|
thelazyblank posted:This may have been entirely a troll. Especially since I made his last post lest obnoxious. But jesus, he flames out with "you you dumb". This is your brain on grog. Smilies are how ENWorld censors things. He didn't say "YOU YOU DUMB" it said "*censored* YOU YOU DUMB *censored*" Chaltab posted:Cirno, where did you find that Night of the Long Knives quote? I must have context. WotC forums ~*~ This is where the schism is happening. There is the traditional school of fantasy gaming that wants Pathfinder to stay true to its roots with a loose simulation of old style fantasy novels. There is the new school that wants their archetypes based on video games and anime. This is the schism. It's the schism that split D&D to begin with. It seems to be raising it's ugly head in Pathfinder in this constant martial/caster disparity talk. Unless I'm wrong Pathfinder was created because a large segment of traditionalists hated the new game. So why are you coming over here to try to push Pathfinder to become a game that a huge segment of the fantasy gaming base hated? I don't want my archetypes based on video games/anime. I don't want martials cutting open rifts in space and time with their axes. I don't want rangers doing that kind of garbage either. I want rangers to be more like Aragorn. A little magic, a lot of swordplay and woodcraft, very grounded in a mix of the mundane and some useful nature magic I can see in a narrative. I want my fighters to be masters of arms. I want them to cut down armies not in single blows, but in long, drawn out battles where they fight for hours and walk out covered in blood and guts with chipped swords and dented armor. I want paladins based on Roland, Charlemagne, and Galahad. Holy knights of the greatest purity blessed by their gods to carry out their holy mission. A wizard is supposed to be the most fearsome figure in a story due to all his strange arcane abilities. That doesn't make the competitive young male player happy, but it makes someone like myself who wants to simulate a fantasy story happy because it fits what the archetype is supposed to accomplish.
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 13:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 19:17 |
|
|
More FATAL interview - this time via Foxhack.quote:Part 6: The D&D-ening One standout from that one. And just reading the summary is more than bad enough.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
quote:This kind of is the first group where I'm the DM and I'm with a big problem because my best friend decided to play as a Iomedae male paladin... But since she is a fanfic writer and a Yaoi enthusiast she is making him have feelings for the young blind oracle they were called to escort, he is kind of a male version of "Vasilisa the Wise". (Fortunately, the ensuing thread is mostly sensible advice.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
quote:Is it really necesary to have everything on earth f%# friendly? Sexual orientation is something that has no business being incorporated into an rpg.... if you feel the need for such perversion you could add it yourself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
Kirth do you play Pathfinder or just your game? And, peter, I disagree- it's not a "flagrant disregard for understanding how the system is balanced" it's simply a lack of knowledge and experience in how the system is balanced. It's amazing how folks who have never published anything can blithely think their ideas are sooo much better than the designers of the best selling RPG in the world. And as a perfect example of a team being stronger than each part, we have the bard, who is in Pathfinder generally agreed upon to be one of the most useful and flexible classes- and whose primary ability is to make everyone else do their job better. --- quote:Let's turn this around and look at it from the perspective of GMing. Consider two imaginary groups of PCs. The first, Party 1, consists of a druid, cleric, wizard, and witch. The second, Party 5, consists of a cavalier, a fighter, a monk, and a rogue. Let's say in my campaign, the party wants to travel to a far away place. With Party 1, this is easy. Teleport, wind walk, plane shift, and the like will let them easily get there. With party 5, as a DM I have to put a portal under the castle or have an NPC caster willing and able to cast the necessary spells. Party 5 "Hey guys, let's fly there on the magic carpet" "Well, it's be faster for me to read this scroll of Tport" "But, with these magic horseshoes and our mounts,the trip will be fun and..." "Naw, my Cohort will cast a spell of...". Raise dead? Scrolls or staff with UMD. A Cohort. Ring of Wishes. ---- He has played D&D for over 20 years. . . its what he likes. He makes characters to deal tons of damage in combat-- that's what he enjoys. He's played Monk, Fighter, Ranger, and once a Paladin (again using the option to not have spells); he bought Tome of Battle and hated it; when we played Monte Cooks Arcana unearthed, he complained that he couldn't play a fighter; when we mentioned playing fourth edition he despised