|
dwarf74 posted:Wow. I hope this is an April Fools joke. I might handle it by introducing a 0-level, instead, but the idea of allowing for more playstyles without significantly affecting existing playstyles isn't a bad thing. The only real risk I see is new players defaulting to starting at level one and not liking the setup, but at the same time I can see newcomers starting at level one and appreciating the two levels of simplicity as they get comfortable with the game rules. It probably is fake, though. 
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 17:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 03:19 |
|
|
I've never liked that mechanic in any other RPGs I've played. Please don't make me start with less build points or at zero level or any of that jazz. Sweet, after four sessions I'm finally the 100 point character I made. quote:From a game design perspective, this approach allows us to spread out class features over more levels. Beginners have an easier time getting into the game, nonplayer characters are easier to run, and creating a character for a quick game is much easier. Furthermore, groups that want to start with tougher characters can start at 3rd level. The rules will include that as a specific option. Those reasons are a mix between terrible and not being anywhere near significant enough to justify making a divide. Any of the new player stuff is easily tackled with the first module and the rest of it is nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 17:24
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:New concept: Just gotta be something with 11 levels adjustment. I'll be a 1/2-dragon 1/8th-angel 2/7th-vampire 3/4th-drow, that should get me down there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 17:27
|
|
|
I don't see why people are getting up in arms over this? I don't see a problem with "If you have no idea how to play, start at level 1. If you have a game or two under your belt, jump right to level 3." It's how everyone plays anyway (How may PbPs do you see saying "Starting level 4"?) so why not put it in the system?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 17:29
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:New concept:  (Okay, technically it's level 0, but negative XP.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 17:31
|
|
|
I actually like the idea, though the implementation is bad. It would be neat to have a set of apprentice characters, explicitly removed from the 1-20 level system, who have reduced complexity and allow new players to get used to the game. These apprentice characters have a few neat abilities and are as durable as 1st level characters, they teach new players how to play the game through actual play instead of reading the book or listening to somebody else explain things. After a period of time the player chooses a class (based on the thing they liked doing most) and they become level 1 characters. It would be neat but this is D&D Next so
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 17:42
|
|
|
Part of the system I have shamefully failed to complete for two consecutive challenges is a level 0 for intro stuff. So you go into the dungeon with basically "hit a thing", some raw stats based skills, and the powers of whatever items you find. After a bit you hit level 1 and take an actual class, so the guy who has been having fun with the staff of magic missile can grab wizard, while the guy who has been having fun sneaking about can grab Rogue.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 17:51
|
|
|
Splicer posted:I don't see why people are getting up in arms over this? I don't see a problem with "If you have no idea how to play, start at level 1. If you have a game or two under your belt, jump right to level 3." It's how everyone plays anyway (How may PbPs do you see saying "Starting level 4"?) so why not put it in the system? Like I said, I don't really think it is a problem. ...unless you were looking to do Legacy Tier because man that is a short game. There ought to be some rules about how to play at Legacy Tier for more than 12 sessions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 17:52
|
|
|
Splicer posted:I don't see why people are getting up in arms over this? I don't see a problem with "If you have no idea how to play, start at level 1. If you have a game or two under your belt, jump right to level 3." It's how everyone plays anyway (How may PbPs do you see saying "Starting level 4"?) so why not put it in the system? Except now you're starting with some gimpy characters at 1 and 2, you have your baseline D&D Next character at 3, so you'd want to start at 5 or 6 if you knew what you were doing. If I'm a new player and choose the Wizard class, I'll probably expect to be an 'adventurer' immediately and cast more than a single cantrip to make a petty illusion at level 1. As they've described it, I dislike the concept.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 18:06
|
|
|
