I've seen this argument a lot, especially in regards to Next. There is this pervasive argument that any attempt by Next to emulate AD&D (or B/X or even 3e for that matter) is purely nostalgic, and not based on good design.
Needless to say, I disagree. I certainly resent people telling me that the elements I like from AD&D are only because of nostalgia. Not every new rendition of something is better, and we have tons of examples that back this up.
For instance, New Coke sucked. Windows Vista was horrible compared to Win XP. The new Chevy Camaro's design, while intentionally meant to emulate the first generation Camaro from 1967-1969, wasn't solely for nostalgia. It's a better design than the late 1990s Camaro regardless.
So why does this argument not only persist, but is so rampant?
Or am I way off, and in fact Next's AD&D-type elements* are not better designed than 4e, but nothing more than nostalgia?
*what I mean by this are no dependancy on grid based combat, faster paced combat, less reliance on skills and/or power cards, and being able to fit an entire character on one side of one piece of paper.
90% plus of game design is crap, and that includes all versions of D&D.
Stop being insulted, play the stupid game you want to play and leave the whining to others.
No offense, but you're not the type of person I put a whole lot of weight behind for commentary in this context.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;663915No offense, but you're not the type of person I put a whole lot of weight behind for commentary in this context.
Please take this with the offense it's intended- but I put *no* weight behind *anything* you write.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;663913and being able to fit an entire character on one side of one piece of paper.
I agree with what you're saying but is this really a good yardstick to measure things by? What if someone just has really small writing or something, or uses bigger pieces of paper.
Quote from: gleichman;663916Please take this with the offense it's intended- but I put *no* weight behind *anything* you write.
Thank you for illustrating why I said what I did.
Quote from: The Traveller;663917I agree with what you're saying but is this really a good yardstick to measure things by? What if someone just has really small writing or something, or uses bigger pieces of paper.
That phrase is really meant to represent the fact that you have very little in the way of managaing stats and data, not literally how small can you write. For example, it's often used in the context of OD&D or B/X, where all you had for your character was name, class, level, hit points, AC, abilities, saving throws, and equipment. You didn't have a full page of skills, a page full of powers, four different AC's depending on scenarios, a dozen blocks of info just for each weapon, etc.
Sacrosanct, I don't think you were around for that shitstorm: http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=14215
But basically, that's it: it's 2003 again, with a good splash of 1980s "my game is more 'realistic' than yours" and a sprinkling of post-Forge "System Matters" thrown in for good measure. The more things change . . .
Quote from: Benoist;663926with a good splash of 1980s "my game is more realistic than yours" thrown in for good measure.
If you're going to make this a thing, fuckwit, I will reciprocate.
I'm not kidding: it feels like the RuneQuest marketing has a second life lately. And that really isn't anything new.
Sorry if that offends you - it's just the truth.
Quote from: Benoist;663926The more things change . . .
As a card carrying member of the OSR, your use of the phrase is quite self-defining I think. If you game in the past, expect the past to find you.
Myself, I never left the 80s. So the same old debates are expected to me, all that changed is that I'm the only one on my side :)
Damn, gleichman returning in full pills with booze style after a week of silence.
Quote from: gleichman;663936Myself, I never left the 80s.
If it was only true. I'll help you find the tires for the Delorian, I promise.
Quote from: The Traveller;663928If you're going to make this a thing, fuckwit, I will reciprocate.
And now, a rebus:(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRnkIbG2MOmYRlG3VZYbkSwKBq9hlXrgQ5-CxfnoLib5P-qLsKA)
+(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQUd3hpn9jF7NUbNEQxeouPN-IRTJuqEIy9gdY1REEu1kaOu4wQSg)
It's not aimed atcha, Traveller.
I shall save this thread however!
Accusing someone of nostalgia is just a pointless argument that's being cast as you run out of other meat to throw around.
That said, there is certainly an element of nostalgia when it comes to gaming, or perhaps more importantly, familiarity, as with all things. After a few years, you either get used to the faults and stop seeing them as much, or you get a divorce. It's a way for someone on one extreme verge of the discussion to basically toss the table in the air and leave in a huff.
Of course, the argument also has the opposite in "nil novi sub sole".
Quote from: Benoist;663931I'm not kidding: it feels like the RuneQuest marketing has a second life lately. And that really isn't anything new.
Sorry if that offends you - it's just the truth.
You got your ass kicked up and down the internet in the realism discussion. That doesn't give you licence to shit up every other thread with your butthurt. My advice is to get a grip on yourself and stop disrupting the site.
Your call, of course.
Quote from: gleichman;663936As a card carrying member of the OSR, your use of the phrase is quite self-defining I think. If you game in the past, expect the past to find you.
True. That shouldn't be surprising. I guess what's ironic is that on that side of things itself, history just seems to repeat itself: we have some enthusiasm about the original game and AD&D, and a few years later, some vocal minority pops up and talks about "realism" and how their games should just you know, "not be D&D." I'm not spiteful about it: I just think there's an interesting parallel at work here.
Quote from: The Traveller;663940You got your ass kicked up and down the internet in the realism discussion.
I know it's your way to rub your butthurt in my face after you ipso facto capitulated by talking complete nonsense on the thread, so I thank you. ;)
Quote from: The Traveller;663940You got your ass kicked up and down the internet in the realism discussion. That doesn't give you licence to shit up every other thread with your butthurt. My advice is to get a grip on yourself and stop disrupting the site.
Quote from: Benoist;663944I know it's your way to rub your butthurt in my face after you ipso facto capitulated by talking complete nonsense on the thread, so I thank you. ;)
Can you two please get a room so the rest of us can have a thread?
Quote from: Bobloblah;663945Can you two please get a room so the rest of us can have a thread?
It's not the first thread he's disrupted in this way. I guess some people are just bad losers. Please note I'm not following anyone around braying about realism.
Back to the OP, I suspect that you seeing this used to trump your denying a big part of the premise: Change is good.
See, if change is not good, why have 'Next' at all?
I'm not calling it a logical stance. It seems more like an emotional state, if that makes sense.
If anything, the best yardstick for good design should be how many of your peers emulated your idea.
Quote from: mcbobbo;663949Back to the OP, I suspect that you seeing this used to trump your denying a big part of the premise: Change is good.
See, if change is not good, why have 'Next' at all?
.
It's not an all-or-nothing thing. I welcome change in a many regards (for example, I really like advantage, backgrounds, and specialites). I'm referring to any part of Next that seems to emulate older design is referred to as "catering to nostalgia" rather than actually being something that is good design.
And also, as I mentioned, "change is good" is a flawed point of view to hold. I gave examples as to why.
Quote from: The Traveller;663947It's not the first thread he's disrupted in this way. I guess some people are just bad losers. Please note I'm not following anyone around braying about realism.
Sounds to me like you're the guy butthurt enough that as soon as I mention people bitching about "realism" you start wailing like a girl who's been touched in the wrong places.
But hey. Whatever.
I brought this up in regards to the "Rose-colored glasses" thread I linked for Sacrosanct. And it's true: this discussion happened, and it was swinging between "D&D doesn't make sense" and "it's not balanced" and "there are so obviously superior options to it today!" all with "Ford T" comparisons and all that jazz. There is nothing new under the sun. Really.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;663950It's not an all-or-nothing thing. I welcome change in a many regards (for example, I really like advantage, backgrounds, and specialites). I'm referring to any part of Next that seems to emulate older design is referred to as "catering to nostalgia" rather than actually being something that is good design.
I completely agree. I am just assuming that your 'nostalgia-shamers' don't see it that way. Maybe you have seen them advocate other change-backs, and just not to 2e? Is it all 'upward and onward' for them? Or something else?
There's also the possibility that they haven't gotten the chance to experience what you are advocating first hand, so they're just clueless kids trying to sound knowledgeable. A lot of us hit an age where we think we know everything just because we know a little, and some of us never leave it.
Quote from: Benoist;663951Sounds to me like you're the guy butthurt enough that as soon as I mention people bitching about "realism" you start wailing like a girl who's been touched in the wrong places.
But hey. Whatever.
I brought this up in regards to the "Rose-colored glasses" thread I linked for Sacrosanct. And it's true: this discussion happened, and it was swinging between "D&D doesn't make sense" and "it's not balanced" and "there are so obviously superior options to it today!" all with "Ford T" comparisons and all that jazz. There is nothing new under the sun. Really.
No, Sac was saying nothing about realism. You on the other hand can't seem to let it go (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=663083&postcount=12). I bet you're one of these people that shares every post on the internet with their significant other, so when things start to go wrong you've no way to back out.
Back out.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;663913I've seen this argument a lot, especially in regards to Next. There is this pervasive argument that any attempt by Next to emulate AD&D (or B/X or even 3e for that matter) is purely nostalgic, and not based on good design.
Needless to say, I disagree. I certainly resent people telling me that the elements I like from AD&D are only because of nostalgia. Not every new rendition of something is better, and we have tons of examples that back this up.
For instance, New Coke sucked. Windows Vista was horrible compared to Win XP. The new Chevy Camaro's design, while intentionally meant to emulate the first generation Camaro from 1967-1969, wasn't solely for nostalgia. It's a better design than the late 1990s Camaro regardless.
So why does this argument not only persist, but is so rampant?
Or am I way off, and in fact Next's AD&D-type elements* are not better designed than 4e, but nothing more than nostalgia?
*what I mean by this are no dependancy on grid based combat, faster paced combat, less reliance on skills and/or power cards, and being able to fit an entire character on one side of one piece of paper.
There are many good ideas in AD&D, Basic, 3E, etc...
Make sense to me that one would take what is 'good' from any version they have nostalgia for, and run with it.
All versions of dnd have stuff I like and stuff I dislike.
Nostalgia is part of that.
What I find perplexing is when someone feels the need to glorify ALL aspects of their favorite game and vilify ALL aspects of non favorite.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;663950It's not an all-or-nothing thing. I welcome change in a many regards (for example, I really like advantage, backgrounds, and specialites). I'm referring to any part of Next that seems to emulate older design is referred to as "catering to nostalgia" rather than actually being something that is good design.
And also, as I mentioned, "change is good" is a flawed point of view to hold. I gave examples as to why.
No change is good is just as flawed. And I know it's not what you are saying, but I think it bears repeating. An experimentation with a formula may be an interesting thing, if it is done right. Which is why I actually have high hopes for CoC 7e, because it may retain old qualities, be backwards compatible but have some new ideas there.
Quote from: mcbobbo;663953I completely agree. I am just assuming that your 'nostalgia-shamers' don't see it that way. Maybe you have seen them advocate other change-backs, and just not to 2e? Is it all 'upward and onward' for them? Or something else?
There's also the possibility that they haven't gotten the chance to experience what you are advocating first hand, so they're just clueless kids trying to sound knowledgeable. A lot of us hit an age where we think we know everything just because we know a little, and some of us never leave it.
It's been generally the "disease of D&D" past 2 editions (and I'm sure there are those who had problems with changes in 2e as opposed to 1e AD&D as well) - namely, the vastly different mechanics. So the current customer base feels they will be left behind in the name of "pandering to the past customer base". Of course, there are also those who were so proud and happy to be the spearhead of change in RPGs, and now the change is going on indeed, but they aren't at the spearhead anymore.
Quote from: The Traveller;663956No, Sac was saying nothing about realism. You on the other hand can't seem to let it go (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=663083&postcount=12). I bet you're one of these people that shares every post on the internet with their significant other, so when things start to go wrong you've no way to back out.
I bet you're the type of guy who doesn't have a significant other. That would explain how these kinds of thoughts come to your mind.
Look. I like you, but when I mention people whining about realism you don't have to jump on your feet like you've been touched in the wrong places. I get it: you don't want to face the fact your objectivity isn't exactly "objective". I get it. You need to back the fuck out yourself, now, and get over it.
Gleichman responded with a cogent point, to which I responded in kind. How about you do the same?
Quote from: Bill;663959There are many good ideas in AD&D, Basic, 3E, etc...
Make sense to me that one would take what is 'good' from any version they have nostalgia for, and run with it.
All versions of dnd have stuff I like and stuff I dislike.
Nostalgia is part of that.
What I find perplexing is when someone feels the need to glorify ALL aspects of their favorite game and vilify ALL aspects of non favorite.
I left D&D a while ago.
Didn't work with the game I wanted to play.
For a lot of people, nostalgia aside, they like the game it plays well with. Hey, I am fine with that.
And one can always tweak stuff.
Quote from: Benoist;663963I bet you're the type of guy who doesn't have a significant other. That would explain how these kinds of thoughts come to your mind.
One thing you may rest assured of, you'll live your entire life never knowing what kind of guy I am.
Quote from: Benoist;663963you don't want to face the fact your objectivity isn't exactly "objective".
And there we have it. Still trying to win an argument long since lost, and without the spine to do it in the right thread. If you've something to say about realism by all means go for it, but stop wrecking other threads with backhanded snipes. There's already a thread for it.
Quote from: Bobloblah;663945Can you two please get a room so the rest of us can have a thread?
Will you quit playing a fucking nanny on the intrewebs?
Save this shit for a site that gives a fuck.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;663979Will you quit playing a fucking nanny on the intrewebs?
Save this shit for a site that gives a fuck.
Calm down tough guy, or the keyboard'll melt.
Quote from: Benoist;663951I brought this up in regards to the "Rose-colored glasses" thread I linked for Sacrosanct. And it's true: this discussion happened, and it was swinging between "D&D doesn't make sense" and "it's not balanced" and "there are so obviously superior options to it today!" all with "Ford T" comparisons and all that jazz. There is nothing new under the sun. Really.
Dude.
You KNOW I still have the callouses from dragging Seanchai and Mr. Wonderwoman over the coals of logic for thousands of posts.
don't even bring that thing up.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;663979Will you quit playing a fucking nanny on the intrewebs?
And you're doing what, exactly?
Quote from: Black Vulmea;663979Save this shit for a site that gives a fuck.
Of course! I'm also sure you'd
much rather they derail this at least
slightly interesting thread with more of the same from that other trainwreck of a thread.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;663919That phrase is really meant to represent the fact that you have very little in the way of managaing stats and data, not literally how small can you write. For example, it's often used in the context of OD&D or B/X, where all you had for your character was name, class, level, hit points, AC, abilities, saving throws, and equipment. You didn't have a full page of skills, a page full of powers, four different AC's depending on scenarios, a dozen blocks of info just for each weapon, etc.
Somehow, the lack of a booklet of crap as your character sheet got equated with being denied meaningful choice in the game.
Actual meaningful choices being available or not is DM/campaign rather than a rules issue. The amount of crap you have to track has jack shit to do with that. I have played in B/X games with an abundance of meaningful choices available and in 4E games with very little. Sure there was quite a menu of shit to sift through each combat turn but personally I find the decision to engage in combat in the first place more meaningful than which widget I'll be beating a monster over the head with this round.
The reverse can be true too. It isn't like railroad campaigns were unheard of prior to WOTC versions of D&D.
Quite a few people who enjoy old school gaming simply have a better time playing without managing reams of pages of info. It isn't due to nostalgia, its because they happen to find that more fun right now.
When a game includes simpler mechanics they may be there for the same reason more "advanced" mechanics are in other games- because they do what they are supposed to do to produce the kind of game the designers want.
A good mechanic is one that works within the vision the creator has for the game whether simple or complex. Nostalgia is flung around as an excuse by people who desire more complexity for its own sake.
This thread is s bunch of fun.
To contribute more meaningfully: I agree with Sacro's original post.
Quote from: The Ent;664075This thread is s bunch of fun.
.
Yeah, it sort of turned into a bunch of monkeys throwing shit pretty quickly.
Quote from: gleichman;663936If you game in the past, expect the past to find you.
(http://media.tumblr.com/c250dd7d4db66e06c31d38dacba955a8/tumblr_inline_mgqf7gUdzc1rcea7z.jpg)
Quote from: Sacrosanct;663913I've seen this argument a lot, especially in regards to Next. There is this pervasive argument that any attempt by Next to emulate AD&D (or B/X or even 3e for that matter) is purely nostalgic, and not based on good design.
The ONLY people who say that, I've found, are people butthurt that 4e failed and is going away. Do you really want to talk to those people or care about their opinions anyways?
Quote from: Exploderwizard;664004Actual meaningful choices being available or not is DM/campaign rather than a rules issue. The amount of crap you have to track has jack shit to do with that. I have played in B/X games with an abundance of meaningful choices available and in 4E games with very little. Sure there was quite a menu of shit to sift through each combat turn but personally I find the decision to engage in combat in the first place more meaningful than which widget I'll be beating a monster over the head with this round.
Bingo.
It's also why I enjoy short and sweet combats. Because by the time we roll initiative the most interesting part is already over. The second most interesting part happens at the end when you find out how that first decision played out.
Why you would want to wait 1-4 hours between those two points is beyond me.
Quote from: LordVreeg;663988Dude.
You KNOW I still have the callouses from dragging Seanchai and Mr. Wonderwoman over the coals of logic for thousands of posts.
don't even bring that thing up.
That thread was a clusterfuck for the ages, I tell you.
Quote from: Piestrio;664082Bingo.
It's also why I enjoy short and sweet combats. Because by the time we roll initiative the most interesting part is already over. The second most interesting part happens at the end when you find out how that first decision played out.
Why you would want to wait 1-4 hours between those two points is beyond me.
with the right game system/GM combats can be fun entertaining rewarding and full of roleplay opportunities.
I have no issue with 2 hour combats provided they are 2 hours of fun for all the players.
What's typically described as good game design by people obsessed with the concept is stuff I tend to find orthogonal to my fun at best. So, don't really give a shit?
Quote from: jibbajibba;664132with the right game system/GM combats can be fun entertaining rewarding and full of roleplay opportunities.
I have no issue with 2 hour combats provided they are 2 hours of fun for all the players.
I suppose in theory that's true but IME I've never had a long combat in an RPG provide more fun than a short one and as importantly I've never had a long RPG combat provide more fun than a similar length board or minis game.
2 hours of pathfinder combat is no where near as fun as two hours of battletech.
2 hours of 4e combat is nowhere near as fun as two hours of FASA Star Trek: TCS
2 hours of HERO combat is nowhere near as fun as two hours of Warmachine.
That kind of fun, rules driven "challenges", is much better provided by any number of war/board games.
Quote from: Piestrio;664135I suppose in theory that's true but IME I've never had a long combat in an RPG provide more fun than a short one and as importantly I've never had a long RPG combat provide more fun than a similar length board or minis game.
2 hours of pathfinder combat is no where near as fun as two hours of battletech.
