were joking when you called folks assholes? I get it. Ha...ha....ha... (Clears throat)...ha....
No, I was joking when I joined in with the running joke that time travel was part of D&D 5E. I was serious when I called the 5aviors assholes driving people away from 5E.
But you already knew that.
Quote from: CRKrueger;761283Because being able to trip a slime creature or deliver a haymaker punch once a day make SO much sense. :rolleyes:
Both of those things tend to irritate me. 'Trip' that Beholder!
All they really had to do was apply the same type of logic that makes skeletons immune to poison.
Never should have been a problem.
I think it's pretty clear they were trying to keep the issue of logic out of it altogether.
Quote from: CRKrueger;761283Because being able to trip a slime creature or deliver a haymaker punch once a day make SO much sense. :rolleyes:
Really, you can pull out examples like that all day, some of them justified, and I can pull out examples of established game-not-reality-inspired craziness in pre-4e D&D all day too. Let's not bother. I didn't say I was going to
ignore Justin Alexander, I said...
QuoteI would take Justin Alexander with a grain of salt too...
I'll pay heed when he makes sense and I'll roll my eyes when he goes to extremes with his cognitive dissonance.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;761319Really, you can pull out examples like that all day, some of them justified, and I can pull out examples of established game-not-reality-inspired craziness in pre-4e D&D all day too. Let's not bother.
Why would you want to bother it would only prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that dissociated mechanics not only exist but that 4e had so many of them it almost seemed like logically tying things into the setting wasn't even a design goal.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;761319I'llroll my eyes when he goes to extremes with his cognitive dissonance.
He's got a lot to roll eyes at, certainly. I assume the cognitive dissonance part is "but all D&D versions are full of dissociated mechanics" which is as much complete and total horseshit as "all versions of D&D have lots of CharOp".
He may be going off the deepend in a lot of ways, dissociated mechanics aren't one of them.
Quote from: CRKrueger;761324I assume the cognitive dissonance part is "but all D&D versions are full of dissociated mechanics" which is as much complete and total horseshit as "all versions of D&D have lots of CharOp".
People's comfort zones for game mechanics vary widely. I personally find his unreasonably restrictive. I went too far in describing it as "madness", so I'll take that back.
Quote from: jibbajibba;757319He isn't counting that because it's easy to ignore :) unlike NWP which are specifically optional in 2e or the skills system in 5e which may or may not be optional but is certainly impossible to ignore.
The issue is that you have some of the OSR (note: not ALL, some, the extremists) act as though the mere existence of skills is "not old school". Only you had skills as early as Tekumel; not to mention Traveller.
Its all part of that bullshit fantasy some of them have of "the way the game was played" back then being only this one specific way, when in fact the majority of old schoolers never played like that.
The point is, its not skills that aren't old-school; its a certain way of handling skills. And you can say that about just about any mechanic this side of regularity.
Quote from: RPGPundit;761469The issue is that you have some of the OSR (note: not ALL, some, the extremists) act as though the mere existence of skills is "not old school". Only you had skills as early as Tekumel; not to mention Traveller.
Of course, skills in Empire of the Petal Throne (1975) are nothing like skills in WOTC editions of D&D. They are more like secondary skills in 1e -- no die rolling needed. They were just areas a character had special training in and/or granted special abilities in a very general sense. For example, here's the description of the Tanner skill (and the smith-armorer skill) from EPT: "Tanners know how to work Chlen-hide, as well as other types of leather. Only a smith-armourer can make armour or weapons of it, however. The smith-armourer can also work raw iron into steel, if this is found."
Quote from: RandallS;761479Of course, skills in Empire of the Petal Throne (1975) are nothing like skills in WOTC editions of D&D. They are more like secondary skills in 1e -- no die rolling needed. They were just areas a character had special training in and/or granted special abilities in a very general sense. For example, here's the description of the Tanner skill (and the smith-armorer skill) from EPT: "Tanners know how to work Chlen-hide, as well as other types of leather. Only a smith-armourer can make armour or weapons of it, however. The smith-armourer can also work raw iron into steel, if this is found."
If I had to choose, I would prefer secondary skills that paint a picture of what the character is familiar with over the detailed 3x style skills.
All I need is a simple die roll for degree of success and I am good to go.
Interestingly even in 5e you could easily do ability checks plus profiencency except for the Bard and Rogue.....and even then it's clearly explained.. hmm...given everyone knows all the skills.....if that isn't old school then you're full of shit.
In 5e skills are literally just there to give 3/4e players the training wheels they expect until they actually figure it out that the game itself is a varient ability check system like 1/2e.
Quote from: CRKrueger;761283Because being able to trip a slime creature or deliver a haymaker punch once a day make SO much sense. :rolleyes:
It shows you are willing to accept the disassociated mechanics of your favorite edition and nothing else.
Quote from: Bill;761306Both of those things tend to irritate me. 'Trip' that Beholder!
All they really had to do was apply the same type of logic that makes skeletons immune to poison.
Never should have been a problem.
So much for y'alls supposed highly valued imaginations. A trip can only mean falling down. You are unable to spice that up to mean some other effect that brings about a similar effect.
Quote from: Ghost;761314I think it's pretty clear they were trying to keep the issue of logic out of it altogether.
Logic has never been involved with D&D.
Quote from: Sommerjon;761484It shows you are willing to accept the disassociated mechanics of your favorite edition and nothing else.
More like willing to accept associated yet abstract rules or a couple dissociated rules explained by magical cause vs. a book of them based on mundane activities.
Keep tossing that old line around though, I'm sure it will work at some point even though you don't even believe it.
Quote from: Sommerjon;761484So much for y'alls supposed highly valued imaginations. A trip can only mean falling down. You are unable to spice that up to mean some other effect that brings about a similar effect.
Logic has never been involved with D&D.
I am imagining a tripped beholder rolling down the hall like the rock in Indiana Jones... :cool:
Quote from: Marleycat;757438Mearls did say the Starter Set has a lot of hand holding intentionally. And I have heard conflicting opinions about how easy or hard it would be to outright remove the background/hooks of the pregens.
There'll be handholding for obvious reasons (STARTER set) but there'll also be a wilderness sandbox.
Quote from: Omega;761493I am imagining a tripped beholder rolling down the hall like the rock in Indiana Jones... :cool:
Ok, that is just wrong on multiple levels.:)
Quote from: RPGPundit;761499There'll be handholding for obvious reasons (STARTER set) but there'll also be a wilderness sandbox.
That's something they haven't really pointed out though. Hmm...
Quote from: CRKrueger;761491More like willing to accept associated yet abstract rules or a couple dissociated rules explained by magical cause vs. a book of them based on mundane activities.
Keep tossing that old line around though, I'm sure it will work at some point even though you don't even believe it.
I see people who fell hard for the edition that you played back when you were young and impressionable.
Sorry homer but your precious edition has loads of disassociated rules in it. You gladly accept those, because you fell hard for the edition that you played back when you were young and impressionable.
Quote from: Omega;761493I am imagining a tripped beholder rolling down the hall like the rock in Indiana Jones... :cool:
I am so going to use this.....
Quote from: Sommerjon;761545I see people who fell hard for the edition that you played back when you were young and impressionable.
For some reason, I feel that this insult could
seriously backfire on you.
Try again, please.
"Indiana Beholder"
Reminds me of this gem:
Gelatinous Cube Monk
This highly improbable creature is the result of taking the rules to the very limit. Giving an ooze class levels is usually impossible because these creatures don't have Intelligence scores. However, the fiendish template provides this cube with a 3 Intelligence, and off we go.
Monk levels seem to fit very well with the gelatinous cube's other abilities, and the monk class gives the creature some really humorous powers, such as deflecting arrows. Barbarian or fighter levels would work too, but a gelatinous cube is limited in its use of feats became of its generally low attribute scores.
The real question with this creature is where it could learn any monk skills. Ooze monasteries aren't exactly plentiful, after all. It must have studied on its own, just like Miyamoto Musashi did.
This cube looks like its brethren, except that it has a slight red tinge. It doesn't fly, but it sure moves quickly compared to normal gelatinous cubes. It should provide quite a surprise to adventuring parties, though perhaps it's not as much of a challenge as its CR would indicate. Its AC is still only 6, after all.
Fiendish Gelatinous Cube Monk CR 12
Fiendish gelatinous cube monk 10
LE Huge ooze (extraplanar)
Init -4; Senses blindsight 60 ft.; Listen -1, Spot +8
Languages None
AC 6, touch 6, flat-footed 6; Deflect Arrows
(-2 size, -4 Dex, +2 class)
hp 193 (14 HD); DR 10/magic
Immune critical hits, electricity, flanking, gaze attacks, illusions, mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects), normal disease, paralysis, poison, polymorph, sleep, stunning, visual effects, and other attack forms that rely on sight
Resist cold 20, fire 20; improved evasion; SR 19
Fort +16, Ref +4, Will +5 (+7 against enchantments)
Speed 45 ft. (9 squares)
Melee slam +9 (1d6+1 plus 1d6 acid) or
Melee unarmed strike +9/+4 (4d6+1 plus 1d6 acid) or
Melee unarmed strike +9/+9/+4 (4d6+1 plus 1d6 acid) with flurry of blows
Space 15 ft.; Reach 10 ft.
Base Atk +10; Grp +19
Atk Options Improved Trip, Stunning Fist; acid, paralysis, smite good 1/day (+14 damage), ki strike (lawful, magic)
Special Actions engulf, wholeness of body (heal 20/day)
Abilities Str 12, Dex 3, Con 26, Int 3, Wis 1, Cha 1
SA acid, engulf, paralysis, smite good 1/day (+14 damage), ki strike (lawful, magic)
SQ slow fall 50 ft., transparent
Feats Alertness, Deflect ArrowsB, Improved Toughness, Improved TripB, Improved Unarmed StrikeB, Inured to Energy (cold), Inured to Energy (fire), Iron Will, Stunning FistB
Skills Hide -12, Listen -1, Spot +8
Acid (Ex) The fiendish gelatinous cube's body produces a corrosive substance. Any creature that strikes or touches the cube with its body, or that grapples it, automatically takes 1d6 points of acid damage. A creature takes damage from this ability only once per turn. This cube's acid does not harm metal or stone.
Engulf (Ex) The fiendish gelatinous cube can simply mow down Large or smaller creatures as a standard action. It cannot make a slam attack during a round in which it engulfs. The cube merely moves over the opponents, affecting as many as it can cover. Opponents can make attacks of opportunity against the cube, but any creature that does so is not entitled to a saving throw. A creature that does not attempt an attack of opportunity must succeed on a DC 14 Reflex save or be engulfed. On a success, it is pushed back or aside (opponent's choice) as the cube moves forward. Engulfed creatures are subject to the cube's paralysis and acid, and are considered to be grappled and trapped within its body. The save DC is Strength-based and includes a +1 racial bonus.
Paralysis (Ex) Anyone hit by the cube's slam or engulf attack must succeed on a DC 20 Fortitude save or be paralyzed for 3d6 rounds. The cube can automatically engulf a paralyzed opponent. The save DC is Constitution-based.
Transparent (Ex) Fiendish gelatinous cubes are hard to see, even under ideal conditions, and it takes a DC 15 Spot check to notice one. Creatures who fail to notice the cube and walk into it are automatically engulfed.
Hook "That gelatinous cube is sure fast. I've never seen one move like that."
Quote from: GnomeWorks;761554For some reason, I feel that this insult could seriously backfire on you.
Try again, please.
He does this whenever it comes up, pretends that the rules of Hit Points in the specific instance of Falling Damage (which is dissociated I admit) equals an entire game full of list after list of dissociated powers and rules with no tie in to the setting, simply there to provide the tactical crunch 4e is known for.
Quote from: CRKrueger;761683He does this whenever it comes up, pretends that the rules of Hit Points in the specific instance of Falling Damage (which is dissociated I admit) equals an entire game full of list after list of dissociated powers and rules with no tie in to the setting, simply there to provide the tactical crunch 4e is known for.
Personally, "hey, I'm a reasonably competent warrior, I know I can NEVER DIE from falling 50 feet" (or, even worse, "I have 120 hit points, so I can NEVER DIE FROM FALLING, EVER") bugs me more than "hey, I can pull off this neat trick at most once a day".
The second one has some (albeit imperfect) analogies that I've seen in life, while the first one is just crazy.
But, that's me. I came to grip with D&D when I decided to come back to D&D from playing GURPS. Since I did that switch around the 4e time (having played 3.x in the past), pretty much *all* of the illogic in the system, inherited or not, hit me at the same point.
Ultimately, I think most of the "dissociated" stuff goes back to what people think is "realistic". There's an interesting idea in there, though, about mechanics that require information that the character could not have - anything that refreshes per session, or per real world hour falls into this category (Fate points, SW Bennies (which I think are actually worse than most), GURPS Luck), etc.
Quote from: robiswrong;761686Personally, "hey, I'm a reasonably competent warrior, I know I can NEVER DIE from falling 50 feet" (or, even worse, "I have 120 hit points, so I can NEVER DIE FROM FALLING, EVER") bugs me more than "hey, I can pull off this neat trick at most once a day".
The second one has some (albeit imperfect) analogies that I've seen in life, while the first one is just crazy.
But, that's me. I came to grip with D&D when I decided to come back to D&D from playing GURPS. Since I did that switch around the 4e time (having played 3.x in the past), pretty much *all* of the illogic in the system, inherited or not, hit me at the same point.
Ultimately, I think most of the "dissociated" stuff goes back to what people think is "realistic". There's an interesting idea in there, though, about mechanics that require information that the character could not have - anything that refreshes per session, or per real world hour falls into this category (Fate points, SW Bennies (which I think are actually worse than most), GURPS Luck), etc.
Of course, there's always rule Zero, you can change the HP damage (Gary posted an alternate one in Dragon) or just say "No Dumbass, you're dead." Of course you could also say "No, Dumbass you can't Trip a Slime." but then what do you say to Haymaker 1/day, or character power after character power.
Claiming any type of equivalency on that front is just asinine. It's like saying choosing a greatsword over a dagger is the same as this 3.5 build. (//Awesome%20Sneak%20Attack/Skirmish%20Greater%20Manyshot%20Archer)
Also, it's not like 4e didn't ALSO have the falling damage problem.
Quote from: CRKrueger;761692Of course, there's always rule Zero, you can change the HP damage (Gary posted an alternate one in Dragon) or just say "No Dumbass, you're dead." Of course you could also say "No, Dumbass you can't Trip a Slime." but then what do you say to Haymaker 1/day, or character power after character power.
Claiming any type of equivalency on that front is just asinine. It's like saying choosing a greatsword over a dagger is the same as this 3.5 build. (//Awesome%20Sneak%20Attack/Skirmish%20Greater%20Manyshot%20Archer)
Also, it's not like 4e didn't ALSO have the falling damage problem.
Yes; the way I see it, the 'problem' with falling damage in dnd is that it probably should have had a death save, or something like that.
The hp are not really what makes the 'problem'
Quote from: robiswrong;761686Personally, "hey, I'm a reasonably competent warrior, I know I can NEVER DIE from falling 50 feet" (or, even worse, "I have 120 hit points, so I can NEVER DIE FROM FALLING, EVER") bugs me more than "hey, I can pull off this neat trick at most once a day".
The falling damage is easily fixed. In my campaigns it stacks instead of a flat d6 per 10' so:
10' = 1d6
30' = 6d6
120' = too damn many d6 to survive (78d6)
So go ahead indestructible fighting man-make that jump. :)
Quote from: CRKrueger;761692Of course, there's always rule Zero, you can change the HP damage (Gary posted an alternate one in Dragon) or just say "No Dumbass, you're dead." Of course you could also say "No, Dumbass you can't Trip a Slime." but then what do you say to Haymaker 1/day, or character power after character power.
Claiming any type of equivalency on that front is just asinine. It's like saying choosing a greatsword over a dagger is the same as this 3.5 build. (//Awesome%20Sneak%20Attack/Skirmish%20Greater%20Manyshot%20Archer)
Also, it's not like 4e didn't ALSO have the falling damage problem.
Did I ever say it didn't?
I'm only saying that 1/day martial powers aren't some "objectively" dissociated mechanic. Whether you can accept the reasoning behind them is subjective.
You don't like 'em? Awesome. Great. Rock on. I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise. I've got no problem with anyone's preference, or how they view things, or whether a particular explanation for some game mechanic thing works for them or not.
My only point of contention is that I don't think the things brought up match the requirements of an *objective* category. Frankly, many of them seem like some of the arguments Creationists bring up against evolution - they say that something *can't* be explained, when in reality they've made their minds up and really don't *want* to explain it.
I can't for the life of me find an online reference at the moment, but I seem to recall an admission at one point that falling damage as written in AD&D was basically a typo, and that it's supposed to be plus an extra d6 per 10' fallen (e.g. 10' = 1d6, 20' = 3d6, 30' = 6d6, etc.). I've used this as a house rule before, but I'm not sure that it adds to the game other than making falling damage utterly lethal (much like real life, in spite of radical outliers like Vesna Vulovic that geeks think they're clever to mention). But then, the entire hp paradigm is about getting rid of real-world lethality, and higher level characters are supposed to be able to survive things that would kill mere mortals. I know the people I've played with have always treated extreme examples (like falling 200' off a bridge onto rocks) as instant death, regardless of the specifics of the rules. But apparently lots of people really need their preference for this sort of thing included in the rules. Meh.
Quote from: Bobloblah;761704I can't for the life of me find an online reference at the moment, but I seem to recall an admission at one point that falling damage as written in AD&D was basically a typo, and that it's supposed to be plus an extra d6 per 10' fallen (e.g. 10' = 1d6, 20' = 3d6, 30' = 6d6, etc.). I've used this as a house rule before, but I'm not sure that it adds to the game other than making falling damage utterly lethal (much like real life, in spite of radical outliers like Vesna Vulovic that geeks think they're clever to mention). But then, the entire hp paradigm is about getting rid of real-world lethality, and higher level characters are supposed to be able to survive things that would kill mere mortals. I know the people I've played with have always treated extreme examples (like falling 200' off a bridge onto rocks) as instant death, regardless of the specifics of the rules. But apparently lots of people really need their preference for this sort of thing included in the rules. Meh.
Saving throw to the rescue!!! System shock roll too.
Quote from: Bill;761708Saving throw to the rescue!!! System shock roll too.
Yeah, we never bothered with even that in these situations. It was just: you're dead.
Quote from: Bobloblah;761704But apparently lots of people really need their preference for this sort of thing included in the rules. Meh.
Personally, I typically include things like "falling from something up in the clouds down to earth" under the chunky salsa rules. But that's me.
Quote from: robiswrong;761710Personally, I typically include things like "falling from something up in the clouds down to earth" under the chunky salsa rules. But that's me.
I have really no idea what this phrase means. Perhaps you could elaborate?
Quote from: Bobloblah;761711I have really no idea what this phrase means. Perhaps you could elaborate?
Chunky salsa rule - if something occurs that would logically reduce your character to the consistency of chunky salsa, you're dead. No damage roll, no to hit.
For a slightly less hyperbolic example, guillotines don't do damage.
(Any avoidance rolls would need to be made to avoid the event that salsa-fied your character).
Quote from: Bobloblah;761704I can't for the life of me find an online reference at the moment, but I seem to recall an admission at one point that falling damage as written in AD&D was basically a typo, and that it's supposed to be plus an extra d6 per 10' fallen (e.g. 10' = 1d6, 20' = 3d6, 30' = 6d6, etc.).
This was originally a correction Gary Gygax wrote in Dragon Magazine, so a fall from 60' feet would be about 21d6 damage instead of 210 feet. It was then published as errata in Unearthed Arcana and referenced in at least one of the modules he wrote.
But Like Comeliness, many of the new classes, etc., it apparently turned out to be unpopular and was actually retconned back in 2e.
Quote from: robiswrong;761715Chunky salsa rule - if something occurs that would logically reduce your character to the consistency of chunky salsa, you're dead. No damage roll, no to hit.
So Tomb of Horrors (which had a lot of that for traps) is basically one big Mexican Restaurant?
Quote from: robiswrong;761715Chunky salsa rule - if something occurs that would logically reduce your character to the consistency of chunky salsa, you're dead. No damage roll, no to hit.
For a slightly less hyperbolic example, guillotines don't do damage.
(Any avoidance rolls would need to be made to avoid the event that salsa-fied your character).
Except in Warhammer.
Naked dwarves shatter guillotine blades with their necks.
We've always just kept the 1d6 per 10' rule and never really worried about realism. There are enough examples of people in real life surviving very high falls that we just explained it that way.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;761725We've always just kept the 1d6 per 10' rule and never really worried about realism. There are enough examples of people in real life surviving very high falls that we just explained it that way.
Ahhh...there's the money shot! Some idiot trotting out a vague reference to people who've survived falls from a great height. Outliers, particularly when they occur under conditions nothing like what you're faced with in-game (e.g. off a 200' precipice freefall onto jagged rocks), are pretty much irrelevant. The rules are the way they are because they're fun, and fit the trope of (eventually) near-mythical heroes. Not because they, in any way shape or form, model reality.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;761725We've always just kept the 1d6 per 10' rule and never really worried about realism. There are enough examples of people in real life surviving very high falls that we just explained it that way.
There's a difference between outliers and a condition where, by the rules, you *cannot* die from falling out of a freakin' airplane.
Quote from: Bobloblah;761729The rules are the way they are because they're fun, and fit the trope of (eventually) near-mythical heroes. Not because they, in any way shape or form, model reality.
And this is, of course, the true answer. Which is basically my response to *any* "realism" criticism in D&D - "fuck it, don't think about it too hard, just find a way to accept it and have fun."
D&D is not a game I go to for realism.
Quote from: Bobloblah;761729Ahhh...there's the money shot! Some idiot trotting out a vague reference to people who've survived falls from a great height. Outliers, particularly when they occur under conditions nothing like what you're faced with in-game (e.g. off a 200' precipice freefall onto jagged rocks), are pretty much irrelevant. The rules are the way they are because they're fun, and fit the trope of (eventually) near-mythical heroes. Not because they, in any way shape or form, model reality.
Two things. I never said they were some "vague reference". It's very easy to see several examples (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fall_survivors) of people surviving great falls
Secondly, I never said we kept that rule to model reality. I said we never got worried about that rule *not* modeling reality because of the aforementioned examples of people surviving great falls.
Quote from: robiswrong;761731There's a difference between outliers and a condition where, by the rules, you *cannot* die from falling out of a freakin' airplane.
1d6 per 10' fallen. Falling 18,000 feet, like this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Alkemade), would result in 1,800d6. Pretty sure that results in dying (funny enough he didn't). Don't know where you're coming up with "cannot die from falling out of an airplane". That's only true if that airplane was very low to the ground. most airplanes I know are pretty high up. Hell, I flew Blackhawk helicopters in the army, and most altitudes were 1000ft or more. Pretty sure 100d6 would kill just about anyone.
Edit* Heck, even my buddy Dillon, when we were rock climbing in Korea, fell about 50 feet onto the boulders below and only got really bruised up and broke an ankle.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;761732Two things. I never said they were some "vague reference". It's very easy to see several examples (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fall_survivors) of people surviving great falls
Secondly, I never said we kept that rule to model reality. I said we never got worried about that rule *not* modeling reality because of the aforementioned examples of people surviving great falls.
Yes. Several examples. Out of all the people who have fallen to their death. The same several examples every idiot who makes this argument uses. And I said your first reference was vague. Because it was.
I don't even have to go to falling damage to find a head-scratcher. It's the lack of wounds altogether.
So you're at your full 59 HP. Fit as a fiddle. During a combat with hydra you take 30 damage and are down to 29 HP. Still unchanged - fit as a fiddle. Then in a battle with some fire giants you take 28 damage and you're down to 1 single HP. Still couldn't be better - strength, speed, and combat ability undiminished. But if you take 1 HP damage more - dead.
So D&D isn't a realistic combat simulation, and HP aren't strictly meat points. And if they aren't strictly meat points - if they represent vitality, endurance, and morale as well - then I don't see the big deal in an ability that allows you to draw on external encouragement or reserves of willpower to regain some of that vitality, endurance, and morale.
Quote from: Bobloblah;761736Yes. Several examples. Out of all the people who have fallen to their death. The same several examples every idiot who makes this argument uses. And I said your first reference was vague. Because it was.
Not sure what your big issue is here. All I said was that we never worried about changing 1d6 dmg per 10' because in real life people have survived great falls (so why couldn't heroic level PCs? They are an exception to their species in the game world, right?), and it wasn't that big of an unrealistic rule. Unlike the hyperbole being presented here, no one "can't die from a fall". It all depends on the height of the fall. Pretty sure 100d6 will kill just about anyone.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;7617341d6 per 10' fallen.
Per the 3.x SRD, it caps at 20d6.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;761734Edit* Heck, even my buddy Dillon, when we were rock climbing in Korea, fell about 50 feet onto the boulders below and only got really bruised up and broke an ankle.
Yup. That can happen.
I'm not saying D&D is a bad game. I'm not even saying 3.x is a bad game.
Quote from: robiswrong;761742Per the 3.x SRD, it caps at 20d6.
Ah, there you go. Fuck 3e. :)
I honestly didn't know that. I only play TSR era D&D with no cap ;)
Quote from: Sacrosanct;761743Ah, there you go. Fuck 3e. :)
You'll find no disagreement from me on that. It is my least favorite edition. I just use it as a reference because A) readily available online SRD and B) The "dissociative mechanics" argument is typically a 3e vs 4e thing.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;761743I only play TSR era D&D with no cap ;)
What if 5e caps out at 20d6? :D
Quote from: Endless Flight;761757What if 5e caps out at 20d6? :D
Then I will promptly ignore said cap, and don my viking hat if any of players complain.
There seems to be quite a few players insisting they will house rule things before the game has even come out. Did this happen with 3e and 4e?
Quote from: Endless Flight;761757What if 5e caps out at 20d6? :D
I bet they put in some module for that also. :D
Quote from: Endless Flight;761761There seems to be quite a few players insisting they will house rule things before the game has even come out. Did this happen with 3e and 4e?
Was there a massive public playtest with 3.x and 4e?
Quote from: Endless Flight;761761There seems to be quite a few players insisting they will house rule things before the game has even come out. Did this happen with 3e and 4e?
Can't speak for 4e but for 3e? Sure, but less then 1/2e.
Quote from: Bobloblah;761764Was there a massive public playtest with 3.x and 4e?
I really am not the D&D expert like some of the other posters here. You'd have to tell me that.
Quote from: Bobloblah;761764Was there a massive public playtest with 3.x and 4e?
Nope.
Quote from: Bobloblah;761759Then I will promptly ignore said cap, and don my viking hat if any of players complain.
Once again, I think my sig probably gives one an idea how I feel about that ;)
Quote from: Marleycat;761769Nope.
It was rhetorical.
Quote from: Endless Flight;761767I really am not the D&D expert like some of the other posters here. You'd have to tell me that.
Forgiven. Basically, no. Next (5e) has had a long, public playtest with more than a 100,000 participants, I believe. There was no such playtest for 4E, and nothing remotely of this scale for 3E. The culture around the game has also shifted, such that obsession with mathematical minutiae is much more prominent. There are also far more highly diverse versions of the game available now for people to choose from; that makes it much harder for a newly released version to be "just right."
Quote from: Endless Flight;761761There seems to be quite a few players insisting they will house rule things before the game has even come out. Did this happen with 3e and 4e?
A lot of people who post on this forum are long-time D&D players who are accustomed to house-ruling. It's just a recognition that no game will suit your preferences 100 per cent, and it's okay to change whatever you don't like.
Quote from: Endless Flight;761761There seems to be quite a few players insisting they will house rule things before the game has even come out. Did this happen with 3e and 4e?
I have no idea, but I have house ruled every RPG I've ever ran to fit the needs of my campaign and my players. If I should choose to run 5e, I am sure I would house-rule it to fit my needs as well. I don't need to see the game to predict that I would house rule it -- but I do need to see the game to know if I would want to run it. :)
Quote from: robiswrong;761698Did I ever say it didn't?
I'm only saying that 1/day martial powers aren't some "objectively" dissociated mechanic. Whether you can accept the reasoning behind them is subjective.
You don't like 'em? Awesome. Great. Rock on. I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise. I've got no problem with anyone's preference, or how they view things, or whether a particular explanation for some game mechanic thing works for them or not.
My only point of contention is that I don't think the things brought up match the requirements of an *objective* category. Frankly, many of them seem like some of the arguments Creationists bring up against evolution - they say that something *can't* be explained, when in reality they've made their minds up and really don't *want* to explain it.
Pretty sure that if tripping the slime and/or being able to execute a particular type of sword strike once a day is not objectively a dissociated mechanic then you are not using the same definition of dissociated as I am.
There is no way to trip a slime creature, none. It cannot happen. Similarly, without being able to fall back on "because magic" there is absolutely zero reason why any particular combat move can only be done once per day. The reason for these mechanics
do not exist at all in the world of the setting, but only in the meta mechanics of the game. That's the very definition of a dissociated mechanic. Whether it trips your annoyance level is subjective, whether it is dissociated or not is an objective fact.
Just for the record, I have no problems with house ruling, but I just had this sense that people were going to house rule stuff before they even see the final concrete rules (before they are errata'd) in action.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;761743Ah, there you go. Fuck 3e. :)
I honestly didn't know that. I only play TSR era D&D with no cap ;)
1E and 2E also capped out at 20d6.
But what most people forget is to make every single carried possession roll an item saving throw versus crushing blow. After their awesome armor/weapon/staff/wand/whatever is turned into splinters/rended metal junk from their fall, the player's tears usually exceed that of when their characters suffer the temporary inconvenience of death.
PS - don't forget to do those saves for giants' thrown boulders, too.
Quote from: CRKrueger;761783There is no way to trip a slime creature, none. It cannot happen.
Correct. Which is why the 4e rules say that in that case you should replace the description of "trip" with something that *makes sense for a slime*. That's, you know, the rules. So I look at what the mechanics say happen and find a way to describe it that makes sense. Because a slime getting literally tripped makes no sense, whatsoever.
Which is the exact same thing I do when a fighter of any skill (I mean, seriously, like 3rd level) whatsoever takes a maximum damage blow from a longsword and *doesn't die*. Becuase that also makes no sense, whatsoever.
In each case I take the mechanical language, and translate it into something that doesn't completely break my immersion. It's only if I take a literal interpretation of the words "trip" (in one case) or "hit" and "damage" (in the other case) that the issue arises.
Quote from: CRKrueger;761783Similarly, without being able to fall back on "because magic" there is absolutely zero reason why any particular combat move can only be done once per day.
And yet, watching sports, I see athletes do things *once* in a game that would have scored or prevented goals multiple times, including doing various tricks or maneuvers that they don't try again in the same game. Is it that exact? Of course not. But the idea that people have things that they can pull out of their ass only infrequently maps well to real world observations. Perfectly, no. But reasonably well.
But then again, SOMEONE TAKING A MAXIMUM STRENGTH SWORD BLOW TO THE FACE AND NOT DYING doesn't map AT ALL.
Which, to be clear, doesn't mean I'm saying that D&D (of any edition) is a bad game.
