grognards.txt

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > grognards.txt

«‹›2001 »

terminal chillness: Oct 16, 2008; This baby is off the charts

OtspIII posted:

But then isn't your problem that the game's assumptions weren't being broadcast, not what the assumptions were? The fact that failing to engage with them ended the game definitely makes it way worse, though.

Also, this is a pretty spectacularly lethal example. Even if it came from Gygax, it's not really representative of most old school play.

I'm not so sure. The popularity of Tomb of Horrors makes me wonder how much of an anachronism this actually is.

# ? Mar 15, 2012 17:16

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 24, 2024 11:10

Evil Mastermind: Apr 28, 2008

Darwinism posted:

The old 'tournament' stuff seems to be hugely punitive in really silly ways; spheres of annihilation through portals, dryads that try to seduce you away for centuries if you fail a single save and are technically 'good' so you are penalized for being 'evil' if you dare attack them for attempting to enslave you, and so on. Not saying that old school groups by and large play like this, but the organized stuff that a lot of people see writeups of was insanely antagonistic towards players.

I think the problem was that a lot of people looked at the tournament-style survival mode modules like that, and thought it was the "default" D&D playstyle.

# ? Mar 15, 2012 17:16

ImpactVector: Feb 24, 2007; HAHAHAHA FOOLS!!
I AM SO SMART!

Uh oh. What did he do now?; Nap Ghost

OtspIII posted:

But then isn't your problem that the game's assumptions weren't being broadcast, not what the assumptions were? The fact that failing to engage with them ended the game definitely makes it way worse, though.

Also, this is a pretty spectacularly lethal example. Even if it came from Gygax, it's not really representative of most old school play.

But in the quote it said he assumed they had read the books. So these assumptions obviously were nowhere to be found. In the end it ends up being a test on how closely your opinions on trap design line up with the DM's.

It goes back to that whole "player skill" thing, which ends up being a giant game of Mother-May-I when you're not even told that the goal of the game is to get to the other side of the room.

And I realize that's not necessarily representative, but the attitude of superiority that "those guys didn't really know how to play the game" really rubs me the wrong way. Of course they didn't know how to play! They weren't told all the rules!

# ? Mar 15, 2012 17:18

Doc Hawkins: Jun 15, 2010; Dashing? But I'm not even moving!

Mega-Indy Man Vincent Baker has some antigrog on the occasion of having terrible table sales at a horror convention.

quote:

In our games, we rely so much on gamers' patience with counterproductive procedures of play. To reach an audience that hasn't been so primed, we're going to have to design games that are more fun, more immediately fun, and more evidently fun just by looking. We're going to have to design games that can compete, fun for fun, minute for minute, with non-rpgs. And we're going to have to do it inexpensively enough that an audience used to buying DVDs 3 for $20 will take a chance.

Holy crap, now THAT'S a challenge.

# ? Mar 15, 2012 17:29

Meepo: Jul 30, 2004

Pathfinder's coming out with a new book of prestige classes.

Grog posted:

Prediction: James and co. come up with 30 flavourful, fun but not overwhelming mechanically PrCs that serve more as enrichment of the world and less as vehicle for powergaming.

The community goes into blaaargh 1-star review outrage at PrCs not being a bunch of Ur-priests, Planar Shepherds and Abjurant Cheesecakes.

I really hope I'm wrong on *both* counts.

me posted:

Why can't flavorful, fun PrCs that enrich the world also be mechanically solid? Having a terrible character doesn't make you a better roleplayer.

Grog posted:

You can, but think about it this way. You have three choices with where you can go. 1: Make the Classes mechanically balanced, even if it interferes with the story elements (Fighters having powers). 2: Put precedence on the story elements, and don't worry making them mechanically viable or balanced. 3: Make sure all fit both catagories.

The third choice really is limiting what you can do. You may have a great concept, that will just mechanically not work. It is easy to say any idea can be balanced but in reality that is not true. Sometimes you have have a story concept that just can not work in a balanced environment. (look at how crappy jedi are in any of the rpg games that have been made. Jedi are a great story element, but bad to balance mechanically. You want to play a jedi to do the cool think you see them do in the movie. That means you are going to out power the other types. That is what you have to deal with if you want that "jedi" experience that you see in the story. A good RPG tries balance this by stiking to story elements that can be balanced, but you have to step on one side of the line or the other. There are cases where story will trum mechanics, or the other way around.)

The first choice is a valid one, but takes a big part or the focus of the game away. This is an RPG and if all that was important was rules, why not just make a card game or board game. It would work better. There are other avenues for this type of play that can do it better then RPGs. Nothing is stopping you from playing a board game and speaking in role. Heck we do it all the time when playing Arkham Asylum. A mechanical balance that we add rp elements to. The first choice fits better here.