it and we could not get a game running. . . I don't know why, but that's what he likes. (My player LOVES sucking. He can't stand playing a competent fighter class!) ---- eally, honestly, what Tiers measure is spellcasting. Yes, that's it. Pure & simple. T1 & T2 are full spellcasters T3 are medium spellcasters T4 are ranger-like spellcasters (mostly) T5 is non-spellcasters. Yep, it's that biased. Look, the best any Non-spellcaster ever got is T3 and that's highly debated. Two of the BoNS classes are there, and some possible versions of Paladin, Bbn and maybe ranger. But one can argue that many of the BoNS abilities are very very much like spells. And then, even the crud caster classes, like the poor Beguiler is often rated at T3, but it can't do much, nor can it's opposite the Warmage. The Warmage has no utility spells, and the Bequiler has only some of them, and no spells than can do anything but annoy whole classes of monsters, but- they are still argued by many to be T2 as... full spellcasting. Tell you what here's a thought experiment. New class- the Dreadnought. D20hp. Can't use bows. BaB is 2,4,6,8,10 (double full), all Good saves. Double level as bonus damage every hit. Adds level to AC and gains Dr/- per lvl. By passes DR as a weapon (level 3= +3 weapon) No skill points (you gotta have int, etc or no skills). Np special movement, no other special abilities. All martial weapons, heavy armor. What can this class do? Tank. It's a super tank. OOC- it's got nuttin. No ranged combat. It does just one thing, but that one thing super well. Technically, this monstrosity is T4. Technically Beguiler and Warmage are T2. Yeah. So- Tiers? Yeah, nice to know. But the Tier system is heavily biased toward spellcasting- and doesn't rate "best" at all. Even JaronK said that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
quote:Explain to them why silly names aren't in the least funny and ask them to come up with new names. If they can't be hosed to do so, take their character sheets and come up with new names for them.  The "silly names" in question? Mook 41 and Lou Bacca. Totally outrageous!
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
All the RPGs without spell lists, with magic systems, are marginal garbage. Why don't you talk about the video games on systems excluding X-Box, Playstation, Wii and PC. Even Mage the Excuse broke each sphere down into lists of things you can do with it, and it was pretty specific.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
Basic D&D, all the clones, and both 1E and 2E were not ''cinematic action games''. They were made for another time. Time One: You start out with nothing, at 1st level. You adventure and win encounters through the players skill, luck, and abilities. The player is most of the character. And when you have a spoon, a rusty sword hilt and a torch, the player needs to figure out a way to defeat the lich with just that(and what ever else can be found). Fights are quick, for the most part everyone just does damage. No complicated sub game rules or crazy stuff just thrown in from a random book. Eventually if your character survives, you will have a powerful character with some stuff.....and the retire them and start over. Time Two:You start out with a lot, even if you start at 1st level...though often you start at least at 5th or so to get more stuff. You have tons of abilities and actions and items. The 'stuff' is most of the character. When encountering a lich the player will look over the characters massive lists of abilities, spells, and items and decide what to use. Fights are long. Everyone is doing all sorts of actions. Complicated sub game rules are piled on and everyone has an 'official' book with some crazy stuff in it. You character starts out a a near god level, and becomes a god in just a couple levels.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
Hey guys... Wow that is a lot of stuff to read. Okay so yesterday we got together to play and at first I considered to address the elephant in the room but everyone was so eager to play I decided to do it after the game. The game went well with a lot of action and development until after the fight the paladin player said she was going to use lay on hand to heal the oracle since he was hurt in the battle and they should protect him (but we have a cleric in the group). After she said that the level of tasion increased, and I had to stop the game and tell her that the way she was RP her character was making the other players uncomfortable and I asked the reason for this so we could solve it and move on. One said the reason was his religion, it preaches that being gay is wrong and he believes it is wrong. The others however raised a more troubling issue, they said that a member of the group is having problems regarding this issue because his family discovered that his brother is gay and his father decided to divorce, and since we use the game to escape from the real world problems she was ruining everything! But he said that he had no problems about that and that the comments about how a gay guy should fall from grace were much