Quote from: Haffrung;761779A lot of people who post on this forum are long-time D&D players who are accustomed to house-ruling. It's just a recognition that no game will suit your preferences 100 per cent, and it's okay to change whatever you don't like.
Personally, I tend to play games more or less RAW for a while, until I understand why the rules are the way they are. My general heuristic is "when you can argue for the rule, you're in a good place to change it".
Quote from: robiswrong;761800Correct. Which is why the 4e rules say that in that case you should replace the description of "trip" with something that *makes sense for a slime*. That's, you know, the rules. So I look at what the mechanics say happen and find a way to describe it that makes sense. Because a slime getting literally tripped makes no sense
Which is the exact same thing I do when a fighter of any skill (I mean, seriously, like 3rd level) whatsoever takes a maximum damage blow from a longsword and *doesn't die*. Becuase that also makes no sense, whatsoever.
In each case I take the mechanical language, and translate it into something that doesn't completely break my immersion. It's only if I take a literal interpretation of the words "trip" (in one case) or "hit" and "damage" (in the other case) that the issue arises.
And yet, watching sports, I see athletes do things *once* in a game that would have scored or prevented goals multiple times, including doing various tricks or maneuvers that they don't try again in the same game. Is it that exact? Of course not. But the idea that people have things that they can pull out of their ass only infrequently maps well to real world observations. Perfectly, no. But reasonably well.
But then again, SOMEONE TAKING A MAXIMUM STRENGTH SWORD BLOW TO THE FACE AND NOT DYING doesn't map AT ALL.
Which, to be clear, doesn't mean I'm saying that D&D (of any edition) is a bad game.
Personally, I tend to play games more or less RAW for a while, until I understand why the rules are the way they are. My general heuristic is "when you can argue for the rule, you're in a good place to change it".
Oh for fuck's sake. You accept " oh just fill in something for trip" even though there's nothing that can be done to a slime even remotely close, but Hit Points which are explained as feinting, dodging, running out of stamina in the rules are equally non immersive.
Two fighters contend, the one that does better in the exchange is in better shape for the next exchange. VERY highly abstracted, but meant to simulate something in the game. Tripping or whatever you can think of to a slime isn't representing anything, it's applying a tactical effect. The how's and why's, by the very text you quote aren't even a concern. The tank played his trip card, now the striker gets synergistic effect X.
Of course it doesn't bother you, you have a very high tolerance for metagame. I have a very low tolerance for metagame. That doesn't mean it's not metagame. It is. Slime trips are pure tactical metagame, fighter dailies give you both a tactical and narrative metagame, but still have zero to do with what is actually possible in the setting.
Quote from: CRKrueger;761783Pretty sure that if tripping the slime and/or being able to execute a particular type of sword strike once a day is not objectively a dissociated mechanic then you are not using the same definition of dissociated as I am.
There is no way to trip a slime creature, none. It cannot happen. Similarly, without being able to fall back on "because magic" there is absolutely zero reason why any particular combat move can only be done once per day. The reason for these mechanics do not exist at all in the world of the setting, but only in the meta mechanics of the game. That's the very definition of a dissociated mechanic. Whether it trips your annoyance level is subjective, whether it is dissociated or not is an objective fact.
The logic of your position is that in editions where Leg Breaking Strike (for example) is not an encounter or daily power in the first place, players cannot ever attempt to break each other's legs. After all, you haven't got a specific power, so you can't do it. That's silly. All those things you'd do in AD&D when a player said he was trying to break someone's leg, or do some other combat manoeuvre?
You can still do them in 4e. The only difference is that 4e also contains specific, statted up versions of those manoeuvres the characters can do on a limited basis. You want to try to break someone's leg for the second or third time in this fight? OK, well do it as a called shot, treat it as just background fluff, treat it as knocking them prone on a critical, whatever. Just like you would in AD&D where encounter powers do not exist.
Let's also remember that D&D is a game where killing a hundred orcs makes you better at picking locks. I love D&D but
damn that is one very glassy house you're throwing stones from.
I used the word narrative and here he is, back from the dead. :D
BTW, breaking a guy's leg three times in the same fight is not the same thing as saying over 5 independent different fights in the same 24 hour period I can choose at will to break someone's leg in one of those fights, but then I can't do it again for the other four.
Of course we've been down this road 100 times since 2008, it's kind of funny that on the eve of the new edition of D&D people are still arguing the points that caused the old one to fail.
But then again, you always did have a vested interest in any conversation that somehow claimed there was a different between something IC and OOC.
You really can't trip a slime. And if you can change the trip into something that fluffs differently, but still has the same effect as a trip, then you're basing calling a duck a goose. I understand that's how 4E works. But I guess the counter on the other side might be that the trip aspect just shouldn't count. The effect just doesn't work on a slime (but everything else would, i.e., damage).
It's neither here not there, though. If you're going to play 4E, you just have to accept the fact that those powers will say things like "X/damage and you're prone." That's the way the game works. Not MY game of choice, but I have to say I DID really like the four defenses and all saves being a 10. I thought that was simple, engaging (mages had to roll dice to hit!) and cool. I would've liked to have seen both those thing in 5E, honestly, and I am likely to houserule the defenses myself (basically caster rolls d20+Prime Stat+proficiency+other mods versus DC12+Stat Mod).
Quote from: soviet;761817Let's also remember that D&D is a game where killing a hundred orcs makes you better at picking locks. I love D&D but damn that is one very glassy house you're throwing stones from.
Too true...except for 5e which is a magical pony that makes us all 12 again.
Quote from: CRKrueger;761812Oh for fuck's sake. You accept " oh just fill in something for trip" even though there's nothing that can be done to a slime even remotely close, but Hit Points which are explained as feinting, dodging, running out of stamina in the rules are equally non immersive.
Two fighters contend, the one that does better in the exchange is in better shape for the next exchange. VERY highly abstracted, but meant to simulate something in the game. Tripping or whatever you can think of to a slime isn't representing anything, it's applying a tactical effect. The how's and why's, by the very text you quote aren't even a concern. The tank played his trip card, now the striker gets synergistic effect X.
Of course it doesn't bother you, you have a very high tolerance for metagame. I have a very low tolerance for metagame. That doesn't mean it's not metagame. It is. Slime trips are pure tactical metagame, fighter dailies give you both a tactical and narrative metagame, but still have zero to do with what is actually possible in the setting.
Yes. Is that clear enough? Or will you type a wall of text like Stephen King, mostly useless again? If 4e is his thing then accept it already and play your game already!
Your argument is identical to the TBP's!!! Full of assumptions like magic items are cheap or required like 3/4e:. Just relax and use your preferred modules like FantasyCraft or 2e and play already.
Basically his playstyle isn't your's so why the hyperbole? It's one of many reasons I don't like 4e but his solution is valid.
You act like you have to play 5e or just stop playing your favorite version of Dnd. You do understand how ridiculous that sounds and reads?
Now if a rule you would actually use without modification is broken or cannot be excised in your opinion then we have a basis for an actual discussion.
Quote from: Marleycat;761832Yes. Is that clear enough? Or will you type a wall of text like Stephen King, mostly useless again? If 4e is his thing then accept it already and play your game already!
Your argument is identical to the TBP's!!! Full of assumptions. Just relax and use your preferred modules like FantasyCraft or 2e and play already. Basically his playstyle isn't your's so why the hyperbole? It's one of many reasons I don't like 4e but his solution is valid.
No, what my argument is full of is what you're increasingly unable to discern, logic and fact. He can love 4e with the passion of a thousand fiery suns, I don't give a shit. Just don't say that dissociated mechanics do not exist or that 1e mechanics were just as dissociated. It's not true, and it's provably false.
BTW, where did you get 5e? I never said 5e was dissociated. Are you such a lunatic now, you're going to jump on me no matter what I say and claim I'm arguing against 5e. Also, if you've been actually reading, I'm not playing D&D currently. You want me to stop posting (and clearly you do), it's simple. Just stop lying.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;761554For some reason, I feel that this insult could seriously backfire on you.
Try again, please.
No need to try when it is the truth.
Quote from: CRKrueger;761683He does this whenever it comes up, pretends that the rules of Hit Points in the specific instance of Falling Damage (which is dissociated I admit) equals an entire game full of list after list of dissociated powers and rules with no tie in to the setting, simply there to provide the tactical crunch 4e is known for.
Then list the
entire game full of list after list of dissociated powers and rules with no tie in to the setting instead of hoisting tripping slimes as your example.
Dude, the only time you post is to do a trolling drive-by on something, usually some potshot at 1e, because that's what gives you the giggles. I know you'd like for me to spend time combing 4e for examples but if you think I'm going to waste time on you, you're living in a dream world.
Rob asks me, I'll find some concrete examples. He's worth talking to, even when we differ because he not just trolling for the jerkoff or a screaming maniac.
Quote from: CRKrueger;761840No, what my argument is full of is what you're increasingly unable to discern, logic and fact. He can love 4e with the passion of a thousand fiery suns, I don't give a shit. Just don't say that dissociated mechanics do not exist or that 1e mechanics were just as dissociated. It's not true, and it's provably false.
BTW, where did you get 5e? I never said 5e was dissociated. Are you such a lunatic now, you're going to jump on me no matter what I say and claim I'm arguing against 5e. Also, if you've been actually reading, I'm not playing D&D currently. You want me to stop posting (and clearly you do), it's simple. Just stop lying.
Every version of Dnd is full of disassociated mechanics, every RPG made is. That's my point so just stop moving the goalposts already.
And stop the stupid PA's already. Have I ever done the same to you? Now think hard and figure out why. Given you leave yourself open to them like a Thanksgiving turkey.
Quote from: Marleycat;761854Every version of Dnd is full of disassociated mechanics, every RPG made is. That's my point so just stop moving the goalposts already.
I'm keeping to the same stance I've had since 4e came out, look it up. You're wrong, not every game is "full of" dissociated mechanics, every game has certain degrees of abstraction that is not the same thing.
Quote from: Marleycat;761854And stop the stupid PA's already. Have I ever done the same to you? Now think hard and figure out why. Given you leave yourself open to them like a Thanksgiving turkey.
You come after me about 5e, which this isn't about, call my posts useless apparently because you don't feel like reading that much, misrepresent nearly everything I say, and don't have any actual arguments other then "You Stop Posting Now!" Those aren't PAs? Besides if you want some protection from PAs,
1. Stop throwing them.
2. Go to a different site.
T
Quote from: CRKrueger;761858I'm keeping to the same stance I've had since 4e came out, look it up. You're wrong, not every game is "full of" dissociated mechanics, every game has certain degrees of abstraction that is not the same thing.
You come after me about 5e, which this isn't about, call my posts useless apparently because you don't feel like reading that much, misrepresent nearly everything I say, and don't have any actual arguments other then "You Stop Posting Now!" Those aren't PAs? Besides if you want some protection from PAs,
1. Stop throwing them.
2. Go to a different site.
Again you just get even more stupid. Wow. You seem to think your pissed off stance affects me. It doesn't beyond laughing at you in this case. Do your thing CR but don't expect it to be THE LAW or THE TRUTH...hon.;)
I suppose I could do the PA thing right back at you just for fun at least but given you seem like you would never understand the "why" behind it. Thereby ruining any purpose for me to do it. So why go there?
Any game with hitpoints and I can fall 200ft or many other bullshit things like vancian magic....has no business complaining about disassociated mechanics.
How about you quit disrupting threads?
EDIT: ah, I see you've at least edited something in about the topic. Nice, for a change. By the way, if you think 20d6 damage for a 200' fall is "dissociated," you clearly don't understand what that word means.
Quote from: Bobloblah;761866How about you quit disrupting threads?
EDIT: ah, I see you've at least edited something in about the topic. Nice, for a change. By the way, if you think 20d6 damage for a 200' fall is "dissociated," you clearly don't understand what that word means.
She had to pretend she was actually on topic so she drug up the falling damage. Unfortunately, you know she wasn't actually reading because I already said that Hit Points, while highly abstracted for combat, do in fact become dissociated when you get to falling damage. In fact I'm the one who introduced falling damage to the thread and when I did I specifically said it was dissociated. However, one mechanic vs. a game full of them is not an equivalency by any stretch of the imagination.
I wonder how many more 4e haters will join in this to jump on me because I'm a "5e hater"?
Interesting. I don't think it's dissociated at all. It's not realistic, sure. But dissociated? Naah. By the time you can survive that, you're a virtual demigod.
Quote from: Bobloblah;761866How about you quit disrupting threads?
EDIT: ah, I see you've at least edited something in about the topic. Nice, for a change. By the way, if you think 20d6 damage for a 200' fall is "dissociated," you clearly don't understand what that word means.
It means you should be dead. The disassociation is the actual rule. But if reskinning works for you go for it. You can rule differently of course. But many times you aren't going to, because Dnd is a game not a reality simulator. Go ahead and fall 70 feet right on concrete or worse.
And notice I'm not mad at CR because he still PA's? It's part of his charm and style.
the whole disassociated mechanics argument is bull anyway. Every edition has them, and it all just comes down to personal preference. I mean, the rule that says you can fight all day, losing 88 of your 89 hit points and still fight at full capacity, but suddenly die when a cat scratches you for 1 HP, is a whole lot more disassociated than a fighter who can only do a haymaker twice a day.. But you know what? I'm OK with HP, and I don't like 4e's limitations. That's my preference, so people can stop with the "no, my way is objectively better" bull. It doesn't hold up to scrutiny
Quote from: Justin Alexander;546230One of the things I "loved" about 4E is that 90% of the things they did to fix "problems" actually made those problems even worse. In many cases, they actually created the problems that they claimed to be fixing (despite the fact that those problems didn't actually exist in previous editions).
The problem is not that fighters get special abilities. It's that 4E-style fighter abilities tend to:
(a) Be dissociated mechanics
(b) Require characters to have a special ability in order to attempt an action that any character should be able to attempt
The wizard's traditional spells, on the other hand, generally DON'T fall into those traps.
There are several ways that you could design fighter abilities that wouldn't fall into those traps. And I'd enthusiastically support it.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;546422I very much agree with this. On TBP, I got into an argument over the same thing, using a basketball analogy.
My argument was, if Kobe Bryant can dunk the ball whenever the scenario presents an opportunity (like not being mugged, open path the basket, etc), then why is he being limited to 1 dunk per game (like 1 per encounter)
The counter argument that was being repeated to me was that the power only guarantees a dunk, and Kobe doesn't make that choice, but the player chooses when that attempt is guaranteed.
That's all well and good, but they kept missing the point: If he has the ability and knowledge to do it, and the scenario presents itself, how come he can't do another dunk? That question was never answered because 4anatics can't answer it because it makes no sense to have that arbitrary limitation.
Rob, if you're interested in discussing it sanely without the 5e noise, PM me.
You know what would be a great "fix" for non-at-will Martial Powers? A fatigue point system.
Instead of "encounter" or "daily" assign a fatigue point cost.
Of course, this would probably imply bolting on a fatigue system on top of D&D. But I feel it's doable.
RQ6 (MRQ2, Legend)-style combat effects or whatever they call them.
I.e. if you get a critical hit by whatever criteria, then instead of a damage boost, you get to use a power--immediately or the next turn, whatever's appropriate.
Quote from: CRKrueger;761892Rob, if you're interested in discussing it sanely without the 5e noise, PM me.
That quote from 2012 is a great find, thanks. I didn't think so previously, but this proves Sacrosanct to be in Seanchai territory, and actually disruptive of the site.
Quote from: Marleycat;761854Every version of Dnd is full of disassociated mechanics, every RPG made is. That's my point so just stop moving the goalposts already.
Step 1: Redefine what the term "dissociated mechanics" means. (Bonus points of referring to them as "disassociated mechanics".)
Step 2: Claim all RPG mechanics are dissociated.
This is an old, familiar song and dance at this point. And it's pure sophistry.
(Hint: The term "associated mechanic" inherently involves an
association between the metagame of the mechanic and the game world. Saying "the mechanic is metagame, therefore it's automatically disassociated (sic)" is nonsense by definition.)
Quote from: robiswrong;761800And yet, watching sports, I see athletes do things *once* in a game that would have scored or prevented goals multiple times, including doing various tricks or maneuvers that they don't try again in the same game.
And here we have the other classic example people trot out when they have no idea what they're talking about. No one is claiming that these mechanics aren't statistically accurate. They're just dissociated.
Quote from: robiswrong;761800But then again, SOMEONE TAKING A MAXIMUM STRENGTH SWORD BLOW TO THE FACE AND NOT DYING doesn't map AT ALL.
And we can put a cherry on top with robiswrong having no idea how hit points works in pre-4E D&D. And even if we include 4E, there has never been an edition of D&D which allowed for non-lethal "maximum strength sword blows to the face" of normal humans not benefiting from some form of magical protection. It's a complete strawman.
Quote from: Bobloblah;761764Was there a massive public playtest with 3.x and 4e?
4E? No.
3E? Yes. (And, yes, there were people saying they were going to house rule before the game ever came out.)
Quote from: The Butcher;761907You know what would be a great "fix" for non-at-will Martial Powers? A fatigue point system.
Instead of "encounter" or "daily" assign a fatigue point cost.
Of course, this would probably imply bolting on a fatigue system on top of D&D. But I feel it's doable.
Aren't HP the D&D fatigue system?
Quote from: Arminius;761913RQ6 (MRQ2, Legend)-style combat effects or whatever they call them.
I.e. if you get a critical hit by whatever criteria, then instead of a damage boost, you get to use a power--immediately or the next turn, whatever's appropriate.
That's another good one. But I like jibba's (possibly unwitting) suggestion even better:
Quote from: jibbajibba;761925Aren't HP the D&D fatigue system?
They are, sort of, even though to the best of my knowledge I can't recall an exhaustion-as-HP-damage mechanic.
But I'd be dandy with that too. Trading in HPs for devastating attacks, how's that for resource management? Also nicely fits the oft-represented in fiction scenario of a badly wounded warrior putting his last breath into a final, overwhelming offensive, only to collapse dead immediately after.
Hell, you can even implement that independent of Martial Powers, in just about any edition! For TSR D&D make it Fighter-specific and set up an "exchange rate" between HP and damage bonuses.
Quote from: CRKrueger;761819BTW, breaking a guy's leg three times in the same fight is not the same thing as saying over 5 independent different fights in the same 24 hour period I can choose at will to break someone's leg in one of those fights, but then I can't do it again for the other four.
Whatever label we give it, and personally I do think there is something to the dissociated criticism of 4E powers, this was a major issue for me in 4Th edition. It was one if the glaring things like healing surges that really just busted the game for me. Sure some if the stuff that came before had issues, particular if you put it under a microscope, this cranked that to 11 and made it impossible to ignore. And the pattern it sets makes it very odd. Essentially each day the guy with the daily leg breaking ability is going to break a dude's leg every adventuring day. The guy with an encounter power does the same move once each encounter. I find this very hard to ignore.
But like krueger says, we have bee down this road before. Some people loved this stuff and that is fine. But this stuff was a huge issue for tons of people and not just because they were haters (i went in wanting to love 4E, hoping it would fix some if the issues in 3rd).
The thing is, there is very little indication that there is going to be anything like 4th edition style combat powers in 5th edition.
The closest thing in the play test was the 'Weaponmaster' Fighter sub-class, and that was a pretty far cry to 4th edition.
Also, monster immunities to powers are back to being hard coded in the system, so Beholders and Oozes can not be tripped.
4th edition is pretty much dead, we don't need to talk about it anymore.
Quote from: jadrax;761952The thing is, there is very little indication that there is going to be anything like 4th edition style combat powers in 5th edition.
The closest thing in the play test was the 'Weaponmaster' Fighter sub-class, and that was a pretty far cry to 4th edition.
Also, monster immunities to powers are back to being hard coded in the system, so Beholders and Oozes can not be tripped.
4th edition is pretty much dead, we don't need to talk about it anymore.
I haven't been following 5th edition closely, so I have no idea if this is or is not the case. But if they do move away from 4E with 5E, that will definitely make me more interested in playing.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;7619204E? No.
3E? Yes. (And, yes, there were people saying they were going to house rule before the game ever came out.)
Fair enough. I knew there was a playtest for 3e, but my impression was that it was neither large, nor publicly open, but more akin to 5e's early "private playtest." Did you participate in the 3e playtest?
Quote from: Sommerjon;761852Then list the entire game full of list after list of dissociated powers and rules with no tie in to the setting instead of hoisting tripping slimes as your example.
Too much work when there is one shining example:
Come and get it.Much more to the point than even ooze tripping is the ability to make even mindless automatons respond to your "taunt" and flock to the tank.
I can buy an in-game explanation for that one provided the world premise is SUPERPOWERS and every class works more or less the same (which is true).
That isn't the fluff that was being sold though. "Martial" powers were supposedly non-magical.
Quote from: CRKrueger;761853I know you'd like for me to spend time combing 4e for examples but if you think I'm going to waste time on you, you're living in a dream world.
You don't have to look for examples because Justin Alexander already did a thorough job compiling and analyzing some on his blog centuries ago. And I happened to agree with a few of his points on the subject. But some of them I didn't, and none of them stopped me from enjoying 4e, because I personally think he goes too far. I am also personally disappointed that his rationale is so widespread, because I think it and similar attitudes will result in some 4e ideas I liked being buried with the bad ones.
And before anyone slots me into some category of the holy wars, I can enthusiastically run
any variation of D&D; they are all clever and stupid in their own special ways. I resent being called a World of Warcraft A.I. for enjoying 4e as much as I resent being called a killer dictator GM for making a serious
Swords and Wizardry pitch.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;761964Too much work when there is one shining example:
Come and get it.
Much more to the point than even ooze tripping is the ability to make even mindless automatons respond to your "taunt" and flock to the tank.
I can buy an in-game explanation for that one provided the world premise is SUPERPOWERS and every class works more or less the same (which is true).
That isn't the fluff that was being sold though. "Martial" powers were supposedly non-magical.
I nominate the 4E dnd power "Come and Get it" as truly terrible.
It was errated at some point, but the first version literally forced every enemy within 15' to move next to the fighter, who then got to attack them all.
Yea....like a Frail wizard, mindless zombie, or an automaton is going to engage a fighter in melle...just because he calls them out. Stupid as hell.
Ok, its garbage. But, I see it as a mistake. They wanted fighters to be able to protect other people.
So instead of crap like "Come and get it", why not have a fighter class ability that allows free attacks on enemies that are attacking the one you are bodygaurding.
Why not give a fighter the ability to improve the AC of allies close to him?
So many ways to make fighters effective and they do "Come and Get it" instead.
Quote from: Bill;761967I nominate the 4E dnd power "Come and Get it" as truly terrible.
It was errated at some point, but the first version literally forced every enemy within 15' to move next to the fighter, who then got to attack them all.
Yea....like a Frail wizard, mindless zombie, or an automaton is going to engage a fighter in melle...just because he calls them out. Stupid as hell.
Ok, its garbage. But, I see it as a mistake. They wanted fighters to be able to protect other people.
So instead of crap like "Come and get it", why not have a fighter class ability that allows free attacks on enemies that are attacking the one you are bodygaurding.
Why not give a fighter the ability to improve the AC of allies close to him?
So many ways to make fighters effective and they do "Come and Get it" instead.
It reminds me of the Dragon Age video game were the warriors can threaten.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;761966You don't have to look for examples because Justin Alexander already did a thorough job compiling and analyzing some on his blog centuries ago. And I happened to agree with a few of his points on the subject. But some of them I didn't, and none of them stopped me from enjoying 4e, because I personally think he goes too far. I am also personally disappointed that his rationale is so widespread, because I think it and similar attitudes will result in some 4e ideas I liked being buried with the bad ones.
.
I can certainly appreciate that if there are things you liked about 4E you would like to see in the new edition. But I have to agree with Justin that there really isn't much there I would like to see in Next. It just really didn't do it for me as a version of D&D, and I would genuinely be content if nothing from 4E made it into 5th. So if The Alexandrian's critique of 4th was so sweeping it caused the designers to jettison everything, I say bravo. That said, I am sure they will have to retain some 4E elements to attract the largest possible fanbase. That I am okay with. If a few things make it in that I do not particularly like,but on the whole it feels like D&D again, that is fine.m
Quote from: Gunslinger;761971It reminds me of the Dragon Age video game were the warriors can threaten.
"Taunting" is from mmorpg's as far as I know.
Even though I love the Dragon Age computer game, its not a power I want to see fighters have.
A wizard casting a mind control spell? sure.
But I prefer fighters to....fight.
Quote from: The Butcher;761944That's another good one. But I like jibba's (possibly unwitting) suggestion even better:
They are, sort of, even though to the best of my knowledge I can't recall an exhaustion-as-HP-damage mechanic.
But I'd be dandy with that too. Trading in HPs for devastating attacks, how's that for resource management? Also nicely fits the oft-represented in fiction scenario of a badly wounded warrior putting his last breath into a final, overwhelming offensive, only to collapse dead immediately after.
Hell, you can even implement that independent of Martial Powers, in just about any edition! For TSR D&D make it Fighter-specific and set up an "exchange rate" between HP and damage bonuses.
there are some hp as exhaustion mechanics.
In 1e wilderness survival guide there are HP losses for heat exhaustion and dehydration.
You could easily argue that when you take damage from your HP you are expending HPs to avoid taking a wound.
So if you switched to a Fatigue/wound system which is a simple as saying...
all your HPs are fatigue and you get 4 wounds + your Con bonus (or maybe con+str or 1/2x (con+str) etc ). Every wound gives you -x on each action and takes a week to heal naturally. HPs recover at 10% of total + con bonus per hour of rest.
You may elect to take any amount of damage off your HPs instead of suffering wounds. Once you are out of HPs you are fatigued and any subsequent damage goes straight to wounds. You then have a pool of fatigue points you could tap for everything from combat moves to pushing magical powers beyond their limits to wearing plate armour to bed.
I like citing things, 'cuz.
QuotePlayer characters have a marvelous (and, to the DM, vastly amusing) tendency to fall off things, generally from great heights and almost always onto hard surfaces. While the falling is harmless, the abrupt stop at the end tends to cause damage.
When a character falls, he suffers 1d6 ponts of damage for every 10 feet fallen, to a maximum of 20d6 (which for game purposes can be consideed terminal velocity).
This method is simple and it provides all the realism necessary in the game. It is not a scientific calculation of the rate of acceleration, exact terminal velocity, mass, impact energy, etc., of the falling body.[...]
[...] People have actually fallen from great heights and survived, albeit very rarely. The current record-holder, Vesna Vulovic, survived a fall from a height of 33,330 feet in 1972, although she was severely injured. Flight-Sergeant Nicholas S. Alkemade actually fell 18,000 feet -- almost 3.5 miles -- without a parachute and landed uninjured!
The point of all this is roll the dice, as described above, and don't worry too much about the science.
AD&D 2e, p. 104, col. 2
The point of this is several things:
1. There is workable attempt made to simulate falling damage "onto hard surfaces" expected from the setting. It works from the assumption that settings have gravity, living things can take bludgeoning damage, and thus falling from heights can hurt.
Note: setting comes first.2. The workable attempt is knowingly trading off scientific precision (in an imaginary land, no less) for a workable and easy facsimile. It expects outliers; in fact, it gives real world examples how our current models still suffer from outliers. The simple rule allows for weirdness to happen, like granny falling off her chateau roof and surviving, while on average makes falls dangerous.
Note: a nod to realism is made, both its mortal danger and its outliers, but strictly up to the point of ease of use.3. As per 2e HP rules, the fastest a naked PC (no magic) can reach past the 120 HP threshold is a 9th lvl Fighter with CON 18 and every HD lvl a max 10 roll off a d10. Extra CON HP of 4 per the fighter's 9 HD lvls = 36; Fighter needs 9 rolls of 10 off d10s to add another 90, for a total of 126.
Note: This character's existence in no way invalidates the workable facsimile of falling realism because this character, too, is an outlier. It does not dissociate what is assumed to be true, for it works with what is not assumed to be prevalent. "Falling from great heights is generally fatal." "But what about Hercules/Superman?" "What about Hercules/Superman?" They are a legend on their way to demigod status. (And even still they have to roll Save v. Death from Mass Damage afterwards. :p) This outlier's existence in no way invalidates the workable facsimile of falling realism because a) this extreme was never the intent of the workable facsimile, b) things always fall apart at the extreme margins of everything.
Compared to real life, are HP dissociative? Yes. Go to any hospital and talk to the staff about hit points. Watch them walk away with real work to do.
Compared to real life, are Wounds (as in the RPG sense of the word) dissociative? Yes. Go to any hospital and talk to staff about "wounds," and then not get specific about "wound" details as they triage you, and watch their eyes glaze over about critical hit tables. Watch them walk away with real work to do.
But then compared to real life, talking about doing something -- and actually doing something -- is dissociated. Imaginary land has limits when attempting parity to real life. However, I am pretty sure (or at least hope) we are not broadening our scope for our "dissociative mechanics" RPG jargon into some post-modern analysis between act, thought, and speech. The RPG jargon for it carries a far more contained meaning between congruence of an imaginary setting's accepted contextual rules and the mechanics to engage it.
Quote from: Windjammer;761914That quote from 2012 is a great find, thanks. I didn't think so previously, but this proves Sacrosanct to be in Seanchai territory, and actually disruptive of the site.
Wait what? How on the earth do you figure?
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;761973I can certainly appreciate that if there are things you liked about 4E you would like to see in the new edition. But I have to agree with Justin that there really isn't much there I would like to see in Next. It just really didn't do it for me as a version of D&D, and I would genuinely be content if nothing from 4E made it into 5th. So if The Alexandrian's critique of 4th was so sweeping it caused the designers to jettison everything, I say bravo. That said, I am sure they will have to retain some 4E elements to attract the largest possible fanbase. That I am okay with. If a few things make it in that I do not particularly like,but on the whole it feels like D&D again, that is fine.m
Fair enough. At this point in its history D&D is, above all else, the compromise choice.
Quote from: Opaopajr;7619933. As per 2e HP rules, the fastest a naked PC (no magic) can reach past the 120 HP threshold is a 9th lvl Fighter with CON 18 and every HD lvl a max 10 roll off a d10. Extra CON HP of 4 per the fighter's 9 HD lvls = 36; Fighter needs 9 rolls of 10 off d10s to add another 90, for a total of 126. [...
No problem here, but it reminded me to complain that it drives me nuts when rules get examined based on maximum (or minimum) results, which are often so unlikely as to be not worth discussing. The odds of a 20d6 roll yielding a value of 120 are something like 1 in 3 quadrillion. The expected value of the damage from a terminal velocity fall in standard issue D&D is 70 points (3.5x20). Whether you think this is a big number or a small number is another issue; the important thing to keep in mind if you are trying to understand how the rules work is that you will rarely see a damage roll more than a few points away from this average if you are summing 20 dice.
Similarly, unless you cheat your ass off you will basically never see a 9th level fighter with 126 hit points. The individual described above will occur once out of every 216 billion times (if you play hard-core RAW), up to maybe once every 5-10
billion times if you are using common cheat-codes (4d, keep the best 3, and assign stats, and re-roll low HP at first level, etc.). The expected value for a 9th level fighter is a bit hard to define, but if you assume a CON bonus of +1, on average, then something a bit under 60 is likely.