The last then is the better way to go with an RPG. Provide the story elements and the way they fit best with the campaign. If that means the ability comes out strong or weak, then that is ok. It isn't a card game or video game where winning is the goal. It is a role-playing game. Therefore the emphasis should be on the playing of a role, and the mechanics should take a back seat to a degree. Like I said above, you want to make an attempt to balance things as best you can, but at the same time if getting to play the really cool concept meanr you will be weaker, then you should be ok with that. You should take that as part of the concept on a whole. The concept should be more important to you than the balance, other wise you can go play clue, and pretend that Col Mustard is a ninja and get all the ninja goodness AND the balanced rules you want. (there are much better choices than clue of course)

# ? Mar 15, 2012 17:30

Kasonic: Mar 6, 2007; Tenth Street Reds, representing

I, too, prefer to eat two kinds of poo poo instead of one thing that isn't human feces

# ? Mar 15, 2012 17:33

OtspIII: Sep 22, 2002

Dr Nick posted:

I'm not so sure. The popularity of Tomb of Horrors makes me wonder how much of an anachronism this actually is.

At the same time, though, it's precisely the fact that ToH is such an outlier in terms of arbitrary deadliness that made it so popular. Even then, though, it's popular in a 'I appreciate that this exists' way and not a 'I ever have or ever will play this' way.

# ? Mar 15, 2012 17:34

copy: Jul 26, 2007

Meepo posted:

Pathfinder's coming out with a new book of prestige classes.

I got as far as:

grog posted:

(fighters having powers)

before the whole thing got replaced by the text equivalent of a voice that sounds like knives on a chalkboard screaming "hate."

Can't have fighters doing interesting things being built into the mechanics of the system! That would just destroy my idiot fiction!

# ? Mar 15, 2012 17:37

Evil Mastermind: Apr 28, 2008

copy posted:

I got as far as:

before the whole thing got replaced by the text equivalent of a voice that sounds like knives on a chalkboard screaming "hate."

Can't have fighters doing interesting things being built into the mechanics of the system! That would just destroy my idiot fiction!

I'm glad I'm not the only one who had that reaction.

I think I figured out why grogs hate the idea of fighters having abilities: they (the grogs) have trained themselves to handwave everything that doesn't line up to the "real world" with magic. How do monsters exist? Magic. How does a wizard create a fireball out of nothing? Magic. Why do wizards forget their spells when they're cast? Magic.

Then you get to the idea of fighters being able to do more than just "use sword on orc", and the only way they can reconcile it is the same way they reconcile everything else: magic. If it's not something they think a person can do, it has to be magic. There's no other explanation!

It also explains the "fighters are wizards now" complaint. Doing anything extraordinary = magic.

# ? Mar 15, 2012 17:43

Caphi: Jan 6, 2012; INCREDIBLE

This predates 4e, of course. Tome of Battle, in it's 3.5 way, attached reams of fluff to every maneuver (about ki and fighting spirit and stances and whatnot), and people still kicked and screamed. The disciplines that outright say they're supernatural (and are only accessible to swordsages, the explicit monk replacement) are one thing. The healtank crusader (proto-Warlord)? Nonmagical healing is unrealistic. The school of supreme discipline that lets warblades win at saves with Concentration checks? Broken. The ability to jump over a monster while cutting it? Anime.

The real gems are when people use fighter feats like Two-Weapon Fighting and Whirlwind Attack to benchmark maneuvers, though.

# ? Mar 15, 2012 17:53

Kasonic: Mar 6, 2007; Tenth Street Reds, representing

Fighters having powers being both "out of flavor" and "balancing the game out of favor of wizards" form a convenient bit of circular logic where no solution is possible

# ? Mar 15, 2012 18:10

Chaltab: Feb 16, 2011; So shocked someone got me an avatar!

quote:

I don't mind a eastern style character with wacky kung fu powers or even the more "mundane" leap from treetop to treetop while engaging in a sword duel with your foe. Which is why I'm rather interested in the dragon empires ki powers. However if we wound up in a 4th ed style game I'd probably not play it. I love playing casters but the casters in 4th ed just don't feel like magic users to me. I played a wizard there and by the end of the game that character was pretty much superfluous and I was seriously considering asking the DM to let me switch to a barbarian simply so I could actually get involved in the fights in a significant way.

I couldn't take it when my character felt superfluous!

That's why I play Pathfinder.