more offensive to his brother and therefore him than the way she was Roleplaying. He just think it is weird for a paladin to love something else other then his faith and deity. She defends herself arguing that this was a out of the confort zone group created so we could do stuff we did not do with frequency(it is true stuff such as me as DM, she never played as a male character and all the others were using classes they don't use very often) all she was trying to do was following the group's goal. So first we considered to ban all sexual RP... But sicne we all really like Freud, grey fantasy(not black and white) and A song of ice and fire, we decided that sex is a imporant thing and should no be ignored. Then after a long talk about ancient greece and bonobos(Pan paniscus) we arrived at an agreement that the part that bothers us most in a same sex relationship between men is the focus on sodomy. So her paladin could continue with the desires if they did not involved sodomy. But she decided that the paladin could never take the oracle purity and that while he had the purity of mind that allow him to ride on a unicorn (it's a metaphor) she would keep her distance and her thoughts under control. So in the end after all the drama it was late and we did not had more time for the game ... but we had a very nice conversation about biology, history and homosexuality. Thanks again for all the suport in this group drama. I will read all the comments now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 04:07
|
|
|
Eh, couldn't care less about class balance in the terms you put forward. Occupies about the same level of interest as "typeface used in table of contents" and "is the bec de corbin a viable weapon for halfling bards?" The thing that folks overlook when making the "complexity disparity" argument is that hitting things with pointy bits of metal is an inherently simpler task than utilizing esoteric knowledge to affect the basic laws of physics in a localized fashion. Unless you want martial characters that are essentially fantasy superheroes; in that case we are playing different games.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 06:19
|
|
|
Game balance. Heh. What a joke. After all these years if you haven't figured out that rpg game balance is something for the participants to figure out for themselves, then you might forever end up chasing that phantom holy grail. If I refused to play any rpg that wasn't balanced to six decimal places then I wouldn't get to game that much. I suspect 5E will be much like any other edition in this regard, so I will probably play it if a game is offered and the company is good. ~*~ Heh. Heh. Heh.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 06:22
|
|
|
quote:I also don't see the big deal some posters make about a "Hasbro suit" being in charge. There seems to be this curiously widespread belief that a "suit" can't oversee the design and successful marketing of an RPG. I don't see any particular reason to think that's true. "Suits" oversee the design and marketing of bucketloads of other "cultural production": movies, TV shows, non-literary fiction (and plenty of literary fiction too), games, toys, etc. RPGs just don't seem that special to me in this respect: presumably Greg Leeds can read a summary of focus group reports and marketing surveys and whatever other tools they use as well as the next person! Suits were responsible for poor time slotting for Firefly and running the episodes out of order, totally screwing its chances of gaining a solid audience. Suits forced Ridley Scott to put the cheesy voiceover in Blade Runner. Suits butchered Brazil. Suits killed Bakshi's attempt to make Lord of the Rings. Suits sued John Fogerty for sounding like, well, John Fogerty. Suits tried to force a relatively happy ending onto Se7en. Suits forced too many villains into both Spiderman 3 and Batman and Robin. Sometimes the suits make good business decisions - and sometimes their interference spells disaster. Having a Hasbro suit in charge at WotC means there's probably no culture left from WotC's days of independence - the days when they came to TSR's rescue because they loved D&D and, thanks to their good fortune, had the money to spend for an iffy to moderate return. Would a Hasbro-run WotC do the same if TSR had survived until 2014 and was on the ropes now? I seriously doubt it. There is a world of difference between the culture of a corporation that has grown from the ground up, focused on a particular industry because it started out as their passion, and one that has been acquired by a larger corporation and had its leadership replaced. Hasbro isn't into WotC because they're passionate about Magic or D&D or even gaming. They're into WotC because it's a good investment for them and their stockholders. They won't make decisions with an eye toward whether they're good for the game in the long run or for the hobby, they'll make decisions because they maximize their stockholders' values. The passion for the game or hobby will not inform their decisions - or at least are very unlikely to unless they "go native".
