The Next Phase
Mike Mearls
Last Thursday, we rolled out the final public playtest packet for D&D Next. It’s been a long journey to today from the first days of this project. It hasn’t been easy, but nothing worth doing ever is.
For the next few months, our work in R&D falls into two categories.
The editors and a team of designers will finalize work on the core game. This work consists of squashing bugs, simplifying things, and incorporating the final round of public feedback. The game’s foundation will be set in stone, as will the core options for the classes.
Meanwhile, a second design team will tackle a number of outstanding topics. These include the following elements.
The underlying math of the game. We’ll run stress tests on the numbers, monster abilities, and so on to make sure that everything shakes out as we expect. This work is important to making adventure and encounter design fast and easy. It also ensures that the classes play fair.
An optional tactical combat system, with rules for using miniatures, rules for combat that operate like 3rd Edition or 4th Edition in that they remove DM adjudication of things like cover, and expanded, basic combat options to allow for forced movement, tanking, and so forth, as options any character can attempt. This optional system will look a bit like AD&D’s Player’s Option: Combat and Tactics book with key lessons learned from 4th Edition. Its goal is to present combat as a challenging puzzle that pits the players against the DM, capturing the best parts of 4th Edition.
An optional dramatic system that emphasizes D&D as a storytelling activity. This system treads ground that D&D hasn’t formally embraced in the past. It casts a gaming group as collaborative storytellers, with the DM managing the action and everyone contributing events, plots twists, and sudden, dramatic turns.
An optional system that cranks up character customization by allowing players to build their own subclasses. This system is really more of a set of guidelines that let you mix and match abilities pulled from subclasses within a class. You can approach it as a DM tool (“In my setting, the wizards of the Burning Isle combine illusion and necromancy”) or as a way for players to have more choice in building characters. We’re making this system optional because we know that some players want a lot of ways to customize their characters, but more customization invariably leads to broken combos. We can manage combinations and fairness at the subclass and feat level, but slicing things much finer than that goes beyond what we can reasonably expect to playtest.
A campaign system that extends the action beyond the day-to-day adventures, focusing on what we’ve called downtime. This includes managing a domain, running a business, playing politics on a grand scale, and so on. Things like mass combat would naturally slot into this system.
As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, these systems are aimed at specific subsets of players. Testing them in public would just result in a lot of people that the system isn’t aimed at giving us negative feedback. Thus, we’re showing these systems to groups that we know are in the target audience.
That’s where we stand today. With the last public packet out the door, there’s not much more to talk about today that you can’t see for yourself in the latest rules. Download, enjoy, and give us your feedback.
Good.
I like the look of a couple of these.
Campaign level stuff and sub-class building but as a DM tool only both appeal.
Sounds good , though I'm still wary when he references making sure the game runs "fair".
Optional is good!
Quote from: TristramEvans;693091Sounds good , though I'm still wary when he references making sure the game runs "fair".
I read that as
QuoteThe underlying math of the game... shakes out as we expect ... [and in that way] ensures that the classes play fair.
"Play fair" I take to mean "are designed in accordance with the parameters we've established for classes."
It's
way easier for me to make classes as mathematically off kilter as I may want, than for most other gamers to make them as mathematically well balanced as they want! That's part of the reason many of them will be buying the product instead of making up their own wacky systems.
Testing them in public would just result in a lot of people that the system isn't aimed at giving us negative feedback.
The gold line :D
Quote from: vytzka;693101Testing them in public would just result in a lot of people that the system isn't aimed at giving us negative feedback.
The gold line :D
He is right though can you imagine the shitstorm that would ensue if a test packet had included a whole load of story-game rules, or tactical minis combat, or uber customisation ....
There are some parts of the hobby that are simply too contentious with too many entrenched positions for an open and frank dialogue between interested parties to proove very fruitful
Oh, I absolutely agree. It's just funny seeing them finally admit that in plain text.
People would lose their shit if they'd showed a full customization system in the last packet.
"They're ignoring the True Fans!"
"Does Mearls expect us to do all the work for him?"
"This just shows that it's just 3.75!"
It gets fuckin' tedious.
I think they ar wise not to do a general public playtest with the options. Their probably doing targeted pllaytesting with people who like those styles of play.
Quote from: JonWake;693109People would lose their shit if they'd showed a full customization system in the last packet.
"They're ignoring the True Fans!"
"Does Mearls expect us to do all the work for him?"
"This just shows that it's just 3.75!"
It gets fuckin' tedious.
No no, Pathfinder is 3.75
Next is... 3.875
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;693111Their probably doing targeted pllaytesting with people who like those styles of play.
Not having Pundit test the dramatic system that emphasizes D&D as a storytelling activity, eh?
Quote from: Phillip;693116Not having Pundit test the dramatic system that emphasizes D&D as a storytelling activity, eh?
They can get Ron Edwards to do that bit, and then put his name and Pundit's next to each other in the credits ;)
Unsurprisingly, they look like they are trying to please everybody in a fractured and viciously balkanised hobby.
Unbelievably, the approach they are taking looks like it just might work.
Except for people like me of course, who wouldn't touch D&D with someone else's. Although if they had some good settings I could cannibalise I might be convinced to shell out a few yoyos.
Quote from: vytzka;693101Testing them in public would just result in a lot of people that the system isn't aimed at giving us negative feedback.
The gold line :D
I knew there had to be a reason we weren't seeing the promised modularity in the playtest packets, and to be fair to Mearls, it turns out that it was a damn good reason. Soliciting feedback on these options in an open playtest, even if you said "please only comment if you think these are the sort of options you might want to use in your game", would just open the door to a lot of completely useless feedback from people who don't like or understand the styles of play those optional components are catering to. My interest in Next just shot up.
Quote from: Glazer;693117They can get Ron Edwards to do that bit, and then put his name and Pundit's next to each other in the credits ;)
Ron wouldn't do it because he'd refuse to believe a single system could possibly cater to different people's needs.
None of these options fix a broken core for people who don't want "a more modern AD&D".
I think at this point we can safely say that it sucks to be you.
Quote from: vytzka;693136I think at this point we can safely say that it sucks to be you.
It's gonna be sucks to be WotC when they end up alienating the majority of 4E and PF fans when this hits stores.
Looks good.
Honestly, they never seemed to really try not to alienate 4e fans so they might be ready for that. I have no idea how things are going to turn with PF but there should be some turnover back to WOTC.
Then again I think they'd alienate more Pathfinder fans by not making fun of 4e fans the way they did with 3e.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;693135None of these options fix a broken core for people who don't want "a more modern AD&D".
You don't know what the core + tactical module looks like yet. We haven't even been shown a "finished" core game or anything from the modules.
Y'know, if you hadn't spent the past 6 months whining and bitching, you might have been the type of person they'd want testing the tactics module. Oh well.
Seriously, what did you think all your bitching would do? Do you think that Mearls et. al would be going through the forums and see you sweating and grousing and say, "man, all those surveys we've gotten back are wrong, we've been on the wrong track because six people on the forums are shouting at the top of their lungs."
There is always hope.
Personally, I'm willing to believe that it will be AD&D 2e with new art, Skills & Powers, Combat & Tactics and, with any luck, some Birthright thrown in. I am also perfectly happy with it because that is pretty much a D&D I'm not dying for (because D&D) but the most likely to actually be interested in.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;693137It's gonna be sucks to be WotC when they end up alienating the majority of 4E and PF fans when this hits stores.
Yeah I haven't quite figured out how alienating your customer base of the last 13 years in favor of the flavor of the month (which by the time the product hit's the shelves will be so over it's silly).
I had to dip in and take a look other places on the news of the tactical/story modules. I couldn't help it:
QuoteGak! Just when I was getting my hopes up that D&D Next might turn out to be a semi-decent system I find the design team's abdicating on its responsibility (and apparently won't make GenCon 2014 at this rate).
(snip)
In short the design team is skipping out on designing any actually challenging parts of the game. They consider it beneath their notice to even bother with the underlying maths of the game (does that mean that after almost two years they've decided they won't bother with something so fundamental or they know they can't get that right?) They aren't themselves bothering with the much touted modules but instead passing the modules - which are the hard part of the design as pitched - to some other group to carry the can.
I'm also darkly amused that they reference Combat and Tactics and that point 4 might as well be Skills and Powers. Also the only ray of sunshine I see here is that the actual work will be done by a second design team. One that won't spend about two years faffing around and not touching the underlying maths.
Same shit different day. As you were, gentlefolk...
(The Mearls' announcement sounds fair to me, increase the bodycount working on the project.)
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;693135None of these options fix a broken core for people who don't want "a more modern AD&D".
I dunno, dude, it looks to me like some of the modules, if you implement them in your game, would probably have a major effect on the core. I can't see how they're going to implement that narrative-sharing storygamey option without fundamentally changing the way people approach the core game, for instance. (Not a criticism: anyone who wants to implement that option probably wants to approach the game from a very different perspective from the assumptions of core in the first place).
And it seems to me they're nearing a place where if you wanted a game experience reminiscent of any particular previous edition but wanted to run it in the framework of Next you can just about do that.
Quote from: Sommerjon;693143Yeah I haven't quite figured out how alienating your customer base of the last 13 years in favor of the flavor of the month (which by the time the product hit's the shelves will be so over it's silly).
What "flavor" would that be? It certainly isn't old school.
If WOTC ends up alienating the kinds of people who like to masturbate to character builds instead of playing the game then they will have at least gotten something right.
Quote from: Phillip;693100I read that as
"Play fair" I take to mean "are designed in accordance with the parameters we've established for classes."
It's way easier for me to make classes as mathematically off kilter as I may want, than for most other gamers to make them as mathematically well balanced as they want! That's part of the reason many of them will be buying the product instead of making up their own wacky systems.
It just makes me wary as a design goal, because more often than not it seems to go hand-in-hand with disassociative mechanics, 'magic superhero' classes, and charOp. I generally consider balance to be an illusion, generally hyper-focused around combat, and that starting with that illusiory concept as a design goal tends to lead in the opposite direction of versimilitude.
Quote from: Sommerjon;693143Yeah I haven't quite figured out how alienating your customer base of the last 13 years in favor of the flavor of the month (which by the time the product hit's the shelves will be so over it's silly).
Considering the success of the playtests, all indications is that they haven't alienated their customer base, just a few extreme outlîers vocal on hobby forms.
And yeah, what do you mean by flavour of the month? Is that a reference to the Pixar-ish illustrations?
It seems that they're trying to make D&D a more robust toolkit rather than a one fixed ruleset to rule them all. It's sort of like that anyway but this seems to be going into territory akin to FATE or similar systems--while trying to keep as much of the classic D&D core as possible.
Hopefully it will work well.
Quote from: TristramEvans;693150Considering the success of the playtests, all indications is that they haven't alienated their customer base, just a few extreme outlîers vocal on hobby forms.
And yeah, what do you mean by flavour of the month? Is that a reference to the Pixar-ish illustrations?
How has the playtest been a success. The "a more modern AD&D" people like it, but the 4E crowd wants to kill it with fire, the Pathfinder crowd is giving it a resounding 'meh', and the OSR crowd is cheering it for shitting on 4E but probably will never play it.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;693153How has the playtest been a success. The "a more modern AD&D" people like it, but the 4E crowd wants to kill it with fire, the Pathfinder crowd is giving it a resounding 'meh', and the OSR crowd is cheering it for shitting on 4E but probably will never play it.
Yeah, people who identify with extreme positions in online camps as I said.
Quote from: BarefootGaijin;693144I had to dip in and take a look other places on the news of the tactical/story modules. I couldn't help it:
Same shit different day. As you were, gentlefolk...
(The Mearls' announcement sounds fair to me, increase the bodycount working on the project.)
Yeah, the attitude in that quote is exactly why I'm hanging out here (and other forums) more and barely post there anymore. Hard to have an interesting discussion when the 4rries rule the roost.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;693153How has the playtest been a success. The "a more modern AD&D" people like it, but the 4E crowd wants to kill it with fire, the Pathfinder crowd is giving it a resounding 'meh', and the OSR crowd is cheering it for shitting on 4E but probably will never play it.
You are just a toxic person that, for whatever reason, wants Next to fail and nothing about it can ever sound good. You are simply filled with a (perplexing) hate on for them. So I'm going to go ahead and ignore you as on all the other forums. As they used to say in times archaic: plonk.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;693153How has the playtest been a success. The "a more modern AD&D" people like it, but the 4E crowd wants to kill it with fire, the Pathfinder crowd is giving it a resounding 'meh', and the OSR crowd is cheering it for shitting on 4E but probably will never play it.
"a more modern AD&D" = casual gamers
4E crowd= 4vengers
Pathfinder crowd= charop extremists
OSR crowd= OSR Taliban
What a surprise! The regular casual gamer group outnumbers all these fringe groups by a considerable margin. I lean towards the osr a bit myself but I haven't gone full retard. I'm not going to refuse to look at or play something I haven't seen yet.
Quote from: Obeeron;693158You are just a toxic person that, for whatever reason, wants Next to fail and nothing about it can ever sound good. You are simply filled with a (perplexing) hate on for them. So I'm going to go ahead and ignore you as on all the other forums. As they used to say in times archaic: plonk.
I dunno what's perplexing about THO's reaction to Next, they killed his favorite game for it. Being pissed off is understandable, if not especially rational (not that us gamers are very rational people on average to begin with), although at some point you'd think he'd get over it already.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;693159"a more modern AD&D" = casual gamers
4E crowd= 4vengers
Pathfinder crowd= charop extremists
OSR crowd= OSR Taliban
What a surprise! The regular casual gamer group outnumbers all these fringe groups by a considerable margin. I lean towards the osr a bit myself but I haven't gone full retard. I'm not going to refuse to look at or play something I haven't seen yet.
Thank you for showing some sanity in these discussions.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;693137It's gonna be sucks to be WotC when they end up alienating the majority of 4E and PF fans when this hits stores.
Incorrect. This is looking good. I am officially interested again....given I belong in the "More modern Dnd" crowd, ie. casual gamer.
But you're a female gamer and you don't exist / are disgusted with the state of female armor in D&D illustrations / both!
'4rries'.
That shit is gold.
In all honesty, I wonder how many people over on certain other forums actually play RPGs. So much of the conversation is around these strange theoretical creatures that I've yet to actually meet in real life. Like a nerdy bigfoot.
Sounds surprisingly promising.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;693135None of these options fix the broken core that is my soul.
FIFY
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;693153How has the playtest been a success. The "a more modern AD&D" people like it, but the 4E crowd wants to kill it with fire, the Pathfinder crowd is giving it a resounding 'meh', and the OSR crowd is cheering it for shitting on 4E but probably will never play it.
and the 80% majority or so of D&D players are going to go right along and pick it up and play it the same way they did 4E.
They could give two shits about the latest internet forum flamefest, the local FLGS stocks 5e, the WotC events are 5e, the D&D Meetup groups are 5e, they're gonna play 5e.
Quote from: JonWake;693167'4rries'.
That shit is gold.
In all honesty, I wonder how many people over on certain other forums actually play RPGs. So much of the conversation is around these strange theoretical creatures that I've yet to actually meet in real life. Like a nerdy bigfoot.
Actually, the final straw for me was when a couple of the biggest complainers about Next mentioned that they don't actually play RPGs because they "can't find anyone to play with".
Yeah I too was surprised, in a positive way.
Quote from: vytzka;693162I dunno what's perplexing about THO's reaction to Next, they killed his favorite game for it. Being pissed off is understandable, if not especially rational (not that us gamers are very rational people on average to begin with), although at some point you'd think he'd get over it already.
