|
I am so, so sorry. To expand: The game just doesn't have it. It is the combination of flavor, playability, and sheer fun factor. There's little balance between the different arcana, with Space and Mind blowing other schools out of the water in terms of usefulness, and Forces and Fate sucking a lot until rank 5. It has nearly incomprehensible spellcasting rules that require going over time and again before you understand them. There's a very simple flowchart to get you started available online. Additionally, the flavor of the political factions is uninspired, and most of them have little reason to work together or against each other, and antagonist forces are frankly all but absent from the book. The only currency of the setting are vaguely defined secrets, which seems largely pointless when every Mage knows the big one. Style seems inconsistent, because at one point the game seems to expect you to be playing Action Movie stars who blow up buildings while riding on motorcycles, another moment playing paranoid schizophrenics holed up in their libraries writing nonsense about elder gods. Seemingly simple effects like, "Make light" are not only difficult to pull off at all and require investment of character resources, but are also actually risky for a character to perform, while game-destroyingly powerful effects like memory alteration, postcognition and mind reading are accomplished simply and for little or no cost. Mage: The Awakening is quite literally the biggest waste of money I've ever spent on RPG related materials. It's not that it's out-and-out bad, as in "nothing good between its covers", it's just that what is good falls flat in execution, doesn't fit with other aspects of the game, or is obscured in a mire of bad things surrounding the good aspect. You might have better luck with it, the game DOES have fans after all. I would say that the only thing I think White Wolf ever put out of lower overall playability than Mage: The Awakening was Monte Cook's World of Darkness... and I'm not even a fan of White Wolf. Also odd is that I think New World of Darkness the core book is quite possibly in my top 5 RPG systems of all time.
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 07:54 |
|
|
They aren't boring, to some people. But to those who find them boring, it's because of: (1) "Being Cool" vs. "Doing Cool Things"; for some, it's what you have listed on your character sheet that matters, while for others, it's the decisions they make, and what happens as a consequence. Includes examples of people liking more mechanical engagement, but the same thing happens for some people if you keep the fighter, dump the wizard, and create fighter variant with attacks described as magical effects. (2) Penis Envy/Buyer's Remorse: Sometimes, you make a character choice, then you later decide that someone else's character is cooler. That makes your choice "boring". (3) The Character Arms Race: People who dislike something about one class's limitations or "boring" qualities house rule the class to make it better, then someone else thinks another class is boring in comparison because of less mechanical engagement (#1) or because the new class sounds cooler (#2). So more changes are made, and then the first class is put in the same position, triggering more changes, in a Designer Death Spiral. (4) Changing Cultural Norms: The Fighter was designed at a time when fighting characters in novels and movies were often described as simple, no-nonsense guys who sneered at fancy maneuvers, gimmicky gadgets, or (in fantasy) suspicious magic. Later novels and films introduced over-the-top fantastic fighters. For those raised on the latter, older fighters seem boring because they can't punch a hole through a steel wall, cut a tank in half with a sword, or spin their quarterstaff so fast it turns into a helicopter. The history of RPG supplements and edition re-design is partially a history of playing catch-up with ever-changing images of what a cool fighter should look like.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
A thread on RPGnet reminded me that Far West still hasn't actually shipped. Here's Skarka explaining how he doesn't owe a drat thing to people who gave him money in expectation of receiving a product because they weren't actually customers. quote:He’s not a customer. Period. Here’s the thing: _There are no customers for FAR WEST yet._ There are backers, which is not the same as a customer — that’s somebody who has invested money to back a process (of which there are 717, and he isn’t one), each of whom is receiving some amount of stock of various products in the line in return for their investment. Kickstarter is very clear about this. This is not a consumer process.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
I mean the entirety of 4chan's /tg/ board could really be posted as grog, but this little quip in a "signs of a problem PC" thread killed me.quote:There are specific rules for the use of Intimidate that people tend to forget. It's actually also a valid combat skill because you can make opponents Shaken in PF. I think the most disturbing thing is that I can no longer separate trolling from just legitimate toxic opinions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 04:24
|
|