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 06:38
|
|
|
quote:The same goes for D&D combat mechanics. None of the things being determined by the mechanics - success or failure of an attack, amount of damage taken, that sort of thing - bears any direct relationship to the events in the game. I think it's abundantly clear that the exact opposite is true. Hit points and the various level bonuses to d20 rolls (as well as spells, feats, and other categorical abilities) almost invariably create observable and reproducible in-game consequences. The distance you can jump, the amount of harm you can sustain, and the amount of information you can remember, are all very knowable. In a d20 Modern game, I think materials scientists can determine that hardness, hit points, and special damage vulnerabilities of any object. Sports science segments on ESPN can essentially deduce an athlete's Jump modifier or Con score. Psychologists have probably deduced a probability curve for the population's Intelligence scores, corresponding roughly to what in real psychology is called the "G factor". In D&D, the culture is less advanced and there is less scientific methodology, but I still think that a character with 100 hit points knows roughly how far he can fall and survive, how much damage he has at any given time, and how long it will take to heal. I think a character with 40 ft. speed knows that he is roughly a third faster than everyone else. A character with 14 Cha knows that he is more charismatic than the average commoner. Given that all of these correspond clearly to outcomes that are observable to the character and which occur reliably according to the rules, it's hard to believe that the character does not reach some common sense conclusions about his competencies relative to the tasks he does. If you're suggesting that this creates a bizarro world that doesn't work like the real world, this is of course true. It's fantasy. There are dragons and magic and alternate planes. That's part of the fantasy. It's also part of the fantasy that no one ever really gets hurt, or that probability distributions are usually linear rather than normal. All fiction is this way; it all takes place in an alternate reality that reflects creative decisions made by the author, practical limitations of the storytelling process, and most importantly the sheer limitations of the author in observing and rendering reality.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 06:47
|
|
|
quote:Don't let the bastards grind you down! They don't deserve the satisfaction. They're just sad people, and again, there really isn't that many of them. For all we know, there are only a handful of Dungeon is Suck people. It is a mistake, cbakerson, to think that the people committing genocide in Darfour and the people over at YDIS are in any way different from one another except in their particular circumstance due to birth, wealth or geographical location. It isn't just about not giving bad people the satisfaction - it is about getting rid of bad people. I don't give a hoot and hell whether dicks are satisfied or not - Me, I'm not satisfied, and that's not going to change by ignoring the problem and hoping it goes away. As for there "not being many of them," you're just not paying attention. I think poor Amanda found there to be more than she could take. Exactly how many does it require in your imagination, Mr. Bakerson, before genocide and teen suicide are enough of a reason to make the problem worth being ground down about?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
Do we need xp? FYI, playing a game, even D&D, isn't about expressing a story. There is no "creating a shared fiction" in RPGs. It's about playing the game and if you don't want players who want to know the score, don't play a game. XP aren't a reward. They're a score. Just like the ability scores. A player isn't a better player for having a higher XP character. That was a faulty assumption by a lot of young kids (unkindly called munchkins) who brought a PC of, say, 39th! level with every magic item on them and expected they would be considered experts. Playing well is its own reward and players can recognize greatness in themselves. Excellence is not something one pretends unless they are lying to themselves. ---- Telling a story isn't some fundamentalist inevitability. Don't pretend and you won't be telling a story. The objective in games that aren't storygames isn't to tell a story. In fact that's not the objective of most storygames either as objectives in games are achieved. Going for a run is fun and can be what you're after, your objective. But it can be a game when you time it and use a starting line and finish line. D&D is about gameplay in every action, i.e. codebreaking. You are solving the game of Risk even as you play to the objective in it. Stories may be created after the fact, but excluding everything in existence to simply storytelling, the story now, story only ideology isn't some absolute certainty. And not the point of a game that like D&D that takes hours to prep for and has hundreds of pages of rules and is best supported by DMs who excel at math. ---- Creating isn't the same as pretending nor is creating necessarily making a story. Stories are not inevitable. Going for a run, existing in any way, doesn't necessarily result in a story. That's confined thinking IMO and not cool to cultures who don't have stories. Don't allow literary theory to become dogma. That's making one area of philosophy into an absolute, a kind of religion. There are many aspects to life and not solely the aspect of narrative. Do not pretend a story and there will not be one. Stories are great. Making an absolutism out of anything, even love for example, ends in royal suckage. Games and puzzles, where the action is all about deciphering to achieve a goal, are substantially different from making up fictions. Deny our differences and we are