|
CuddlyZombie posted:Welp I just wantered into TGD after staying in YCS TG threads and drat this is a good thread. So, this week's Weekend Web (http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=2436) on SomethingAwful.com features the Megatokyo forums. Now, I'm really not a fan of Megatokyo. The author's incessant bitching and angsting and perverse Japanophilia really doesn't make me like it. But goddamn, making fun of Megatokyo forumites for using l33t-speak? Way to miss the point, guys. ... did you see the stuff on PG-13, and the Bloody Mary boards? some wierd and messed up boards those are. I stopped reading after the Megatokyo stuff. I was looking forward to some good, solid mockery of Fred Gallagher and his ilk, and instead I was treated to mockery of people who use l33t-speak and the author taking what even I could tell was a forum in-joke at face value. It's the equivalent of coming to RPGnet Tangency and mocking us for referring to things in RPG terms ("Tom Cruise made up for his low acting stat by rolling a critical in 'Collateral'") and for having Kumatars. SA constantly refers to Fark.com as the younger brother of the Internet. With the declining quality of Photoshop Phriday and Comedy Goldmine, and the increasingly stupid front pages, SA is fast becoming the younger-brother-who's-just-turned-17-and-discovered-that-he-can-mock-the-highschool geeks-and-the-popular-kids-at-the-same-time-and-still-get-laughs of the internet. http://forum.rpg.net/archive/index.php/t-152431.html
|
| # ? Mar 26, 2009 01:28 |
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2013 13:10 |
|
clockworkjoe posted:ahaha rpg.net is the gift that keeps on giving
|
| # ? Mar 26, 2009 01:30 |
|
clockworkjoe posted:http://forum.rpg.net/archive/index.php/t-152431.html You missed a very important guest speaker in that thread: happyelf 10-20-2004, 01:27 AM So, [url=http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=2436]But goddamn, making fun of Megatokyo forumites for using l33t-speak? Way to miss the point, guys.Um, it doens't matter if it's meant to be satire in some clever way, it's still retarded and stupidly overdone. happyelf 10-20-2004, 08:02 AM No more than anything else on RPG.net. Look at the reoccuring in-jokes around here:No, not really, a large number of people using leet-speak in this day and age is much worse than those examples. I mean, leet predates AYB.It's not about l33t-speak being used ironically. It's a direct reference to the comic. One of the characters speaks in l33t constantly.Again, that doesn't make doing it any less retarded or worthy of contempt. ManMythLegend fucked around with this message at Mar 26, 2009 around 03:13 |
| # ? Mar 26, 2009 03:11 |
|
I've been wanting to write a game based on Yotsuba-to! for a while. A "fantasy of perfect childhood" game, basically. That seems like a good idea. I've also wanted to make a game that can be played one player or more. So you have the Girl. She's five, not yet in kindergarten, and totally into everything. She goes out, meets friends, and has adventures. You have the Dad, who the girl tells about her adventures and sometimes goes with her. You have Friends, who vary by adventure. Basic adventure should be "go to a place, do several activities, go home." You should be able to have scary things happen and also to fail at some things, but not at everything. Failure should be a chance for more role-play, not less. If you have one player, you have the Girl, alone, going out on an adventure. If you have two players, you have the Girl and her Dad when she's at home, the Girl and one Friend when she's away. With three or more players, the Dad can come along or can change roles so you can have more than one Friend at once. Something which worked well in my game about ninja's is questioning about the environment. We'll submit to patriarchal authority and say that the Dad player also gets to answer questions about the environment, and other people answer questions about their internal world. The Dad's internal world is mysterious. For the one player, of course, the one player has to do all the asking and answer herself. ![]() oh moon land~
|
| # ? Mar 26, 2009 22:09 |
|
Naar posted:creepy japanese 4chan poo poo whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
|
| # ? Mar 26, 2009 22:24 |
|