Glukeose posted:I mean the entirety of 4chan's /tg/ board could really be posted as grog, but this little quip in a "signs of a problem PC" thread killed me. Some of it is grog, but the majority is just really lovely CYOA threads. Like, gently caress, I set my filter up to block all those dumb Quest threads and now I always have 20+ threads filtered on the board at all times. Still, some stuff is nice that it makes it worthwhile. I like that one thread where they're trying to make a dragon for every element of the periodic table. But I digress. More The RPGPundit stuff! Looks like Ettin is getting called out? I dunno. Dude's weird. quote:Given that you seem to be acknowledging that I'm not in fact a homophobe, transphobe, racist, MRA, or tea party member, contrary to the various claims made, then what, precisely is the "allegation" left to be proven? quote:Continuing To Confront the Fake-Outrage Brigade; and Getting Just a Bit Sappy Even when he's being sentimental he's a dick. SunAndSpring fucked around with this message at 06:06 on Jul 7, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 05:53
|
|
|
Pundit's past screeds do look a little unflattering. A little digging and we find: quote:Someone should contract an armed gang of Brazilian mercenaries, kidnap every other setting designer in the industry, sit them down in a dank poorly-lit room somewhere, and force them to read the whole loving thing. Then have the guys who worked on it give them all indoctrination settings on how to do the same. NOTE TO SETTING DESIGNERS: This is how you create a "crunchy" setting, and this is exactly the sort of thing that settings should be doing today! Not more loving feats and prestige classes, not limp-wristed in-game fiction; give us more books with 4000 loving adventure ideas in them! Let the personality of the setting show in the actual adventure seeds, and let the adventure seeds be tied to places on the loving map. Its so goddamned obvious it makes my ears bleed just considering that I actually have to spell it out to people. He really liked using "limp-wristed" back then — http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=6794 quote:Yes, its Joseph Rudyard Kipling; beloved storyteller, poet, intellectual; and these days maligned by the left-wing nanny-staters lily-livered limp-wristed cowards who are actually so delusional as to think that western civilization is a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 15:39
|
|
|
The best of Pathfinder's Adventure Paths:quote:Rise of the Runelords is the best if you want good old fashioned dungeon crawl.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
What's that coming over the hill? Why, it's Zak S's ego, shortly followed by the man himself! Let's be fair, moderating comments on your own blog isn't something any of us have a problem with. Zak S posted:@confanity: But let's follow that link, shall we? What do you think we'll find? If you guessed 'a loving treasure trove of awful opinions and bad arguments' you win a prize! The prize is the previously-mentioned 'confanity' utterly schooling Zak S in his own comment section. I think my favourite part is where Zak asserts that he knows games are bad because they have bad creators and bad audiences - pause for  - but I strongly recommend reading the whole thing. If you don't like driving traffic to his blog - and in case he gets wise and deletes the comments - I also screenshotted the whole thing as well. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/18386467/Screen%20Shot%202014-07-08%20at%2012.06.58.png E: Just to avoid mod wrath, the grog is games-related, he just opens it by rambling about a bunch of other stuff for way too long. E2: My God, it's full of stars. Confanity posted:You do none of these things. Instead, you 1. made a series of aggressively-worded assertions 2. from a position of assumed authority and expertise 3. in a public space. In effect, your post is a very loud one-star rating, but we don't even get to know what it's a rating of. We, the readers, should not be required to make special requests before you deign to hand down the reasoning behind your pronouncements; that would be one of your responsibilities as someone who makes assertions in the public sphere. (At least, if you want to be taken seriously and are not a right-wing talk-show host.) potatocubed fucked around with this message at 12:41 on Jul 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 12:14
|
|
|
Gender violence in tabletop RPGs - a neverending grogmine of some of the most vile poo poo-thoughts in the hobby.quote:Oh good God, why do you even ask? You know whats going to happen... Everyone is going to circlejerk eachother as not having experienced that, and just create strawmen of how anyone who does that, or would even tolerate that is a sicko and ironically go into demented detail about what they'd do to them. The truth is noone has the balls to make a D&D game that's anti-woman and anti-gay, because irl human beings are wholly lawful neutral to lawful evil and constantly need to whank off the cultural norms. Which ever since the 18th century has been romantiscizing women and excusing sexual deviance in the west. And rather then change that, it's just become more extreme.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 16:21
|
|
|
quote:Decriers of 4e often aruged, "There's no roleplaying in 4e!" I disliked this argument and strongly opposed it at first. No roleplaying? There's as much roleplaying in a roleplaying game as you want there to be. Just because the vast majority of 4e's rules governed combat doesn't mean that the game somehow prevented you from roleplaying as much as you did in 3.5e.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
