Quote from: Bill;666148Its good to see that 8 orcs are dangerous to 4 level three characters.

And it's unfortunate to see that some people still can't grasp basic concepts

QuoteThey shouldn't be working on boss monsters until they make the regular monsters way, way more interesting to fight.

That problem?  That's a you problem, not a Next problem.  As I've said, a common monster like the orc has traits that previous editions don't have, making it much more interesting.  Goblins and other creatures have similar extra stuff.

If you can't find these creatures interesting, then I really do feel sorry for you.  The game should not be designed to cater to the lowest common denominator of people who have zero imagination.  Sorry, that's the way it is.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;666067The really disappointing thing is that many of these people haven't even  played it for any significant amount of time.  They simply pull up the rules and immediately start spreadsheet comparing DPS.

That's fine for a computer game, but is fundamentally flawed when judging the merits of a tabletop RPG.  The only way to get a true measurement of the rules for a TTRPG is to play it with a group and see how it actually plays out, rather than how you assumed.

A classic example of this is the whole "a fighter will always use deep wound over defense because killing a monster faster is always better" argument that I keep going back to.  That assumption looks good on paper, but ignores actual play and several key factors of actual play, such as:


*battles aren't done in a vacuum, and thus you don't get back all resources after each one (hp, etc).
*you can stategize depending on scenario that makes one or the other better for that specific scenario.  For example, using "sieze the advantage", which gives you advantage on your next attack against an opponent that missed you works great when you use your expertise dice to increase your AC rather than damage, causing the opponent to miss you, which in turn allows you to use "sieze the advantage".

This is some mental gymnastics here.

You bitch about supposes then make your own supposes as proof that the other supposes is stupid.

A classic example of this is the whole "a fighter will always use deep wound over defense because killing a monster faster is always better" argument that I keep going back to.
Vs.
For example, using "sieze the advantage", which gives you advantage on your next attack against an opponent that missed you works great when you use your expertise dice to increase your AC rather than damage, causing the opponent to miss you, which in turn allows you to use "sieze the advantage".

Your supposes is only worthwhile if and only if your bump to AC makes the opponent miss allowing you to "seize the advantage".  If that does not happen you wasted multiple resources for net loss.

Quote from: Piestrio;666184Odd... I've never had a problem IDing asshats in any system no matter how well or poorly "designed".

I've seen on the other hand jerks use badly designed mechanics to implement their fiendish designs. 3.5 is famous for this.

I honestly don't get this disdain for good game design. It sounds like there's advocacy for bad games! As a GM, I don't have time to try see through rules obfuscations. RPGs should be thin, lean, elegant, and well tested, so there's nothing for the jerk to hide behind. This is really not a sandbox vs story game thing as some make it out to be. As rules sets like LotFP and Labyrinth Lord show, your game can be entirely sandbox as well as well designed and hard for a jerk to take advantage of.

Quote from: Sommerjon;666194This is some mental gymnastics here.

You bitch about supposes then make your own supposes as proof that the other supposes is stupid.

A classic example of this is the whole "a fighter will always use deep wound over defense because killing a monster faster is always better" argument that I keep going back to.
Vs.
For example, using "sieze the advantage", which gives you advantage on your next attack against an opponent that missed you works great when you use your expertise dice to increase your AC rather than damage, causing the opponent to miss you, which in turn allows you to use "sieze the advantage".

Your supposes is only worthwhile if and only if your bump to AC makes the opponent miss allowing you to "seize the advantage".  If that does not happen you wasted multiple resources for net loss.

Did you just use "supposes" as a noun?

You should probably be ashamed of yourself.

Quote from: Piestrio;666199Did you just use "supposes" as a noun?

You should probably be ashamed of yourself.

He should be even more ashamed that what I gave was just one example, whereas the argument posited that I was disagreeing with was an all or nothing position.  I would say I'm surprised that he missed that very significant difference, but I'm not.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;666197I've seen on the other hand jerks use badly designed mechanics to implement their fiendish designs. 3.5 is famous for this.