I recently received a call from a friend who was all excited about the upcoming release of 4th edition Dungeons and Dragons. Since I have not gotten my hands on a rule book yet (well OK no one has except maybe some play testers) I can't talk about the quality of the game or the mechanics in the game. What I can talk about is Wizards of the Coast and their transparent attempts to empty our pockets. Don't get me wrong I do not begrudge anyone making money. I have happily spent hundreds of dollars a year on gaming supplements for most of my life, and I hope the companies I spend money on succeed because they are producing products I enjoy. What I am talking about is how WotC has started the disturbing trend of releasing a new version of D&D every three or four years. First they released 3rd Edition in 2000. The game was flawed from the start. It was less than a month after it came out that the group I played with started making up house rules to repair its inadequacies. Three years later they released version 3.5 which "fixed" the flawed system. The worst thing is many of the things that were fixed had to have been discovered in play testing if we discovered them in less than a month of play. You will not be able to convince me they didn’t know the original 3.0 was flawed. Then they started re-printing all the books they had released to date upgraded for 3.5. This was nothing more than programmed obsolescence in my opinion. They sucked us in to 3rd edition… then "fixed" it so we would buy all the books for it twice. And now that D&D 3.5 is going strong they announce that 4th edition is on the horizon. Other than there being WAY too many books out for it to keep track of D&D 3.5 is fine as it is. There is no need of a 4th Edition, and this is just another attempt to sucker us all into buying the books we already own for a third time! They will just be revamped as 4th Edition. I personally do not intend to spend one penny on 4th edition, and I strongly suggest everyone else do the same (or not do the same as the case may be). There are better games out there than D&D anyway, or keep playing 3rd edition if you like it. Just because WotC is releasing a new edition does not mean we should buy into it. It makes me sick to see my fellow gamer geeks taken advantage of, and I hate Wizards of the Coast for ripping us off. I gave up giving WotC money for Magic the Gathering a long time ago because I realized that it was just a trap designed to get more and more of my money. Now they are doing the same thing with D&D and I do not intend to let them take advantage of me. 4th Edition is specifically being released to make all our old stuff obsolete, and I’m not falling for it. Once again proof Wizard’s of the Coast is Evil! The Wal-mart of the gaming Industry!
|
| # ? Mar 26, 2009 22:50 |
|
My gaming group tried out 4th edition - we've nicknamed it Wizardhammer 40K. I wanted to give it a chance before I made up my mind about it. So far, I see no redeeming features. The ONLY thing I liked is the setup for races. The addition of the dragonborn and tiefling give players who like monstrous characters something to pick from that you can play at first level with no crazy ECL. Outside of that - nothing. The spellcasting system castrates wizards, and the clerics' uniform abilities regardless of diety take the fun out of playing one. Plus, healing surges for all classes take away one of the major support roles for the cleric. The fighter gets screwed because you can only use things like Cleave once in an encounter, and once you've declared it, it's used whether you land the hit or not. The ritual system that allows any class to cast if they take the rituals feat also sucks because the expense and time for each of the rituals makes them useless in game. AND last but not least (for this rant anyway), the action points system in 4th edition is quite odd. In Eberron it was easy to figure out how many action points you had, and when and how they could be used. For 4th, apparently, you only really ever have one. Sure, you can get an additional action point after 2 encounters, but by then you've most likely spent the one you had before, so - you get one. You might as well just take 6 hours off in game and call it good. Eesh. I think I'm sticking with 3.5. Never ever wanna play Wizardhammer again. Ever.