2 hours of 4e combat is nowhere near as fun as two hours of FASA Star Trek: TCS
2 hours of HERO combat is nowhere near as fun as two hours of Warmachine.
That kind of fun, rules driven "challenges", is much better provided by any number of war/board games.
See if I run an extended combat chances are there will be changes in the environment, roleplay elements a whole heap of stuff
This is true of a recent games where the PCs Strontium Dog Pack attacked a land train full of 'terrorists'. They had to plan how to stop the train how to get onbaord, where to attack, use skills, powers and tech to try and isolate terrorist groups to complete their plan. In character planning and gettign equipment etc probably took an hour and the fight itself maybe 60 - 80 minutes but the whole lot was great fun. I got to role play some of the cool terrorist leaders the PCs got to do cool shit like swing onto a moving landtrain, blow up sections with D-grenades , all sorts....
Historically some of our classic gaming moments were combats. Hansel and Grettle versus Archer, Sir Elidor vs the Seven Dwarves, Quinn and his assasins vs Kull, Sir Elidor, Billy Quong vs the Amazons. Things happen in RPG combats that don't happen in baord games. The free format, player imagination run riot stuff is just as true in combat as out and in fact the GM needs to be much sharper and on their toes to adapt the system, keep the NPCs roleplaying consistently, extralopate from the rules and all that shenanigins :)
Quote from: Piestrio;664135I suppose in theory that's true but IME I've never had a long combat in an RPG provide more fun than a short one and as importantly I've never had a long RPG combat provide more fun than a similar length board or minis game.
2 hours of pathfinder combat is no where near as fun as two hours of battletech.
2 hours of 4e combat is nowhere near as fun as two hours of FASA Star Trek: TCS
2 hours of HERO combat is nowhere near as fun as two hours of Warmachine.
That kind of fun, rules driven "challenges", is much better provided by any number of war/board games.
So where so you stand on Savage Worlds (or OD&D for that matter); which just took a wargame rule-set and said - roleplay with this.
Quote from: jadrax;664151So where so you stand on Savage Worlds (or OD&D for that matter); which just took a wargame rule-set and said - roleplay with this.
I don't mind using a wargame rules set and "roleplaying with it" so long as the handling time of the rules is pretty minimal. Like I said, the actual mechanical parts of the game are, to me, one of the least interesting part of an RPG so I want them out of the way more often than not.
Basically if I want to play a wargame I'll play a wargame. If I want to play a role-playing game I'll play a role-playing game.
OD&D has pretty minimal handling time as does SW. So that's fine.
Quote from: vytzka;664133What's typically described as good game design by people obsessed with the concept is stuff I tend to find orthogonal to my fun at best. So, don't really give a shit?
Often true. What's touted as good game design to me usually isn't relevant to what I most enjoy in RPGs. Or at worst becomes an intricate yet laborious chore.
Short form, what's touted as good game design lately has, in my experience, often been not. Unnecessary or tedious is not a compelling reason to bother with such design arguments.
Quote from: Benoist;664129That thread was a clusterfuck for the ages, I tell you.
It could be nothing else, no common ground- no common language. It's why I refused to take part.
Quote from: Piestrio;664135I suppose in theory that's true but IME I've never had a long combat in an RPG provide more fun than a short one and as importantly I've never had a long RPG combat provide more fun than a similar length board or minis game.
I'm completely different, I find pure wargames especially of modern (i.e. post 80s) design boring, poorly designed, and worst- pointless they lack context or lasting impact in a greater RPG campaign.
Quote from: Piestrio;6641352 hours of pathfinder combat is no where near as fun as two hours of battletech.
They'd be the same for me, both are abalative damage systems with no connection to reality which in turn results in unrealistic and (worse) unappealing tactics at best.
Hate them both.
Quote from: Piestrio;6641352 hours of 4e combat is nowhere near as fun as two hours of FASA Star Trek: TCS
TCS was a RPG system, however same comments as above. Hated both.
Quote from: Piestrio;6641352 hours of HERO combat is nowhere near as fun as two hours of Warmachine.
I'll take 2 hours of HERO combat over any modern wargame, especially the 'beer and pretzels games like Warmachine, 40K or any of that type. I'd rather go to the Dentist than play games that simple and poorly designed.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;663913I've seen this argument a lot, especially in regards to Next. There is this pervasive argument that any attempt by Next to emulate AD&D (or B/X or even 3e for that matter) is purely nostalgic, and not based on good design.
The pissy complaints that Next is only catering to nostalgia comes from three, often overlapping sources:
1) Bitter 4E fans.
2) System-matters wanks on RPGnet
3) People young enough to have only played WotC D&D who don't know any better.
The Next designers are certainly designing a game to appeal to the modes of play that were more common in the TSR era. That is, accessible, fast combat, no need for system mastery, focused on in-game decisions rather than char op and tactical mastery.
It isn't nostalgia to cater to that play style, as it's still a perfectly good way to play. And no doubt WotC has concluded that it's in fact a better mode of play for a business model desperate to make D&D more accessible to a broader audience.
Quote from: vytzka;664133What's typically described as good game design by people obsessed with the concept is stuff I tend to find orthogonal to my fun at best. So, don't really give a shit?
There's that too. They simply can't grasp the notion that different people like different things - they take it as an article of religious faith that game design is like engineering bridges and software systems. And they lack the imagination to consider anyone playing D&D in anything but a mechanics-first, meta-game, WoW fashion.
Quote from: gleichman;664208I'll take 2 hours of HERO combat over any modern wargame, especially the 'beer and pretzels games like Warmachine, 40K or any of that type. I'd rather go to the Dentist than play games that simple and poorly designed.
HERO combat is pretty fun. And I could see myself having a lot of fun playing HERO as a wargame (this is your dude, this is my dude, lets fight). Tons of fun actually.
But that's not what I find fun in an RPG, so in the context of a role-playing game I'd find that same situation dreadful.
It'd be like playing an RPG and then breaking out the x-box for 2 hours of X-com. Sure I like x-com and all but it's not what I signed up for.
Quote from: Piestrio;664286HERO combat is pretty fun. And I could see myself having a lot of fun playing HERO as a wargame (this is your dude, this is my dude, lets fight). Tons of fun actually.
But that's not what I find fun in an RPG, so in the context of a role-playing game I'd find that same situation dreadful.
The only pure wargames I play now days are online, and then only because my son wants me to.
I need context (i.e. a RPG campaign) for the battles, and I need the battles to be interesting (i.e. a wargame to resolve them). One without the other is not worth doing in my mind.
Quote from: Piestrio;664135I suppose in theory that's true but IME I've never had a long combat in an RPG provide more fun than a short one and as importantly I've never had a long RPG combat provide more fun than a similar length board or minis game.
2 hours of pathfinder combat is no where near as fun as two hours of battletech.
2 hours of 4e combat is nowhere near as fun as two hours of FASA Star Trek: TCS
2 hours of HERO combat is nowhere near as fun as two hours of Warmachine.
That kind of fun, rules driven "challenges", is much better provided by any number of war/board games.
For me it kind of depends, I'd say - I like longer (well, let's say 2h is a long combat, yes?) combats in, say, Warhammer, RuneQuest/BRP, and Aces & Eights (well, mostly because A&8s targeting system is just so much fun thanks to that little gadget :D). Mostly because often a longer combat means quite a few participants. I didn't enjoy a long combat in Savage Worlds, on the other hand, where at some point it's basically waiting until you get that lucky roll, as everyone runs out of ideas what trick to RP now.
That said, I admit I enjoy some granularity (and brutality*) to my combat.
*yeah, even in Superheroes games, though obviously less so. What can I say, Spawn, Darkness & Hellblazer are still my favourite comics. That said I'd also like to try someday a "classic" Supers game.
Is 'lack of meaningful choice' also code for 'lack of trap options'? Because that could be a cause for it, too. If there's no cryptic codex of rules, then there's not much for the Spike types to use to feel superior to the Timmy types.
Quote from: Rincewind1;664303For me it kind of depends, I'd say - I like longer (well, let's say 2h is a long combat, yes?) combats in, say, Warhammer, RuneQuest/BRP, and Aces & Eights (well, mostly because A&8s targeting system is just so much fun thanks to that little gadget :D). Mostly because often a longer combat means quite a few participants. I didn't enjoy a long combat in Savage Worlds, on the other hand, where at some point it's basically waiting until you get that lucky roll, as everyone runs out of ideas what trick to RP now.
That said, I admit I enjoy some granularity (and brutality*) to my combat.
*yeah, even in Superheroes games, though obviously less so. What can I say, Spawn, Darkness & Hellblazer are still my favourite comics. That said I'd also like to try someday a "classic" Supers game.
You might like this (http://www.amazon.com/Mutants-Masterminds-Nocturnals-Midnight-Companion/dp/1932442022) then.
Quote from: mcbobbo;664306Is 'lack of meaningful choice' also code for 'lack of trap options'? Because that could be a cause for it, too. If there's no cryptic codex of rules, then there's not much for the Spike types to use to feel superior to the Timmy types.
I don't think so. I know lots of 4e fans who were happy to see the "trap" options from 3.x go away.
They just see RPGs like boardgames or computer games. Viewed through that lens complaining about "lack of choice" makes sense; Who would want to play a FPS video game with only one weapon? or an RTS with only one unit type? Or a board game with only one way to go (ala Candy Land)?
It's not that they're stupid/evil/etc... it's just that they have failed to see what makes RPGs unique and fun in the first place and so they judge them based on the criteria of other games.
Quote from: The Traveller;663928If you're going to make this a thing, fuckwit, I will reciprocate.
I'm only eight posts in and this thread is already turning out to be a rousing good time!
Quote from: Piestrio;664135I suppose in theory that's true but IME I've never had a long combat in an RPG provide more fun than a short one and as importantly I've never had a long RPG combat provide more fun than a similar length board or minis game.
2 hours of pathfinder combat is no where near as fun as two hours of battletech.
2 hours of 4e combat is nowhere near as fun as two hours of FASA Star Trek: TCS
2 hours of HERO combat is nowhere near as fun as two hours of Warmachine.
That kind of fun, rules driven "challenges", is much better provided by any number of war/board games.
Swap the boardgames for videogames and thats me..
2 hours of Pathfinder combat is nowhere as fun as 2 hours of Jagged Alliance 2.
2 hours of 4e combat is nowhere as fun as 2 hours of Valkyrie Chronicles.
2 hours of HERO combat is nowhere as fun as 2 hours of XCom Enemy Unknown.
;)
Oh, and 2 hours of Shadowrun hacking is nowhere as fun as 2 hours of hacking in Uplink ( or in Netrunner cardgame, by the way).
Quote from: gleichman;664207It could be nothing else, no common ground- no common language. It's why I refused to take part.
You have no idea. No idea. This was the equiv of the end of the housing bubble for 4E, when people were still fighting for it at any cost despite the lack of underpinning. And there was a decent conversation going on about immersion and dissociative/associative mechanics and working through som language as a group, then the crew touting the recent clusterfuck of WotC would not hear it. thousands of posts later....
*shudder*
Quote from: Rincewind1;664303For me it kind of depends, I'd say - I like longer (well, let's say 2h is a long combat, yes?) combats in, say, Warhammer, RuneQuest/BRP, and Aces & Eights (well, mostly because A&8s targeting system is just so much fun thanks to that little gadget :D). Mostly because often a longer combat means quite a few participants. I didn't enjoy a long combat in Savage Worlds, on the other hand, where at some point it's basically waiting until you get that lucky roll, as everyone runs out of ideas what trick to RP now.
That said, I admit I enjoy some granularity (and brutality*) to my combat.
*yeah, even in Superheroes games, though obviously less so. What can I say, Spawn, Darkness & Hellblazer are still my favourite comics. That said I'd also like to try someday a "classic" Supers game.
Granularity is a good term and a good concept. We have a few more rolls in our combat system than some, but many of them are the players (and NPCs and foes) using their various skills, which makes things more cinematic. Some combats might hit that 2 hour point (especially now that some of the players have been playing their characters for years), but some of our best and most interesting combats have been in that 1.5-2hr mark.
Not to mention, after the pcs have really learned how my skill hell system works, they start taking advantage.
Quote from: Haffrung;664222They simply can't grasp the notion that different people like different things
The same could easily be said for players on all sides of every fence. This site is no better about the bullshit "if you enjoy something that way, you are wrong and just don't GET RPGs, man" (you will notice that this has been said repeatedly in this thread).
How about we all play RPGs however we enjoy it, and stop acting like we or anyone else is wrong for having fun their own way.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;664823The same could easily be said for players on all sides of every fence. This site is no better about the bullshit "if you enjoy something that way, you are wrong and just don't GET RPGs, man" (you will notice that this has been said repeatedly in this thread).
How about we all play RPGs however we enjoy it, and stop acting like we or anyone else is wrong for having fun their own way.
I don't have any problem with people enjoying different styles of RPGs. But when it comes to D&D, it's the RPGNet-System Matters-4E crowd who go around saying other editions are objectively broken. Check out all the posts on RPGNet where 4E fans full of nerdfury claim the Next team is designing a game only Mike Mearl likes. And anyone who claims to actually like the style of D&D Next is aimed at are dismissed as delusional or confounded by nostalgia. It's only a matter of time until we see the term 'brain damaged' come out.
People who see games only in terms in formulas and analytic optimization tend to have a stark and unbending attitude towards these things. I have shelves full of eurogames, so I understand exactly what appeals to them and why they have problems with various editions of D&D (all of them, actually). But it's frankly tiresome seeing a bunch of people who always hated D&D until 4E came out claiming that people who like other editions, or who are enjoying Next, can only be impaired by nostalgia. I accept why people might want to play 4E ; I've never seen anyone who dislikes 4E claim it was a terrible game - only one they wouldn't want to play. The System Matters crowd doesn't make such distinctions.
Quote from: silva;664727Swap the boardgames for videogames and thats me..
2 hours of Pathfinder combat is nowhere as fun as 2 hours of Jagged Alliance 2.
2 hours of 4e combat is nowhere as fun as 2 hours of Valkyrie Chronicles.
2 hours of HERO combat is nowhere as fun as 2 hours of XCom Enemy Unknown.
;)
Oh, and 2 hours of Shadowrun hacking is nowhere as fun as 2 hours of hacking in Uplink ( or in Netrunner cardgame, by the way).
X-Com is almost as fun as Sex.
Quote from: Bill;665214X-Com is almost as fun as Sex.
I last longer during sex.
Quote from: Rincewind1;665230I last longer during sex.
haha, so true.
Yes, I admit it. For that game, I turned into a save freak. :)
Quote from: Haffrung;665209I don't have any problem with people enjoying different styles of RPGs. But when it comes to D&D, it's the RPGNet-System Matters-4E crowd who go around saying other editions are objectively broken. Check out all the posts on RPGNet where 4E fans full of nerdfury claim the Next team is designing a game only Mike Mearl likes. And anyone who claims to actually like the style of D&D Next is aimed at are dismissed as delusional or confounded by nostalgia. It's only a matter of time until we see the term 'brain damaged' come out.
I also don't have a problem with other people enjoying a particular RPG. Even D&D Next, if that's your cup of tea. But mostly, it has failed in my mind to deliver anything better than any existing edition (except, perhaps, 4th, but I don't know much about that one).
The general ideas of Next aren't always bad - but the implementation seems to be. Of course, speaking ill of it is difficult because it's a moving target. Anything that you don't like and can explain why is 'subject to change'.
D&D Next is an edition in search of a philosophy. What does it want to improve? Is it a stab at making a 3.x style game with greater simplicity and less 'optimization/system mastery' elements? Is it 1st edition with streamlined and consistent subsystems (and roll high is always good)?
I've mentioned before that 3.x is my preferred edition. I think that they should have stayed with 3.x for a couple more years and then worked out a gradual change to a 4th edition that included the best elements of 3.x (transparent monster rules; NPC/PC consistency; player customization) with a lot more simplicity.
Next seems committed to throwing those 'best bits' out and focusing on just 'simplicity', without really proving any advantage over B/X.
Quote from: Haffrung;664222The pissy complaints that Next is only catering to nostalgia comes from three, often overlapping sources:
1) Bitter 4E fans.
2) System-matters wanks on RPGnet
3) People young enough to have only played WotC D&D who don't know any better.
Wouldn't that mean;
1) That 4e was way more popular than what this forum gives credit for?
2) That tbp is way more important on the gaming front than this forum?
3) That you don't like WotC D&D? That you discount the people who were around for both and prefer wotc D&D?
Quote from: Haffrung;664222The Next designers are certainly designing a game to appeal to the modes of play that were more common in the TSR era. That is, accessible, fast combat, no need for system mastery, focused on in-game decisions rather than char op and tactical mastery.
heh, yeah. combat isn't fast in 5e nor was it 'fast' in tsr days either. Yes it could be if the group wanted to blitz through it, but if the group liked inclusive combat it could take just as long as 'newer' D&D.
System Mastery was just as big in tsr days, no matter what people here talk about immersiveness or whatnot, 'knowing' your DM went a long way towards 'mastering' tsr D&D
Quote from: Haffrung;664222It isn't nostalgia to cater to that play style, as it's still a perfectly good way to play. And no doubt WotC has concluded that it's in fact a better mode of play for a business model desperate to make D&D more accessible to a broader audience.
No, but it is a huge risk in going back to a style that has been out of 'fashion(trends)' for a couple decades.
Quote from: Haffrung;664222There's that too. They simply can't grasp the notion that different people like different things - they take it as an article of religious faith that game design is like engineering bridges and software systems. And they lack the imagination to consider anyone playing D&D in anything but a mechanics-first, meta-game, WoW fashion.
How is this not a pot vs kettle thing?
Quote from: Haffrung;665209I don't have any problem with people enjoying different styles of RPGs. But when it comes to D&D, it's the RPGNet-System Matters-4E crowd who go around saying other editions are objectively broken. Check out all the posts on RPGNet where 4E fans full of nerdfury claim the Next team is designing a game only Mike Mearl likes. And anyone who claims to actually like the style of D&D Next is aimed at are dismissed as delusional or confounded by nostalgia. It's only a matter of time until we see the term 'brain damaged' come out.
Holy shit dude. Really? This whole place here is built upon one dude's 'nerdfury'. That post up there I quoted from you is 'nerdfury'
Quote from: Haffrung;665209People who see games only in terms in formulas and analytic optimization tend to have a stark and unbending attitude towards these things. I have shelves full of eurogames, so I understand exactly what appeals to them and why they have problems with various editions of D&D (all of them, actually). But it's frankly tiresome seeing a bunch of people who always hated D&D until 4E came out claiming that people who like other editions, or who are enjoying Next, can only be impaired by nostalgia. I accept why people might want to play 4E ; I've never seen anyone who dislikes 4E claim it was a terrible game - only one they wouldn't want to play. The System Matters crowd doesn't make such distinctions.
