|
Yo Logicninja I was following that thief-backstab thread on rpg.net and I saw you say you wouldn't want a system where a thief could only disarm traps twice a day. I think that'd actually be a pretty interesting way to handle skills- for every point (or whatever) of disarm traps you buy, you can disarm one trap. Once you spend your points, you can't disarm until you (recharge, daily nap, etc.) It's not the most skill-engaging mechanic, but for a more combat-focused system like 4e it could work. You wouldn't have to worry about scaling skill levels on the PC side, or DC levels on the DM side. Opting to become a 'skills monkey' would have less chances of being a trap- skill feats could simply give you another use of a skill. Skills would simply become a resource management mini-game for the party. From the challenge perspective, it also makes life easier for the DM. All you need to do is decide how much you want to extend/overextend your PCs on their skills in a given dungeon, and what challenges might have multiple skill resolutions available. In particular I think it'd be a good solution for newer DMs who might paint themselves into corners with must-pass notice/interrogate/etc tests that the PCs could fail. Instead of needing to come up with backups for how a skill-check might be resolved (each one maybe slightly less plausible than the last), the DM can simply decide how would a particular skill use resolve this problem. Like I'm imagining: Locked Door -The thief can spend a lockpick point to unlock the door quietly, granting the party a surprise round on the orcs on the other side -The fighter can spend an athletics point to bash the door down, which immediately starts the fight but saves a lockpick for a treasure chest later -The mage can use knowledge to determine the door leads to a single room and can perhaps be skipped Kind of obvious (and maybe choose-your-own-adventure-y), but I think it makes life a lot easier on social skill checks: Captured Orc -The fighter can intimidate the Orc, which will lead to the Orc revealing the number of ogres the Orc clan has in the dungeon -The Paladin can diplomacy the Orc, which will lead to the Orc revealing the names/locations of the key leaders of the Orc clan -The Thief can deceive the Orc and find a hidden tunnel In the above cases, I imagine you'd actually keep the results secret from the PCs (although list the basic skills allowed and how they'd apply), but let them figure out potential pros/cons through some other method. Sorry just was kind of thinking about that for the past few hours 
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2012 05:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 06:49 |
|
|
Kobold Sex Tape posted:i can't think of a game whose point is to have fun Can't see the forest for the trees, huh?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2012 05:12
|
|
|
DeclaredYuppie posted:Yo Logicninja I was following that thief-backstab thread on rpg.net and I saw you say you wouldn't want a system where a thief could only disarm traps twice a day. That thread got closed so now I've lost another source of grognard  Thought it was surprising that in lovey-dovey RPGnet one of the admins would say something like "I would rather have cancer of the anything than actually get involved in this conversation" and I'm pretty sure any non-admin who said that would get in ~*real poo poo*~
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2012 06:21
|
|
|
Drox posted:This just makes me want to play a tabletop version of Shut Up and Jam: Gaiden Now I'm sad that the X-Crawl PbP is on hiatus, because I didn't get a chance to pitch the "Unlimited Slam Works" encounter to Kayn Slamdyke. Chaltab posted:Good lord. Did Paizo run their drat numbers at all? The answer to this is always "no, we did not, and anyone who would run the math is a dirty munchkin. We're in this for the roleplaying, not rollplaying." Nonsensically bad mechanics are a staple of this game, and a fun game to play is to go through the SRD and find out how many cool and interesting character concepts are ruined by utterly abysmal mechanics. Example: Scrollmaster, a wizard option. While the 10th level feature is a decent way to have some emergency power in your back pocket, the other options are... different. You have the option to shape paper scrolls into weapons and shields as strong as steel! Whose enhancement bonuses are limited by the level of the spell on the scroll! And who are good for a number of strikes equal to the spell's level before being completely destroyed. And can cost up to 4000 gp for nine strikes of a mere +5 weapon of 50,000 gp in value (or 8 strikes if you save the scroll to cast the spell inscribed). For comparison, you can just put 500 gp into a sock or roll up a cardboard tube and cast Greater Magic Weapon on it. Either way you've still got the attack bonus and defenses of a wizard, which means you're going to be whiffing and getting smacked around unless you know exactly what you're doing with your spells (buffing yourself instead of simply throwing down save-or-die spells). Unsurprisingly, it would be much easier to build a working version in 4e. See also: the Witch, which has an interesting build with prehensile hair... except it also uses the witch's terrible combat stats.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2012 06:59
|
|
|
LightWarden posted:Nonsensically bad mechanics are a staple of this game, and a fun game to play is to go through the SRD and find out how many cool and interesting character concepts are ruined by utterly abysmal mechanics. Example: Scrollmaster, a wizard option. While the 10th level feature is a decent way to have some emergency power in your back pocket, the other options are... different. You have the option to shape paper scrolls into weapons and shields as strong as steel! Whose enhancement bonuses are limited by the level of the spell on the scroll! And who are good for a number of strikes equal to the spell's level before being completely destroyed. And can cost up to 4000 gp for nine strikes of a mere +5 weapon of 50,000 gp in value (or 8 strikes if you save the scroll to cast the spell inscribed). For comparison, you can just put 500 gp into a sock or roll up a cardboard tube and cast Greater Magic Weapon on it. Either way you've still got the attack bonus and defenses of a wizard, which means you're going to be whiffing and getting smacked around unless you know exactly what you're doing with your spells (buffing yourself instead of simply throwing down save-or-die spells). Unsurprisingly, it would be much easier to build a working version in 4e.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2012 07:23