|
| # ? Mar 26, 2009 22:52 |
|
Red_Mage posted:My gaming group tried out 4th edition - we've nicknamed it Wizardhammer 40K. I wanted to give it a chance before I made up my mind about it. So far, I see no redeeming features. The ONLY thing I liked is the setup for races. The addition of the dragonborn and tiefling give players who like monstrous characters something to pick from that you can play at first level with no crazy ECL. Outside of that - nothing. The spellcasting system castrates wizards, and the clerics' uniform abilities regardless of diety take the fun out of playing one. Plus, healing surges for all classes take away one of the major support roles for the cleric. The fighter gets screwed because you can only use things like Cleave once in an encounter, and once you've declared it, it's used whether you land the hit or not. The ritual system that allows any class to cast if they take the rituals feat also sucks because the expense and time for each of the rituals makes them useless in game. AND last but not least (for this rant anyway), the action points system in 4th edition is quite odd. In Eberron it was easy to figure out how many action points you had, and when and how they could be used. For 4th, apparently, you only really ever have one. Sure, you can get an additional action point after 2 encounters, but by then you've most likely spent the one you had before, so - you get one. You might as well just take 6 hours off in game and call it good. Eesh. I think I'm sticking with 3.5. Never ever wanna play Wizardhammer again. Ever. ahaha cleave only once in an encounter
|
| # ? Mar 26, 2009 22:58 |
|
Red_Mage posted:I recently received a call from a friend who was all excited about the upcoming release of 4th edition Dungeons and Dragons. Since I have not gotten my hands on a rule book yet (well OK no one has except maybe some play testers) I can't talk about the quality of the game or the mechanics in the game. What I can talk about is Wizards of the Coast and their transparent attempts to empty our pockets. Don't get me wrong I do not begrudge anyone making money. I have happily spent hundreds of dollars a year on gaming supplements for most of my life, and I hope the companies I spend money on succeed because they are producing products I enjoy. What I am talking about is how WotC has started the disturbing trend of releasing a new version of D&D every three or four years. It's funny because 4e ended up being so radically different from 3.5. I also loved how he said he was glad to pay hundreds of dollars and suddenly it was a problem. Red_Mage posted:My gaming group tried out 4th edition - we've nicknamed it Wizardhammer 40K. I wanted to give it a chance before I made up my mind about it. So far, I see no redeeming features. The ONLY thing I liked is the setup for races. The addition of the dragonborn and tiefling give players who like monstrous characters something to pick from that you can play at first level with no crazy ECL. Outside of that - nothing. The spellcasting system castrates wizards, and the clerics' uniform abilities regardless of diety take the fun out of playing one. Plus, healing surges for all classes take away one of the major support roles for the cleric. The fighter gets screwed because you can only use things like Cleave once in an encounter, and once you've declared it, it's used whether you land the hit or not. The ritual system that allows any class to cast if they take the rituals feat also sucks because the expense and time for each of the rituals makes them useless in game. AND last but not least (for this rant anyway), the action points system in 4th edition is quite odd. In Eberron it was easy to figure out how many action points you had, and when and how they could be used. For 4th, apparently, you only really ever have one. Sure, you can get an additional action point after 2 encounters, but by then you've most likely spent the one you had before, so - you get one. You might as well just take 6 hours off in game and call it good. Eesh. I think I'm sticking with 3.5. Never ever wanna play Wizardhammer again. Ever. I bet he felt witty for coming up with "wizardhammer" Edit: I concur on the Cleave thing. did he even read the book? RagnarokAngel fucked around with this message at Mar 27, 2009 around 00:52 |
| # ? Mar 27, 2009 00:48 |
|
Haha, I love the whole "fighters get royally hosed in 4e so I'm going back to 3.5e now" vibe.
|
| # ? Mar 27, 2009 01:37 |
|
... "All things 4th Edition go here! This is specifically for 4e rules/ suggestions/ gameplay talk. Anything general D&D goes above." Underlying assumption - The above statement includes negative takes on 4.0 as they're still a part of 4.0 things, and this post specifically covers the rules and gameplay to some extent. I did not post it in general because general excludes 4.0. If you don't like anti 4.0 content hit your back button now. You have been warned. Basically, D&D has moved out of the niche that they could easily secure and not compete with much to try to compete with something they cannot possibly compete with, namely hack and slash video games. After all, hack and slash video games come with pretty graphics and do the math for you, so it's flat out impossible for any pen and paper system to do it better. What makes tabletop into its own niche is the everything else - creativity, roleplay, etc. Now, 4.0 completely ceases to make any sense whatsoever the moment you stop thinking of it as a video game. For example, you are expected to take at least 5 minutes off between every battle to recover your 'encounter' powers, heal your little scratches with healing surges, and so forth. If you assume that enemies are remotely intelligent and therefore can hear the noise you made and are possibly continuing to make this falls apart - you get interrupted because the whole dungeon is on alert and you die because you're stuck scratching through the rest of the dungeon with your piddly