So you haven't been paying much attention to this forum where people here make claims of 4e is a tactical skirmish game, not a roleplaying game?
Quote from: Sacrosanct;663913I've seen this argument a lot, especially in regards to Next. There is this pervasive argument that any attempt by Next to emulate AD&D (or B/X or even 3e for that matter) is purely nostalgic, and not based on good design.
Needless to say, I disagree. I certainly resent people telling me that the elements I like from AD&D are only because of nostalgia. Not every new rendition of something is better, and we have tons of examples that back this up.
For instance, New Coke sucked. Windows Vista was horrible compared to Win XP. The new Chevy Camaro's design, while intentionally meant to emulate the first generation Camaro from 1967-1969, wasn't solely for nostalgia. It's a better design than the late 1990s Camaro regardless.
So why does this argument not only persist, but is so rampant?
Or am I way off, and in fact Next's AD&D-type elements* are not better designed than 4e, but nothing more than nostalgia?
*what I mean by this are no dependancy on grid based combat, faster paced combat, less reliance on skills and/or power cards, and being able to fit an entire character on one side of one piece of paper.
This makes me wonder how many here when they started playing D&D used miniatures compared to those who didn't and how much of that is directly reflects on the dislike of miniature use in D&D.
I know when I started the DM was the son of a local high school art teacher and they had miniatures in abundance. So I have never been 'offended' by miniatures in gaming. It wasn't until later that I learned 'we were playing D&D wrong'.
It will be too hard for Mearls to put the genie back into the bottle. It's like having Joe Public go from Cell Phones back to Landlines.
Quote from: Sommerjon;665283It will be too hard for Mearls to put the genie back into the bottle. It's like having Joe Public go from Cell Phones back to Landlines.
No matter how many times it has been said, there will always be idiots who believe pen and paper tabletop games go through some sort of technological progression as if they were some kind of software application.
There is no genie and no bottle. There are different kinds of playstyles being enjoyed by gamers all over.
Yeah, a lot of people around here seem to swap between using/not using miniatures on a cycle.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;665286No matter how many times it has been said, there will always be idiots who believe pen and paper tabletop games go through some sort of technological progression as if they were some kind of software application.
There is no genie and no bottle. There are different kinds of playstyles being enjoyed by gamers all over.
I absolutely believe that mechanics, like every other idea, can 'evolve'. I mean, you're basically coming up with 'new ideas' that are related to the old ideas in some way; like an internal combustion engine is related to a steam engine. Just because it's all 'in the head' doesn't mean that someone can't think of something 'new' that is 'better' than what came before.
Generally, simplification without loss of representation is better, in my mind.
Some 'newer' games have applied lessons learned from older games regarding what worked well and what worked poorly; as a result, they're 'better' games in my opinion.
But to pretend that a new idea that is based on an older idea (whether better or worse) is not a form of evolution is kinda silly. When you throw out a bunch of different variations (mutations?) and you retain the best (survival of the fittest?) that sounds like evolution to me.
Quote from: Sommerjon;665275Wouldn't that mean;
1) That 4e was way more popular than what this forum gives credit for?
2) That tbp is way more important on the gaming front than this forum?
3) That you don't like WotC D&D? That you discount the people who were around for both and prefer wotc D&D?
4E was tied as the most popular RPG of the last 5 years. I don't anyone would dispute that. And of course RPGNet has far more posters than this site. Again, I'd never dispute that. I do suspect that few of the most active system-wank crowd who dominate RPGNet are actively playing D&D, or any other RPGs. Bitter Non Gamers is the term, I believe. As for WotC, no doubt some people do prefer WotC D&D to earlier iterations. And a lot of them will probably prefer Next to previous editions as well - whether it's because it's the D&D they always wanted, or it's a new mode of play they find themselves enjoying. I'm just happy they're designing a game that I'll play.
Quote from: Sommerjon;665275heh, yeah. combat isn't fast in 5e nor was it 'fast' in tsr days either. Yes it could be if the group wanted to blitz through it, but if the group liked inclusive combat it could take just as long as 'newer' D&D.
Sorry, bullshit. Combat played without a grid where the only decision is what monster to attack, followed by a die roll, runs far faster than a game using a grid where facing, flanking, AOOs matter, and where each character has 3-8 options a round over what kind of attack or maneuver it can conduct, and where modifiers and conditions stack and stack until you need some sort of system of tokens to track them.
Quote from: Sommerjon;665275System Mastery was just as big in tsr days, no matter what people here talk about immersiveness or whatnot, 'knowing' your DM went a long way towards 'mastering' tsr D&D
What kind of system mastery is involved in running a human fighter in B/X D&D? What kind of character optimization levers and tactical combos would players learn to exploit? Being a smart player in the game world isn't system mastery. And the main difference is anyone can engage in a fictional world and make smart decisions. But only someone who pores over books at home analyzing feat chains and probabilities can master 3E and 4E D&D. One is accessible to new players, the other tells them they'll need to study a lot before they'll have a character as powerful as Billy No Mates built from a half-dozen sources to deliver maximum DPS.
Quote from: Sommerjon;665275No, but it is a huge risk in going back to a style that has been out of 'fashion(trends)' for a couple decades.
In the broader gaming scene, lighter games are the dominant mode, not heavy, inaccessible games that reward deeply engaged system mastery. It's no coincidence that the Next designers keep bringing up boardgames, and how easy most of them are to get into and play today. The boardgame renaissance has been built on a massive broadening of the player base through accessible, fast-playing games. I'm sure WotC has a lot of data points on how ease of learning, speed of play, and up-front resources affect a game's popularity.
When if first secured the license, WotC built it's D&D model on heavily-invested ubergeeks who bought books full of crunch that they studied at home to win at the metagame of character optimization. As many people predicted, this model proved to have diminishing returns, as the game became ever more difficult to run and master, and the game culture became dominated by math-wankery, competitive char-op, and a fixation on mathematical balance, creating a huge barrier of play to casual and new gamers. But hardcores drop out eventually, and if you don't have a steady influx of new gamers, a game dies. The status quo was not sustainable for WotC as a business. Now they're trying to reverse that mistake and reach out to people who want to play a game that's not much more complicated than Descent, but much more free-form and creative.
Quote from: Sommerjon;665275So you haven't been paying much attention to this forum where people here make claims of 4e is a tactical skirmish game, not a roleplaying game?
It
is a tactical skirmish game. I don't know how anyone could deny that with a straight face. Re-theme it to WW2 and it gets sold and marketed as a tactical wargame. But from what I understand, it's quite a good tactical skirmish game. And I completely understand why people would enjoy a good tactical fantasy-themed tactical skirmish game. My game shelves are full of tactical wargames. I just want something fundamentally different from maneuvering pieces on a combat grid when I play D&D. WotC is banking on there being lots of people like me out there.
The system-wanks on RPGnet are furious because they're learning once again just how marginal they are to the commercial RPG market. They mock the credibility of the posters on WotC forums without recognizing those forums are used by people who actually play D&D, rather than just talk about it endlessly on RPGNet.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;665288I absolutely believe that mechanics, like every other idea, can 'evolve'. I mean, you're basically coming up with 'new ideas' that are related to the old ideas in some way; like an internal combustion engine is related to a steam engine. Just because it's all 'in the head' doesn't mean that someone can't think of something 'new' that is 'better' than what came before.
Generally, simplification without loss of representation is better, in my mind.
Some 'newer' games have applied lessons learned from older games regarding what worked well and what worked poorly; as a result, they're 'better' games in my opinion.
But to pretend that a new idea that is based on an older idea (whether better or worse) is not a form of evolution is kinda silly. When you throw out a bunch of different variations (mutations?) and you retain the best (survival of the fittest?) that sounds like evolution to me.
When what is best cannot be objectively measured then there can be no declaration of evolution. Thats the problem.
Games are a form of enjoyment subject to differing taste and opinion. What is 'better' for a given individual is whatever provides the most fun for them. There is no other measurement that matters.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;665286No matter how many times it has been said, there will always be idiots who believe pen and paper tabletop games go through some sort of technological progression as if they were some kind of software application.
yeah, he was sort of proving Haffrung and my point by comparing D&D to an item of technology. The irony is pretty thick. D&D isn't technology. Cell phones are objectively better than a landline in just about every regard. Newer versions of D&D are not.
That's sort of the entire point of this thread. Leave it up to Sommerjon to not only miss that, but to use an analogy that was expressly identified as rediculous in the very first post without realizing it.
golf clap
Quote from: Exploderwizard;665286No matter how many times it has been said, there will always be idiots who believe pen and paper tabletop games go through some sort of technological progression as if they were some kind of software application.
There is no genie and no bottle. There are different kinds of playstyles being enjoyed by gamers all over.
What absurdity.
Quote from: Sommerjon;665295What absurdity.
The claim that RPGs evolve certainly is absurd, yes.
Quote from: Haffrung;665291Sorry, bullshit. Combat played without a grid where the only decision is what monster to attack, followed by a die roll, runs far faster than a game using a grid where facing, flanking, AOOs matter, and where each character has 3-8 options a round over what kind of attack or maneuver it can conduct, and where modifiers and conditions stack and stack until you need some sort of system of tokens to track them.
And if you played tsr with a grid, what happened then?
Quote from: Haffrung;665291What kind of system mastery is involved in running a human fighter in B/X D&D? What kind of character optimization levers and tactical combos would players learn to exploit? Being a smart player in the game world isn't system mastery.
Knowing the Dm's likes and dislikes, knowing when to do something outrageous or sticking to the mundane, knowing your DM. How to stroke the ego of the Dm is also system mastery. People here who deny this is even possible are deluding themselves.
Quote from: Haffrung;665291When if first secured the license, WotC built it's D&D model on heavily-invested ubergeeks who bought books full of crunch that they studied at home to win at the metagame of character optimization. As many people predicted, this model proved to have diminishing returns, as the game became ever more difficult to run and master, and the game culture became dominated by math-wankery, competitive char-op, and a fixation on mathematical balance, creating a huge barrier of play to casual and new gamers. But hardcores drop out eventually, and if you don't have a steady influx of new gamers, a game dies. The status quo was not sustainable for WotC as a business. Now they're trying to reverse that mistake and reach out to people who want to play a game that's not much more complicated than Descent, but much more free-form and creative.
Facts not in evidence. Pure speculation or otherwise known as theorywanking. How many here who have already shit on 5e for being too math-wankery, competitive char-op bullshity?
Quote from: Haffrung;665291It is a tactical skirmish game. I don't know how anyone could deny that with a straight face. Re-theme it to WW2 and it gets sold and marketed as a tactical wargame. But from what I understand, it's quite a good tactical skirmish game. And I completely understand why people would enjoy a good tactical fantasy-themed tactical skirmish game. My game shelves are full of tactical wargames. I just want something fundamentally different from maneuvering pieces on a combat grid when I play D&D. WotC is banking on there being lots of people like me out there.
Wait, what? You haven't even played it yet you
know "It
is a tactical skirmish game"? When all those players out there who did play tsr D&D with miniatures on a gameboard, was that also 'a tactical skirmish game'?
Quote from: Haffrung;665291The system-wanks on RPGnet are furious because they're learning once again just how marginal they are to the commercial RPG market. They mock the credibility of the posters on WotC forums without recognizing those forums are used by people who actually play D&D, rather than just talk about it endlessly on RPGNet.
Wait what? I thought everyone here has this concept that rpgnet is all 4e all the time
"4E was tied as the most popular RPG of the last 5 years. I don't anyone would dispute that." Now it's marginal? What that is sum hoop hopping there.
Quote from: The Ent;665299The claim that RPGs evolve certainly is absurd, yes.
Was not the game added to by Most Holy EGG? Did he develop it gradually(evolve) into another edition? You know that definition of Evolve: to develop gradually. Did the game not go through an evolution(any process of formation or growth; development)? You know that definition of Evolution: any process of formation or growth; development.
I think games do develop and can certainly improve over time. But I also think there is a lot more subjectivity in judging the quality of rpg design than say motor design. I also think not all evolution is objectivley better. Sometimes new developments are just fads that peope regret down the road. I would compare game design more to something like music rather than cars.
Quote from: Sommerjon;665306Was not the game added to by Most Holy EGG? .
I'm pretty sure The Ent has never glorified or enshrined Gygax. Comments like this tell me you have no desire to actually have a conversation.
Steam engines haven't gone out of style - they use them on aircraft carriers. But evolution doesn't always mean improvement in a meaningful way. A rooster is probably not superior to a T Rex, but that's how evolution works sometimes.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;665340Steam engines haven't gone out of style - they use them on aircraft carriers. But evolution doesn't always mean improvement in a meaningful way. A rooster is probably not superior to a T Rex, but that's how evolution works sometimes.
Dinosaur tastes like chicken.
Quote from: Sommerjon;665304And if you played tsr with a grid, what happened then?
My groups would try that every few years. It seldom lasted more that a session or two. Why?
1) Grid Combat ended up taking far longer than the GM and most players wanted.
2) Grid Combat required people to study and learn much more detailed rules than many of my players were interested in. Remember, in TSR D&D, no one but the DM needs to actually learn many rules to play well. Many players in my games never read the rules and have no interest in doing so.
3) No one owned many minis nor did anyone with the money to buy them and the time, interest, and skill to paint them have any interest in buying and painting them. Cardboard chit markers worked well, but tended to turn off the players who most enjoyed grid-style combat.
QuoteKnowing the Dm's likes and dislikes, knowing when to do something outrageous or sticking to the mundane, knowing your DM. How to stroke the ego of the Dm is also system mastery. People here who deny this is even possible are deluding themselves.
It certainly a form of mastery, but it does not require the owning and studying of game books between play sessions. As it has nothing to do with mastering the "system" (aka the rules mechanics), calling it system mastery just doesn't seem to make much sense.
QuoteWait, what? You haven't even played it yet you know "It is a tactical skirmish game"? When all those players out there who did play tsr D&D with miniatures on a gameboard, was that also 'a tactical skirmish game'?
I'm not Haffrung, but I played in 4 long sessions of 4e a few months after it came out. It was a series of tactical skirmish boardgames (each taking 45 to 90 minutes to play) with a bit of non-combat stuff (taking 5 or 10 minutes on average) between those tactical skirmishs. I was bored out of my gourd, as were most of the people I was playing with (and these were 3e players, not old school gamers). While I can see how people who want this out of D&D would love it as it was very well done, I don't want tactical skirmish boardgame in the middle of my RPG sessions. And even more so than 3e, that's what 4e required.
I'm fine with anyone stating what they want out of an RPG, as long as they don't think what they want out of an RPG is somehow a superior form of play.
The crap I normally think is bullshit is the "THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT MAKES RPGS GREAT" kind of stuff. Its like "OH GOD, THEY DON'T ENJOY THE SAME THINGS AS ME, SO THEY OBVIOUSLY JUST DON'T GET IT GOOOOD, /hipsterfagbullshit"
Quote from: Sacrosanct;663913I've seen this argument a lot, especially in regards to Next. There is this pervasive argument that any attempt by Next to emulate AD&D (or B/X or even 3e for that matter) is purely nostalgic, and not based on good design.
Speaking not of D&DNext, but generally:-
It's not either/or, it's
both. We are nostalgic for good game design.
RPGs are like sex, enthusiasm is more important than skill. And many of the early rpgs like many of the self-published ones since are simply dripping with enthusiasm; the games designed by committee in large companies rather less so. An enthusiastically-written rpg will be more interesting than one written by people who are bored and cynical about it all. This is why Rifts is still popular, and GURPS4e is not.
Nostalgia and good design are not mutually exclusive. I just wish that Next was cribbing more from well-designed old editions (RC) and not so much from badly designed old editions (3E).
Quote from: Piestrio;664346It's not that they're stupid/evil/etc... it's just that they have failed to see what makes RPGs unique and fun in the first place and so they judge them based on the criteria of other games.
So we're just ignorant then. That's much better! ;)
No, I understand rather well what makes RPGs unique and fun in the first place. It really clicked with me the very first time I played with a good DM and found the freedom to make choices in character so liberating compared to the 'what skill do I use now' of CRPGs.
I just happen to think that this uniqueness is not mutually exclusive with any of the design philosophy of 4E.
Quote from: TomatoMalone;665460I just happen to think that this uniqueness is not mutually exclusive with any of the design philosophy of 4E.
Sure. There is role-playing in 4e. Absolutely.
It's just squeezed into the time ghetto to make room for 1-3 hour "board game breaks" in the middle of the session.
Quote from: Piestrio;665462Sure. There is role-playing in 4e. Absolutely.
It's just squeezed into the time ghetto to make room for 1-3 hour "board game breaks" in the middle of the session.
Well, going by that definition, Game of Thrones Board Game achieves roleplaying on a better level - you play a bastard all the time you're playing that game.
Quote from: Rincewind1;665463Well, going by that definition, Game of Thrones Board Game achieves roleplaying on a better level - you play a bastard all the time you're playing that game.
:D
There is a lot of truth there. Lots of board games have RPG elements baked in (or just put in by players). Arkham Horror, Defenders of the Realm, Battlestar Galactica, Heroquest, etc...
Some people really like this. Some people don't.
Likewise some RPGs have boardgame elements baked in (or added by the players). D&D 4e, some storygames, etc...
Some people really like this. Some people don't.
And then some people refuse to believe that there is really anything different about 4e (that's not better). 4e is unique among the versions of D&D in how much it embraced the "game" part of RPG.
This is what attracted it's fans in the first place. They all agreed that this is what made 4e awesome. But now, all of a sudden, it's all "No, 4e is totally just like every other version of D&D, how dare you suggest there are any meaningful differences!1!1!1"
Quote from: Piestrio;665465:D
There is a lot of truth there. Lots of board games have RPG elements baked in (or just put in by players). Arkham Horror, Defenders of the Realm, Battlestar Galactica, Heroquest, etc...
Some people really like this. Some people don't.
Likewise some RPGs have boardgame elements baked in (or added by the players). D&D 4e, some storygames, etc...
Some people really like this. Some people don't.
And then some people refuse to believe that there is really anything different about 4e (that's not better).