limiting existence for everyone. Guess what? Game play is about addressing the math, the patterns we are deciphering in the game. Don't want that to be the point of the activity for you? Great, then you aren't interested in game play. You're interested in... whatever it is else you are doing. For example, sports are games. And while being good at them as a gamer is important almost all of them include coaches who are regarded as better game players than the athletes themselves. Why? Because the athletes are great at the athletics. And there exist sports players who prefer that to the game, but yeah, most enjoy both. They want the game to focus and improve the other. ---- When ideas are conflated, like attempting to make games into stories and vice versa, I find it's important to deny attempts to make life more uniform. The consequences are almost always a world where we annihilate other ways of thinking for what's being called one true way philosophies, in this case literary theory philosophies. Literature and theories on making stories are fine. I would never want those practices to stop, but I feel you may need to free yourself from narrative as an absolutism or you're only going to end up provoking others when they disagree with you about this. By denying absolutism I'm not denying you or your right to believe as you do. I'm merely suggesting holding story creation to be a kind of fundamental certainty of existence isolates you from all the world where this absolutism doesn't exist. For many, this includes our real world, which I hope you don't take to be a story you made up. ---- Cherrypicking quotes from early texts of D&D isn't going to help you relegate D&D to the Forge model of gaming or any attempt to define gaming or roleplaying as storytelling. Those are ideas invented less than 20 years ago. D&D is 40 years old. That D&D is a simulation game like most stories in books are simulation stories isn't in dispute. That playing D&D, most any older RPG, or a computer RPG is similar to what simulation stories try and do is also true and a lot of early gamers and game designers saw that. But let's not confuse the pattern recognition of playing a game and the creating of patterns by game designers with the construction of a story. Stories are patterns too so players can read them, but they are sequential patterns and lack most of the core characteristics games have. However repeatedly and blindly one model attempting to describe games confines games solely to literary concepts, we would do a disservice to all games by removing from them and the very thoughts of their players what games can do and stories never can. ---- ....Yeahhhh... The  is strong in this one...
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
quote:There is no edition war, it is no longer about any individual edition. The concept of the edition is becoming passe. However, there is a playstyle, not the only but the primary, that is represented and encouraged by previous editions, their retroclones, and d20 reimagines. Then all by its lonesome across a great divide, there is 4e. In 5e, this primary playstyle will be well represented and many of us will happy and there will be much rejoicing. As for 4e, I could care less because as Azzy1974 said above, "it is dead and not coming back". Any representation of its playstyle will hopefully be regulated to splat books that I will have no interest in purchasing. The key is to create the walled garden around each of the playstyles for ease of modularity and then for each to go his own way. That is my hope. These are some good suggestions. 4th Edition shouldn't be permitted to compromise the rest of the new edition, but to let its fans enjoy future releases, splat books and a finite number of optional sidebars and chapters in the core books would be very convenient and agreeable. The books should have some such continuity for all of the past editions, though. If they won't, then I'd say forget including 4e but if at least some people are spared and shown mercy that is better than zero.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 10:31
|
|
|
Running around the thread claiming that 4e was a betrayal and a failure is not being mean. As it it, I am trying to give factual interpretations right now, and they as well as my opinions are always delivered in a spirit of construction and support. 4e Is not a pool of quicksand, but once you enter into, it can be hard to get out. Some decisions are going to shape the future, and impose more limits on people than you realize.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 10:36
|
|
|
The game's rules and particulars always should be above the individual or group's desires. No one should have the power to change what is in print for the rest of us, no matter what changes you want to institute at your home table. 4th Ediition is in many ways a conspiracy against the D&D community, and WotC should never have gotten as much success with it as it did.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 10:43
|
|
|
I would really love it if people stopped referring to GNS theory or any of the other theoretical models that have been constructed. They are all pretty much bullshit ways for indie gamers to sound more educated and more authoritative than they are or should be. They are terrible artificial constructs to determine the ways in which people interact in the context of games. These are the same class of thought as Freud’s psychoanalytical model, and pretty much are already doing the same kind of poo poo his model did, by positing the not only can there be categories of gamers and games, but that they there should be, as well as cutting the trail that will continue to influence those approaching their games from any of the GNS and similar mindsets into having a similar mode of categorization.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