little at wills. If however you assume that the mobs simply have not spawned yet, video game style this makes a twisted sort of sense, as the mob isn't there to be alerted (and yes, my use of MMO terminology is intentional). You can even see hints of this in designer talk, where they say things like the monster exists for 5 rounds. Not is being fought for 5 rounds, exists for 5 rounds. This is used as the reason why the DM should focus on the 'interesting' (read: combat) abilities and not worry about anything else. Then there's rituals, which are a better example. You're expected to stand there chanting for 10 minutes to open a door. This also permanently takes a big bite out of your WBL as WBL no longer accounts for consumables. Nevermind that since Hardness does not exist the Wizard could punch the door down in less time, with the same or less effort, and for free. As an added bonus, if the mobs have spawned and interrupt you you can just pick up right where you left off. This only makes sense if you regard doors as video game like obstacles where you have to get the Blue Key and cannot simply break them down, even if your character is carrying a sword, bombs, a fire rod, and other such implements that could easily handle the job. I could keep going too. Minions (apparently there are entire subspecies that can be OHKOed by housecats, even if the creature is supposed to be pretty tough), and for that matter the other subsets of creature where you get three guys that look exactly the same, except one has 1 HP, one has 100 HP, and one has 250 HP. At least 3.5 doesn't make them look the same, as the second and especially the third guy are loaded down with shiny magic items to glow and such and look much stronger/tougher/smarter... and video games at least swap the color palettes so you can tell these are tougher. The entire skill challenge system. Ignoring how badly they've screwed even that much up, the entire system is what you'd expect to see in a video game that due to hardware limitations cannot handle real roleplaying so they have to improvise and jury rig it. Simply by including this, WotC is insulting every DM that would want to run it by telling them that their brain is incapable of handling actual roleplaying, so here's some jury rigged BS that does not actually work. It also insults any player that would want to play under such a DM for the same reason. Makes sense... unless and until you stop thinking of 4.0 as a video game, then it falls apart. The fact that any and all of the above failings are viewed as features and not bugs by the overzealous fans. Note: 'Overzealous fans' refers specifically to those individuals that freak out and cry edition war or some such nonsense the moment you say anything that might possibly be less than perfectly flattering to 4.0 if you took it in the worst possible way... maybe. Simply liking 4.0 and thereby being a fan of it does not make you an overzealous fan, so if you can actually handle critique of your favored system without whining, this is not directed at you. Entire, essential subsystems are missing. The overzealous fans call this a feature, and decry anyone who (correctly) proves otherwise. Apparently you're supposed to just pull random arbitrary crap out of your rear end, and this is a good thing. Except that there already is a system for that. It's called free form, and as the name implies it costs nothing. Why would anyone choose to pay hundreds of dollars for something that they can get for free? The whole point of buying books is so that someone else is designing the system for you, and you are paying them to devote their time and effort to this instead of your own. The main problem with free form is that it breaks apart the moment the inevitable 'I shot you!' argument comes up. Which brings me to my next point. If I wanted to design my own system, I would do so. I would not buy someone else's system, just to end up making my own anyways. Therefore I would not be in the red financially for something that does not serve its intended purpose and is therefore completely irrelevant. Further, I might actually be in the green as I could potentially market my work and profit from it. Choosing to not lose and possibly make money trumps throwing money out the window any day. And another thing. The moment you try to actually influence the world, it completely falls apart. Just like a video game and its railroading enforced status quo, except you don't even get that much. The much maligned 3.5 Fighter has more ability to affect the world around him than any 4.0 character. Any real character in 3.5 does even better at that. Even if you just think of 4.0 as pure combat and nothing else it doesn't even do combat that well. It creates the illusion of complexity with a bunch of crap like +1 to minor crap you don't care about for 1 round, and all the little bad video game style push and pull crap. But a level 1 Druid with Entangle has a better ability to influence combat than most, if not all of what 4.0 has to offer. The moment characters start getting actual abilities that matter the game explodes. This should not come as a surprise to you, as everyone in 4.0 is a 3.5 Fighter, and the only reason that actually works out is because 'everyone' includes the enemies, so they don't just auto negate you. The fact that a design system is missing critical bits at release is a sign of failure. The fact you have to pay for the patches upgrades said failure to Epic levels. When the system is so critically flawed and missing key bits that it completely falls apart the moment you think of it as an actual world and not just a backdrop for grinding on mobs, you know you have failed as a system and world designer. 4.0 = Epic Fail is Epic. QED. -Crusader of Logic, High Inquisitor of the Church of Logic, primary go between to the Lolcats, Team Evil Captain in good standing, Vulpus Awesomus, Head Designer of Long Pretentious Sounding Titles for the Lulz.