Indeed, but while some boardgames achieve this...I don't want to use "enforced" as a term, I'd rather go with organic roleplaying by design (and some RPGs also do - Pendragon for example) - though in case of board games it's more focused around generating a specific feeling of play rather than actual role playing - there is a different mindset that comes with board games, that allows for that feeling to arise in certain board games, but at the same time - some other roleplaying opportunities do not generally rise.
What I mean by that babble is - in my whole life, I've never bothered to try and "get in the character" during a boardgame. When I play Starks in GoT, I don't give a damn about honour or that Lannisters killed my father. When I play Twilight Imperium, I don't really care that our races might've had a genocidal past, I'll sign a trading contract with you. When I'm playing BSG, I'm not going to trust you more because lore - wise, I'm banging you.
And that's in a way, a certain beauty of RPGs - they evoke sometimes the feelings in us that are detrimental to our plans. But such feelings are very, very human at the same time. I mean, Tywin's life would be a lot easier (and SPOILERS) if he accepted Tyrion as a rightful heir to his intellect.
In a way, this is my gripe with 4e, as well as 3e really - the need to plan out of character during combat and during character creation (the latter caused by need for optimization). I would take the feat Honourable as Robb Stark, but Power Attack is just a better option.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;665340But evolution doesn't always mean improvement in a meaningful way. A rooster is probably not superior to a T Rex, but that's how evolution works sometimes.
It is far superior at surviving.
Games do not evolve into games, they evolve into beautiful memes that fly out as energy into space and are picked up by alien civilizations who then fight galaxy spanning wars over which alignment Batman would be.
Quote from: TomatoMalone;665460Nostalgia and good design are not mutually exclusive. I just wish that Next was cribbing more from well-designed old editions (RC) and not so much from badly designed old editions (3E).
I think there's a lot to like in 3E. There's just too much of it. Stripped to its bare bones, 3E is a sound structure to build a D&D system around.
And ignoring 3E and going back to the RC as the basis of Next has two problems:
1) Now you've alienated not only the 4E fans, but the 3E fans as well.
2) How much can you really do with RC and still make it a distinct, new game?
Quote from: TomatoMalone;665460No, I understand rather well what makes RPGs unique and fun in the first place. It really clicked with me the very first time I played with a good DM and found the freedom to make choices in character so liberating compared to the 'what skill do I use now' of CRPGs.
I just happen to think that this uniqueness is not mutually exclusive with any of the design philosophy of 4E.
Whatever the design philosophy, from the 4E adventures I've seen, the fixed and highly detailed tactical encounter is the basic unit of the game. That makes it very difficult to foster flexibility and improvisation in play. If the PCs ally with certain monsters, or lure some out of their lair, of bypass them entirely, you've rendered most of the adventure material - those detailed, carefully calibrated encounter scenarios - useless.
Quote from: Piestrio;665465And then some people refuse to believe that there is really anything different about 4e (that's not better). 4e is unique among the versions of D&D in how much it embraced the "game" part of RPG.
This is what attracted it's fans in the first place. They all agreed that this is what made 4e awesome. But now, all of a sudden, it's all "No, 4e is totally just like every other version of D&D, how dare you suggest there are any meaningful differences!1!1!1"
Yeah, the most bizarre thing about edition warring is how you can never claim edition x isn't good at y because, defenders assert, you can do anything with edition x. Which makes WotC a genius of a company, because they've sold the same game over and over again.
And being system-wanks, a lot of 4E fans are worse about this than others. They love how 4E is a focused, tight design, but won't stand for any notion that this might make it less flexible.
Quote from: Haffrung;665497Yeah, the most bizarre thing about edition warring is how you can never claim edition x isn't good at y because, defenders assert, you can do anything with edition x. Which makes WotC a genius of a company, because they've sold the same game over and over again.
And being system-wanks, a lot of 4E fans are worse about this than others. They love how 4E is a focused, tight design, but won't stand for any notion that this might make it less flexible.
I've taken to calling 4e Schrödinger's edition because it's nature seems to shift based on the rhetorical needs of the particular argument the 4venger finds themselves in.
The two stand-outs that pop up time and time again are:
"4e is JUST LIKE ALL D&Ds EVAR because I can play a thief who backstabs a goblin in a dungeon!"
and
"4e is TOTALLY DIFFERENT THAN EVERY OTHER D&D because of objectively better 'game design', 'fun' and 'math', all other D&Ds are broken unfun messes"
Quote from: RandallS;665352My groups would try that every few years. It seldom lasted more that a session or two. Why?
From your posts about your groups I am not surprised.
Quote from: RandallS;6653521) Grid Combat ended up taking far longer than the GM and most players wanted.
We never used grids playing tsr D&D either a 2'x3' or 3'x3' or 4'x4' terrain boards, rulers and miniatures.
Quote from: RandallS;6653522) Grid Combat required people to study and learn much more detailed rules than many of my players were interested in. Remember, in TSR D&D, no one but the DM needs to actually learn many rules to play well. Many players in my games never read the rules and have no interest in doing so.
When people see that vein in your temple throbbing, your face going black from anger, listening to you go apeshit about rules lawyers and such. I wonder why.
Quote from: RandallS;6653523) No one owned many minis nor did anyone with the money to buy them and the time, interest, and skill to paint them have any interest in buying and painting them. Cardboard chit markers worked well, but tended to turn off the players who most enjoyed grid-style combat.
Nice to see that my post you quote and this soapbox you got on didn't answer the question.
Quote from: RandallS;665352It certainly a form of mastery, but it does not require the owning and studying of game books between play sessions. As it has nothing to do with mastering the "system" (aka the rules mechanics), calling it system mastery just doesn't seem to make much sense.
Playing the game is part of the system. I understand you get around people trying for system mastery by changing the rules on a whim, most likely to discourage people from actually learning the actual system.
Quote from: RandallS;665352I'm not Haffrung, but I played in 4 long sessions of 4e a few months after it came out. It was a series of tactical skirmish boardgames (each taking 45 to 90 minutes to play) with a bit of non-combat stuff (taking 5 or 10 minutes on average) between those tactical skirmishs. I was bored out of my gourd, as were most of the people I was playing with (and these were 3e players, not old school gamers). While I can see how people who want this out of D&D would love it as it was very well done, I don't want tactical skirmish boardgame in the middle of my RPG sessions. And even more so than 3e, that's what 4e required.
I can't even begin to figure out why you even bothered to.
Quote from: Piestrio;665498I've taken to calling 4e Schrödinger's edition because it's nature seems to shift based on the rhetorical needs of the particular argument the 4venger finds themselves in.
The two stand-outs that pop up time and time again are:
"4e is JUST LIKE ALL D&Ds EVAR because I can play a thief who backstabs a goblin in a dungeon!"
and
"4e is TOTALLY DIFFERENT THAN EVERY OTHER D&D because of objectively better 'game design', 'fun' and 'math', all other D&Ds are broken unfun messes"
Is this like people here who scream "RULINGS NOT RULES!!!@!" Then shift to quoting rules based on the rhetorical needs of the particular argument?
Is this like everyone here who screams long and loud about Sandboxes. Where there is no "Plot Hooks" and people are able to do what they want. Except, Sandboxes have Pl..er "Hooks" and if they are not followed come back and fuck you in the end. Is that really free choice?
Is this like when everyone here says you have the freedom to do whatever you can think of. Except, that isn't true either. The only freedom you have is asking the DM if something is possible.
Quote from: Sommerjon;665509Is this like people here who scream "RULINGS NOT RULES!!!@!" Then shift to quoting rules based on the rhetorical needs of the particular argument?
Is this like everyone here who screams long and loud about Sandboxes. Where there is no "Plot Hooks" and people are able to do what they want. Except, Sandboxes have Pl..er "Hooks" and if they are not followed come back and fuck you in the end. Is that really free choice?
Is this like when everyone here says you have the freedom to do whatever you can think of. Except, that isn't true either. The only freedom you have is asking the DM if something is possible.
Please return to fapping over your rulebooks. You wouldn't get it even if you were to be knocked out with the clue bat.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;665293yeah, he was sort of proving Haffrung and my point by comparing D&D to an item of technology. The irony is pretty thick. D&D isn't technology. Cell phones are objectively better than a landline in just about every regard. Newer versions of D&D are not.
That's sort of the entire point of this thread. Leave it up to Sommerjon to not only miss that, but to use an analogy that was expressly identified as rediculous in the very first post without realizing it.
golf clap
For someone who flipped completely out about the term 'hydroplaning'...
Evolution isn't limited only to going from a monkey to human. It is also adapting to the current environment.
Why would people who first introduced to the newer styled rpgs want to go back to older styles? You know like why would someone who grows up in the age of cellphones want to be limited by the landline.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;665510Please return to fapping over your rulebooks. You wouldn't get it even if you were to be knocked out with the clue bat.
I'm rubber and your glue
Quote from: Sommerjon;665511For someone who flipped completely out about the term 'hydroplaning'...
Evolution isn't limited only to going from a monkey to human. It is also adapting to the current environment.
Why would people who first introduced to the newer styled rpgs want to go back to older styles? You know like why would someone who grows up in the age of cellphones want to be limited by the landline.
Is newer always better?
Quote from: Sommerjon;665503From your posts about your groups I am not surprised.
I doubt you would enjoy playing in any of my games. As I never have any problem finding people who do enjoy the style of campaign I enjoy running, I can't see a problem.
QuoteWe never used grids playing tsr D&D either a 2'x3' or 3'x3' or 4'x4' terrain boards, rulers and miniatures.
No one owned any terrain boards and as I pointed out, few owned minis in any quantity (or in much variety, monster-wise). I did have a few regulars who owned lots of minis in the 1970s and 1980s. For example, one owned several very nice ancients armies and another could probably field every unit France had in the Napoleonic wars at once. But no one did fantasy. And none of them were interested in having a tactical minis game for small unit combat in D&D. It would have been nice if someone had had appropriate fantasy minis armies when actual army vs army battles happened, but no one did.
QuoteWhen people see that vein in your temple throbbing, your face going black from anger, listening to you go apeshit about rules lawyers and such. I wonder why.
LOL. I simply ban annoying rules lawyers (to the cheering of the other players the few times we've had one). No need to waste time and energy going apeshit over them.
QuoteI can't even begin to figure out why you even bothered to.
I try to actually play every edition of D&D. 4e was the least enjoyable version (for me) I've tried, but I did give it a try.
Quote from: Sommerjon;665503Playing the game is part of the system. I understand you get around people trying for system mastery by changing the rules on a whim, most likely to discourage people from actually learning the actual system.
I think you have already seen this, but in the off chance you haven't, this is the context I put around 'system mastery':
http://web.archive.org/web/20080221174425/http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_142
http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr5
So the intersection of...
Timmy cards...
Quote"You may think that the "lucky charms" (Crystal Rod,*Iron Star,*Ivory Cup,*Throne of Bone, and*Wooden Sphere) are bad, but our testing shows that most beginners are drawn to them and only learn over time that they are not as good as they seem (usually because a more advanced player tells them). That is why we keep including them in the basic set."
and
Quote"Magic*also has a concept of "Timmy cards." These are cards that look cool, but aren't actually that great in the game. The purpose of such cards is to reward people for really mastering the game, and making players feel smart when they've figured out that one card is better than the other. While D&D doesn't exactly do that, it is true that certain game choices are deliberately better than others.
Toughness, for example, has its uses, but in most cases it's not the best choice of feat. If you can use martial weapons, a longsword is better than many other one-handed weapons. And so on -- there are many other, far more intricate examples. (Arguably, this kind of thing has always existed in D&D. Mostly, we just made sure that we didn't design it away -- we wanted to reward mastery of the game.)"
In short WotC RnD builds trap options into their games so they will sell better, because people like to get better at what they do.
This isn't the same as making friends with your DM, which is why you're not on the same page...
Quote from: Bill;665515Is newer always better?
Who said anything about better? What's so wrong with it just being different?
Quote from: Sommerjon;665511Why would people who first introduced to the newer styled rpgs want to go back to older styles? You know like why would someone who grows up in the age of cellphones want to be limited by the landline.
Landlines are generally cheaper and if you aren't out and about much, you have less need for a cellphone. People have different lifestyles and different needs.
Quote from: Sommerjon;665547Who said anything about better? What's so wrong with it just being different?
You don't get to start making sense now bub. :rolleyes:
Quote from: mcbobbo;665546This isn't the same as making friends with your DM, which is why you're not on the same page...
We are talking about something that involves human interaction not just knowing the rules.
Quote from: RandallS;665541I doubt you would enjoy playing in any of my games. As I never have any problem finding people who do enjoy the style of campaign I enjoy running, I can't see a problem.
I doubt it as well, I have no desire to listen to RandallS' world.
Quote from: RandallS;665541No one owned any terrain boards and as I pointed out, few owned minis in any quantity (or in much variety, monster-wise). I did have a few regulars who owned lots of minis in the 1970s and 1980s. For example, one owned several very nice ancients armies and another could probably field every unit France had in the Napoleonic wars at once. But no one did fantasy. And none of them were interested in having a tactical minis game for small unit combat in D&D. It would have been nice if someone had had appropriate fantasy minis armies when actual army vs army battles happened, but no one did.
This has what all to do with was people playing tsr D&D with miniatures playing a 'tactical skirmish boardgame'?
Quote from: RandallS;665541LOL. I simply ban annoying rules lawyers (to the cheering of the other players the few times we've had one). No need to waste time and energy going apeshit over them.
No you ban people who might question your authority, the sheep you call players learned never. to. question. your. authority.
Quote from: RandallS;665541I try to actually play every edition of D&D. 4e was the least enjoyable version (for me) I've tried, but I did give it a try.
Ah yes the glorious this game sucks so I will play it to prove to myself how it sucks routine.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;665551You don't get to start making sense now bub. :rolleyes:
See... Schrödinger's edition.
I did wonder where AM had got to. :D
The Next haters over on RPGNet are now complaining that the game is broken because a hundred normal villagers with bows could take down a dragon. Setting aside the matter of zero-to-hero vs superheroic-all-the-time playstyles, it's baffling to me that the simplest solution - if you find dragons too easy to hit then add 2 to their AC - is met with such outrage and scorn.
I don't really have anything against 4E, besides the fact that it has to be played on a tactical grid. It has some pretty cool ideas, especially around monster stat-blocks and design. But if it really is the edition for system-wanks who think any scope for improvisation is the sign of a broken design, then that alone is enough to deter me from playing it. When so many people with game preferences and outlooks diametrically opposed to mine love something, I have to give that a lot of weight.
Quote from: Sommerjon;665554No you ban people who might question your authority, the sheep you call players learned never. to. question. your. authority.
Show us on the doll where the bad DM touched you.
QuoteAh yes the glorious this game sucks so I will play it to prove to myself how it sucks routine.
I don't know about Randal but I was fucking pumped for 4e. I bought the Preview books, argued with idiots on RPGnet about how awesome 4e was going to be, etc...
And when it came out I went to a midnight release at my FLGS and sat all night reading the books.
And then I played it.
And it sucked. Really, really sucked.
So I more than gave 4e a fair shake. I wanted to like it as much if not more than anyone else I knew.
Quote from: Sommerjon;665554Ah yes the glorious this game sucks so I will play it to prove to myself how it sucks routine.
Giving a game several plays before declaring that it sucks is more than fair.
Quote from: Haffrung;665557The Next haters over on RPGNet are now complaining that the game is broken because a hundred normal villagers with bows could take down a dragon.
My favorite was some asshole going on about how players and monsters should NEVER be threatened by a pitchfork wielding mob because that's not "heroic".
As for the whole "100 villagers could kill the dragon!", it's a great example of a spherical cow.
Quote from: Sommerjon;665547Who said anything about better? What's so wrong with it just being different?
What I meant was that some people will prefer the older style rpgs.
Sorry if I misinterpreted your statement. I thought you were suggesting the newer games were better.
I thought when you said "Why would someone go back to an older game" you meant newer games were better.
Quote from: Haffrung;665557The Next haters over on RPGNet are now complaining that the game is broken because a hundred normal villagers with bows could take down a dragon. Setting aside the matter of zero-to-hero vs superheroic-all-the-time playstyles, it's baffling to me that the simplest solution - if you find dragons too easy to hit then add 2 to their AC - is met with such outrage and scorn.
[Grabs cane] Back in my day, a few guys with some attitude doing what normally requires over a hundred people to do is pretty damn heroic.
Quote from: Haffrung;665557The Next haters over on RPGNet are now complaining that the game is broken because a hundred normal villagers with bows could take down a dragon. Setting aside the matter of zero-to-hero vs superheroic-all-the-time playstyles, it's baffling to me that the simplest solution - if you find dragons too easy to hit then add 2 to their AC - is met with such outrage and scorn.
I don't really have anything against 4E, besides the fact that it has to be played on a tactical grid. It has some pretty cool ideas, especially around monster stat-blocks and design. But if it really is the edition for system-wanks who think any scope for improvisation is the sign of a broken design, then that alone is enough to deter me from playing it. When so many people with game preferences and outlooks diametrically opposed to mine love something, I have to give that a lot of weight.
Nobody tell them this Polish legend of a shoemaker who killed a dragon by baiting it with a sheep stuffed with sulphur, so the dragon exploded from all the water it drank to try and sate his thirst after eating said sheep.
Besides I don't know what's worse, a hundred guys killing a dragon with bows or one guy killing a dragon with a lucky shot (hello Bard)?
Also links please, I want a good laugh and I don't want to wad to see what you meant ;).
edit: nvm think I've found it.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;665562[Grabs cane] Back in my day, a few guys with some attitude doing what normally requires over a hundred people to do is pretty damn heroic.
Back in my day, a dragon ate 99 villagers until that last one hit ten 6s on a d6 in a row, killing it.
Of course we were playing Warhammer 1e, and houseruled that 6s explode with ranged weapons too.
Still surprises me that people think you have to use a grid and minis with 4e.
I have gmed it extensively without a grid.
Quote from: Piestrio;665560My favorite was some asshole going on about how players and monsters should NEVER be threatened by a pitchfork wielding mob because that's not "heroic".
As for the whole "100 villagers could kill the dragon!", it's a great example of a spherical cow.
One guy was bemoaning his character not being able to outgrow kobolds or something equally stupid.
I very nearly recommended od&d/ad&d, but i don't think that's really what he meant...
Quote from: One Horse Town;665566One guy was bemoaning his character not being able to outgrow kobolds or something equally stupid.
I very nearly recommended od&d/ad&d, but i don't think that's really what he meant...
My absolute favorite is the "If I have 12 holy symbols..." guy.
What a clown. :p
Quote from: Piestrio;665567My absolute favorite is the "If I have 12 holy symbols..." guy.