Ben bring out the TCO troll quote would ya, think there's people here who haven't seen it.
Quote from: Obeeron;693171Actually, the final straw for me was when a couple of the biggest complainers about Next mentioned that they don't actually play RPGs because they "can't find anyone to play with".
What a shocker. :jaw-dropping:
This is my surprised face.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;693153How has the playtest been a success. The "a more modern AD&D" people like it, but the 4E crowd wants to kill it with fire, the Pathfinder crowd is giving it a resounding 'meh', and the OSR crowd is cheering it for shitting on 4E but probably will never play it.
I've seen you whine bitch moan and complain at EW, and your views are not well-shared there either. There are a few core complainers who agree with you, but the mass of people over there seem cautiously optimistic. And that's hardly the "a modern AD&D" crowd.
Naw, it could just be mostly you, and you're projecting because you don't want to think that the mass of gamers are not thinking like you.
Quote from: TristramEvans;693148I generally consider balance to be an illusion, generally hyper-focused around combat, and that starting with that illusiory concept as a design goal tends to lead in the opposite direction of versimilitude.
Again, if you or I want verisimilitude, it's easy enough for us to assign a probability of a figure being a serf handicapped by prenatal defects, malnutrition, plague and injuries.
I think there's a non-illusory domain of greater balance than none at all.
Black Vulema had it right. TCO is just a troll. A self admitted one who says he just argues to argue because it gets his rocks off. Like I said in the official forums when TCO said that 5e is officially dead and I replied, "does that mean you'll stop talking about 5e now?" and he responded with, "Of course not, WoTC needs to know how they are wrong."
If they haven't listened to you by now, you keep on fighting the good fight dude. Besides, and I know this may be a huge shocker to folks, but many of the roll20 games of Next I've played were with people whose favorite editions spanned the gammut, including 4e.
Quote from: CRKrueger;693173Ben bring out the TCO troll quote would ya, think there's people here who haven't seen it.
As you wish.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;330631Ok, maybe I will explain:
I like arguing with people. I don't really care about winning the argument, and I don't really care which argument. I've argued with people over what Transformers line is superior, which American Idol contestant sucks, whether or not overfocusing on tournament play was ruining M:tG for those who played casually, I argued with people over whether the Fighter sucked and spellcasting was too powerful in 3E ect. Posting on message boards without an argument is boring. I say I don't have an agenda, because I'm not here to promote one, I'm just here to join in the argument. I don't have a goal beyond that. If I were to win the argument and the argument would end, my reason for existence would end as well.
In the RPG world right now, 4E is the center of the storm. I'm here for the storm, not for 4E.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;693186Black Vulema had it right. TCO is just a troll. A self admitted one who says he just argues to argue because it gets his rocks off. Like I said in the official forums when TCO said that 5e is officially dead and I replied, "does that mean you'll stop talking about 5e now?" and he responded with, "Of course not, WoTC needs to know how they are wrong."
If they haven't listened to you by now, you keep on fighting the good fight dude. Besides, and I know this may be a huge shocker to folks, but many of the roll20 games of Next I've played were with people whose favorite editions spanned the gammut, including 4e.
My group of players were die-hard 4e lovers. ONE didn't come over to 5e, and he's simply not playing anything right now. I suspect he will come over as well. The rest of us are loving the 5e playtest, and reveling in faster combat and more role playing.
Quote from: Mistwell;693177I've seen you whine bitch moan and complain at EW, and your views are not well-shared there either. There are a few core complainers who agree with you, but the mass of people over there seem cautiously optimistic. And that's hardly the "a modern AD&D" crowd.
Naw, it could just be mostly you, and you're projecting because you don't want to think that the mass of gamers are not thinking like you.
There's no enthusiasm there Mistwell. Most people have given up and moved on.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;693153How has the playtest been a success. The "a more modern AD&D" people like it, but the 4E crowd wants to kill it with fire, the Pathfinder crowd is giving it a resounding 'meh', and the OSR crowd is cheering it for shitting on 4E but probably will never play it.
Quote from: TristramEvans;693155Yeah, people who identify with extreme positions in online camps as I said.
Aaaand Tristram wins the thread.
Quote from: Phillip;693185Again, if you or I want verisimilitude, it's easy enough for us to assign a probability of a figure being a serf handicapped by prenatal defects, malnutrition, plague and injuries.
I think there's a non-illusory domain of greater balance than none at all.
I'm not certain we're actually talking about the same thing.
4e was taken as the pinnacle of mechanical balance, by giving every class magic, tailoring monsters to the level of adventurers so PCs never face a threat they can't defeat by violence, and removing niche protection to a meta game division based on tactical roles a character plays in the party. This would be the sort of stuff I'm wary of nowadays when I hear the term " mathematical balance".
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;693192There's no enthusiasm there Mistwell. Most people have given up and moved on.
Current state of the EW D&D forum 1st page:
D&D Next Threads: 13 threads, 526 replies
4th Edition Threads: 6 threads, 243 replies
3E/3.5E Threads: 9 threads, 265 replies
Pathfinder Threads: 7 threads, 118 replies
(3.x/Pathfinder total: 16 threads, 383 replies)
Indeed people have moved on...to Next, it seems.
Your next play will be to say that the number of threads and replies don't matter, because there are negative people in the Next threads. But the reality is that those people make up a small percentage of the big playtest packet threads. The majority of posts are saying they like x, they don't like y, they have an idea for how to fix z. Basically, enthusiasm.
Quote from: Mistwell;693191My group of players were die-hard 4e lovers. ONE didn't come over to 5e, and he's simply not playing anything right now. I suspect he will come over as well. The rest of us are loving the 5e playtest, and reveling in faster combat and more role playing.
Strikes me as weird that one group could be die-hard 4e lovers, and then also love a system that is exactly the opposite.
Quote from: 1989;693208Strikes me as weird that one group could be die-hard 4e lovers, and then also love a system that is exactly the opposite.
Firstly, how can an edition be the opposite? That doesn't make any sense. do the players play as monsters or something?
Secondly, people can be die hard fans of more than one edition. I love AD&D 1e and B/X. I also like WFRP 1e, and enjoy Next.
Quote from: 1989;693208Strikes me as weird that one group could be die-hard 4e lovers, and then also love a system that is exactly the opposite.
That's because your life has only one true love in it, and she has 2 'Ds', an 'A', and a '2' in her name.
Quote from: 1989;693208Strikes me as weird that one group could be die-hard 4e lovers, and then also love a system that is exactly the opposite.
I'm a fan of B/X and a fan of 4e. Right now each gives me different things that I like in gaming. Next gives me a lot of the things I like about each, and not much of what I don't like.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;693147What "flavor" would that be? It certainly isn't old school.
The fuck it's not.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;693147If WOTC ends up alienating the kinds of people who like to masturbate to character builds instead of playing the game then they will have at least gotten something right.
This whole self denial bullshit about ad&d not having builds is laughable. WTF did you do when you leveled? You roll on some chart to see if you you were going to do?
Well shit I rolled a 2, guess I retire this guy and roll a new one.
Hot Fucking Damn! I rolled 00 I get to dual class! Awesome.
WTF ever:rolleyes:
Quote from: TristramEvans;693150Considering the success of the playtests, all indications is that they haven't alienated their customer base, just a few extreme outlîers vocal on hobby forms.
We have no idea of the "success" of the playtests.
Amusing to see the difference here. When WotC was talking about the "success" of 4e this place used up pallets of toilet paper shitting on that 'corp speak' BS. Now that the new hotness is more akin to the preferred playstyle here 'they speaketh da trutheth'
Quote from: Bobloblah;693215That's because your life has only one true love in it, and she has 2 'Ds', an 'A', and a '2' in her name.
AD&D 2e Revised!
Quote from: TristramEvans;6931994e was taken as the pinnacle of mechanical balance, by giving every class magic, tailoring monsters to the level of adventurers so PCs never face a threat they can't defeat by violence, and removing niche protection to a meta game division based on tactical roles a character plays in the party. This would be the sort of stuff I'm wary of nowadays when I hear the term " mathematical balance".
That's an arbitrarily narrow interpretation, not apparently warranted by the context. Have you seen the playtest packet? That, according to the statement, is what's to be checked. If the stuff you fear is in there, then presumably it's bad enough even if it's statistically a pile of crap. If it's not, then it seems to me you may be worrying too much.
Quote from: Obeeron;693171Actually, the final straw for me was when a couple of the biggest complainers about Next mentioned that they don't actually play RPGs because they "can't find anyone to play with".
:rolleyes: Yeah here it's totally different. They don't need G+ or any of those BS 'internet roleplaying services'. They all sit down face to face. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Sommerjon;693218The fuck it's not.
This tells me that you know jack shit about old school play, but we knew that already.
Quote from: Sommerjon;693218This whole self denial bullshit about ad&d not having builds is laughable. WTF did you do when you leveled? You roll on some chart to see if you you were going to do?
Well shit I rolled a 2, guess I retire this guy and roll a new one.
Hot Fucking Damn! I rolled 00 I get to dual class! Awesome.
WTF ever:rolleyes:
The fact that you cannot distinguish between advancement and builds is telling. An AD&D fighter advances in level and gets generally better at fighting. A 3.X fighter chooses options that support a particular build during advancement.
In answer to your question, you rolled for more HP and got the fuck on with the game.
Quote from: Sommerjon;693218We have no idea of the "success" of the playtests.
Amusing to see the difference here. When WotC was talking about the "success" of 4e this place used up pallets of toilet paper shitting on that 'corp speak' BS. Now that the new hotness is more akin to the preferred playstyle here 'they speaketh da trutheth'
The playtests were just market research to determine what the majority of people wanted in the core game. They showed the fans bits and pieces of ideas to see which ones gained the most traction. They found out what they wanted to know, thus the playtest was a "success".
I have no idea if what they publish will be compatible with my preferred playstyle. I'm just going to wait and see, reserving judgement until after I have a chance to see the finished product. The same chance I gave 4E.
Quote from: vytzka;693219AD&D 2e Revised!
Bah! A pox on your 'revised' house. The original lass is the only one for me.
Quote from: Sommerjon;693222:rolleyes: Yeah here it's totally different. They don't need G+ or any of those BS 'internet roleplaying services'. They all sit down face to face. :rolleyes:
You shut your face! Online roleplaying is a thing.
Quote from: Bobloblah;693226Bah! A pox on your 'revised' house. The original lass is the only one for me.
Pfffft. Revised has some "skills and powers". If you know what I mean.
Quote from: Phillip;693221That's an arbitrarily narrow interpretation, not apparently warranted by the context. Have you seen the playtest packet? That, according to the statement, is what's to be checked. If the stuff you fear is in there, then presumably it's bad enough even if it's statistically a pile of crap. If it's not, then it seems to me you may be worrying too much.
The context here is the author, the company, and the terminology.
But just to be clear, when I say "wary", I don't mean
"AAAH! They're going to ruin D&D!"
or
"AAAH! 5th edition is going to FAIL!"
or even
"AAAH! Badwrongfun!"
I mean worried I'm not going to like this edition anymore than I liked WoTC's other editions. But I'm also well aware I'm not the target audience for this game.
Quote from: Sommerjon;693218Now that the new hotness is more akin to the preferred playstyle here 'they speaketh da trutheth'
Well, duh.
Quote from: Sommerjon;693222:rolleyes: Yeah here it's totally different. They don't need G+ or any of those BS 'internet roleplaying services'. They all sit down face to face. :rolleyes:
I didn't say anything about face to face vs virtual. The two I'm thinking of claim they don't play in any way.
Quote from: vytzka;693232Pfffft. Revised has some "skills and powers". If you know what I mean.
She's just a dirty whore! Willing to put out whatever kind of power-tripping character anyone who can pay the point-cost asks for!
Quote from: Obeeron;693242I didn't say anything about face to face vs virtual. The two I'm thinking of claim they don't play in any way.
Ignore him. He's an idiot, and currently appears to be off his meds.
Quote from: Sommerjon;693218The fuck it's not.
You do realize the OSR has lasted longer than 3 editions of D&D, and actually forms a continuity starting with 2nd edition ceasing publication, meaning this "fad" is as old as the hobby itself and shows no signs of ever ceasing for as long as people continue to play RPGs?
Quote from: Exploderwizard;693224This tells me that you know jack shit about old school play, but we knew that already.
Really? The wave of osr shit hits the hobby and looky at what Mearls is doing, 'going back to the simpler times'. Yeah no correlations can be drawn at all. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Exploderwizard;693224The fact that you cannot distinguish between advancement and builds is telling. An AD&D fighter advances in level and gets generally better at fighting. A 3.X fighter chooses options that support a particular build during advancement.
In answer to your question, you rolled for more HP and got the fuck on with the game.
Yeah no one at any time ever ever ever, made a plan on what to do with their character at all ever ever ever. :rolleyes:
It was all quink-a-dink on what the character became. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Exploderwizard;693224The playtests were just market research to determine what the majority of people wanted in the core game. They showed the fans bits and pieces of ideas to see which ones gained the most traction. They found out what they wanted to know, thus the playtest was a "success".
Sure...;)
No way it could be a marketing ploy, no way no how!
Quote from: Exploderwizard;693159"a more modern AD&D" = casual gamers
4E crowd= 4vengers
Pathfinder crowd= charop extremists
OSR crowd= OSR Taliban
If you've got Strong Opinions on systems, like any of these, you clearly aren't some sort of 'casual' gamer. The casual player doesn't go for any thing in particular, they just join whatever's getting played.
You can't make your game popular by targeting them, because they don't give a shit.
Quote from: Ladybird;693268If you've got Strong Opinions on systems, like any of these, you clearly aren't some sort of 'casual' gamer. The casual player doesn't go for any thing in particular, they just join whatever's getting played.
You can't make your game popular by targeting them, because they don't give a shit.
I think that's not true, because that excludes the middle, and by definition almost, I think what we like to call casual gamers are people who are in the middle. I think most gamers actually care what they play as far as their immediate game tables and buddies are concerned. They do have opinions, likes and dislikes, they know when they're having less fun than last week, it's just that they're not making the expression of these opinions on the internet or anywhere really the defining element of their gaming personality or whatnot.
Quote from: Benoist;693270I think that's not true, because that excludes the middle, and by definition almost, I think what we like to call casual gamers are people who are in the middle. I think most gamers actually care what they play as far as their immediate game tables and buddies are concerned. They do have opinions, likes and dislikes, they know when they're having less fun than last week, it's just that they're not making airing these opinions the defining element of their gaming personality or whatnot.
I think because of their non-engagement with the "hard-core" they've stumbled on the great truth of RPGs that make them fun in the first place. That they are about so much more than the rules or the books or all the faff you buy from stores.
Something the hobbyists lost sight of in our never ending quest to cram our collective head up our ass.
In fact I think RPGs are pretty poorly suited to the type of obsessive nerd that infests many hobbies. Which probably explains why everyone is so unhappy with RPGs all the time. "15 minutes of fun crammed into 4 hours" and the like.
The type of holistic experience best provided by RPGs is anathema to obsessive mouth breathers.
Quote from: Sommerjon;693265Yeah no one at any time ever ever ever, made a plan on what to do with their character at all ever ever ever. :rolleyes:
It was all quink-a-dink on what the character became. :rolleyes:
Your ignorance is showing again.