quote:I played with a DM who was heading in this direction (establishing that since his world was medieval, women were treated like trash and men would casually insult female adventurers for the lulz), but it stopped when I objected too much (I don't mind a patriarchal society if there's a reason, but building a world as taken out of a MMORPG, and then adding heavy-handed misogyny for no apparent reason, is not acceptable in my book). Was the world really the problem or was it your problem and you decided to make it the groups problem? As a PC you could have had a chance to change things if you could deal with it for a while. If your DM had said "This is the way things are and no one in the world could ever change it" I can see that being upsetting and warranting a discussion. But, hey, it probably made you feel really good forcing change of the whole world with no effort and making everyone else play in the mystical (b)land of "Everyone's Equal Because I Say So", which is what's unacceptable in my book. --- For us the point was that we were playing in gritty worlds; I had games where barbarian empires would invade the civilized world, and yes, where they conquered,women were raped, but men were killed. I had the players stumble into an assaulted village; women and children were gone (they later saved the prisoners, and yes, some women had been abused). Men were still in the village, their manhoods cut off and them impaled on greased poles. We had games were matriarchal elven societies had the warrior women cut the last phalanx of the opposable thumb and the right ankle tendon of all male boys around the age of 10 to prevent them from becoming warriors; we had games about racial genocide, we had male players being tortured by the Inquisition for being black, african demons and we had players risking being burned at the stakes for being witches (and we're talking of a male elf ranger here). Dark, gritty games exist and there's stuff going on in them that makes gender violence seem something pretty tame; and still gender violence made us all more uneasy than impaling or torture, and so we skipped it more often than not, but removing it all together would have killed any sense of authenticity. -- In the last week I interrogated my girlfriend, my sister and the female gamers of my gaming club, and I foundt none of them to share your concern. Some of them are those who complained about me skipping gender violence in worlds that were otherwise realistical or gritty. They had a plethora of different reasons - from liking the idea of having a fantasy environment where sexist, discrimination and violence was something you could fight and punish, to them saying it was unfair that they had to face gender violence in real life but their fantasy heroine was spared, to them saying that they wanted an immersive world and imagining a primitive world with more advanced parity than our own was just disruptive. I think they may be influenced by the fact that they live in a fairly un-sexist environment, but they seemed to be a lot more relaxed than you seem to be on the issue. Case in point, my girlfriend loves sexist arseholes she can beat up ingame; and not always it's something she can defeat or win, and sometimes she has to take it, but she shares the opinion of the other player that it's added dept to add to the character. --- quote:And yet, I've rarely seen anyone being asked to justify sexism against women in a game. It's realism. Seriously, how much issues do we discuss here every week about how sexist our world is, but if we try to recreate a realistical environment in our fantasy one, we need to justify it? If you tell me pulling it off well is hard, I agree, but no justification is needed, much like no justification is needed for having orcs hating elves. --- Besides, history has always been biased toward men. A fantasy world is much like the Middle Age; it's a barbaric age where physical strength dictates how the power ladder works; and since women are on average weaker than men, by removing sexism in fantasy worlds you're either saying that men in those worlds are more enlightened than they've been in ours (they still have human sacrifices and wage war for superstitions but they're well past sexism!), or that (and this is the most disgusting thing in my opinion), the not-so-worth women are absent from fantasy world, replaced by the much more interesting gender called MagiWomen, who are fundamentally men with boobs, having the same average physical characteristics than guys and being much worthier of room in a fantasy novel than our ordinary, puny real life ones. Bleh.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
I noticed that the thread talking about 5th Edition D&D supporting transsexuality/non-binary sexuality. Specifically, I noticed that all of the posters who said anything not gushing praise for it has been banned. Not some. Not most. All. The latest non-praiser to be banned simply said that it could be a poor business decision that could alienate a segment of the customers who do not agree. Does RPG.net have a pro-LGBT(etc) requirement, or is there something I am missing?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
The post that 'simply said it was a poor business decision'quote:From a business standpoint this is a really bad idea, I suppose it could bring in a certain crowd but it could also turn off a certain crowd. Most of the people I have played D&D with have been of the thesbian or underemployed hipster bent so I could imagine that the statement preaches to a certain choir.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 10:27
|
|
|