What a clown. :p
Sounds like the opening line of one of the dancing routines from "Fighter on the Roof".
Quote from: One Horse Town;665566One guy was bemoaning his character not being able to outgrow kobolds or something equally stupid.
I very nearly recommended od&d/ad&d, but i don't think that's really what he meant...
I'd proscribe a hefty dose of waaaaambulence or hardening the hell up.
Quote from: Rincewind1;665569Sounds like the opening line of one of the dancing routines from "Fighter on the Roof".
QUOTE]
"Cleric on the Roof" is more appropriate.
Also fighters and Barbarians will use STR as a dump stat because they can just get a magic item.
God the stupidity burns.
I wouldn't have put up with players that shitty when I was 12 and dumb.
It all goes to confim my suspicions that WOTC D&D is aimed primarily at the same shitty players the books used to warn against.
Quote from: Piestrio;665574Also fighters and Barbarians will use STR as a dump stat because they can just get a magic item.
.
You must be talking about 3e and the magic item store hardcoded into the game. Well, I suppose you could be talking about 4e too, but I wouldn't know if 4e has the same magic store approach that 3e does because I don't play 4e.
But in the world of random magic items, using STR as a dump stat is pretty foolish. Especially in 5e where every single modifier to hit is more important than ever because the scale is shrunk down.
I've played three characters in various campaigns in Next all the way up to 4th-5th level. In each group, only one or two magic items have been found so far. For the entire group, not per person. And those were pretty minor. Finding a magic item to give you a 18 STR probably wouldn't happen until near the double digit levels. And what fighter is going to use STR as a dump stat hoping that he'll be alive in 7-9 more levels? He'd probably be dead by then.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;665576You must be talking about 3e and the magic item store hardcoded into the game. Well, I suppose you could be talking about 4e too, but I wouldn't know if 4e has the same magic store approach that 3e does because I don't play 4e.
But in the world of random magic items, using STR as a dump stat is pretty foolish. Especially in 5e where every single modifier to hit is more important than ever because the scale is shrunk down.
I've played three characters in various campaigns in Next all the way up to 4th-5th level. In each group, only one or two magic items have been found so far. For the entire group, not per person. And those were pretty minor. Finding a magic item to give you a 18 STR probably wouldn't happen until near the double digit levels. And what fighter is going to use STR as a dump stat hoping that he'll be alive in 7-9 more levels? He'd probably be dead by then.
IF SUCH ITEMS ACTUALLY EXIST and they HAVE A GOLD PIECE VALUE players WILL GET AHOLD OF THEM ONE WAY OR ANOTHER!!!!
So yeah, how can you argue with that logic. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Piestrio;665574Also fighters and Barbarians will use STR as a dump stat because they can just get a magic item.
God the stupidity burns.
I wouldn't have put up with players that shitty when I was 12 and dumb.
It all goes to confim my suspicions that WOTC D&D is aimed primarily at the same shitty players the books used to warn against.
This is a difference between WotC and TSR. WotC has RnD. It isn't just a hedge theory. They openly discuss modifying their games in this way.
Quote from: Piestrio;665574Also fighters and Barbarians will use STR as a dump stat because they can just get a magic item.
God the stupidity burns.
I wouldn't have put up with players that shitty when I was 12 and dumb.
It all goes to confim my suspicions that WOTC D&D is aimed primarily at the same shitty players the books used to warn against.
From everything I've read, I'm hopeful that WotC has finally turned its back on those clowns. I think we'll see a modern edition of D&D that doesn't cater to rules-lawyers and obsessive system-wanks. And there will be much gnashing of teeth and rending of cheetoh-smeared t-shirts as the douchebags try to cope with the realization that WotC doesn't need them.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;665579IF SUCH ITEMS ACTUALLY EXIST and they HAVE A GOLD PIECE VALUE players WILL GET AHOLD OF THEM ONE WAY OR ANOTHER!!!!
So yeah, how can you argue with that logic. :rolleyes:
What's more astonishing than someone making that comment, is the existence of a forum where the other posters are all nodding their heads in agreement, as though such nonsense is self-evident.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;665576You must be talking about 3e and the magic item store hardcoded into the game.
?
Even if you are playing full Amazon.com 3e where everyone gets magic items shipped to them in 3-5 business days you still don't dump STR – unlike in 1e the strength enhancers (that is, gauntlets of ogre power/ girdle of giant strength) add to your STR, they don't replace it.
Quote from: Imp;665596?
Even if you are playing full Amazon.com 3e where everyone gets magic items shipped to them in 3-5 business days you still don't dump STR – unlike in 1e the strength enhancers (that is, gauntlets of ogre power/ girdle of giant strength) add to your STR, they don't replace it.
That made me laugh, but it's also a great Planescape campaign idea.
"Magic - Mart: Now With Interplanar Shipping."
Rivalling with them would be of course Planar Express.
Quote from: Imp;665596?
Even if you are playing full Amazon.com 3e where everyone gets magic items shipped to them in 3-5 business days you still don't dump STR – unlike in 1e the strength enhancers (that is, gauntlets of ogre power/ girdle of giant strength) add to your STR, they don't replace it.
Well, I guess that makes the, "I'm gonna use STR as my dump stat for my fighter because magic items" even dumber then.
It's only tangentially related, but in 3.x, the magic 'strength enhancing' items were a big improvement over earlier editions.
In 2nd edition, if you found Gauntlets of Ogre Strength (20), they'd give the wearer a Strength of 20. So, if you give it to the Fighter (Str 18/63) he'd benefit for sure. But the marginal utility is pretty small compared to giving it to a character with a Str of 12.
To 'get the most out of your items', it'd make sense to give them to the weakest character (who would benefit the most).
In 3.x, giving items to the person that relied on that ability most often was always best - and people with a high stat could benefit just as much as a person with a low stat.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;665601In 2nd edition, if you found Gauntlets of Ogre Strength (20), they'd give the wearer a Strength of 20. .
In 1e and 2e, it was 18/00 strength.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;665598Well, I guess that makes the, "I'm gonna use STR as my dump stat for my fighter because magic items" even dumber then.
But don't you remember all the 4 STR fighters running around in TSRD&D?!?!
That's the only "logical" outcome of a magic item with a fixed STR.
I know because RPGnet tells me so.
I can't even imagine these people's games.
QuotePlayer 1: My 3 STR fighter crawls out of a tavern.
Player 2: My Cleric gathers up his 37 holy symbols and follows him.
GM: Okay, a Dragon lands in the middle of the town and lays down. All the peasants (100) in the area drop prone in a circle around the dragon, grab rocks and throw them. Killing it.
Player 1 & 2: Yay! Here's my magic item list!
GM: Okay, the dragon has on it a level appropriate package of treasure and the items on your list.
Players 1 & 2: How fun!
Quote from: Piestrio;665604But don't you remember all the 4 STR fighters running around in TSRD&D?!?!
That's the only "logical" outcome of a magic item with a fixed STR.
I know because RPGnet tells me so.
I can't even imagine these people's games.
If a player wants to play an 8 STR fighter because it fits with his or her theme? More power to them. If they want to play with an 8 STR fighter because they plan on getting gauntlets of ogre power? Good luck with that. They'd probably end up very disappointed, if not dead.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;665609If a player wants to play an 8 STR fighter because it fits with his or her theme? More power to them. If they want to play with an 8 STR fighter because they plan on getting gauntlets of ogre power? Good luck with that. They'd probably end up very disappointed, if not dead.
Here's the thing -
When something CAN happen, given enough chances, it WILL.
If something happening really bothers the players, than that thing is a problem.
It's common for players to feel 'jealous'. When the 18/63 STR fighter finds gauntlets that give someone 18/00 STR, and they give it to the Cleric with a 12 STR (but who has an 18 Wis and 15 Chr) it's totally possible that the Fighter will feel like a chump. If he had put his 8 in STR instead of Charisma, he'd now be just as strong as he was, but he'd be a lot more successful when carousing.
Having gauntlets that grant +4 Strength neatly avoids that problem. The Fighter would go to a 22 (super) or the Cleric would go to a 16 (good). Either way, they both get the same relative benefit from the item.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;665615Here's the thing -
When something CAN happen, given enough chances, it WILL.
If something happening really bothers the players, than that thing is a problem.
It's common for players to feel 'jealous'. When the 18/63 STR fighter finds gauntlets that give someone 18/00 STR, and they give it to the Cleric with a 12 STR (but who has an 18 Wis and 15 Chr) it's totally possible that the Fighter will feel like a chump. If he had put his 8 in STR instead of Charisma, he'd now be just as strong as he was, but he'd be a lot more successful when carousing.
Having gauntlets that grant +4 Strength neatly avoids that problem. The Fighter would go to a 22 (super) or the Cleric would go to a 16 (good). Either way, they both get the same relative benefit from the item.
That's a huge assumption.
Quote from: Piestrio;665616That's a huge assumption.
HUGE assumption. I don't know, maybe it's just me, but in 30+ years of gaming, my groups always had the attitude that they were a team, and the 18/75 fighter never had a problem letting the cleric have the gauntlets because it made the team better. Not to mention everyone benefiting by it in an indirect way.
For 20 years of AD&D, those gauntlets never broke the game. I'm honestly baffled why there's this argument that they do now.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;665615Here's the thing -
When something CAN happen, given enough chances, it WILL.
If something happening really bothers the players, than that thing is a problem.
It's common for players to feel 'jealous'. When the 18/63 STR fighter finds gauntlets that give someone 18/00 STR, and they give it to the Cleric with a 12 STR (but who has an 18 Wis and 15 Chr) it's totally possible that the Fighter will feel like a chump. If he had put his 8 in STR instead of Charisma, he'd now be just as strong as he was, but he'd be a lot more successful when carousing.
Having gauntlets that grant +4 Strength neatly avoids that problem. The Fighter would go to a 22 (super) or the Cleric would go to a 16 (good). Either way, they both get the same relative benefit from the item.
Somewhere I do have a fighter/magic-user/bard from a one-off monty haul game who has a strength of 12 (24 with girdle of storm giant strength) :)
I'm not sure about this, though. The [raise stat to this much] stat boosters were fine in the context of 2E, where you randomly-roll your stats and live or die with whatever you get. Its set up to be unfair, so the belt doesn't make a difference one way or another.
3E has the problem that the belt or whatever that turns an ordinary guy into a hero, makes someone who's already a hero into a superhero, and if you roll badly on your stats forever will they control your destiny.
Honestly I'd rather some sort of sliding scale where you always get a bonus but its bigger for lower stats.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;665615It's common for players to feel 'jealous'. When the 18/63 STR fighter finds gauntlets that give someone 18/00 STR, and they give it to the Cleric with a 12 STR (but who has an 18 Wis and 15 Chr) it's totally possible that the Fighter will feel like a chump. If he had put his 8 in STR instead of Charisma, he'd now be just as strong as he was, but he'd be a lot more successful when carousing.
- two very strong characters mean the party is less dead
- 1e and 2e assume larger party sizes, tilted towards fighters – well, you'll have a front line in any case – so there will probably be a number of people in the party that can use the gauntlets, not just "the fighter" and "the cleric"
- remember all the elaborate rules in 1e for dividing up treasure, where the idea is everyone is sort of out for themselves and the party isn't even dividing it up according to who could use it the best? The magic-user may wind up with the gauntlets if you use those suggested rules :D
Quote from: Piestrio;665616That's a huge assumption.
Pretty much.
In one campaign, we had 2 fighters in the party, i played one of them. The other fighter in the party had a better AC, higher strength and way more hit points than me. By the time we hit about 4th level it was obvious that he was a better fighter than me - so he got the riskier jobs, had to face the bigger enemies and hold the line, while i took out the mooks and henchmen. It worked really well. I had no problem IC in telling folk that he was the better fighter and didn't spend my time gnashing my teeth or anything.
IME you get something along those lines with most parties.
Quote from: One Horse Town;665622Pretty much.
In one campaign, we had 2 fighters in the party, i played one of them. The other fighter in the party had a better AC, higher strength and way more hit points than me. By the time we hit about 4th level it was obvious that he was a better fighter than me - so he got the riskier jobs, had to face the bigger enemies and hold the line, while i took out the mooks and henchmen. It worked really well. I had no problem IC in telling folk that he was the better fighter and didn't spend my time gnashing my teeth or anything.
IME you get something along those lines with most parties.
Yeah, dunno if it's MMOGisms (Tank, DPS, CC, Healing) or FPSisms, (Sniper, Rifle, Demo, etc) but modern fantasy games and the player mindset are set up more like a Spec-Ops team of hyperspecialized niches. If you're not the best Tank, there's no need for you to Tank, etc.
Quote from: Piestrio;665604QuotePlayer 1: My 3 STR fighter crawls out of a tavern.
Player 2: My Cleric gathers up his 37 holy symbols and follows him.
GM: Okay, a Dragon lands in the middle of the town and lays down. All the peasants (100) in the area drop prone in a circle around the dragon, grab rocks and throw them. Killing it.
Player 1 & 2: Yay! Here's my magic item list!
GM: Okay, the dragon has on it a level appropriate package of treasure and the items on your list.
Players 1 & 2: How fun!
I lol'd.
Quote from: Sommerjon;665304Knowing the Dm's likes and dislikes, knowing when to do something outrageous or sticking to the mundane, knowing your DM. How to stroke the ego of the Dm is also system mastery. People here who deny this is even possible are deluding themselves.
Its a shame you had such crappy GMs. I wish I could invite you to play in one of our games. I understand from this experience why people feel the need for systems to "protect" them from GMs. Unfortunately, its a job that requires a certain Solomon-esque type of personality, the best GMs being those who mix empathy and reason to tailor games to their players. GMs whose primary motivation isn't "facilitate the players having fun" rather than GMs who just want to have fun their way I think lead to the misconceoption of "system mastery". Really, its just "GM mastery", and I couldnt stand to kowtow to an egoist like that anyways, would rathe play videogames where at least I know the AI is against me.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;665615Here's the thing -
When something CAN happen, given enough chances, it WILL.
If something happening really bothers the players, than that thing is a problem.
It's common for players to feel 'jealous'. When the 18/63 STR fighter finds gauntlets that give someone 18/00 STR, and they give it to the Cleric with a 12 STR (but who has an 18 Wis and 15 Chr) it's totally possible that the Fighter will feel like a chump. If he had put his 8 in STR instead of Charisma, he'd now be just as strong as he was, but he'd be a lot more successful when carousing.
Having gauntlets that grant +4 Strength neatly avoids that problem. The Fighter would go to a 22 (super) or the Cleric would go to a 16 (good). Either way, they both get the same relative benefit from the item.
Thats a very specific playstyle you're describing, not one I personally enjoy.
I've all but banished math from my games.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;665579IF SUCH ITEMS ACTUALLY EXIST and they HAVE A GOLD PIECE VALUE players WILL GET AHOLD OF THEM ONE WAY OR ANOTHER!!!!
y'know it might help to think of such threads (which are all over rpg.net) not as discussions of games, but as games unto themselves.
and the way you win is by having the BIGGEST OPINION backed up ('backed up') by the MOST AIRTIGHT LOGIC.
the way you lose is by reading the thread but that's ok
when these guys say shit like the above-quoted stuff they're in this mode where they're flailing around operatically saying the most ridiculous, least useful things -- i've gotten that way plenty -- because ego is on the line and nothing else, and it's not like they're all going to collaborate on Understanding People Together, because understanding people is the specific thing they're avoiding by spending so much time at rpg.net.
it's a 'safe space,' in the parlance of our times, for guys to talk about their dump stats.
trying to match up your own gaming experiences to, say, the rpg.net *mods'* experiences is impossible, because they don't go there to share re: games, they go there to peacock for other neuroatypicals.
same thing with PUA boards -- dudes go there to be with dudes and commiserate (in code) about whatever makes them sad, not to get better at talking to women. (the way you do that is by listening to women, duh.)
Quote from: stuffis;665638trying to match up your own gaming experiences to, say, the rpg.net *mods'* experiences is impossible, because they don't go there to share re: games, they go there to peacock for other neuroatypicals.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_4dUkqACEAY4/S4fQywGDp8I/AAAAAAAADls/DvmJDZs1EEs/s400/applause.jpg)
Quote from: stuffis;665638y'know it might help to think of such threads (which are all over rpg.net) not as discussions of games, but as games unto themselves.
and the way you win is by having the BIGGEST OPINION backed up ('backed up') by the MOST AIRTIGHT LOGIC.
that describes rpgnet back in the day. Nowadays its the most PC opinion that doesn't get the hyena pack upset so you're not disturbing their "emotional safespace" and licks the most Mod ass.
Logic left rpgnet, battered, bleeding, and raped, years ago.
Quote from: stuffis;665638trying to match up your own gaming experiences to, say, the rpg.net *mods'* experiences is impossible, because they don't go there to share re: games, they go there to peacock for other neuroatypicals.
well put.
Quote from: One Horse Town;665622Pretty much.
In one campaign, we had 2 fighters in the party, i played one of them. The other fighter in the party had a better AC, higher strength and way more hit points than me. By the time we hit about 4th level it was obvious that he was a better fighter than me - so he got the riskier jobs, had to face the bigger enemies and hold the line, while i took out the mooks and henchmen. It worked really well. I had no problem IC in telling folk that he was the better fighter and didn't spend my time gnashing my teeth or anything.
IME you get something along those lines with most parties.
The whole split treasure according to improving the overall party performace is just a favoured playstyle.
The party don't have to be goodly comrades they can totally be selfish mean spirited mercenaries out for themselves. In this case the fighter will grab the gauntletts if he finds themfirst and the other fighter might well feel a bit envious.
In one game being the backup fighter might be fine for your PC but in another your PC might hate the fact that he is always second string. He might come to resent Big Ted the Bold until he finally snaps and poisons the big lad's ale and then claims all his stuff.
All about play style and roleplay right.
As for magic items I think
gauntlets that make you as strong as an ogre (ie 18/00 Strength) and a belt that
increases your strength by imbuing you with the spirit of the bear (ie +4 Strength) can both exist side by side in the same game. Both are different.
Quote from: One Horse Town;665622Pretty much.
In one campaign, we had 2 fighters in the party, i played one of them. The other fighter in the party had a better AC, higher strength and way more hit points than me. By the time we hit about 4th level it was obvious that he was a better fighter than me - so he got the riskier jobs, had to face the bigger enemies and hold the line, while i took out the mooks and henchmen. It worked really well. I had no problem IC in telling folk that he was the better fighter and didn't spend my time gnashing my teeth or anything.
