|
Ettin posted:I don't feel forced or anything, but I do enjoy the product. If anyone has specific book suggestions feel free to say something! (I'm not buying the entire line or anything, but yeah.)
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2011 13:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 05:12 |
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Sex sells...
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2011 04:19
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:How.... how does he have +9 mods at 10? The only thing I can think of is if he's adding the half level mod into those as well. Which would put his STR/CON at 18/18. Pretty terrible but not entirely surprising when he obviously has no idea what he's doing.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2011 19:14
|
|
|
Also number 7 is awful. That way lies caster supremacy. Somebody needs to show this dude the ritual list. (Though without houserules they have their own set of problems.)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2011 22:46
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:D&D OgreBattle Edition The bit about the fluff being closely married to the crunch might be a little groggy, but that could just be my bias towards reskinning/disconnected crunch showing. On that note, could someone please remind me why I play a game with character classes again?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2011 19:47
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:I didn't intend it as a groggy thing so much as a funny thing. OgreBattle is insane in the best ways. I half suspected as much. I remember him being posted about upthread a ways. I actually agreed with most of what he wrote last time. This time not so much, but I don't begrudge him the attempt. Evil Mastermind posted:
And to answer my own question: It's probably because I really enjoy the tactical minigame. It's like the best parts of minis wargaming and MtG without the painting and massive card knowledge required, respectively. Ruining the DM's day with a few well placed Mage zones was pretty much a best experience (thanks CharOp thread!).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2011 20:16
|
|
|
FactsAreUseless posted:
Maybe this is a little groggy/spergy of me, but at their core games of any kind are really just engines designed to drive the players towards certain desired activities (generally in the pursuit of fun) through their reward systems. You can add whatever window dressing you want, but that's really just a statement of intent. And that's why I love Burning Wheel so much. The various reward systems (skill advancement, artha) are completely in line with what the game is trying to get the players to do. On the flip side, D&D is pretty drat incoherent unless the goal is to get the players into fights, because that's what it rewards. I would argue that this is pretty much what 4e does -- it's just up to the players and the DM to make sure that those fights are interesting and it could definitely be made clearer that that's the intent.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2011 23:54
|
|
|
LincolnSmash posted:It's not just about the experience, but how advancement functions in conjunction with it. And XP is only the most overt form of reward. I'd argue that there is some inherent rewardness in solving the interesting tactical puzzles in combat. Even things like "hitting with an attack" have rewards attached (through things like reducing the enemy team's "victory points" and unlocking more tactical decisions from power riders). Heck, the fact that different DMs give out such differing rewards for the noncombat portions of the game is really just further evidence that it's a weak point in the rules.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2011 00:59
|
|
|
A good counter for that one (in my mind) is that a character's powers are the things they know how to do really well. For other stuff you use page 42 and wing it. Honestly it just seems dumb to me to try to list out every single combat manoeuvre a character might try. You could fill up a whole book like that. And good luck with having to look poo poo up every time a character does anything. But yeah, it's probably hopeless to try to argue with the dude. He sounds pretty drat groggy.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2011 21:18
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:Could fill up a book? 3.Pathfinder pretty much proved you could fill up multiple books with the "rule/feat/power for every situation" thing. Yeah, I think that was my "emo elf rogue" phase.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2011 21:43
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:Sounds like someone needs a copy of Legends of Anglerre. 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2011 17:54
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:You will not regret it, sir. 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2011 20:10
|
|
|
Laphroaig posted:Unintentionally, probably, but those are the consequences of the preservation of certain legacy mechanics. To crush their ability scores, see their sacred cows driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the grognards.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2011 03:26
|
|
|
LincolnSmash posted:But what I don't get is that there are games that actually do have mechanical incentives for "role-playing" and these people are acting like they don't exist.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2011 02:17
|
|
|
Shroudmaster posted:Self publishing and downloadable games have flooded the market with a lot of junk  Holy poo poo this is amazing. It's finally happened. You guys have gotten the grogs to come here to be cleansed with fire. The grogapocalypse has begun.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2012 17:33
|
|
|
LogicNinja posted:This. Shroudmaster, the reason the thread turned ugly is because you got (a) smug and (b) defensive as hell, while (c) not addressing any actual criticisms.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2012 21:58
|
|
|
And of course 4rognards once 5e is released (and all our fears of it being a throwback to 3e come true).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2012 23:07
