|
The Saddest Robot posted:I know this is grognards.txt so I should be making fun of them but I do agree with him to an extent. The implied setting of D&D -- that is the mood and theme of the world that comes out through the rules -- is vastly different from 2e and 4th. 2e felt like it was slightly grounded in traditional fantasy and with a nod to reality where 4th feels like a superhero comic with fantasy trappings. Doesn't stop it from being fun though. Really? Because I feel the exact opposite. Look at any major fantasy series and you'll find the sword swingers doing just as much fancy stuff as the spell slingers... but in 2nd and 3rd, they were relegated to attack x amount of times and call it a day. I will agree that 2nd was far more gritty and dangerous than 3rd or 4th, but that had as much to do with poor challenge/player class/racial balance as it did with the game itself.
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2009 20:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 24, 2024 04:01 |
|
|
The General posted:I've never played 4e, and I hate 3.x. I'm not talking about Fighter Vs Wizard Vs Thief Vs Cleric showdown being a toss up here... I'm talking about a balance in options and possibilites. Fighters are generally pretty boring to play, all fighter variants short of BotNS to boot. They get in the way, soak up damage, roll a couple dice and call it a day. They generally don't get to do anything cool, all but one or two of their attacks are going to miss, and it takes a DM being generous in order for them to actually be able to tank... because if I lived in a 3e world, I'd look at that party and go through the kill order "guy slinging arcane spells, guy slinging divine spells, guy stabbing people in the kidneys, dude in full plate." Not just because of damage, because in truth against a single target a well made fighter can easily out damage a wizard. But because taking down a fighter won't really even harm the group I'm fighting. Figher goes down? A few summon monster spells to clutter up the battlefield, or a Bigby's hand spell or two, and it's all back on track for the other guys. We talk about balance in 3e to mean people being able to meaningfully contribute. Rogues can do ok (not really at high levels, but decent through mid tier) damage, if they can get their sneak attacks in. Constructs? suck to be them. Undead? Sucks to be them. Fortification armor/potions/spells? sucks to be them. They're only marginally better than the fighter because hey, at least they have an out of combat role; finding and disarming traps. Oh, wait, a wizard with a single level of rogue can do that just as well, and he has spell points to burn on search. Or, a cleric can always take the stupid traps domain, or just cast "find traps" on himself, especially if he happens to be playing a drat Kobold at the time. There is no balance in 3e because party members could be replaced by ANYTHING, sometimes by other party members or single castings of spells. Especially past 15th level. To make matters worse, once you get past 12 or so a decent wizard can make himself harder to hit than a fighter to boot. Then there's second edition, where the idea of balance was to make certain classes require more experience to advance. Sure, 20th level rogues are absolute garbage... but hey, you get there by the time the wizard is 12! I always saw early editions of D&D as out of whack because, well, I like martial fighters, but I want the ability to do something useful. To contribute. And you just can't in old editions; marking and movement abilities make martial classes so much cooler in 4th, and they do so with out really making the wizard any less cool. My only real complaint with 4th is that it's obviously designed with the idea of adding new classes/paths to the system, which will inevitably lead to power creep as a method of selling the new books.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2009 00:52
|
|
|
crime fighting hog posted:Last time we found nard posts on the subject I believe orcs are blacks, gnomes are jews and obviously all humans are WASPS. Bugbears are what? Early 20th century Irish?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2009 00:18
|
|
|
Rocket Ace posted:EDIT: on topic: yeah I practically got physically ill during the recent WFRP edition war from all the smug comments of: "This edition ISN'T fun at all because it does not respect the integrity and seriousness of the fantasy world of orcs and elves that I cherish so much." Next time anyone gives you that garbage, smile at them and say two famous all important words. Blood Bowl.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2009 15:29
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:In a way, I can sympathize with people who've been playing forever and feel that 4E is not proper D&D. For the longest time, "proper D&D" was managing to have tons of fun despite lovely rules. Now that D&D has a decent rules set, it can be difficult to admit that game you had so much fun with for so many years really did have some lovely rules. It's basically admitting all those GURPS and WoD players were right. No, because the gurps and WoD players always claimed that there rules were "better." And lets face it, OWoD and GURPS have some really, really, really lovely rules. Well, WoD has lovely rules, GURPS has a hosed up success curve.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2009 03:54
|
|
|