Yeah plans were made, and characters developed-based on experiences in actual play not ad-on mechanical do-dads (there really weren't any, you can look it up)
Plans involved choosing where to clear your hex, build a fortress, etc. Your character became whatever your experiences made of him- or worm food long before any of that hex clearing stuff became relevant.
Quote from: Mistwell;693177I've seen you whine bitch moan and complain at EW, and your views are not well-shared there either. There are a few core complainers who agree with you, but the mass of people over there seem cautiously optimistic. And that's hardly the "a modern AD&D" crowd.
Naw, it could just be mostly you, and you're projecting because you don't want to think that the mass of gamers are not thinking like you.
I have to agree with Mistwell here because he is correct.
TCO is a well-known troll across several forums, that he is emotionally distraught over this just makes me smile.
Quote from: Phillip;693185Again, if you or I want verisimilitude, it's easy enough for us to assign a probability of a figure being a serf handicapped by prenatal defects, malnutrition, plague and injuries.
You can actually play that guy in Zweihander.
Quote from: Sommerjon;693222:rolleyes: Yeah here it's totally different. They don't need G+ or any of those BS 'internet roleplaying services'. They all sit down face to face. :rolleyes:
I do, but then again, I play
Traveller. :p
Options aren't a bad idea, but it means that "I play 5e" could mean very different things. But overall, I believe the advantage of options would outweigh the disadvantage.
Quote from: Benoist;693270I think that's not true, because that excludes the middle, and by definition almost, I think what we like to call casual gamers are people who are in the middle. I think most gamers actually care what they play as far as their immediate game tables and buddies are concerned. They do have opinions, likes and dislikes, they know when they're having less fun than last week, it's just that they're not making the expression of these opinions on the internet or anywhere really the defining element of their gaming personality or whatnot.
They may have likes and dislikes, but those aren't what drives a group or sells them books.
So we have a guy in our group called Gary (He played Gorm in my Dungeon World game, the mercenary in my SWN game, and I've played other things with him as well. He's a real person, not just an anecdote). Gary is pretty much the epitome of a casual gamer; he comes along every Tuesday, rolls some dice, and then goes home again. He's not terribly big on characterisation, he doesn't post on forums or do anything gaming-related the rest of the week, doesn't really seem concerned about system (Although he's not very good with anything narrative), but he is evidently enjoying himself because, week-in, week-out, he's at the club. Gary is a casual gamer, and there is
nothing wrong with that. What he doesn't do, though, is run games. If you got Gary excited about a game, you'd probably sell that book... but he wouldn't run it or get other people excited about it, and if you've done enough marketing that Gary knows about your game, you've spent a lot of money.
No, the person you want to get excited is a Steve (Or perhaps even a Ben, in your group). The Steves of this world follow the gaming news, have near boundless enthusiasm, and like to run games. They're cheap to market to, because they are actively seeking this sort of thing out, and once you've got them, they will happily do the rest of your marketing for you
for free, and sell the rest of the group on your books.
Everyone else is just a varying data point on the sliding scale of marketing spend vs marketing effectiveness, for this model.
Steves should care about Garys. The guy who follows the news and runs the games should actually care about the people he plays with.
Steve can be as motivated as he wants, if Gary doesn't like the game, he might not post about it on the internet, hell, he might not even say it to the other players of the group, but you can tell Gary could have a better time if he wasn't counting beans on his character sheet, or didn't have to choose between seven thousand options in the book for his knight character, options he actually doesn't give a fuck about.
Steve is the one who's going to read the books and that's a good thing: Steve could use some advice if all he cares about is what he personally thinks about the game he wants for himself. He could care about the many parts that make up a role playing game, including the people playing with him, the snacks, the setting he wants to run, the rules he's going to use, and if he's sensible about these things, then thinking about Garys when you design your game definitely will be a plus. Steve is going to see that. He's going to run the game, and even though Gary doesn't pip a word, Steve's going to notice he isn't frowning the same way he was when he had to search for a feat on his character sheet. Instead he's going to rave about how he wouldn't have come up with this character idea if the group hadn't decided to roll 3d6 in order, to use the tactical rules this time around, or the storytelling options, for that matter.
The Garys of this world are worth thinking about. Steve would do well to remember.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;693192There's no enthusiasm there Mistwell. Most people have given up and moved on.
Confirmation Bias, thy name is thecasualoblivion. There is enthusiasm for sure over at EW, and other places, and if you look at their chart of what people are discussing across the internet spectrum for D&D things, 5e now outstrips pathfinder (which it didn't just a couple weeks ago).
(http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/8971/oylh.jpg)
Quote from: MorrusWhat's the current zeitgeist? What are the hottest games being played right now? This isn't a list of sales figures; it tracks what's currently being talked about using a top secret algorithm. This page tracks discussion on a selection of major independent RPG discussion forums to create an overall sample from a list including EN World, RPGnet, UK Roleplayers, RPG Geek, the RPG Bloggers network of nearly 300 blogs and the RPG Blog Alliance of nearly 600 blogs.
Tell me again how people have moved on, given the surge in discussion of 5e. You really think people who moved on started to suddenly talk about 5e more?
You like the controversy, you like to play the devils advocate, so please don't pretend all of a sudden you're thinking like the masses on this topic. We both know the game you're playing, and it's transparent.
Speaking as a Steve, I depend on Garys to game.
Quote from: Obeeron;693171Actually, the final straw for me was when a couple of the biggest complainers about Next mentioned that they don't actually play RPGs because they "can't find anyone to play with".
I laughed out loud when I saw one of the most persistent anti-Next posters on the big purple admit that he had only played 4E a couple times. He was defending 4E and spouting hysterical comments in every thread about Next out of some sort of obsession with D&D as a theoretical model. It's bizarre. And hilarious. And sad.
Quote from: Sommerjon;693265Really? The wave of osr shit hits the hobby and looky at what Mearls is doing, 'going back to the simpler times'. Yeah no correlations can be drawn at all. :rolleyes:
Yeah no one at any time ever ever ever, made a plan on what to do with their character at all ever ever ever. :rolleyes:
Okay, let's see you 'build' an AD&D fighter. Go ahead. Pick a race. Roll some random attributes. Buy your shit. And then plot him out to 10th level. Try it. You'll find the number of mechanical power choices he has after character generation is zero.
Quote from: Ladybird;693268If you've got Strong Opinions on systems, like any of these, you clearly aren't some sort of 'casual' gamer. The casual player doesn't go for any thing in particular, they just join whatever's getting played.
You can't make your game popular by targeting them, because they don't give a shit.
Sorry, you're wrong. The thing about RPGs is you need other people to play with. If you play with people who don't have the time or inclination to take the rules home to engage in 3 hour char-op sessions, or who get bored and disengaged when combat lasts more than 60 minutes, you have two choices:
* Take all of the burden of the game mechanics (or setting) upon yourself and lead the table by the hand to partake in what you (as the hardcore gamer) find fun.
* Buy and run an RPG that most of the people at the table will be happy with, and that you can run without cajoling and hand-holding.
Of course, for a lot of hardcores who post a lot on forums, accessibility and playability don't matter because they're Bitter Non-Gamers or Theory-Wanks. Or they're uber-nerds who bully and cajole and whine in order to get a bunch of their diffident acquaintances to play the game they think is theoretically awesome.
Quote from: Piestrio;693274I think because of their non-engagement with the "hard-core" they've stumbled on the great truth of RPGs that make them fun in the first place. That they are about so much more than the rules or the books or all the faff you buy from stores.
Something the hobbyists lost sight of in our never ending quest to cram our collective head up our ass.
In fact I think RPGs are pretty poorly suited to the type of obsessive nerd that infests many hobbies. Which probably explains why everyone is so unhappy with RPGs all the time. "15 minutes of fun crammed into 4 hours" and the like.
The type of holistic experience best provided by RPGs is anathema to obsessive mouth breathers.
Yep. Number-crunching and obsessive analysis of mechanical theory are poorly suited to the organic and largely subjective social experience of playing RPGs. It's like creating an algorithm to determine the steps to take to host a fun backyard barbecue.
Quote from: Haffrung;693336I laughed out loud when I saw one of the most persistent anti-Next posters on the big purple admit that he had only played 4E a couple times. He was defending 4E and spouting hysterical comments in every thread about Next out of some sort of obsession with D&D as a theoretical model. It's bizarre. And hilarious. And sad.
It's kind of typical though, that place is addled with those who've been deprived of regular human contact for so long that they'll seek any opportunity to draw attention to themselves without crossing the boundaries that mean they'll get ejected.
RPGs aren't unique in this incidentally, I've seen it in many walks of life. It's a sad commentary on society itself to be honest.
Quote from: Haffrung;693336Yep. Number-crunching and obsessive analysis of mechanical theory are poorly suited to the organic and largely subjective social experience of playing RPGs. It's like creating an algorithm to determine the steps to take to host a fun backyard barbecue.
So... what you're saying is nobody should talk about game rules because you'd rather sit around having a conversation where the only rule is that everyone has to listen to you, peppered with the odd dice roll? And anyone who disagrees with
that opinion is the sort we need less of?
There are good ways to do things and less good ways, depending on your priorities. A lot of your 'theorywank' deals with this topic. In fact without 'theorywank' the hobby wouldn't exist, end of story.
I do agree that the endless ouroboric furballs within the online spectrum of the D&D hobbyist contingent are not constructive for the most part, mainly due to the refrain that if you change the RAW you aren't playing D&D any more. Ironically this most often emerges from people who claim both to disdain the rules and make a special effort to avoid playing by the RAW.
Quote from: The Traveller;693342So... what you're saying is nobody should talk about game rules because you'd rather sit around having a conversation where the only rule is that everyone has to listen to you, peppered with the odd dice roll? And anyone who disagrees with that opinion is the sort we need less of?
No. If people want to discuss the optimal distance a grill should be from a back door, the utility of various sized plastic coolers, and the options for arranging hamburger assembly stations, all the power to them. And no doubt some decent tips would come out of those discussions. It's just that they'll have only a marginal effect on how much fun people actually have at a barbecue. And if a culture develops where barbecue hosting becomes focused on these matters, it's probably a sign that there's something unhealthy going on.
Quote from: The Traveller;693342I do agree that the endless ouroboric furballs within the online spectrum of the D&D hobbyist contingent are not constructive for the most part, mainly due to the refrain that if you change the RAW you aren't playing D&D any more. Ironically this most often emerges from people who claim both to disdain the rules and make a special effort to avoid playing by the RAW.
I won't argue with you there.
Quote from: Haffrung;693344It's just that they'll have only a marginal effect on how much fun people actually have at a barbecue.
Except we aren't talking about having barbecue. We're talking about playing a game. The beef patties and potato salad are how the attendees interact with the setting, and that happens through the rules, unless you're a dice rolling conversationalist with a penchant for the pulpit.
I have over the course of my life combed through hundreds or even thousands of different game systems (yes, there are that many out there) looking for useful ideas and pieces I could fit into my own framework, like some sort of lunatic mechanic building a luxury gilded zeppelin by sifting through the world's junkyards, plugging in some bits, melting down others for their raw components.
Does that make me a mathematical masturbator? A one true way onanist? Does the fact that I've played RPGs throughout and enjoyed the deeply social aspects of RPGs (again in which by the way they are not unique, every organised event includes quite a large number of people who are there for social reasons alone) balance this out on the scales of theorywank?
The frankly schizophrenic arguments that D&D appears to inspire at every turn shouldn't detract from the value that being aware of how game rules affect play brings to the table. And I do respect that people enjoy D&D, and certain styles of gameplay that I personally don't.
Quote from: Mistwell;693333Tell me again how people have moved on, given the surge in discussion of 5e. You really think people who moved on started to suddenly talk about 5e more?
You like the controversy, you like to play the devils advocate, so please don't pretend all of a sudden you're thinking like the masses on this topic. We both know the game you're playing, and it's transparent.
Yes people are talking about 5e because that's the no. 1 story in RPGs. It is a new edition of D&D after all that sort of a big deal. If we were halving this sort discussion in 2008 we'd see 4e a big slice of that pie too. 4e still failed. Fuck if "people talk about it a lot on the internet" was a metric for success why aren't we hailing the tremendous success of FATAL ;3
Quote from: The Traveller;693345The frankly schizophrenic arguments that D&D appears to inspire at every turn shouldn't detract from the value that being aware of how game rules affect play brings to the table. And I do respect that people enjoy D&D, and certain styles of gameplay that I personally don't.
Don't bother. Questions like "what should the the rules be like?" are always going to bring forth a torrent of tribalistic shibboleths like "play the game not the rules". 'cause dealing with those sorts of questions honestly leads to answers that are uncomfortable to people here.
Quote from: The Traveller;693345I have over the course of my life combed through hundreds or even thousands of different game systems (yes, there are that many out there) looking for useful ideas and pieces I could fit into my own framework, like some sort of lunatic mechanic building a luxury gilded zeppelin by sifting through the world's junkyards, plugging in some bits, melting down others for their raw components.
Does that make me a mathematical masturbator? A one true way onanist? Does the fact that I've played RPGs throughout and enjoyed the deeply social aspects of RPGs (again in which by the way they are not unique, every organised event includes quite a large number of people who are there for social reasons alone) balance this out on the scales of theorywank?
No. It means in addition to the hobby of playing RPG games with people, you enjoy a related hobby of analyzing and tweaking game systems. There's even a certain amount of synergy between the two hobbies. Just not as much as some people think.
Quote from: gamerGoyf;693349Yes people are talking about 5e because that's the no. 1 story in RPGs. It is a new edition of D&D after all that sort of a big deal. If we were halving this sort discussion in 2008 we'd see 4e a big slice of that pie too. 4e still failed. Fuck if "people talk about it a lot on the internet" was a metric for success why aren't we hailing the tremendous success of FATAL ;3
We're not concerned with what the current state of the discussion means for the long term success of 5e. We're just noting that TCO is talking out of his ass.
Quote from: The Traveller;693345Except we aren't talking about having barbecue. We're talking about playing a game. The beef patties and potato salad are how the attendees interact with the setting, and that happens through the rules, unless you're a dice rolling conversationalist with a penchant for the pulpit.
I have over the course of my life combed through hundreds or even thousands of different game systems (yes, there are that many out there) looking for useful ideas and pieces I could fit into my own framework, like some sort of lunatic mechanic building a luxury gilded zeppelin by sifting through the world's junkyards, plugging in some bits, melting down others for their raw components.
Does that make me a mathematical masturbator? A one true way onanist? Does the fact that I've played RPGs throughout and enjoyed the deeply social aspects of RPGs (again in which by the way they are not unique, every organised event includes quite a large number of people who are there for social reasons alone) balance this out on the scales of theorywank?
The frankly schizophrenic arguments that D&D appears to inspire at every turn shouldn't detract from the value that being aware of how game rules affect play brings to the table. And I do respect that people enjoy D&D, and certain styles of gameplay that I personally don't.
There's talking about rules, and thinking of new rules, and trying different mechanics, and such. And then there is the statistical analysis of the game for optimal "builds" and insistence that RPGs need to support such WoW-like analysis. The former is awesome, the latter is fun only within the constraints of a game that is, well, fun for that stuff. I've done my fair share of WoW wonk and RPG system wonk, and I'm not immune to it. But I've long since learned that such things have little to do with at-the-table play enjoyment. I agree 100% that RPGs are not the medium for analysis wonks - such analysis is useless when a big chunk of the fun of a medium is house-ruling, not to mention subjectivity. I had fun playing 4E, but after 18 months of doing so, my thoughts became, "why am I not just playing a video game?"