Lars, your "common cheatcodes" are the RAW in 1e AD&D!
Quote from: Bill;761693Yes; the way I see it, the 'problem' with falling damage in dnd is that it probably should have had a death save, or something like that.
The hp are not really what makes the 'problem'
I posted in an older thread that Spelljammer removed that problem. A save vs death on impact. AND of course if you are high enough. Burning up on re-entry.
Quote from: Larsdangly;762013Similarly, unless you cheat your ass off you will basically never see a 9th level fighter with 126 hit points. The individual described above will occur once out of every 216 billion times (if you play hard-core RAW), up to maybe once every 5-10
billion times if you are using common cheat-codes (4d, keep the best 3, and assign stats, and re-roll low HP at first level, etc.). The expected value for a 9th level fighter is a bit hard to define, but if you assume a CON bonus of +1, on average, then something a bit under 60 is likely.
Aw c'mon you KNOW fighters will always get an 8-10 on hp rolls just like EVERY fighter will have an 18/76 STR MINIMUM or else they aren't worth playing! :rolleyes:
Quote from: Sacrosanct;7617341d6 per 10' fallen. Falling 18,000 feet, like this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Alkemade), would result in 1,800d6. Pretty sure that results in dying (funny enough he didn't). Don't know where you're coming up with "cannot die from falling out of an airplane". That's only true if that airplane was very low to the ground. most airplanes I know are pretty high up. Hell, I flew Blackhawk helicopters in the army, and most altitudes were 1000ft or more. Pretty sure 100d6 would kill just about anyone.
Edit* Heck, even my buddy Dillon, when we were rock climbing in Korea, fell about 50 feet onto the boulders below and only got really bruised up and broke an ankle.
Interesting note. The DMG at least notes that the falling damage was supposed to be used in cases where the character is falling close to a wall. Like falling down a pit or failing a climb rolls.
But never elaborated on what to do when theres no such things present. Like dropped from the sky by a roc.
Quote from: Endless Flight;761757What if 5e caps out at 20d6? :D
Caps at 20d6. I commented on that in the playtest and suggested a con save at the very least on impact.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;762007Fair enough. At this point in its history D&D is, above all else, the compromise choice.
I do agree it is a compromise in that it needs to catch the biggest group of players. I think I see 4E as the outlier here though, as a somewhat uncompromising edition (which to its credit is probably why it has such a hardcore fan base).
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;762041I do agree it is a compromise in that it needs to catch the biggest group of players. I think I see 4E as the outlier here though, as a somewhat uncompromising edition (which to its credit is probably why it has such a hardcore fan base).
As I've said, IMO, OD&D (played as intended, not as so many misunderstood it :) ), full-on 3.5/Pathfinder, and 4E mark the outer poles of the D&D 'gamespace' at this point. Nearly everything else falls within the zone delimited by those three, although tending towards one or two of those poles. And OD&D, as I understand it (it's one of the few editions I've neither read nor played) is probably the closest to being purely one thing; 3.5 and 4E are closer to each other than OD&D is to either of them.
Now, there does seem to be a pressure around here to reset the game so that AD&D 2E marks the outer bounds of the 'away from OD&D' poles, conclude a separate peace with PF, and drive 4E and its ilk into the Outer Darkness beyond the Sacred Great Wheel. :) I'm waiting on November; if the full game doesn't include room for the 'outliers', I'm prepared to make preparations to withdraw so long as I can keep 4E, 13th Age, and the 2E settings, among other things. :)
Quote from: Omega;762032I posted in an older thread that Spelljammer removed that problem. A save vs death on impact. AND of course if you are high enough. Burning up on re-entry.
Ha! protection from fire!
But seriously, that seems a very good approach.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;762036Aw c'mon you KNOW fighters will always get an 8-10 on hp rolls just like EVERY fighter will have an 18/76 STR MINIMUM or else they aren't worth playing! :rolleyes:
I tended to see 18/51+ as the 'your fighter is now awesome' breakpoint.
I would panic if my hp fell below average.
Fortunately I got past both of those :)
Quote from: Exploderwizard;762036Aw c'mon you KNOW fighters will always get an 8-10 on hp rolls just like EVERY fighter will have an 18/76 STR MINIMUM or else they aren't worth playing! :rolleyes:
It was that magic +2/+4 bonus. Funny how most fighter's % value just so happened to break that threshold, and you never saw any 18/89% ;)
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;762061As I've said
Where, or summarize the putative OD&D and 3.5 playstyles, if you don't mind. (Because I think we probably understand 4.0 but I don't know what the 3.5 playstyle is, and I wonder what you think the OD&D playstyle is.)
Not disagreeing. I really don't get why some people claimed 4e had anything to do with OD&D. My own take is that combat in OD&D is a fairly small subsystem within a larger framework; in 4e, the game apart from combat is basically there to contextualize the combat and not much else.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;762061As I've said, IMO, OD&D (played as intended, not as so many misunderstood it :) ), full-on 3.5/Pathfinder, and 4E mark the outer poles of the D&D 'gamespace' at this point. Nearly everything else falls within the zone delimited by those three, although tending towards one or two of those poles. And OD&D, as I understand it (it's one of the few editions I've neither read nor played) is probably the closest to being purely one thing; 3.5 and 4E are closer to each other than OD&D is to either of them.
Now, there does seem to be a pressure around here to reset the game so that AD&D 2E marks the outer bounds of the 'away from OD&D' poles, conclude a separate peace with PF, and drive 4E and its ilk into the Outer Darkness beyond the Sacred Great Wheel. :) I'm waiting on November; if the full game doesn't include room for the 'outliers', I'm prepared to make preparations to withdraw so long as I can keep 4E, 13th Age, and the 2E settings, among other things. :)
"There will be no separate peace with Pathfinder, while Kirk still lives!"
Quote from: Arminius;762076Where, or summarize the putative OD&D and 3.5 playstyles, if you don't mind. (Because I think we probably understand 4.0 but I don't know what the 3.5 playstyle is, and I wonder what you think the OD&D playstyle is.)
Primary emphasis in OD&D appears to be on Exploration and Logistics, while 3.5/PF takes Character Customization to the farthest extreme within the D&D family. 4E emphasizes Tactical Combat. Theoretically, one could design a version of D&D that focused on Storytelling, Interaction, or other poles of the experience, but it's not yet been done.
Now, these are emphases, not exclusive focuses--all editions have some of every element. But OD&D character creation and combat are very loose and undefined compared to other editions, 3.5 and 4E don't focus nearly so much on logistics, and 3.5 offers more customization options (especially if you were to combine 3.5 and PF together) while 4E has a more robust tactical combat system.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;762086Primary emphasis in OD&D appears to be on Exploration and Logistics, while 3.5/PF takes Character Customization to the farthest extreme within the D&D family. 4E emphasizes Tactical Combat. Theoretically, one could design a version of D&D that focused on Storytelling, Interaction, or other poles of the experience, but it's not yet been done.
This seems very accurate to me.
I would argue that 3.pf also includes a heavy dose of tactical combat, but not to the extent that 4e does. 4e also includes a reasonable level of charop, but not to the extent of 3.pf. Older D&D versions have less of both of those than 3.pf or 4e, but far more emphasis on exploration and logistics.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;762086Primary emphasis in OD&D appears to be on Exploration and Logistics, while 3.5/PF takes Character Customization to the farthest extreme within the D&D family. 4E emphasizes Tactical Combat. Theoretically, one could design a version of D&D that focused on Storytelling, Interaction, or other poles of the experience, but it's not yet been done.
Now, these are emphases, not exclusive focuses--all editions have some of every element. But OD&D character creation and combat are very loose and undefined compared to other editions, 3.5 and 4E don't focus nearly so much on logistics, and 3.5 offers more customization options (especially if you were to combine 3.5 and PF together) while 4E has a more robust tactical combat system.
Works for me.
Imagine an equilateral triangle. Each of the points represents an extreme of the three play-styles you cite. Contrary to the impression one might get from RPG forums, I believe the extremes are best represented by narrow points, and that most players fall into the broader middle.
WotC believes so too. Because 5E is a circle whose diameter falls within the triangle, touching all sides but leaving out the points.
(http://www.marksandlibrary.com/mark/image/22712)
...So what's the Elder Wand in this situation?
Whoa. Cosmic!
Thanks AG.
You know, I actually think 5th will offer better character customization than 3rd.
Lets say you want to play an Aragorn type Noble-Ranger:
In 3rd, you pretty much have to play some sort of multi-class Ranger/Aristocrat build, using non-basic classes, and probably finding some PRC to avoid xp penalties.
In 5th, you play a Ranger with the Noble background: Goal achieved at first level.
O.K. 3rd had a lot of granularity of options, but most of those were pretty weak, complicated and came with per-requisites that were often hard to achieve. 5th just gives you what you need in big blocks you can take without any worries.
Quote from: jadrax;762157You know, I actually think 5th will offer better character customization than 3rd.
Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me.
Most of the 3.x fans I know brag about how they can do *anything* in 3.x, and then usually come out with some weird-ass build to describe it.
While it definitely has that flexibility, it's not super-accessible without a high level of system mastery. For some people, that system mastery is the point, though.
Me, I prefer system mastery to be more a factor of at-table play, rather than character building.
Quote from: jadrax;762157You know, I actually think 5th will offer better character customization than 3rd.
Lets say you want to play an Aragorn type Noble-Ranger:
In 3rd, you pretty much have to play some sort of multi-class Ranger/Aristocrat build, using non-basic classes, and probably finding some PRC to avoid xp penalties.
In 5th, you play a Ranger with the Noble background: Goal achieved at first level.
O.K. 3rd had a lot of granularity of options, but most of those were pretty weak, complicated and came with per-requisites that were often hard to achieve. 5th just gives you what you need in big blocks you can take without any worries.
Granted, I only play 3e very off and on, but my impression both through play and from discussion is that while it had a ton of feats and skills to choose from, it really didn't. I.e., anyone who wanted to specialize in a weapon followed the exact same path: weapon focus--weapon spec feat chain. So depending on your main theme (caster, warrior, archer, etc), you pretty much followed she same dozen or so feat trees as anyone else with the same theme.
Quote from: Omega;762032I posted in an older thread that Spelljammer removed that problem. A save vs death on impact. AND of course if you are high enough. Burning up on re-entry.
Frikken Spelljammer.:)
Quote from: Sacrosanct;762161Granted, I only play 3e very off and on, but my impression both through play and from discussion is that while it had a ton of feats and skills to choose from, it really didn't. I.e., anyone who wanted to specialize in a weapon followed the exact same path: weapon focus--weapon spec feat chain. So depending on your main theme (caster, warrior, archer, etc), you pretty much followed she same dozen or so feat trees as anyone else with the same theme.
Actually Pathfinder made it worse, you get 15 useless feats most you'd never take, all in the hope that your concept works at 17th level.
Just give me an actual background like today's acolyte and 3-4:multilevel feats like FantasyCraft and get out of the way already.
Quote from: jadrax;762157You know, I actually think 5th will offer better character customization than 3rd.
Lets say you want to play an Aragorn type Noble-Ranger:
In 3rd, you pretty much have to play some sort of multi-class Ranger/Aristocrat build, using non-basic classes, and probably finding some PRC to avoid xp penalties.
In 5th, you play a Ranger with the Noble background: Goal achieved at first level.
O.K. 3rd had a lot of granularity of options, but most of those were pretty weak, complicated and came with per-requisites that were often hard to achieve. 5th just gives you what you need in big blocks you can take without any worries.
That sounds like complete claptrap. Why couldn't you play a straight up ranger in 3E? Sure if you are a charopper you game the system beyond that but he base class does just as good an option as the 5E version does.
There is plenty to criticize about 3E but not the example you have out forward.
Quote from: Fiasco;762210That sounds like complete claptrap. Why couldn't you play a straight up ranger in 3E? Sure if you are a charopper you game the system beyond that but he base class does just as good an option as the 5E version does.
There is plenty to criticize about 3E but not the example you have out forward.
Because you would be utterly shit at doing any of the noble stuff. 3E Rangers just are not built to be socialites.
Edit: To break it down with some numbers (admittedly ones from the last play test which may be out-of-date)
If you build a 5th Edition Ranger with the noble background, you could get a character with proficiency in the following skills: Athletics, History, Nature, Perception, Persuasion, Stealth, Survival.
In 3.5 terms, that's like having full ranks in Climb, Diplomacy*, Hide, Jump, Knowledge (History)*, Knowledge (Nature), Listen, Move Silently, Search, Spot, Swim, Wilderness Lore.
That's 12 skills, so you would need an Int Bonus of +8 to have them all, and the two marked with an * would be cross class, so because of how skills work in 3rd ed, you would never be that good at them. Oh and if your nit picky, You also have to worry about Knowledge (Nobility), which is just not a thing in 5th.
Of course the real game changer I think here, is I had to sit down and work out how to build the ranger's skills. With 5th edition, it was pretty much a process of take the background, bang your done.
Quote from: jadrax;762157You know, I actually think 5th will offer better character customization than 3rd.
Lets say you want to play an Aragorn type Noble-Ranger:
In 3rd, you pretty much have to play some sort of multi-class Ranger/Aristocrat build, using non-basic classes, and probably finding some PRC to avoid xp penalties.
In 5th, you play a Ranger with the Noble background: Goal achieved at first level.
O.K. 3rd had a lot of granularity of options, but most of those were pretty weak, complicated and came with per-requisites that were often hard to achieve. 5th just gives you what you need in big blocks you can take without any worries.
Quote from: Fiasco;762210That sounds like complete claptrap. Why couldn't you play a straight up ranger in 3E? Sure if you are a charopper you game the system beyond that but he base class does just as good an option as the 5E version does.
There is plenty to criticize about 3E but not the example you have out forward.
Fiasco
You can play a noble ranger in
any game, D&D5, D&D3, Risus, GURPS, whatever. The system you use can provide mechanical support for that, or you can ask the GM:
-"May I be a ranger of noble family?"
-"Sure, why not?"
jadrax's point, is that D&D5 makes such a concept very easy. In D&D3, you'd have to multiclass or choose several feats, with clunky results, or just say "I'm a ranger, and I'm noble, that's it", without the support of the rules.
As a matter of fact, backgrounds is one of the new ideas of D&D5 I like most.
Quote from: Bill;762064Ha! protection from fire!
But seriously, that seems a very good approach.
It overpowers spells and other heat resistances. Short of being a fire elemental or something that can fly or glide... sorry.
Just falling to an Earth class planet did a total of 150d4 fire damage.
Plus the 20d6 damage if you made it to the ground.
And then the save vs death.
Quote from: Omega;762238It overpowers spells and other heat resistances. Short of being a fire elemental or something that can fly or glide... sorry.
Just falling to an Earth class planet did a total of 150d4 fire damage.
Plus the 20d6 damage if you made it to the ground.
And then the save vs death.
Just jump up right before impact.
Quote from: Claudius;762235Fiasco
You can play a noble ranger in any game, D&D5, D&D3, Risus, GURPS, whatever. The system you use can provide mechanical support for that, or you can ask the GM:
-"May I be a ranger of noble family?"
-"Sure, why not?"
jadrax's point, is that D&D5 makes such a concept very easy. In D&D3, you'd have to multiclass or choose several feats, with clunky results, or just say "I'm a ranger, and I'm noble, that's it", without the support of the rules.
As a matter of fact, backgrounds is one of the new ideas of D&D5 I like most.
As do I.
Quote from: Bill;762246Just jump up right before impact.
Roll to-hit and hope you miss the Earth... :cool:
I don't really understand how backgrounds work or what is up with the other 'soft' character descriptors in the side bars of the sheets (favorite items, attitudes, etc) because I'm too lazy to bother reading through all the play test material and associated threads. But I'm imagining it is an attempt to make characters more nuanced, individuated and interesting without introducing a new superstructure of complicated rules, such as you might find in certain popular indie games that start with the letters 'B' and 'W'. I suppose I'll wait to play before I make up my mind, but it all seems good to me. I kind of like that I can just stick with one class (fighter) and create a bunch of different characters who are not just different in my head, but actually different in game terms that have some expression in the way the game is played. This could go a long way to having a small number of core classes be enough for most people's tastes, and therefore avoid the class bloat that has been a feature of some editions.
Quote from: jadrax;762157You know, I actually think 5th will offer better character customization than 3rd.
Define 'better'. It may make it simpler and easier to manifest specific concepts, but it doesn't have nearly the sheer variety of options, mechanical widgets and points of differentiation that full-on 3.X/PF does.
Quote from: Larsdangly;762264I don't really understand how backgrounds work or what is up with the other 'soft' character descriptors in the side bars of the sheets (favorite items, attitudes, etc) because I'm too lazy to bother reading through all the play test material and associated threads. But I'm imagining it is an attempt to make characters more nuanced, individuated and interesting without introducing a new superstructure of complicated rules, such as you might find in certain popular indie games that start with the letters 'B' and 'W'. I suppose I'll wait to play before I make up my mind, but it all seems good to me. I kind of like that I can just stick with one class (fighter) and create a bunch of different characters who are not just different in my head, but actually different in game terms that have some expression in the way the game is played. This could go a long way to having a small number of core classes be enough for most people's tastes, and therefore avoid the class bloat that has been a feature of some editions.
A background is a bundle of four skills, a 'trait' that gives you a perk unique to that background, and starting equipment. So the Guide comes with Climb, Natural Lore, Spot, and Swim for skills, and the Wanderer trait.
It's simpler and faster than choosing skills a la carte. I like the idea, but found most of the actual backgrounds in the playtest kind of lame. So I'm curious to see what backgrounds the PHB rolls out with. I'm assuming we'll see a lot of new backgrounds in expansions and setting books.
Quote from: Haffrung;762266A background is a bundle of four skills, a 'trait' that gives you a perk unique to that background, and starting equipment. So the Guide comes with Climb, Natural Lore, Spot, and Swim for skills, and the Wanderer trait.
It's simpler and faster than choosing skills a la carte. I like the idea, but found most of the actual backgrounds in the playtest kind of lame. So I'm curious to see what backgrounds the PHB rolls out with. I'm assuming we'll see a lot of new backgrounds in expansions and setting books.
Right. A somewhat compact and clever way to use a 'character backstory' system (I've used a backstory/skill/item generation system for a while, so no wonder I am partial to it) to individualize the character.
I kind of wish they'd go back to an earlier version of the playtest, where backgrounds gave certain specific skills (I guess proficiency in this version). One of my favorite PCs was a halfling fighter with a thief background (where he got the stealth and open locks skills). I didn't have to worry about multiclassing at all with him, which I liked.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;762273I kind of wish they'd go back to an earlier version of the playtest, where backgrounds gave certain specific skills (I guess proficiency in this version). One of my favorite PCs was a halfling fighter with a thief background (where he got the stealth and open locks skills). I didn't have to worry about multiclassing at all with him, which I liked.
There's a part of me that wants to modify 4E (yes, I can hear the crowd approaching with the torches and pitchforks) or a similar version to use Backgrounds as the primary mechanism for skill access and noncombat ability definition, with Classes designed for combat abilities. 5E might be amenable to this as well.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;762273I kind of wish they'd go back to an earlier version of the playtest, where backgrounds gave certain specific skills (I guess proficiency in this version). One of my favorite PCs was a halfling fighter with a thief background (where he got the stealth and open locks skills). I didn't have to worry about multiclassing at all with him, which I liked.
They do. Unless you're a thief, you get three skills from background and one from class. One of my players has a Fighter with a Guild Thief background. He has stealth, sleight of hand, and Perception (along with proficiency in theives' tools). He can double as a murderscout in a pinch.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;762265Define 'better'. It may make it simpler and easier to manifest specific concepts, but it doesn't have nearly the sheer variety of options, mechanical widgets and points of differentiation that full-on 3.X/PF does.
I am more than happy with simpler and easier to manifest specific concepts as being straight better than a multitude of options, mechanical widgets and points of differentiation. You mileage may vary.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;7619204E? No.
3E? Yes. (And, yes, there were people saying they were going to house rule before the game ever came out.)
The comments about house-ruling are different as the context is different. It is possible to play 3E relatively close to RAW (or at least so close that the intent to do so is there, even if errors are made). Both 1E and 2E have some pretty tough passages to implement. Just play the game of trying to decide what the is the official initiative system in 1E (include PHB text as well). It'll take a while.
So the culture of D&D players was all about house-ruling things or ignoring difficult details (weapons versus armor, segments) which took a lot of effort to actually use. So I would take the 3E pre-release comments with a grain of salt, as the actual system ended up cleaner than AD&D once it was available.
Quote from: jadrax;762288I am more than happy with simpler and easier to manifest specific concepts as being straight better than a multitude of options, mechanical widgets and points of differentiation. You mileage may vary.
Absolutely.
I get no entertainment from mastery of the char build game.
I also don't care about mechanical differentiation nearly as much as many 3.x folks. If I can make the character concept I want with minimal friction, I'll take that over a gazillion widgets any day.
Quote from: Haffrung;762266A background is a bundle of four skills, a 'trait' that gives you a perk unique to that background, and starting equipment. So the Guide comes with Climb, Natural Lore, Spot, and Swim for skills, and the Wanderer trait.
It's simpler and faster than choosing skills a la carte. I like the idea, but found most of the actual backgrounds in the playtest kind of lame. So I'm curious to see what backgrounds the PHB rolls out with. I'm assuming we'll see a lot of new backgrounds in expansions and setting books.
This sounds to me like a great mechanism for making a handful of core classes seem diverse and interesting. Of course the real value will depend on the designer's detailed choices of backgrounds and their associated skills.
Quote from: Claudius;762235Fiasco
You can play a noble ranger in any game, D&D5, D&D3, Risus, GURPS, whatever. The system you use can provide mechanical support for that, or you can ask the GM:
-"May I be a ranger of noble family?"
-"Sure, why not?"
jadrax's point, is that D&D5 makes such a concept very easy. In D&D3, you'd have to multiclass or choose several feats, with clunky results, or just say "I'm a ranger, and I'm noble, that's it", without the support of the rules.
As a matter of fact, backgrounds is one of the new ideas of D&D5 I like most.
Ah fair enough. Yes if a bunch of skills is needed to emulate the noble ranger then yes, 5E definitely makes it easier. I agree this sounds really cool with 5E.
Guys, from reading the last chunk of conversation, it seems like what you all would like for D&D is some kind of lifepath system in character generation that incorporates skill development in backgrounds like Traveller has.
Why not just adapt that?
Quote from: jeff37923;762379Guys, from reading the last chunk of conversation, it seems like what you all would like for D&D is some kind of lifepath system in character generation that incorporates skill development in backgrounds like Traveller has.
Why not just adapt that?
there are a number of background systems, saying they should adopt one vs another, as opposed to being happy they are using the idea, is complaining about irrelevancy while ignoring growth.
(as if Trav was the first/best/best suited)
Reminds me more of RQ III, but point taken, LV.
Quote from: soviet;761817Let's also remember that D&D is a game where killing a hundred orcs makes you better at picking locks. I love D&D but damn that is one very glassy house you're throwing stones from.
No, D&D is the game where rubbing gold pieces all over your body makes you better at picking locks.
Fantasy Trip is the game where killing 100 orcs teaches you to read.
Quote from: Old Geezer;762414No, D&D is the game where rubbing gold pieces all over your body makes you better at picking locks.
Fantasy Trip is the game where killing 100 orcs teaches you to read.
Because money for education is unrealistic unless you join the Army!
Okay, RuneQuest was the game in which you actually paid for training.
Quote from: Old Geezer;762414No, D&D is the game where rubbing gold pieces all over your body makes you better at picking locks.
Fantasy Trip is the game where killing 100 orcs teaches you to read.
actually, D&D is the game where giving those gold pieces to a trainer to train you makes you better at picking locks. Unless I'm mistaken, you don't level up when you get enough xp, but have to train first. Of course, everyone I knew never played that way but still...
Quote from: Sacrosanct;762418actually, D&D is the game where giving those gold pieces to a trainer to train you makes you better at picking locks. Unless I'm mistaken, you don't level up when you get enough xp, but have to train first. Of course, everyone I knew never played that way but still...
There were no training costs in OD&D.
Paying for training is ADVANCED D&D
(Followup to OG, cross posted with Phillip.)
Or any game labeled "D&D" without the "A". (Did 2e have training?)
Also, every time Soviet says anything regarding dissociated mechanics, what's the point?
Can't trip a slime? Fine. Maybe you can't use a certain magic or stratagem vs. some target or other in AD&D because the DM says so.
How is this suddenly out of the judge's jurisdiction?
Quote from: jadrax;762288I am more than happy with simpler and easier to manifest specific concepts as being straight better than a multitude of options, mechanical widgets and points of differentiation. You mileage may vary.
And given the success of 3E and Pathfinder, it obviously does for many gamers. :) Now granted, there are other reasons to play those editions--fondness for other elements of the mechanics, familiarity, support (which are the primary reasons Pathfinder thrives, IMO), access to players, etc. But the proliferation of character options and the success of those games indicates that there is a market, even if it's not the kind of stuff that appeals to many people around here.
(For myself, if I were going to deal with a system that detailed, I'd go with HERO and get the transparency and the ability to build anything out of the corebook. :) )
Quote from: Fiasco;762372Ah fair enough. Yes if a bunch of skills is needed to emulate the noble ranger then yes, 5E definitely makes it easier. I agree this sounds really cool with 5E.
I think it's awesome did you see the Wizard's background? It has has free lodging and a perfect study place with protection built in no less. That wizard is nearly a 4e Invoker.:)
Quote from: jeff37923;762379Guys, from reading the last chunk of conversation, it seems like what you all would like for D&D is some kind of lifepath system in character generation that incorporates skill development in backgrounds like Traveller has.
Why not just adapt that?
I love lifepath systems but even I accept most will just say no. If it's an option though. .
Quote from: Old Geezer;762419There were no training costs in OD&D.
I guess D&D is a game hardly anyone ever played then, if "D&D" equals OD&D
Quote from: LordVreeg;762391there are a number of background systems, saying they should adopt one vs another, as opposed to being happy they are using the idea, is complaining about irrelevancy while ignoring growth.
(as if Trav was the first/best/best suited)
You haven't been eating enough fiber again, haven't you?
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;762425And given the success of 3E and Pathfinder, it obviously does for many gamers. :) Now granted, there are other reasons to play those editions--fondness for other elements of the mechanics, familiarity, support (which are the primary reasons Pathfinder thrives, IMO), access to players, etc. But the proliferation of character options and the success of those games indicates that there is a market, even if it's not the kind of stuff that appeals to many people around here.
(For myself, if I were going to deal with a system that detailed, I'd go with HERO and get the transparency and the ability to build anything out of the corebook. :) )
But that was not a zero sum in the old days! You could have the thief class or not, simple or complex initiative, simple AC and hit points or either or both by location, with or without weapon vs armor type, simple or fancy or no crits or fumbles, spell slots or mana points...
What is with this insistence on turning the game into something like Official Association Contract Bridge?
Quote from: Sacrosanct;762430I guess D&D is a game hardly anyone ever played then, if "D&D" equals OD&D
Oh shit! A semantics argument between Sacrosanct and an actual old guy, I mean school. No I think I nailed it with my first option:)
This interests me....especially since the dogpile against me me at TBP is boring me. I mean seriously does anybody over there actually play the game?
Quote from: Marleycat;762434Oh shit! A semantics argument between Sacrosanct and an actual old guy, I mean school.:)
This interests me.....
it's not semantics. If one is going to say "D&D" means only OD&D, that's fine. But in the context of people who have played the game called "Dungeons & Dragons", hardly anyone played it.. So when you're in a group discussion talking about how the game really is, and no one else played it, no one really cares all that much outside of hearing Storytime from grandpa. Because that's what it's like. Like being in a group talking about cars and saying the only real cars are model Ts.. Everyone else is just gonna look at you like, "that's nice" but not really think you're talking from a position of authority
Quote from: Sacrosanct;762430I guess D&D is a game hardly anyone ever played then, if "D&D" equals OD&D
It is not the rule in Basic+ either, or standard in 2e iirc.
NOTHING is set in stone in the game I have known; it has NEVER been defined by a set of hard rules like Chess or backgammon! That is part of its appeal.
By insisting on a narrow definition, you are the one holding out for the less played game!
Quote from: Sacrosanct;762436it's not semantics. If one is going to say "D&D" means only OD&D, that's fine. But in the context of people who have played the game called "Dungeons & Dragons", hardly anyone played it.. So when you're in a group discussion talking about how the game really is, and no one else played it, no one really cares all that much outside of hearing Storytime from grandpa. Because that's what it's like. Like being in a group talking about cars and saying the only real cars are model Ts.. Everyone else is just gonna look at you like, "that's nice" but not really think you're talking from a position of authority
It's a start and this is RPGSite and OG. Rock on Sacrosanct I may be insane but I'm not stupid. (Though if you argue well I may be forced to back you, so please don't).
Quote from: Phillip;762437It is not the rule in Basic+ either, or standard in 2e iirc.
NOTHING is set in stone in the game I have known; it has NEVER been defined by a set of hard rules like Chess or backgammon! That is part of its appeal.
And 4e. It's why the theorycraft and system guys are PISSED. Even 2e was DIY. I mean they are asking the WHY for my stance when in 4e days I would catch a ban. 5e is yours to take, leave, spin, multilate, spindle, warp or say fuck you.
Exactly. There is no training in Holmes, or Moldvay/Cook, or BECMI, or RC.
I don't know from 2e.
Pretty irrelevant to the overall discussion.
Quote from: Phillip;762437It is not the rule in Basic+ either, or standard in 2e iirc.
!
Very true, I forgot there is no training requirements in Basic. I'm assuming it's because basic is stripped down of all but the essential rules. For 2e, it's there in the DMG as an optional rule if DMs want it.
But it seems Gary had a hard on for paying for training before you level based on just how complicated he made it in the 1e DMG. Assign an ESPF rating, then calculate the # of weeks needed from there, then another calculation for gold piece cost, etc.
The 2e books did a fair bit of laying out options along with points to consider when thinking about what rules to use. I think that's good.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;762441But it seems Gary had a hard on for paying for training before you level based on just how complicated he made it in the 1e DMG. Assign an ESPF rating, then calculate the # of weeks needed from there, then another calculation for gold piece cost, etc.
...and don't forget to file a TPS report!
Quote from: Phillip;762447The 2e books did a fair bit of laying out options along with points to consider when thinking about what rules to use. I think that's good.
Correct. And I think 5e will be. Options can't cure stupid but I can and do. Don't like my table? I guess you better find another.
Is it wrong to wear a Viking Hat when you're a girl? I need to check with Jeff given he has an awesome Viking Hat.
Quote from: Marleycat;762451Is it wrong to wear a Viking Hat when you're a girl? I need to check with Jeff given he has an awesome Viking Hat.
It is not wrong for a girl to wear the Viking Hat.
There were Valkyries, you know.
Quote from: jeff37923;762460It is not wrong for a girl to wear the Viking Hat.
There were Valkyries, you know.
Exactly.:)
You know I am excitable and finally I have a Dnd game that fits me that most will at least discuss. So I am getting football crazy about Dnd and that's just fun.