Tolervi posted:Oh also as dumb as the old World of Darkness was old Mage was fantastic and from what I've read new Mage is nothing like it at all and it's not really to my tastes Rules wise new Mage is almost exactly like old mage, only without the avatar bullshit and Paradox isn't quite as lethal in general. They got rid of the traditions and the Technocracy, replaced with them Atlantis fanfic and Upper Middle Managers for the dark powers from beyond. It's actually much better than that, but if you want a good explanation of why the Seers aren't terribly cookie cutter villains you need to read Ferrinus' posts about them in the WoD megathread, because I still hate them. Seriously, though, NWoD mage works better and isn't half as broken as OWoD mage, there's a much greater logical consistency with the way magic works and you aren't pigeonholed into high school clique stereotypes. EDIT: Technocrats were good guys, but the Technocracy was a horrible institution. That contradiction was probably the only real use of "Gothic" horror OWoD aimed at in any of their settings.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2009 23:02
|
|
|
Pharmaskittle posted:All you really need to know about D&D sex is that humans will gently caress anything and everything, but any other half-breed race is probably a plot point or something. It's not that Demihumans don't gently caress Demihumans, it's that they don't produce viable offspring. Nothing says slutty like an elf... that whole half human/half anything that moves on two legs is just part of the human adaptability advantage, man. Destroy your competition through breeding.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2009 21:27
|
|
|
Bieeardo posted:The same source of nostalgic ignorance that makes people think that Leave it to Beaver was an accurate representation of life in the Fifties. It was. Perfectly reasonable, so long as you understand that the happy smile and blank stare of Mrs. Cleaver was due to Valium.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2009 00:25
|
|
|
brennon posted:jews/palestinians Meyers Briggs personalities; J's are judges and tend to rely on internal reasoning, P's are Perceivers and usually rely on external reasoning to make decisions. Jung called J's Rational and P's Irrational, so it's a bit of an insult... intended or otherwise.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2010 06:02
|
|
|
Yessod posted:2: Exotic is unchanging. This is more prevalent in genre fiction, but the idea is that cultures other than European are portrayed as though they didn't change with the times. Biggest example is Native Americans. You can bet that even in modern urban fantasy, if you've got a Native American spirit it's in feathers and buckskin, not levis. The best, though, were roaches. They were patiently waiting for the nukes, and now their pissed that they didn't kill everyone. It's supposed to be there time; so roach spirits are ravenous bloodthirsty bastards that award killing anything other than roaches. It's funny in a messed up sort of way.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2010 22:27
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:I have a friend who reads this lovely literature, he's read Gaunt's Ghosts and all the Star Wars novels and poo poo. The Heir to the Empire trilogy (not the last two added in years later) were really good books, star wars aside. In the same vein, Dan Abnett is an impressive writer in general, and the Eisenhorn Books provide a great view of how the empire functions in 40k, and a great view of the warring factions inside the Inquisition.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2010 04:16
|
|
|
Liesmith posted:you are as wrong as it is possible to be your opinions about books are some literal opposite land poo poo well you actually liked Morte De' Artur, which is British Fan Fiction turned into semi-professional writing with French self insertion thrown in. Seriously, do you expect anyone to take your opinion seriously?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2010 10:48
|
|
|
FirstCongoWar posted:I read and enjoyed those star wars/40k books too but they are objectively bad novels. I never claimed the Warhammer 40k books were good literature, just a good depiction of the empire. The first three books in the Heir to the Empire series, though, are excellent. They'd be better if they were lifted out of Star Wars, true, but the quality of writing is at least on par with other political thrillers, and definitely better than Dan Brown. I don't think you can call them "objectively bad" novels, either. An objectively bad novel is one that has no purpose or merit; if they can be enjoyed by a large percentage of the population then I don't think they can be called "objectively bad." Really, the thing that most defines Classic Literature is longevity and popularity. I'm not making it up when I say that La Morte De Artur is really nothing more than a collection of old English stories with a particular French insertion. The popularity (and overt christian supremacy that got it accepted by the Catholic Church) is the only real reason it's still around. It's got nothing on Chaucer, for example, and Beowulf is, objectively, a much better poem. If you want to start talking about artistic merits of literature, telling people that books they like to read are "objectively bad" and shouldn't be enjoyed, or should only be enjoyed in a dark corner where no one can see what you're reading, then you're a grognard... which I guess would be appropriate to the thread.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2010 04:23