But of course we should talk about rules and mechanics in addition to fluff and characters and stories. That's the brilliance of RPGs!
Quote from: Haffrung;693357No. It means in addition to the hobby of playing RPG games with people, you enjoy a related hobby of analyzing and tweaking game systems. There's even a certain amount of synergy between the two hobbies. Just not as much as some people think.
Maybe differentiate between the angry rulings not rules crowd who are usually the first to quote chapter, verse, grammatical style and punctuation of their favourite version of whatever, the D&D ragers, and the people who are primarily interested in delivering a better and occasionally new experience to their players.
It was, after all, the instincts of the latter which gave rise to the hobby in the first place.
Its funny that even though I liked 4e for what it was, I don't think I would tack the combat and tactics options onto Next. Next seems pretty nice the way it is in the latest playtest pack for me.
Of course, that is the nice thing about options!
Quote from: gamerGoyf;693349Yes people are talking about 5e because that's the no. 1 story in RPGs.
Wrong. Two weeks ago they had a different result, and PF was the #1 topic in discussion. So, people have RECENTLY started to talk about it, and that's not a sign of people giving up on it, now is it. It's a trend indicating the opposite...that people are becoming more interested in it, not less. People who give up on something talk about that thing less.
Quote from: Mistwell;693380Wrong. Two weeks ago they had a different result, and PF was the #1 topic in discussion. So, people have RECENTLY started to talk about it, and that's not a sign of people giving up on it, now is it. It's a trend indicating the opposite...that people are becoming more interested in it, not less. People who give up on something talk about that thing less.
Yeah, and two weeks ago there wasn't a fresh playtest packet, two data points does not a trend make.
Quote from: gamerGoyf;693395Yeah, and two weeks ago there wasn't a fresh playtest packet, two data points does not a trend make.
However, it does refute that people have given up on Next and moved on, which was TCO's contention and what the graphic was used to refute.
This is kind of funny though, a 4rry and a 3tard joining together against Next.
Quote from: Haffrung;693336I laughed out loud when I saw one of the most persistent anti-Next posters on the big purple admit that he had only played 4E a couple times. He was defending 4E and spouting hysterical comments in every thread about Next out of some sort of obsession with D&D as a theoretical model. It's bizarre. And hilarious. And sad.
Yeah, that was pretty funny. But then at least his username was apt.
QuoteOkay, let's see you 'build' an AD&D fighter. Go ahead. Pick a race. Roll some random attributes. Buy your shit. And then plot him out to 10th level. Try it. You'll find the number of mechanical power choices he has after character generation is zero.
Is that supposed to be a good thing?
Quote from: TristramEvans;693335Speaking as a Steve, I depend on Garys to game.
Same here.
Quote from: gamerGoyf;693395Yeah, and two weeks ago there wasn't a fresh playtest packet, two data points does not a trend make.
Dude your goalposts are moving so fast, they have redshift.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;693276Your ignorance is showing again.
Yeah plans were made, and characters developed-based on experiences in actual play not ad-on mechanical do-dads (there really weren't any, you can look it up)
Plans involved choosing where to clear your hex, build a fortress, etc. Your character became whatever your experiences made of him- or worm food long before any of that hex clearing stuff became relevant.
Yeah sure:rolleyes:
No one ever ever ever said "wow looky here I got some decent stats I can start off as ____ and then switch to ____ after level ____"
Love the "
in actual play" bullshit that gets tossed around this place. No one ever ever ever thought about their character beyond 'the now' in AD&D.:rolleyes:
Quote from: Haffrung;693336Okay, let's see you 'build' an AD&D fighter. Go ahead. Pick a race. Roll some random attributes. Buy your shit. And then plot him out to 10th level. Try it. You'll find the number of mechanical power choices he has after character generation is zero.
Yeah sure lets see what I can do.
A character with ability scores of 17 strength, 15 intelligence, 12 wisdom, 10 dexterity, 16 constitution, and 7 charisma is begun as a magic-user. After attaining 3rd level, the player switches the character to fighter.
Now before you start with the "omg what bullshit stats." You may want to check pg. 33.
So we gots a Magic-User3/Fighter10
Holy Shit batman I just did a build in the edition that has no builds. WTF?
Quote from: gamerGoyf;693395Yeah, and two weeks ago there wasn't a fresh playtest packet, two data points does not a trend make.
Ummm....you do realize that getting people to talk about DDN is a major part of what the playtest packets are for? The actual game hasn't even been given a release date yet.
We are literally talking about some pdfs with no art, minimal layout, skimpy on the material included, no fluff other than a handful of old converted adventures. How much more buzz do you think some skimpy pdfs should be generating?
Quote from: Haffrung;693344And if a culture develops where barbecue hosting becomes focused on these matters, it's probably a sign that there's something unhealthy going on.
Yes. There is a tremendous disconnect between online discussions and game table discussions.
It has occurred to me that Playing RPGs at Home, Playing RPGs at Cons/Game Days and Talking about RPGs Online are three separate hobbies with only some overlap.
Kinda like Reading Warhammer Novels, Painting Warhammer figs and Actually Playing 40k are often unrelated hobbies.
Quote from: Old One Eye;693440How much more buzz do you think some skimpy pdfs should be generating?
Without the D&D name attached, Next would just be another retroclone with equal or less readership to any other of the clones, near clones or clone inspired RPGs.
Quote from: Spinachcat;693462Yes. There is a tremendous disconnect between online discussions and game table discussions.
It has occurred to me that Playing RPGs at Home, Playing RPGs at Cons/Game Days and Talking about RPGs Online are three separate hobbies with only some overlap.
Kinda like Reading Warhammer Novels, Painting Warhammer figs and Actually Playing 40k are often unrelated hobbies.
I agree completely.
QuoteWithout the D&D name attached, Next would just be another retroclone with equal or less readership to any other of the clones, near clones or clone inspired RPGs.
What edition do you think it's a retro clone of?
Quote from: vytzka;693435Yeah, that was pretty funny. But then at least his username was apt.
Link?
Quote from: Spinachcat;693462Without the D&D name attached, Next would just be another retroclone with equal or less readership to any other of the clones, near clones or clone inspired RPGs.
Yes, the name is what sells it (though we can probably quibble about retrocloneness). And the Warhammer 40k novels would sell less if they were generic sci fi books. Brand means a crap load, nobody denying that. What is your point?
Quote from: Sommerjon;693439Yeah sure lets see what I can do.
A character with ability scores of 17 strength, 15 intelligence, 12 wisdom, 10 dexterity, 16 constitution, and 7 charisma is begun as a magic-user. After attaining 3rd level, the player switches the character to fighter.
Now before you start with the "omg what bullshit stats." You may want to check pg. 33.
So we gots a Magic-User3/Fighter10
Holy Shit batman I just did a build in the edition that has no builds. WTF?
A build needs to be planned. If you didn't happen to roll those stats, then you couldn't dual class. Your "build" is dependent on random luck. If you begin a new campaign there is no guarantee that you would be able to choose these options.
Besides, everyone knows that you begin as a fighter for the HP and to increase survival odds then switch to MU.
Quote from: One Horse Town;693486Link?
I think he was referring to this (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?702111-A-thought-about-those-linear-fighters&p=17179713#post17179713)?
Quote from: Exploderwizard;693491A build needs to be planned. If you didn't happen to roll those stats, then you couldn't dual class. Your "build" is dependent on random luck. If you begin a new campaign there is no guarantee that you would be able to choose these options.
Besides, everyone knows that you begin as a fighter for the HP and to increase survival odds then switch to MU.
I have talked about this 'build' before and yes you do need to make the roll but in AD&D its an easy roll as the book reccommends a competant PC has 2 stats at 15 so all you need to do is roll 1 17 off 4d6 drop one. (its 30% chance.)
You can argue a Elven FGHT/MU is a build as well of course etc. And of course there are some classes that are simply tougher.
I hate Charop and never took to 3e as a result but we shouldn't pretend the same mindset wasn't there from the beginning of the hobby and its growth in 3e was a reaction to a demand from a large % of the playbase.
Quote from: TristramEvans;693479What edition do you think it's a retro clone of?
The combination of mechanics is unique to D&D Next. I can't think of another edition or clone quite like it. But it also little different in that I can say the same about other clones and near clones.
The core of D&D Next is at the same level of Castles & Crusades, and the DCC RPG. It fuses classic D&D ideas with newer mechanics. It a system that can use older material but it is also its own game.
In some respect sit has a similar feel to classic D&D and others it doesn't. Particularly in that it has more options for tactics and character customization. Those options are at the level of AD&D 2e with kits. Which is why some compared to AD&D 2e.
Quote from: jibbajibba;693505I have talked about this 'build' before and yes you do need to make the roll but in AD&D its an easy roll as the book reccommends a competant PC has 2 stats at 15 so all you need to do is roll 1 17 off 4d6 drop one. (its 30% chance.)
You can argue a Elven FGHT/MU is a build as well of course etc. And of course there are some classes that are simply tougher.
I hate Charop and never took to 3e as a result but we shouldn't pretend the same mindset wasn't there from the beginning of the hobby and its growth in 3e was a reaction to a demand from a large % of the playbase.
No one is arguing that the same
mindset wasn't there, just that "builds" as they are understood in 3.x are virtually non-existent. As others have already mentioned, the first hurdle is that stats are random. While you might have 30% odds of getting the stats you need, that weirdly ignores the 70% chance that you won't. You are probably
not going to get the rolls needed for your planned build, which will put your construction project on hold indefinitely. Even more illuminating, compare what's often cited as one of the worst "builds" in AD&D: the Dart Fighter. Now compare that to even middle-of-the-road builds in 3.x...there is no comparison. The differential between an ordinary character and a build in 3.x (where it really is possible to build) is lightyears wider than any such thing in earlier editions.
Quote from: jibbajibba;693505I hate Charop and never took to 3e as a result but we shouldn't pretend the same mindset wasn't there from the beginning of the hobby and its growth in 3e was a reaction to a demand from a large % of the playbase.
Yes there was a large demand from the playerbase. This indicates a desire for a level of character customization that wasn't there before.
If it did exist already, there wouldn't have been so much demand.
Quote from: Sommerjon;693439Yeah sure:rolleyes:
No one ever ever ever said "wow looky here I got some decent stats I can start off as ____ and then switch to ____ after level ____"
Love the "in actual play" bullshit that gets tossed around this place. No one ever ever ever thought about their character beyond 'the now' in AD&D.:rolleyes:
Of course they did. It's normal to speculate about what your character might turn into - either mechanically or within the game-world. The 'charOp' stuff just adds to any innate sense of entitlement a player might have. "Whaddaya mean I can't become a shadowdancer? It's in THE BOOK."
The "it's in the book" players have always been with us. The amount of encouragement they've been given has varied by edition and by table.
The difference between a game designed for builds and one not?
With one designed for it, when creating a character that starts at a certain level, you have to advance each level individually, make choices as to what to add, account for that choice mechanically, and then move to the next highest level. I.e., you can't just say, "I'm going to create a F3/MU9/Rg2 with x, y, and z feats without going back at the individual levels to make sure you have the right abilities, level reqs, skills bonuses, and feat reqs to meet that final build.
For games that aren't designed that way, like AD&D, you can start at whatever level right off the bat and just figure out your stats/abilities right there, without needing to calculate them at each individual level. All you need to do is roll for hp and write down what your spells are, or your thief %s are for that level.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;693534The difference between a game designed for builds and one not?
With one designed for it, when creating a character that starts at a certain level, you have to advance each level individually, make choices as to what to add, account for that choice mechanically, and then move to the next highest level. I.e., you can't just say, "I'm going to create a F3/MU9/Rg2 with x, y, and z feats without going back at the individual levels to make sure you have the right abilities, level reqs, skills bonuses, and feat reqs to meet that final build.
For games that aren't designed that way, like AD&D, you can start at whatever level right off the bat and just figure out your stats/abilities right there, without needing to calculate them at each individual level. All you need to do is roll for hp and write down what your spells are, or your thief %s are for that level.
Not sure that is totally true.
You are effectively saying there are games with meaningful choices and games with no meaningful choices beyond those you make at chargen.
I don't think AD&D was ever meant to be so rigid I mean you say yourself 'write done what your spells are' well spells in AD&D are basically daily powers and you get a list from which you pick a subset each day. There is massive potential for Charop right there.
I prefer to find spells through play and woudl love for D&D to have included a decent spell creation subsystem.
A D&D fighter in leather armour who fights with knives is very different from one in plate and sheild with a bastard sword. One is much more powerful so much so that you could well argue only a fool would play the other so there is char op possibly even 'trap builds' . I for one would like a game where the leather armour knife guy has a role to play.
The key is can you have some customisation options without decending into Charop. I think the only way to do that is through play. Create a realised immersive world where the PC is a person with genuine drives etc . You don't just choose to take 2 levels of ranger, you spend a load of time int eh wilds and use the XP you earn to take 2 levels of ranger, and you don't do it because it creates an ultimate build when you add 3 levels of assasin for this feat 4 levels of Puppeteer for this feat ...etc etc You do stuff becuae it adds to charater depth and I am sure that that was the intent of 3e but the evil min/maxers were always there waiting in the shadows asking if they could play balrogs, or dragons, or vampires.....
The problem, I think, is that it can't have mechanical representation without being open to the potential for charop. There are a few paths that can minimize the potential (e.g. no choices, mechanically barely differentiated choices, etc.), but the more mechanical selection, the harder that becomes.
Quote from: jibbajibba;693535Not sure that is totally true.
You are effectively saying there are games with meaningful choices and games with no meaningful choices beyond those you make at chargen.
I don't think AD&D was ever meant to be so rigid I mean you say yourself 'write done what your spells are' well spells in AD&D are basically daily powers and you get a list from which you pick a subset each day. There is massive potential for Charop right there.
I prefer to find spells through play and woudl love for D&D to have included a decent spell creation subsystem.
A D&D fighter in leather armour who fights with knives is very different from one in plate and sheild with a bastard sword. One is much more powerful so much so that you could well argue only a fool would play the other so there is char op possibly even 'trap builds' . I for one would like a game where the leather armour knife guy has a role to play.
The key is can you have some customisation options without decending into Charop. I think the only way to do that is through play. Create a realised immersive world where the PC is a person with genuine drives etc . You don't just choose to take 2 levels of ranger, you spend a load of time int eh wilds and use the XP you earn to take 2 levels of ranger, and you don't do it because it creates an ultimate build when you add 3 levels of assasin for this feat 4 levels of Puppeteer for this feat ...etc etc You do stuff becuae it adds to charater depth and I am sure that that was the intent of 3e but the evil min/maxers were always there waiting in the shadows asking if they could play balrogs, or dragons, or vampires.....
When people talk about builds, they are talking about mechanical choices, not how a player chooses to role play. So while you can have two fighters in 1e that play differently because one uses a bow and one uses daggers, from a build (mechanical) standpoint, they are the same.
Look at what the word "build" means. It's hard to build something of just one piece of material. It means taking many pieces, and building something out of them in the order of construction that allows you to get what your final product is.
Quote from: jibbajibba;693535A D&D fighter in leather armour who fights with knives is very different from one in plate and sheild with a bastard sword. One is much more powerful so much so that you could well argue only a fool would play the other so there is char op possibly even 'trap builds' . I for one would like a game where the leather armour knife guy has a role to play.
.
Even at the expense of how the setting supposed to work.
Here the things. OD&D is without dispute very abstract compared to later RPGs. However when you read about the rulings in early campaigns it was grounded in what the guys knew about how combat and actions worked. Sometimes it was ignored in favor of cinematic actions but it was obvious when that was happening.