grog on Polygon! Be sure to check the comments later for even more! http://www.polygon.com/2014/7/9/5882143/roll-for-initiative-understanding-the-next-edition-of-dungeons-dragons quote:The most recent version of the D&D rules is 4th Edition, which changed the franchise — for better or worse, depending on who you're talking to — to something more akin to a board game. More than ever before, procedural rules (particularly in combat) were codified; players relied largely on the powers allotted to their class to execute the most damage and strategic advantage as possible during their turn. Before a battle even started, you knew what your party was capable of; improvising or role-playing in combat was possible, but rarely as effective or rewarded as using your best preselected Power.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
Try to read this if you hate yourself.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
When discussing roleplaying games I’ve tried to eliminate the term “immersion” from my vocabulary: It’s terminology with a horribly fractured etymology and never fails to create confusion whenever it’s used. The problem has its primary roots in the ’90s: In the tabletop community, the Usenet groups picked the term “immersion” to refer to people deeply immersing themselves in the playing of their character. “Deep immersion” became the state in which roleplaying flowed naturally and you were able to make decisions as your character an portray your character without have to engage in logical analysis. Almost simultaneously, however, the video game community created the concept of “immersion vs. interactivity”. In this construct, loosely speaking, interactivity refers to the player making decisions and immersion refers to the player becoming drawn into or convinced by the faux reality of the game world. (You’ll notice that, in this construction, the concept of “immersion” is effectively set up as being in a state of antithesis with the tabletop community’s use of the word “immersion”.) This video game concept of “immersion” then “jumped the pond” and got picked up by various tabletop communities. Then you can take all of that confusion and stir in a healthy dose of people using the word according to its general dictionary definition: “Deep mental involvement.” That meant any time somebody said “no, immersion is about deep mental involvement in X” (whether X was “playing your character” or “the presentation of the game world”), somebody else could respond by saying “no, I experience immersion by having a deep mental involvement with Y”. My personal use of the term was shaped in those old Usenet discussions. So if you ever do see me using the word “immersion” in the context of tabletop roleplaying, it’s a virtual certainty that I’m talking about immersion in the process of roleplaying a character; the sort of one-to-one flow of thought to action and the empathetic flow of thought that often characterizes our conception of the very best Method actors. But I’ve generally found that when I need to discuss that sort of thing it’s almost always more rewarding to find a way of talking about it which doesn’t use the word “immersion”. Whatever your personal conception of the word “immersion” is, I recommend you do the same.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
Well, after looking at it, they've managed to "work" on this since October 2010 and they produced porridge. It is a bit watered down, lukewarm and not sugared of seasoned, but this is Porridge 0.1 and they'll totally have it be a flavorful and hot Porridge 1.0 by November. Because they couldn't get it right in 4 years but the developers are gonna ace it in the next 12 weeks. I've got zero expectations. It looks like 2.0 and 3.5 put in a blender set to "Whirling Apathy." So unlike 4E, it probably won't give you prostate cancer, but there will be zero reason to play it over 3.5 or Pathfinder 2.0
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 08:40
|
|
|
Regarding how to make Shadowrun 5 adepts goodDoc Dee posted:OR
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 09:59
|
|
|
I wonder how misogyny is discussed in Pathfinder?quote:Misogynistic Rage CR 3 quote:An andrazku forms from the soul of a chaotic mortal who hated women and used his or her power to oppress and demean them, such as a tyrant who selectively enforced laws against women, a priest who preached that women are the source of all sin, or a father who secretly beat his wives and daughters for their supposed failures. For this reason andrazkus are known to scholars as “misogyny demons.” Few of these souls dared to greater crimes (which would cause their souls to become incubi or babaus), nor were they once mortals who hated women but never acted upon their hatred—an andrazku only forms from a soul filled with suff icient hatred toward women to provoke action, but that is hampered by enough cowardice to prevent it from performing acts of greater evil. Most of them were male mortals, but an especially misogynistic evil female creature might become an andrazku in the Abyss.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 16:04
|
|
|
Why were Dragonborn and Tieflings ever added into the starting races? Is it just for furrys and people who want to pretend to be grimdark or what? Then again, I'll just be happy if Elves aren't relegated into the position of 'Lesser-Eladrin' again. Lesser-leShay? Sure. Lesser-Eladrin? No.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 01:47
|
|
|
quote:What concerns me is that pathfinder's art, while frankly awesome, is a little anime for my tastes. I REALLY hope this doesn't look like an anime RPG.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