TOPIC: Wizards getting At-Will damaging spells in Next. Called "cantrips" but the grogs have seen through the smokescreen! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= The cult of PEW PEW is too strong to oppose. The majority of playtest respondents want to see it so there it is. Actual D&D is still available to those that want it so no use fighting a losing battle. ----- No, he isn't. If anything, WOTC has data from their forums, which are full of 4e players, which are definitely a minority of D&D players. At will, damaging cantrips do not belong in D&D and are one of the main reasons my group will be passing on it. Passing on those spells is not a viable option. It would be like Miguel Cabrera choosing to use a wiffle ball bat. ----- quote:
----- What happens if the crossbow toting wizard runs out of ammo? How do you rate a crossbow sans ammo against that ray of frost? 50 feet is a darn sight better than the wizard could throw that crossbow. A siege doesn't have to be a grand affair with an army, catapults, and a castle either. It could be a few guys (like a party) trapped in a dead end mine with a bit of cover at the entrance and a superior force outside. It could be in a city, with one side being trapped in a building with the exits covered by opposition that may be suicidal to just run out and engage. The concept of a siege is simply being between a rock and a hard place and it is a common one in many genres. When a particular magical effect is completely AT WILL with 0 resource considerations it affects the world in ways beyond the standard door/monster/treasure D&D assumptions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:These are some good suggestions. 4th Edition shouldn't be permitted to compromise the rest of the new edition, but to let its fans enjoy future releases, splat books and a finite number of optional sidebars and chapters in the core books would be very convenient and agreeable. The books should have some such continuity for all of the past editions, though. If they won't, then I'd say forget including 4e but if at least some people are spared and shown mercy that is better than zero. GROG TAX! ------- He does use magic, but he shouldn't have an endless supply like on a video game. Pew pew.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
WotC forums. ~*~ quote:This seems to rely on a "mages are super special" mentality. quote:You should see mages as super special. That should be the standard fantasy model for all time. The magi who would keep others from casting would do so for various reasons, differing at least by alignment. A good mage would want to protect the people from anyone misusing it, the neutral mage would want to prevent anyone not fit to use to use it (seeing disaster as the only possible outcome), and the evil mage would want to keep the power for himself. These are sample ideals that would have, not the only possible ones. quote:Well, I totally disagree. In a class-based game, I do not view any basic, available-to-all classes as super special. Not one bit. Unless of course, ALL classes are super special.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 07:02
|
|
|
quote:I see the argument that mages (who are defined by the characteristic of using magic) are special because they use magic as being very circular. It appears tantamount to saying "mages are special because they are mages." quote:You can't redefine magic's meaning in the genre of fantasy to prove your point. How about this, "do you think using magic should be as common as using a sword" in D&D? quote:Who is redefining magic? Different settings may differ on the details of magic (whether it is internal or external; whether or not one needs to be different from normal people to use it, as seen in the mages vs muggles divide of some settings; whether it requires invocations or not; and so on), but it's always a supernatural force that can be tapped into. I don't think that I've done anything to alter that definition. First of all, D&D has its own traditions which need to be preserved and taught to the newer generations. When you say D&D never said you need to be special to be a mage, you are misleading people. When you say that magic doesn't even exist in the real world, you're ignoring the relevance of its interpretation in fantasy. Furthermore, you are redefining magic as something that doesn't exist. Many people still believe in magic today, and throughout history belief in it has been very common. To say that you think the rarity of magic should be defined just according to each setting is not offering to people any conventions or traditions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 07:31
|
|
|
What is it with io9 that brings out the grogs? http://io9.com/the-24-most-embarrassing-dungeons-dragons-character-1524448977 (Note that nowhere in here are any 4e classes, though "Vampire" should be a candidate.) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Note: I played RPGs in University, which was some years ago, so for about four years, and about four times as long since. But here we go. This was supposed to be a game about imagination and story telling. These classes, and many others, have proved that the game has become a table top version of MMORPGs and all of that stuff. I tried to listen to a podcast of D&D 4E last night, a character creation, and it just made me want to smash things. It's bloody WoW or League of Legends or all that stuff that drains the imagination away and just makes things into rules and powers. It's just skirmish war gaming now. I love the article, because it reveals just how much silliness is involved in trying to make things popular and accessible without inspiring the player to be creative. That's the real issue with modern society. Though I do get fighting man. It's a different way to say man at arms. Not defending it, just saying I get where the thought comes from. Fighter, warrior, man-at-arms, soldier, all examples of "fighting man" (same person