Which brings back to the question of the leather armour knife guy versus plate and shield guy. Why should the leather armor guy be as effective as the plate armor guy mechanically? That not how it worked in real life.
When given the choice the fighters invariably armored up with as much gear as they could withstand. And only dropped it later when gunpowder and polearm tactics made it less necessary.
Leather armor and knife fighter existed because you didn't walk around in plate all the time. Or you couldn't afford plate and had to make do. Or you where doing something where plate would be a hindrance.
My counterpoint is that the problem isn't that the RPG makes leather and knife mechanically inferior. The problem is that the rulebook, referee, or setting doesn't give you the opportunities where leather and knife is the preferred style or the style of necessity.
However if a ruleset wants to be more cinematic then yes by all means make leather and knife and any other combinations as effective as any other choice. Personally I think D&D works best when it is a dash of the fantastic thrown on top of an abstracted version of how things really worked. But it is a personal peference like yours of having a effective. leather and knife fighter
Quote from: jibbajibba;693535Not sure that is totally true.
You are effectively saying there are games with meaningful choices and games with no meaningful choices beyond those you make at chargen.
Some games feature the meaningful choice part of the game during adventures. This includes what type of gear you want to use for a given situation.
Quote from: vytzka;693499I think he was referring to this (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?702111-A-thought-about-those-linear-fighters&p=17179713#post17179713)?
That's funny too, but I was referring to a post by Ezekiel where he admitted that he has only played 4E a couple times. Can't be arsed to track it down, though.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;693491A build needs to be planned. If you didn't happen to roll those stats, then you couldn't dual class. Your "build" is dependent on random luck. If you begin a new campaign there is no guarantee that you would be able to choose these options.
Really?
I didn't realize a "build" had to be planned months in advance and under no circumstances with random stat generation.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;693491Besides, everyone knows that you begin as a fighter for the HP and to increase survival odds then switch to MU.
If I want to be a fighter who can cast a couple spells the only way to do that is start as a Fighter then switch over the MU?
Yet here you are accusing the newer editions of ChaOp.:confused:
Quote from: Haffrung;693589That's funny too, but I was referring to a post by Ezekiel where he admitted that he has only played 4E a couple times. Can't be arsed to track it down, though.
Oh man, the super fanboy of dragonborn? That's just sad.
Quote from: Bobloblah;693537The problem, I think, is that it can't have mechanical representation without being open to the potential for charop. There are a few paths that can minimize the potential (e.g. no choices, mechanically barely differentiated choices, etc.), but the more mechanical selection, the harder that becomes.
While that is true, there is a serious amount of cutting off your nose to spite your face in throwing out character customization to stick it to char op people. What you actually do is provide fun character customization options and don't pay more than token attention to the charop types (at both individual group as well as publishing level). That way everybody who is not a jerk wins.
I've always thought that the major difference between say 3.x and most other games that allow customization is that 3.x didn't just allow builds it REQUIRED builds in most cases.
Because of the extensive prereqs for everything, it was usually impossible to get anything resembling what you wanted unless you planned it out perfectly from the beginning. You couldn't just because it worked out in the story decide to become a shadowdancer, even if you made perfect sense for it, because you didn't have all the very specific feats it wanted you to have. Feat Trees everywhere!
Quote from: Sommerjon;693615Really?
I didn't realize a "build" had to be planned months in advance and under no circumstances with random stat generation.
No timeframe required. It just needs to have the ability for planning in the first place. (guaranteed stats, options, etc.)
If any part of your plan depends on a random factor then it isn't a build because it
might not be possible. To qualify as a build the options have to be accessible 100% of the time.
Quote from: Sommerjon;693615If I want to be a fighter who can cast a couple spells the only way to do that is start as a Fighter then switch over the MU?
Yet here you are accusing the newer editions of ChaOp.:confused:
It isn't the only way, its the way most likely to succeed.
Quote from: vytzka;693627While that is true, there is a serious amount of cutting off your nose to spite your face in throwing out character customization to stick it to char op people. What you actually do is provide fun character customization options and don't pay more than token attention to the charop types (at both individual group as well as publishing level). That way everybody who is not a jerk wins.
Oh, I agree; I like some degree of customization, probably more than AD&D 1E, at least. But I prefer to keep it light and more thematic, rather than heavy on mechanics exploitation. AD&D2nd offered this with Kits, ACKS offers it with Proficiencies and custom Classes, and it sounds like Next is going to offer a similar level of customization.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;693636No timeframe required. It just needs to have the ability for planning in the first place. (guaranteed stats, options, etc.)
If any part of your plan depends on a random factor then it isn't a build because it might not be possible. To qualify as a build the options have to be accessible 100% of the time.
You just keep adding more and more qualifiers. Amusing
I want to play a warrior-type who can cast magic. <---plan
If I roll well enough I will be a human who dual classes, if I don't I'll be a half-elf fighter/MU. <---build
Quote from: Exploderwizard;693636It isn't the only way, its the way most likely to succeed.
:rolleyes:
My main problem with charOp comes from 'trap choices ( using the words of Monte cook, the one who introduced the concept to D&D). I dont want an RPG that rewards 'system mastery, like a ccg. I want an RPG that anyone on the street can play without being penalized for being a newbie or not spending hours/days on charge.
Quote from: TristramEvans;693774My main problem with charOp comes from 'trap choices ( using the words of Monte cook, the one who introduced the concept to D&D). I dont want an RPG that rewards 'system mastery, like a ccg. I want an RPG that anyone on the street can play without being penalized for being a newbie or not spending hours/days on charge.
No such animal exists. If the game is too simplistic to hack then players will start focusing on the stuff, if the stuff is not forthcoming, then they focus on manipulating their fellow players and/or the referees. The games one can play are endless.
Rules are not the problem nor the fix. The solution involves training/teaching better players and better referees.
Where are important is in terms of personal taste. Like whether one likes Scifi or fantasy.
Quote from: estar;693778No such animal exists. If the game is too simplistic to hack then players will start focusing on the stuff, if the stuff is not forthcoming, then they focus on manipulating their fellow players and/or the referees. The games one can play are endless.
Rules are not the problem nor the fix. The solution involves training/teaching better players and better referees.
Where are important is in terms of personal taste. Like whether one likes Scifi or fantasy.
I'm not talking about good/bad players, In talking about the difference between a system that has deliberate trap options for newbie players designed to punish them for not taking the 'right' doodads or special tricks vs a system that doesn't predetermine a character's viability based on how well they navigate the experience/rewards system.
It's an important distinction. Yes, there's always going to exist those minmaxing players, but I tend not to see them as default.
The deliberate trap options thing is way, way, WAY overblown. Cook was the only one to even ever talk about it, it was based on the flawed (though potentially currently practiced at the time, I don't know) understanding of the Magic Timmy/Johnny/Spike dynamic and he wasn't even talking about completely useless things, just comparatively less useful in most situations. Toughness is not a bad feat at all if you're a level 1 wizard in a single shot adventure.
It's a non-issue which has been blown out of all proportion because people fucking hate Cook and want to accuse him of everything under the sun. Don't buy into that shit, guys.
Quote from: vytzka;693785The deliberate trap options thing is way, way, WAY overblown. Cook was the only one to even ever talk about it, it was based on the flawed (though potentially currently practiced at the time, I don't know) understanding of the Magic Timmy/Johnny/Spike dynamic and he wasn't even talking about completely useless things, just comparatively less useful in most situations. Toughness is not a bad feat at all if you're a level 1 wizard in a single shot adventure.
It's a non-issue which has been blown out of all proportion because people fucking hate Cook and want to accuse him of everything under the sun. Don't buy into that shit, guys.
I don't know about hype. It's a thing I encountered and one I don't like. It got even more pronounced in 4th. I don't have a vendetta against cook, I simply haven't liked what he's done that I've encountered so far. And the trap option thing is from his own words, I'm not distorting them or projecting a paranoid fantasy onto it. You can dismiss it as unimportant or 'blown out of proportion' (I can't really be responsible for what other people have said about it). But be that as it may, what are the benefits of not excising it completely. I mean why operate on a don't fix it if it's not broken "enough" approach?
What do you base your belief that they added bad feats to 4e on purpose rather than out of incompetence on? I'm not accusing YOU of blowing anything out of proportion, it merely seems to me that you're going by bad data so I'd like to correct it if possible.
I was going by forum wisdom on it as well until I read Justin's essay (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/2498/roleplaying-games/thought-of-the-day-ivory-tower-design) which made me reread the Cook's original statement in a different light.
Quote from: estar;693554Even at the expense of how the setting supposed to work.
Here the things. OD&D is without dispute very abstract compared to later RPGs. However when you read about the rulings in early campaigns it was grounded in what the guys knew about how combat and actions worked. Sometimes it was ignored in favor of cinematic actions but it was obvious when that was happening.
Which brings back to the question of the leather armour knife guy versus plate and shield guy. Why should the leather armor guy be as effective as the plate armor guy mechanically? That not how it worked in real life.
When given the choice the fighters invariably armored up with as much gear as they could withstand. And only dropped it later when gunpowder and polearm tactics made it less necessary.
Leather armor and knife fighter existed because you didn't walk around in plate all the time. Or you couldn't afford plate and had to make do. Or you where doing something where plate would be a hindrance.
My counterpoint is that the problem isn't that the RPG makes leather and knife mechanically inferior. The problem is that the rulebook, referee, or setting doesn't give you the opportunities where leather and knife is the preferred style or the style of necessity.
However if a ruleset wants to be more cinematic then yes by all means make leather and knife and any other combinations as effective as any other choice. Personally I think D&D works best when it is a dash of the fantastic thrown on top of an abstracted version of how things really worked. But it is a personal peference like yours of having a effective. leather and knife fighter
I agree with you.
But I don't think there are enough penalties in AD&D for, for example, wearing armour all the time. I know you have tried it yourself and it is a pain in the arse.
Quote from: vytzka;693791What do you base your belief that they added bad feats to 4e on purpose rather than out of incompetence on? I'm not accusing YOU of blowing anything out of proportion, it merely seems to me that you're going by bad data so I'd like to correct it if possible.
I was going by forum wisdom on it as well until I read Justin's essay (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/2498/roleplaying-games/thought-of-the-day-ivory-tower-design) which made me reread the Cook's original statement in a different light.
Unfortunately the link to the original article is dead, so I can't compare what the blogger is trying to sell as the correct interpretation. Though I must say neither of the two authors have a sparkling track record with me. Anyways Um not posting to slog on any one edition, I'm just saying that's an aspect, intentional or not, of game design I think everyone could do without.
I've no idea how much of 4th was incompetence or following a trend. But I am glad the extent to which they're play testing the new edition.
Quote from: TristramEvans;693800Unfortunately the link to the original article is dead, so I can't compare what the blogger is trying to sell as the correct interpretation. Though I must say neither of the two authors have a sparkling track record with me. Anyways Um not posting to slog on any one edition, I'm just saying that's an aspect, intentional or not, of game design I think everyone could do without.
I've no idea how much of 4th was incompetence or following a trend. But I am glad the extent to which they're play testing the new edition.
The essay seems to have disappeared in site transition (how unfortunate) and I'm poking around trying to find a copy somewhere.
But please consider that to the best of my knowledge it was literally the only place someone has mentioned "intentionally" bad options in games.
Quote from: vytzka;693802But please consider that to the best of my knowledge it was literally the only place someone has mentioned "intentionally" bad options in games.
I have not read it, but their is supposedly some conversation about its role in the design of 3rd edition in Dragon Magazine #274.
But your right that its a topic that seem to have a lot of discussion based on remarkably few 'insider' sources.
Quote from: Sommerjon;693757I want to play a warrior-type who can cast magic. <---plan
If I roll well enough I will be a human who dual classes, if I don't I'll be a half-elf fighter/MU. <---build
If you qualify to be a half elf F/MU.
Exploderwizard, technically most d20 builds are not builds then because no prestige classes are guaranteed to be available in a given campaign as per the DMG. Hell, if you want to go deep enough, almost nothing is.
Quote from: vytzka;693823Exploderwizard, technically most d20 builds are not builds then because no prestige classes are guaranteed to be available in a given campaign as per the DMG. Hell, if you want to go deep enough, almost nothing is.
You can make builds out of just PHB options, such as the tripmaster fighter. As long as you are entitled to pick your stats, are guaranteed the abilities the classes provide, and the wealth by level per RAW you can build based on stats, class, race, and items.
Splat material adds to the power and number of builds. The structure of the RAW core provides the utility to make them.
Quote from: TristramEvans;693783I'm not talking about good/bad players, In talking about the difference between a system that has deliberate trap options for newbie players designed to punish them for not taking the 'right' doodads or special tricks vs a system that doesn't predetermine a character's viability based on how well they navigate the experience/rewards system.
You are missing my point. I will put it another way. "Trap option" are that way because they result in a gimped character for the most common situations
the referee uses in his campaign.
The referee has a variety of options to as how to present his setting. Some unfortunately don't avail themselves of that and present what is essence a one-note campaign. Typically this resolves around combat as that the part of a RPG that usually grabs most gamer's attention and interest.
The best way for me to ensure I don't fall into a one-note trap is to remember to present slices of life within my settings. What this does is generate a variety of situations similar to what most of experience in our daily life. The increased variety means that different sets of skills or options come into play reducing the chances that any one's character choices results in a gimped character.
The player's responsibility is to remember that he is acting as a character WITHIN a setting. If he doesn't like the type of combats he is getting into then stop getting into them. Attempt something different. Find another way to achieve your goals.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;693827You can make builds out of just PHB options, such as the tripmaster fighter. As long as you are entitled to pick your stats, are guaranteed the abilities the classes provide, and the wealth by level per RAW you can build based on stats, class, race, and items.
Splat material adds to the power and number of builds. The structure of the RAW core provides the utility to make them.
That's dumb. So trip fighter is a build because it can be done with the PHB alone, but hulking hurler is not a build but something else because it can't? LOL.
Quote from: vytzka;693832That's dumb. So trip fighter is a build because it can be done with the PHB alone, but hulking hurler is not a build but something else because it can't? LOL.
Need context. What is a hulking hurler?
Quote from: jibbajibba;693798I agree with you.
But I don't think there are enough penalties in AD&D for, for example, wearing armour all the time. I know you have tried it yourself and it is a pain in the arse.
Yeah, Wearing armor all the time is pretty much one of the most common things handwaved away even in the detailed systems like GURPS. Even in LARPS, as uncomfortable as, it was we tried to wear our armor as much as we good because we didn't want to risk having our body pummeled to the ground.
Mmmm I think this instinct might a natural if you putting yourself at risk all the time. I recall reading that in Iraq and in the cities of Mexico that have drug cartel problem people have opted were body armor all the time.
Quote from: TristramEvans;693800Unfortunately the link to the original article is dead, so I can't compare what the blogger is trying to sell as the correct interpretation.
In my opinion, Justin's interpretation is correct. I've had this same argument with people over that essay, and many people have simply read what they wanted to into it, selectively quoting or ignoring portions of the article. By the way, here's the original (http://web.archive.org/web/20050313114857/http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_142).
Quote from: vytzka;693823Exploderwizard, technically most d20 builds are not builds then because no prestige classes are guaranteed to be available in a given campaign as per the DMG. Hell, if you want to go deep enough, almost nothing is.