|
|
|
The sad thing is, they do sound like fun. You know. If they worked.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2012 07:42
|
|
|
They're also less impressive if you figure out the authors probably just watched Read or Die.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2012 07:50
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Oh, silly LightWarden. The Paizo designers don't create character options based on your nerdy math, they create them based on fun! Fun is for WoW babbies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2012 08:16
|
|
|
DeclaredYuppie posted:I think that'd actually be a pretty interesting way to handle skills- for every point (or whatever) of disarm traps you buy, you can disarm one trap. Once you spend your points, you can't disarm until you (recharge, daily nap, etc.) I'm 90% sure I'm getting at last one important rule wrong there, going off what I remember from someone else describing it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2012 10:55
|
|
|
FMguru posted:I just had this fleeting daydream of a system that flips the usual grog script - where fighters can do just about anything because of their Sheer drat Manliness and spellcasters were stuck with a bunch of complicated rules that made them near-useless. fighters power-dropping dragons all over the place and wizards having to make rolls to keep from passing out or going mad before casting every spell because fighters in Real Mythology are awesome and it makes magic more mysterious and realistic if it's dangerous, not well understood, and prone to catastrophic backlash. A system that just shits on spellcasters at every turn, citing source material and "realism" arguments. Isn't this just Deathwatch?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2012 11:00
|
|
|
Splicer posted:This is kind of how the gumshoe system handles skills, I think? It's something like, all skill checks are "roll a d6, get 5 or better". If you roll a 5 or 6, well done! Otherwise you can choose to just go "Eh I fail I suppose" or spend points from that skill's points pool to get to 5. When you're out of points for a skill you're down to blind luck. The Dying Earth RPG does something similar too: you roll a d6, succeed on a 4 or higher, temporarily spend a point of your relevant skill to reroll a failure, and it costs more points to reroll if you roll a 1.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2012 11:00
|
|
|
Antinumeric posted:Isn't this just Deathwatch? It would need to lose some of the tables, oddball skills, and droning paragraphs of rules for situations that will maybe come up twice during a whole campaign and then... well it won't be like Dark Heresy anymore, but it will have met its goal!
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2012 11:36
|
|
|
DeclaredYuppie posted:Yo Logicninja I was following that thief-backstab thread on rpg.net and I saw you say you wouldn't want a system where a thief could only disarm traps twice a day. Sounds like an expansion of Apocalypse World's/Dungeon World's "hold" mechanic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2012 12:19
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:They're also less impressive if you figure out the authors probably just watched Read or Die. Isn't that a good thing? If I could make giant paper airplanes and fly about the city throwing razor sharp monetary notes at people I don't know what else I would need.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2012 15:02
|
|
|
The Sneak Attack thread makes me sad. At this point I just don't know why some people get so upset about fighters with 1/day abilities, amongst the hundred things that have been part of D&D for decades but make no realistic sense. All I can picture is a sad little fat child, beaming with glee when the DM tells him that his fireball killed 10 out of 12 hobgoblins, then turning beet-red and on the verge of angry tears because the guy playing the fighter gets to kill the last two with his multi-attack ability. Edit: Schadenfreude.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2012 15:13
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Edit: Schadenfreude.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2012 15:28
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:The Sneak Attack thread makes me sad. At this point I just don't know why some people get so upset about fighters with 1/day abilities, amongst the hundred things that have been part of D&D for decades but make no realistic sense. All I can picture is a sad little fat child, beaming with glee when the DM tells him that his fireball killed 10 out of 12 hobgoblins, then turning beet-red and on the verge of angry tears because the guy playing the fighter gets to kill the last two with his multi-attack ability. Because those guys honestly think the game rules are the "physics" of the world, not an abstraction. Is "your Big Huge Strike is only usable once a day" realistic? Of course not. But where most people would accept that it's an abstraction, then explain it as "this is really hard to set up or pull off, that's why you can't just do your best hit all day every day; you're picking your moment", there are those who read that as "A fighter can only swing really hard once per day PERIOD" and that's it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2012 18:32
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:Because those guys honestly think the game rules are the "physics" of the world, not an abstraction.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2012 18:54
|
|
|
Mystic Mongol posted:Isn't that a good thing? If I could make giant paper airplanes and fly about the city throwing razor sharp monetary notes at people I don't know what else I would need. Yeah, I'd be pretty stoked if a game let me play as "The Paper".