Oh for gently caress's sake they are just determined to put their fingers in their ears and shout lalalalalaaaaaa about 4e aren't they? 'Let's talk tiers. In 1e there were tiers, in 2e there were tiers. In 3e the tiers weren't codified, but it was generally agreed they existed. In 4e there were tiers which were loving CALLED tiers, and distinctly segregated the game into tiers of both story and game complexity, and which people used to good effect to segregate their games, but that's 4e so we're not going to talk about it despite the fact that it's basically the same as... ...in D&D Next we're using this amazing innovation by which we start with a simple character to get you used to the basics, or you can start later depending on the tier you want to play. It's not like 4e at all no sir.' FML this is so depressing. Defining entry points is a great idea. You know what recent game did it well? D&D loving fourth edition. Talk about it, dickheads, it might inform the discussion. </4egrog>
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 18:08
|
|
|
SilverMike posted:Except now you're starting with some gimpy characters at 1 and 2, you have your baseline D&D Next character at 3, so you'd want to start at 5 or 6 if you knew what you were doing. If I'm a new player and choose the Wizard class, I'll probably expect to be an 'adventurer' immediately and cast more than a single cantrip to make a petty illusion at level 1. As they've described it, I dislike the concept. They are not forcing you to start at level one, why are people so angry about this? It's just a number in the end, if the baseline for an adventurer is level 3 then start at level 3. Of course if "Apprentice Tier" means "Has zero options and can die from a strong breeze" which might be the case with Next, then it will be complete poo poo. But the principle of having the first couple levels be an "apprentice tier" that's already codified into the level progression is not by itself a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 19:28
|
|
|
Elfgames posted:I'f you're going to boil a hot dog you might as well just loving microwave the drat thing. Microwaved hot dogs stink a hotel room up like a mad motherfucker, I tell you what.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 19:55
|
|
|
One of the points I was getting at is that if I'm a new player and have no experienced group telling me otherwise, the natural thing to do is start at level 1. If that experience is lovely, there is a decent chance I will not want to continue to where the game is supposed to get better. It's a form of system mastery bullshit and really shouldn't be done this way, especially with the RPG brand that non-RPGers will flock to as their first tabletop system. Despite this, I don't disagree with having the Apprentice Tier, just their implementation of it. See Mikan's post here for one of the better ways to handle it. Mikan posted:I actually like the idea, though the implementation is bad. It would be neat to have a set of apprentice characters, explicitly removed from the 1-20 level system, who have reduced complexity and allow new players to get used to the game. These apprentice characters have a few neat abilities and are as durable as 1st level characters, they teach new players how to play the game through actual play instead of reading the book or listening to somebody else explain things. After a period of time the player chooses a class (based on the thing they liked doing most) and they become level 1 characters. It would be neat but this is D&D Next so
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 19:57
|
|
|
Winson_Paine posted:Microwaved hot dogs stink a hotel room up like a mad motherfucker, I tell you what. What the heck dogs are you putting in there? All beefs have that thick beefy aroma but if you eat something thats a blend like the turkey, pork, beef poverty dogs that sustained my youth then you'll find they don't leave much of a smell. If you're microwaving andouille or something in there you both deserve the smell and are me because most people have the common sense to see that coming from a mile away.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 20:07
|
|
|
Barudak posted:What the heck dogs are you putting in there? All beefs have that thick beefy aroma but if you eat something thats a blend like the turkey, pork, beef poverty dogs that sustained my youth then you'll find they don't leave much of a smell. What, you guys don't like Arthur Treacher's All Fish Hot Dogs?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 20:36
|
|
|
Winson_Paine posted:What, you guys don't like Arthur Treacher's All Fish Hot Dogs? Only when I cover it Nathan's Famous Tartar Sauce.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 20:40
|
|
|
I ensure all my hotdogs are 100% unadulterated Romanian Horse.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
Winson_Paine posted:What, you guys don't like Arthur Treacher's All Fish Hot Dogs? Is this a real thing? I really want it to be.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 21:08
|
|
|
Winson_Paine posted:What, you guys don't like Arthur Treacher's All Fish Hot Dogs? I don't know if these are real, but they should be illegal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 21:11