|
|
|
fritz posted:Dwarves are jews, Orcs are Native Americans, Bugbears are the tall and powerfully built black people. Are you even trying here?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2010 02:53
|
|
|
projecthalaxy posted:Could someone explain drafting in the context of magic? each person opens a pack, takes one card, and passes it in a direction. This continues until all a certain number of cards have been passed around and people have "drafted" their decks.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2010 06:37
|
|
|
Pieces of Peace posted:Lovecraft wasn't even an old white man, he died at 46 and did most of his writing in his 30s. And he wasn't just "part of the times", Realistically speaking, he was part of an age past clinging to the only thing he'd ever been allowed to have that made him feel unique or special: His color. His mother raised him as a shut-in, and his brief marriage (his only escape) ended horribly. He had a very hosed up life, and wrote some very hosed up things, and was a very hosed up person. Many of his stories are captivating, though, and the idea of a group of people who have degenerated into subhuman status is still a compelling concept that would be re-used throughout modern art by better artists (Metropolis and the Time Machine both come to mind). But his best works didn't even begin to touch on race or reality. His dream-cycles are amazing, and In the Mountains of Madness was excellent also. So, while we shouldn't forgive the man for being a racist bigot, we can at least enjoy the Scheudenfreude we get from knowing his life sucks and marvel at some of the strange vistas he so compellingly described.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2010 00:51
|
|
|
Liesmith posted:it would definitely be cool to dominate the lady of pain, eat the 80 damage and then force her to maze herself He's DEAD. Even a god has a hard time coming back from that one. And his name was Aoskar.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2010 06:31
|
|
|
ManMythLegend posted:hell fighting You see, in the D&D cosmology, when people die they come back as creatures of their appropriate alignment planes/deity's world. Kickass people get the ability to come back as Einherjar were they retain their class levels and memories and kick rear end in the afterlife. Sometimes, Demons and Devils steal souls because they're pricks. When planar beings die, they're dead. And the God Aoskar is so dead you can find his corpse floating in limbo and use his crystalized flesh to cast spells. Seriously, I wish I was making all that garbage up. I just said "he was dead" because it seemed like the most possible grognardy thing to say. tl;dr BUT MY VERSIMILITUDE!!!!!!!!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2010 15:45
|
|
|
Turing sex machine posted:I don't know much about nWoD, and I'd still rather have that than 3 rolls per attack, but is that true? Sounds like an awful rule but I don't trust the grognard interpretation. If he's going for the lovely LARP rules, then it takes longer. Larp runs off of stat+skill+equipment+randomizer (1-10). That means the average pull for a ranged attack will be a 3+3+4+5, which is 15. Success starts at 8, and then every four points thereafter, so 2-3 successes per turn would take 3-4 turns to drop the guy. Of course, that was a after a series of rule changes made to arbitrarily protect the larpers who'd been there forever getting 1 or 2 shotted by well made or min/maxed new players.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2010 17:05
|
|
|
Epicurus posted:Especially that that 'punishment' has some major upsides. Drow.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2010 05:17
|
|
|
happyelf posted:In and RPG, retaining player engagement is paramount. The thing about horror games is that people don't understand the concept of not being able to win. People always seem to think short term. You can't ever really win against the Mythos in CoC, the monsters within or without in WoD, or Chaos/Xeno/Mutie universe infesting scum in Warhammer. They will exist, they're too numerous, too powerful, too entrenched for you to ever see the end of the battle. It doesn't mean you can't make headway in the fight against them. Sure, you'll probably die/go insane/become a monster yourself along the way, but you might just cause way more damage to the enemy than you will to humanity in the process. You're a sacrifice, sure, but you're also a martyr, and your death can MEAN something. It's not about not winning or losing in the long run; it's about doing whatever you can NOW to save they day so that the rest of "the good guys" can fight on once you're gone. It's also about doing something meaningful; about being something meaningful. There should be elements of hopelessness and powerlessness in the game; but there should be a feeling of real accomplishment and, on occasion, real empowerment as well. Players should learn about their enemies; the knowledge should come with a cost, but it should also come with the idea that they're making progress. You can win the short term in any of the horror settings, and that's what players and games should be focused on. The tragic end of well meaning heroes may be inevitable, but it's a far cry from defeat and it should be one hell of a ride.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2010 01:58