Except that's not really the culture of 3.x D&D, and, as Exloderwizard mentioned, you can already make builds with the core rulebook. Now, I agree that excluding Prestige Classes helps, but as soon as any Prestige Class
is included, anyone can choose the pre-requisites and take that class as part of their build.
The first major stumbling block that people like Summerjon are intentionally ignoring is that, when I sit down to make my character, but before stats are even generated, I can plan out my 3.x character from level 1 to 20. This is not possible in AD&D. This is often made worse by a bunch of cultural elements that sprang up around 3.x, things that I used to think were internet fables until some of them showed up at my own table. Magic item stores where anything could be purchased. Inclusion of any and all splat material. Player entitlement. Combined, these made the problem of builds in 3.x much, much worse.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;693827You can make builds out of just PHB options, such as the tripmaster fighter. As long as you are entitled to pick your stats, are guaranteed the abilities the classes provide, and the wealth by level per RAW you can build based on stats, class, race, and items.
Splat material adds to the power and number of builds. The structure of the RAW core provides the utility to make them.
W00T! More qualifiers.:rolleyes:
Quote from: Bobloblah;693839Except that's not really the culture of 3.x D&D, and, as Exloderwizard mentioned, you can already make builds with the core rulebook. Now, I agree that excluding Prestige Classes helps, but as soon as any Prestige Class is included, anyone can choose the pre-requisites and take that class as part of their build.
Prestige Classes aren't the Devil. If you have a concept for a character and a PrC fits that concept I see nothing wrong with taking the PrC, as long as the Dm allows that PrC. The problem is most 3.x Dms are lazy and just allow everything then later bitch about their players. Another problem is PrCs are not created equally, entry requirements are all over the board.
The biggest booboo of 3e was wanting the granularity of a skill based game while still keeping it a level based game.
Quote from: Bobloblah;693839The first major stumbling block that people like Sommerjon are intentionally ignoring is that, when I sit down to make my character, but before stats are even generated, I can plan out my 3.x character from level 1 to 20. This is not possible in AD&D. This is often made worse by a bunch of cultural elements that sprang up around 3.x, things that I used to think were internet fables until some of them showed up at my own table. Magic item stores where anything could be purchased. Inclusion of any and all splat material. Player entitlement. Combined, these made the problem of builds in 3.x much, much worse.
The hell it ain't.
Lets look at everyone's favorite; Fighter. Since Fighters have dick(Freehold) in 1e builds beyond what armor and weapons to use I can really only make 'plans'
I've got 9 levels in order to get my shit together to establish my Freehold.
So my very first question to god is. Do I have to build my freehold or can I take over another or be granted a hold or something along those lines?
If I have to build I am forced to save as much as I can, perhaps even having to take chances, with everyone's lives, for a greater monetary reward or perhaps having to be a bit underhanded or being more amoral, etc.
If I can take over another or be granted one I need to figure out which has the more likely success rate.
If god hasn't given it much thought then I will most likely not play
I do this before stats are even generated.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;693833Need context. What is a hulking hurler?
(http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii117/makkari1/IncredibleHulks622Vomit.jpg)
Quote from: Sommerjon;693871Prestige Classes aren't the Devil.
To be fair, I think there were a few of those, in the Fiendish Codex books (not sure if it was I or II or both).
Quote from: Sommerjon;693871Lets look at everyone's favorite; Fighter. Since Fighters have dick(Freehold) in 1e builds beyond what armor and weapons to use I can really only make 'plans'
I've got 9 levels in order to get my shit together to establish my Freehold.
So my very first question to god is. Do I have to build my freehold or can I take over another or be granted a hold or something along those lines?
If I have to build I am forced to save as much as I can, perhaps even having to take chances, with everyone's lives, for a greater monetary reward or perhaps having to be a bit underhanded or being more amoral, etc.
If I can take over another or be granted one I need to figure out which has the more likely success rate.
If god hasn't given it much thought then I will most likely not play
I do this before stats are even generated.
Then you are in the immense minority because I have rarely seen players worry about these kinds of details so far in advance in an AD&D game starting at level 1. I have seen a lot more being worried about surviving to level 2! This is where the make up of the group, the equipment selected, and the like do factor in initial character generation decisions, for many groups (though not all of them). But really, rolling a character in AD&D is just that: it starts with rolling your stats, and then deciding what type of class/race you want to play. Then rolling your starting HPs and initial wealth (yes, you do roll those), then alignment, equipment, roll for initially known spells per DMG (you don't choose whatever the fuck you want) and you're pretty much done.
So instead of making ludicrous arguments that all things are equal and that CharOp is a "thing" nearly to the same extent from one game to the next, you could make actually salient points like "if you start at level 10 to run a one shot in the Tombs of Horrors, you can totally optimize the party in AD&D!" and that is correct, it is
possible, depending on initial gear, whether the DM allows multiclassed/dual-classed characters, how the DM makes you select spells up to your level (could be done entirely randomly, semi-randomly, not randomly at all, or a mixture of all those) and so on. But nope, instead you are making false equivalences which to most people who are not you will come off as "lul wut?" Like what you just wrote here, for instance.
Quote from: Sommerjon;693871Prestige Classes aren't the Devil. If you have a concept for a character and a PrC fits that concept I see nothing wrong with taking the PrC, as long as the Dm allows that PrC. The problem is most 3.x Dms are lazy and just allow everything then later bitch about their players. Another problem is PrCs are not created equally, entry requirements are all over the board.
No they are not. Having PrC's available to you just opens up more build options. Nothing more.
Quote from: Sommerjon;693871The hell it ain't.
Lets look at everyone's favorite; Fighter. Since Fighters have dick(Freehold) in 1e builds beyond what armor and weapons to use I can really only make 'plans'
I've got 9 levels in order to get my shit together to establish my Freehold.
So my very first question to god is. Do I have to build my freehold or can I take over another or be granted a hold or something along those lines?
If I have to build I am forced to save as much as I can, perhaps even having to take chances, with everyone's lives, for a greater monetary reward or perhaps having to be a bit underhanded or being more amoral, etc.
If I can take over another or be granted one I need to figure out which has the more likely success rate.
If god hasn't given it much thought then I will most likely not play
I do this before stats are even generated.
This is a wordy way to say you cannot really create 1E AD&D fighter builds.
I honestly don't get why people who like particular playstyles (robust tactical grid support, robust char op material, etc.) feel the need to argue that D&D has always been about those things. D&D has changed. Editions are different. If they weren't, TSR and WotC are the cleverest publishers in the world, because they've been selling the same game over and over again.
Quote from: Mistwell;693873(http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii117/makkari1/IncredibleHulks622Vomit.jpg)
For context; don't fight Zeus, even if you are the Hulk.
(http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/5/51565/1664736-incredible_hulks__622_0013.jpg)
I suspect this whole thing is just an argument for the sake of argumentation, to "stick it to the grogs" (and fish for quotes for SA). I think Sommerjon actually played little to no games of AD&D that genuinely started at level 1, and if he did, I think he probably would remember it as something "boring" precisely because he didn't have access to nearly as many twink options as he does now with his "builds".
Probably started to use the Players Options in 2nd ed as soon as he possibly could, IF he even was a gamer at the time.
Quote from: Haffrung;693895If they weren't, TSR and WotC are the cleverest publishers in the world, because they've been selling the same game over and over again.
WOTC
tried to be. ' Ze game remains ze same.'
Turned out not to be so clever.
Quote from: Benoist;693881Then you are in the immense minority because I have rarely seen players worry about these kinds of details so far in advance in an AD&D game starting at level 1. I have seen a lot more being worried about surviving to level 2! This is where the make up of the group, the equipment selected, and the like do factor in initial character generation decisions, for many groups (though not all of them). But really, rolling a character in AD&D is just that: it starts with rolling your stats, and then deciding what type of class/race you want to play. Then rolling your starting HPs and initial wealth (yes, you do roll those), then alignment, equipment, roll for initially known spells per DMG (you don't choose whatever the fuck you want) and you're pretty much done.
What happened to the "AD&D was a set of options that you could pick and choose what you used"? So much for taking the game and making it your own.
You really still worry about getting past level 1? You have no 'moves' you do to ensure a greater chance of success? After all of these years you are still some fresh-eyed omg what the hell is going on kid? Please:rolleyes:
Quote from: Benoist;693881So instead of making ludicrous arguments that all things are equal and that CharOp is a "thing" nearly to the same extent from one game to the next, you could make actually salient points like "if you start at level 10 to run a one shot in the Tombs of Horrors, you can totally optimize the party in AD&D!" and that is correct, it is possible, depending on initial gear, whether the DM allows multiclassed/dual-classed characters, how the DM makes you select spells up to your level (could be done entirely randomly, semi-randomly, not randomly at all, or a mixture of all those) and so on. But nope, instead you are making false equivalences which to most people who are not you will come off as "lul wut?" Like what you just wrote here, for instance.
Where did I say things were equal? Oh I didn't. I refuted the bullshit that AD&D had no 'builds'. Was it done differently? Sure. Saying it wasn't/couldn't be done...Head meet sand:rolleyes:
In typical rpgsite fashion: Build = ChaOp. That is bullshit.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;693893No they are not. Having PrC's available to you just opens up more build options. Nothing more.
PrC don't allow people to play a character closer to what they envision their character to actually be?
Quote from: Exploderwizard;693893This is a wordy way to say you cannot really create 1E AD&D fighter builds.
This is a person in denial that people never had plans/builds for their characters in 1e.
Quote from: Benoist;693898I suspect this whole thing is just an argument for the sake of argumentation, to "stick it to the grogs" (and fish for quotes for SA). I think Sommerjon actually played little to no games of AD&D that genuinely started at level 1, and if he did, I think he probably would remember it as something "boring" precisely because he didn't have access to nearly as many twink options as he does now with his "builds".
Isn't one of your favorite lines "in actual play"?
I find it strange that
in actual play you never made plans beyond the next die roll, that you never tried to find that perfect spell/item, that you never strived to gain something/anything that best fit your concept for your character.
Quote from: Benoist;693898Probably started to use the Players Options in 2nd ed as soon as he possibly could, IF he even was a gamer at the time.
Guess that chart you have to roll on to see what your reaction is supposed to be is heavily weighted in certain directions.
Quote from: Sommerjon;693958What happened to the "AD&D was a set of options that you could pick and choose what you used"? So much for taking the game and making it your own.
Man, it's when you're saying things like this that you're showing just how much you really don't understand what it is you are talking about. Otherwise you wouldn't just keep mixing up things like this like they're the same thing or the same topic of conversation at all. It's really just a telling card. I feel sorry you need to run your mouth and keep saying stupid shit like this.
Quote from: Sommerjon;693958You really still worry about getting past level 1? You have no 'moves' you do to ensure a greater chance of success? After all of these years you are still some fresh-eyed omg what the hell is going on kid? Please:rolleyes:
Ooooh yes! I was playing just a few months ago in a game where I was the 1st level Cleric and believe me: I was worried we wouldn't make it out of the dungeon! We ran into some swarms of rats and a bunch of wererats and could only escape after a few of our men died and we used all our oil reserves to carefully block passage ways while we retreated to the exit. And it was down to the wire, and a fair amount of luck (we didn't have a complete layout of the corridors and some of them in our backs connected with an intersection just in front of us - we almost got stuck in a rat pincher move but could make it out with a charge), in the end. But we (and by "we", I mean "the survivors") made it! It was a VERY cool game to me.
Quote from: Sommerjon;693958Where did I say things were equal? Oh I didn't. I refuted the bullshit that AD&D had no 'builds'. Was it done differently? Sure. Saying it wasn't/couldn't be done...Head meet sand:rolleyes:
In typical rpgsite fashion: Build = ChaOp. That is bullshit.
Are you saying that AD&D doesn't have "builds" to nearly the same extent as, say, 3e and 4e would? If that is the case, I agree.
Oh, and why didn't you answer to the part where I said you might possibly create "builds" in specific scenarios, like the Tomb of Horrors one shot with 10th level characters, depending on the actual specifics of character generation as determined by the DM?
Quote from: Sommerjon;693958Isn't one of your favorite lines "in actual play"?
I find it strange that in actual play you never made plans beyond the next die roll, that you never tried to find that perfect spell/item, that you never strived to gain something/anything that best fit your concept for your character.
I make decisions to equip my character, I choose a class and a race based on the ability scores I roll, I roll my hit points and my starting wealth, I can't choose my spells because I actually roll for them at level 1, and then actually learn them from scrolls and spell books I find in the game (which requires rolls to learn, btw). That's actual play. Contrarily to you, seems to me, I actually played this game, still play it to this day - see above.
So if your definition of "build" is "making decisions at character generation beyond the next die roll" then yes, I did have "builds" in AD&D. But honestly, at this point your definition of a "build" encompasses anything and everything to the point of becoming meaningless. Good show, I guess?
Quote from: Sommerjon;693958Guess that chart you have to roll on to see what your reaction is supposed to be is heavily weighted in certain directions.
So is yours, my friend. So is yours.
Quote from: Sommerjon;693958This is a person in denial that people never had plans/builds for their characters in 1e.
There comes a time in life when conversing with certain people,that you wonder if magic is really possible because I swear this must be just like the
speak with mud spell.
I don't recall my AD&D characters ever getting to high enough level for planning a build to ever be a consideration. Asking what I will be doing in 5 levels seemed silly, given I was so unsure of surviving the next encounter. And then, since I was young and capricious, I'd probably want to retire my character and roll up a new one by that point even if I did survive.
I don't think we ever made it beyond 10th level, is my hazy recollection.
Quote from: estar;693835Yeah, Wearing armor all the time is pretty much one of the most common things handwaved away even in the detailed systems like GURPS. Even in LARPS, as uncomfortable as, it was we tried to wear our armor as much as we good because we didn't want to risk having our body pummeled to the ground.
Mmmm I think this instinct might a natural if you putting yourself at risk all the time. I recall reading that in Iraq and in the cities of Mexico that have drug cartel problem people have opted were body armor all the time.
But we know that lots of US Infantry guys removed body armour plates in Iraq and Afghanistan becuase they were too bulky, too heavy and they felt it restricted their movement too much.
Quote from: Sommerjon;693871Lets look at everyone's favorite; Fighter. Since Fighters have dick(Freehold) in 1e builds beyond what armor and weapons to use I can really only make 'plans'
I've got 9 levels in order to get my shit together to establish my Freehold.
So my very first question to god is. Do I have to build my freehold or can I take over another or be granted a hold or something along those lines?
If I have to build I am forced to save as much as I can, perhaps even having to take chances, with everyone's lives, for a greater monetary reward or perhaps having to be a bit underhanded or being more amoral, etc.
If I can take over another or be granted one I need to figure out which has the more likely success rate.
If god hasn't given it much thought then I will most likely not play
I do this before stats are even generated.
If you would like to engage in online discussion of rpgs, it is beneficial to engage with the hobby' s lingua franca. Thought as to what type of stronghold to establish is not what is considered with the concept of character build. Rather, it belongs in the realm of the character's in game goals.
I am rather fond of character builds when the fancy strikes. There can be little denying a qualitative difference in the degree to which one can engage in that aspect between TSR D&D and WotC D&D. If you are trying to argue they are qualitatively similar in this aspect, you are belying an ignorance as to what is actually written in the respective books.
Again a familiar topic spills into vitriol and personal attacks.
D&D has always been about Charop and the development of D&D has been the development of Charop posibilities.