# ? Mar 15, 2012 18:29

Evil Mastermind: Apr 28, 2008

Chaltab posted:

I couldn't take it when my character felt superfluous!

That's why I play Pathfinder.

I want to know how the hell this guy was playing a 4e wizard and wasn't feeling like he was "contributing" to the fight. Things like zones and summons are all available right from the get-go.

# ? Mar 15, 2012 18:32

Dr Pepper: Feb 4, 2012; Don't like it? well...

Because he didn't end fights in one round.

# ? Mar 15, 2012 18:41

Glazius: Jul 22, 2007; Hail all those who are able,
any mouse can,
any mouse will,
but the Guard prevail.; Clapping Larry

Mikan posted:

Old-school players talk a lot about player skill. As a new-school player, I've never really grasped what they meant. It it tactical skill? A set of procedures for dealing with common dungeon hazards, like tapping floors with ten-foot poles? The ability to read the DM and tell when he was planning something devious? What does it mean to be good at D&D?

As Mike Mornard DMed us through a brown-book OD&D dungeon crawl, he told us a little about player skill. Apparently, among the original Greyhawk players, Rob Kuntz was good at D&D. He was good enough to adventure solo, not even bringing henchmen, and survive threats that would threaten whole parties of less skilled players. Once Kuntz started going on solo dungeon delves, it became the thing to do, even among other players who didn't have Kuntz's player skill.

To be good at D&D, you must first be good at D&D.

That's so Zen.

# ? Mar 15, 2012 18:47

terminal chillness: Oct 16, 2008; This baby is off the charts

Caphi posted:

This predates 4e, of course. Tome of Battle, in it's 3.5 way, attached reams of fluff to every maneuver (about ki and fighting spirit and stances and whatnot), and people still kicked and screamed. The disciplines that outright say they're supernatural (and are only accessible to swordsages, the explicit monk replacement) are one thing. The healtank crusader (proto-Warlord)? Nonmagical healing is unrealistic. The school of supreme discipline that lets warblades win at saves with Concentration checks? Broken. The ability to jump over a monster while cutting it? Anime.

The real gems are when people use fighter feats like Two-Weapon Fighting and Whirlwind Attack to benchmark maneuvers, though.

Yeah, lets not forget that "Big Book of Weeaboo Fightan Magic" was a thing people said. gently caress this hobby.

# ? Mar 15, 2012 18:56

Evil Mastermind: Apr 28, 2008

Remember this Fantasy Heartbreaker Retroclone I went through last week?

Let's see how it does in the wild.

# ? Mar 15, 2012 18:59

Guilty Spork: Feb 26, 2011; Thunder rolled. It rolled a six.

OtspIII posted:

Not going to lie--all of those stories sound like sessions I'd have an absolute loving blast playing through. Maybe the frustration part of my brain is burnt out or something, but all of those deaths/near deaths sound like legitimately fun stories to me.

The thing is that (with the exception of the likes of rapenards.txt) the problem has never been with the grognard play style, but with grognards who have the attitude that it's the only proper play style for D&D and anything else is for WoW babbies who are making GBS threads on Saint Gygax's legacy or whatever.

Evil Mastermind posted:

Remember this Fantasy Heartbreaker Retroclone I went through last week?

Let's see how it does in the wild.

Black Chancery is another one of those fonts where if someone uses it, it says unflattering things about them. Not on the level of Comic Sans or even Papyrus, but still. Mark C. MacKinnon was a fan of it for the early BESM releases, but it disappeared from Guardians of Order's product line the moment they hired an actual graphic designer.

# ? Mar 15, 2012 19:13

fosborb: Dec 15, 2006; Chronic Good Poster

Guilty Spork posted:

Black Chancery is another one of those fonts where if someone uses it, it says unflattering things about them. Not on the level of Comic Sans or even Papyrus, but still. Mark C. MacKinnon was a fan of it for the early BESM releases, but it disappeared from Guardians of Order's product line the moment they hired an actual graphic designer.

Yes, Adventures Dark and Deep is a thoroughly researched exploration into what Gygax would have developed D&D into today. Of course a designer's hand isn't visible.

edit: haha holy poo poo just watched the video.

# ? Mar 15, 2012 19:19

Evil Mastermind: Apr 28, 2008

fosborb posted:

Yes, Adventures Dark and Deep is a thoroughly researched exploration into what Gygax would have developed D&D into today. Of course a designer's hand isn't visible.

It's really more "what would D&D be like if Gary continued to work for TSR, and never tried to change anything ever despite 20+ years of hobby evolution?"

Hell, Gary actually made a game that wasn't even like D&D after he left TSR, so it's not like he was adverse to change.

e: In fact, the game he made was classless.