|
|
|
happyelf posted:There should certainly be moments where tensio is released, casual days, days with les pressure, and generaly, CHANGES IN MOOD AND STYLE. Diversity is vital for keeping people hooked, and makes it all the more effective when you push up the pressure again. On a random tangent, there's an interview with the Deadspace designers where they talk about how always making the player feel pressured and alone in the first game forced people to play in small bursts or just put the game down in general. In the sequel they plan on breaking up the tense moments with moments that give you actual allies to fight with or make you feel more powerful. As much as I hate to say it, Happyelf is right on here. The PC's should have some form of victory. And saying that THEY can't beat back the mythos or whatever greater evil isn't the same as saying that the greater evil can't be beaten eventually. Their efforts add to an ongoing struggle, one they're unlikely to see the end of. But their efforts should achieve, they should buy something; be it just another day or a lifetime or one world or sometimes even one life worth saving. That's what it's about. If you say they have to lose all the time, or that the struggle itself is inevitably doomed then really, what's the point? Players should always be allowed to achieve SOMETHING. In horror, it's usually some kind of pyhrric victory, but it's SOMETHING real, with purpose, with point. On the other hand, horror generally works best when they've just managed to beat it back or stave it off, not end it altogether. Their sacrifice means something, but it's not the end. That doesn't always even have to mean another game or another fight; maybe it means Cthulhu has been locked away below the seas for another eon, or a planet is cleansed of choas, or the vampires decide it's not worth fighting over whatever they were fighting over before. Players can win without the fight being over; the trick to horror is making it cost them in an organic fashion. Victory should never be free in horror; it should always have a cost and sometimes the cost should be greater than the worth of the victory.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2010 04:35
|
|
|
The General posted:I loving love doing poo poo like that. Especially when I keep them under tight time constraints. There's a solid gold throne sitting here. Bolted to the floor and it weights a fuckton. They'll look at it, drool and try for 10minutes to figure it out then say "gently caress it. We'll come back later." they never do. Stoneshape/earth to mud + Shrink Item + Levitate = win. I played a 3rd edition game where we came across a displacer throne... it was a greater cloak of the displacer you sat in, basically, that was supposed to be immoveable because of weight and it having been fashioned from ground. We used the above spells, all on scrolls we'd been carrying for a while, and soon had a nice throne for the ship of earth and sea we were running around in at the time.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2010 22:57
|
|
|
NorgLyle posted:In 25 years, this guy will be on RPG.net as YoungGeezer. "coerany or whatever his name was posted:Edit: And more specifically, they have also said directly that if they could find a way to distill roleplaying/social stuff down to the same style as the combat powers, they would in a heartbeat, but they didn't feel like they could come up with anything widely applicable enough. Why do people feel like this is a bad thing? Seriously, viewing social interactions as an abstracted form of combat with various powers would be fairly awesome and finally give that guy with 0 charisma in real life the ability to play the social character he always seems to shoot for.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2010 23:03
|
|
|
Doug Lombardi posted:Wouldn't that be totally worthless because you can't dodge at all while you're sitting down? We put it behind the wheel. We'd lost several henchman already to ranged attacks from random encounters we just sailed through, so this gave our helmsmen a little more survivability.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2010 05:25
|
|
|
happyelf posted:I actually reversed that long trope in my game by making 'adventurer' a dirty word. During the feudal warfare of the previous era, 'adventurer' was the euphamism used to describe the assasins, reavers, mercenaries, and heretics who various lords hired to attack the resources of their rivals. They were thugs shorn of all romance- greedy, evil, desperate men, hired killers and sabotuers, and workers of black magic. In 2nd E. Ravenloft, Strahd hated adventurers because they were constantly trying to kill him and loot his home. He usually sent an "invitation" to new arrivals, and would question them over dinner about things like their occupation, why they were there, what they were going to do, etc... At the drop of the term "adventurer" he'd start planning their demise. He even built an adventurers graveyard at the base of the mountain his castle was built on to hold the bodies of fallen adventurers. The rest of Barovia eventually picked up the idea that people who dealt with adventurers didn't live long, and so adventuring became akin to murderer in their lingo.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2010 21:00
|
|
|