|
| # ? Mar 27, 2009 01:48 |
|
i loving hate anyone and everyone who says QED unironically, they are without exception pretentious assholes and should be punched in the teeth
|
| # ? Mar 27, 2009 02:03 |
|
CoarsestGrate posted:... This post. This post is the greatest post.
|
| # ? Mar 27, 2009 02:17 |
|
CoarsestGrate posted:...Nevermind that since Hardness does not exist the Wizard could punch the door down in less time, with the same or less effort, and for free... I want to punch through the door*flips to index* *looks disgusted*
|
| # ? Mar 27, 2009 02:24 |
|
clockworkjoe posted:I get it. I really do. The mechanics are a mess. They were various degrees of bad under 1ed, and that tradition continued under 2ed. I get that people don't like the setting. They say it's too "small" now, too heavy on metaplot, too many nipple piercings, too many heroin pissing dinosaurs, too many people focusing on the setting without bitching about the mechanics. I get it. This isn't a thread about that. This is a thread about Exalted hate fucks. This is a minus thread for negativity about Exalted. And it's based on one premise:
|
| # ? Mar 27, 2009 02:44 |
|
rpgnet is actually a pretty decent place to discuss exalted once you ignore list everyone with an anime avatar
|
| # ? Mar 27, 2009 02:52 |
|
CoarsestGrate posted:... He simultaneously says 4e has too many rules and not enough in the same argument what the crap is up with these people. Love the sig too.
|
| # ? Mar 27, 2009 02:59 |
|
Odd, rules for HP of doors and things are on page 65 of the DMG. But never let being consistently wrong get in the way of a good rant.
|
| # ? Mar 27, 2009 03:10 |
|
LightWarden posted:Odd, rules for HP of doors and things are on page 65 of the DMG. But never let being consistently wrong get in the way of a good rant. huh so it is. I thought that was too obvious of a thing to miss.
|
| # ? Mar 27, 2009 03:28 |
|
I'm not going to quote anything from this thread but gently caress this thread. Dude who posted it should have been driven out of the forum and instead most everyone plays along.
|
| # ? Mar 27, 2009 08:04 |
|
Mikan posted:I'm not going to quote anything from this thread but gently caress this thread. there are some great trolls though quote:I find that quoting Monty Python always leads to a barrel full of laughs. It's especially important, I think, to lighten the mood when the GM or another player's been attempting to depress us all with an overly serious story.
|
| # ? Mar 27, 2009 13:06 |
|
RagnarokAngel posted:huh so it is. I thought that was too obvious of a thing to miss. Door destroying is a proud D&D tradition
|
| # ? Mar 27, 2009 17:21 |
|
clockworkjoe posted:Door destroying is a proud D&D tradition Well it stands to reason that since 4e is dumbed down for the WoW crowd that they'd just let you automatically break doors down.