other post) I know, I remember reading through the ranger and druid ones way back then. But even then, it was expanding out of the realm of telling a story with imagination and fun and into power character playing. Everyone ignored that. The supplements had some inspiration, but they never mattered. Of course, 17 years later, I still haven't gone back to RPGs. I miss it, but I don't have that group of friends who are interested, and finding strangers, well, how to find people who would enjoy a game based on 2nd Ed and just a few modifications and a whole lot of storytelling? The lure of feeling powerful has tainted the daydreaming and silliness that made the game fun so long ago. (still the same person) Power is an illusion. But the next generation thinks it is something they can buy into. This is why people make a living playing video games these days. Sigh. I can click on things better than others, give me money. Let's not change just because some punks like to spam the AoE button and entertainment is catering to that at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
quote:I'm fairly new to 4e just playing in my 1st campaign and having just got my 1st PC to level 13. I also play Pathfinder (D&D 3.75) weekly, so the differences between the 2 are very fresh and apparent to me. I voted for System changes, because although I played less of 3.5 than PF, I'm aware well of what was changed between those 2. 1-Climb, Swim and Jump as separate skills — the real core of the roleplaying experience. 2-Having things written in a certain way on one's character sheet — more important than a functional game system. 3-Squares — an insult!
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
The Next designers are aware that not everyone plays for specifically-calculated amounts of XP (or random numbers pulled out of the DM's rear end) and instead levels when the DM feels appropriate — one could say "it's appropriate to the story", but that would involve using the s-word in the context of Next... but I digress.quote:I guess I'm the only one bothered by the fact he's designing an XP system just to make it easier to publish adventure path modules.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
quote:From what I understand, 4th Edition was attempting to bring in the W0W/LoL crowd. I, personally, don't think that's possible because, as you say, D&D has always been about imagination and how the rules should facilitate that and not restrict the story. quote:Your assessment, while logical, is very opposite of how I see a RPG. You call the back story and imagination arbitrary. To me, that matters most. But I realise that different people and age groups have different things they enjoy. same lady as above posted:I have been thinking about Dungeon World. I have watched a few episodes online and it seems to be the story driven idea that lets GM and players combine to tell the story of the characters. I will check FIASCO as well. Time spent with friends having fun and telling a wild tale is what I want. After some angry replies from others, I suspect D&D today will not be it. Sigh. Chaltab fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Feb 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
Chaltab posted:Well at least it has sort of a happy ending. quote:Wizards have pretty much admitted their mistake with 4E.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
Here is some old, old, old school grog. Dave Arneson, the guy who really created D&D, left Gygax's TSR rather acrimoniously, and in 1980 published a full writeup of his famous "Blackmoor" fantasy campaign through Judge's Guild (an early publisher of RPG supplements with a very casual attitude toward editing and quality). Here is a description from that supplement, detailing one of the setting's major antagonists:  If you read it very closely, you might catch a hint of Arneson criticizing one of his former friends and business partners. It's really subtle though, you might not catch it right away, but all the clues are there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 06:45
|
|
|
quote is not edit
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 06:46
|
|
|
quote:Eh, back in the day ... crap wasn't all about numbers and what bad rear end special abilities you got.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
Wow, that's quite a lot of words for saying basically "WOW babbies". Grog Tax: Instead of trying to figure out which parts of this are the grogiest, I'm just going to give a link to the whole thread. I was looking for something to possibly help me make a Spycraft 2.0 character, and instead found this. Welcome to Spygrog 2.0.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
A familiar grog appears!
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 04:34
|
|
|
More DoaM hijinks from someone who isn't MtlKnight/Gorgorth:quote:I am not sure what is best now but the guy who put it in originally should be fired. It was a zero upside decision.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 05:01
|
|
|
quote:There will be two lines of minis; a regular D&D Miniatures line, and a whole game unto itself called D&D Attack Wing, with both lines sharing some (but not all) figures. The D&D Miniatures line will have both 6-figure starter packs whose contents are known, and 4-character booster packs that will have blind content, meaning that, much like Obamacare, you have to buy it to see what's inside it. Gamma World boosters are Death Panels.  Antigrog: quote:"It will follow the formats that we’ve defined with Star Trek Attack Wing, except this will be dogfighting dragons," [WizKids CEO Justin] Ziran said. "And the new twist on this is ok, you have dogfighting dragons, but what about ground troops? And so now you’re going to have giants, and ballistas, and magic users fighting the dragons up above and the dragons raining fire down on the guys on the ground. It’s a very interesting take."