Because for the first time since 2e ended I feel I can really contribute on Dnd topics and the game itself. Which is amazing if you actually know about my goto games.;)
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;762425But the proliferation of character options and the success of those games indicates that there is a market, even if it's not the kind of stuff that appeals to many people around here.
There is always a market for things, but I doubt its very big in this case tbh. And I don't base that on this forum, but pretty much every forum. For example, there are a lot of posts on the Pazio forum talking about how to reduce 'bloat' and how Pathfinder II needs to be simplified. While even forums you would expect to be quite favorable to 3rd edition style char op (Gaming Den) largely seem to regard it as flawed and full of trap options.
Note however, I am not saying that the long list of other reasons to like a game will not still apply in these cases.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;762430I guess D&D is a game hardly anyone ever played then, if "D&D" equals OD&D
Dont have the books handy at the moment. But BX D&D did not have a cost to level up system either.
But in AD&D Our groups did use the pay to level rules.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;762441Very true, I forgot there is no training requirements in Basic. I'm assuming it's because basic is stripped down of all but the essential rules. For 2e, it's there in the DMG as an optional rule if DMs want it.
But it seems Gary had a hard on for paying for training before you level based on just how complicated he made it in the 1e DMG. Assign an ESPF rating, then calculate the # of weeks needed from there, then another calculation for gold piece cost, etc.
Money sinks.
One of the officially stated problems with D&D was parting the PCs with their wealth in ways that made sense rather than requiring the DM to potentially have to be a dick to deal with it.
We skipped the ESFP part and just spent 2 weeks training as it was a good enough guage of the groups general tone.
A friend has told me that 5e is just like 1e. That's not my reading of what I've seen, but either way... well, I had this conversation about 4e.
"Kyle, you're not interested in this edition? It's so much better and different to all the rest!"
"No, I like 1st ed."
"Oh but it's just like 1st ed!"
"So it's just like 1st ed, but different?"
"Yes!"
It's this sort of muddled thinking you get from fanboys and lackeys. If it's different to the edition I like, I'm not interested. And if it's the same as the edition I like, why not just play the edition I like?
Or, it could be different in a way you like more.
The idea that all differences are bad presumes that the game you like is 100% absolutely perfect for you, and I sincerely doubt that is the case for anyone.
Or maybe it would be a disaster for you. I don't know, but dismissing something for the reason of "not being exactly like what I already like" just sounds like a 5 year old being asked to eat something new. Especially when you can check it out for free once the full Basic game goes up.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;762488Or, it could be different in a way you like more.
The idea that all differences are bad presumes that the game you like is 100% absolutely perfect for you, and I sincerely doubt that is the case for anyone.
Or maybe it would be a disaster for you. I don't know, but dismissing something for the reason of "not being exactly like what I already like" just sounds like a 5 year old being asked to eat something new. Especially when you can check it out for free once the full Basic game goes up.
exactly. Now, I agree that the person in Kyle's post really presented it badly. And I also believe that there has been enough information via playtest for one to have a good idea what the game is like even if the final version will be slightly different, so they could decide if it's a good game, something they'd like to see more of, or something they know they just won't like. But the key is actually giving it a good read through, or better yet, a good play through first.
I think what the person was trying to say was that the play of 5e, if so desired, feels just like AD&D, but isn't exactly like it rules wise. OG likes to always say, "if I'm having fun with this version, why try anything else?". While having fun is the most important thing and everyone has different tastes, I imagine even OG plays with rules that weren't part of the "original" booklet.
If 1st edition is your thing, OSRIC caters to that (and of course the reprint edition from Wizards does as well). If 3rd edition rocks your boat, there's Pathfinder.
Those horses are already out; it is too late to close the stable doors. If you are not in the market for 5th, then that is just a fact of life.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;762430I guess D&D is a game hardly anyone ever played then, if "D&D" equals OD&D
Or maybe it's actually relevant that different editions do things different ways.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;762486A friend has told me that 5e is just like 1e. That's not my reading of what I've seen, but either way... well, I had this conversation about 4e.
"Kyle, you're not interested in this edition? It's so much better and different to all the rest!"
"No, I like 1st ed."
"Oh but it's just like 1st ed!"
"So it's just like 1st ed, but different?"
"Yes!"
It's this sort of muddled thinking you get from fanboys and lackeys. If it's different to the edition I like, I'm not interested. And if it's the same as the edition I like, why not just play the edition I like?
Well, 5E's playtest material was certainly not "just like" 1E in presentation or mechanics (not as much crunch, unified mechanics, Feats, higher stat bonuses, more HP's, different mode of healing, etcetcetc). But running it feels a lot like 2E and before. In some ways it has a B/X feel, with a skills module tacked on). But just like 1E? No, not really. But I'm willing to bet you could do a decent emulation of the style, when all is said and done (assuming you'd want to do that--I mean, if you have your edition of choice, that's what you should go with, for sure).
Quote from: Larsdangly;762013No problem here, but it reminded me to complain that it drives me nuts when rules get examined based on maximum (or minimum) results, which are often so unlikely as to be not worth discussing.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;762036Aw c'mon you KNOW fighters will always get an 8-10 on hp rolls just like EVERY fighter will have an 18/76 STR MINIMUM or else they aren't worth playing! :rolleyes:
I really should check this site more often. These two posts and the original one with all the numbers are fucking awesome. Numbers numbers numbers, dudes, mix with probability, and you get a value which determines if a problem is just someone blowing air out of their butt because they like the smell.
And yet the forums of gaming are full of posters who cannot tell the difference between possible and probable, yet trot out game mechanic issues that will never happen in this iteration of the universe unless you are cheating -which means the problem is cheating, not the mechanic. The traveller trolls pretty much made me give up on this issue, but it is wonderful to see at least three users who get it.
Seriously, the FDA would approve a drug that had that chance of a major adverse effect ( like "makes one in 200 billion users set their children's heads on fire and then explode in great agony resulting in contaminating the local water table causing toxic and mutagenic effects unto the seventh generation.")*. Why the hell should a rule in a game about elves and pixies have a higher standard ?
* before someone jumps up and down that this is not the case,
yes, this is an exaggeration based on the fact that an adverse effect with a true probability of 1/200*10^9 could not even be observed with out a sample size larger than all the people who are alive and
who have ever been alive. Which rather makes the point that most of the outlier mechanic complaints are equally an exaggeration.
Quote from: ConradBumpus;762753* before someone jumps up and down that this is not the case, yes, this is an exaggeration based on the fact that an adverse effect with a true probability of 1/200*10^9 could not even be observed with out a sample size larger than all the people who are alive and who have ever been alive. Which rather makes the point that most of the outlier mechanic complaints are equally an exaggeration.
Whatever you do, just make sure the odds of a catastrophe are NEVER
exactly a million to one. For some unknown reason it will happen 9 out of 10 times under those circumstances.
Quote from: ConradBumpus;762753I really should check this site more often. These two posts and the original one with all the numbers are fucking awesome. Numbers numbers numbers, dudes, mix with probability, and you get a value which determines if a problem is just someone blowing air out of their butt because they like the smell.
And yet the forums of gaming are full of posters who cannot tell the difference between possible and probable, yet trot out game mechanic issues that will never happen in this iteration of the universe unless you are cheating -which means the problem is cheating, not the mechanic. The traveller trolls pretty much made me give up on this issue, but it is wonderful to see at least three users who get it.
Seriously, the FDA would approve a drug that had that chance of a major adverse effect ( like "makes one in 200 billion users set their children's heads on fire and then explode in great agony resulting in contaminating the local water table causing toxic and mutagenic effects unto the seventh generation.")*. Why the hell should a rule in a game about elves and pixies have a higher standard ?
* before someone jumps up and down that this is not the case, yes, this is an exaggeration based on the fact that an adverse effect with a true probability of 1/200*10^9 could not even be observed with out a sample size larger than all the people who are alive and who have ever been alive. Which rather makes the point that most of the outlier mechanic complaints are equally an exaggeration.
This problem stems from demanded point buy combined with "magic shop" routine.
I have seen my colleague, a practical cardboard cutout 4venger in RL, cry recently how D&D Next is broken because Gauntlets of the Ogre Strength will lead to distancing Fighters further, since everyone can just take 8 str and buy them ASAP.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;762756Whatever you do, just make sure the odds of a catastrophe are NEVER exactly a million to one. For some unknown reason it will happen 9 out of 10 times under those circumstances.
I believe our taste in books is more similar than our taste in gaming styles :P
Quote from: Rincewind1;762757This problem stems from demanded point buy combined with "magic shop" routine.
I have seen my colleague, a practical cardboard cutout 4venger in RL, cry recently how D&D Next is broken because Gauntlets of the Ogre Strength will lead to distancing Fighters further, since everyone can just take 8 str and buy them ASAP.
It's all the rage at the WotC and TBP boards. My question is do they actually ever play the game? This is why you roll your scores and then die for being stupid enough to build your character around an item that may never appear in the campaign. Who actually does this in reality?
Quote from: Exploderwizard;762756Whatever you do, just make sure the odds of a catastrophe are NEVER exactly a million to one. For some unknown reason it will happen 9 out of 10 times under those circumstances.
But nobody ever says "It's a 999,999 to one chance, but it might just work!"
Quote from: Marleycat;762767It's all the rage at the WotC and TBP boards. My question is do they actually ever play the game? This is why you roll your scores and then die for being stupid enough to build your character around an item that may never appear in the campaign. Who actually does this in reality?
"Reality?" I know nothing of this "reality" of which you speak, but your words confuse and frighten me.
Quote from: Marleycat;762767It's all the rage at the WotC and TBP boards. My question is do they actually ever play the game? This is why you roll your scores and then die for being stupid enough to build your character around an item that may never appear in the campaign. Who actually does this in reality?
I played with that guy. It is how they play the game. The items always dropped from foes, just right for the build we had (I learnt this from others, since I asked him to make my build, since we were playing 4e). I like the guy, and he's actually a decent GM, but this is how they game.
Quote from: Rincewind1;762771I played with that guy. It is how they play the game. The items always dropped from foes, just right for the build we had (I learnt this from others, since I asked him to make my build, since we were playing 4e). I like the guy, and he's actually a decent GM, but this is how they game.
Sounds like too much work and not really a fun way to play. But different strokes I guess.
Quote"Reality?" I know nothing of this "reality" of which you speak, but your words confuse and frighten me.
I will try to refrain from using that word in the future then.
Quote from: Rincewind1;762771I played with that guy. It is how they play the game. The items always dropped from foes, just right for the build we had (I learnt this from others, since I asked him to make my build, since we were playing 4e). I like the guy, and he's actually a decent GM, but this is how they game.
To be fair, in 4e that is pretty much hard-coded into the rules.
Quote from: jadrax;762777To be fair, in 4e that is pretty much hard-coded into the rules.
That's not exactly working in it's favour in my eyes.
Quote from: Marleycat;762774Sounds like too much work and not really a fun way to play. But different strokes I guess.
I will try to refrain from using that word in the future then.
Use "meatworld" or "Outernet". And well, there is a reason why we don't play anymore (my timelines :P)
Yes, I've seen many a person complain that treasure should be catered to their builds. Random treasure tables piss them off, and if they happen to find an axe +1 and they don't use it? They should be able to trade it in for a +1 sword that they do use.
This is how people get the impression of entitlement issues with players.
Quote from: Rincewind1;762779That's not exactly working in it's favour in my eyes.
Use "meatworld" or "Outernet". And well, there is a reason why we don't play anymore (my timelines :P)
Well, I personally hate 'builds' but 4E assumes you have magic items, and all the items in 4E are ultra weak compared to magic items in 1E/2E/3X
In 1E the magic items are not assumed, and you can get characters that are pretty much deities from magic items.
I am a 1E guy; not selling 4E, just commenting it does what it tries to do fairly well.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;762788Yes, I've seen many a person complain that treasure should be catered to their builds. Random treasure tables piss them off, and if they happen to find an axe +1 and they don't use it? They should be able to trade it in for a +1 sword that they do use.
This is how people get the impression of entitlement issues with players.
Impression? You should read some of the things that are written by the charop/theorycraft crowd they come right out and say it as support of their latest argument. But I am a 2e/FantasyCraft player where magic items were not assumed.
Quote from: jadrax;762777To be fair, in 4e that is pretty much hard-coded into the rules.
My face was agog when I doubted the existence of that DMG recommendation, especially "the wishlist."
Needless to say it was an unpleasant return to a game that was starting to develop a wistful patina of nostalgia after a much self-righteous and indignant banishment mere months before.
4e is that game I came to appreciate after a fiery hate-hate relationship. Like mellowing out against that fading trendy bar where the posers used to mill now that they sport decent beer cheaply on Tuesday happy hour in a desperate bid for cash. Can't hate so hard once the good beer flows cheap, but it's still just a pitstop on the way to settle in a better bar.
Have fun Rincewind! :cheerleader:
Quote from: Marleycat;762767Who actually does this in reality?
Quote from: Old Geezer;762769"Reality?" I know nothing of this "reality" of which you speak, but your words confuse and frighten me.
Quote from: Marleycat;762774I will try to refrain from using that word in the future then.
I'm getting an image of THIS scene:
The Architect: What are you saying?
The Nurse: Leave her... come back to Montana with me.
The Architect: I could no sooner run away from her than myself.
The Nurse: I'm not asking you to run, I'm asking you to face reality!
The Architect: Whose reality, yours or mine?
The Nurse: My reality AND yours, that's whose!
The Architect: What are you saying?
The Nurse: Leave her! Come back to Montana with me!
The Architect: I could no sooner run away from her than myself!
The Nurse: I'm not asking you to run, I'm asking you to face reality!
The Architect: Whose reality, yours or mine?
The Nurse: My reality AND yours, that's whose!
The Architect: What are you saying?
:rotfl:
Quote from: Opaopajr;762794My face was agog when I doubted the existence of that DMG recommendation, especially "the wishlist."
Needless to say it was an unpleasant return to a game that was starting to develop a wistful patina of nostalgia after a much self-righteous and indignant banishment mere months before.
4e is that game I came to appreciate after a fiery hate-hate relationship. Like mellowing out against that fading trendy bar where the posers used to mill now that they sport decent beer cheaply on Tuesday happy hour in a desperate bid for cash. Can't hate so hard once the good beer flows cheap, but it's still just a pitstop on the way to settle in a better bar.
Have fun Rincewind! :cheerleader:
How did you know I was playing that campaign because I had a dry spell a a player? :D
(I am GMing 2 campaigns ATM, well, one and starting one - finally give that old RQ 6e a spin, and back then I just wanted to get into players' shoes again after like...2 years of straight GM only).
'Wishlists' are the devil to some people.
I have seen two extremes of this.
1) A 4E dnd game where the players essentially got every single item they wanted for a build.
(Close in effect to this was a pathfinder game where the players essentially crafted every single item they wanted for builds.)
2) Other extreme was a gm that would use customized random item tables and a player who wanted to use an axe or spear was screwed because the gm only really allowed magic longswords and shortswords.
(This gm would not allow crafting other weapons, or questing for them, etc...just S.O.L.)
It's a matter of where the game is, which game we want to play. Distribution of treasure types can serve strategy-game interests - e.g., the frequency of just coming across magic swords is an advantage for fighters and thieves, whereas it may take considerable research or exploration to equip a cleric or magician - but that might not be what we're after.
In many games, the GM pretty much determines the scenario being played, it being understood that players will stay within that scope. What is to be had is therefore thoroughly a GM diktat rather than depending on player enterprise.
Quote from: Bill;762799'Wishlists' are the devil to some people.
I have seen two extremes of this.
1) A 4E dnd game where the players essentially got every single item they wanted for a build.
(Close in effect to this was a pathfinder game where the players essentially crafted every single item they wanted for builds.)
2) Other extreme was a gm that would use customized random item tables and a player who wanted to use an axe or spear was screwed because the gm only really allowed magic longswords and shortswords.
(This gm would not allow crafting other weapons, or questing for them, etc...just S.O.L.)
They define a ruleset that places the logical consistency and verisimilitude below the need to give the player what they wish. Even if it makes no in-game sense.
So yes, 'Devil' would be a good description for me.
Quote from: Bill;762799'Wishlists' are the devil to some people.
Since I treat D&D as a game, a "wishlist" is tantamount to playing Monopoly, expecting to get all the railroads, then getting pissed when you don't as your in-game goal wasn't achieved. In all honestly, just fucking play solo or something if your "build" will be incomplete without a specific bauble. How is that remotely entertaining?
Quote from: Rincewind1;762757This problem stems from demanded point buy combined with "magic shop" routine.
I have seen my colleague, a practical cardboard cutout 4venger in RL, cry recently how D&D Next is broken because Gauntlets of the Ogre Strength will lead to distancing Fighters further, since everyone can just take 8 str and buy them ASAP.
Well, no, not really, sort of...
See, if , as is the case in 4e , the rules assume or require you have access to magic items, then that is how you should charbuild for that ruleset. In many ways, its like making a Traveller sniper character around having a really good rifle - not unreasonable in a tech society; ditto with superheros like thor (the + lots hammer of great awesomeness and sexy beard stubble , remember ?)
The problem I and the others (for a change) are jumping up and down about is using a highly improbable example to criticize a mechanic - and I mean improbable in the statistical sense (probablity < the set of all possible outcomes observable), not the common usage (sometimes).
That isnt strictly entitlement, it is statistical innumeracy, I'd like to hope that the person presenting the argument would be swayed by an appeal to actual probablity, but the fact that chumps still play state lotteries does not fill me with hope. (eaxctly the same problem: Possible != probable. )
Although a big dollop of believing that "if it doesnt fit into my big big brain, then it is broken and here is my ex post facto argument using stupid numbers" does smack of a level of entitlement; plus, arguing that a mechanic in one set of rules is always applicable to another set of rulesules, and can be used to prove it is broken.
That, sir is entitlement.....
Also, define that S.O.L. Are we talking a fighter who swore terrible oaths to only use axes and spears? What on earth happened that he or she could not use swords, be they long or short? GM is fully within his right to manage the setting, regardless of how the player wants to "fashion accessorize." What sort of broken-ass game "crippled" his fighter so, what sort of mechanical penalty was he "staring down"?
QuoteQuote:
Whatever you do, just make sure the odds of a catastrophe are NEVER exactly a million to one. For some unknown reason it will happen 9 out of 10 times under those circumstances.
Quote from: Old Geezer;762768But nobody ever says "It's a 999,999 to one chance, but it might just work!"
Well, DUH. Its a genretrope discontinuity at
exactly that point estimate. Do the math or STFU.
Quote from: Bill;762799'Wishlists' are the devil to some people.
I have seen two extremes of this.
1) A 4E dnd game where the players essentially got every single item they wanted for a build.
(Close in effect to this was a pathfinder game where the players essentially crafted every single item they wanted for builds.)
2) Other extreme was a gm that would use customized random item tables and a player who wanted to use an axe or spear was screwed because the gm only really allowed magic longswords and shortswords.
(This gm would not allow crafting other weapons, or questing for them, etc...just S.O.L.)
Not a big fan of wishlists. I'm a big fan of randomized treasure. But the randomized treasure should include everything that *could* be found in the world, even if some things are more common.
But...
1) What's "common" should be made known to players before they start
2) I'm not a huge fan of systems that encourage people to specialize in one and only one weapon.
If you *are* playing a game where you need to specialize in one sort of weapon (4e is a good example), then there's somewhat more of an argument for 'tailored' treasure.
I think there is a happy middle-ground where if for example a player wants a magic axe, they can go to the local sage and ask about legends of magic axes and then set off down the relevant ruin/dungeon/nunnery and see if it is still there.
I am a fan of random treasure, because it just makes sense. A dragon's horde will have items from those it took the treasure from. That's pretty random. Deal with it.
And I really hate the trotted out argument, "Just because some people never had it as an issue doesn't mean it is in fact not an issue" every time someone says that things like GoOP don't actually break the game. Why? Because the opposite is also true Topher. Just because you and your players are whiny bitches and think it's a problem doesn't in fact mean that it's an actual problem.
The whole basis of that argument is dependent on "my opinion is more important than yours." I.e., it comes down to "if I say it's a problem, it is, but if you say it isn't, that doesn't mean it isn't."
Quote from: jadrax;762820I think there is a happy middle-ground where if for example a player wants a magic axe, they can go to the local sage and ask about legends of magic axes and then set off down the relevant ruin/dungeon/nunnery and see if it is still there.
Agreed. Sadly, the gm I mentioned would have the sage say "Sorry, no such axes exist"
Quote from: Sacrosanct;762822I am a fan of random treasure, because it just makes sense. A dragon's horde will have items from those it took the treasure from. That's pretty random. Deal with it.
And I really hate the trotted out argument, "Just because some people never had it as an issue doesn't mean it is in fact not an issue" every time someone says that things like GoOP don't actually break the game. Why? Because the opposite is also true Topher. Just because you and your players are whiny bitches and think it's a problem doesn't in fact mean that it's an actual problem.
The whole basis of that argument is dependent on "my opinion is more important than yours." I.e., it comes down to "if I say it's a problem, it is, but if you say it isn't, that doesn't mean it isn't."
I was going to say you must have read Topher's post.:)
Quote from: jadrax;762820I think there is a happy middle-ground where if for example a player wants a magic axe, they can go to the local sage and ask about legends of magic axes and then set off down the relevant ruin/dungeon/nunnery and see if it is still there.
That's how we usually ran it and it seems that's where 5e is going as a default with the hints they have dropped about downtime activities.
Have to agree that what presents a problem is often relative. I can see running 5th without any permanent magic at all (my second most favorite campaign had two permanent items in it, if I remember right). I think GoOP as they are are fine. I like the fact that they'll not only bump melee, but also Athletics (STR) checks. I do think the item has more cache if you're playing a 3d6 random roll game, though. One thing I just thought of: it doesn't like like there are Feats in BASIC 5E. So, the GoOP won't allow a warrior type to choose a feat instead of taking a STR bump (and still get the same benefit). They would let said warrior take his bump elsewhere. Of course, losing the gauntlets nullifies the approach.
Quote from: cranebump;762839Have to agree that what presents a problem is often relative. I can see running 5th without any permanent magic at all (my second most favorite campaign had two permanent items in it, if I remember right). I think GoOP as they are are fine. I like the fact that they'll not only bump melee, but also Athletics (STR) checks. I do think the item has more cache if you're playing a 3d6 random roll game, though. One thing I just thought of: it doesn't like like there are Feats in BASIC 5E. So, the GoOP won't allow a warrior type to choose a feat instead of taking a STR bump (and still get the same benefit). They would let said warrior take his bump elsewhere. Of course, losing the gauntlets nullifies the approach.
I think most the problem is that in BASIC there won't be any feats for force that choice of not maxing your primary out. For me I could easily run some class with a 18 with a feat quite nicely and be right with the guy that has a 20 and no feat.
Quote from: cranebump;762839Of course, losing the gauntlets nullifies the approach.
Oh we couldn't have that happen! Apparently only passive aggressive sadist gms take away the player's err I mean the character's toys.
How do Gauntlets of Ogre Power break the game? Is there even any argument made, or just assumed?
Quote from: Necrozius;762843Oh we couldn't have that happen! Apparently only passive aggressive sadist gms take away the player's err I mean the character's toys.
Ah, imagine the howls of outrage when the Gauntlets of Ogre Strength actually turn out to be Gauntlets of Ogre Dexterity...
That will teach you to generate a Str 9, Dex 15 fighter just because you feel entitled to magic gloves.
Quote from: CRKrueger;762846How do Gauntlets of Ogre Power break the game? Is there even any argument made, or just assumed?
There isn't. It's not a game breaking issue, it's a fairness issue that people are assuming is gamebreaking. I.e., if anything isn't perceived as being fair, then it breaks the game.
Specifically, the argument is, "why allocate any of my points/high rolls on STR if I'll just get gauntlets anyway? It's not fair for me to spend my ability bonuses on strength just to end up with gauntlets later on."
Naturally, this all assumes that their PC
will end up with GoOP at some point.
Christ I hate the term 'build' and all the entitlement that comes with it.
Having said that, if I'm creating an adventure and I know Steve's Dwarf uses an axe, and Gord's Ranger already has a magic sword, I might just put a magic axe in a treasure hoard. Not because Steve has a build in mind, or a wishlist, or because he feels entitled at all. But because I happen to think in this case it's fun and fair.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;762848There isn't. It's not a game breaking issue, it's a fairness issue that people are assuming is gamebreaking. I.e., if anything isn't perceived as being fair, then it breaks the game.
Specifically, the argument is, "why allocate any of my points/high rolls on STR if I'll just get gauntlets anyway? It's not fair for me to spend my ability bonuses on strength just to end up with gauntlets later on."
Naturally, this all assumes that their PC will end up with GoOP at some point.
It's the old everything must be balanced between players and characters 100% of the time mentality.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;762822The whole basis of that argument is dependent on "my opinion is more important than yours." I.e., it comes down to "if I say it's a problem, it is, but if you say it isn't, that doesn't mean it isn't."
* cries while rocking back and forth gently in a fetal position *
I find it bizarre that anyone assumes any magic item is going to be available to any character. This is like assuming your character will eventually face every monster in the monster manual. Or assuming your wizard will eventually know every spell in the spell book.
It is an old saw to blame video game culture, but I blame video game culture.
Also, whoever expressed disgust at the term 'build' can just say it twice so my view is covered as well.
Quote from: Marleycat;762825I was going to say you must have read Topher's post.:)
It wasn't my imagination, then?
Quote from: Sacrosanct;762848There isn't. It's not a game breaking issue, it's a fairness issue that people are assuming is gamebreaking. I.e., if anything isn't perceived as being fair, then it breaks the game.
Specifically, the argument is, "why allocate any of my points/high rolls on STR if I'll just get gauntlets anyway? It's not fair for me to spend my ability bonuses on strength just to end up with gauntlets later on."
Naturally, this all assumes that their PC will end up with GoOP at some point.
So what if you got a 19 so Gauntlets don't raise your strength. Do they still do the Girdle, Gauntlets, Hammer combo? Gauntlets still work if you're enfeebled or str poisoned, a frickin ton of reasons their still useful.
Besides anyone who says it's "unfair to make me get a high str only to give me a magic item that could do it for free" needs to go back to kindergarten and relive life with a different set of parents. A set hopefully that isn't going to cripple them for life.
I like not having to rely on magic equipment to be a badass anyway.
Quote from: Marleycat;762874It's the old everything must be balanced between players and characters 100% of the time mentality.
More specifically, it's the "I'm going to throw a temper tantrum if another player's PC is better than mine, or gets a better treasure than me."
Quote from: Sacrosanct;762886More specifically, it's the "I'm going to throw a temper tantrum if another player's PC is better than mine, or gets a better treasure than me."
Well he can temper tantrum himself to some other game then.
Quote from: Haffrung;762869Christ I hate the term 'build' and all the entitlement that comes with it.
It seems some people consider their characters as Barbie dolls to accessorize.
Hmm, i'll have that Wand of Fear, those Boots of Levitation and Lipstick of Why Does the DM Hate Me! Please.
Quote from: Marleycat;762887Well he can temper tantrum himself to some other game then.
One of my player's just was voted off player's island, that was kind of a bummer.
Quote from: dragoner;762903One of my player's just was voted off player's island, that was kind of a bummer.
What happened exactly?
Quote from: Zachary The First;760240Also, I wonder what AM is up to? It doesn't look like he's posted here in a long time. I wonder if he's sticking with 4e or making the jump, or went a different direction?
That's probably one of the most regrettable things in my eyes about the 4e Wars. Before 4e, the conversation was different, and he was a positive part of that.
I talk to AM occasionally as we live close by. Far as I can tell, he hasn't touched 4e in ages; I get the impression there was some serious drama with the RPGA (of the "AM did a lot of work for them and they treated him very poorly" variety), but I'm not certain. Took a good long break from rpgs to work on other things, but has resumed occasional gaming since. I believe he's run some Traveller, Tunnels & Trolls, and some other things over the past year-plus. Pretty sure he's holding off on getting involved with 5e at this point.
And as evidence that forum argument-holes are a whole 'nother world, I have so say that in person he's a super nice guy. Life is strange.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;762913What happened exactly?
He was new to a more established group, some of us have been gaming together for years. The new guy had a lot of energy, and good ideas, but he never sync'd with the rest of the party; also he wanted to take it into a more military direction than the agreed upon science-mystery direction. It went off the rails for a minute and the rest of the players came to me and asked me to ask him to go. Which I did feel bad for him, and he had some legitimate complaints, though I think he was coming from a different gaming background.
Quote from: dragoner;762937He was new to a more established group, some of us have been gaming together for years. The new guy had a lot of energy, and good ideas, but he never sync'd with the rest of the party; also he wanted to take it into a more military direction than the agreed upon science-mystery direction. It went off the rails for a minute and the rest of the players came to me and asked me to ask him to go. Which I did feel bad for him, and he had some legitimate complaints, though I think he was coming from a different gaming background.
Did this blindside you? Because if not you should have taken him aside before that happened. If you did already what more could you have done seriously.
Quote from: John Quixote;7579245th edition heralds the end of "agenda-driven" game design infecting D&D. All of the fanboys over at TBP and WizCom who like their D&D to be niche and narrow get to watch helplessly while their fine-tuned, small-tent wargame shrivels and dies on the branch.
Well, the people I really despised, the Forgists who felt 4e finally made D&D into the "gamist" game they thought it always should have been forced to be, had already long since realized that the game was dead.
But it will be a special joy to me that what it's being replaced with is a game that goes back toward old-school roots and that took on the RPGPundit as its creative consultant.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;762848There isn't. It's not a game breaking issue, it's a fairness issue that people are assuming is gamebreaking. I.e., if anything isn't perceived as being fair, then it breaks the game.
Specifically, the argument is, "why allocate any of my points/high rolls on STR if I'll just get gauntlets anyway? It's not fair for me to spend my ability bonuses on strength just to end up with gauntlets later on."
Naturally, this all assumes that their PC will end up with GoOP at some point.
I don't think that is the problem as much as a PC who isn't strength based now has the same Strength as the Fighter who 'had to' allocate points to that strength.
It will also depend upon what exactly GoOP will be affecting. Stats in D&D are not created equal.
I also realize that everyone here bitching about this have been and will always be in groups that that never have and will never have a single negative thought when in comes to magic items. Their groups are in perfect harmony.
Quote from: Simlasa;757952THAT description goes a long way to selling me on buying the book I had no intention of buying.
If 5e actually ends up being as modular/customizable as you're making it sound... that would be pretty cool. It's one of the many things I like about BRP as well.
That was the idea, right from the very start.
Quote from: Marleycat;762941Did this blindside you? Because if not you should have taken him aside before that happened. If you did already what more could you have done seriously.
I tried, like I said, he had a hell of a lot of traction. I should have been more forceful in the beginning, but part of me wanted to see where he was going. He could fit in another campaign, his stuff was good and interesting.
It is just one of those things that happens in games.
Quote from: CRKrueger;762846How do Gauntlets of Ogre Power break the game? Is there even any argument made, or just assumed?
