Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1030231I mean, what is the point of having monster ecology if story telling is not a part of the game? I see none if there is no practical application for game play.

What is the point of having hit points and death conditions if your character can't die?

Because context is cool. Nobody cares about your shitty fanfiction you write on some slashfic site that nobody reads.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1030190I write CYOA stories, or "quests", on the internet. I make the story up as I go along. I let anonymous commentators decide which direction to take the story based on the actions of the protagonist. I use chance to determine the outcome of actions with multiple outcomes.

If the protagonist died because of chance, then the entire adventure comes to a screeching halt. I have to contrive the possible outcomes so that death is not one of them, or show a death scene and then go back to the choices so a new one that does not lead to death may be selected, or have the protagonist come back to life (and write the CYOA about that). I cannot let the protagonist die (permanently) unless the story is resolved first, or I will get a bad reputation and nobody will be interested in my quests.

I take that same attitude into tabletop, because the point is to have fun. Unless the campaign is an afterlife romp or the PCs are spontaneously generated by the dungeon itself, characters are not going to die at random and force detours into the afterlife or replacements to come out of the woodwork. In a more comedic campaign where death really is trivial I'd probably let the PCs challenge each other to see who can die the coolest.

Which is fine for you and your needs. Do you understand how divergent those needs are from... well, pretty much anyone else on an RPG-centric forum?

QuoteThere are orders of magnitude more people playing free-form CYOA quests on the internet than people playing tabletop RPGs.

This is the first time I've ever heard of such things being a thing (CYOA, I knew existed, I mean a whole online-community and the like. Do they have somewhere where they reference how many people worldwide play, or is this just your personal impression?

QuoteI think that is for the better, really. You would not believe the crazy and creative stuff that goes on in the Anon-kun quests. Tabletop just feels so boring in comparison, which is why I added places like Candyland and Morteville to my campaign.

Good for them (and you) for finding their passion. Better has nothing to do with it. I'm happy for board game aficionados who have found their passion too. And people who like to host 'murder mystery' dinners. And people who like to dress up as superheroes and go to conventions. Divergent hobbies are all great and (aside from competing for attention-time amongst those with multiple interests) not in competition with each other.

QuoteThat is totally what I think. If death is common, then it is so trivial you might as well not have it. Going through PCs like tissues is just annoying. If death is rare, then it should be campaign changing when it does happen (even becoming the focus of the campaign).

Which version of death are you using? The "tough luck" option is by far the most annoying. Particularly in my campaign, where I allow creative characters like a faceless dude trying to recover his face, a soul bound into a suit of armor, or an elf barbarian. Unceremoniously killing them off with dice is just mean-spirited.

It shouldn't be common because after an adjustment period, and the first few levels, characters are resilient. And honestly, death does not have to be the lose-state (see Ghostbusters RPG, where death isn't really on the table), but if the RPG is to stay a game, then there ought to be a lose-state. That's not mean-spirited, it is an even, fair, and reasonable method of meting out success.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1030223D&D has no rules for creating a "soul bound armor," so the fact that's AngryGM's go-to example should tell you that he's going against D&D's design.

There isn't any soul bound armor in the article. I think BoxCrayonTales is describing his own campaign.

Paizo has an article up about the Fighter:

http://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lkm9?Fighter-Class-Preview

Highlights (lowlights):

-Once again, pretty much everything you'd expect a fighter to be able to do, like be useful with a shield, move and attack
-They're loading up the action economy with exceptions and trip conditions and other bullshit
-Wayne Reynolds likes pointy things

I like what I see. Still better tha  whst a PF1 Fighter can do imo. Thst being said it might change before the rules go to print.

Quote from: sureshot;1030351I like what I see. Still better tha  whst a PF1 Fighter can do imo. Thst being said it might change before the rules go to print.

That still doesn't make the class a good combatant.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1030354That still doesn't make the class a good combatant.

At this point any extras given to the Fighter make the class better imo.

I like the fact they are sticking to the system's roots and are keeping in the super-hero-dnd-after-level-15 element.
We don't need another old schoolish dnd version we already have 5e and a plethora of systems for that.
They also are trying to fix the clw problem, the martial characters can't compete with spellcasters problem and this is admirable in my book, these are problems that have plagued 3rd edition (mind you not other older editions of dnd so much) for quite some time and this shows they are aware of them and trying to fix them.
They also seem to have an awareness of the scaling problems in dnd 3.0 and are trying to fix those too. (Dnd 3.0 every level counts much much more than in older editions so variance in CR is much more like to utterly destroy the party and also certain numbers go a bit too out of wack at high levels.)
In general I like what I am seeing and I have faith in certain developers like Mark Seifter.

All that said the problem with complex rpg's is that its very difficult to predict what going to happen once the tire hits the road. Pathfinder 2.0, even if streamlined and easier to play, will be complex enough that I doubt that paizo despite having many talented people will manage to avoid big pitfalls, but we shall see...

I predict that 2e will fail. The entire reason that PF got such traction was because it supported 3e when 4e alienated the community. Now that 5e is one giant apology for 4e, and tries to attract fans of OSR and 3e alike, there is no place for PF anymore.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1030333Paizo has an article up about the Fighter:

http://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lkm9?Fighter-Class-Preview

Highlights (lowlights):

-Once again, pretty much everything you'd expect a fighter to be able to do, like be useful with a shield, move and attack
-They're loading up the action economy with exceptions and trip conditions and other bullshit
-Wayne Reynolds likes pointy things

The main good thing about this is that attack of opportunity is only a class feature for the Fighter, not a general combat rule.  I can see the rationale behind it, but if I were to GM later D&D or PF, I would just toss AoO.  I can't tell you how many times one of my fellow players throws up her hands because the DM dicks her over with that thing.

Now that I think of it, I ran Against the Giants for that group recently, and I don't think I used opportunity attack once.

JG

Quote from: James Gillen;1030477The main good thing about this is that attack of opportunity is only a class feature for the Fighter, not a general combat rule.  I can see the rationale behind it, but if I were to GM later D&D or PF, I would just toss AoO.  I can't tell you how many times one of my fellow players throws up her hands because the DM dicks her over with that thing.

As I currently understand it, every martial class can make AoO, its just what can trigger it depends on the class: So a Paladin can currently make an AoO on anyone who crits on someone they are defending. It basically sounds similar to 4ed Marking from what I can tell.

AoO was "solved" with the introduction of the disengage action. Very elegant and tactical.

I think on balance the whole idea of the opp att as a standard feature is a bit silly - I noticed this running Pathfinder Beginner Box, that not having it at all made for a better game. And as Lindybeige has pointed out, the opp att is pretty unrealistic too. IRL people get killed fleeing when chased and run down, not at the moment they flee. Readied actions handle the "stab him if he tries to run past me" tactic just fine.

I guess with 5e allowing move-attack-move it may be a necessary limiter on that tactic, but systems that only allow move+attack or attack+move don't need it. Especially 3e/PF with the "double move + attack" charge action, ideal for cutting down those fleeing the field.

Quote from: S'mon;1030530I guess with 5e allowing move-attack-move it may be a necessary limiter on that tactic, but systems that only allow move+attack or attack+move don't need it. Especially 3e/PF with the "double move + attack" charge action, ideal for cutting down those fleeing the field.

Unless they turn a corner or just drop something to make a square difficult terrain!

I agree that AOOs aren't a perfect solution that can get messy, but I do think that they do a decent job of solving a potential problem... so long as everyone remembers when they're triggered.