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 07:07
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:A familiar grog appears! Grog tax: ~*~ quote:yeah but wouldnt it be cool to play that character concept and not be gimped. its not an either or proposition... IOW, there are plenty of FRPGs that allow you to play armored mages; find one and be happy! ~*~ Wearing armor as a wizard? I'm sorry, we only talk about D&D here. The lack of imagination in a lot of these people is astonishing. ARMOR? On a WIZARD? Good heavens, here do you get these ideas???
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 12:02
|
|
|
I am a game designer. I am designing and producing a game that does not, and will not, have a single female character in it. This is not because I am misogynistic. This is not because I do not women to play the game. This is because putting women in the game makes no sense, violates the principle of the suspension of disbelief, and will not make the game any better as a game. I am the lead designer of First Sword, a combat management game. The game has orcs and men, elves and dwarves. It has goblins and trolls. But it has no women. Why not? Because the game is a gladiator game. Women cannot credibly fight as gladiators. We don't put women in the game for the same reason we don't put bunny rabbits or children in the game. Putting women in the game would be an act of brutal sadism, an act of barbarism even by pagan Roman standards. While the Romans did occasionally put female gladiators in the arena, they were there as a comedic act. They were occasionally matched against midgets, which the Romans apparently found hilarious. We could, of course, throw out historical verisimilitude. But we're not going to. Because we value that verisimilitude far more than we value the opinion of a few whiny women who don't play the sort of games we make anyhow. And when we design a game with a particular female market in mind, we don't worry about hurting the feelings of men who we know have no interest in that sort of game. But the woman is right. There is no point in debating. We're not interested in debating her. We're not interested in listening to her. As it happens, we couldn't possibly care less what she thinks one way or the other.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
The Chairman posted:Women cannot credibly fight as gladiators. We don't put women in the game for the same reason we don't put bunny rabbits or children in the game. Putting women in the game would be an act of brutal sadism, an act of barbarism even by pagan Roman standards. While the Romans did occasionally put female gladiators in the arena, they were there as a comedic act. They were occasionally matched against midgets, which the Romans apparently found hilarious. Someone should introduce this guy to Samantha Swords... --- Grog Tax quote:All of them. It is the endless circle. If good goes to far it is evil, and if evil goes to far it is good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
quote:Our group has been playing together for several months now in various settings. Overall it's gone pretty well, everyone gets along and the campaigns have been fun. quote:No, talking to her like an adult is the solution. Explain the issue in detail; explain that if she keeps negatively impacting the fun that everyone else is having, she won't be invited back to the game. Then give her another chance, with reminders if she is slipping into old, fun-wrecking habits. If she doesn't change, then don't invite her back. quote:The irony here is delicious.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 19:17 |
|
|
Well seeing as Wizards of the Coast like to quiet some of their fans instead of listening, or possibly fear what some might say, due to some threads being completely erased, I figured I would post it here for discussion. This topic came up in the deceased "damage on a miss thread" and I thought a thread about this topic would be a great discussion. Now just to be clear, a compromise can't always be reached, nor will one be reached even if it could at times. If there is a way for everyone to get what they want then happy days, but if my happiness has to come at the cost of yours then I can say with all honesty that I can accept that. There are certain mechanics that make or break the game for them and sometimes we are faced with the decision that we either play the game or we don't. If WoTc could apply these types of conflicting mechanics, such as damage on a miss, in a way to make them optional then everyone can be happy because you can either use it or leave it out. WoTc unfortunately, aren't known for their compromise and will leave you having to make the difficult choice of either playing the game or walking away. I feel like if there came a choice, I want to be happy. I had to endure 4th edition and now I feel it's my turn to be happy if a compromise can't be met. I was told I'm being selfish for feeling this way, but I feel I am just being realistic
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 00:20
|
|