|
| # ? Mar 27, 2009 17:59 |
|
We have been playing the 3.5 revision of "Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth", and my group are enjoying it immensely. One of the encounters in the adventure (and I'm sure in the original version) is the corrupted gnome village of Thumbvale. For those not in the know, the village is corrupted by an evil artifact - the Horn of Tharizdun. Driven mad, the village will eventually attack the party. Well, this did not stand and soon the village of Thumbvale in my campaign was a silent ghosttown, a massive gnomish tomb, still save for the rattling of tumbleweeds and the howl of the wind. My group jokingly refers to the event as "The Gnomish Holocaust", and with that in mind, I composed this email after listening to a certain song on the radio (you will quickly desern which one). I found it hilarious, and wanted to share. (the third stanza refers to the party - yes, one is playing a Ghale, and they were given Giant Owls after completing the Red Hand of Doom adventure). quote:Transcription of keynote speech given on the first day of Gnomish History Month
|
| # ? Mar 27, 2009 19:41 |
|
idgi either I am not nerd enough or too nerdy
|
| # ? Mar 27, 2009 20:18 |
|
Fenarisk posted:idgi either I am not nerd enough or too nerdy you're probably plenty nerdy but just not metal enough
|
| # ? Mar 27, 2009 20:29 |
|
would be kinda metal if the rhyming didn't suck and they didn't gently caress with the meter for the uneducated
|
| # ? Mar 27, 2009 21:30 |
|
You'll find lots of gamers who will sing the praises of the Basic Rules published in the early 80s (either 1981's Moldvay version or 1983's Mentzer version) -- and rightly so -- but it's rare to find many who express the same affection for the Expert Rules, whether the Cook/Marsh or Mentzer version. I personally find that a bit odd, because, for me, the Expert Rules are one of those places I can clearly point to and say, "This is what D&D is all about." I'm certain that strikes at least a few people as odd. The Basic Rules introduce not only the rules of the game, but also its default setting: the dungeon. If anything is "what D&D is all about," it's the dungeon and surely the Basic Rules do a far better job of describing that environment and what it's like to play in it than do the Expert Rules, which muddy the waters with all this talk of wilderness adventuring and building strongholds and creating magic items and the like. Right? Well, I'm one of those oddballs who takes seriously the notion that Dungeons & Dragons, despite its name, is actually about more than dungeon delving. After all, OD&D devotes a goodly amount of its sparse verbiage to adventuring in the wilderness -- so much so that the term "sandbox" is every bit as significant for old school play as is "megadungeon." Indeed, OD&D makes it pretty clear that, after a certain point, the focus of the game shifts away from the dungeon and toward establishing and maintaining a "barony." If you read reminiscences of the earliest campaigns in the hobby, such as Blackmoor and Greyhawk, you'll see that this was the case. The Expert Rules present this shift in focus not as an "add-on" or accretion to the Basic Rules but as a natural development of them. Exploring and taming the wilderness, building a castle, and ruling a domain -- these aren't alien to D&D; they're a major part of what the game was intended to be about. This only makes sense, given the origins of the game in wargaming and yet they're topics that got short shrift even in AD&D, never mind later editions. In this sense, I'd say that, for all my issues with the presentation of Cook/Marsh and Mentzer, they're truer to OD&D than were their various descendants. I can't stress this point enough, because I think it's a vital counter-balance to the tendency to see D&D, especially old school D&D, as solely about acquiring ever more power in the service of venality. Not only do I think that tendency does a disservice to D&D's origins, but I also think it exaggerates the themes of pulp fantasy to ludicrous heights. While not every Picaro will eventually settle down, many will, particularly if their players wish to continue playing that character beyond a certain point. The Expert Rules showed how to do that; they were where D&D's endgame was fleshed out and revealed it as the logical extension of all that had gone before. I hesitate to say that the Expert Rules are where Dungeons & Dragons "grows up," because that implies a childishness to dungeon delving that I don't think is appropriate. Nevertheless, the Expert Rules are where D&D grapples with the nature of what it means to have reached high level -- to have "grown up" mechanically -- in a fantasy world. Certainly characters could continue to remain aloof from the world around them, remaining outsiders forever on the make, but how satisfying would that be for their players? The Expert Rules offer up new options of play, things that characters could take up in order both to expand the scope of the game and to ensure that beloved characters can continue to be played even after it no longer makes much sense for them to continue adventuring. These are the rules for King Conan of Aquilonia, as opposed to Conan the wandering Cimmerian. I am ever more convinced that the progressive deformation of the original Gygaxo-Arnesonian vision of the game is due to the loss of D&D's logical endgame and its replacement by vapid alternatives. Only by restoring that endgame can Dungeons & Dragons again become the game it was meant to be.
|
| # ? Mar 28, 2009 14:53 |
|
I guess you can't build castles in Dungeons and Dragons anymore.
|
| # ? Mar 28, 2009 15:08 |
|
Become the game you were meant to be.
|
| # ? Mar 28, 2009 17:37 |
|
The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Games > Traditional Games > TG Discussion: the original Gygaxo-Arnesonian vision People who wax poetic about the original campaigns have no idea why D&D is fun. They are also responsible for the ongoing sales of so much horrible fantasy fiction.