I've seen people wrecking all sorts of games. The "elegance" of the rules has fuck all to do with it, one way or the other.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;666197I honestly don't get this disdain for good game design.

Once you understand that your own definition of what constitutes "good game design" is predicated on a whole set of assumptions that might not be shared by others, you'll be able to move on from this state of incomprehension.

Seizing the advantage is an important thing. Ancient Romans used to say "Carpe Usum" as they were playing their versions of D&D Next.

Quote from: Haffrung;666120Gamer 1: blah,blah,blah

Except the MMO crowd is where the kids are nowadays.  Or they are on their smart phones or they are on a console system(I type this while listening to my daughter play BO2 btw) or they are on the computer.  They are not playing text games on these devices, those days are long gone.  Yet you want to take all of that away from them and force them to play like you.  That somehow your way of playing is better or truer or whatever.  You won't, no, can't be satisfied until the hobby itself apologise for the last couple decades or so of rpgs.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;666201He should be even more ashamed that what I gave was just one example, whereas the argument posited that I was disagreeing with was an all or nothing position.  I would say I'm surprised that he missed that very significant difference, but I'm not.

Even worse he has failed to make his new noun agree in number with his verbs.

i.e. "Your supposes is"

Quote from: Piestrio;666199Did you just use "supposes" as a noun?

You should probably be ashamed of yourself.

He... kinda did, yes.

Quote from: Sommerjon;666205Except the MMO crowd is where the kids are nowadays.  Or they are on their smart phones or they are on a console system(I type this while listening to my daughter play BO2 btw) or they are on the computer.  They are not playing text games on these devices, those days are long gone.  Yet you want to take all of that away from them and force them to play like you.  That somehow your way of playing is better or truer or whatever.  You won't, no, can't be satisfied until the hobby itself apologise for the last couple decades or so of rpgs.

Why'd the hobby apologise, I didn't see even 4e locking people up in concentration camps.

Quote from: Benoist;666203Once you understand that your own definition of what constitutes "good game design" is predicated on a whole set of assumptions that might not be shared by others, you'll be able to move on from this state of incomprehension.

Can't this be also be used for playstyles?

Quote from: Sommerjon;666209Can't this be also be used for playstyles?

It is also valid for play styles, absolutely.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;666197I've seen on the other hand jerks use badly designed mechanics to implement their fiendish designs. 3.5 is famous for this.

I honestly don't get this disdain for good game design. It sounds like there's advocacy for bad games! As a GM, I don't have time to try see through rules obfuscations. RPGs should be thin, lean, elegant, and well tested, so there's nothing for the jerk to hide behind. This is really not a sandbox vs story game thing as some make it out to be. As rules sets like LotFP and Labyrinth Lord show, your game can be entirely sandbox as well as well designed and hard for a jerk to take advantage of.

The thing is people have different definitions of "good" and "bad".

When people sit down to design an RPG, if a major goal is "We must make something that people who spend hours on CharOp boards won't be able to break", that's going to result in game that plays a certain way, and some other aspects of play will likely be sacrificed to achieve that goal.

My definition of "good math" is "math that doesn't yield wonky results in 95% of the situations that come up when my group plays", not "math that cannot possibly be made to yield wonky results no matter how hard someone tries".
That's because my group doesn't include people whose "fun" comes from finding clever ways to break the game.

It's like if I say I don't want 10" thick armor plating on my Maserati, and a tanker from the US cavalry replies "Dude, wtf? are saying you want to get blown up by enemy shells?" The answer is of course I don't. I just don't believe that enemy shells are going to be a relevant factor in the conditions under which I'll be driving my sports car.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;666190Yep.  I don't think Next has rules for flanking for everyone.  I suppose it could fall under the Advantage mechanic description, but isn't expressly called out.

See, this is how D&D works with reasonable people who actually play the game:

Player of Rogue: "I duck behind the barrels and creep up to the side of the Necromancer."

DM: "Make a Stealth check."

Player: [Rolls and succeeds on Stealth check]. "I attack from the flank. Do I get Advantage?"

DM: "Yep."