Doesn't break it, I don't think. Lots of other arguments at the wiz site about balance and fairness (from people who play with that foremost in mind). Really strikes me as much ado about esteem issues that most gamers could give a shit about.
I never had a problem with 4e magic items. The "wishlist" whining is mostly people not paying attention to how 4e works.
Most magic items in 4e are class dependent, even more than build dependent so random item dropping can lead to many items in the campaign usable by players.
That's not an issue in worlds where there are magic stores where the PCs can just trade in stuff for stuff they want. It's not an issue with PCs who can craft items using residuum.
But if that's not your game world, then PCs with unusable items are kinda screwed. And let's admit it, players like goodies their PCs can use right away. It's fun to find Item X and use it later that same adventure.
And it wasn't game breaking or hobby destroying to make 75% or even 100% of your treasure usable by at least one PC in your party.
Quote from: honesttiago;762965Doesn't break it, I don't think. Lots of other arguments at the wiz site about balance and fairness (from people who play with that foremost in mind). Really strikes me as much ado about esteem issues that most gamers could give a shit about.
yep. They existed way back in 1e, and I never played with or saw people who got all upset because some other PC got the girdle of giant strength. Everyone was a team, and team victory was more important than individual victory. I don't care if another player got a better magic item as long as I was having fun.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;762970yep. They existed way back in 1e, and I never played with or saw people who got all upset because some other PC got the girdle of giant strength. Everyone was a team, and team victory was more important than individual victory. I don't care if another player got a better magic item as long as I was having fun.
Cooperation and fun both are the antithesis of optionmization and CharOP. Because the latter strikes me as competition.
Quote from: Marleycat;762971Cooperation and fun both are the antithesis of optionmization and CharOP. Because the latter strikes me as competition.
Get the fuck over yourself.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;762975Get the fuck over yourself.
Struck a nerve it seems.;)
I never said it was an objective fact though concerning my conclusion. My advice? Read carefully.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;762970yep. They existed way back in 1e, and I never played with or saw people who got all upset because some other PC got the girdle of giant strength. Everyone was a team, and team victory was more important than individual victory. I don't care if another player got a better magic item as long as I was having fun.
Not sure that is true I once killed our party wizard cos he wouldn't give me a bunch of magic items I wanted to sell to buy stuff.
I think the idea of we are all a team is just one of a range a play styles. I sit much more in the we are all independent realised protagonists who may currently be working together because we share a common goal but who may well find we have conflicted loyalities at some future state.
So in this case Nefflin Sandeman cared entirely if you had something he wanted. In fact if you found a wand of fireballs he wouldn't want you to have it becuase you might use up its charges and make it worth less cash later so he woudl prefer to steal it now and deprive the party of its protective power unless it looked like we were entirely desperate. He was a NE theif after all.
Whereas Sgt Crowe was a beleiver in making use of all our resources as a group to ensure his survival with the minimum ammount of risk and effort on his part. So if the wand of fireballs meant that he didn't need to engage the orge in hand to hand combat, all in favour. (N fighter)
etc
etc
Quote from: Marleycat;762976Struck a nerve it seems.;)
"filled with that sort of anger which tells an author that he (sic) has hit his target" -- C.S. Lewis,
Screwtape Letters, preface to the paperback edition.
Quote from: Spinachcat;762968I never had a problem with 4e magic items. The "wishlist" whining is mostly people not paying attention to how 4e works.
Most magic items in 4e are class dependent, even more than build dependent so random item dropping can lead to many items in the campaign usable by players.
That's not an issue in worlds where there are magic stores where the PCs can just trade in stuff for stuff they want. It's not an issue with PCs who can craft items using residuum.
But if that's not your game world, then PCs with unusable items are kinda screwed. And let's admit it, players like goodies their PCs can use right away. It's fun to find Item X and use it later that same adventure.
And it wasn't game breaking or hobby destroying to make 75% or even 100% of your treasure usable by at least one PC in your party.
For me its all about setting consistency.
If you are playing some uber tweaked build of some bizaare edge class that fights using dual weild miniature tridents don't be suprised if none of the specialist magic items appearing in "Splat book 34" that are tailored to your class turn up.
Likewise if the monster has a magic sword, profided they have opposable thumbs they are probably using it to try and kill you.
Quote from: Marleycat;762976Struck a nerve it seems.;)
I never said it was an objective fact though concerning my conclusion. My advice? Read carefully.
Ohh, I see.
So people dogpiling on me for not constantly saying "this is just my opinion" is just fucking peachy, but you get a free pass because you are part of the special club that holds your opinion?
Yep, makes a whole lotta fucking sense to me.
Quote from: One Horse Town;762891It seems some people consider their characters as Barbie dolls to accessorize.
Hmm, i'll have that Wand of Fear, those Boots of Levitation and Lipstick of Why Does the DM Hate Me! Please.
Oh. my. god. I HAVE to go scribble up a gothic version of that lipstick. I'm thinking the shade will be "ebony," maybe "puce."
/iambic meter "My lips are puce." Gordón, of Sprint ads
Quote from: Sommerjon;762944Their groups are in perfect harmony.
More likely that their groups simply don't act like spoiled brats on Christmas morning when they find out they didn't get both a PS and an Xbox, whichever.
Quote from: Marleycat;762971Cooperation and fun both are the antithesis of optionmization and CharOP. Because the latter strikes me as competition.
Pretty much, some people might play that way ... ;)
Quote from: jibbajibba;762977Not sure that is true I once killed our party wizard cos he wouldn't give me a bunch of magic items I wanted to sell to buy stuff.
I think the idea of we are all a team is just one of a range a play styles. I sit much more in the we are all independent realised protagonists who may currently be working together because we share a common goal but who may well find we have conflicted loyalities at some future state.
So in this case Nefflin Sandeman cared entirely if you had something he wanted. In fact if you found a wand of fireballs he wouldn't want you to have it becuase you might use up its charges and make it worth less cash later so he woudl prefer to steal it now and deprive the party of its protective power unless it looked like we were entirely desperate. He was a NE theif after all.
Whereas Sgt Crowe was a beleiver in making use of all our resources as a group to ensure his survival with the minimum ammount of risk and effort on his part. So if the wand of fireballs meant that he didn't need to engage the orge in hand to hand combat, all in favour. (N fighter)
etc
etc
It's why I understand you and your playstyle because it's classic White Wolf and that's my game. In Dnd? I'd off you after you achieved my goals and blame somebody else.:)
I don't need grey in Dnd sorry. Other games do it far better and I use them.
Quote from: dragoner;762984Pretty much, some people might play that way ... ;)
Of course they do.:)
Quote from: CRKrueger;762983More likely that their groups simply don't act like spoiled brats on Christmas morning when they find out they didn't get both a PS and an Xbox, whichever.
More likely that they are blowing smoke up their own rose tinted asses.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;762981Ohh, I see.
So people dogpiling on me for not constantly saying "this is just my opinion" is just fucking peachy, but you get a free pass because you are part of the special club that holds your opinion?
Yep, makes a whole lotta fucking sense to me.
Grow up, this is no dogpile. Me posting in that stupid GoOP thread at TBP was a dogpile. Did I bitch? No I did not.
Quote from: Opaopajr;762982Oh. my. god. I HAVE to go scribble up a gothic version of that lipstick. I'm thinking the shade will be "ebony," maybe "puce."
/iambic meter "My lips are puce." Gordón, of Sprint ads
That's pronounced "Gor Don" thank you very much.
Quote from: Marleycat;762990Of course they do.:)
I'll admit a strange fascination at people's different play-styles, esp if you (I) wind up in a game with them.
Quote from: Marleycat;762988It's why I understand you and your playstyle because it's classic White Wolf and that's my game. In Dnd? I'd off you after you achieved my goals and blame somebody else.:)
I don't need grey in Dnd sorry. Other games do it far better and I use them.
Ma'am I have been playing this was since I escaped "classic dungeon crawls" back in '82 to to call it classic white wolf when it predates the company by nearly ten years :)
I would call it roleplaying :)
If pushed I might conceed it was character driven rpg play as opposed to tactics drive, exploration or puzzle driven.
Quote from: Sommerjon;762991More likely that they are blowing smoke up their own rose tinted asses.
Look everybody, it's Sommerjon again with another drive-by jab at the grognards.
He's such an iconoclast. :cool:
Quote from: Marleycat;762971Cooperation and fun both are the antithesis of optionmization and CharOP. Because the latter strikes me as competition.
I can see how some groups might "collaboratively" optimize their characters to cover all bases as a team effort. But I've never personally seen that happen.
Quote from: jadrax;762847Ah, imagine the howls of outrage when the Gauntlets of Ogre Strength actually turn out to be Gauntlets of Ogre Dexterity...
That will teach you to generate a Str 9, Dex 15 fighter just because you feel entitled to magic gloves.
You know,
Even though the 'cursed' concept you just mentioned would get some laughs,
Gauntlets of Ogre Power bestowing a high strength and really, really low dexterity might be kinda cool.
Quote from: Bill;763026Gauntlets of Ogre Power bestowing a high strength and really, really low dexterity might be kinda cool.
Items that make you think about using them, for which you need to weigh the pros and cons, are way more preferable to and more interesting than "+X to $mechanic."
Quote from: Haffrung;762869Christ I hate the term 'build' and all the entitlement that comes with it.
Having said that, if I'm creating an adventure and I know Steve's Dwarf uses an axe, and Gord's Ranger already has a magic sword, I might just put a magic axe in a treasure hoard. Not because Steve has a build in mind, or a wishlist, or because he feels entitled at all. But because I happen to think in this case it's fun and fair.
I do that as well.
Realistically, I don't/can't predetermine all possible sources of magic weapons before the campaign starts.
Disclaimer, I probably do cross the line into asshattery when I deny buildmongers their special toys.
I also might let a fighter with godawful stats find a better magic item than mr buildmonger.
I confess, I do that on the rare occasions I feel it will improve the game.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;763029Items that make you think about using them, for which you need to weigh the pros and cons, are way more preferable to and more interesting than "+X to $mechanic."
Good point. It also may address the potential problem of some magic items being 'game breaking'
In 1E dnd, gauntlets of Ogre power are pretty much game breaking.
In 1E, a fighter with a 15 strength gets no bonuses to hit or damage.
Put on the gauntlets, and he gets +3 to hit, +6 damage.
In many cases it makes the fighter three times more powerful, or more.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;762883I like not having to rely on magic equipment to be a badass anyway.
Me too, but a few players are actually playing their Vorpal sword, not the warrior wielding it :)
Quote from: Sommerjon;762944I don't think that is the problem as much as a PC who isn't strength based now has the same Strength as the Fighter who 'had to' allocate points to that strength.
Why is this a problem? Perhaps the PC who "had" to allocate points to strength has a magic weapon and the PC who got the gauntlets doesn't.
The key point here is that magic items in 5E are completely OPTIONAL. They are items of
treasure not expected gear. The very idea of planning something as intrinsic as ability scores on the possible future acquisition of an item of treasure that may or may not ever be found in the campaign goes so fucking far beyond stupid it can hardly be described.
Quote from: Sommerjon;762944I also realize that everyone here bitching about this have been and will always be in groups that that never have and will never have a single negative thought when in comes to magic items. Their groups are in perfect harmony.
How about a more logical explanation such as being mature adults who can somehow manage to play an elfgame without squabbling over imaginary treasure like 3 year olds. Hard to accept isn't it?
Quote from: GnomeWorks;762981Ohh, I see.
So people dogpiling on me for not constantly saying "this is just my opinion" is just fucking peachy, but you get a free pass because you are part of the special club that holds your opinion?
Yep, makes a whole lotta fucking sense to me.
A sentiment struck close to home and you looked like an ass. Own it and get the fuck over yourself.
Quote from: Sommerjon;762991More likely that they are blowing smoke up their own rose tinted asses.
Translation: The people I play with are immature so everyone else has to be the same.
Quote from: Bill;763031Good point. It also may address the potential problem of some magic items being 'game breaking'
Either you make the opportunity cost something that needs to be weighed, as in Pathfinder where all the physical stat-boosters occupy the same slot (which they then screwed up by having one item that could boost all three stats), or you put the opportunity cost directly into the items, by giving them drawbacks that don't make players immediately chuck the item into the "screw that" pile.
Anything that gives players the opportunity to make decisions like that, rather than being "obvious choices," is a win in my book.
This fixation on fucking Gauntlets of Ogre Power is pathetic. It's rules-lawyering on a set of rules that isn't fully out yet, crying that 5e is not 4e, and the kind of theorywank char-op white-room bollocks that system wonks and non-players get their jollies from.
My Warpriest Cleric demands the magic items he is entitled to: Girdle of Storm Giant Strength, Gauntlets of Ogre power, and twin Hammers of Thunderbolts.
Then he dual wields the Hammers and solos the campaign setting.
Quote from: Bill;763042My Warpriest Cleric demands the magic items he is entitled to: Girdle of Storm Giant Strength, Gauntlets of Ogre power, and twin Hammers of Thunderbolts.
Then he dual wields the Hammers and solos the campaign setting.
'How about a tetanus shot?' 'I don't have tetanus.' 'You do now.'
Quote from: One Horse Town;763040This fixation on fucking Gauntlets of Ogre Power is pathetic. It's rules-lawyering on a set of rules that isn't fully out yet, crying that 5e is not 4e, and the kind of theorywank char-op white-room bollocks that system wonks and non-players get their jollies from.
Pretty much. The "WAAAAH! I wasted my stat bump!" argument is particularly whiny. Good God, if I DO have a fighter at 20-STR, and someone else needed gauntlets to get to 19, I'd probably just have him in-game smack talk the "weakling" about his "magic crutch."
Quote from: Marleycat;762767It's all the rage at the WotC and TBP boards. My question is do they actually ever play the game? This is why you roll your scores and then die for being stupid enough to build your character around an item that may never appear in the campaign. Who actually does this in reality?
Deckbuilding board gamers and about 50% of the players of Race for the Galaxy. In RFTG you would see about once a week someone posting that the game was broken or unplayable because they could not play a certain point generating engine every time. Or getting beat by someone who is paying attention to the deck and anticipating the chances of getting XYZ card. Vs those who play the game fluidly and adapt to what they have in their hand rather than set to a pattern and not bend.
Also in Dragon Storm if you had an item card. During looting you could play that card to find the item. Preferrably in a way that made sense. RuinsWorld had a simmilar mechanic and possibly also the WW Changeling game Arcadia: The Wyld Hunt. Been over a decade since gotten to play. So not positive.
And no. I cannot see this as a sane decision in an RPG unless that player is somehow persuading the DM to allow this. Or it is built into the RPG like in 4e or Dragon Storm. And even there the GM can rule that it doesnt make sense for that item to be there.
Quote from: Bill;763026Gauntlets of Ogre Power bestowing a high strength and really, really low dexterity might be kinda cool.
Actually, I have been replaying Baldur's Gate and just picked up a belt that set your Str and Dex to that of an Ogre* and it did strike me as a rather cool item. Although I ditched it as I couldn't live with Jaheira being Dex 6.
*may have been giant, but summat big and clumsy.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;763029Items that make you think about using them, for which you need to weigh the pros and cons, are way more preferable to and more interesting than "+X to $mechanic."
Or at the very least gets the player or character wondering why its there or why it does what it does.
A +2 staff is mundane as all hell if its just handed out from the loot wham bam.
A +1 staff carved with battling dragons down the length and found on a skeleton in tattered mages robes of a school not seen in the region in decades -
that grabs my interest.
Quote from: cranebump;763045Pretty much. The "WAAAAH! I wasted my stat bump!" argument is particularly whiny. Good God, if I DO have a fighter at 20-STR, and someone else needed gauntlets to get to 19, I'd probably just have him in-game smack talk the "weakling" about his "magic crutch."
AND.. they're physical items that can be lost, stolen, cursed, broken or who knows what else. I don't think that Ability drain is a thing anymore, so your stats are pretty safe.
Of course, for some gaming groups the very IDEA of a player losing his entitled magic items is just... It's the meanie GM TAKING AWAY their stuff. Mind you, the people who whined that to me were the same people complaining about having magic items in the first place.
Well, which is it? No magic items because of game balance issues or every player character gets to keep their acquired magic items FOREVER?
Quote from: Necrozius;763025I can see how some groups might "collaboratively" optimize their characters to cover all bases as a team effort. But I've never personally seen that happen.
There is nothing wrong with putting your high score in your primary stat but to build a character around an item? Or worse a magic item? Or think that if you don't have the maximum ability score allowed or best weapon in specific situations you are not pulling your weight? Bah!
Hmm. I just got banned from TBP for Rule 1, whatever that is. Interesting. In the same thread someone else's post was basically just "FUCK YOU" and that's okay for some reason.
Probably for the best because I'm just getting angry debating over wild speculation over dungeons and dragons. I can understand frustration over concrete, core rules, but over optional stuff like magic items... I genuinely think that's insane.
Quote from: jadrax;763048Actually, I have been replaying Baldur's Gate and just picked up a belt that set your Str and Dex to that of an Ogre* and it did strike me as a rather cool item. Although I ditched it as I couldn't live with Jaheira being Dex 6.
*may have been giant, but summat big and clumsy.
Another problem with Jaheira at 6 dex....Makes it even more awkward when she starts a romance dialogue while you are in battle.
Quote from: Necrozius;763078Hmm. I just got banned from TBP for Rule 1, whatever that is. Interesting. In the same thread someone else's post was basically just "FUCK YOU" and that's okay for some reason.
Probably for the best because I'm just getting angry debating over wild speculation over dungeons and dragons. I can understand frustration over concrete, core rules, but over optional stuff like magic items... I genuinely think that's insane.
Oh, Rule One just means "We don't like you."
What is Rule 1? Seriously.
That "Gauntlets of Ogre Power break the game!!!" thread is kind of thing of beauty in that it's a pure distillation of everything silly about the obsessive rules lawyering/optimization uber alles focus that started creeping into the game from about the late 3.5 era onward.
At least it looks like the trend is about to be reversed.
Quote from: Rincewind1;763083Oh, Rule One just means "We don't like you."
No that's Rule 10. Rule 1 is, you criticized a game we like, therefore you're edition warring.
Quote from: CRKrueger;763114No that's Rule 10. Rule 1 is, you criticized a game we like, therefore you're edition warring.
Hmmm I didn't even mention 3e or 4e. Basically I went against the echo chamber's predominant sound and defended myself from snark. Maybe I was too snarky right back. The tone of that thread rubbed me thr wrong way. They were claiming (some with their patented game designer hats on for extra import) that this one magic item in a starter set spelled doom for he credibility of a game as a whole. Insane.
Quote from: CRKrueger;763114No that's Rule 10. Rule 1 is, you criticized a game we like, therefore you're edition warring.
I thought that was Rule 0, my bad.
Quote from: Necrozius;763120Basically I went against the echo chamber's predominant sound and defended myself from snark. .
That's your mistake right there.
Quote from: One Horse Town;763040... It's rules-lawyering on a set of rules that isn't fully out yet, crying that 5e is not 4e, and the kind of theorywank char-op white-room bollocks that system wonks and non-players get their jollies from.
Meh - it's just the Grinch Gang getting pissed off at all the singing going on in Whoville. If they could, they'd strap a giant sled to their underfed dog, slide down into all the FLGS outlets, and steal all the Basic Box sets on Wednesday night.
'cause their hearts are all two sizes too small.
Quote from: Necrozius;763120Basically I went against the echo chamber's predominant sound and defended myself from snark.
Despite all the shit I've pulled and gotten away with Over There, that was what got me threatened with a permaban next time I "expressed pretend surprise that somebody plays differently from me."
Quote from: Necrozius;763120Hmmm I didn't even mention 3e or 4e. Basically I went against the echo chamber's predominant sound and defended myself from snark. Maybe I was too snarky right back. The tone of that thread rubbed me thr wrong way. They were claiming (some with their patented game designer hats on for extra import) that this one magic item in a starter set spelled doom for he credibility of a game as a whole. Insane.
You criticized the anointed and sanctioned edition warriors, therefore you're an edition warrior.
Quote from: CRKrueger;763135You criticized the anointed and sanctioned edition warriors, therefore you're an edition warrior.
Argh! I haven't even liked D&D since advanced 2nd (only through Ravenloft, strangely enough) Finally a new edition that I like comes out (so far, I mean, from what I briefly absorbed from the starter set) and they're bashing it on something that could easily be left out. It is hilarious how frustrating this is to me!
Less talk of The Boring Place and more talk of RPGs, please. It is a big reason I frequent here more often.
:cool:
Sorry.
Can we talk about the generic saves in this edition? I admit that I like this a lot. It reduces the importance of half of the stats over the others (see 3e) and it kind of simplifies the system a little. The GM could call for a attribute roll or attribute save based on each circumstance a little more easily. We'll, that is probably debatable: I've seen rather simple explanations of the more old school saves in LotFP and Labyrinth Lord. But anyways, I like this kind of streamlining.
Profiencency is very elegant and quick to use. Very similar to Castles and Crusades.
I agree with that; I'm struck by how much this game reminds me of C&C. I'm sure there will be differences in detail, but the basic flow of the mechanics is quite like it. Which makes sense; C&C was always intended to be 1E as written by someone who wasn't high on crack, and I think that might be a fair description of what WoC is after with 5E.
Quote from: Larsdangly;763151I agree with that; I'm struck by how much this game reminds me of C&C. I'm sure there will be differences in detail, but the basic flow of the mechanics is quite like it. Which makes sense; C&C was always intended to be 1E as written by someone who wasn't high on crack, and I think that might be a fair description of what WoC is after with 5E.
OK, I am pretty sure I have heard Castles & Crusades being mentioned as similar to 5e before. As I am not familiar with the system, can you give em a brief overview of how it compares?
Quote from: jadrax;763152OK, I am pretty sure I have heard Castles & Crusades being mentioned as similar to 5e before. As I am not familiar with the system, can you give em a brief overview of how it compares?
It's the way the use all 6 attributes for skill checks, saves etc. They use primes which is very similar to how 5e is using profiecency. It's not exactly the same but they both use the same basic thing to have 1 mechanic handle a bunch of things.
universal saves in 5e remind me of, "let's just implement the old ability checks in AD&D, but clean them up and apply that concept for everything, and we can get rid of the weird saving throw charts"
Quote from: Necrozius;763078Probably for the best because I'm just getting angry debating over wild speculation over dungeons and dragons. I can understand frustration over concrete, core rules, but over optional stuff like magic items... I genuinely think that's insane.
To provide a moment's voice for the opposition ...
From my perspective, the gauntlets are a mildly problematic device that could probably be implemented in a way that's less likely to accidentally create CoDzilla or the like (I like the model provided by the 1E
gauntlets of dexterity, which provide diminishing returns but are never useless). The issue for me is the combination of that problematic element with their inclusion in the Starter Set; I'm concerned that they might wind up creating some of the 'my cleric or Finesse fighter can do everything the Str-based fighter can do
and more' situation and wind up frustrating and alienating new players.
Still, it's a minor point. I'm more concerned about the bloat of options to manage on the 5E cleric. And while I'm leaning skeptical again, I'll download the Basic rules and give them a look. All in all, though, 13th Age is looking like it'll be more my speed; hopefully we can hack support for one into the other easily.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;763168All in all, though, 13th Age is looking like it'll be more my speed; hopefully we can hack support for one into the other easily.
:forge:
Haven't seen that one used in a while, that's all.
Quote from: CRKrueger;763174:forge:
Haven't seen that one used in a while, that's all.
I'm well aware I'll be one of the first ones sacrificed on the Altar of Demogygax when the OSR Revolution comes. :)
Quote from: Exploderwizard;763035Why is this a problem? Perhaps the PC who "had" to allocate points to strength has a magic weapon and the PC who got the gauntlets doesn't.
The key point here is that magic items in 5E are completely OPTIONAL. They are items of treasure not expected gear. The very idea of planning something as intrinsic as ability scores on the possible future acquisition of an item of treasure that may or may not ever be found in the campaign goes so fucking far beyond stupid it can hardly be described.
You don't have to 'plan' on it. The
random acquisition of the item gives a PC far greater oomph. It doesn't even need to be the Wizard. A Dex based Fighter who
completely optionally randomly acquires GoOP now has more options without having to make a consequential choice. It's free.
Taking out the combat part of strength. The GoOP also will be muffing up saves, skills, encumbrance, etc.
No lets not look at this logically, we''l just say
"that magic items in 5E are completely OPTIONAL." and everything will be right as rain. We all know that everyone will be playing this way...:rolleyes:
Quote from: Exploderwizard;763035How about a more logical explanation such as being mature adults who can somehow manage to play an elfgame without squabbling over imaginary treasure like 3 year olds. Hard to accept isn't it?
Nah, I'd rather stay with the common sense where every group has had someone comment that they haven't gotten a 'good' magic item.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;763035Translation: The people I play with are immature so everyone else has to be the same.
Translation: Holy Shit he is spot on, better pull out
we play with mature adults and you play with immature fucks line to cover our asses.
GM: ...and Gauntlets of Ogre Power.
Players: Waaaaaaaaaaa!
GM: WTF?
Kindergarten Teacher: "Did you bring enough for everybody?"
GM: "No, and who the hell are you?"
Players: "Waaaaaaaaaaa!"
Kindergarten Teacher: You'll have to stand in the corner, Mr. GM. It's ok, my little dungeonmuggles, you can all have Gauntlets...and ice cweam.
Players: "Yaaaaaaaaaaay!"
Quote from: CRKrueger;763237Kindergarten Teacher: "Did you bring enough for everybody?"
"
Lol. This nails it.
Quote from: Sommerjon;763227You don't have to 'plan' on it. The random acquisition of the item gives a PC far greater oomph. It doesn't even need to be the Wizard. A Dex based Fighter who completely optionally randomly acquires GoOP now has more options without having to make a consequential choice. It's free.
Sure if you roll something really powerful on the random treasure table, the guy who takes the item will get far greater oomph than other characters. This is part of what makes the game exciting. I mean, if every treasure horde is regulated to ensure no one every has anything more powerful or interesting than anyone else, that seems kind of dull to me.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;763244Sure if you roll something really powerful on the random treasure table, the guy who takes the item will get far greater oomph than other characters. This is part of what makes the game exciting. I mean, if every treasure horde is regulated to ensure no one every has anything more powerful or interesting than anyone else, that seems kind of dull to me.
Dull as dishwater. Magic items can also come and go. Those are nice gauntlets but they can go bye bye after one failed breath weapon save. Easy come easy go. Grab what you can when it appears but be prepared to lose it. There is always more stuff around the next corner.
Yeah, I like random treasure. Its like video games in a roguelike game, or a game with procedurally generated equipment like Diablo or Borderlands, its always really fun to me to find random cool stuff that is super badass for my character, or sometimes just having to deal with mediocre junk because of the luck of the draw.
Its part of the "exploration" of the gaming space to me.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;763258Dull as dishwater. Magic items can also come and go. Those are nice gauntlets but they can go bye bye after one failed breath weapon save. Easy come easy go. Grab what you can when it appears but be prepared to lose it. There is always more stuff around the next corner.
It's ironic that people whine so much about the rust monster as the go-to tool of asshole GMs, and yet as players they've been skating by with regular magic items that have been as hard to destroy as artifacts. Sounds like their GMs have been cutting them a kilometer of slack to me.
I've seen players have dice-throwing, character-sheet-ripping-up, take-my-dice-and-go-home tantrums over a destroyed or stolen magic item, but compared to the entitlement that I see in some players whose "build" requires a certain item, the former is about as bad as a fart in a elevator; it's repulsive in the moment, but the sort of thing you can laugh about with your friend once the stench has cleared.
The "build" entitlement makes me want to put my foot so far up their ass that they're chewing my toenails. That was my one and only experience with organized play.
Quote from: Sommerjon;763227You don't have to 'plan' on it. The random acquisition of the item gives a PC far greater oomph. It doesn't even need to be the Wizard. A Dex based Fighter who completely optionally randomly acquires GoOP now has more options without having to make a consequential choice. It's free.
*shrug* it's a matter of what's more interesting to you, planned character advancement or dealing with whatever random crap you find, good or bad.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;763263Yeah, I like random treasure. Its like video games in a roguelike game, or a game with procedurally generated equipment like Diablo or Borderlands, its always really fun to me to find random cool stuff that is super badass for my character, or sometimes just having to deal with mediocre junk because of the luck of the draw.
Its part of the "exploration" of the gaming space to me.
Yeah, logical placement based on the setting+ random is how I like to work it. I still have a gem creation chart riffed offand expanded from the old T&T Naked doom gem generator.
Quote from: CRKrueger;763237GM: ...and Gauntlets of Ogre Power.
Players: Waaaaaaaaaaa!
GM: WTF?
Kindergarten Teacher: "Did you bring enough for everybody?"
GM: "No, and who the hell are you?"
Players: "Waaaaaaaaaaa!"
Kindergarten Teacher: You'll have to stand in the corner, Mr. GM. It's ok, my little dungeonmuggles, you can all have Gauntlets...and ice cweam.
Players: "Yaaaaaaaaaaay!"
+1000
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;763244Sure if you roll something really powerful on the random treasure table, the guy who takes the item will get far greater oomph than other characters. This is part of what makes the game exciting. I mean, if every treasure horde is regulated to ensure no one every has anything more powerful or interesting than anyone else, that seems kind of dull to me.
It's a non-issue because by 5e's treasure rules if one player gets a permanent magic item they cannot have another until everyone in the party has one. See how easy that is from the DM side? Personally if I was using a standard array and decided I wanted to play a half orc heavy strength fighter (17 STR) screw ogre strength I would max my STR be better and hope I find a magic item that's better. It wouldn't be an issue with the 30 point playtest array in any case.
Yes you can go DEX fighter with 8 STR but I as a player wouldn't let that player just have the that item without negotiation if I were a player in that game. I'd force a dice off just for fun if they insisted to keep up with being an asshat.
Quote from: Marleycat;763286by 5e's treasure rules if one player gets a permanent magic item they cannot have another until everyone in the party has one.
...wait, what?
Quote from: GnomeWorks;763289...wait, what?
Yes, so stop being an asshat and just go with your actual concept. That's law for OP and damned obvious for home games. Since we all know this bullshit is given credence by OP you figure it out.
Most CharOP pricks want to bring in OP and published modules into the base game as law. Well anybody can play that game.
Given it's such an obvious rule that anybody sane would agree to and basically is part of any decent Social Contract outside Frank Trollman's bizarre reality. What an apt name don't you think?:)
What? You think attunement is in for laughs? Or that one guy gets several permanent items while others aren't the same unfair or something? Notice it isn't up to the DM hon.
Quote from: Marleycat;763291Yes, so stop being an asshat and just go with your actual concept. That's law for OP and damned obvious for home games. Since we all know this bullshit is given credence by OP you figure it out.
...wait,
what?
I don't even know what's happening in this thread anymore.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;763294...wait, what?
I don't even know what's happening in this thread anymore.
If it makes you feel any better, I've cracked the code (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=763257&postcount=213).
Quote from: GnomeWorks;763294...wait, what?
I don't even know what's happening in this thread anymore.
Welcome to RPGSite.
Quote from: Marleycat;763298Welcome to RPGSite.
