Quote from: Eric Diaz on September 19, 2023, 02:57:10 PM

Can you trip an ooze? 3e says no, 4e says yes, 5e says "not really but maybe a snake?". For me, 3e has the best approach here.

For me they are al wrong.  Too many rules in place of a GM with a brain.  What kind of person who looks at what an ooze is cannot figure out if it can be tripped?

I feel like OSR is built more around rulings, whereas 3e-5e rely on rules but do so questionably. Like, they aren't simulationist enough to model accurately, but they try to model anyway. And that leads to bad or nonsensical outcomes, from time to time.

You've described every single game that's ever been published. It actually takes more than a handful of dice to model things accurately. Then, even when you have a perfectly accurate model (aka natural law) you still get bad or nonsensical* outcomes from time to time. I put an asterisk there because it's not actually possible to get nonsensical outcomes in the real world, but it's very common to not understand how the outcome makes sense. You can't be "simulationist enough" because nobody wants to fork out cash for an Ansys license to play elf games.

Don't get me wrong, I understand why people value simulationism. You want the rules of your game to make coherent sense and build a somewhat believable framework for the world the game will take place in. Up to a certain point, simulationism is very important, but past that point it becomes masturbatory in nature.

So much easier to run and play prowlers, and more fun as well. Thank God I moved on from d&d.

Failed reading comprehension on this post, can't see any delete option

Quote from: Domina on September 21, 2023, 10:46:48 PM
So much easier to run and play prowlers, and more fun as well. Thank God I moved on from d&d.

Yes, I'm sure those that play D&D are too thanking God you moved on

Quote from: Scooter on September 22, 2023, 08:46:45 AM

Quote from: Domina on September 21, 2023, 10:46:48 PM
So much easier to run and play prowlers, and more fun as well. Thank God I moved on from d&d.

Yes, I'm sure those that play D&D are too thanking God you moved on

nice cope lol

Quote from: Eric Diaz on September 19, 2023, 02:57:10 PM
Can you trip an ooze? 3e says no, 4e says yes, 5e says "not really but maybe a snake?". For me, 3e has the best approach here.

To be fair to 4E, it's exception-based design worked a bit differently than the other editions.

Instead of making "you can't use this on oozes" a quality of trip and wind rush, and "kneel before Zod", they made "immune to the prone condition" as a quality of oozes.

So, while in 4E there was nothing stopping you from using abilities that could knock things prone on an ooze, it's immunity meant the prone part wouldn't work.

It also meant that you didn't have to go through every potential ability with prone as part to make sure they all had "doesn't work on oozes" because the exception to the rule was attached to the exception (i.e. you can try to trip most things, but not oozes).

Also note thar several types of oozes that weren't particularly mobile in prior editions got reassigned as "terrain features" (ex. green slime, yellow mold, etc.) and those can't be tripped either.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on September 19, 2023, 02:57:10 PM
With that said, I agree that 3e and 5e are very different systems, in several ways.

And 4e is its own thing, of course.

3e is very "simulationist"/concrete (fiction over mechanics), while 4e leans on the abstract nature of grids/powers (mechanics over fiction), and 5e walks a middle road.

Can you trip an ooze? 3e says no, 4e says yes, 5e says "not really but maybe a snake?". For me, 3e has the best approach here.

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2017/02/tripping-oozes-in-d-3e-versus-4e-versus.html

You could flip a snake on its back, and that could represent prone, maybe... but yeah I agree that it's generally about whether you're treating it like common sense where the fictional situation comes first versus a sort of card game where the game is really about the intersection of powers and the roleplaying is just a window dressing on top of it.

I distinctly remember the day I quit running 3.x.  I was making an adventure for some level 1 characters and I spent 30 minutes deliberating where to place the skill points on a goblin chief.

This Goblin would probably only see about 3-5 combat rounds of life, maybe a little more than that if the party engages in smack talk.  It seemed like such a waste of time.  That Goblin chief was one hell of a carpenter though.  If he had lived, he may have turned his life around.

Quote from: Svenhelgrim on September 24, 2023, 07:18:27 AM
I distinctly remember the day I quit running 3.x.  I was making an adventure for some level 1 characters and I spent 30 minutes deliberating where to place the skill points on a goblin chief.

This Goblin would probably only see about 3-5 combat rounds of life, maybe a little more than that if the party engages in smack talk.  It seemed like such a waste of time.  That Goblin chief was one hell of a carpenter though.  If he had lived, he may have turned his life around.

If I was running that I wouldn't even bother picking the skill. I know it's not going to come up in combat so why bother?

Quote from: Svenhelgrim on September 24, 2023, 07:18:27 AM
I distinctly remember the day I quit running 3.x.  I was making an adventure for some level 1 characters and I spent 30 minutes deliberating where to place the skill points on a goblin chief.

This Goblin would probably only see about 3-5 combat rounds of life, maybe a little more than that if the party engages in smack talk.  It seemed like such a waste of time.  That Goblin chief was one hell of a carpenter though.  If he had lived, he may have turned his life around.

Greetings!

I hear you, my friend! Yes, while as the DM, we can *wave* so many things such as giving Skill Points to a Goblin Chief that is likely going to be turned into hamburger meat faster than you can get through a Grab Bag of Cheetos--*Laughing*--there is still this *dynamic* in 3E, I suppose from a variety of sources, that constantly push and prod you to be thorough and complete in creating everything. I also think that the dynamic is both conscious, and unconscious, in sources and motivation.

I frequently found myself as I worked on campaign stuff, rapidly sucked into devoting ungodly amounts of time towards detailing...far too many things, people, and creatures in ways that simply proved to be a colossal albeit inadvertent waste of my time and energy.

I played Rolemaster for *years*--of which Monte Cook was a lead writer for ICE's Rolemaster modules and rules for *years*--and the influences of Rolemaster can be seen all over 3E D&D. I LOVE detail, and depth--and yet, I learned through long suffering and misplaced frustration to surrender and embrace the deeper truth.

FAST. SIMPLE. BRUTAL--is the way to go, my friend. In my mind, it is a deep truth, and the ultimate crucible that reigns in game design. I don't always like it--but it is like women. It just *IS*. It is true, whether we like it or not.

Light up a fine cigar in memory of the fantastic times we had though with 3E!

I can admit, Svenhelgrim, that it took me *Years* to finally come to that truth and embrace it fully.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

This might be a useful thread to peruse...

https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/3e-side-by-side-battle-pathfinder-dd-3-5-fantasy-craft-walk-into-the-thunderdome/