# ? Mar 15, 2012 19:24

Brother Entropy: Dec 27, 2009

Evil Mastermind posted:

I want to know how the hell this guy was playing a 4e wizard and wasn't feeling like he was "contributing" to the fight. Things like zones and summons are all available right from the get-go.

Maybe he was just picking the powers with the biggest dice instead of powers that work with the wizard's role of controlling. I've seen kind of that mistake(and made it myself) when people are new to 4e and play something besides a Striker.

# ? Mar 15, 2012 19:27

Asimo: Sep 23, 2007

Dr Pepper posted:

Because he didn't end fights in one round.

Brother Entropy posted:

Maybe he was just picking the powers with the biggest dice instead of powers that work with the wizard's role of controlling. I've seen kind of that mistake(and made it myself) when people are new to 4e and play something besides a Striker.

Probably more, "because everyone at the table was contributing and having fun and his character wasn't objectively and smugly superior at all times". But same difference.

# ? Mar 15, 2012 19:28

Rasamune: Jan 19, 2011; MORT
MORT
MORT

quote:

quote:
Alignment is too iconic to do away with completely.
Not, it's not. And, what's more, I would argue vehemently that there is no such thing that is too iconic to do away with completely. Everything is on the table.

Really?

How did that work out with 4e? How much market share did they lose to Paizo, who maintained those iconic things and those "sacred cows"?

Exactly.

Leave the 9 alone.

# ? Mar 15, 2012 19:32

Evil Mastermind: Apr 28, 2008

Rasamune posted:

How did that work out with 4e? How much market share did they lose to Paizo, who maintained those iconic things and those "sacred cows"?

Exactly.

Leave the 9 alone.

I want to laugh at this, but we all know that there were a lot of people who hated 4e because there weren't any real alignments anymore.

# ? Mar 15, 2012 19:39

Rasamune: Jan 19, 2011; MORT
MORT
MORT

quote:

While I appreciate the 4e attempt to simplify alignment, I have players effectively playing CG and LE alignments that would be better described under the original system.

I find the previously mentioned attitude that 4e has been discontinued therefore everything about it is stupid and a failure both dumb and unhelpful. Based on that flawed logic couldn't the same be said of every edition?

If 4E was healthy and a great system, it wouldn't be going away after 4 years.
Paizo is eating their lunch.

Not everything is bad about it, but it's by no means a good system. If you want to take bits and pieces, sure, but it should be the absolute last system considered for any sort of basis of a new edition.

# ? Mar 15, 2012 19:41

Rasamune: Jan 19, 2011; MORT
MORT
MORT

I'm in favor of the nine alignments being a core feature of the game.

I think they should be used to determine how certain classes are played.

I would really like for the druid, ranger, and rogue to return to their former alignment requirements and suffer tangible penalties if the player moves away from the tenets of their ethical and moral choices.

In the past I've had arguments with my friends over the details of the various alignments. I'm sure my interpretation of those rules will likely come under fire again, but I believe the alignment rules serve an important role in the game and removing, or neutering them takes away from the experience.

# ? Mar 15, 2012 19:43

Mornacale: Dec 19, 2007; n=y where
y=hope and n=folly,
prospects=lies, win=lose,

self=Pirates

Meepo posted:

The third choice really is limiting what you can do. You may have a great concept, that will just mechanically not work. It is easy to say any idea can be balanced but in reality that is not true. Sometimes you have have a story concept that just can not work in a balanced environment. (look at how crappy jedi are in any of the rpg games that have been made. Jedi are a great story element, but bad to balance mechanically. You want to play a jedi to do the cool think you see them do in the movie. That means you are going to out power the other types. That is what you have to deal with if you want that "jedi" experience that you see in the story. A good RPG tries balance this by stiking to story elements that can be balanced, but you have to step on one side of the line or the other. There are cases where story will trum mechanics, or the other way around.)

Yes, indeed. All it takes is a quick glance at the Star Wars films

to see that no one but Jedi

can do cool things and contribute to overcoming challenges.

# ? Mar 15, 2012 19:51

Rasamune: Jan 19, 2011; MORT
MORT
MORT

fosborb posted:

edit: haha holy poo poo just watched the video.

I couldn't bring myself to watch the video because of the horrible sound production.

You have two stereo channels, you doofus; use them

# ? Mar 15, 2012 19:54

Guilty Spork: Feb 26, 2011; Thunder rolled. It rolled a six.

I don't think I've ever heard anyone describe D&D alignments in use in actual play without making them sound utterly awful and unnecessary. They seem to amount to either a stick the DM can use to hit the PCs (especially paladins) at a whim, or an excuse for players to play characters who are awful to be around.