When you roll you 3d6 straight for stats you are at the base level. You still do Charop becuase you get to choose what class you are going to be. You Optimise your character based on what stats you have. Quite a modern idea that most medieval folks were born to be a knight, or drafted into the army or sold to a farmer, or ended up orphans in a city trying to make a living. They did not have choice as to what career would best suit their skills. You are bright and intelligent and you love logical puzzles and music, tough here is a pike try and kill those other peasants before they kill you..
As the game grows people what to optimise their characters the want to play vampires or balrogs, or rangers or paladins. They get these things allowed but they could have just said my fighter is a balrog, but they want extra fire damage, they could have just had their figther act like a paladin but they want a magic pony and an anti-evil aura. Class bloat and race bloat are all about optimising your character making them better through making choices about them.
AD&D let you optimse your stats. 4d6 drop 1 arrange minimum 2 15s....added hosts of character clsses through Dragon some of which made it to UA. None of those new classes were like a figther but a bit weaker, they were all packed with special class powers, detect this, immune to that, extra this , super that...
CharOp just kept on growing. Dual class, multiclass, specialisation gives us the Dart master Build (and it is a fucking Build and no mistake).
2e tries to slow it down, but lacks the balls to do it. Barbarians are a fighter kit (no special powers just some skills and an attitude) Assasins are a Rogue kit (no specical powers etc) but Rangers are still rangers and Paladins still get magic powers, and eventually the kits go from roleplay fluff and a free skill to subclasses, because that is what the players want, they want to make up characters that are more powerful than everyone else's. Skills and Powers and 3e are inevitable.
If you want an easy bet then bet that the most popular optional Next book will be the one that lets you uber customise.
Wow, I was thinking of answering seriously, but really? You guys lost me big time via the current twist in the conversation. :)
Quote from: jibbajibba;694124D&D has always been about Charop and the development of D&D has been the development of Charop posibilities..
Char op has always been in D&D, but D&D hasn't always been about it. Otherwise everyone would be using the method of stat generation from Unearthed Arcana in AD&D, or always playing the most powerful class that stats allowed for.
And they didn't. D&D has always been about character archetype foremost
Do CharOP fans buy more books?
Quote from: Sacrosanct;694236Char op has always been in D&D, but D&D hasn't always been about it. Otherwise everyone would be using the method of stat generation from Unearthed Arcana in AD&D, or always playing the most powerful class that stats allowed for.
And they didn't. D&D has always been about character archetype foremost
You see I would love to think that but that doesn't explain the development of D&D very well.
Quote from: BillDo CharOP fans buy more books?
Whereas this does .....
Quote from: jibbajibba;694245Whereas this does .....
Is it that CharOpers buy more books or that WOTC really has only made books for CharOPers?
Clearly under their 3e-4e business model that's who they made product for but then concluding that those people are the ones that will always buy the most books strikes me as a good example of the streetlight effect.
Quote from: Piestrio;694248Is it that CharOpers buy more books or that WOTC really has only made books for CharOPers?
Clearly under their 3e-4e business model that's who they made product for but then concluding that those people are the ones that will always buy the most books strikes me as a good example of the streetlight effect.
No guarantee, but wouldn't the most likely scenario be businessmen pushing the types of books that sell the best?
Quote from: Piestrio;694248Is it that CharOpers buy more books or that WOTC really has only made books for CharOPers?
Clearly under their 3e-4e business model that's who they made product for but then concluding that those people are the ones that will always buy the most books strikes me as a good example of the streetlight effect.
Which sold better Wilderness Survival Guide or Unearthed Arcana?
you could do a survey on the Wizards board or TBP and I reckon if you listed
i) DM advice, tools and campaing ideas
ii) Settings
iii) New character classes, feats, spells and customisation options
iv) Monsters
v) Alternate play styles
Character options would get abut 50%
But lets see if Next releases these expansions I am betting that the Char Op one gets the most focus and ships most product.
Quote from: Bill;694250No guarantee, but wouldn't the most likely scenario be businessmen pushing the types of books that sell the best?
Possible but that's assuming a world in which businessmen always make the more rational decisions or that good decisions made in one context (surviving the "fad" bubble) remain good policy in other contexts or don't have negative repercussions when contexts change.
Which is far from given.
Quote from: jibbajibba;694252Which sold better Wilderness Survival Guide or Unearthed Arcana?
you could do a survey on the Wizards board or TBP and I reckon if you listed
i) DM advice, tools and campaing ideas
ii) Settings
iii) New character classes, feats, spells and customisation options
iv) Monsters
v) Alternate play styles
Character options would get abut 50%
But lets see if Next releases these expansions I am betting that the Char Op one gets the most focus and ships most product.
We'll see. But the current fan base is a result of a series of business decisions that have emphasised CharOP so it should be no surprise that the current fanbase likes CharOP. Hence the streetlight effect.
Quote from: jibbajibba;694245You see I would love to think that but that doesn't explain the development of D&D very well.
Whereas this does .....
I agree that the D&D game
as developed over the years has constantly added more and more charop until it became the focus of the game. D&D didn't begin that way, so 'always has been' is incorrect.
UA in 1E was huge launching point for charop in development. It was huge seller so it is no wonder that 2E splat started very soon after the core with numerous kit books for all the classes,and even the races.
More crunch could be sold so we get all the wahoo stuff in late 2E.
3E took this strategy to the next level and marketed even more to the player base.
The fail point in their strategy was that D&D still needed a DM and a DM could decide what materials a given campaign would be using, so a player with a huge library of material and system mastery might not get to use all the shiny toys he/she wanted in actual play.
It is my hope that WOTC learned a valuable lesson. Without DMs running your game there will be no players to sell splat material to.
Quote from: jibbajibba;694245You see I would love to think that but that doesn't explain the development of D&D very well.
.
I don't think 4e was more char op than 3e. Not even close, actually.
Quote from: Bill;694239Do CharOP fans buy more books?
I bought every book released for AD&D 1e and 2e. Not because I was a char opper, but because I was a D&D nerd and wanted to read them all. Just like anyone else who collects things.
Gotta collect them all...
Quote from: jibbajibba;694124Again a familiar topic spills into vitriol and personal attacks.
D&D has always been about Charop and the development of D&D has been the development of Charop posibilities.
.
I know we've had this discussion a million times already and we probably aren't saying anything new here, but I still find this argument to be a stretch. Sure, it is true, you could optimize to a degree in older editions (you mention the dart master and that is something people could exploit). There were also a few wonky kits that gave characters too much power. But it is a matter of degree and what the books advised. 3E is oriented around builds. This is its strength in many ways. You can conceive of a character concept and execute it mechanically if you understand the system well enough. Buy beyond that, what you can do with the builds leaves previous editions in the dust. Even with just the core books, you can do all kinds of crazy stuff in 3E that you couldn't do in earlier editions.
But more than that, earlier editions specifically warned against char-op (which was just called min/maxing at the time). It was not considered in the spirit of the game to min/max. By the time 3E was in full swing, there was an explosion of min/maxing culture being actively supported by the books they were releasing. If you compare the complete books of 2E to the Complete books of 3E, they just are not the same. There is some brokenness in the 2E books, but mostly you get NWPS and some circumstantial bonuses, you don't get the kind of stuff you can make using the 3E complete books (which if you know what you are doing can really stretch the system).
It is also a matter of flavor to crunch ratio. Just glance at one of the 3E complete books, then look at one of the 2E books. The 2E books are predominantly flavor text with some mechanics mixed in, while the 3E books were structured around providing new mechanical elements to the game (feats, spells, class powers, etc). I think it is disingenuous to suggest that the game has always been about char-op. That just isn't true. Char-op has always been present in the game to a degree (as long as there are choices that produce different mechanical results, you will have some amount of char-op), but that isn't the same as the game being about char-op. I think with 3E, char-op took on a much more central role in the game.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;694257I agree that the D&D game as developed over the years has constantly added more and more charop until it became the focus of the game. D&D didn't begin that way, so 'always has been' is incorrect.
.
Are you sure?
Wasn't the addition of the ranger splat, just play a fighter and call yourself a ranger. Assassin? Druid? Illusionist?
What about the races aren't they all about charop. Just play an elf you don't need a page of abilities to make you better than everyone else.
The cleric develops as a reaction to a PC that was playing a vampire "build" that was tougher than everyone else.
Dragon was full of unoffical offical classes through out the life of AD&D all of them with cool powerz....
I have hardly read any maybe we can ask UnReason how many articles there were trying to explain how a paladin is just a fighter played in a certain way compared to the number of articles explaining how you can add more cool options to your PC to make him Kewl :)
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;694262I know we've had this discussion a million times already and we probably aren't saying anything new here, but I still find this argument to be a stretch. Sure, it is true, you could optimize to a degree in older editions (you mention the dart master and that is something people could exploit). There were also a few wonky kits that gave characters too much power. But it is a matter of degree and what the books advised. 3E is oriented around builds. This is its strength in many ways. You can conceive of a character concept and execute it mechanically if you understand the system well enough. Buy beyond that, what you can do with the builds leaves previous editions in the dust. Even with just the core books, you can do all kinds of crazy stuff in 3E that you couldn't do in earlier editions.
But more than that, earlier editions specifically warned against char-op (which was just called min/maxing at the time). It was not considered in the spirit of the game to min/max. By the time 3E was in full swing, there was an explosion of min/maxing culture being actively supported by the books they were releasing. If you compare the complete books of 2E to the Complete books of 3E, they just are not the same. There is some brokenness in the 2E books, but mostly you get NWPS and some circumstantial bonuses, you don't get the kind of stuff you can make using the 3E complete books (which if you know what you are doing can really stretch the system).
It is also a matter of flavor to crunch ratio. Just glance at one of the 3E complete books, then look at one of the 2E books. The 2E books are predominantly flavor text with some mechanics mixed in, while the 3E books were structured around providing new mechanical elements to the game (feats, spells, class powers, etc). I think it is disingenuous to suggest that the game has always been about char-op. That just isn't true. Char-op has always been present in the game to a degree (as long as there are choices that produce different mechanical results, you will have some amount of char-op), but that isn't the same as the game being about char-op. I think with 3E, char-op took on a much more central role in the game.
Look I am not saying that the tools for Charop in 3e and OD&D are equivalent, that woudl be daft. I am saying the say desire for Charop existed and the same guy that would in 3.5 terms want to play a cleric that worshiped a god of magic and polymored himself to a multi-armed arrow demon in combat woudl be the guy pushing the DM to let him play a vampire.
As the game develops it reveals the desire of the play base for more options more power, more exploits.
The seed is there from the get go.
In late 1e it was there in full swing with all sorts of stuff coming out of Dragon. Some of which ended up in UA, I mean the alternate stat rolling options alone .....
2e tried to stop it and the kits as you say were really just flavour. I am sure someone said in the early 2e design meetings lets just get rid of all the clases and have Fighter, Wizard, Priest, Rogue but that wasn't going to happen and the later 2e bloat sees kits becoming subclasses complete with the typical range of new powers.
Quote from: jibbajibba;694263Are you sure?
Wasn't the addition of the ranger splat, just play a fighter and call yourself a ranger. Assassin? Druid? Illusionist?
What about the races aren't they all about charop. Just play an elf you don't need a page of abilities to make you better than everyone else.
The cleric develops as a reaction to a PC that was playing a vampire "build" that was tougher than everyone else.
Dragon was full of unoffical offical classes through out the life of AD&D all of them with cool powerz....
I have hardly read any maybe we can ask UnReason how many articles there were trying to explain how a paladin is just a fighter played in a certain way compared to the number of articles explaining how you can add more cool options to your PC to make him Kewl :)
"cool powerz" does not mean optimized. The Dragon magazine Death Master has cool powers, but it wasn't nearly as powerful as many core classes.
Again, D&D (at least AD&D) was about character archetype
*Edit* and how is a race char op if you could only reach level 8 or 9 in a class while the humans went into the teens?
Quote from: jibbajibba;694265Look I am not saying that the tools for Charop in 3e and OD&D are equivalent, that woudl be daft. I am saying the say desire for Charop existed and the same guy that would in 3.5 terms want to play a cleric that worshiped a god of magic and polymored himself to a multi-armed arrow demon in combat woudl be the guy pushing the DM to let him play a vampire.
or rs.
Sure, such players were always part of the base. But they were never exclusively catered to, and min maxing was officially discouraged. My point is, with the exception of a few late 2E products like skills and powers, you go from having a dusting of char op in the game to a snow storm of it in 3E. That isnt a knock at 3E, its largely a byproduct of all the choices the game offered and the easy multiclassing system. But it is a key difference between TSR D&D and WOTC D&D. Granted much of it took what skills and powers had done and cranked it up a notch, but that was very much viewed as optional material in the 2E run, and (in the gaming community where I lived) a very controversial and not widely embraced addition to the game.
Quote from: Benoist;693975Man, it's when you're saying things like this that you're showing just how much you really don't understand what it is you are talking about. Otherwise you wouldn't just keep mixing up things like this like they're the same thing or the same topic of conversation at all. It's really just a telling card. I feel sorry you need to run your mouth and keep saying stupid shit like this.
I would say I am surprised at the deflection, but I'm not.
Nah, you don't get the luxury of making a grand statement in one conversation then an opposing grand statement in another without me being allowed to call the bullshit.
Quote from: Benoist;693975Ooooh yes! I was playing just a few months ago in a game where I was the 1st level Cleric and believe me: I was worried we wouldn't make it out of the dungeon! We ran into some swarms of rats and a bunch of wererats and could only escape after a few of our men died and we used all our oil reserves to carefully block passage ways while we retreated to the exit. And it was down to the wire, and a fair amount of luck (we didn't have a complete layout of the corridors and some of them in our backs connected with an intersection just in front of us - we almost got stuck in a rat pincher move but could make it out with a charge), in the end. But we (and by "we", I mean "the survivors") made it! It was a VERY cool game to me.
How many times have you gone through a scenario so similar to this that you should just call it the same one?
Quote from: Benoist;693975Are you saying that AD&D doesn't have "builds" to nearly the same extent as, say, 3e and 4e would? If that is the case, I agree.
"builds" are done differently between the editions.
Quote from: Benoist;693975Oh, and why didn't you answer to the part where I said you might possibly create "builds" in specific scenarios, like the Tomb of Horrors one shot with 10th level characters, depending on the actual specifics of character generation as determined by the DM?
Why didn't you answer the part where I said rpgsite thinks build = chaop?
Quote from: Benoist;693975I make decisions to equip my character, I choose a class and a race based on the ability scores I roll, I roll my hit points and my starting wealth, I can't choose my spells because I actually roll for them at level 1, and then actually learn them from scrolls and spell books I find in the game (which requires rolls to learn, btw). That's actual play. Contrarily to you, seems to me, I actually played this game, still play it to this day - see above.
Then what happens? You stop thinking about the character and merely react to the charts the god is rolling on?
Quote from: Benoist;693975So if your definition of "build" is "making decisions at character generation beyond the next die roll" then yes, I did have "builds" in AD&D. But honestly, at this point your definition of a "build" encompasses anything and everything to the point of becoming meaningless. Good show, I guess?
You do realize that 'build' comes from skill-based games? Where people had a goal in mind for their character. It's people like you who have usurped the original meaning of build(in rpg context) and turned it into a bad word.
I make it a rule not to argue AD&D rules with someone who has admitted they haven't played it. That's also why you don't see me arguing with 4e players about how 4e plays; because I don't play it.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;694278I make it a rule not to argue AD&D rules with someone who has admitted they haven't played it.
or anyone who thinks this site is a person. 'The RPGsite says' or the 'RPGsite thinks' is a big-old alarm.