IME you get something along those lines with most parties.
In my experience, some players are just fine with that, and others do not enjoy being the wimpy little brother to the stronger fighter.
Its only a problem if a player is unhappy.
Quote from: jibbajibba;665661The whole split treasure according to improving the overall party performace is just a favoured playstyle.
The party don't have to be goodly comrades they can totally be selfish mean spirited mercenaries out for themselves. In this case the fighter will grab the gauntletts if he finds themfirst and the other fighter might well feel a bit envious. .
In my experience, the other players aren't envious. They're irritated. If someone only cares about their character, even at the expense of the party, they are usually selfish assholes that are quickly asked not to return to the group. Not one person at the table is more important to any other player, and will not have their selfish needs met if it bothers everyone else.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;665666In my experience, the other players aren't envious. They're irritated. If someone only cares about their character, even at the expense of the party, they are usually selfish assholes that are quickly asked not to return to the group. Not one person at the table is more important to any other player, and will not have their selfish needs met if it bothers everyone else.
You are mixing players and PCs. I as a player might not care but Neflin Sandeman my NE fighter is an envious greedy little bastard.
If you don't straight jacket your players to only play goodly fellowes, which is a play style choice as I said, then you will occassionally get evil PCs who if they are actually being roleplayed at all will covet stuff.
I actually played Neflin Sandeman, a NE thief and he killed the party wizard and took all the parties magic items and fled, becoming an NPC and developed into the party's bette noir and major foe.
So I agree players shouldn;t be selfish but PCs...sure.
Quote from: jibbajibba;665667You are mixing players and PCs. I as a player might not care but Neflin Sandeman my NE fighter is an envious greedy little bastard.
If you don't straight jacket your players to only play goodly fellowes, which is a play style choice as I said, then you will occassionally get evil PCs who if they are actually being roleplayed at all will covet stuff.
I actually played Neflin Sandeman, a NE thief and he killed the party wizard and took all the parties magic items and fled, becoming an NPC and developed into the party's bette noir and major foe.
So I agree players shouldn;t be selfish but PCs...sure.
This just might be me, and I understand that, but in my experience, players who play evil characters more often than not do so only as an excuse for their own dickish behavior. Only rarely have I seen players play an evil PC and not be super disruptive. Largely because they realize that evil does not equal stupid, and that a strong party is better for him or her than a weak party where the evil character has all the good stuff.
However, that's the rarity, and it's far more common to play evil characters as you describe: screw everyone else, it's all about me and what I want. Too often there's a lot of projection going there.
I'll also note that you said your character was a fighter, and then later a thief.
Quote from: jibbajibba;665667You are mixing players and PCs. I as a player might not care but Neflin Sandeman my NE fighter is an envious greedy little bastard.
If you don't straight jacket your players to only play goodly fellowes, which is a play style choice as I said, then you will occassionally get evil PCs who if they are actually being roleplayed at all will covet stuff.
I actually played Neflin Sandeman, a NE thief and he killed the party wizard and took all the parties magic items and fled, becoming an NPC and developed into the party's bette noir and major foe.
So I agree players shouldn;t be selfish but PCs...sure.
I've seen evil parties work, but they tend to work best in deadly environments where there's a strong impulse to cooperate enough to stay alive. One memorable campaign centered on the Caverns of Thracia saw a party of an evil halfling thief, an evil half-orc fighter/cleric, and a neutral cleric stick together just enough to stay alive, often lurching on the lip of disaster. The halfling pre-looted most of the treasure troves, and the half-orc ignored it until there was a juicy item he wanted and he just took it and defied anyone to try to stop him. Then the halfling got his hands on Thirster and the real fun started. The halfling loved having the sword, but the half-orc came to covet it. And Thirster wanted to be in the hands of the half-orc. There was evil deeds done during watch duty, and a growing atmosphere of paranoia. Eventually the half-orc ended up with Thirster, but the player of the halfling PC wasn't a dick about it. It helped that both players were socially functional adults and didn't let the in-game drama affect real-life behaviour at all.
Quote from: jibbajibba;665667You are mixing players and PCs. I as a player might not care but Neflin Sandeman my NE fighter is an envious greedy little bastard.
If you don't straight jacket your players to only play goodly fellowes, which is a play style choice as I said, then you will occassionally get evil PCs who if they are actually being roleplayed at all will covet stuff.
I think it's important to bear in mind that there are two memes which have risen to particular prominence in RPG circles:
(1) The PCs shalt remain together forever
(2) The PCs shalt not be allowed to die
Now, I would argue that these are shitty memes which serve little or no purpose except to limit the flexibility of the table while enabling destructive behaviors. But these memes are very prominent. And once these memes are in play, asshole PCs are far more problematic because there's no way to escape them.
I mean, I basically just described Sartre's version of Hell in
No Exit: Welcome to eternity. You'll be spending it with assholes.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;665671I think it's important to bear in mind that there are two memes which have risen to particular prominence in RPG circles:
(1) The PCs shalt remain together forever
(2) The PCs shalt not be allowed to die
Now, I would argue that these are shitty memes which serve little or no purpose except to limit the flexibility of the table while enabling destructive behaviors. But these memes are very prominent. And once these memes are in play, asshole PCs are far more problematic because there's no way to escape them.
I mean, I basically just described Sartre's version of Hell in No Exit: Welcome to eternity. You'll be spending it with assholes.
Yeah, those Are really shitty memes.
Some of my funnest Memories involving d&d involve split parties and character Death (not
necessarily together ;)).
Quote from: Sacrosanct;665668This just might be me, and I understand that, but in my experience, players who play evil characters more often than not do so only as an excuse for their own dickish behavior. Only rarely have I seen players play an evil PC and not be super disruptive. Largely because they realize that evil does not equal stupid, and that a strong party is better for him or her than a weak party where the evil character has all the good stuff.
However, that's the rarity, and it's far more common to play evil characters as you describe: screw everyone else, it's all about me and what I want. Too often there's a lot of projection going there.
I'll also note that you said your character was a fighter, and then later a thief.
No I posited a character who was a fighter as we had been talking about figthers and used the name of an old PC who was actually a thief. I knew when I described his actual actions I shoudl go back and edit.
Neflin killed a Wizard named The Wicked Grin because the wizard had been given the party's cache of magic items that no on elese understood but Neflin had seen him use a cloak that turned into bat wings and had used listen to catch the command work so asked The Grin to give him the cloak. The Grin would not so Neflin pressed the issue. The Wizard cast a phantasmal force making Neflin think he was at the bottom of a 20 foot pit as a way of preventing Neflin from stabbing him. Sadly Neflin threw his dagger got a natural 20 and killed The Grin and took all his stuff. Like I siad after the event he went off and became an NPC becuase he was no longer a viable party member. I had no issue with that.
Anyway it's a game style. I have played other Evil PCs who stick with the party becuase it's the logical choice. I played a CN character whos main ally was a LE thief who he felt great kindred with and protected etc, even to the point of carry his chopped up body in a belt of many pouches until he coudl find a priest powerful enough to Resurrect him.
The point is that characters take on a life of their own they do things that are stupid vain, arrogant, loving, generous, naive because that's what the game is all about.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;665615Here's the thing -
When something CAN happen, given enough chances, it WILL.
If something happening really bothers the players, than that thing is a problem.
It's common for players to feel 'jealous'. When the 18/63 STR fighter finds gauntlets that give someone 18/00 STR, and they give it to the Cleric with a 12 STR (but who has an 18 Wis and 15 Chr) it's totally possible that the Fighter will feel like a chump. If he had put his 8 in STR instead of Charisma, he'd now be just as strong as he was, but he'd be a lot more successful when carousing.
Having gauntlets that grant +4 Strength neatly avoids that problem. The Fighter would go to a 22 (super) or the Cleric would go to a 16 (good). Either way, they both get the same relative benefit from the item.
This kind of jealousy shouldn't be an issue in adult games. A game full of 12 year olds quite possibly would have these sorts of problems but not games played by adults that I would want to hang out with.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;665739This kind of jealousy shouldn't be an issue in adult games. A game full of 12 year olds quite possibly would have these sorts of problems but not games played by adults that I would want to hang out with.
But what about in character jealousies?
When a bunch of actors do Hamlet the guys that play Rosencrantz and Guildenstern still talk to the bloke that plays Hamlet after the play is over.
Same with RPGs. You play a character not all characters are nice and loyal and honest and tactically astute.
Quote from: jibbajibba;665741But what about in character jealousies?
When a bunch of actors do Hamlet the guys that play Rosencrantz and Guildenstern still talk to the bloke that plays Hamlet after the play is over.
Same with RPGs. You play a character not all characters are nice and loyal and honest and tactically astute.
In character interactions and attitudes can be fun and add to the atmosphere of the game. No problems there.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;663913I certainly resent people telling me that the elements I like from AD&D are only because of nostalgia.
So sue them. Why tell us about it?
I've played with plenty of mature adults, and the 'jealousy' issue (between players) can still pop up.
If you're playing because you want to slay some orcs, and you never get a chance because one player can kill them all without help, it's hard to have fun.
There's lots of ways it can happen. If you're a low-level fighter and the wizard gets a wand of fireballs, there's pretty much no threat that you're necessary for.
If all you care about is making it to the next room of the dungeon and don't mind tagging along while other characters do the actual work, obviously that won't be an issue.
Quote from: stuffis;665638trying to match up your own gaming experiences to, say, the rpg.net *mods'* experiences is impossible, because they don't go there to share re: games, they go there to peacock for other neuroatypicals.
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/orson_wells_Slow-Clap.gif)
The issue some players have with being too strong or too weak compared to another character also depends a lot on the niche the character fills.
A 'weak' wizard can learn many more spells than a 'powerful' Sorceror, and that creates moment where the wizards broader knowledge is useful.
A cleric that if frail and horrid at melee, weaker than the other charcaters, might be the only one who can heal or cast divine spells. Useful.
But if you have two thieves, one with 18 dex and near max hp, the other with a 12 dex and near minimum hp, and even worse, the 'better' thief has a more clever creative player...well...some people will not enjoy that.
So as a gm I try to pay attention to mainly; are the players having fun?
If a charcater is 'eclipsed' by another, AND any players are unhappy about it, I have found ways to mitigate it.
Some players obviously don't have a problem with characters being overly effective or overly useless.
Quote from: Bill;666030The issue some players have with being too strong or too weak compared to another character also depends a lot on the niche the character fills.
A 'weak' wizard can learn many more spells than a 'powerful' Sorceror, and that creates moment where the wizards broader knowledge is useful.
A cleric that if frail and horrid at melee, weaker than the other charcaters, might be the only one who can heal or cast divine spells. Useful.
But if you have two thieves, one with 18 dex and near max hp, the other with a 12 dex and near minimum hp, and even worse, the 'better' thief has a more clever creative player...well...some people will not enjoy that.
So as a gm I try to pay attention to mainly; are the players having fun?
If a charcater is 'eclipsed' by another, AND any players are unhappy about it, I have found ways to mitigate it.
Some players obviously don't have a problem with characters being overly effective or overly useless.
This is why OD&D is so wonderful. One character of a given level isn't going to be that much out of whack with another. No futzing around with keeping characters from pulling way ahead of others due to superior option picking.
You actually CAN have two fighters, one with all 16s and the other with all 13s adventure together without problems with either of them just as likely to survive 1st level.
Quote from: Bill;666030The issue some players have with being too strong or too weak compared to another character also depends a lot on the niche the character fills.
A 'weak' wizard can learn many more spells than a 'powerful' Sorceror, and that creates moment where the wizards broader knowledge is useful.
A cleric that if frail and horrid at melee, weaker than the other charcaters, might be the only one who can heal or cast divine spells. Useful.
But if you have two thieves, one with 18 dex and near max hp, the other with a 12 dex and near minimum hp, and even worse, the 'better' thief has a more clever creative player...well...some people will not enjoy that.
So as a gm I try to pay attention to mainly; are the players having fun?
If a charcater is 'eclipsed' by another, AND any players are unhappy about it, I have found ways to mitigate it.
Some players obviously don't have a problem with characters being overly effective or overly useless.
People play for different reasons.
I do find it funny that my players with the best stats seem to have a lower survival rates. Almost as if they depend on them more?
Quote from: Exploderwizard;666041This is why OD&D is so wonderful. One character of a given level isn't going to be that much out of whack with another. No futzing around with keeping characters from pulling way ahead of others due to superior option picking.
You actually CAN have two fighters, one with all 16s and the other with all 13s adventure together without problems with either of them just as likely to survive 1st level.
Yeah, that seems to be a point a lot of folks keep missing, no matter how many times you point it out to them. Heck, just yesterday there was a person comparing D&D Next with an MMO he beta tested, implying that WoTC should be using the same design approach of MMOs.
These people just can't grasp the concept that tabletop RPGs aren't MMOs, and aren't constrained by which button combination maximizes DPS, and that level scaling doesn't, and shouldn't, mirror that of an MMO.
What I mean by that is that an MMO by it's very nature is just a grind fest of ever increasing DPS percentage bonuses. In that kind of play, you have to have very tight level scaling so that each level and every class improves by the same amount. A tabletop RPG is nothing of the sort. You have one key advantage with a TTRPG: your imagination. You don't have to have exact level scaling with it. And the game should NOT be designed solely around level scaling numbers. It SHOULD be designed to enhance the face to face interaction between players.
Why this keeps getting lost on this crowd is beyond me.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;666045Why this keeps getting lost on this crowd is beyond me.
Because for most of them, their ratio of theory-wank to playing is 10:1 or greater. In a lot of cases, they don't play at all.
The elephant in the room that nobody mentions on RPGnet (probably for fear of banning) is that for tabletop RPGs there's no correlation between mathematical system balance and sales. The best designed games, according to the theory-wanks on RPG and other design-focused sites, sell in the hundreds. I mean, does anyone actually play Burning Wheel? While games that are 'broken' or 'cater to nostalgia' sell in the tens and hundreds of thousands. It's too perilous to their sense of self-worth to acknowledge that all the stuff they fret about endlessly matters very, very little out in the marketplace and at the table.
Quote from: Haffrung;666054Because for most of them, their ratio of theory-wank to playing is 10:1 or greater. In a lot of cases, they don't play at all.
The elephant in the room that nobody mentions on RPGnet (probably for fear of banning) is that for tabletop RPGs there's no correlation between mathematical system balance and sales. The best designed games, according to the theory-wanks on RPG and other design-focused sites, sell in the hundreds. I mean, does anyone actually play Burning Wheel? While games that are 'broken' or 'cater to nostalgia' sell in the tens and hundreds of thousands. It's too perilous to their sense of self-worth to acknowledge that all the stuff they fret about endlessly matters very, very little out in the marketplace and at the table.
Amen. Even counting only more modern games the "broken" ones seem to outsell the carefully balanced.
3.0 sold like hotcakes even though it was (to theorywankers) a horrible caster dominated mess.
4E, which was advertised as much more balanced, sold like crap so WOTC shitcanned the edition after only a few years.
Meanwhile, Pathfinder (which detractors say didn't fix all the broken stuff from 3.5) was a huge success.
The 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".
Quote from: Haffrung;666054The elephant in the room that nobody mentions on RPGnet (probably for fear of banning) is that for tabletop RPGs there's no correlation between mathematical system balance and sales. The best designed games, according to the theory-wanks on RPG and other design-focused sites, sell in the hundreds. I mean, does anyone actually play Burning Wheel? While games that are 'broken' or 'cater to nostalgia' sell in the tens and hundreds of thousands. It's too perilous to their sense of self-worth to acknowledge that all the stuff they fret about endlessly matters very, very little out in the marketplace and at the table.
While I try not to engage in edition wars I have once or twice said at RPGnet that the design "elegance" or "coherence" or whatever of an rpg is, IME, orthogonal to the amount of fun I have with it at the table.
The general response was as if I'd said "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." My position literally made no sense to many of the posters there.
Quote from: Dimitrios;666069While I try not to engage in edition wars I have once or twice said at RPGnet that the design "elegance" or "coherence" or whatever of an rpg is, IME, orthogonal to the amount of fun I have with it at the table.
The general response was as if I'd said "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." My position literally made no sense to many of the posters there.
Try next time to rephrase orthogonal, but be careful. If they actually understood your argument, they might have banned you.
Quote from: Dimitrios;666069While I try not to engage in edition wars I have once or twice said at RPGnet that the design "elegance" or "coherence" or whatever of an rpg is, IME, orthogonal to the amount of fun I have with it at the table.
The general response was as if I'd said "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." My position literally made no sense to many of the posters there.
This is really bizarre.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;666045What I mean by that is that an MMO by it's very nature is just a grind fest of ever increasing DPS percentage bonuses. In that kind of play, you have to have very tight level scaling so that each level and every class improves by the same amount. A tabletop RPG is nothing of the sort. You have one key advantage with a TTRPG: your imagination. You don't have to have exact level scaling with it. And the game should NOT be designed solely around level scaling numbers. It SHOULD be designed to enhance the face to face interaction between players.
Why this keeps getting lost on this crowd is beyond me.
I think it's simply that a lot of them are coming out of MMOs, or for the older ones, a long period of playing MMOs.
Also, a lot of them may be compsci types, which is where the whole design elegance thing is coming from. But that doesn't even really have a lot to do with how fun a computer game is, let alone a tabletop game.
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".
It's a given that a lot of folks have the knives out over Next. WotC has rejected a certain playstyle and design model, and those rejected already hate something they haven't even played yet. It's only a happy coincidence that the rejected 4E community share common cause with the system matters crowd at RPGNet. Happy for the system wanks because their ranks have been swelled by some actual gamers for once.
Still, for someone who hopes Next succeeds it's nothing to get too wound up about. WotC already knows they'll lose a chunk of 4E players, and system-wanks have never mattered anyway. I mean, some of those people on RPGNet proclaim that there's no justification for WotC to publish a game like Next because Dungeon World already fills that niche of light-medium fantasy D&D-type game. As if WotC could give a shit about Dungeon World. I doubt 10 per cent of the target market for D&D Next even knows Dungeon World exists, let alone will ever play it.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;666045Yeah, that seems to be a point a lot of folks keep missing, no matter how many times you point it out to them. Heck, just yesterday there was a person comparing D&D Next with an MMO he beta tested, implying that WoTC should be using the same design approach of MMOs.
These people just can't grasp the concept that tabletop RPGs aren't MMOs, and aren't constrained by which button combination maximizes DPS, and that level scaling doesn't, and shouldn't, mirror that of an MMO.