Abundance of Gokus posted:HoH has better ideas (soul-bound creatures, creature motivations) than it has actual mechanics (ugh Taint). Still a good book, though. HoH was an attempt to bridge Ravenloft into other campaign settings without relying on the lovely White Wolf garbage 3rd edition translation. It had some neat ideas, but mostly sucked. The trick to DMing 3.5 is to let your players run wild with ideas and concepts, and then work with them to pick feats/spells/abilities that allow them to use their ideas without unbalancing the game. It's a ton of work, but it pays off... Of course, the trick to enjoying D&D is to switch to 4th and never look back.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2010 04:08
|
|
|
I actually dislike the new damage mechanic, and miss mana burn (but solely because I have mana flares still kicking around). But it's not like the game magically changed and became some unplayable poo poo heap and most new people I played with seriously didn't know mana burn existed in the first place. On the other hand, I've never been a big type 2 deck construction person for non tournament play, but the latest sets REALLy have to be played without older sets because they break very, very, very easily.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2010 23:25
|
|
|
OtspIII posted:I think this is one of those things that has drifted a lot throughout the editions. 3.5 played around with npc classes so that you could run into higher level npc's... long lived craftsman, commoners, aristocrats, hedge wizards, etc... could be in the higher end levels, they just weren't quite as powerful as PC classes because their lives hadn't really been risky. There was an assumed "life experience" gain that went along with the idea of the 12th level commoner, that it was possible to get better at things just by living. Of course, a level 6 PC likely had as much health, a better attack bonus (or spells), and way better gear than a level 12 NPC Class character, but that's (supposedly) ok because whiny politicians and spoiled rich people don't have to encase themselves in walls of steel or magic.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2010 18:56
|
|
|
Mikan posted:Horrorclix was a lot of fun yeah, Horrorclix was awesome. As long as no one tried to use any of the Heroclix/Horrorclix figures.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2010 23:02
|
|
|
Tolan posted:Really? If anything I think it's the opposite--Greyhawk was waaaay cramped, there's a city-state or gnome kingdom every three miles, and the only "open" areas are the swathes devastated by a magical disaster. Later products tried to correct this by blowing up the Great Kingdom and overruning chunks of it with humanoid hordes/Scarlet Brotherhood. did you ever see the map? Greyhawk was hugely open and sparsely populated. It was an adventure setting, with only a handful of large cities spread out amongst large tracts of land. It featured the Baklunish as the original proto-arabs (made obsolete by Al-Qadim), their enemy the Sul Empirium (nazi magic lovers). The Yuan-Ti originated in the Pomarj, a giant Indian-like jungle island most major empires were fighting for chunks of land in, the Barrier Peaks were pretty cool. It was mostly a sandbox setting. The problem with Greyhawk in 3rd is the Gazeteer had all the garbage, I don't even think it had the Bright Desert or the barren wastes. It didn't really show cities, instead blocking area's by population and Empire. Greyhawk was a lot like FR with better gods and less "he he he gnomish invention deus ex machina wizard secret society" crap. It did lack real flavor though, other than Iuz and the Wizards who made all the cool spells.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2010 04:16
|
|
|
Android Blues posted:No, even in OD&D a Fighting Man was what you rolled if you didn't meet the stat requirements to be anything good. anyone could be a fighter or a rogue. All the other classes had stat requirements! and of course, you had to roll, so good luck getting the strength, wisdom, and charisma required to be a paladin!, or the dex/int/cha to be an assassin! (the only fighting classes that had anything on casters, and even then only worthwhile until higher levels. The one thing fighters did have on wizards in pre-3e was their saves. 20th level fighter had 2's on every saving throw, meaning they only failed on a one. Of course, things like imprisonment and power word spells didn't offer a save, and many other spells had save penalties with them, but a fighter could usually count on saving in the save vs suck/die spells. They also were the only class with multiple attacks per round (well, them, Pallies, and Assassins) which gave them decent combat damage output, but nothing compared to wizard evocation damage. So, basically, 2e sucked donkey balls and the only reason anyone would still run it was because they are sadists, and the only reason anyone would still play it is because they are masochists.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2010 16:13
|
|
|
some guy at my friend Bachelor party said posted:I've heard all the complaints about 3rd, and the truth is none of them are problems that anyone I know has ever run into. They just aren't actual problems. ... I can't decide what was worse, that he actually thought the all powerful wizard or that fighters weren't in any way underpowered and that all attempts at fixing them were "giving a fighter a fireball."