|
|
|
moths posted:Is this a real thing? I really want it to be. Fish sausages are pretty common outside the US, I thought?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 21:13
|
|
|
Really the only proper way to prepare a hot dog is over a flame. On as stick, on a grill, doesn't matter. Only fire can prepare that processed meat properly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 21:15
|
|
|
When I was in 1st grade the cafeteria had "fish dogs" which were basically giant fish sticks in a hot dog bun. I thought they were the most amazing things ever when I was 6.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 21:32
|
|
|
To the best of my knowledge, I've never seen the words FISH and SAUSAGE next to each other. That's absolutely something I'd remember. Those fish dogs sound great too, but I maybe they were just fishsticks in hotdog buns. There's nothing wrong with that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 21:57
|
|
|
For my money, the proper way to cook a hot dog is to cut it into a spiral and flame-grill it. Some might say you ought to entwine a bacon strip in the area you cut. Those people may have correct bacon-based instincts but they're missing the point of the spiral-cut dog, which is to expose as much of the meat to the fire as possible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 21:58
|
|
|
So I tried the D&D Next Playtest at PAX East. Wow, did I come away disappointed. I think it's been touched upon here, but the combat system is neither fish nor fowl. Positioning matters, but we're a theater of the mind here, people! This is highbrow D&D. Also, if anyone else had a chance to experience this, they chose a remarkably bad adventure. Despite me playing the impatient door kicking dwarf, we got to one combat encounter. We did get to do things like walk through endless tunnels and make dozens of completely arbitrary and interesting choices like "Left or Right". At one point, we reached something interesting. A smelly hole in the ground. After careful approach and investigation, we lowered me, the dwarf, down into it. What did we discover? It was the latrine. Wow, cool story, Wizards. Combat, when we did get to it, against a fearsome bugbear, felt very weird and arbitrary. Coming from being used to the crunchiness of 4e, it basically felt like I was saying "I swing my sword." Which, you know, not particularly interesting. The expertise dice my fighter had seemed cool...ish? To me the point of making a D&D game is to facilitate conflict resolution in a meaningful way. If players want to play make believe and imagine things, they don't need a D&D system or setting to do that. What you need D&D for is to keep it from devolving into a childhood game of cops and robbers arguments along the lines of "I shot you!...Nu Uh, I had on my bullet proof vest....well, I had my armor piercing awesome bullets!" etc. You have rules that everyone can agree on to resolve conflict when there are natural conflicts of interest. 5e felt like a huge step in the wrong direction in that sense. And yeah, I missed the minis.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 22:05
|
|
|
Bingarosso posted:So I tried the D&D Next Playtest at PAX East. Wow, did I come away disappointed. I suspect we played the same adventure, or near enough that it doesn't matter. Maybe every adventure looks the same in next, I don't know. I also played a Dwarf Fighter and for the most part I found the expertise die to be useless and swingy. Theater of the mind isn't inherently bad but it removes a lot of little widgets to hang things on. You could replace those things with a light, dedicated system (something like what Edge of the Empire does) but alas, that too is apparently too much system. I find it ironic that knowing where my character is on the board at any given time is less important than knowing the weight of all the meat he's carrying but whatever. What's your preferred burger-cheese? Keep it simple or get fancy?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 22:10
|
|
|
PantsOptional posted:For my money, the proper way to cook a hot dog is to cut it into a spiral and flame-grill it. Some might say you ought to entwine a bacon strip in the area you cut. Those people may have correct bacon-based instincts but they're missing the point of the spiral-cut dog, which is to expose as much of the meat to the fire as possible. Fools the lot of you. The correct way to make a dog is to bake it inside your bread. Then and only then does the dog achieve what all of you fail to realise is the true nature of the hotdog; a fusion of flesh and bread. Two must become one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 22:14
|
|
|
Bingarosso posted:I think it's been touched upon here, but the combat system is neither fish nor fowl. Positioning matters, but we're a theater of the mind here, people!  thing about the system so far. "No, you don't need a grid or minis. Not at all; in fact, we're not even including rules for grid combat. Now, hope you're keeping track of who's within five feet of each character!" 