|
| # ? Mar 28, 2009 18:55 |
|
I also like old-style, but I can't claim nostalgia since I didn't start gaming till I was 17 (am now 22). What I like mostly is more of the focus on descriptions rather than mechanics. Example: Player: "How wide is the ledge?" GM: "Maybe 2 inches.." (New School) Player: *seeing the modifiers of the Balance skill for that short a span* "Oh, nevermind, I better find another way across." (Old School) Player: "Okay ... can I press myself up against the cliff face and side-step across?" GM: "Sure. Since you aren't pressured and can take your time, you don't even have to roll anything." (yes, I am aware that other rules exist in the new-school that can circumvent this situation, but that's just it: they are rules, rather than descriptions) In other words, it's more about player (and GM) creativity. I just feel much more of a sense of magic and wonder from old-school editions. ATM I'm thinking that RC D&D does just what I want old-D&D to do.
|
| # ? Mar 28, 2009 20:39 |
|
Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Dungeon Master's Guide Foreword: you know, I don't think any of us give Mike Carr the credit he's due. This guy's name appears inside almost every single book in the first edition, and he is credited as the "Games & Rules editor." It could be he's responsible for a lot more of first edition AD&D than we realize. Anyway, a brief but well-written essay on whether Dungeon Mastering is an art or a science, concluding that it's both, as well as a labor of love. I agree with that sentiment wholeheartedly. Preface: Ah, here's the Gygaxian prose we all love and hate. Honestly, though, I am not finding the writing nearly as much of a plow as we all seem to remember. It's dry, yes, but these books are, first and foremost, rulebooks not tied to an individual setting. I do love Gygax's continual use of "milieu" and "milieux" to refer to campaign settings. For some reason it makes me crack a little smile every time I see it. There's a common misconception that AD&D was designed to be cohesive, all-encompassing, and used "by the book." Here, right from the beginning Gygax explicitly states that it's impossible to even try to be all-encompassing, and that what this book aims at is presenting a framework, with a "mutable system" (DMG 7). It states that certain commonalities are desirable (the attributes have the same meaning, the races and classes are similar, if not the same) between different campaigns, for the sake of communication and transition between two different games, but stresses that not all of the rules or laws of any two game worlds will, or should, be the same. Credits & Acknowledgments: This reads as good, but grim to those of us who knew what would come later. Dave Arneson is acknowledged and thanked, as are the Blumes. A name that we still associate with D&D all the way into fourth edition are to be found here as well: Skip Williams, who in my opinion should know better given the direction 4e is taking, but that's my bit of snark for this section . Introduction: First thought: good Lord, how many introductory sections do we need?? Second, he states that the format of the book is "simple and straightforward;" I disagree wholeheartedly, but we'll get to that in detail later. For now, suffice it to say that I happen to think a lot of the misconceptions about how complicated AD&D was stem from the poor organization and presentation of systems in the DMG. He discusses a bit more the position of DM as the "final arbiter" of the game, and stresses that the DM should know well the systems herein, not for the purpose of following them to the letter, but for knowing when to apply them by rote, knowing when to cut them entirely, and knowing when to modify them to fit his vision for his game. A bit more evidence against the "My way or the highway" mentality Gygax is unfairly credited for championing. The Game: Here Gygax does state that AD&D is intended to fall more into the "Game" school of thought than the "Realism-Simulationism" school. However, his definitions of these schools of thought seem a bit different than our modern usages. He stresses that AD&D does not endeavor to simulate any kind of hard reality, but that it is a game for enjoyment. Nowhere does immersion enter into his estimation of simulationism vs. gamism, and indeed quite a few times throughout the text he's very explicit that players should become immersed in their characters. Dice: Standard fare breakdown of polyhedral dice, what role they play in the game, and strangely, an explanation of bell-curve results vs. "linear curve" (sic) results. I suppose that in 1978 this wasn't as odd an inclusion as it is now, given that back then odd-shaped dice weren't the commonality that they are today. It's the first thing we see that's a bit anachronistic. Use of Miniature Figures With the Game: Ah, now we get to the root of one of the biggest bones of contention between "grognards" and fans of post-3e D&D. Is AD&D a miniatures game at heart? Has it always been designed for the use of miniatures as an important (if not integral) element of the rules? Does it assume the use of such, and is combat complicated if they are not present? This section reiterates what appears in most AD&D books: miniatures are helpful and add color to the game but are not necessary for play. The rest of the book bears this out: whenever an instance requiring movement, mapping, tactics, etc., arises, the book includes what to do if you are using miniatures, but this always comes as an addition to the basic rules, which do not assume or require miniatures. This is in sharp contrast to the current edition of D&D, which specifically states in the text that miniatures are assumed and that if you don't use them, you're not going to get the "full D&D experience." The rationale for the use of the " sign is explained in the Player's Handbook, and we will address that when we get there, but it suffices to say that hit has little to do with actual scale on the tabletop, though such is taken into account. Aids to Playing Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Mostly a continuation of the "miniature figures" section above, this talks about official AD&D hex paper, Dungeon Geomorphs, the official TSR catalog, etc. The most amusing impression I got from this section is that it's mostly there as an advertisement for the superiority of official AD&D stuff as opposed to that compatible but produced by competitors. Looks like not much has changed there. More to come later.