I can only assume that your usage of "OP" in your post above doesn't mean "original post," and... that leaves me with no idea of how to parse it, in this context.
Quote from: Natty Bodak;763296If it makes you feel any better, I've cracked the code (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=763257&postcount=213).
I think I like you. Not really but it sounds good right?
Quote from: GnomeWorks;763299I can only assume that your usage of "OP" in your post above doesn't mean "original post," and... that leaves me with no idea of how to parse it, in this context.
Organized Play per Adventure League. It's kind of rule 0 in a serious home game just for fairness if nothing else.
Quote from: Natty Bodak;763264I've seen players have dice-throwing, character-sheet-ripping-up, take-my-dice-and-go-home tantrums over a destroyed or stolen magic item,.
I don't know if I'd say "Grow fucking up" or "Crom laughs at your tears of impotent rage, little man."
Quote from: GnomeWorks;763299I can only assume that your usage of "OP" in your post above doesn't mean "original post," and... that leaves me with no idea of how to parse it, in this context.
Marleycat is implying that if she were running a game she woudl make sure that the PCs shared out their items and everyone played nicely.
needless to say if I were in any of her games my first plan woudl be to steal everyone else's magic items.
To quote Blackadder -
E: Well Baldrick, a good night's work I think. It's time to divide the
loot, and I think it's only fair that we should share it equally.
B: Which I suppose is highwayman's talk for you get the cash, I get the
snotty hanky.
E: No, no. No, we did this robbery together, so you get half the cash.
(hands him a money-bag)
B: Oh, thank you Mr B.
E: This robbery, on the other hand, I'm doing alone. (holds his pistol
to Baldrick's head) Hand it over, your money or your life! (Baldrick
complies) You see? All fair and above board.
B: Fair enough. As long as I haven't been cheated, I don't mind.
Quote from: Marleycat;763286It's a non-issue because by 5e's treasure rules if one player gets a permanent magic item they cannot have another until everyone in the party has one.
Well, if I run 5e, I know the *very very very first* rule I'll be ignoring.
Quote from: robiswrong;763317Well, if I run 5e, I know the *very very very first* rule I'll be ignoring.
I don't even remember that rule. But yeah, treasure distribution is up to the party, not me as the DM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;763318But yeah, treasure distribution is up to the party, not me as the DM
"Here's the shit you find. I don't care what you do with it; hell, leave it here for all I care. But that's what's there."
I just put treasure there, semirandomly (the non-random stuff is stuff that is there for a reason in the setting). Its up to the players to decide who gets what.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;763322I just put treasure there, semirandomly (the non-random stuff is stuff that is there for a reason in the setting). Its up to the players to decide who gets what.
Exactly. But the handholding is there just to piss off the Gaming Den and Polaris. It's awesome. Most groups aren't stupid you know? They actually game not compete.
Quote from: jibbajibba;763309Marleycat is implying that if she were running a game she woudl make sure that the PCs shared out their items and everyone played nicely.
needless to say if I were in any of her games my first plan woudl be to steal everyone else's magic items.
To quote Blackadder -
E: Well Baldrick, a good night's work I think. It's time to divide the
loot, and I think it's only fair that we should share it equally.
B: Which I suppose is highwayman's talk for you get the cash, I get the
snotty hanky.
E: No, no. No, we did this robbery together, so you get half the cash.
(hands him a money-bag)
B: Oh, thank you Mr B.
E: This robbery, on the other hand, I'm doing alone. (holds his pistol
to Baldrick's head) Hand it over, your money or your life! (Baldrick
complies) You see? All fair and above board.
B: Fair enough. As long as I haven't been cheated, I don't mind.
Things evolve and another reason that if I gamed with you, one of us would be dead. Likely yourself. I never said I don't play your style I just prefer a different one.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;763258Dull as dishwater. Magic items can also come and go. Those are nice gauntlets but they can go bye bye after one failed breath weapon save. Easy come easy go. Grab what you can when it appears but be prepared to lose it. There is always more stuff around the next corner.
I agree, but I don't think it should be too hard to provide the kind of guidelines expected by the fan base of the past decade and a half. Then again, the people actually bitching already know what they want, so don't need WOTC to give them a Champions style point system or whatever.
Who is worried about whom, and does whom give a fuck? Probably not, since they're apparently not on speaking terms.
There might be things worth getting riled up about, but mostly I just see
Murphy's Rules gags.
Quote from: robiswrong;763317Well, if I run 5e, I know the *very very very first* rule I'll be ignoring.
If you are running Organized Play, you cannot ignore that rule.
If you are not running Organized Play, that rule does not apply.
Quote from: Marleycat;763300I think I like you. Not really but it sounds good right?
We rename you Elizacat. :cool:
Quote from: Sacrosanct;763318I don't even remember that rule. But yeah, treasure distribution is up to the party, not me as the DM
I'm not seeing any such rule in the playtest so far? Starter?
Quote from: jibbajibba;763309Marleycat is implying that if she were running a game she woudl make sure that the PCs shared out their items and everyone played nicely.
needless to say if I were in any of her games my first plan woudl be to steal everyone else's magic items.
To quote Blackadder -
E: Well Baldrick, a good night's work I think. It's time to divide the
loot, and I think it's only fair that we should share it equally.
B: Which I suppose is highwayman's talk for you get the cash, I get the
snotty hanky.
E: No, no. No, we did this robbery together, so you get half the cash.
(hands him a money-bag)
B: Oh, thank you Mr B.
E: This robbery, on the other hand, I'm doing alone. (holds his pistol
to Baldrick's head) Hand it over, your money or your life! (Baldrick
complies) You see? All fair and above board.
B: Fair enough. As long as I haven't been cheated, I don't mind.
That was a funny scene, but 'rob' a fellow PC and you will get murdered. Game disintegrates when players are not all on board to knife each other in the back :)
Quote from: Bill;763395That was a funny scene, but 'rob' a fellow PC and you will get murdered. Game disintegrates when players are not all on board to knife each other in the back :)
Yeah, it's totally alien to everyone i've ever played with.
Quote from: Omega;763376I'm not seeing any such rule in the playtest so far? Starter?
God, I hope not. I mean, are there REALLY people who are such gigantic whiners? I've had players go back and forth during treasure division, and had a few greedy players always trying to grab shit, but the "fairness" part of it is solved by the players, and they tend to be reasonable in their deliberations. Never had a group bitch about each of them having their own special badass item. Not yet, anyway. But if the rules are going to encourage everyone getting their own candy bar, then I'll have to ignore them or shift to a set of rules that doesn't codify mollycoddling.
We once had a "its what my character would do" thief who stole from the party. He didn't like it much when we showed him what it was our characters would do when they caught him.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;763402We once had a "its what my character would do" thief who stole from the party. He didn't like it much when we showed him what it was our characters would do when they caught him.
now THAT sounds all-too familiar.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;763402We once had a "its what my character would do" thief who stole from the party. He didn't like it much when we showed him what it was our characters would do when they caught him.
Whenever someone tells me that the want to play a Kender (or the setting's equivalent), this is the sort of warning that I give them.
That's a new school to me: hanging out with thieves and expecting them not to steal!
Are assassins just the margarine of evil, too?
There is no honor except among PCs, I guess; but are they marked with haloes, or what?
In D&D In my experience, a 1st level hobbit isn't likely to hang on to a ring of invisibility . Ditto gauntlets of ogre power.
Quote from: Phillip;763414That's a new school to me: hanging out with thieves and expecting them not to steal!
Are assassins just the margarine of evil, too?
There is no honor except among PCs, I guess; but are they marked with haloes, or what?
In D&D In my experience, a 1st level hobbit isn't likely to hang on to a ring of invisibility . Ditto gauntlets of ogre power.
It's posts like this that make me suspect that the real reason we have fixed rules for combat is so that PC vs. PC fights could be adjudicated without the DM being accused of favoritism. ;)
Quote from: Phillip;763414That's a new school to me: hanging out with thieves and expecting them not to steal!
Are assassins just the margarine of evil, too?
There is no honor except among PCs, I guess; but are they marked with haloes, or what?
In D&D In my experience, a 1st level hobbit isn't likely to hang on to a ring of invisibility . Ditto gauntlets of ogre power.
If you are a thief in a group then its kinda expected you are going to more or less respect the other party members. Otherwise you are an NPC thief and get dealt with accordingly.
If your character cant be trusted to keep his hands out of everyones stuff then he cant be trusted not to backstab them and join the other side for the better pay either.
We expect the thief to steal from THE ENEMY! You know. They guys over there... Not us over here.
Arguments been done to death.
Though have to say the halfling rogue in the starter was cliche as all hell.
The halfling rogue part...
Most people I have played with get the team concept. Those few people who steal from/kill other players because "that's what my PC would do"? They typically quickly find themselves out of the group.
Being a dick to your fellow players using your PC as an excuse? Ain't nobody got time for that!
I have no problem with someone saying "but its what my pc would do". Just don't be surprised when the other players do "what their pcs would do" back. If you want your PC to last longer than a few sessions, you have to try not to piss off 4 other people of comparable power off with no back up.
That isn't playing a thief. That is playing suicidal.
I suppose so. But if you want to play a selfish PC who steals from everyone and doesn't give a crap about the party, play a solo game. Because above everything else, D&D is a social game--friends getting together to have fun. If you're intentionally doing actions in game that constantly piss off your friends out of game, you're asking for trouble and miss that point. IMO anyway.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;763429I have no problem with someone saying "but its what my pc would do". Just don't be surprised when the other players do "what their pcs would do" back. If you want your PC to last longer than a few sessions, you have to try not to piss off 4 other people of comparable power off with no back up.
That isn't playing a thief. That is playing suicidal.
Yup. A B/X thief with his whooping d4 hp had to have an INT of 6 or less to steal from fighters.
What happened more often is the thief would try and pocket a little extra something if found alone, "while checking for traps". It ain't stealing if the party never knows about it right? :)
Quote from: Exploderwizard;763439Yup. A B/X thief with his whooping d4 hp had to have an INT of 6 or less to steal from fighters.
What happened more often is the thief would try and pocket a little extra something if found alone, "while checking for traps". It ain't stealing if the party never knows about it right? :)
This was a whole lot more common. If you're busted, you just shrug your shoulders. but it's not like you stole from a PC once they already had their share. Good way to lose a hand.
Everyone who thinks a PC should feel constrained by some meta-rule to not steal from or stab another PC is completely and horribly wrong. What sort of Orwellian nightmare of a game are you playing, anyway? I thought the whole idea of table top rpg's is that they let you do what you want to do and work through the consequences. If you want a game that ties strings to your arms and puppet-walks you through adventures, just save yourself some money and buy one of those motion-sickness-inducing computer rpgs.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;763443This was a whole lot more common. If you're busted, you just shrug your shoulders. but it's not like you stole from a PC once they already had their share. Good way to lose a hand.
Also, taking a bit of extra treasure when possible is playing the class every bit as much as a cleric trying to convert everyone to the worship of his god is playing the cleric class.
Granted, a bit of proselytism is less likely to get one punched in the face. :D
Quote from: Larsdangly;763446Everyone who thinks a PC should feel constrained by some meta-rule to not steal from or stab another PC is completely and horribly wrong. What sort of Orwellian nightmare of a game are you playing, anyway? I thought the whole idea of table top rpg's is that they let you do what you want to do and work through the consequences. If you want a game that ties strings to your arms and puppet-walks you through adventures, just save yourself some money and buy one of those motion-sickness-inducing computer rpgs.
Who has said there has to be a hard rule preventing PCs from stealing from one another. So far, it seems everyone has said if you do so, prepare for the consequences, both in game and out of game.
And I'd posit the whole point of an RPG isn't to just do whatever you want. It's to have a group of friends together face to face and have fun playing a game. The game is not called, "D&D for Sociopaths". If by allowing players to do whatever they want even if they have consequences, it results in the gaming group not having fun, then you are in fact playing it wrong. No one player has the right to make everyone else miserable or upset from their antics.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;763447Granted, a bit of proselytism is less likely to get one punched in the face. :D
Not in my group ;) Some of my players will get more mad at overbearing clerics than from a thief who skims
Some people evidently haven't heard of the saying "don't shit where you eat."
Quote from: Emperor Norton;763429I have no problem with someone saying "but its what my pc would do". Just don't be surprised when the other players do "what their pcs would do" back. If you want your PC to last longer than a few sessions, you have to try not to piss off 4 other people of comparable power off with no back up.
That isn't playing a thief. That is playing suicidal.
Agreed. I don't tell players "don't attack those three Owlbears", I also don't tell them "don't attack each other".
Quote from: Sacrosanct;763430I suppose so. But if you want to play a selfish PC who steals from everyone and doesn't give a crap about the party, play a solo game. Because above everything else, D&D is a social game--friends getting together to have fun. If you're intentionally doing actions in game that constantly piss off your friends out of game, you're asking for trouble and miss that point. IMO anyway.
In our case, YMMV, it's "friends getting together to have fun - roleplaying". Being the Paladin who leads the scum by example, the backstabbing thief, who finds something so wrong/alien/evil that he sets aside (mostly) his anti-social tendencies to help out, the group of "allies of convenience". Some of the best roleplaying can come out of inter-party friction, if not outright conflict. So sometimes that is just as much fun as anything else.
Now if someone is "roleplaying a dick" - ie. just using that as an excuse for being a prick, they're being a child and you flush them.
The meta of "we're all gonna cooperate" IME just allows anti-social players to still find ways of being dicks without allowing other players any recourse, because "PCs can't police their own". Keep everything open and honest, give PCs 100% freedom to kill themselves if need be, and the campaign is better for it in the long run I think.
Quote from: CRKrueger;763455In our case, YMMV, it's "friends getting together to have fun - roleplaying". Being the Paladin who leads the scum by example, the backstabbing thief, who finds something so wrong/alien/evil that he sets aside (mostly) his anti-social tendencies to help out, the group of "allies of convenience". Some of the best roleplaying can come out of inter-party friction, if not outright conflict. So sometimes that is just as much fun as anything else..
bolded the key part. You're group is having fun, and that's what matters. I'm not saying all conflict should go away. I'm saying the point is for everyone to have fun, regardless of how you want to do that. My beef is with people who cause the other players to not have fun because they are constantly putting up with the antics of the disruptive guy who is "just play'n my character man!"
I remember back when I played 2e, I convinced my brother to let me play an Ogre. I rolled up stats, and after adjustments... I was a beast. My strength and con were both ridiculous... my intelligence and wisdom were barely high enough to count as sentient.
His name was Thog. He liked shiny things and hated elves (we luckily did not have any elves in our party). He was pretty much too stupid to live, even as an Ogre, so everyone kind of helped him along with day to day not dying from stupidity, and in exchange he ripped enemies limb from limb and chopped them up with a great axe when they pointed him in the right direction.
He once leaped off a cliff into the ocean chasing some fleeing enemies. The only thing the other players heard as he went over the edge was "Thog forgot no can swiiiiiiim". He just made constitution checks until he could make it to shore by walking along the bottom.
Anyway. Point of the story. We had a thief in our party. Thog had a gem he sure did like. Cause it sure was shiny. Everyone else, of course just let him have it. He hasn't used any of the other stuff we had found, it wasn't like he needed magical equipment to be a nightmare to anything we met. But this thief. The idiot. He tried to steal Thog's shiny!
Luckily for him after he failed, and Thog woke up VERY ANGRY, he did manage to convince Thog he just wanted to admire it. Cause Thog was stupid as a rock he believed it. He never tried to steal from Thog again.
2e PP rolls just fail, rarely triggering a warning to the mark -- even while awake. You'd have to be using optional high lvl target rules for the mark to discover, or GM give special allowance some other way. Not a 'cool story, bro!', just a personal peeve of mine as many GMs do not seem to read how Thief Skills work and assume any failure equals worst possible result.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;763459I remember back when I played 2e, I convinced my brother to let me play an Ogre. I rolled up stats, and after adjustments... I was a beast. My strength and con were both ridiculous... my intelligence and wisdom were barely high enough to count as sentient.
His name was Thog. He liked shiny things and hated elves (we luckily did not have any elves in our party). He was pretty much too stupid to live, even as an Ogre, so everyone kind of helped him along with day to day not dying from stupidity, and in exchange he ripped enemies limb from limb and chopped them up with a great axe when they pointed him in the right direction.
He once leaped off a cliff into the ocean chasing some fleeing enemies. The only thing the other players heard as he went over the edge was "Thog forgot no can swiiiiiiim". He just made constitution checks until he could make it to shore by walking along the bottom.
Anyway. Point of the story. We had a thief in our party. Thog had a gem he sure did like. Cause it sure was shiny. Everyone else, of course just let him have it. He hasn't used any of the other stuff we had found, it wasn't like he needed magical equipment to be a nightmare to anything we met. But this thief. The idiot. He tried to steal Thog's shiny!
Luckily for him after he failed, and Thog woke up VERY ANGRY, he did manage to convince Thog he just wanted to admire it. Cause Thog was stupid as a rock he believed it. He never tried to steal from Thog again.
That's awesome!
Quote from: Sacrosanct;763458bolded the key part. You're group is having fun, and that's what matters. I'm not saying all conflict should go away. I'm saying the point is for everyone to have fun, regardless of how you want to do that. My beef is with people who cause the other players to not have fun because they are constantly putting up with the antics of the disruptive guy who is "just play'n my character man!"
Yeah you flush that turd and move on.
Quote from: CRKrueger;763455In our case, YMMV, it's "friends getting together to have fun - roleplaying". Being the Paladin who leads the scum by example, the backstabbing thief, who finds something so wrong/alien/evil that he sets aside (mostly) his anti-social tendencies to help out, the group of "allies of convenience". Some of the best roleplaying can come out of inter-party friction, if not outright conflict. So sometimes that is just as much fun as anything else.
Now if someone is "roleplaying a dick" - ie. just using that as an excuse for being a prick, they're being a child and you flush them.
The meta of "we're all gonna cooperate" IME just allows anti-social players to still find ways of being dicks without allowing other players any recourse, because "PCs can't police their own". Keep everything open and honest, give PCs 100% freedom to kill themselves if need be, and the campaign is better for it in the long run I think.
I agree with this. I personally like playing evil characters from time to time and conflict within the party can also produce interesting situations, so as a GM I am okay with it. Where I think people run into trouble is expecting their evil behavior to have zero consquences. Even criminals usually know how to function as a cohesive group when they share a goal. An adventuring party isn't going to tolerate one of their own constantly stealing their items or getting the group in trouble by assassinating constables in every town they visit. In fact, if the party includes other evil characters, you probably want to be even more careful about screwing them over, because justice is likely to be swift and brutal with any perceived offense.
Quote from: Opaopajr;7634692e PP rolls just fail, rarely triggering a warning to the mark -- even while awake.
He rolled in the high 90s. Almost up to the famous (among my playgroup) Call of Cthulhu game where a newbie was doing a ritual to stop the big bad thing from happening and rolled a "0 man. 0 00" "That is a 100" "Oh, shit."
I've also always hated the "Evil" campaigns where everyone tried to kill each other. Evil doesn't really mean incapable of having friends. Even Hitler had friends. I had one game I played in where one of the players was Evil. He was really nice and polite to the other members of the party. He conspired behind our backs and schemed for things and used us, but he REALLY did care about what happened to us. He wouldn't use us in a way that would likely kill us. It just turned out that most of the stuff we ended up doing benefited him directly in accruing power because he set it up that way and made back alley deals the rest of the party didn't see.
My character wasn't really "good" or "evil", his entire village had been destroyed (I was a teen forgive the cliche) and he was out for vengeance on Frost Giants for doing it. Granted he knew he couldn't stand up to them at the time. And even if he found out that the wizard in our party was evil, they were still friends. As long as he kept his promise to help him against the Frost Giants (and to my knowledge he fully intended to to keep me on his side in the long haul) I would have kept fighting to protect him.
Quote from: Larsdangly;763446Everyone who thinks a PC should feel constrained by some meta-rule to not steal from or stab another PC is completely and horribly wrong. What sort of Orwellian nightmare of a game are you playing, anyway? I thought the whole idea of table top rpg's is that they let you do what you want to do and work through the consequences. If you want a game that ties strings to your arms and puppet-walks you through adventures, just save yourself some money and buy one of those motion-sickness-inducing computer rpgs.
The issue is when one player feels that "not stealing" isn't part of the assumed code of behavior, while "not killing PCs" is.
There's a certain level of meta that's useful (depending on the type of the game) to keep things flowing - "we'll find reasons to stick together even when it doesn't make sense, and we'll avoid abusing that by acting like sociopaths to each other". Kinda like the Geneva Convention - "don't use your hospitals for military purposes and we won't bomb your hospitals".
And stealing from PCs is relatively short-sighted anyway. In most cases, what's going to get you more goodies in the long run - being part of an (ostensibly) powerful party of heroes, or taking this one shiny widget?
Quote from: Sacrosanct;763458bolded the key part. You're group is having fun, and that's what matters. I'm not saying all conflict should go away. I'm saying the point is for everyone to have fun, regardless of how you want to do that. My beef is with people who cause the other players to not have fun because they are constantly putting up with the antics of the disruptive guy who is "just play'n my character man!"
I think this really comes down to being disruptive (what that means will vary from group to group). The player who is an evil assassin who kills at will and is just doing what his guy would do can be a jerk, but so can the guy playing the paladin as a hall monitor. Using your character concept to annoy other players is the issue. It's the guy who keeps disrupting the other's enjoyment, ignores all signals for him to stop, and then plays the "i am just playing my character" card that causes the problem. In all my campaigns the worst offender was actually a goofy trickster who refused to fight but was constantly doing things to get the group in trouble, there was just no reason for them to keep him around.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;763475I agree with this. I personally like playing evil characters from time to time and conflict within the party can also produce interesting situations, so as a GM I am okay with it. Where I think people run into trouble is expecting their evil behavior to have zero consquences. Even criminals usually know how to function as a cohesive group when they share a goal. An adventuring party isn't going to tolerate one of their own constantly stealing their items or getting the group in trouble by assassinating constables in every town they visit. In fact, if the party includes other evil characters, you probably want to be even more careful about screwing them over, because justice is likely to be swift and brutal with any perceived offense.
That's one of the weird things, if you allow full PC action, the evil parties tend to be much more organized and effective then the good ones. Good guys always have competing agendas, or the Chaotic Elves are constantly chafing under the oppression of the Paladins or whatever. An evil group knows that if you fuck around in an evil party everyone is going to descend on you and there won't be anything left...if you get caught.
Evil groups can be frightening in their effectiveness...kinda like corporations (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201103/why-corporations-are-psychotic). :D
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;763415It's posts like this that make me suspect that the real reason we have fixed rules for combat is so that PC vs. PC fights could be adjudicated without the DM being accused of favoritism. ;)
Since Blackmoor started as a "Good vs Evil" game with players on both sides... yeah.
Also, add me to the list of those who didn't mind the thief skimming a bit as a bonus for clearing traps, etc.
Maybe it should be made (more) explicit that established parties don't have to let new PCs join them without vetting.
For new parties starting from scratch, the best arrangement isn't quite as clear.
I got into a bit of a tiff with a guy in our Deadlands game over some powerful hand grenades we liberated. He was playing a Agent (Harrowed as well since he was the GM's pal). I was playing a recovering smuggler.
The Agent wanted to turn the grenades in to the authorities... my PC thought that was a waste so he stole them and sold them to 'other parties'.
I'm still not sure how much of the noise that followed was IC vs. OOC (there was never hard proof that my PC did the deed)... but it did kind of start us off down an ugly path with each other in both.
Another of the various reasons I left that group...
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;763480I think this really comes down to being disruptive (what that means will vary from group to group). The player who is an evil assassin who kills at will and is just doing what his guy would do can be a jerk, but so can the guy playing the paladin as a hall monitor. Using your character concept to annoy other players is the issue. It's the guy who keeps disrupting the other's enjoyment, ignores all signals for him to stop, and then plays the "i am just playing my character" card that causes the problem. In all my campaigns the worst offender was actually a goofy trickster who refused to fight but was constantly doing things to get the group in trouble, there was just no reason for them to keep him around.
If all the players are cool with adversarial play, that's fine.
I have been in some awesome 'evil' pc games.
But, if all the players are not cool with it, not so great.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;763244Sure if you roll something really powerful on the random treasure table, the guy who takes the item will get far greater oomph than other characters. This is part of what makes the game exciting. I mean, if every treasure horde is regulated to ensure no one every has anything more powerful or interesting than anyone else, that seems kind of dull to me.
Notice how I said nothing about 'no one every has anything more powerful or interesting than anyone else'. I was talking purely about the item in question.
I find it intriguing that it as long as it is rolled from random treasure charts and/or the Dm is able to take it away it doesn't matter what the item in question does.
Quote from: Sommerjon;763666I find it intriguing that it as long as it is rolled from random treasure charts and/or the Dm is able to take it away it doesn't matter what the item in question does.
You brought up rolling on random tables. I personally do not care what method the GM employs for introducing it (whether he places it deliberately or rolls). The item still doesn't bother me. I think having something this potent in the setting adds to the game. It isn't something I would like to see in every coffee shop, but it isn't something that has ever created any issues for me at the table. Sometimes characters get good items that let them outshine others.
Quote from: Windjammer;760309For all I care, Mearls did the opportunistically right thing with 5e. He bought out a couple of guys with an online ego problem, and asked them to parade around as 'consultants' to vent good things in the blogosphere about a game that wasn't even designed yet. For all we know, Zak and Pundit haven't even seen the final ruleset themselves, or ever before. That's what they got bought for. Not because they're actually solid playtesters. So, if people think that that was a smart move to get us a solidly tested game - well, good luck!
LOL. You are so fucking ridiculous. Too bad for you that in the interim, a really solid rules-set has come out, and ironically the biggest criticism anyone has levelled against it involves the two guys you're talking about and nothing to do with the quality of the rules.
You must be in a lonely place right now.
Anyways, my job was NEVER to be a playtester. I participated in exactly one playtest in the past two years, and only because my gaming group here was desperate to try the game (this was BEFORE the first public playtest happened).
My job was to analyze and consult on the rules and presentation thereof. By definition, that includes looking at the rules.
QuoteYou're replying on June 22 to a question I posed on June 10.
Yeah, sorry, I haven't been paying too much attention to this thread, what with being busy BEING A PAID CONSULTANT FOR D&D.
QuoteI guess we can always check the PHB credits in August to see whom WotC deemed worthy of a personal mention.
We didn't have to wait until August, did we? I'm credited in the PDF and starter set, and you'll likewise see me credited in all three main rulebooks.
Are you ready to admit what a douchebag you are yet?
Quote from: CRKrueger;760325As far as Pundit's involvement, I'd have to say while I agree he's being a bit of a putz lately on the whole OSR Taliban thing, that points in my opinion, to him actually being involved at some point.
If you look at his anti-grognard anger as "Look you knuckle-dragging fuckers, I got Mearls to actually listen about old school stuff for the first time in 14 years and this is the closest you're ever going to get to the Red Box from Hasbro and it's FREE, so just shut the fuck up and download the goddamn thing before you sacrifice it on the altar of JMal." it makes more sense.
Why he didn't just say this, I have no fucking idea.
Yes, maybe I should have said something more like that.
Anyways, now I can settle for "I told you so".
Quote from: CRKrueger;760331There's usually a discernable method to the Pundit's madness, and it's usually not what the people at storygames.com, purple or the drive-by detractors say.
As an OSR author, with the Taliban stuff, he's shitting where he eats, and he doesn't seem to realize that when all the anti-grognard people who will never buy his games jump and defend 5e along with him, doing the Grogstomp Victory Dance, he's annoying his audience for no reason. Unless he's trying to supplant JMal as the "Pope of the New OSR" and the "Hero who beat Hasbro", which really would be fucking crazy. his current posts are making no sense to me. I don't see the angle, and whatever you think about him, he usually has one.
It is pretty clear though, that he's confident that 5e will vindicate him, so again, this points to him actually having input and the game actually being something old schoolers will like.
It's the only angle I see in all this.
Does it make more sense to you now?
Quote from: RPGPundit;765436LOL. You are so fucking ridiculous. Too bad for you that in the interim, a really solid rules-set has come out
Sure it is. :rolleyes: Let's just ignore the trivial things like how easy it is to exploit. That will only become worse once the rest of the product releases.
Quote from: Sommerjon;765446Sure it is. :rolleyes: Let's just ignore the trivial things like how easy it is to exploit. That will only become worse once the rest of the product releases.
Bitter non-players who post on forums all day will no doubt find exploits to make annoying characters while everybody else is having fun playing. It's not up to developers to stop players from finding ways to ruin the game for themselves - or rather, creating builds that could, in theory, ruin the game if they ever actually played it.
Quote from: Sommerjon;765446Sure it is. :rolleyes: Let's just ignore the trivial things like how easy it is to exploit. That will only become worse once the rest of the product releases.
Go right ahead and play boring as Mearls said it's not my or the designers job to stop you.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;763429I have no problem with someone saying "but its what my pc would do". Just don't be surprised when the other players do "what their pcs would do" back. If you want your PC to last longer than a few sessions, you have to try not to piss off 4 other people of comparable power off with no back up.
That isn't playing a thief. That is playing suicidal.
Totally agree.
I have zero interest in trying to engender some sort of inter party harmony. The PCs are the PCs I just generate the world, populate it with believable NPCs and keep it spinning.
You can always tell the difference between the guy that is playing a thief to fuck about and the one that is playing a thief like a thief by looking at their next character. If Jasper the tricksy gets smashed in the head and the next character is his angry younger brother you might have a problem. If it's Bob the chilled and honest you are probably okay.
The one thing I will say as a GM I either start the party in danger James Bond style, "Okay game starts and you are all standing on a rickety wooden bridge over a deep chasm thinking how the hell did I get into this situation" and cover group meeting in flash back or more commonly I Give the adventure to one of the PCs and get them to recruit a team and rely on luck in hoping the team ends up being the PCs.
The latter option leads to more interparty co-operation. If there are two very obvious frictions points I make them related and in charge.
Quote from: Sommerjon;765446Sure it is. :rolleyes: Let's just ignore the trivial things like how easy it is to exploit. That will only become worse once the rest of the product releases.
I'm curious about how game-breaking these supposed exploits are. Many of the ones that I've read about on TBP I really disagreed with (specific race/class combinations = game-breaking imbalance) or I felt were wildly speculative ("there are limitations for Multiclassing?!?! ARGH!!!"). Not saying the system is perfect, of course, but it seems a bit early to call this edition a complete failure already.
Quote from: Haffrung;765475Bitter non-players who post on forums all day will no doubt find exploits to make annoying characters while everybody else is having fun playing. It's not up to developers to stop players from finding ways to ruin the game for themselves - or rather, creating builds that could, in theory, ruin the game if they ever actually played it.
Quote from: Marleycat;765492Go right ahead and play boring as Mearls said it's not my or the designers job to stop you.
Yep. Also, don't forget:
"No rule will fix broken players."
If someone gets their jollies over exploiting a game loophole, that speaks volumes about them, not the game. No wonder all they do is post online all day long about it, because no one will game with people like that.