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 22:18
|
|
|
Bingarosso posted:So I tried the D&D Next Playtest at PAX East. Wow, did I come away disappointed. There is a new update including the bizarre PAX adventure mentioned above. MadScientistWorking fucked around with this message at 22:33 on Apr 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 22:24
|
|
|
MadScientistWorking posted:You know in that context that is just kind of insanely stupid given that you were playtesting a game using an adventure that is supposed to be a giant comedic take on the Tomb of Horrors called The Mines of Maddness. In fact if this is the same latrine that I was thinking of there was actually a portal at the bottom of it. There were two modules at PAX. There was a short, dull one designed for pickup play and the longer Mines of Madness delve that was supposed to be a meat-grinder for characters. I'm curious which one it was.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 22:27
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:There were two modules at PAX.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 22:37
|
|
|
I was so unbelievably disappointed when I went to PAX this year and saw that they weren't featuring an Encounters session, and were running only Next playtests. I had so much loving fun last year, it also being my first time playing actual 4E at a table instead of online, and we got through..I want to say three encounters? At least two and something closer to a puzzle. Plus our group bullshitting and having fun the entire time, with our assigned DM even staying on a little bit past his scheduled quitting time just so we could finish. But this year I looked at the program and it was all just Next games so I moved on. I probably should have at least tested it out so I could confirm first hand how bad it was and speak from a position of experience, but then what sort of internet commenter would I be? Anyway, I guess what I'm saying here is that I had the chance to assassinate Mearls at the Next panel (or the one on DMing, i'm sure that was enlightening) but I missed it. Sorry everyone. I blew it. I'm sorry.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 23:33
|
|
|
MadScientistWorking posted:Well I'm really hoping beyond all hopes that they didn't include two adventures for playtesting adventures that somehow involved latrines because I'm looking at the PDF for Mines of madness and it did actually have an entire section dedicated to a latrine. D&D Next. It's just latrines, all the way down.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 00:18
|
|
|
The problem with "Apprentice Tier" and the reason people hope it's a joke is because level 1 in D&D Next was already supposed to be that level of "you're a nobody, time to try to make something of yourself." With people who wanted to start off experienced being told to start at level 3. Now I guess you go from inexperienced at level 1 to still inexperienced at level 3 to actually naming your character at level 6? Edit: I do like how apparently all characters lose their class abilities and only regain them at level 3, except wizards who not only keep their already existent spellcasting but just get more cantrips to add to it, though. ProfessorCirno fucked around with this message at 00:38 on Apr 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 00:28
|
|
|
It's all just setup for the *module* where you get to play the old D&D cartoon. None of those kids ever did anything remotely related to their class beyond dressing the part. Mostly they just walked around and tried to figure out where their lovely unicorn was. That's the new level 1.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 00:36
|
|
|
Bring back the -2 level Cavalier.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 00:49
|
|
|
Have they made any mention about making this Apprentice Tier stuff into a separate module, or are they on track for jamming more crap into core?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 01:47
|
|
|
Is this thing actually a big deal? Did they do something other than slap a name on the first few levels to add flavor to it for new players?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 01:51
|
|
|
Dr Pepper posted:Really the only proper way to prepare a hot dog is over a flame.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 01:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 03:19 |
|
|
FRINGE posted:Is this thing actually a big deal? Did they do something other than slap a name on the first few levels to add flavor to it for new players? He's saying they actually have changed the mechanics. "Level 1" as it stands in the current playtest is now "Level 3" with two new, weaker, less interesting levels to start at. isndl posted:Have they made any mention about making this Apprentice Tier stuff into a separate module, or are they on track for jamming more crap into core? Last I checked - which was awhile ago! - D&D Nex had not one single module. This and everything else is all not only Core, it's still a part of their "Basic" set.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 02:28
|
|