"Their skin tones cover the full range of human coloration, but also include various shades of red..." ...which is obviously why we have an image of a purple skinned Tiefling here for you. As for the "Infernal Bloodline" and ubiquitous "big horns and big tails" appearance, I feel your pain, Shemeska (and all other 2e-style/PS Tiefling lovers). It's not surprising [to me] in the least, but still unfortunate...Creators love their creations. That's really all there is to it...and, as with all other things 5e that we are seeing, the almighty Branding Iron is going to rule all...No one else is gonna get away with a Tiefling that looks like these guys. No sirree...Even though these things [and the last edition's] look like a direct rip-off of the Draenei (sp?) in WoW [hang on while I pull out my 'shock' face. I know it's around here someplace.]...SHHHH! Dont' tell WoW.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
Kamikaze Midget posted:Sure, I follow this. The issue only really occurs because the 4e/5e critter uses a word that already had an established meaning and lore before it came along. am181d posted:Let's remember that the 2e/3e race was never a PHB race. I don't know that it's reasonable to suddenly expect their inclusion now when the express purpose here was to include PHB races from past editions. Kamikaze Midget posted:Then you don't need to call whatever these things are tieflings, if that's not what they are.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 13:55
|
|
|
The context is "Thaumaturgy Cantrip" in 5th edition. gyor posted:Use 9. P*ssing off the neibours when your having sex. Just inagine the sounds coming from the Tiefling in the apartment jext store whose getting some and the sex noises are amplified by 3 times as loud and you've got an earily meeting the next day.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
What will 4e be remembered for? ~*~ I'll remember 4e as the edition where everyone was effectively a spell caster, the edition of non-sensical purely "gamist" rules (fighters have techniques that can only be used once a day? How in the world does that make sense), the edition where simply swinging a weapon was never the right choice - instead it was better to use the twisted lotus ninja decapitaiton strike power. The world will remember 4e as the edition that did so poorly it was cancelled a full year before its replacement was released. No other edition of D&D has that black eye, and hopefully it will never happen again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 08:10
|
|
|
Division, primarily. That, and the hubris of designing a game without consulting the fan base comprehensively enough during play testing, and assuming that mechanical innovation was more important than narrative play.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 08:10
|
|
|
2 years before 5E. I do not think iot will be remembered for anything good. On life support 2 years in, replacement announced 3.5 years in and DOA for 2 years until the next edition. Depending on how 5E turns out it could also be blamed for the beginning of the end.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 08:11
|
|
|
If I have to say something nice at its eulogy, it would be that it will be remembered to for trying to do the impossible: bring D&D to a new style of gamer. It tried to remove the image of D&D as that game played in the late 70's by college kids and that had weird books with cartoony-art and 20 different polearms. It tried to remove the "nerd" stereotype by appealing to card-players, board gamers, and video-gamers. It tried to make the rules emulate the best new ideas in table-top, miniature, ccg, and mmo games. It tried to take back the success of Warcraft and other games IT grandfathered. It really tried to make itself "new", "improved" and "not your father's D&D". It just lost a little too much of itself in the process.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 08:11
|
|
|
Some people will remember 4e for positive reasons, but some will also remember it as the New Coke of D&D - a major investment in a new direction by the company that misread the market.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 08:12
|
|
|
My view of 4E is that it was a huge experiment, wherein a lot of new ideas and mechanics were tested. As with any experiment, some things succeeded, other things failed, and some failed but showed promise with further development. The problem was that people wanted to play Dungeons and Dragons, not be experimented on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 08:13
|
|
|
quote:I'm not sure how discussion of resource depletion was covered, but I think that in a sandbox game the mass harvesting of wood should deplete patches of forest. This would have two awesome benefits:
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
Know what really angers me? Confident players. ~*~ While 3e players are pretty confident in what they can do there are enough exceptions that they don't always assume their actions are a given, but experienced players who know the rules are good at not only knowing what they can do but all the monsters. 4e players tend to just go in throwing down power cards and assuming things work. "I move here, shift here, and attack. I rolled a 15 so I hit and deal X damage." A DM in both systems will spend a lot of time asking their players "how does that work?" rather than the reverse. In a lot of ways, during the most recent editions, there was very little difference between being a DM running monsters and a player engaging in PvP. You stop being a DM and just become another player rolling dice, only competitive not cooperative. Imagination is optional, not required.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 06:46
|
|
|