Quote from: Sommerjon;765446Sure it is. :rolleyes: Let's just ignore the trivial things like how easy it is to exploit. That will only become worse once the rest of the product releases.
I have no problem with system tinkerers who enjoy sitting around in their parent's basement finding exploits to game rules all day. They are far too busy to interfere with games actually being played so happy hunting! :)
Quote from: Necrozius;765501I'm curious about how game-breaking these supposed exploits are. Many of the ones that I've read about on TBP I really disagreed with (specific race/class combinations = game-breaking imbalance) or I felt were wildly speculative ("there are limitations for Multiclassing?!?! ARGH!!!"). Not saying the system is perfect, of course, but it seems a bit early to call this edition a complete failure already.
They called the edition a complete failure when it was announced years ago.
The thing is, good design != nonexploitable in an RPG. There are games where that is a good design goal, like competitive video games or board games, but that isn't what TTRPGs ARE.
1. RPGs have GMs, if something is truly exploitable, they can take a step to correct it in their game, if they feel it is becoming an issue.
2. Its not a competitive game. Look at video games for instance. I consider Final Fantasy Tactics one of the best games ever made, and its exploitable as hell. It just doesn't matter much because I'm not competing against anyone.
And that is even if 5e actually is that exploitable. I haven't seen any evidence that it is.
QuoteI'm curious about how game-breaking these supposed exploits are. Many of the ones that I've read about on TBP I really disagreed with (specific race/class combinations = game-breaking imbalance) or I felt were wildly speculative ("there are limitations for Multiclassing?!?! ARGH!!!").
Well right now I'm inclined to run 5e unless some seriously screwy shit turns up, but I'm anxious about how exactly the saving throw math works out given some of the legit concerns I've encountered. I've yet to see that one properly addressed, except for "wait for the other books to come out," which is fair but leaves me hanging.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;7655322. Its not a competitive game. Look at video games for instance. I consider Final Fantasy Tactics one of the best games ever made, and its exploitable as hell. It just doesn't matter much because I'm not competing against anyone.
Theory-wonks, whether they're CharOppers or System Matters theorists, just can't get their head around the notion that D&D mechanics do not need to be modeled and balanced like CRPGs because it's not a competitive game. Sure, there are people who will take a competitive approach to builds. But rather than cater to that playstyle, the designers should point out that however much it's part of CRPG culture, it's douchey way to play D&D.
I've had no problems playing D&D with characters who are a couple levels apart. Yet there are wankers out there who claim the game is 'broken' if one character has an attribute array with a single point higher than another player. And they can't process the reality that the D&D designers aren't
failing to provide a perfectly balanced character creation and advancement model - they aren't even
trying. Because D&D isn't the kind of game where it matters.
Quote from: Haffrung;765548Theory-wonks, whether they're CharOppers or System Matters theorists, just can't get their head around the notion that D&D mechanics do not need to be modeled and balanced like CRPGs because it's not a competitive game. Sure, there are people who will take a competitive approach to builds. But rather than cater to that playstyle, the designers should point out that however much it's part of CRPG culture, it's douchey way to play D&D.
I've had no problems playing D&D with characters who are a couple levels apart. Yet there are wankers out there who claim the game is 'broken' if one character has an attribute array with a single point higher than another player. And they can't process the reality that the D&D designers aren't failing to provide a perfectly balanced character creation and advancement model - they aren't even trying. Because D&D isn't the kind of game where it matters.
Truth. Also, welcome to "the entire history of D&D since six months after it was first published in 1974."
The part in Vol. 3 where he says "Decide how you would like it to be, and then make it just that way!" is probably the single most ignored piece of advice in all of D&D.
Quote from: Old Geezer;765577Truth. Also, welcome to "the entire history of D&D since six months after it was first published in 1974."
The part in Vol. 3 where he says "Decide how you would like it to be, and then make it just that way!" is probably the single most ignored piece of advice in all of D&D.
The other problem seems to be that some people did listen.
But then they forgot all that advice at the start and treated their take on the game as if it were the ONLY way. And then some of those try to force it down the throats of the rest.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;765547Well right now I'm inclined to run 5e unless some seriously screwy shit turns up, but I'm anxious about how exactly the saving throw math works out given some of the legit concerns I've encountered. I've yet to see that one properly addressed, except for "wait for the other books to come out," which is fair but leaves me hanging.
If it's the issue I'm thinking of, my suggested fix for now (yeah, yeah, oberoni fallacy, but not really because this is something that's only subjectively a problem) is to apply half your proficiency bonus to your other saves.
Quote from: LibraryLass;765596If it's the issue I'm thinking of, my suggested fix for now (yeah, yeah, oberoni fallacy, but not really because this is something that's only subjectively a problem) is to apply half your proficiency bonus to your other saves.
I'd want to play through high levels a couple times before doing anything especially to see if they make feats a viable choice over increased stats. In basic I don't see it as a huge issue.
But ignoring the above it looks like a good houserule at least superficially.
I read the Basic PDF. I fully admit I was dubious. I'm now... slightly optimistic.
I pre-ordered the PHB.
That's all you'll get from me until I can review the hardback. That's all you'll get from me on this. Fucker.
Quote from: tenbones;765790I read the Basic PDF. I fully admit I was dubious. I'm now... slightly optimistic.
I pre-ordered the PHB.
That's all you'll get from me until I can review the hardback. That's all you'll get from me on this. Fucker.
What parts made you optimistic?
What The Hell...
I bought the new Edition starter box at work two days ago...
Yeah, I'm reading through it.
The artwork is nice.
Yes - I did look for the Pundit's credit in the book. That was kind of fun to see in there.
- Ed C.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;763458bolded the key part. You're group is having fun, and that's what matters. I'm not saying all conflict should go away. I'm saying the point is for everyone to have fun, regardless of how you want to do that. My beef is with people who cause the other players to not have fun because they are constantly putting up with the antics of the disruptive guy who is "just play'n my character man!"
To make it clear: The new school to me is the one that in the first place artificially constrains people to team up with people or personas they would rather avoid or hang. From that fundamental distortion flow the rest as symptoms.
Even given that predicate, surely we can do better than to have an 'evil' assassin or ogre mage or whatever who is precisely as depraved as the "good" ranger and paladin? Buck up and create characters for a "monolithic party" game that actually have
reason to keep faith and stick together?
I might buy it, since it is pretty short money, though I probably won't run it.
However, I wish it very, very well.
Anything that brings more people back to the hobby, or to it in the first place, is a big positive here.
Quote from: Omega;765798What parts made you optimistic?
Off the bat (and this is equally about mechanics as much as abstraction/flavor)-
Class design seems cleaner. Less 4e (tho there's 4e elements in there). But coupled with the Backgrounds, and Advantages/Inspiration system I can model a character as I see him as opposed to playing a character-class nice and tidy and fit into a shoe-box and pushed around a battlemat.
I like the clear acknowledgement that PC's by dint of having a class are specialists and not just like everyone else. This is an OSR conceit that I've always maintained - being a Fighter is not just being a guy in platemail with a sword. It's like being a fucking Navy Seal vs. just being a regular soldier. A Fighter is a cut above. Stuff like that.
Acknowledgement of all the different D&D worlds. For some reason 3e felt weird just talking about Greyhawk examples. Here they give good central concepts and examples spanning their worlds to support the concept - not the other way around, which leads to a lot of people thinking one world as exemplar over all others. Small but important.
Cleaner use of certain rules - like Opportunity Attacks. Vancian Spellcasting - not exactly the same as OSR, but close enough. Combat looks straightforward. Gives a nod to Battlemat-lovers. The liberal use of Ability checks with the Advantage/Inspiration rules and general Proficiency rules is solid (dunno how it will play out in PHB) - but for Basic, it's clean.
Again, it's not perfect. But for a Basic Game there's plenty to build on optionally<---- this is the key.
So I'm hoping when I get the PHB - I'll be able to flesh out the Fighter fighting styles more. I'm hoping I'll be able to delve deeper into spellcasting options that *aren't* necessarily Vancian... I just want other options. And if I don't get everything I want, which I'm 100% positive I wont, I'll just have to see what's "fixable" to my tastes, and what isn't, and how much trouble is it worth?
Personally - I like Fantasy Craft as my goto for D&D style play. It's nothing *but* options, and I get to pick and choose how I see fit. I can see the possibility of that here, but I'm not yet certain they'll go that far. And truthfully - they don't have to all the way. Meet me halfway and I'll do the rest and you'll have me back, WotC. (I may even try working for you guys again).
... but hey... over there is Pathfinder making changes too.
Always nice to have... options. :)
Quote from: Haffrung;765548Theory-wonks, whether they're CharOppers or System Matters theorists, just can't get their head around the notion that D&D mechanics do not need to be modeled and balanced like CRPGs because it's not a competitive game.
It's also kids who've been brought up on computer games. Last night at our AD&D (2e, alas) session, a younger player (maybe 20?) was saying that 4th ed was good "because it's more balanced". He took it as self-evident that balance is a good thing.
It's not necessarily that the game background is competitive. In the 70s and 80s many people came into the hobby from wargames, where often a better player going against a newer one would have a handicap so as to make it a better game.
From the idea of deliberately starting weaker to the idea of starting weaker by accident (eg "3d6 in order") isn't a big leap.
The idea that if you start weaker and still do well you're showing your great aptitude, this is one missed both by people who insist on games being "balanced". I don't think this young guy would object to anything I've said here, it's just new concepts for him.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;766246From the idea of deliberately starting weaker to the idea of starting weaker by accident (eg "3d6 in order") isn't a big leap.
The idea that if you start weaker and still do well you're showing your great aptitude, this is one missed both by people who insist on games being "balanced". I don't think this young guy would object to anything I've said here, it's just new concepts for him.
See I find that arguement very odd.
To me roll 3d6 assign isn't in any way related to weaker or stronger characters its just a way to generate a random individual within a given attribute range. As such its really rather poor to be honest as average folk are far more common and some better mechanics could easily be used that differentiate race and or gender within the given range of 3-18 or whatever. A 3 in strength really is someone who is a child or is disabled in some way, 3 in intelligence really is someone with a sever mental disability etc etc .
But in any case the roll 3 dice thing is just away for you to generate that random person
Quote from: jibbajibba;766249See I find that arguement very odd.
To me roll 3d6 assign isn't in any way related to weaker or stronger characters its just a way to generate a random individual within a given attribute range. As such its really rather poor to be honest as average folk are far more common and some better mechanics could easily be used that differentiate race and or gender within the given range of 3-18 or whatever. A 3 in strength really is someone who is a child or is disabled in some way, 3 in intelligence really is someone with a sever mental disability etc etc .
But in any case the roll 3 dice thing is just away for you to generate that random person
Pretty much and all this without proving I will roll enough under 8's in a set of 6 to just roll my character yourself so we can actually play the game not generate another set of random rolls. Then again I think adventurers are far from average. Nothing in any fantasy ever supported such nonsense. Not even Jack Vance.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;766246It's also kids who've been brought up on computer games. Last night at our AD&D (2e, alas) session, a younger player (maybe 20?) was saying that 4th ed was good "because it's more balanced". He took it as self-evident that balance is a good thing.
It's not necessarily that the game background is competitive. In the 70s and 80s many people came into the hobby from wargames, where often a better player going against a newer one would have a handicap so as to make it a better game.
From the idea of deliberately starting weaker to the idea of starting weaker by accident (eg "3d6 in order") isn't a big leap.
The idea that if you start weaker and still do well you're showing your great aptitude, this is one missed both by people who insist on games being "balanced". I don't think this young guy would object to anything I've said here, it's just new concepts for him.
Another thing that gets missed, that may or may not come from wargaming, is the notion that "being on a team" does not require "all members of the team put out the same amount of damage per turn."
If we're playing Napoleonics miniatures, and you have the French infantry and I have the French artillery and Spud has the French cavalry, we will all be doing vastly different things during the battle. "Who eliminated the most Englishmen" is something I've never seen worried about.
The notion that I might not have a target this turn is not going to make me cry.
Quote from: Old Geezer;766265Another thing that gets missed, that may or may not come from wargaming, is the notion that "being on a team" does not require "all members of the team put out the same amount of damage per turn."
If we're playing Napoleonics miniatures, and you have the French infantry and I have the French artillery and Spud has the French cavalry, we will all be doing vastly different things during the battle. "Who eliminated the most Englishmen" is something I've never seen worried about.
The notion that I might not have a target this turn is not going to make me cry.
No, that's classic wargaming and in fact actual warfare in any era. But it isn't fantasy not by any current definition. Or any past definition not held by a Lit major even now.
Quote from: Marleycat;766266No, that's classic wargaming and in fact actual warfare in any era. But it isn't fantasy not by any current definition. Or any past definition not held by a Lit major even now.
I think the point was that a lot of early D&D players were war gamers. So they never pointed out some things that they found obvious, leading to a lot of confusion as to the design and play assumptions
Quote from: Marleycat;766266No, that's classic wargaming and in fact actual warfare in any era. But it isn't fantasy not by any current definition. Or any past definition not held by a Lit major even now.
The fuck?
Sam killed one Orc. Frodo didn't kill any. Legolas and Gimli kept count.
They didn't all kill the same number of orcs every round.
Unless somehow "Lord of the Rings" isn't "fantasy."
Quote from: Old Geezer;766273The fuck?
Sam killed one Orc. Frodo didn't kill any. Legolas and Gimli kept count.
They didn't all kill the same number of orcs every round.
Unless somehow "Lord of the Rings" isn't "fantasy."
Yes. Fantasy doesn't mean no logic or human behavior. What it does usually mean is no actual realistic bookkeeping or resource management minigame as defined by older OSR definitions.
Lord of the Rings isn't Game of Thrones sir.
Quote from: Votan;766272I think the point was that a lot of early D&D players were war gamers. So they never pointed out some things that they found obvious, leading to a lot of confusion as to the design and play assumptions
Exactly. And it became the baseline since before I was born irregardless of when I actually started playing Dnd.
Quote from: Marleycat;766286Yes. Fantasy doesn't mean no logic or human behavior. What it does usually mean is no actual realistic bookkeeping or resource management minigame as defined by older OSR definitions.
Lord of the Rings isn't Game of Thrones sir.
So Tyrion Lannister fights as well as Eddard Stark?
Quote from: Emperor Norton;765532The thing is, good design != nonexploitable in an RPG. There are games where that is a good design goal, like competitive video games or board games, but that isn't what TTRPGs ARE.
1. RPGs have GMs, if something is truly exploitable, they can take a step to correct it in their game, if they feel it is becoming an issue.
2. Its not a competitive game. Look at video games for instance. I consider Final Fantasy Tactics one of the best games ever made, and its exploitable as hell. It just doesn't matter much because I'm not competing against anyone.
And that is even if 5e actually is that exploitable. I haven't seen any evidence that it is.
1. It's one thing for a Gm to say, "Hey I don't want to be using Movement spells because it will be disruptive for this setting" It's altogether different if the GM
has to correct loopholes, exploits, etc. in the mechanics.
2. Sure it isn't a competitive game, however it is a
group game. Group dynamics open up a lot of issues. It's lovely that you are decidedly in the whats good for the group is great for the individual camp, not everyone will be.
Quote from: Old Geezer;766293So Tyrion Lannister fights as well as Eddard Stark?
No, but you and yours seem to play it that way. I get you love the bean counting but that has never actually been pure fantasy. LotR was low magic and that isn't Dnd in any version. Gary didn't even get Vancian correct. I would say Shadowrun via shamanistic traditions got far closer. Hell 4e represented it better if you used the later options. Dnd envisioned by Gygax was a bad rendition of S&S never baseline fantasy.
Quote from: Marleycat;766295No, but you and yours seem to play it that way. I get you love the bean counting but that has never actually been pure fantasy. LotR was low magic and that isn't Dnd in any version. Gary didn't even get Vancian correct. I would say Shadowrun via shamanistic traditions got far closer. Hell 4e represented it better if you used the later options. Dnd envisioned by Gygax was a bad rendition of S&S never baseline fantasy.
:popcorn:
Quote from: Old Geezer;766302:popcorn:
:D :popcorn: :D
Unless the book or whatever was written specifically for D&D, then its not going to map well to D&D in some way. Sometimes severely.
Hobbit and Lord of the Rings sure do not map well at all to the game for example.
No wizard class as in that wizard = demigod. And they dont do very much really.
Aragorn is called a ranger but he uses a bow all of maybee once. Does track well though.
Bilbo does about nothing thief-like in the books. Hobbits are described as naturally quiet/stealthy so thats more a racial trait.
etc.
Others see if differently of course.
there was a whole lot more in appendix N than the Hobbit.
A couple of premises related to being cool with luck of the dice:
1) You're interested in a sum-of-histories experience. A 'gawd' with awesome starting factors bites the dust on his first adventure, and an initially underwhelming figure becomes a big wheel. Another character rises to even greater heights, only to fall the further and start the climb again. And the game goes on!
2) It's a wide open game. YOU choose what to do. What Donald Trump is up to is not necessarily of pressing relevance to your own business. He can buy buildings, but you can own the street in your 'hood.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;766313there was a whole lot more in appendix N than the Hobbit.
Still not enough for Jackson's padding into a trilogy of films!
(I would much rather have got a movie of the actual classic tale.)
Quote from: Phillip;766320A couple of premises related to being cool with luck of the dice:
1) You're interested in a sum-of-histories experience. A 'gawd' with awesome starting factors bites the dust on his first adventure, and an initially underwhelming figure becomes a big wheel. Another character rises to even greater heights, only to fall the further and start the climb again. And the game goes on!
2) It's a wide open game. YOU choose what to do. What Donald Trump is up to is not necessarily of pressing relevance to your own business. He can buy buildings, but you can own the street in your 'hood.
I know but you have to see me roll d6's to believe the probability anomaly that I am.
Quote from: Marleycat;766327I know but you have to see me roll d6's to believe the probability anomaly that I am.
Yay! You get to roll up my characters! As long as there is one 9 in a pre-req. stat, I'm good. I'm a probability nexus myself, so let's see your mystical probability skills.
Quote from: Marleycat;766287Exactly. And it became the baseline since before I was born irregardless of when I actually started playing Dnd.
Irrespective of when you started playing D&D, irregardless is not a word. :p
Quote from: Old Geezer;766293So Tyrion Lannister fights as well as Eddard Stark?
Considering ol Ed Stark is a corpse, I would say Tyrion would be slightly favored.
Quote from: Marleycat;766295No, but you and yours seem to play it that way. I get you love the bean counting but that has never actually been pure fantasy. LotR was low magic and that isn't Dnd in any version. Gary didn't even get Vancian correct. I would say Shadowrun via shamanistic traditions got far closer. Hell 4e represented it better if you used the later options. Dnd envisioned by Gygax was a bad rendition of S&S never baseline fantasy.
Yes D&D is a bad simulation of fantasy envisioned by Vance, Tolkien, and Moorcock, but the game is a great simulation of fantasy envisioned by Gygax, Arneson, Kuntz, Svenson, Monard, and the rest of the Blackmoor and Greyhawk crew.
I don't know how it worked with Gygax, Old Geezer, and their crew, but in my neck of the woods in rural northwest PA, we weren't interested in recreating the novels and battles we read about. The point of D&D, RPGs, and wargames was to see how WE would fare in similar circumstances.
When I generaled the force at Normandy on D-Day it was to see if I could better than history, certainly better than my opponent. If I adventured in Middle Earth it was see how I would fare as my character during the War of the One Ring, or facing off against Smaug. The challenge was to thrive regardless of circumstance. And what made RPGs so intoxicating compared to wargames was the ability to attempt anything our minds could think of that our characters could do.
If we were dealing with supernatural elements that could never be real then it was fantasy pure and simple.
Quote from: estar;766453
Yes D&D is a bad simulation of fantasy envisioned by Vance, Tolkien, and Moorcock, but the game is a great simulation of fantasy envisioned by Gygax, Arneson, Kuntz, Svenson, Monard, and the rest of the Blackmoor and Greyhawk crew.
I don't know how it worked with Gygax, Old Geezer, and their crew, but in my neck of the woods in rural northwest PA, we weren't interested in recreating the novels and battles we read about. The point of D&D, RPGs, and wargames was to see how WE would fare in similar circumstances.
When I generaled the force at Normandy on D-Day it was to see if I could better than history, certainly better than my opponent. If I adventured in Middle Earth it was see how I would fare as my character during the War of the One Ring, or facing off against Smaug. The challenge was to thrive regardless of circumstance. And what made RPGs so intoxicating compared to wargames was the ability to attempt anything our minds could think of that our characters could do.
If we were dealing with supernatural elements that could never be real then it was fantasy pure and simple.
I think it was trying to run a Middle Earth campaign in D&D (back in 78/79) that I really first realized the importance of matching system with setting and style. 'Cause I was pounding a square peg into an octagonal hole in that one.
Quote from: estar;766453Yes D&D is a bad simulation of fantasy envisioned by Vance, Tolkien, and Moorcock, but the game is a great simulation of fantasy envisioned by Gygax, Arneson, Kuntz, Svenson, Monard, and the rest of the Blackmoor and Greyhawk crew.
I think I've said 100 times that D&D models D&D, not any particular source. This is usually in response to something like, "D&D is a terrible game for playing a hobbit in Middle Earth!" Well, no shit...D&D is probably more science fiction and pulp than it is fantasy, much less swords & sorcery. A lot of people seem to forget this fact. If anything, this (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084935/) is pretty much what D&D models.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;766246It's also kids who've been brought up on computer games. Last night at our AD&D (2e, alas) session, a younger player (maybe 20?) was saying that 4th ed was good "because it's more balanced". He took it as self-evident that balance is a good thing.
It's not necessarily that the game background is competitive. In the 70s and 80s many people came into the hobby from wargames, where often a better player going against a newer one would have a handicap so as to make it a better game.
From the idea of deliberately starting weaker to the idea of starting weaker by accident (eg "3d6 in order") isn't a big leap.
The idea that if you start weaker and still do well you're showing your great aptitude, this is one missed both by people who insist on games being "balanced". I don't think this young guy would object to anything I've said here, it's just new concepts for him.
Trying to, in some way, balance the roles in a cooperative game (which is what D&D was and is still, in the largest part) is not a bad idea, just not the only priority.
It matters where they are balanced, as well. 4e balances the roles in combat. OD&D balances in exploration. AD&D balances in the campaign ideal. And none of them perfectly, but if you are playing cooperatively with a good GM (always a caveat), it works if your game matches this ideal.
Quote from: estar;766453I don't know how it worked with Gygax, Old Geezer, and their crew, but in my neck of the woods in rural northwest PA, we weren't interested in recreating the novels and battles we read about. The point of D&D, RPGs, and wargames was to see how WE would fare in similar circumstances.
Pretty much. We started playing when we were 11, so we didn't have a whole lot of fantasy genre knowledge to draw on in the first place - some Conan comics, Sinbad movies, and a couple of us had read Lord of the Rings. The appeal of D&D was
knights and wizards exploring an underground labyrinth full of monsters. It was the coolest thing we'd ever heard of
because it didn't map to anything else we had ever read or seen. And by the time we were reading lots of fantasy and watching the cheesy movies of the 80s, we had hundreds of hours of D&D-genre under out belts anyway, so we had no expectations that it would emulate anything else.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;766412Irrespective of when you started playing D&D, irregardless is not a word. :p
Considering ol Ed Stark is a corpse, I would say Tyrion would be slightly favored.
I know but I just said "meh" they will get the gist.
Quote from: Opaopajr;766343Yay! You get to roll up my characters! As long as there is one 9 in a pre-req. stat, I'm good. I'm a probability nexus myself, so let's see your mystical probability skills.
What rolling method do you prefer?
Quote from: Marleycat;766504What rolling method do you prefer?
I'm hardcore 3d6 straight down. But this time I'll be lenient, due to commiserating with abysmal rolls, and accept 3d6 arrange to taste. ;)
I'll make a 2e and 5e character out of the same stat bundle, too.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;766412Irrespective of when you started playing D&D, irregardless is not a word. :p
If I could spank people through the monitor screen for every 'loose' instead of 'lose', and 'then' instead of 'than', my fingers would be permanently numb...
Quote from: Opaopajr;766545I'm hardcore 3d6 straight down. But this time I'll be lenient, due to commiserating with abysmal rolls, and accept 3d6 arrange to taste. ;)
I'll make a 2e and 5e character out of the same stat bundle, too.
Here you go...you pick which set and arrangement or straight...
1)17, 11, 8, 7, 8, 11
2)6, 13, 12, 11, 8, 11
3) 9, 12; 12, 12, 5, 7
4) 15, 7, 11, 9, 7, 8
Have fun.:)
That was pretty good for me actually.
Quote from: Opaopajr;766545I'm hardcore 3d6 straight down. But this time I'll be lenient, due to commiserating with abysmal rolls, and accept 3d6 arrange to taste. ;)
I'll make a 2e and 5e character out of the same stat bundle, too.
Jesus... that's pretty hardcore. Most of my players think I'm pretty hardcore... and I couldn't touch this with my groups.
If I let people roll random - I'll use the old Unearthed Arcana table... guaranteed badasses. But I had a player roll up a barbarian with a 4 Intelligence... and he played it, and loved every minute of that 2-year long campaign. He would only communicate in grunts and hoots and it was fucking hilarious. He oddly had a 14 wisdom - making him one cunning bastard.
I don't like the 3d6 straight down because then what class you are is random, pretty much.
Quote from: Marleycat;766555Here you go...you pick which set and arrangement or straight...
1)17, 11, 8, 7, 8, 11
2)6, 13, 12, 11, 8, 11
3) 9, 12; 12, 12, 5, 7
4) 15, 7, 11, 9, 7, 8
Have fun.:)
That was pretty good for me actually.
I was about to say that those are pretty good rolls! Perhaps the dice gods smile when two of their cursed conspire. These are solid enough to run straight down, though I might shuffle for 5e, as it is more stat mod reliant.
To the 5e chargen topic! :cool:
Quote from: dragoner;766583I don't like the 3d6 straight down because then what class you are is random, pretty much.
Some people like that, but many do not.
Personally I think it would be less of a 'problem' if you did not need a stat of a certain value to qualify for a particular class.
Why not allow low INT wizards?
Quote from: Bill;766586Some people like that, but many do not.
Personally I think it would be less of a 'problem' if you did not need a stat of a certain value to qualify for a particular class.
Why not allow low INT wizards?
Not necessarily qualifying, but a high stat isn't going to hurt; but the end of that road is why even have stats then? Then it won't be D&D I guess.
I don't like it being random class, because then the person who wants to be a fighter is a wizard and vice versa. Whatever I want to be I want to be, if the game forces me otherwise, I will find another game, simple enough.
Quote from: dragoner;766583I don't like the 3d6 straight down because then what class you are is random, pretty much.
For a lot of us that's part of the appeal. "I can't wait to see what kind of character I roll."
Quote from: Old Geezer;766603For a lot of us that's part of the appeal. "I can't wait to see what kind of character I roll."
If you don't like 'em, redshirt 'em, but that kind of screws the game.
Quote from: dragoner;766614If you don't like 'em, redshirt 'em, but that kind of screws the game.
I'm not a fan either but for some it really is the appeal. I prefer rolling because it is random but 3d6 straight is too random for me even when I roll really well like upthread.
Quote from: Marleycat;766621I'm not a fan either but for some it really is the appeal.
I can see it, it is just one of those things then. Old days, we'd start lvl1 and go until lvl twenty-something, which meant you were going to spend a lot of time as that character; best be what you want to be. Like, I'm happy people like to be MU's, because I don't very much.
Quote from: Brad;766459I think I've said 100 times that D&D models D&D, not any particular source. This is usually in response to something like, "D&D is a terrible game for playing a hobbit in Middle Earth!" Well, no shit...D&D is probably more science fiction and pulp than it is fantasy, much less swords & sorcery. A lot of people seem to forget this fact. If anything, this (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084935/) is pretty much what D&D models.
Yep. Well more like the movie models D&D. But well... Also fits well this...
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082027/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082027/) And the thief actually does thieving stuff!
and this to a degree.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084749/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084749/)
Speaking of. Was just reading an old Dragon article where they were talking about Solomon and the upcomming D&D movie so enthusiastically.
If only theyd known...
The one thing that bums me out about 3E and 4E - and I likely won't like about 5E once it is fully published - is that the bizarre game-driven classes and races are so intrusive and ubiquitous they have effectively crowded out all of the archetypes from movies, literature, TV shows, legends, etc. that I find inspiring. Sir Tristram is a human knight, not a shardmind blade singer/runepriest. It kind of sucks that the drift in the D&D game has been toward races and classes that are obviously made up by a D&D nerd and engineered to give you kool powerzzz, and away from characters that resonate with classic stories - robin hood, etc. 5E brings us back to this core of normalcy in its basic set, and I like that a lot. I can create a plausible robin hood in a really obvious way and feel like I've created a solid character. But I doubt it will last! Once the PHB and a couple other books are out, I suspect we'll be back to a game where all the oxygen is being sucked out of the room by dragonborn/tiefling half breed battle master-blah-blah's. I just hate that shit.
Quote from: Larsdangly;766639The one thing that bums me out about 3E and 4E - and I likely won't like about 5E once it is fully published - is that the bizarre game-driven classes and races are so intrusive and ubiquitous they have effectively crowded out all of the archetypes from movies, literature, TV shows, legends, etc. that I find inspiring. Sir Tristram is a human knight, not a shardmind blade singer/runepriest. It kind of sucks that the drift in the D&D game has been toward races and classes that are obviously made up by a D&D nerd and engineered to give you kool powerzzz, and away from characters that resonate with classic stories - robin hood, etc. 5E brings us back to this core of normalcy in its basic set, and I like that a lot. I can create a plausible robin hood in a really obvious way and feel like I've created a solid character. But I doubt it will last! Once the PHB and a couple other books are out, I suspect we'll be back to a game where all the oxygen is being sucked out of the room by dragonborn/tiefling half breed battle master-blah-blah's. I just hate that shit.
The only saving grace is that nothing is actually mandatory so a DM is within their rights to say no to a certain race or subclass or whatever. But you are right it will get full of cruft again because it's Dnd that's how it works.
Quote from: Larsdangly;766639The one thing that bums me out about 3E and 4E - and I likely won't like about 5E once it is fully published - is that the bizarre game-driven classes and races are so intrusive and ubiquitous they have effectively crowded out all of the archetypes from movies, literature, TV shows, legends, etc. that I find inspiring. Sir Tristram is a human knight, not a shardmind blade singer/runepriest. It kind of sucks that the drift in the D&D game has been toward races and classes that are obviously made up by a D&D nerd and engineered to give you kool powerzzz, and away from characters that resonate with classic stories - robin hood, etc. 5E brings us back to this core of normalcy in its basic set, and I like that a lot. I can create a plausible robin hood in a really obvious way and feel like I've created a solid character. But I doubt it will last! Once the PHB and a couple other books are out, I suspect we'll be back to a game where all the oxygen is being sucked out of the room by dragonborn/tiefling half breed battle master-blah-blah's. I just hate that shit.
If you are running the campaign it is easy to restrict what races/classes can be used. You can allow supplements to run your game or do it yourself. The choice is yours!