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2010 00:15
|
|
|
NightVis posted:grognards.txt has a piss deficiency What Circlejerk? This isn't a D&D 3rd edition sucks thread, this is a grognards are retarded asshats who make inane arguments thread. Most of the grognard posts are about edition wars and hating on 4th, but there are quite a few that date back to the launch of 3rd to showcase how the same arguments are being repeated. There are a few great gems from wargames, and the most amusing posts are about M:TG. Very few people here are saying that 3rd is an unplayable piece of poo poo that can't possibly be fun (because it can, it just takes a lot of work), just that the way people talk about things happening in 3rd really aren't any fun. Seriously, if you wanted to throw a monkey wrench in the grognard post, go find some great quotes on the internet about how much some idiot thinks third ediiton is unplayable because blah blah blah and anyone who plays it sucks. Then post it. Don't just go sperging about nothing because the majority of posters/posts are about the rage over 4th. PS: It's you, you're the grognard.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2010 08:58
|
|
|
Turing sex machine posted:As someone who has spent a fair bit of time in his life learning about how to fight in various ways (martial arts, military training, fencing with foils, sabers, and shinai, and so on), I can tell you that "focusing on a target" is the normal way to fight. How does focusing on the target with a fighter's "power" cause a target to take damage when the target attacks someone else in a way that focusing on a target in a "normal" way doesn't? wait, so he's done martial arts and fencing? Sports where you fight one person at a time? The focus and wait for openings applies to a fighters mark ability. Paladins channel divine energies that say "fight me or else." That shouldn't be any more complicated than a Wizard casting a spell (although for some people it seems to be). Swordmages are able to use force effects to cushion blows thrown at their friends by marked targets, the Defender Shaman has a spirit guide that handles the problem, and the new Psionic Defender takes advantage of the mental openings caused by shifting focus to a different target. The only Metagame part of marking is that you can't stack marks to force a penalty on your target no matter what, and that actually makes a lot of sense in terms as a rule.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2010 14:49
|
|
|
Turing sex machine posted:The problem is in both the rule itself and it's purpose. If I'm being attacked by three people, assuming they each pose a relatively similar threat, what exactly is "person A" doing that makes me fight less skillfully Nothing the defender does makes you fight less skillfully, they're just all trained to take advantage of the openings you cause by fighting other targets, just like a rogue is well trained to stab you in the kidneys when you're back is turned and a wizard is well trained to cast magic missile.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2010 23:50
|
|
|
lighttigersoul posted:Even the more modern incarnations of the classic game are better designed than the older ones. Risk was a great game, along with monopoly and a lot of other games that take forever to play. Of course, board games used to be designed around taking several sittings to complete because, back in the hey day of board games, people didn't have instantaneous access to media. TV's were expensive and rare for over a decade, movie theaters weren't run 20 hours and new movies didn't come out every weekend. People used to plan things out and entertain in groups, neighborhood picnics, etc. The board games that take 4+ hours to actually finish all had that in mind when they were designed. Modern board games realize that even 2 hours can be a stretch, and most people don't have space in their house for a giant game board to just sit and wait for people to come back over and finish a game. We also tend to spend less time in large groups, and when we do things in groups they usually involve going out rather than staying in. American Middle Class culture has changed a lot in the last 30 years or so, and board games are one of the mediums that needed to make significant changes to keep up. Blah Blah Blah. and four the guy bitching about 4e save mechanics, you're only supposed to get 1 to 2 turns out of a save ends effect unless you can throw a penalty down on it. People are supposed to make their save. If the monsters save almost all the time, though, either they're getting lucky or the DM's cheating. EDIT: Also, The Great Gatsby sucks. This Side of Paradise forever.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2010 23:36
|
|
|
Malachamavet posted:TheAnomaly has clearly never played Starcraft the Board Game I have, and I really liked it. But then again I have a tendency to play long running board games as I have an apartment to myself and a table that has no other purpose but holding an unfinished game. Most people do not.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2010 23:39
|
|
|
shotgunbadger posted:If you think Gatsby sucked you get the gently caress right out, I don't care if this isn't book barn. You haven't actually read This Side of Paradise, have you?
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2010 03:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 24, 2024 04:01 |
|
|
Android Blues posted:What bugs me here is that you're equating being female with being a sexual being who reproduces - you can be one of those things without the others! Male space marines certainly aren't sexual beings who reproduce either, of course, but that doesn't seem to preclude them from being male. And you're dancing around the issue with that "marines aren't really gendered beings" point, because of course they are. They're Brother-Captains, they have gendered pronouns, they have names like Gabriel and Ulfgar. It also completely contradicts your earlier point that they're a parody of masculinity (which, yes, they can be read as, but that doesn't mean ALL space marines have to be extras from 300)! No, what your missing is that Space marines DON'T have normal sexual functions. For all intents and purposes their genderless. Here's a real world analogy: Sure, the East German Swimteam was female, but could you honestly tell the difference? And trust me, his army is going to have breasts. For some reason warhammer 'nards can't just paint a standard space marine army and put some venus symbols on their power armor.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2010 01:48
|
|