Reminder, ENWorld has a rule against "Edition Warring" ~*~ 4e will be remembered by me as the edition that broke me of the need to be a D&D RPG completest. It will be remembered by me as the edition that had the worst marketing in D&D history. It will be remembered by me as the edition that changed things for the benefit of the authors rather than the fans (see 4E Forgotten Realms). It will be remembered by me as the edition that expected you to buy more than three core books to play the core game. It will be remembered by me as the edition that, try as they may, even Necromancer Games couldn't support. It will be remembered by me as the edition that had less content per page (and more whitespace) and yet continued to raise the price for products. It will be remembered by me the edition that made EN World a very difficult place to visit for about 4 years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 10:37
|
|
|
If it's a question of what you use at your own table, that has no affect on me or the game at large. But, by removing the LG requirement, the publishers are redefining the paladin's essential character. Certainly they have the power to put lipstick on a pig and call it whatever they want, but a little bit of what makes D&D distinct erodes with that change.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 10:43
|
|
|
quote:Why do you care what definition I use for my character? It impacts you in no way. Even if we both play paladins in the same campaign, how is it remotely your business how I play my character? I know you don't agree with the argument, I just find it ridiculous after all this time when you act like you don't know what the opposing argument IS. No one plays D&D in a vacuum. What one person plays affects the game world, which affects everyone else's characters. To claim otherwise borders on solipsism. If my character concept is "Last Son of Krypton", and you come along and write up a Kryptonian warlord and his band of Kryptonese followers, do you claim your character choice does not impact mine?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 10:44
|
|
|
"My character is different from yours" "GOD HOW DARE YOU" ~*~ OK. You are playing a druid because, in your view as a role-player, druids are True Neutral. (Assume the DM is OK with this.) You have a concept of what your druid believes, how it is relevant to the campaign, and that those who are not True Neutral have some major disagreement with you on how the forces of nature should be served. You, in a spiritual sense, derive your definition of "what it means to be a Druid" from your interpretation of the rule definition of TN. Another player comes along and says "I'm a druid too - I'm a CG druid of Ehlonna". (Assume the DM has not yet ruled on this.) If the DM says, "Sure, go ahead" - he has just told you that some portion of your character concept is in error. You are told that druids derive power from gods, that they are not solely devoted to the balance (or whatever TN definition you use) - maybe now you don't feel you can trust other druids to support you because now you can't assume they share your viewpoint. His concept has now impinged on yours, without your permission. Your character concepts do not mesh. This is not a statement that one is right or wrong - that the DM should rule for one player or the other for any particular reason - it is a statement that the second character concept forces the first to compromise a portion of his character concept. Telling the first player "you can still play a TN druid" does not change the fact that his character has been impacted. You can even go outside of alignment. If you join a campaign assuming that "all elves are mystical children of Iluvatar" and a new player comes in with a "Santa's elf" - your assumption about the universal nature of elves has been compromised. You could say "well, they're different kinds of elves" - but the first players perception of elves doesn't allow for that. But now he has to compromise on that view. A player who thinks all druids should be neutral is not served by rules allowing all alignments to be druids. A player who thinks all paladins should be lawful is not served by rules allowing all alignments to be paladins. Argue for inclusiveness all you want - but on its merits, not on the assumption that inclusiveness covers both positions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 10:52
|
|
|
With WizBro pushing the moment of Jumping the Shark known as ‘dragonborn’ back into their game, they continue to test whether or not I’ll buy into D&D Next. Wiz could at least give the name back to Elder Scrolls and think of something cooler at least. I suppose if I do end up buying it, I’ll have to do a lot of automatic bans or high probably deaths for special snowflake beings I will seek and exterminate on sight. (As much as I like the EVERYTHING IN A BOX nature of Planescape, I’m not willing to borrow from that too often.) Well, at least the rules continue to shape up into something relatively modern, streamlined, and hopefully light on pointless rules.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 16:06
|
|
|
quote:The succubus enjoys fine clothes,jewelry of precious stones
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
Sum up 4e?quote:Cliff Notes? Yeah I can sum it up...
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 07:54 |
|
|
dwarf74 posted:Sum up 4e? quote:Eh...Typical of what we see all the time these days. Seems the majority of younger people playing don't like to play heroes or the good guys these days. They all like to jump the "Soul this...", "Shadow that...", "Bleeah, Bleeeah, I'm a vampire!" bandwagon. The corps and management that have the final say pander to these masses. Nothing new or surprising here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 04:39
|
|