Quote from: Exploderwizard;766642If you are running the campaign it is easy to restrict what races/classes can be used. You can allow supplements to run your game or do it yourself. The choice is yours!
But if the D&D culture at large accepts all those further options... and your table doesn't... you could easily find yourself alone, considered to not be playing 'real D&D'.
WOTC is likely to push options, players are likely to want/expect/demand those options.
Having books full of 'official' xtras creates a social pressure on GMs to adopt at least some of them.
How many Pathfinder groups play with just the core book and nothing else?
It's never just a matter of what the GM wants... if he wants to actually play.
Our Pathfinder GM has mentioned a few times he'd like to play S&W or Traveller... but the charop guys in the group pitch fits whenever he brings it up.
Yes, of course I can always impose my own limits. I'm not saying I'm powerless to do anything. But I am bemoaning the drift in the main, public culture of the game. This is not something that had to happen or that is intrinsic to D&D: the whole BD&D line avoided it, 1E mostly avoided it (i.e., you had to dig into the magazines and other secondary literature to pull out the weirder races and classes), and 2E mostly avoided it for its first several years. This is mostly a problem of 3E and 4E, starting around 2002-2004. So, basically, we have only ourselves to blame for putting up with this shit.
Quote from: dragoner;766614If you don't like 'em, redshirt 'em, but that kind of screws the game.
Feh. Play the ball where it lies, though I do allow rerolling the character if the net average of all six scores is less than 9.
But OD&D really helps in that way, a score of 9 to 12 in a prime requisite still makes for a perfectly viable character.
Quote from: Old Geezer;766665Feh. Play the ball where it lies, though I do allow rerolling the character if the net average of all six scores is less than 9.
But OD&D really helps in that way, a score of 9 to 12 in a prime requisite still makes for a perfectly viable character.
Viable!!! But it is impossible to play a character without a +3 or higher primary stat bonus!!! How can you play an rpg unless your build is optimized!?!
Quote from: Larsdangly;766639The one thing that bums me out about 3E and 4E - and I likely won't like about 5E once it is fully published - is that the bizarre game-driven classes and races are so intrusive and ubiquitous they have effectively crowded out all of the archetypes from movies, literature, TV shows, legends, etc. that I find inspiring.
Which is exactly why I said months ago that D&D is in serious danger of disappearing up its own ass.
They wrote books off the game and then changed the game to be more like the books off the game and then wrote more books off the game changed to be more like the books written off the game....
Quote from: Simlasa;766649But if the D&D culture at large accepts all those further options... and your table doesn't... you could easily find yourself alone, considered to not be playing 'real D&D'.
WOTC is likely to push options, players are likely to want/expect/demand those options.
Having books full of 'official' xtras creates a social pressure on GMs to adopt at least some of them.
How many Pathfinder groups play with just the core book and nothing else?
It's never just a matter of what the GM wants... if he wants to actually play.
Our Pathfinder GM has mentioned a few times he'd like to play S&W or Traveller... but the charop guys in the group pitch fits whenever he brings it up.
The inability of people to nut up is not the responsibility of game companies.
I used to be in that boat, running games I wasn't into because all the players really wanted it. Then I woke the fuck up. Now I run what I want to run and couldn't be happier.
One group I game with isn't interested in the games I want to run. No problem. With those guys I play 4E that someone else runs and we have a good time.
I have another group that I play AD&D and OD&D with. I get to play AD&D and run OD&D and we have a good time.
I game with a third group and I run GURPS fantasy, and, you guessed it, we have a good time.
You are only 'stuck' running a game you don't like if you let it happen to you. Game time is fun time. If what you are doing isn't fun then change it.
I generally set parameters of the starting region in terms of common/uncommon races. But depending on the world I'm running - FR, Golarion etc. I'm pretty open about allowing special snowflakes if I can make it work and we can work out a reason why a Warforged is living in Baldur's Gate or wherever we're starting out.
I cry bullshit on social pressure to FORCE a GM to do anything. Or a player for that matter. You can allow/disallow whatever you want as a GM but at least be consistent about it in your reasoning.
Quote from: Bill;766667Viable!!! But it is impossible to play a character without a +3 or higher primary stat bonus!!! How can you play an rpg unless your build is optimized!?!
"The premise of the game is that each player character is above average--at least in some respects--and has superior potential. Furthermore, it is usually essential to the character's survival to be exceptional (with a rating of 15 or above) in no fewer than two ability characteristics."
--Gary Gygax, AD&D Player's Handbook, 1st Edition, 6th printing, p. 9, paragraph 1.
There is nothing new under the sun. BTW, Bill, your sentiment shows up, more or less, in the 2E DMG, :)
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;766744"The premise of the game is that each player character is above average--at least in some respects--and has superior potential. Furthermore, it is usually essential to the character's survival to be exceptional (with a rating of 15 or above) in no fewer than two ability characteristics."
--Gary Gygax, AD&D Player's Handbook, 1st Edition, 6th printing, p. 9, paragraph 1.
There is nothing new under the sun. BTW, Bill, your sentiment shows up, more or less, in the 2E DMG, :)
Considering 15 is the bare minimum for stat bonuses in AD&D (and some stats don't even have a bonus until 16+), that is a fairly reasonable statement.
It would essentially be the same thing as saying a 3.X character without two stats of at least 12 isn't viable. I can buy that.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;766744"The premise of the game is that each player character is above average--at least in some respects--and has superior potential. Furthermore, it is usually essential to the character's survival to be exceptional (with a rating of 15 or above) in no fewer than two ability characteristics."
--Gary Gygax, AD&D Player's Handbook, 1st Edition, 6th printing, p. 9, paragraph 1.
There is nothing new under the sun. BTW, Bill, your sentiment shows up, more or less, in the 2E DMG, :)
For the record, I don't personally require high stats to play a character.
As for the two 15's, well, in 1E dnd a strength of 15 does not give bonuses to hit and damage. A 15 dex/con gets you -1 ac and +1 hp per hd.
So 3 15's is barely noticeable :)
Quote from: tenbones;766728I cry bullshit on social pressure to FORCE a GM to do anything. Or a player for that matter. You can allow/disallow whatever you want as a GM but at least be consistent about it in your reasoning.
I cry bullshit on your crying bullshit because I've seen it happen plenty of times. Players vote with their feet and a GM who won't run Pathfinder or 4e around here has a significantly harder time finding players... if he can find any at all.
I was lucky to find the group I did, after a whole lot of looking.
Quote from: dragoner;766614If you don't like 'em, redshirt 'em, but that kind of screws the game.
Or swap with someone else who rolled a character they don't want. No sense letting it go to waste!
Quote from: Ladybird;766801Or swap with someone else who rolled a character they don't want. No sense letting it go to waste!
Very true. Im odd in I like the challenge of low stat characters and have handed someone my well rolled stats. win-win.
Quote from: Old Geezer;766665Feh. Play the ball where it lies, though I do allow rerolling the character if the net average of all six scores is less than 9.
But OD&D really helps in that way, a score of 9 to 12 in a prime requisite still makes for a perfectly viable character.
Stats weren't as important back then, esp as you could get magic items to up stat anyways. Even then we switched to a more progressive system, because having a bunch of low levels die, just to get the one you want, just seemed an unnecessary interruption in the action. Traveller, GW, etc. too.
Tweaking didn't mean a mary sue though, because then you would get ripped on for being a wuss.
Quote from: Ladybird;766801Or swap with someone else who rolled a character they don't want. No sense letting it go to waste!
True. Or toss it in the NPC file, or just roll up something halfway decent so that people aren't having to stop and do chargen in the middle of the game.
Quote from: dragoner;766903Tweaking didn't mean a mary sue though
Tweaking just means you're gonna have bad teeth :D
Quote from: robiswrong;766908Tweaking just means you're gonna have bad teeth :D
Or missing teeth, from what I've seen of tweakers. But chargen you kind of get to be able to do it as an art.
Quote from: Omega;766850Very true. Im odd in I like the challenge of low stat characters and have handed someone my well rolled stats. win-win.
Opa is using my 4d6d-1 rolls (a set of 4) in the 5e chargen thread.
Still like and use BXs idea of rolling and then moving points based on your class. Want more strength then dock it from your intelligence or wisdom.
I don't find the roll 4 drop 1 and put them where you like very game breaking.
Quote from: dragoner;766924I don't find the roll 4 drop 1 and put them where you like very game breaking.
Check out the base numbers he's working with.:)
I meant to roll 3d6 and arrange given 3d6 in order would be unfair even for Opa.
always liked players rolling to find out what they were.
always hated when they decided before rolling what they wanted to be.
just a philosophical thing
Quote from: Marleycat;766931Check out the base numbers he's working with.:)
I meant to roll 3d6 and arrange given 3d6 in order would be unfair even for Opa.
Are from up thread? Yeah, none too thrilling.
Quote from: dragoner;766935Are from up thread? Yeah, none too thrilling.
There is a reason my group just rolls something up and gives me a set of 4 to pick from. What amuses me is that Opa is making ok characters with them. Frankly it's pretty amazing.
Quote from: Marleycat;766940There is a reason my group just rolls something up and gives me a set of 4 to pick from. What amuses me is that Opa is making ok characters with them. Frankly it's pretty amazing.
He is. If that is someone's preference, that is cool, I don't think they are doing it wrong or anything. I find 'better than average' is a little more survivable at low level, which can streamline the game some.
Quote from: dragoner;766944He is. If that is someone's preference, that is cool, I don't think they are doing it wrong or anything. I find 'better than average' is a little more survivable at low level, which can streamline the game some.
Oh, I agree and to that is why my group has a special roll method only allowed to me. 4d6d-1 reroll all 1's until they aren't 1's.:D
Quote from: Marleycat;766949Oh, I agree and to that is why my group has a special roll method only allowed to me. 4d6d-1 reroll all 1's until they aren't 1's.:D
lol
I just find that interruptions in game were never just 15 minutes, like I've heard, more like an hour, and if near the end, then an early end to the session.
Quote from: Marleycat;766940There is a reason my group just rolls something up and gives me a set of 4 to pick from. What amuses me is that Opa is making ok characters with them. Frankly it's pretty amazing.
It's due to my NERF feet and angel wings. It helps us spaceships work our advantages.
Still got some more stat lines to go! Back to the Fantazy Zone! :cheerleader: :cool:
Quote from: Omega;766919Still like and use BXs idea of rolling and then moving points based on your class. Want more strength then dock it from your intelligence or wisdom.
But then you may as well take a pool of points and assign them to your stats as you wish.
You roll 18 d6 (6 x 3d6) total them all up and you are pretty much guarenteed a score in the 58 - 70 range. So if you are goign to take from peter to pay paul you may as well just take 58+2d6 and distribute as you see fit.
Quote from: dragoner;766583I don't like the 3d6 straight down because then what class you are is random, pretty much.
Not really. All you need is 9+ in 2 or more of Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence or Wisdom, and not 5 or less in some other stat, and you'll be able to choose from at least 2 of fighter, magic-user, cleric or thief. You have to get pretty shitty dice rolls to not manage that. If you want to be a paladin or something it's a different matter, but this is a roleplaying game, you can always play your fighter
like a paladin, you just won't get the k3w1 pw0rz.
The great virtue of the dice is that they come without boxed text. Nothing is predetermined, you roll and find out, and then react to it as you think best.
Our DM chose AD&D2e, we had to choose classes first, fighters were like 7d6 take best 3 for strength, etc. I ended up with Str 12, Int 6, Wis 17 and Cha 18. The gnome illusionist has Str 13. Basically the guy should be a country priest - academically not bright, can barely read his own holy books, but lots of common sense and peasant cunning, and a really charming motherfucker, gets along with everyone and people heed his advice.
But I'd chosen to be a fighter, so I had him become Fabio, the Most Beautiful Fighter in the Cosmos. No Str/Con bonus, a small Dex bonus, I rolled badly for hit points, he won't be a very effective fighter, so what does he do? Hires men-at-arms. He's charismatic, and generous - any silver or copper coins the party finds goes to them. Recently 2 of them died in a dungeon, one was consumed whole by a bullette and the other one got munched on by trolls. Nothing he could do for Bullette Dinner but Troll Bait got resurrected, 3,000GP gone, now the man-at-arms is a henchman.
If I were doing point-buy I would never have thought of Fabio the Most Beautiful Fighter in the Cosmos, and even if I did I would never have had enough points for my "character concept" as I wouldn't be able to bear buying down Str for the sake of Cha and Wis.
In the randomness of the dice lies the seed for the great oak of creativity and fun. The great virtue of the dice is that they come without boxed text.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;766997Not really. All you need is 9+ in 2 or more of Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence or Wisdom, and not 5 or less in some other stat, and you'll be able to choose from at least 2 of fighter, magic-user, cleric or thief. You have to get pretty shitty dice rolls to not manage that. If you want to be a paladin or something it's a different matter, but this is a roleplaying game, you can always play your fighter like a paladin, you just won't get the k3w1 pw0rz.
The great virtue of the dice is that they come without boxed text. Nothing is predetermined, you roll and find out, and then react to it as you think best.
Our DM chose AD&D2e, we had to choose classes first, fighters were like 7d6 take best 3 for strength, etc. I ended up with Str 12, Int 6, Wis 17 and Cha 18. The gnome illusionist has Str 13. Basically the guy should be a country priest - academically not bright, can barely read his own holy books, but lots of common sense and peasant cunning, and a really charming motherfucker, gets along with everyone and people heed his advice.
But I'd chosen to be a fighter, so I had him become Fabio, the Most Beautiful Fighter in the Cosmos. No Str/Con bonus, a small Dex bonus, I rolled badly for hit points, he won't be a very effective fighter, so what does he do? Hires men-at-arms. He's charismatic, and generous - any silver or copper coins the party finds goes to them. Recently 2 of them died in a dungeon, one was consumed whole by a bullette and the other one got munched on by trolls. Nothing he could do for Bullette Dinner but Troll Bait got resurrected, 3,000GP gone, now the man-at-arms is a henchman.
If I were doing point-buy I would never have thought of Fabio the Most Beautiful Fighter in the Cosmos, and even if I did I would never have had enough points for my "character concept" as I wouldn't be able to bear buying down Str for the sake of Cha and Wis.
In the randomness of the dice lies the seed for the great oak of creativity and fun. The great virtue of the dice is that they come without boxed text.
In playing AD&D, it str-fighter, dex-thief, int-mu, etc.; for us. We had started with the straight down, but eventual evolved towards the 3d6, place them where you want them, then just to 4d6, drop lowest, place them. This came from the experience in that while your character might have been some stronger than the straight down, it only really mattered in the lower levels. As levels rise, after about fifth, you had accumulated enough magic items to offset any disadvantages in stats.
That way you got to play what you wanted, and the lower levels survived more, so that the game wouldn't be interrupted with chargen. It just came down to streamlined play, things being more time limited and what you wanted to do. Some people love chargen, others love combat, both good minigames, and both can be done solo; I liked interacting with the group and exploring. We often played fairly sandbox style, first using Greyhawk, then the Middle Earth using MERP converted to AD&D.
We even wargamed Greyhawk at one point, somewhere I have a bunch of counters we made for all the different countries, with high powered characters as commanders.
Quote from: jibbajibba;766992But then you may as well take a pool of points and assign them to your stats as you wish.
You roll 18 d6 (6 x 3d6) total them all up and you are pretty much guarenteed a score in the 58 - 70 range. So if you are goign to take from peter to pay paul you may as well just take 58+2d6 and distribute as you see fit.
Seen that in an RPG.
I prefer the little moves within defined limits as it makes you stop and think about what you are trying to accomplish. I like the random. But I want a little controll over the random. Controlled chaos as I termed it in my own book way back.
BX provided that. And in BX it was often not even necessary as there wasnt the class stat requirements. Just there if you wanted.
And in BX shuffling points actually lost you points as it was 1 point for 2 moved. So bumping up your STR by 1 cost 2 INT for example.
Quote from: Opaopajr;766972It's due to my NERF feet and angel wings. It helps us spaceships work our advantages.
Still got some more stat lines to go! Back to the Fantazy Zone! :cheerleader: :cool:
Can't wait to see what is next. I can do 3d6 if you really want me to?
Quote from: Marleycat;767049Can't wait to see what is next. I can do 3d6 if you really want me to?
Please do! I feel disappointed that I was working with a 4d6 d-1 crutch for all those stat lines. One must truly suffer for their art.
:(:)
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;766997The great virtue of the dice is that they come without boxed text.
Nice quote!! I hope I remember it's from you when I eventually steal it!
Quote from: Opaopajr;767078Please do! I feel disappointed that I was working with a 4d6 d-1 crutch for all those stat lines. One must truly suffer for their art.
:(:)
I'll have a set for you tomorrow then.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;766997If I were doing point-buy I would never have thought of Fabio the Most Beautiful Fighter in the Cosmos, and even if I did I would never have had enough points for my "character concept" as I wouldn't be able to bear buying down Str for the sake of Cha and Wis.
In the randomness of the dice lies the seed for the great oak of creativity and fun. The great virtue of the dice is that they come without boxed text.
Yeah that's the beauty of random CharGen, you take a look at what you have and say "who is this"?
Quote from: CRKrueger;767102Yeah that's the beauty of random CharGen, you take a look at what you have and say "who is this"?
Actually I usually say, "who
the fuck is this, and how quickly can I get him killed so I can roll up a proper character?" Yet... somehow the more useless they are on paper, the more likely they are to survive, and then you become fond of them, like a retarded ugly puppy.
Quote from: CRKrueger;767102Yeah that's the beauty of random CharGen, you take a look at what you have and say "who is this"?
But if you create a charcter that way, how do you get the dual magic scimitars, 19 dexterity, and uber dual wielding build, essential to enjoying an rpg?
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;766997In the randomness of the dice lies the seed for the great oak of creativity and fun. The great virtue of the dice is that they come without boxed text.
:cool:
I have always loved the box of chocolates method of chargen. It is true that some memorable characters would have never seen play if they had been designed to preconceived specifications.
.....and sigged.
Here you go Opa 3d6....
7,7,15,11,13,14....11,13,8,12,7,12.....15,17,13,15,12,8.....10,12,11,10,8,10.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;767118Actually I usually say, "who the fuck is this, and how quickly can I get him killed so I can roll up a proper character?" Yet... somehow the more useless they are on paper, the more likely they are to survive, and then you become fond of them, like a retarded ugly puppy.
we talk about that as well. For real players, the most epic characters are often the most broken, the ones that should come with instructions..."Fragile, do not shake or let talk to orcs".
yet these are the ones they remember the most fondly.
Okay here's mine (3d6, in order):
STR 13 - a little strong due to lots of menial work
DEX 10 - no good with a bow but doesn't trip over his laces
CON 7 - never fully recovered from a serious illness in his youth
INT 8 - has to count slowly and doesn't always get jokes
WIS 6 - completely oblivious to his surroundings, always day dreaming
CHA 10 - face in the crowd: doesn't stand out but doesn't have lots of friends
I'm sure others could think of more interesting personalities for these stats, but I can't help of thinking of a dull secondary character in a gritty medieval series who's pretty much just there to die horribly and meaninglessly.
EDIT: I'd try again, but only after I try to come up with at least one personality to match the stats.
Quote from: Necrozius;767262Okay here's mine (3d6, in order):
STR 13 - a little strong due to lots of menial work
DEX 10 - no good with a bow but doesn't trip over his laces
CON 7 - never fully recovered from a serious illness in his youth
INT 8 - has to count slowly and doesn't always get jokes
WIS 6 - completely oblivious to his surroundings, always day dreaming
CHA 10 - face in the crowd: doesn't stand out but doesn't have lots of friends
I'm sure others could think of more interesting personalities for these stats, but I can't help of thinking of a dull secondary character in a gritty medieval series who's pretty much just there to die horribly and meaninglessly.
EDIT: I'd try again, but only after I try to come up with at least one personality to match the stats.
This sounds like an npc from my OD&D game. A torch bearer with aspirations of becoming a fighting man.
The PCs liked his spirit and started training him as a man at arms. When they were ambushed by goblins and the guy got caught in the sleep spell the PCs impaled a sleeping goblin with his spear and put it back in his hands before he woke up. Then they told him how he took out that goblin like a total badass. ;)
It really boosted his confidence, so much that went with them into the ruined tower dungeon not as a linkboy, but paid fully as a mercenary. He was living his dream.........
Shortly thereafter the party bit off more than they could chew and suffered nearly total losses. Poor Marmar (the new merc) was captured alive along with a couple other hirelings. The adventurers who got him into this mess are dead and now he faces torture and death at the hands of hungry hobgoblins....
The players have rolled up new PCs who are unaware of the poor fellow's fate.
Such is the life of an adventurer.
Quote from: Marleycat;767232Here you go Opa 3d6....
7,7,15,11,13,14....11,13,8,12,7,12.....15,17,13,15,12,8.....10,12,11,10,8,10.
Wow, I think these numbers might be better than the last batch. Let me check...
Quote1)17, 11, 8, 7, 8, 11
2)6, 13, 12, 11, 8, 11
3) 9, 12; 12, 12, 5, 7
4) 15, 7, 11, 9, 7, 8
Have fun.
That was pretty good for me actually.
Oh my god, these 3d6 are better than your 4d6d-1. :rotfl:
Did you ever consider that your luck problem might be tied to rolling 4d6d-1?
:pundit:
Quote from: Marleycat;767232Here you go Opa 3d6....
7,7,15,11,13,14....11,13,8,12,7,12.....15,17,13,15,12,8.....10,12,11,10,8,10.
In OD&D, the order is STR, INT, WIS, CON, DEX, CHA.
#1 would be an excellent cleric, she'd get a 10% XP bonus for the WIS. Not real bright and not the best fighter, but a low STR doesn't reduce your damage. 7 INT is "a bit dim," not "drooling cretin."
#2 would be a perfectly viable magic user. I don't remember if that DEX will affect her reaction time, but there are no other problems.
#3 is no negotiator, but otherwise a damn fine character. You could go either fighter, MU, or cleric, or even thief. If you're one of the Big 3 I'd drain whichever stats down to 9 to boost my prime.
#4 is close to what we call "Captain Average," all stats between 9 and 12. They can be anything, though you probably won't want to be a Thief.
Essentially, any of those characters would work just fine in a OD&D game.
Quote from: Opaopajr;767302Wow, I think these numbers might be better than the last batch. Let me check...
Oh my god, these 3d6 are better than your 4d6d-1. :rotfl:
Did you ever consider that your luck problem might be tied to rolling 4d6d-1?
:pundit:
Possible or it may be the fact I used my new purple and lavender D6's which haven't really been used much except for the odd Shadowrun game given I haven't been playing Dnd since 3.0.:idunno:
Quote from: Necrozius;767262Okay here's mine (3d6, in order):
STR 13 - a little strong due to lots of menial work
DEX 10 - no good with a bow but doesn't trip over his laces
CON 7 - never fully recovered from a serious illness in his youth
INT 8 - has to count slowly and doesn't always get jokes
WIS 6 - completely oblivious to his surroundings, always day dreaming
CHA 10 - face in the crowd: doesn't stand out but doesn't have lots of friends
I'm sure others could think of more interesting personalities for these stats, but I can't help of thinking of a dull secondary character in a gritty medieval series who's pretty much just there to die horribly and meaninglessly.
EDIT: I'd try again, but only after I try to come up with at least one personality to match the stats.
Dream, darling, dream! Butterflies in the sky, I can fly twice as high!
Here, remember TSR stats have a far larger range for average, so 7-14 is a wide panoply of everydayness. WotC stats are a touch less forgiving:
2e Thief 1.
Morbidly obese, but otherwise very strong, and surprisingly agile. Affable, functionally smart, but easily led. Works as a dive bar bouncer. Focuses on Detect Noise and Moving Silently, with a minor on Hide in Shadows, to spot trouble and appear right behind the offenders. Good with Clubs and a natural on the mat, (Tumbling and Wrestling specialization). Minds his p's and q's (Etiquette), but is a notorious gossip (Local History).
2e Thief 2.
Middle aged cripple, childhood victim of scarlet fever, with a mendicant license. Easily cowed and of modest intelligence, but genial and well liked if forgettable. Stronger and faster than he looks, as he had to survive bullying, and a beast with his Staff and right hook (Punching specialization). Focuses on Detect Noise and Read Lips to collect Local History gossip to supplement his income. Uses Hide in Shadows to disappear from real trouble.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;766997Not really. All you need is 9+ in 2 or more of Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence or Wisdom, and not 5 or less in some other stat, and you'll be able to choose from at least 2 of fighter, magic-user, cleric or thief.
In Basic D&D (BECMI/BX) you don't even need the 9 for your prime requisite if you don't mind taking the XP penalty. Only demi-human classes and some and the non-core classes (BECMI) had a minimum attribute score requirements. If you didn't do the attribute swapping mechanic at 2 to 1 you can end up with some interesting characters, like strong & dumb wizards, clumsy yet wise & charismatic thieves, sickly fighters, etc... Selection of your character class (even more so from what I've read from OD&D clones) and weapon were your min/maxing.
I like finding a character, not building one. It's actually hard for me NOT to try and min/max to some extent without just trying to be different or unique just for the sake of doing so. It's where the roleplaying meets the game. For me it's about resolving playing to win vs. enjoying playing.
This is probably why MARVEL FASERIP has my favorite character generation of any game.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;766997In the randomness of the dice lies the seed for the great oak of creativity and fun. The great virtue of the dice is that they come without boxed text.
While this is beautiful and true, and I'm not disagreeing at all, it's sometimes not the beauty and truth I'm looking for at that time. I may want a different beauty and truth for that session/game/campaign.
You look for beauty and truth in a game session?
I just look for creativity, challenge and fun.
"Don't let yourself get too worried about all this talk about roleplaying [...] the ultimate object of all this is for everyone to have fun, not to recreate some form of high dramatic art." - Dungeoneer
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;767430You look for beauty and truth in a game session?
I just look for creativity, challenge and fun.
"Don't let yourself get too worried about all this talk about roleplaying [...] the ultimate object of all this is for everyone to have fun, not to recreate some form of high dramatic art." - Dungeoneer
Then consider "beauty and truth" to equal "creativity, challenge, and fun." Like one of those meta-whatsits. :)
"If it can't be fun, then it can't be done."
My motto, pretty much.
Quote from: Brander;767439Then consider "beauty and truth" to equal "creativity, challenge, and fun." Like one of those meta-whatsits. :)
No. Here's a meta-whatsit: beauty and truth are not creativity and fun. Different things are different.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;767502No. Here's a meta-whatsit: beauty and truth are not creativity and fun. Different things are different.
Hush, you and your "words mean things."
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;767502No. Here's a meta-whatsit: beauty and truth are not creativity and fun. Different things are different.
Dude, what the fuck is your problem? I was trying to have fun with it and give you a compliment. I guess that's just too much for some people.
Quote from: Old Geezer;767504Hush, you and your "words mean things."
In case I was being too subtle or something and since a metaphor somehow seems to have stopped being "a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them"* and/or "a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance"** around here:
1) I really liked what Kyle said (and how he said it). I thought it was a true statement of the beauty of how random ability scores can spur creativity. Calling something beautiful and true, to me at least, is a compliment.
2) Sometimes I have already have a character in mind and I don't need or want to use random ability scores even though they can be a great tool (see 1).
Somehow that got construed to me looking for beauty and truth in my gaming by Kyle, who said he looks for something else. Ok, fine. If that is the way he is going to take it, then from his perspective, consider it a metaphor.
At no point am I saying "beauty and truth" are the exact same things as "creativity, challenge, and fun" though personally I do find much beauty and truth in creative, challenging, and fun activities. If I didn't, I'd do something else.
Not really sure why this seemed so opaque, but if it's because I wasn't clear or because I missed some clue or something. I"M SORRY!
*http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/metaphor
**http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/metaphor
Quote from: Brander;767730Dude, what the fuck is your problem? I was trying to have fun with it and give you a compliment. I guess that's just too much for some people.
Kyle's wonderfully clever, sometimes he gets a bit wrapped up in it. I think we all agree that there is something very cool and special about discovering your character as it is created.
Quote from: Bill;761481If I had to choose, I would prefer secondary skills that paint a picture of what the character is familiar with over the detailed 3x style skills.
All I need is a simple die roll for degree of success and I am good to go.
I think I found a good compromise between the two extremes with Arrows of Indra.
Quote from: RPGPundit;773822I think I found a good compromise between the two extremes with Arrows of Indra.
I like how Indra handles skills.
It's hard to please everyone though, with an rpg skill system.
I started out with 1e dnd that does not really have skills, so I never developed a taste for super intricate skill systems.
I'm a systems light guy. Not really a storyteller gamer as such (though it took me a while to suss out what my preferences really were), just... I don't want a lot of fiddly crap to deal with, let's just run through the world doing stuff, with a little bit of authorial nudge so people can help highlight cool moments.
5e is looking almost ideal for me - skills give characters, well, character beyond 'I shoot fire', along with backgrounds. The Inspiration rule helps that 'ok, this really matters, I want this moment to shine' kind of thing, Advantage and proficiency help cut a lot of details I don't really give a shit about.
Some people like fiddly crunch, and one could argue that some brands of old school are like that. Those people will probably not like 5e.
But the nice thing about having lots of different versions of a game is that people can find whatever matches their interests best.
I like crunch, but I also like battles going relatively smoothly (eg less fiddly than 4e etc) and actual play Being fairly streamlined.
Quote from: RPGPundit;773822I think I found a good compromise between the two extremes with Arrows of Indra.
You know, once I get a few extra sheckels I need to get me AoI.
I doubt extremely I'll ever run it as-is, but "All You Need To Know To Put Someplace That Is Much Like Mythic India Into Your D&D Game For People Who Are Not Fucking Experts In One Package" sounds attractive.
In other words, the background material.
Quote from: Old Geezer;774003You know, once I get a few extra sheckels I need to get me AoI.
I doubt extremely I'll ever run it as-is, but "All You Need To Know To Put Someplace That Is Much Like Mythic India Into Your D&D Game For People Who Are Not Fucking Experts In One Package" sounds attractive.
In other words, the background material.
You know the older I get just about the only reason I buy new gaming stuff anymore is to pilfer for ideas. I hardly ever buy something to run as is, I am getting to where I judge to the quality of a product based on how many ideas it gave me or things I was able to outright pilfer from it.
Quote from: Arkansan;774128You know the older I get just about the only reason I buy new gaming stuff anymore is to pilfer for ideas. I hardly ever buy something to run as is, I am getting to where I judge to the quality of a product based on how many ideas it gave me or things I was able to outright pilfer from it.
Yeah, same here.
Quote from: Arkansan;774128You know the older I get just about the only reason I buy new gaming stuff anymore is to pilfer for ideas. I hardly ever buy something to run as is, I am getting to where I judge to the quality of a product based on how many ideas it gave me or things I was able to outright pilfer from it.
I openly admit to buying games for their settings. Maybe for a new resolution system, but often those tidbits are equations or simple functions, and thus rarely need a purchase. Cannibalizing is like the oldest RPG tradition I started with. :)
GURPS is one of my favorite games that I never ever ever run, for pretty much this reason.
GURPS Space is about the single most useful textbook for generating system information I've ever found, by several orders of magnitude.