# ? Mar 15, 2012 19:59

Rasamune: Jan 19, 2011; MORT
MORT
MORT

So over on the rpg.net boards, there was someone asking for help with rebuilding their rogue. This notion is entirely absent in old school gaming. If you didn't like your character, it was probably more to do with not connecting with them personally. Or, like me, you made a gag character and didn't expect them to survive. (Ebenezer Sasquatch, 4th level Ranger with a Scroll of Pornography and an abiding hatred of things on his land, you will not be missed.)

Shortly after, a cacophony of players were aghast that he only had a +1 weapon at 7th level, because that's in CLEAR violation of the expected power level, and he should have a long talk with that mean old DM.

But no, there's no such thing as player entitlement. :rolleyes:

# ? Mar 15, 2012 20:01

Evil Mastermind: Apr 28, 2008

Guilty Spork posted:

I don't think I've ever heard anyone describe D&D alignments in use in actual play without making them sound utterly awful and unnecessary. They seem to amount to either a stick the DM can use to hit the PCs (especially paladins) at a whim, or an excuse for players to play characters who are awful to be around.

Don't forget the people who think that you need alignments to roleplay correctly (because if you didn't have an alignment for your character, how'd you know that you were playing him right?)

Or the folks who think that without a rigidly defined morality system there's nothing to stop characters from eating babies 24/7.

# ? Mar 15, 2012 20:02

Rasamune: Jan 19, 2011; MORT
MORT
MORT

I don't want healing surges at all.

Bed rest and magical healing are my preferred methods. Not all fighters should have wizards "not-magic" magic, not all fighters should heal themselves. Clerics need to not be a fighter replacement (only a temp stand in). Give everyone their role, and need some sort of those roles for the party to function.

# ? Mar 15, 2012 20:07

Brother Entropy: Dec 27, 2009

Evil Mastermind posted:

Or the folks who think that without a rigidly defined morality system there's nothing to stop characters from eating babies 24/7.

Well, that's just simulating real-life atheists.

# ? Mar 15, 2012 20:07

rantmo: Jul 30, 2003; A smile better suits a hero

Rasamune posted:

Ebenezer Sasquatch

That right there is a fantastic character name.

# ? Mar 15, 2012 20:10

Evil Mastermind: Apr 28, 2008

rantmo posted:

That right there is a fantastic character name.

Good thing he was empowered by the GM to make such a goofy non-genre-related character.

# ? Mar 15, 2012 20:15

Dr Pepper: Feb 4, 2012; Don't like it? well...

Rasamune posted:

If 4E was healthy and a great system, it wouldn't be going away after 4 years.

Why do morons think this!?

Don't they realize that if 4e had "failed" then there wouldn't be a new edition of D&D?

# ? Mar 15, 2012 20:25

Darwinism: Jan 6, 2008

Dr Pepper posted:

Why do morons think this!?

Don't they realize that if 4e had "failed" then there wouldn't be a new edition of D&D?

It's also hilarious because that logic equally applies to every other edition of D&D; if it had really succeeded it would never ever be replaced!

Regarding 4E wizards uh they can still pretty much shut down encounters hilariously well, though that only really starts late heroic-early paragon so it figures that some grog playing a level 5 Wizard is pissed that he can't just Glitterdust everything forever

# ? Mar 15, 2012 20:36

FactsAreUseless: Feb 16, 2011

Darwinism posted:

It's also hilarious because that logic equally applies to every other edition of D&D; if it had really succeeded it would never ever be replaced!

Uh, no, those other systems were replaced because Wizards of the Coast had Gary Gygax assassinated so that he could not use his magicks to stop them from destroying his vision. That's why each subsequent version of D&D since Wizards took over the brand has lasted less time before being replaced by a new version. WotC is getting closer and closer to achieving Time Compression, and that's why we have to travel into the past/future in our airship to stop him.

Square-Enix, I have a great idea for Final Fantasy XVI, call me.

# ? Mar 15, 2012 20:50

Chaltab: Feb 16, 2011; So shocked someone got me an avatar!

FactsAreUseless posted:

Square-Enix, I have a great idea for Final Fantasy XVI, call me.

XVI? What about XV?

# ? Mar 15, 2012 20:52

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 24, 2024 11:10

FactsAreUseless: Feb 16, 2011

Chaltab posted:

XVI? What about XV?

Already in production. Of course, I could fix that problem with some Time Compression. That's it! I'll just collect four magical crystals and...

# ? Mar 15, 2012 20:53

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > grognards.txt

«‹›2001 »