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:I have posted this before, but since the common adage is that magic users get to replicate everyone else with spells since everyone else can go all day with their thing, you should make skills have some of the same effects as high level spells (at non stupid dcs). High level acrobatics lets you tumble so far you teleport. High level Diplomacy is like charm person or hold person, or illusions with bluff. High level endurance just straight up lets you ignore damage, high level intimidate lets you stop time itself with your glare. By this I mean everyone should be playing FATE. (LoA just came in the mail. Haven't gotten around to really digging in yet but I've paged through it a few times. Seems neat so far.)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2012 22:52
|
|
|
True Evil Bob posted:What is FATE? I keep hearing it mentioned a lot in these threads but don't really know anything about it. Guilty Spork posted:I'm increasingly wanting wizards in RPGs to be more like in Discworld, where they're largely pompous and useless, and when they do finally throw major mojo around it has serious risks. There used to be wizards more like D&D PCs, and they caused the Mage Wars that left large areas of the world uninhabitable. Witches are more sensible, but that's because they figured out long ago that all the really important bits of "witchcraft" have nothing to do with magic.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2012 23:19
|
|
|
Inevitable posted:I'm even interested in your perspective right up until you say that your way of finding enjoyment in a game is 'better' than mine. Here's the thing: No one is saying that their way of finding enjoyment is better than yours. That's the thing that's totally subjective. What others are saying is that there are probably better ways to cater to the type of enjoyment that you're seeking. Because while 3d6 ability rolling does create "unpredictable character" enjoyment, it also creates "varying levels of competency", which in a cooperative game where you have to have competent characters to contribute to winning could easily be seen as a negative. So wouldn't it be better of we could find a system of character generation that retains "unpredictable character" while ditching "varying levels of competency"? That's all people are really saying when they point out that rolled stats in D&D are counterproductive. And there are even other types of games where "unpredictable character" would be a negative. Good game design is identifying what your goals are for player activity and then choosing the right mechanics to guide players towards those goals.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2012 16:23
|
|
|
I Am The Scum posted:To bring it to a simpler video-game example, bad camera controls are objectively unpopular. I think most of the time when people talk about "objectively good" design what they really mean is "coherent" design. No one can tell you that you're right or wrong to try to evoke a certain behavior in players (within reason). But we can sure as hell discuss whether a certain mechanic is effective in encouraging that behavior.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2012 19:26
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:What would 4e have to do to get you excited? Natural language has no place in rules text. Game manuals (even RPG books) are first and foremost technical documents. They are trying to convey a set of instructions for playing the game in the way intended by the creator. One of the coolest things the power writers did in 4e was make all the effects explainable through the mechanics and keywords of the game. Sorry. That's one of my bigger grog game design peeves. I'm done.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2012 17:58
|
|
|
Kestral posted:The suitability of natural language for conveying information depends on the nature of the information. Vincent Baker's Apocalypse World is written largely in "natural language," as is Dogs in the Vineyard. These are widely regarded as some of the clearest texts in gaming for teaching you not just the rules of the game but how the creator intends the game be played. I'd go so far as to say that Apocalypse World in particular would be almost unplayable if it had been written in a technical style.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2012 19:25
|
|
|
Transient People posted:Out of curiosity, would you say the Spirit of the Century SRD is poorly explained? Because it's another game manual that is chock full of flavor and natural language, but I think it explains everything pretty clearly anyway. Also that giant loving list of stunts is brutal. They're all named with flavor text so if you're looking for some specific effect it can be tough to find what you want. I'd much prefer a list of possible effects that could apply to any skill to create my own stunts, but some of them are probably too specific (if this exists then I missed it/forgot about it). But the basic mechanics of the game came across okay. I guess I might be incorrect in my rant, but I look at some of the spell effects in 3e and all I see is mushy bullshit vs say Visions of Avarice in 4e which you can figure out instantly as long as you know the basic mechanics.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2012 21:24
|
|
|
Transient People posted:Not to say I wouldn't like to have stunt creation rules, but premade stunts tend to break the rules a lot more...and that's exactly what Stunts are supposed to do.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2012 21:38
|
|
|
Also for some people making characters is part of the fun. I don't know that I'd want to take on a monstrosity like that all the time, but once in a very great while? Sure.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2012 18:54
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:Okay, yes, if making characters is a game. Like Traveller, say. Granted, it's often an accounting-like game, but taking a concept and realizing it within the confines of a given system of rules can be fun in and of itself.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2012 19:25
|
|
|
WotC screwed up with 4e because I get to play a Big drat Hero (and suplex dragons) right from level 1.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2012 22:39
|
|
|
LincolnSmash posted:He actually goes on about how 3e rules were merely guidelines for newbie DMs and shouldn't really be followed strictly BtB That seems to be a terrible habit of old school play/design. They always seem to assume that the players/DM will be able to read the designers' minds and figure out the tricks through osmosis or something. That everyone's play experience is exactly like theirs. /rant (It's me, etc.)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2012 21:51