What I mean by that is that an MMO by it's very nature is just a grind fest of ever increasing DPS percentage bonuses. In that kind of play, you have to have very tight level scaling so that each level and every class improves by the same amount. A tabletop RPG is nothing of the sort. You have one key advantage with a TTRPG: your imagination. You don't have to have exact level scaling with it. And the game should NOT be designed solely around level scaling numbers. It SHOULD be designed to enhance the face to face interaction between players.
Why this keeps getting lost on this crowd is beyond me.
Thats just strange. In my opinion, mmorpgs/mmo's/whatever have Jack all to do with pen and paper rpgs.
Well, I suppose WOW's mainstream appeal does have a positive effect on non gamers perception of gamers.
Quote from: LordVreeg;666043People play for different reasons.
I do find it funny that my players with the best stats seem to have a lower survival rates. Almost as if they depend on them more?
That's my experience as well. The "most powerful" characters tend to die the quickest from being over utilized.
Quote from: Piestrio;666109That's my experience as well. The "most powerful" characters tend to die the quickest from being over utilized.
That, or an inflated sense of invulernability. Rather than take the extra time to plan ahead because you know your character probably couldn't hang one-on-one against a bugbear, you get mentalities like, "I've got more hp and more bonus to damage than it, so I'll win; bring it on!" only to find out that you rolled like crap the bugbear crit'd you and now you're dead.
There's a sense of irony in having a player bragging about having the "best character" at the game table, trying to grab the limelight over and over to "be the hero", only to get killed because he was being a twit with no brains.
I guess these guys like to complain about the rust monster being unfair, and level drain being broken, now. Same guys counting the "DPS" like it's something critical to their self-esteem too, probably.
Quote from: Piestrio;666109That's my experience as well. The "most powerful" characters tend to die the quickest from being over utilized.
Ok, so it is not just me. Interesting. I mean, sometimes it is the way the foes will respond. They go after the toughest threats from the PC side first. But sometimes they run the ragged edge and are over utilized.,
Quote from: Bill;666108Thats just strange. In my opinion, mmorpgs/mmo's/whatever have Jack all to do with pen and paper rpgs.
Gamer 1: "Hey guys, now that we capped, should we try playing D&D, like I was talking about last week?"
Gamer 2: "You mean IRL?"
Gamer 1: "Yeah. We can play at my place. I have the books and everything. It's just like WoW. It has some really cool classes and mobs."
Gamer 3: "And you play it at a table with minis, right?"
Gamer 1: "Yeah, you have controllers, and tanks, and you take down BBGs. Just like WoW."
Gamer 3: "Except you do everything yourself. Move your guys. Do the math. Roll the dice. Write everything down on paper and shit. Track conditions. Track health."
Gamer 1: "Yeah. But it's not too bad - you can do an encounter in about 90 minutes. Usually two or three encounters a session."
Gamer 2 looks at Gamer 3: "Let's just do that raid on Mount Azzkrak again."
At least WotC learned what a fail going after the MMO crowd was.
Quote from: Benoist;666112There's a sense of irony in having a player bragging about having the "best character" at the game table, trying to grab the limelight over and over to "be the hero", only to get killed because he was being a twit with no brains.
I guess these guys like to complain about the rust monster being unfair, and level drain being broken, now. Same guys counting the "DPS" like it's something critical to their self-esteem too, probably.
One of the very few players I ever considered booting was a 'DPS Look at Me! I am the Bestest!' type.
This was my first 4E gm campaign, I had 8 players, and 4 of them were people I did not know very well.
So, this guy shows up with an Eladrin Swordmage, and at first seemed like a roleplayer. But it became obvious after a few sessions that he was a powergamer in disguise. 4E is somewhat balanced, but he managed to find overpowered broken crap regardless.
He essentially overshadowed the other characters at every opportunity.
He was also the doofus that thought his character could bully his way into a KING'S bedchamber to get an audience. duh.
I asked him three times to "make a few changes to your character and 'deoptimize' him. Take something more fun but less effective."
Each time he came back with a different optimized build.
So right as I was considering booting him, a player happened to solve the problem for me.
The other player said to him during the game "You know, you are a powergaming douchbag"
He never returned.
Another difference between the MMO generation is that they think if they kill enough creatures, they'll get phat loot. "Dropping the legendary" so to speak. The problem is, in most TTRPGs, "legendary loot" is often a quest item unto itself, or strategically placed in the adventure. It's not a random drop. TTRPGs are not a grindfest in a boring world where mobs regen after an amount of time. TTRPG worlds are a living, evolving landscape. It's a concept some folks have a hard time grasping.
I blame Diablo for starting this trend ;)
Quote from: Haffrung;666120Gamer 1: "Hey guys, now that we capped, should we try playing D&D, like I was talking about last week?"
Gamer 2: "You mean IRL?"
Gamer 1: "Yeah. We can play at my place. I have the books and everything. It's just like WoW. It has some really cool classes and mobs."
Gamer 3: "And you play it at a table with minis, right?"
Gamer 1: "Yeah, you have controllers, and tanks, and you take down BBGs. Just like WoW."
Gamer 3: "Except you do everything yourself. Move your guys. Do the math. Roll the dice. Write everything down on paper and shit. Track conditions. Track health."
Gamer 1: "Yeah. But it's not too bad - you can do an encounter in about 90 minutes. Usually two or three encounters a session."
Gamer 2 looks at Gamer 3: "Let's just do that raid on Mount Azzkrak again."
At least WotC learned what a fail going after the MMO crowd was.
Pen and paper rpgs may not be for everyone, but I am pretty sure a lot of the WOW only crowd would love them if properly introduced to a good pen and paper game.
But the idea of playing dnd like it was WOW makes me cringe.
Lord of The Rings Online: "Fellowship forming to farm Balrogs in Moria for item drops!!! need Tank, DPS, Minstrel for healing"
(I did play a little bit of Lord of the Rings online, and its a great mmorpg. But its not a pen and paper game. At all.)
Quote from: Haffrung;666120Gamer 2 looks at Gamer 3: "Let's just do that raid on Mount Azzkrak again."
:rotfl:
Mount Azzkrak will be a must visit adventure location in my next campaign.
Quote from: Bill;666122One of the very few players I ever considered booting was a 'DPS Look at Me! I am the Bestest!' type.
This was my first 4E gm campaign, I had 8 players, and 4 of them were people I did not know very well.
So, this guy shows up with an Eladrin Swordmage, and at first seemed like a roleplayer. But it became obvious after a few sessions that he was a powergamer in disguise. 4E is somewhat balanced, but he managed to find overpowered broken crap regardless.
He essentially overshadowed the other characters at every opportunity.
He was also the doofus that thought his character could bully his way into a KING'S bedchamber to get an audience. duh.
I asked him three times to "make a few changes to your character and 'deoptimize' him. Take something more fun but less effective."
Each time he came back with a different optimized build.
So right as I was considering booting him, a player happened to solve the problem for me.
The other player said to him during the game "You know, you are a powergaming douchbag"
He never returned.
Good.
Rules don't fix people. People fix themselves.
The game worked as intended.
Quote from: Haffrung;666079It's a given that a lot of folks have the knives out over Next. WotC has rejected a certain playstyle and design model, and those rejected already hate something they haven't even played yet. It's only a happy coincidence that the rejected 4E community share common cause with the system matters crowd at RPGNet. Happy for the system wanks because their ranks have been swelled by some actual gamers for once..
Here's another example of exactly what I'm talking about:
QuoteMixed feelings with that. On the one hand, I do like the idea that legendaries all have unique mechanics to them. But the flip to that is that it sounds like normal monsters are going to end up being a little more bland. As in, a normal dragon/giant/whatever better stay away from villages or risk being killed by the riff raff.
Here is someone who hasn't bothered to play the game, but is making judgements based on what he or she happens to hear someone else complaining about or what they misread.
I mentioned this in my Cleric impressions thread, but a 4 member party of 3rd level characters (arcane cleric, healer cleric, fighter, and ranger) came this close to having a TPK against 8 orcs. And 3 of those orcs didn't even arrive until about 10 rounds in. You probably can't find a more "normal" monster than a level 1 orc. However, I can tell you that in Next, they are not bland at all. For one, orcs have an ability called "relentless". What this means is that if an attack drops it to 0 hit points but doesn't kill it outright (by doing more damage in one hit that was its max HP), the orc doesn't drop but stays until the end of it's next turn. Naturally none of our characters knew this, so a lot of attacks that would have gone towards other orcs were all centered on one because we were expecting it to drop. Hell, we did over 25 points of damage to one orc in one round from different attacks because we thought it would drop when it hit zero like other creatures. After it finally dropped the next round, I turned towards my dwarf companion and said, "Holy hell Koridan, we are in serious trouble if it took all that to drop just one of the brutes."
Now that we know it's a feature they have, we won't focus all on one like that because we don't need to. But the point is that just because a creature isn't "legendary", they aren't bland at all.
Combine that with orc battle tactics, and they are anything but bland. You better have your ducks in a row and have strategy or you will have a TPK. Even if you're 3rd level like us.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;666141Here's another example of exactly what I'm talking about:
Here is someone who hasn't bothered to play the game, but is making judgements based on what he or she happens to hear someone else complaining about or what they misread.
I mentioned this in my Cleric impressions thread, but a 4 member party of 3rd level characters (arcane cleric, healer cleric, fighter, and ranger) came this close to having a TPK against 8 orcs. And 3 of those orcs didn't even arrive until about 10 rounds in. You probably can't find a more "normal" monster than a level 1 orc. However, I can tell you that in Next, they are not bland at all. For one, orcs have an ability called "relentless". What this means is that if an attack drops it to 0 hit points but doesn't kill it outright (by doing more damage in one hit that was its max HP), the orc doesn't drop but stays until the end of it's next turn. Naturally none of our characters knew this, so a lot of attacks that would have gone towards other orcs were all centered on one because we were expecting it to drop. Hell, we did over 25 points of damage to one orc in one round from different attacks because we thought it would drop when it hit zero like other creatures. After it finally dropped the next round, I turned towards my dwarf companion and said, "Holy hell Koridan, we are in serious trouble if it took all that to drop just one of the brutes."
Now that we know it's a feature they have, we won't focus all on one like that because we don't need to. But the point is that just because a creature isn't "legendary", they aren't bland at all.
Combine that with orc battle tactics, and they are anything but bland. You better have your ducks in a row and have strategy or you will have a TPK. Even if you're 3rd level like us.
Its good to see that 8 orcs are dangerous to 4 level three characters.
Quote from: Bill;666148Its good to see that 8 orcs are dangerous to 4 level three characters.
The battle went well over a dozen rounds, probably closer to 2 dozen. And we were seriously sweating it. Largely because we didn't know about the relentless trait, so we kept focusing all of our attacks in one round on the same orc, not knowing that it was going to die at the end of it's next turn anyway.
And it wasn't like we were just doing a slugfest either (well, me and the fighter were). The ranger put down caltrops to help keep us from being flanked and then shooting them from a distance, and the other cleric was using arcane magic whenever he could.
But I loved it. That's a battle we'll remember.
Quote from: Benoist;666132Good.
Rules don't fix people. People fix themselves.
The game worked as intended.
Yeah. Well designed, elegant mechanics revealed an asshat, and he was ejected.
Skilled GMs and well written games, a powerful force for good!
Quote from: Sacrosanct;666165The battle went well over a dozen rounds, probably closer to 2 dozen. And we were seriously sweating it. Largely because we didn't know about the relentless trait, so we kept focusing all of our attacks in one round on the same orc, not knowing that it was going to die at the end of it's next turn anyway.
And it wasn't like we were just doing a slugfest either (well, me and the fighter were). The ranger put down caltrops to help keep us from being flanked and then shooting them from a distance, and the other cleric was using arcane magic whenever he could.
But I loved it. That's a battle we'll remember.
Good to hear actual playtest feedback in regards to Next. I thought Flanking was no longer a thing in Next? My room mate is also playing in a game.
Why would flanking no longer be a thing, flanking is THE thing in combat*.
*I have it on decent authority, being told so by (by now ex I suspect) a paratrooper Captain in Polish army, that when you are jumped by two man at the same time, in hand to hand combat, your chances are slim, even if you are a martial arts expert.
Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;666171Good to hear actual playtest feedback in regards to Next. I thought Flanking was no longer a thing in Next? My room mate is also playing in a game.
Not so much "flanking gets X bonus" but more of "We're in combat and it would really suck for our escape route to be closed off. Which it did, but that's another matter ;)
Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;666170Yeah. Well designed, elegant mechanics revealed an asshat, and he was ejected.
I don't need "elegant mechanics" to help me notice an asshat at the game table. YMMV.
Quote from: Rincewind1;666177Why would flanking no longer be a thing, flanking is THE thing in combat*.
*I have it on decent authority, being told so by (by now ex I suspect) a paratrooper Captain in Polish army, that when you are jumped by two man at the same time, in hand to hand combat, your chances are slim, even if you are a martial arts expert.
No doubt IRL, but I was referring specifically to D&D next. I was told that the new Rogue mechanic is all about getting Advantage, and different Rogue options had different ways,including one that had a flank-like mechanic.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;666179Not so much "flanking gets X bonus" but more of "We're in combat and it would really suck for our escape route to be closed off. Which it did, but that's another matter ;)
Well, that's a bit odd. I'd actually say that Advantage would definitely go into flanking (and perhaps something to borrow to other systems, hmmm).
Quote from: Sacrosanct;666179Not so much "flanking gets X bonus" but more of "We're in combat and it would really suck for our escape route to be closed off. Which it did, but that's another matter ;)
A ha, so more of a map/positioning thing than 3.x's 'get +2 to hit of you and an ally flank an enemy', gotcha. Flank as a term as opposed to a game mechanic.
Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;666170Yeah. Well designed, elegant mechanics revealed an asshat, and he was ejected.
Skilled GMs and well written games, a powerful force for good!
Odd... I've never had a problem IDing asshats in any system no matter how well or poorly "designed".
Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;666183A ha, so more of a map/positioning thing than 3.x's 'get +2 to hit of you and an ally flank an enemy', gotcha. Flank as a term as opposed to a game mechanic.
Yep. 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.
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."
Quote from: Sommerjon;666205Except the MMO crowd is where the kids are nowadays.
No they're not. 5 years ago WoW had 12 million subscribers. They are down to 8 million now and steadily falling. A lot are going back to RPGs, just using G+ hangouts to do so. Of my group of 7 regular G+ players, half played MMOs but don't anymore because we do G+ instead.
Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;666197I honestly don't get this disdain for good game design.
I don't have a disdain for good game design. 4e is a very well designed game for what it is. The problem is, it's a game that doesn't appeal to me. Good or bad technical design doesn't matter so much if the experience at the game table isn't what appeals to me. And often that experience is dependant on things like who I'm with and what kind of game it is, not if everything is perfectly balanced.
Quote from: Dimitrios;666211The 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.
That's what the 'airtight design is a good thing even for people who play a loose game' crowd don't understand. Games designed from airtight mechanics out will have a certain shape and feel that may be incompatible with other design goals. I've played hundreds of boardgames in the last 15 years, and while many of my favourites are eurogames, I can always tell a game that was designed from the mechanics out, rather than from the theme in. They're analytically robust, but tend towards the abstract and generic.
Quote from: Dimitrios;666211My 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.
This. So much this. Every hour the Next design team spends buttressing the math against anticipated assaults from char op douchebags is an hour they don't spend working on fun stuff that matters to my group.
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.
Deep Wounds isn't worth nearly as much as Slam is. Extra AC, extra damage, and have the opponent @disadvantage? Yes please.
See this is where pulling out that spreadsheet and looking only at DPS works. It doesn't take much to realize when an expertise benefit is superior to another.
Slam only work if you wield a shield and shields give more AC in D&D
Slam only works if you hit the opponent(just like Deep Wounds) allowing an expertise die of bonus damage.
Slam hits, the opponent is at disadvantage until the start of your next turn.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;666213No they're not. 5 years ago WoW had 12 million subscribers. They are down to 8 million now and steadily falling. A lot are going back to RPGs, just using G+ hangouts to do so. Of my group of 7 regular G+ players, half played MMOs but don't anymore because we do G+ instead.
More and more people are going back to smoking as well. Over half of my Saturday gaming group smokes. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Piestrio;666199Did you just use "supposes" as a noun?
You should probably be ashamed of yourself.
It's supposes when cherry picking is done to "prove" points.
Quote from: Sommerjon;666236It's supposes when cherry picking is done to "prove" points.
I can't even begin to parse that sentence.
I mean seriously, what the hell does "it is supposes" mean? What is a "supposes"?
I have no clue what you are trying to say.
You could mean "it's a supposition" but that doesn't make sense in the context of your sentence. A supposition isn't "cherry picking to prove a point".
Quote from: Sommerjon;666231Deep Wounds isn't worth nearly as much as Slam is. Extra AC, extra damage, and have the opponent @disadvantage? Yes please.
See this is where pulling out that spreadsheet and looking only at DPS works. It doesn't take much to realize when an expertise benefit is superior to another.
Slam only work if you wield a shield and shields give more AC in D&D
Slam only works if you hit the opponent(just like Deep Wounds) allowing an expertise die of bonus damage.
Slam hits, the opponent is at disadvantage until the start of your next turn.
Slam only works for melee attacks. Deep wound works for all attacks.
But of course you ignored that. The only advantage slam has over deep wounds is giving the target disadvantage. However, being able to use deep wound for both melee and ranged attacks could offset that.
I think I finally figured out why so many people hate Next over at TBP. It's because they haven't bothered to actually read the rules or ability descriptions. I'm constantly seeing complaints (looking at you mediv and SuperG):
* rogues are useless because they can't ever sneak attack unless they have advantage and there is no way to ever get advantage
That's wrong on a few points. For one, rogues can sneak attack whenever they feel like it by just giving themselves disadvantage. Secondly, when reading the advantage overview, it implies that you could grant advantage or disadvantage for several things. Just because flanking isn't expressly listed, doesn't mean you couldn't grant it if that's what you felt was fair.
* the fighter had no way of protecting the rogue.
If that's the case, that's on you for how you chose to build your fighter. If you built your fighter as a slayer, than no, I wouldn't expect him to be able to protect others. However, there are many abilities that do protect others. The fighter's built in expertise dice mechanic has a way for you to raise the AC of your ally. The interposing shield allows you to give targets attacking the rogue disadvantage. Etc.
* The goblins felt like orcs who felt like ogres, etc. Sooooo boring.