Quote from: Sommerjon;694275I would say I am surprised at the deflection, but I'm not.
Nah, you don't get the luxury of making a grand statement in one conversation then an opposing grand statement in another without me being allowed to call the bullshit.
Oh? Wait for it . . .
Wait for it . . .
Quote from: Sommerjon;694275Why didn't you answer the part where I said rpgsite thinks build = chaop?
Pot. Kettle.
Quote from: Sommerjon;694275How many times have you gone through a scenario so similar to this that you should just call it the same one?
Never happened. Every situation is different in its particulars. I did play in situations that were similar, many a time, and that's something I would refer to as "the thrill of playing a 1st level character and trying to survive going in and out of the dungeon." It might not be your thing, you might be all blasé and "seen it, done that" about it, and I hope you find a game that suits you best. As for me, I have a lot of fun playing situations like this. It's part of a game I like to call "Dungeons & Dragons". I love this game.
Quote from: Sommerjon;694275"builds" are done differently between the editions.
Agreed. And the amount of choices, the particulars of the ways these choices are generated, the approaches and motivations behind these choices may vary.
Quote from: Sommerjon;694275Then what happens? You stop thinking about the character and merely react to the charts the god is rolling on?
I have a story about that. See, my wife started playing RPGs with D&D 3rd edition and Arcana Evolved. She had a lot of fun playing, along with our friends, in our campaign at the time, around the early/mid-2000s.
Then some time ago, we went to a Red Box D&D meet up in Vancouver. The game was run by a user of the RPG Site, Planet Algol. We started generating 1st level characters on the spot (it was the Moldvay B/X rules, actually), and Planet Algol asked us to roll 3d6 in order.
I gasped inside because, though I was very excited at the idea, I knew my wife had not generated a character like this, ever.
I looked over her and I could see she was surprised. She shrugged and said "okay, let's do this." Stats came up the way they did, and Strength came up fairly decent among the rolls. Up to that point, she had been creating character and assigning scores after generation, and she generally went for middle of the road characters, jack of all trades, bards, thieves, these types of characters.
And she went "what uses strength?" And we were like "fighters, you could play a fighter." She pondered the choice, which she would NEVER have made before rolling the stats, had a grin and said "okay, I'm going to be this fighter who's really bloodthirsty and crazy."
We played the game (I was playing a thief), and good Lord Almighty, my wife had a great time! Her character was hilarious, it was great. Anyway, she was VERY pleased with the experience. As we drove back home, she looked at me and asked me (sic, in those exact terms), "Why don't we roll dice 3d6 in order like this in modern D&D?" I kind of sighed and she continued: "This is awesome! I would never have played a fighter if the dice had not come up that way!
It's like you are playing dice with the universe, like your character is born out of the game, and then you grow it into a character to play! It's awesome!"
I think that answers your question. What we do (I completely relate to the way my wife expressed it at the time) is basically that: play dice with the universe, see what comes up out of the dice rolls, think about who that person might be, how she might have shaped up in her initial years, the equipment or whatnot she'd have acquired before the game begins, and then just play. And it's awesome to us, because it keeps things fresh, we're not boxed in our own habits and reflexes, it makes us go for the unexpected, makes us play characters we would not have necessarily come up with that way with a point-buy or semi-random generation system.
When I launched my Hobby Shop Dungeon game, I gave the choice to my wife to generate a First Edition AD&D character using 4d6-drop-lowest-assign-to-taste, 4d6-drop-lowest-in-order OR 3d6-in-order. Her choice. No strings attached, no reward or punishment whatever she chose. She chose 3d6-in-order. I pointed out this was the toughest choice that would come up with the lowest outcomes. She confirmed that's what she wanted to do, BECAUSE of that "playing dice with the universe" aspect of the character generation process. She's very happy with her character (Vanya, a magic user).
Quote from: Sommerjon;694275You do realize that 'build' comes from skill-based games? Where people had a goal in mind for their character. It's people like you who have usurped the original meaning of build(in rpg context) and turned it into a bad word.
Actually, as far as I can tell, the term "build" originates with card games, where you add cards to each other in order to form a set or sequence. So intrinsically, the term "build" is about building a pattern which, applied to computer games and role playing games, means to assemble disparate sets of rules to form a coherent whole. In the context of the rules system, it means optimizing the outcomes of tasks' resolutions related to a core concept of what it is one wants to achieve in the game (via the character in a role playing game).
You're spending an awful lot of effort responding to a creature whose capacity for basic written communication stops somewhere around "I can string words together if I have seen them in sequence enough times."
Quote from: Imp;694299You're spending an awful lot of effort responding to a creature whose capacity for basic written communication stops somewhere around "I can string words together if I have seen them in sequence enough times."
Granted. At the same time, I felt like it, and there are other readers on the forum.
Maybe that'll be useful for someone, anyone, who knows?
Quote from: Benoist;694304Granted. At the same time, I felt like it, and there are other readers on the forum.
Maybe that'll be useful for someone, anyone, who knows?
I admit that unless I'm involved in the conversation that spirals into a big back and forth chain? I skip anything more than a sentence or two long
Just sharing experiences. People are free to read, or not. It's not my choice to make.
In doubt, it might be best to share it. If only to keep it in mind.
Quote from: Benoist;694304Granted. At the same time, I felt like it, and there are other readers on the forum.
Maybe that'll be useful for someone, anyone, who knows?
Nice post. I've had nearly the same experience, nearly universally among people I've introduced to TSRD&D whose only prior experience was with 3e or 4e.
It's just a damn fun way to play and nearly everyone I've played with recognizes it as so.
Quote from: Benoist;694308Just sharing experiences. People are free to read, or not. It's not my choice to make.
In doubt, it might be best to share it. If only to keep it in mind.
Oh, I wasn't trying to imply that it was a worthless post or anything, just that I often just skip by long posts if there's been a back and forth between posters going on.
Quote from: Imp;694299You're spending an awful lot of effort responding to a creature whose capacity for basic written communication stops somewhere around "I can string words together if I have seen them in sequence enough times."
That seems to describe 90% of my interactions online in the last decade.
(sigh)
Quote from: Benoist;694308Just sharing experiences. People are free to read, or not. It's not my choice to make.
In doubt, it might be best to share it. If only to keep it in mind.
How often doesn't Planet Olgol do that sort of thing in Van?
Quote from: TristramEvans;694341How often doesn't Planet Olgol do that sort of thing in Van?
It was regular when we did it, a year-and-a-half ago. You should message Blair (Planet Algol) about this. Planetalgol "at" gmail "dot" com.
Quote from: Benoist;694348It was regular when we did it, a year-and-a-half ago. You should message Blair (Planet Algol) about this. Planetalgol "at" gmail "dot" com.
Cool, thanks
Quote from: TristramEvans;694350Cool, thanks
No problem. :)
Maybe we'll find ourselves at the same table some day. I promise not to be a dick. :D
That would be awesome:) If a bit surreal.
Quote from: Benoist;694308Just sharing experiences. People are free to read, or not. It's not my choice to make.
In doubt, it might be best to share it. If only to keep it in mind.
Read it, found it interesting. Far better to have a longer post with some interesting meat on it, than a two sentence auto-response in long chain of back and forth. I get the tl;dr thing, but without the longer posts the conversation is uselessly shallow. Kinda like Sommerjon, actually...
Quote from: Sacrosanct;694259I don't think 4e was more char op than 3e. Not even close, actually.
I agree, activity on the Char Op message board for 4e dropped significantly from activity on the 3e CharOp. I don't know if that's because it was harder to do in 4e, or less fun, or the game was not as popular as 3e, or some combination of those and other factors.
Quote from: TristramEvans;694403That would be awesome:) If a bit surreal.
Yeah, agreed! Hehe. :)
Quote from: Bobloblah;694633Read it, found it interesting. Far better to have a longer post with some interesting meat on it, than a two sentence auto-response in long chain of back and forth. I get the tl;dr thing, but without the longer posts the conversation is uselessly shallow. Kinda like Sommerjon, actually...
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed the post.
Quote from: JRT;693152It seems that they're trying to make D&D a more robust toolkit rather than a one fixed ruleset to rule them all.
Yeah, that's only what I've been saying for a year and a half now, fancy that..
Quote from: RPGPundit;695228Yeah, that's only what I've been saying for a year and a half now, fancy that..
It would be a spectacularly awesome punk-out if you are in actuality Mr. Mearls.
Quote from: Old One Eye;695231It would be a spectacularly awesome punk-out if you are in actuality Mr. Mearls.
Nah, the Pundit is Ron Edwards's alter ego, everyone knows that.
Quote from: RPGPundit;695228Yeah, that's only what I've been saying for a year and a half now, fancy that..
Tricky to make work though. A dense set of options can make for a fantastic toolkit but they can also lead to more complexity than a system that makes actual decisions. I will be curious to see how it all works out in the final version of the game system.
Quote from: TristramEvans;695233Nah, the Pundit is Ron Edwards's alter ego, everyone knows that.
They could both be Mearls.
Quote from: vytzka;695309They could both be Mearls.
Secretly all three are just online avatars of Lorraine Williams.
Quote from: Imp;694299You're spending an awful lot of effort responding to a creature whose capacity for basic written communication stops somewhere around "I can string words together if I have seen them in sequence enough times."
If everyone points out the troll, it helps new people just identify them that much quicker.
Quote from: RPGPundit;695228Yeah, that's only what I've been saying for a year and a half now, fancy that..
Yeah but when the crazy hobo outside the drug store is ranting about shit, it's always nice to get confirmation from someone who doesn't stink of urine and push their worldly possessions around in a shopping cart. :p
Quote from: Old One Eye;695231It would be a spectacularly awesome punk-out if you are in actuality Mr. Mearls.
Mind. Blown.
Quote from: TristramEvans;695310Secretly all three are just online avatars of Lorraine Williams.
And now my brain feels like the day after an alcoholic and cigar-filled all-nighter of gambling where I lost all my cash around 5am.
Quote from: TristramEvans;695310Secretly all three are just online avatars of Lorraine Williams.
You know, because the universe is infinitely large, there are infinite versions of earth, with infinite variety, which means that somewhere in the universe, this is true. Maybe here...
Quote from: Old One Eye;695231It would be a spectacularly awesome punk-out if you are in actuality Mr. Mearls.
Nah, I'm just trying my hardest to be his Jimminy Cricket right now. It remains to be seen how that will turn out.
Quote from: Mistwell;695605Yeah but when the crazy hobo outside the drug store is ranting about shit, it's always nice to get confirmation from someone who doesn't stink of urine and push their worldly possessions around in a shopping cart. :p
You mean the crazy hobo who's been paid a considerable amount of money to directly advise the lead designer of D&D?
RPGPundit
Quote from: Votan;695288Tricky to make work though. A dense set of options can make for a fantastic toolkit but they can also lead to more complexity than a system that makes actual decisions. I will be curious to see how it all works out in the final version of the game system.
Typically, in games where there are a substantial number of optional rules, I find that a lot of that complexity comes in if people take the (usually ill-advised) route of enabling all the options at once.
In the case of Next, I think it should be emphasised that optional rules should be chosen carefully and are not intended to be used all at once. (For instance, combining the tactical and narrative models seems like a bizarre, self-defeating exercise to me). Kind of like how Paranoia XP did it with its three different play modes - you didn't use all the options in the book at once, you used a subset of them to fit the type of game you intended to run.
The clever way to do it would be to have the same set of game stats translate differently in different optional modes - so you'd have the same monster stat block whatever optional you were rolling with, but the way you utilise those stats differs depending on whether you're in core mode or tactical mode or narrative mode or whatever.
Quote from: RPGPundit;695950You mean the crazy hobo who's been paid a considerable amount of money to directly advise the lead designer of D&D?
Who else?
Quote from: Warthur;695954The clever way to do it would be to have the same set of game stats translate differently in different optional modes - so you'd have the same monster stat block whatever optional you were rolling with, but the way you utilise those stats differs depending on whether you're in core mode or tactical mode or narrative mode or whatever.
That sounds incredibly complicated, but somehow appropriate. Any examples?
Quote from: BarefootGaijin;695978That sounds incredibly complicated, but somehow appropriate. Any examples?
I do something similar (though perhaps not exactly what was meant) in Phaserip: stats are rated by Echelons, general classes of competence designated by a descriptor:
Puny - below average
Normal -average
Good - above average
Exceptional - significantly above average
Legendary - peak human
Uncanny - inhuman
Fantastic - low superhuman
Amazing - superhuman
Incredible - high superhuman
Unearthly - godlike
Each Echelon is associated with a Rank and a Rating, one on a scale of 1-10, the other on a scale of 1-100. Depending on the amount of detail I want to focus on I can then either use just the Rank or I can get all fiddly with the Rating (both of these are handled solely by the GM, players just use the Echelons).
Quote from: jibbajibba;694252Which sold better Wilderness Survival Guide or Unearthed Arcana?
TSR was at one point giving away free the Wilderness Survival Guide...
Never did get the story behind that. I assume they printed too many or it undersold.
Quote from: RPGPundit;695950You mean the crazy hobo who's been paid a considerable amount of money to directly advise the lead designer of D&D?
RPGPundit
Yes that one!
Quote from: TristramEvans;696069I do something similar (though perhaps not exactly what was meant) in Phaserip: stats are rated by Echelons, general classes of competence designated by a descriptor:
Puny - below average
Normal -average
Good - above average
Exceptional - significantly above average
Legendary - peak human
Uncanny - inhuman
Fantastic - low superhuman
Amazing - superhuman
Incredible - high superhuman
Unearthly - godlike
Each Echelon is associated with a Rank and a Rating, one on a scale of 1-10, the other on a scale of 1-100. Depending on the amount of detail I want to focus on I can then either use just the Rank or I can get all fiddly with the Rating (both of these are handled solely by the GM, players just use the Echelons).
Don't think he means that I think he means on a monster stat block you might have say "Tactics 2" . In the usual game this means that the DM should role play the moster with good tactical awareness (say its a 1-5 scale) but maybe it won't build traps in advance and won't react to previous incursions by building defenses.
In the Tactical minis game "Tactics 2" give syou a bunch of special moves you can do either to move round the grid, move opponets on the grid or modify elements of play. well defined in the book.
In the Storygame version "Tactics 2" give you 2 plot points you can burn at any time to add complications or counter PC complications to the Tactics domain of the narative.
I asssume that is what he meant. Most obvious interrpretation.
Ah, yeah, I don't really switch between gaming styles that way (just "crunchy tactical" or "loose dramatic"), but isn't D&DNext doing something along those lines?
Quote from: Omega;696183TSR was at one point giving away free the Wilderness Survival Guide...
Never did get the story behind that. I assume they printed too many or it undersold.
That is my point
1 gives a lot of new character optimisation posibilities, classes, spells, items etc.
The other gives lots of campaign detail and DM advice fro running wilderness games. It gives some good rules for building settings, on geography, handling encumberence etc etc ...
WSG was recognised as a well written and well constructed book that filled a real gap
UA is recognised as an absolute mess.
Which sold better?
Quote from: TristramEvans;696211Ah, yeah, I don't really switch between gaming styles that way (just "crunchy tactical" or "loose dramatic"), but isn't D&DNext doing something along those lines?
Yes I beleive that was the point that was being made
You know a thread has lasted too long when the participants have to stop to remind themselves of the basic premise of the original post.
Quote from: Warthur;696249You know a thread has lasted too long when the participants have to stop to remind themselves of the basic premise of the original post.
Yep, my bad, I wasn't really paying very close attention