|
| # ? Mar 28, 2009 20:40 |
|
clockworkjoe posted:I also like old-style, but I can't claim nostalgia since I didn't start gaming till I was 17 (am now 22). ...what?
|
| # ? Mar 28, 2009 21:17 |
|
So, I had an idea in the shower. When, in the course of knife fight, you are having a heated discussion with another person, you should at the same time in the same thread whisper them a joke. The purpose of this is to remind both parties that we are all human beings here, human beings who like one another enough to be a part of a community together. Example. Me: Bounder! Spartan Dog! Graham:Cad! Athenian Swine! Me (whispered to graham): Hey did you ever here the one about the Protcologist at the AA meeting? Graham (whispered): 'Rectum, I drat near killed 'em?' of course I have. You need newer jokes. Me: Well, I guess, you might have a point, even if you are a spartan dog. Graham: And I rather like swine...on a sandwich with tomato and lettuce! Ect.
|
| # ? Mar 28, 2009 21:51 |
|
RagnarokAngel posted:...what? When the new edition of D&D enters the game shop, gaming begins to correct itself. Let me use this example: Imagine four different editions of D&D on the edge of a gaming shop shelf. Say a direct copy of the the edition nearest the shelf is sent to the back of the line and takes the place of the first edition. The formerly first edition becomes the second, the second becomes the third, and the fourth falls into the discount bin. Old School D&D works the same way.
|
| # ? Mar 28, 2009 21:55 |
|
clockworkjoe posted:When the new edition of D&D enters the game shop, gaming begins to correct itself. Let me use this example: Imagine four different editions of D&D on the edge of a gaming shop shelf. Say a direct copy of the the edition nearest the shelf is sent to the back of the line and takes the place of the first edition. The formerly first edition becomes the second, the second becomes the third, and the fourth falls into the discount bin.
|
| # ? Mar 28, 2009 22:17 |
|
clockworkjoe posted:When the new edition of D&D enters the game shop, gaming begins to correct itself. Let me use this example: Imagine four different editions of D&D on the edge of a gaming shop shelf. Say a direct copy of the the edition nearest the shelf is sent to the back of the line and takes the place of the first edition. The formerly first edition becomes the second, the second becomes the third, and the fourth falls into the discount bin.
|
| # ? Mar 28, 2009 22:53 |
|
RagnarokAngel posted:Well it stands to reason that since 4e is dumbed down for the WoW crowd that they'd just let you automatically break doors down. If you will recall, a bonus to breaking down doors was one of the wonderful class features they gave fighters the option of taking to fix their "dead levels" in late 3.5 so really it's just another example of the horrible power inflation so prevalent in 4e. To say nothing of the obvious infringement on the 3.x fighter's clearly defined and important niche in a party.
|
| # ? Mar 30, 2009 18:08 |
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2013 13:10 |
|
LGD posted:If you will recall, a bonus to breaking down doors was one of the wonderful class features they gave fighters the option of taking to fix their "dead levels" in late 3.5 so really it's just another example of the horrible power inflation so prevalent in 4e. To say nothing of the obvious infringement on the 3.x fighter's clearly defined and important niche in a party. That was Barbarians you tool
|
| # ? Mar 30, 2009 21:24 |











I want to punch through the door