If your monsters are the same, every battle, then you're a piss poor DM. An even poorer DM since Next gives you tools to make each of them unique. For example: Goblins have the stealth, sneaky (can attempt to hide without using an action) and bushwacker traits (during the first round of combat, has advantage against any opponent with a lower initiative). Orcs are relentless (after going to 0 hp, they stay up until the end of their next turn). The list goes on.
So I'm thouroughly convinced at this point that the Usual Suspects haven't actually bothered to read the game they are saying they are playing. I am dubious if they even played it, and are just postering as a reason to bitch and moan. Most of their complaints are quickly dismissed by a quick scan through the playtest docs.
I mean, it's one thing if you played it and don't like it, but when you have to resort to making things up, then I can't take you seriously. I sincerely hope the Next team just throws their survey's out, because clearly they aren't providing feedback on what was provided.
Quote from: Piestrio;666238I can't even begin to parse that sentence.
I mean seriously, what the hell does "it is supposes" mean? What is a "supposes"?
I have no clue what you are trying to say.
You could mean "it's a supposition" but that doesn't make sense in the context of your sentence. A supposition isn't "cherry picking to prove a point".
Moses supposes his toeses are roses.
Moses supposes erroneously.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;666255I think I finally figured out why so many people hate Next over at TBP. It's because they haven't bothered to actually read the rules or ability descriptions.
Nah. It's because when the 300 pound gorilla of RPGs finally adopted the system-first design approach and made a purely gamist and mathematically balanced game in 4E, the system-wank crowd thought they had finally won. Then WotC announced Next, and their triumph was cast into the dust. And when Mearls said Next is about capturing the core feel of D&D, so mechanics will take a back seat to generating stories and feeling - that was WotC adding insult to injury.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;666191QuoteThey 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. . . . 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.
Ladybird' nailed this awhile back.
|
|
|
|
|
V
Quote from: Haffrung;666269Nah. It's because when the 300 pound gorilla of RPGs finally adopted the system-first design approach and made a purely gamist and mathematically balanced game in 4E, the system-wank crowd thought they had finally won. Then WotC announced Next, and their triumph was cast into the dust. And when Mearls said Next is about capturing the core feel of D&D, so mechanics will take a back seat to generating stories and feeling - that was WotC adding insult to injury.
If that crowd hates Next because of all those reasons, more power to them. We all have different tastes. But the blatant fabrication of how the game plays just to make sure everyone knows you hate it tells me more about the person complaining than any legitimate reason. I really hope WotC is smart enough to see which of the feedbacks to listen to, and which ones not to. I.e., if I'm complaining about how the mechanics actually work (say I think cleric spells shouldn't have to be memorized first), that's a legitimate complaint. But if I'm complaining about how the rogue is worthless because he can never get advantage to do a sneak attack, I'd hope WotC would look at that feedback and say, "Well, this guy never actually read the rules, into the trash you go."
Quote from: Sacrosanct;666246Slam only works for melee attacks. Deep wound works for all attacks.
But of course you ignored that. The only advantage slam has over deep wounds is giving the target disadvantage. However, being able to use deep wound for both melee and ranged attacks could offset that.
Well duh, of course I ignored that. The amount of ranged opportunities is too situational to waste an expertise on the chances that it comes up as often as melee.
Slam has multiple effects with it.
Quote from: Dimitrios;666069While I try not to engage in edition wars I have once or twice said at RPGnet that the design "elegance" or "coherence" or whatever of an rpg is, IME, orthogonal to the amount of fun I have with it at the table.
The general response was as if I'd said "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." My position literally made no sense to many of the posters there.
again, this is because the point of 'edition wars' has nothing to do with finding and sharing fun --
war is the point.
4e and MMORPGs represent a New World for kids who grew up on b/x. of course they're hard to fathom; of course there's a language barrier. they're their own thing. a teenager today is likely to have internalized the norms of video gaming, and has no problem understanding the fun of 4e/WoW stuff that many OSR guys find tiresome.
and vice versa.
arguments about edition differences on rpg.net are compelling precisely because they don't require talking about experience, only 'ideas.'
when someone wades into a 4e/OSR flamewar and is like 'i played every d&d system for two years apiece and loved them all for themselves and tribalism isn't worth it, and here is how i felt about it all,' she usually cools off the discussion a little, makes it hard to argue grand points. so a couple pages pass and another skirmish starts around a different, seemingly trivial piece of bullshit -- spellcasting rangers, or Gygax's shitty prose, or whether dragonborn are 'iconic' -- and the argument simply
relocates to that stupid topic.
if 'edition wars' were about 'what is the most fun' then you could just start each one with 'everyone has different fun' and they'd never happen, but because they're appealing in themselves, they always find a way.
'edition warriors' aren't patriots for their ideologies, they're defense contractors. if there's nothing to fight about, they don't profit.
Quote from: Sommerjon;666335Well duh, of course I ignored that. The amount of ranged opportunities is too situational to waste an expertise on the chances that it comes up as often as melee.
Slam has multiple effects with it.
The only difference between slam and deep wound is that slam is melee only, and imposes disadvantage. Only an idiot would bring up extra AC because slam doesn't grant extra AC. Nothing about that maneuver gives a bonus to AC over anyone else who happens to be using shield.
Also, seeing as how you can only use ED a few times per encounter, you're also mistaken about how often ranged vs. melee comes up in combat in re: to the importance of the maneuver. I'm assuming that you, like most Next whiners, haven't actually played it. Otherwise you'd know that you can't just keep using that maneuver over and over.
For example, many times (in all editions) encounters start at some sort of range. Someone with deep wound instead of slam allows the fighter to throw an axe, spear, javelin whatever with extra damage right off the bat when the encounter starts before they get within melee, possibly taking out an enemy before the get a chance to attack you. With slam, you have to wait until you close into melee first.
Point is, they all have advantages and one isn't clearly better than the other. And the uber point that I was making was that the argument of "fighters will always use ED to increase damage because it's always the better choice" is flawed and false. I already gave two examples why. I'm just angry with myself that I allowed you to draw me into your red herring because your supposes disagreement didn't actually have anything to do with what I was saying.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;666124Another difference between the MMO generation is that they think if they kill enough creatures, they'll get phat loot. "Dropping the legendary" so to speak. The problem is, in most TTRPGs, "legendary loot" is often a quest item unto itself, or strategically placed in the adventure. It's not a random drop. TTRPGs are not a grindfest in a boring world where mobs regen after an amount of time. TTRPG worlds are a living, evolving landscape. It's a concept some folks have a hard time grasping.
I blame Diablo for starting this trend ;)
I took this and ran with it... over here:
http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=666448#post666448
I like how much people here lack selfawareness.
Here is a hint:
There is just as much system snobbery here as there is on rpg.net, the only difference is what game it is.
I just wish both sides would just shut up and enjoy their games and stop trying to shit on anyone having fun.
"LOL LOL MMO GENERATION DON'T GET RPGS THEY JUST WANT PHAT LOOTS LOL" Yeah, that shit is real awesome and mature.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;666489I just wish both sides would just shut up and enjoy their games and stop trying to shit on anyone having fun.
.
Pot, meet kettle
Quote from: Sacrosanct;666493Pot, meet kettle
I hope you aren't referring to me. I don't think I've made a single post on either site shitting on any game. I talk about games I like. Games I don't like, I just don't CARE about.
Unless you think telling people to stop being killjoys is being a killjoy.
In which case I'm very confused.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;666504I hope you aren't referring to me. .
Yes, yes it was, because right after you just got done bitching about snobbery, you posted
Quote"LOL LOL MMO GENERATION DON'T GET RPGS THEY JUST WANT PHAT LOOTS LOL" Yeah, that shit is real awesome and mature
I found that pretty ironic, especially since it was literally the next sentence you said after telling everyone to shut up. Seeing as how that wasn't what I said, but rather a paraphrase with hyperbole turned up to 11, followed immediately by "real mature", I found your post quite ironic and a bit hypocritical
Quote from: Emperor Norton;666489"LOL LOL MMO GENERATION DON'T GET RPGS THEY JUST WANT PHAT LOOTS LOL" Yeah, that shit is real awesome and mature.
Go weigh in on that other thread I started. It needs conflict. :)
Quote from: Sacrosanct;666505I found that pretty ironic, especially since it was literally the next sentence you said after telling everyone to shut up. Seeing as how that wasn't what I said, but rather a paraphrase with hyperbole turned up to 11, followed immediately by "real mature", I found your post quite ironic and a bit hypocritical
Dude, I'm just tired of the "people who enjoy games I don't like just don't understand the beauty of the games I play/don't understand roleplaying/dont understand ____" bullshit. If that wasn't what you were doing, whatever, but if you are going to act like that isn't a meme on this site, then I don't know what to say.
You people are over here doing the same bullshit that they are. Pretending that the way they play is some kind of grossly inferior hobby that is unfun and should be unfun to everyone and if they enjoy it they are fundamentally flawed human beings.
That's the thing, they are wrong, too. The only thing that matters is that the table is enjoying what they are doing. Nothing else. How it gets there really doesn't matter.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;666509Pretending that the way they play is some kind of grossly inferior hobby that is unfun and should be unfun to everyone and if they enjoy it they are fundamentally flawed human beings..
Show me where I've done that. What I have said, is that people should play whatever game they want. I've said that people can hate whatever edition they want if it doesn't work with their preference. I've also discussed the difference in gaming preferences over the years, and reasons why that may be (using MMOs as an example to draw parallels with). I have not said, "people who play MMOs and like that style in RPGs are mentally broken." The worst I've said is that there are concepts to role-playing that they don't seem to be grasping based upon their exhibited behavior.
The key difference here is that those people HAVE said that anyone who doesn't like 4e is "broken" because any other edition is objectively worse in x, y, and z areas. The key difference is that those people are actively making up reasons that don't exist in non-4e versions to say how horrible it is and how they are all victimized. The key difference is that it's not a random one off poster or two who are making these claims. Not only are they extremely rampant over there, they are endorsed and encouraged by the moderation staff.
Those are pretty significant differences, so if you say this site is "just as bad", then you are either objectively wrong, or I'm sure you'll provide quotes of us doing the exact same type of behavior you're pointing out.
What Emperor said.
I wonder if ina real life table the snobbery and one-true-wayism would prevail. I suspect not. I think its an internet thing.
I think the disconnect Sacrosanct is that I wasn't directly addressing you. If I hit you with a brush that doesn't describe you (and it sounds like it doesn't), then I apologize.
And don't tell me you've never seen one of Benoist's "They don't understand what makes RPGs great" rants.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;666517I think the disconnect Sacrosanct is that I wasn't directly addressing you. If I hit you with a brush that doesn't describe you (and it sounds like it doesn't), then I apologize.
And don't tell me you've never seen one of Benoist's "They don't understand what makes RPGs great" rants.
I know that there have been posters here who have gone on such rants. I won't deny that. But we don't start threads like, "Tell me the fundamental problems of 4e."
The comparison is like stepping in a puddle versus jumping in a lake.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;666519I know that there have been posters here who have gone on such rants. I won't deny that. But we don't start threads like, "Tell me the fundamental problems of 4e."
The comparison is like stepping in a puddle versus jumping in a lake.
It's the difference between disliking a game (perhaps strongly) and spending hours upon hours talking about it.
I'll revise what I said:
While they are jackoffs, this site isn't immune to the same bug. There is a reason I post here more than there. Its not AS bad. But the idea that this site never goes off the deep end of edition warring is kind of false.
Also, as a small note: I don't read the d20 boards on RPG.net as much, because I really am not a D&D fan. So it is possible that I miss more of their bullshit and see more of the bullshit here.
Post threads you want to happen, Norton. I only see you whine about us being unjust grognards.
Quote from: silva;666514What Emperor said.
I wonder if ina real life table the snobbery and one-true-wayism would prevail. I suspect not. I think its an internet thing.
before the internet, it was a fanzine letter thing. I've never seen the arguments on online rpg forums come up with a RL game group in practice. OTOH, people are more or less satisfied with certain games, but generally they wont talk about it, they'll either stop playing, look for another group, or get kicked out of a group.
I've always had the impression that most of the more vocal extremists about "badwrongfun" and "correct design" generally don't play much. Or, in some cases, they play with their mom or like one friend, where the game remains more a selfish affair revolving around that one person's tastes. There's one game designer who threw a big stink about how his homebrew was the bestgame ever and all other game designs were inferior (sound familiar?), on rpgnet, who got kicked off in a predictably timely manner. Anyways, looed his game up online and found links to a couple hundred youtube videos of him playing his game with his mother and, funnily enough, what appeared to be a homeless guy. As he ran the game he talked constantly about how he created the system, why, and constantly looked for reinforcement about how cool & imaginative he was.
That kind of experience is millions of miles apart from the gatherings of friends on game night I'm used to.
Quote from: Rincewind1;666541Post threads you want to happen, Norton. I only see you whine about us being unjust grognards.
I'll admit, I'm a fairly quiet person in general in places where I'm not as well known. I don't speak up a lot unless I see things that annoy me.
I could indeed post more. But while I enjoy reading this site, I don't think my playstyle really matches the culture of this site.
I don't like old school D&D (honestly, I don't like D&D as a whole), I don't like BRP, I play mostly newer games (though I have a love of a lot of older SETTINGS, I really really like the setting of Cyberpunk 2020, but I found the rules just kind of awful) and since I'm not into old school D&D, I'm not much into OSR either (though I have Stars without Number, and it was interesting enough).
I don't consider narrative games a threat to all RPGs, I don't think they are evil, just a different way to play, though if someone doesn't like them that's fine. I enjoy MHRP and Fate (even the "narrativist" aspects parts). And I can play in character in both without any trouble. I find mechanics interesting and enjoy rulesets, and I appreciate my players actually knowing how to play the game.
I don't play the way a lot of people on this site do, and I'm OK with that. While I find a lot of conversation here interesting, I doubt many people here would find what I have to say interesting, or worse yet, I would be labelled a troll for daring to call MHRP an RPG, or saying that I can play the game in character, rather than it just be a legitimate belief based on actual play experience.
I do think I will attempt to post more though, just so people can get some other part of my personality than "annoyed".
Quote from: Rincewind1;666541Post threads you want to happen, Norton. I only see you whine about us being unjust grognards.
Funny, you a grognard.
Quote from: Sommerjon;666616Funny, you a grognard.
Seriously?!
I'm ignoring you until you learn to write.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;666412The only difference between slam and deep wound is that slam is melee only, and imposes disadvantage. Only an idiot would bring up extra AC because slam doesn't grant extra AC. Nothing about that maneuver gives a bonus to AC over anyone else who happens to be using shield.
Also, seeing as how you can only use ED a few times per encounter, you're also mistaken about how often ranged vs. melee comes up in combat in re: to the importance of the maneuver. I'm assuming that you, like most Next whiners, haven't actually played it. Otherwise you'd know that you can't just keep using that maneuver over and over.
For example, many times (in all editions) encounters start at some sort of range. Someone with deep wound instead of slam allows the fighter to throw an axe, spear, javelin whatever with extra damage right off the bat when the encounter starts before they get within melee, possibly taking out an enemy before the get a chance to attack you. With slam, you have to wait until you close into melee first.
Point is, they all have advantages and one isn't clearly better than the other. And the uber point that I was making was that the argument of "fighters will always use ED to increase damage because it's always the better choice" is flawed and false. I already gave two examples why. I'm just angry with myself that I allowed you to draw me into your red herring because your supposes disagreement didn't actually have anything to do with what I was saying.
You're bitching about the spreadsheet dps crowd but don't understand what makes them tick, You're making assumptions based on your ideas and not theirs.
I am amused by you declarations of why they are clueless.
You call my musings a red herring lets look at the bullshit you posted up.
"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 big checkmate move needs:
you to have a dexterity of 11 or higher
you to have a feat
you to have the Parry option
you to roll for bonus AC and have them miss
you to spend your reaction to gain 'seize the advantage'
vs.
you need the Deep Wounds or Slam option
you need to hit to roll extra damage
You called Slam stupid because you have to be in melee to do it. Well Socrates let's gander at "Seize the Advantage" (for others who don't know it's a Feat) then
Prerequisite: Dexterity 11 or higherBenefit: When a creature
within 5 feet of you misses you with a melee attack, you can use your reaction to gain advantage on your next attack against that creature before the end of your next turn.
So I'm throwing red herrings because Slam has to be done in melee, yet the brillianceness is awe inspiring?
See Deep Wounds doesn't require a shield so Mr. Greatswordman can use just as easily as Mr. Longswordman, but Mr Greatswordsman cannot use Slam and that gives me an AC boost.
See Slam does one of them there thingies you were talking about, helps protect the group because, wait for it...it gives disadvantage to the opponent. Deep Wounds doesn't.
Just think what could happen if you were playing a halfling fighter who used a shield, took slam as an option and had the Seize the Advantage feat.
See then you could attack(if you hit) Slam, giving the opponent disadvantage, then since he has a much better chance of missing you the next round you can 'seize the advantage and get advantage on your next swing. But we can't do something like that here that is too much like munchkinpowergameybullshitness, no, here we are supposed to ask the Dm if it's possible to swing with our shield and hope against hope that it can cause something to happen.
The solution is not to play such a stupid fucking system with such stupid fucking people, as people learn when they achieve basic social skills and literacy.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;666597I'll admit, I'm a fairly quiet person in general in places where I'm not as well known. I don't speak up a lot unless I see things that annoy me.
I could indeed post more. But while I enjoy reading this site, I don't think my playstyle really matches the culture of this site.
I don't like old school D&D (honestly, I don't like D&D as a whole), I don't like BRP, I play mostly newer games (though I have a love of a lot of older SETTINGS, I really really like the setting of Cyberpunk 2020, but I found the rules just kind of awful) and since I'm not into old school D&D, I'm not much into OSR either (though I have Stars without Number, and it was interesting enough).
I don't consider narrative games a threat to all RPGs, I don't think they are evil, just a different way to play, though if someone doesn't like them that's fine. I enjoy MHRP and Fate (even the "narrativist" aspects parts). And I can play in character in both without any trouble. I find mechanics interesting and enjoy rulesets, and I appreciate my players actually knowing how to play the game.
I don't play the way a lot of people on this site do, and I'm OK with that. While I find a lot of conversation here interesting, I doubt many people here would find what I have to say interesting, or worse yet, I would be labelled a troll for daring to call MHRP an RPG, or saying that I can play the game in character, rather than it just be a legitimate belief based on actual play experience.
I do think I will attempt to post more though, just so people can get some other part of my personality than "annoyed".
Ok, I will support that MHRP is an rpg, and that when I played it I was quite able to play in character.