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:It's a bug that people turned into a feature. I just get really irked when people try to defend poor design. My recent years spent playing fewer RPGs and more hobbyist board games have definitely made me into a design snob.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2012 22:24
|
|
|
LincolnSmash posted:He admits as much in the interview -- that the 3e team did not do their job of communicating that the sheer number of rules and subsystems were there to act as guidance for inexperienced GMs.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2012 23:05
|
|
|
Mordaedil posted:You know those first pages of both the Player's Handbook and the Dungeon Master's Guide you always skip past when you open the book?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2012 15:55
|
|
|
Mordaedil posted:It more suggests ways you can own up to mistakes and acknowledges that you might want to do things like giving players the ability to make their own first level spell that knocks people over and then say you made a big mistake when a clever player uses that spell to knock a villain off a cliff. Like I said, I've become a design snob. In board games, it's expected that you play by the rules as best you can because often times the designers know their game best. If you start tossing out rules willy-nilly without truly understanding _why_ you might be eliminating key components of the intended concept or making the game less fun. The easy example is Monopoly. Most people play that game completely wrong and end up making the game an awful multi-hour slog (we'll ignore the fact that the game is actually a critique on capitalism and not actually designed to be fun). The "free parking" rule in particular only serves to inject more money into the game at random and really just prolongs the inevitable. Bringing this back to RPGs, if a game is well designed you either won't need to toss anything out or the different variations will be clearly laid out and playtested. Going back to the Forge for a moment, if you have to drift a game too much, you're probably playing the wrong game. Being a GM is enough work that you shouldn't have to add "game designer" on top of it. That's why we pay people money for RPG books. Not really directing this at you Mordaedil, mostly just  about games.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2012 18:49
|
|
|
Dr Nick posted:There's nothing wrong with houserules. It's a problem when the game requires them to run. I'd argue that the auction screwing the guy who's behind is part of the game in Monopoly. I mean, seriously, it's right there in the name. If momentum like that isn't something you enjoy (and it probably shouldn't be, it's a poo poo mechanic) then there are plenty of other games out there in a similar theme that haven't been designed with the assumption of that momentum.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2012 19:13
|
|
|
OtspIII posted:I'm of an almost opposite mindset, where I feel like if a game doesn't have ways built into it to let itself be drifted a bit to suit the players' needs it's missing out on something fundamental. I look at RPG rulesets as toolboxes the GM (and players) use to build the game, not as the game itself. A good ruleset is one that helps the GM adapt and drift it to the specifics of the group's taste without breaking (early D&D is half-good at this; it's great at not breaking but awful at pointing you in the right direction). al-azad posted:I'm commenting on the "design snob" train of thought. I never understood why people get upset about other people not playing by the rules for whatever reason. Regardless if they don't understand the game or if they genuinely don't like the RAW, one man's homebrew is his own business. Going back to what got this started (Monte Cook saying that the 3e rules were more like guidelines without giving any direction in how to choose what to ditch), what actually gets my goat is poorly designed and written rules that are a mess even before they go out the publisher's doors.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2012 19:30
|
|
|
Inevitable posted:Do they mean "video game design," though? I assume they're talking mainly about incorporating the ideas of the Indie-game and Euro-boardgame markets. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, unless the changes are perceived as running rough-shod over the 30-year old game that many people already love. But yeah, when most people here talk about modern game design concepts we're taking about indie RPGs (and in my case euro board games). Xiahou Dun posted:Dude thinks that Dungeons and Motherfuckin' Dragons is a "deep" game.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2012 16:57
|
|
|
LogicNinja posted:If by "taken from MMOs", you mean, "came from the idea that the Fighter should be good at protecting his friends, which came from D&D, which is where MMOs got it", then yes. That's the "revolutionary" idea: That when somebody has a role in the party they should have some kind of mechanical thing to back it up.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2012 17:18
|
|
|
LogicNinja posted:That's not revolutionary. Thief skills, cleric heals, opportunity attacks, etc. What's revolutionary is that fighters get to be good at it. copy posted:Yeah dog sorry that's not true. Opportunity attacks in 3E and disengagement rules in ADnD want to have a word with you. Hell the fighter mark punishment effect is still an AoO in 4E, the only difference being that it has a rider now. I guess I could just direct you to the edition war thread where the "4e is wow" argument got trampled into the earth and save us both some time though. I've admitted as much in the edition war thread but my memory is a bit lacking on a few things in older editions. What was in those previous editions to prevent the monster from just eating the damage from the fighter's AoO (which probably wasn't as crazy as some of the charge op damage I got schooled on elsewhere) and walking over to the mage and making him eat dirt?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2012 17:54
|
|
|
LightWarden posted:And the origins of the taunt mechanic?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2012 18:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 05:12 |
|
|
It's lazy not to playtest/balance classes past 10.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2012 20:56
|
|