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2012 18:55
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:does the last part answer the question? That's the other half of the equation, yes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2012 18:55
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:That doesn't really explain why they're okay with hit points, no wound penalties, armor as a dodge bonus, unexplained fire-and-forget spells, high stats making your fireball spells hotter, limited use for barbarian rages and stuff like stunning fist, every other loving thing monks do, +X magic weapons with no explanation how that works, the very idea an armored man could kill a magic Godzilla, and other stuff that's been part of D&D for years and years...or does the last part answer the question? Gygaxian Naturalism  Fake-ish edit: We should invent Heinslooian Naturalism. The verismilitude of martial dailies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2012 18:56
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:That doesn't really explain why they're okay with hit points, no wound penalties, armor as a dodge bonus, unexplained fire-and-forget spells, high stats making your fireball spells hotter, limited use for barbarian rages and stuff like stunning fist, every other loving thing monks do, +X magic weapons with no explanation how that works, the very idea an armored man could kill a magic Godzilla, and other stuff that's been part of D&D for years and years...or does the last part answer the question? Those things are canon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2012 19:34
|
|
|
Mikan posted:That thread got closed so now I've lost another source of grognard Maybe Abe is running a homespun business training other forums mods. If we can get Kai Tave to start refering to himself as a 'sex-haver' we'll know.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2012 19:59
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:That doesn't really explain why they're okay with hit points, no wound penalties, armor as a dodge bonus, unexplained fire-and-forget spells, high stats making your fireball spells hotter, limited use for barbarian rages and stuff like stunning fist, every other loving thing monks do, +X magic weapons with no explanation how that works, the very idea an armored man could kill a magic Godzilla, and other stuff that's been part of D&D for years and years...or does the last part answer the question? A mechanic's "simulationism" is tied directly to it's age. The older the mechanic, the more it simulates...whatever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2012 20:30
|
|
|
As has been pointed out multiple times here, the only thing Dungeons & Dragons simulates anymore is Dungeons & Dragons.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2012 20:34
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:A mechanic's "simulationism" is tied directly to it's age. The older the mechanic, the more it simulates...whatever. The more it simulates my youth, when things were simpler, colours brighter and the world was a safe place, you could walk down to the store without worrying about being robbed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2012 20:58
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:As has been pointed out multiple times here, the only thing Dungeons & Dragons simulates anymore is Dungeons & Dragons.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2012 21:15
|
|
|
quote:Another thing to keep in mind is the function of dice in oldschool play. Rather than being set up to tell a specific story, a lot of oldschool stuff was literally random. The game world was supposed to be its own living breathing entity, separate from the PCs. Game rules approached the status of ingame laws of physics, and whatever happened (ie how the dice fell) was just what happened. A good example of this was wandering monster and random dungeon room tables. So, if you are wandering through the forest and the dice determine that you bump into some orcs (because the orcs, for whatever reason happen to be there according to the dice) then that's what happens. How many orcs? Again, down to the dice. What sort of orcs are they? Well, role 1 hp on your 1d8, and they turned out to be weak, scrawny orcs. Roll instead an 8, and they turned out to be big, burly orcs. That's what happened. The DM didn't have a special "scene" in mind - though a good one would improvise relevance on the fly - the game world just decided that the orcs happened to be in the area. Same mentality applied to PC hit points. Ether you are tough or you aren't. You don't have much control over it. This ties back to random ability scores. Essentially, as a Player, you were being asked to interpret a bunch of random numbers into a character, and then play the role of that character as you felt appropriate. There is a bit of challenge and fun to be had in that sort of gaming, though it is clearly not for everyone. Saying there are orcs in the forest because I rolled a 5: realistic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2012 21:28
|
|
|
I think it’s no surprise to anyone that WotC has burned every bit of their credibility with me over 4e. And I am a little dubious about the “multiple coexisting levels of complexity” plan they have espoused for 5e. But so far what I’m hearing about the specific for 5e are really positive. At DDXP they had some seminars, let’s evaluate what they’re saying! Class Design The Good Taking Vancian magic back to casters from everyone – in other words, removing “dailies” and crap from fighters Not using so much “jargon” like the power keywords in favor of natural language (thank you!!!) Quick chargen Power not escalating as quickly, for example the fighter BAB not going up so fast, instead just getting more other options, so iconic monsters like ogres are interesting longer No mandatory magic item economy!!! YAY! Including all the PHB1 classes from all editions, 1-4 Easy 3e style multiclassing, which obviates the need for too many variant classes that should just be multiclassing (like every gish ever). The Questionable Although they are talking about balancing classes not strictly on DPS, which is great – like if the bard does 70% of the damage of a fighter, they get charm and stuff as compensation – but those sample percentages still seem to say that everyone needs to be a combat guy. That’s not very 1e. The Bad Nothing? I have to admit except for me being dubious about the true effectiveness of mixing various complexity levels in one game I don’t see anything here that makes me crap myself in rage, which is more than any 2 pages of the 4e PHB can say. Skills & Ability Scores The Good Removing rolls in favor of “yeah, your stat is high enough, you’re good” Use of stat checks for saves 4d6 drop lowest as basic stat gen method skills as smaller tweaks to ability scores interaction first, checks come second No set skill list, something can give you +2 to opening jars non-adventuring skills sound like they work kinda like 2e NWPs, which is good Bringing the Great Wheel cosmology back Maybe stat boosting magic, but with caps Silver standard Wider categories of weapon specialization (e.g. axes, not “battleaxe”) Less scaling while leveling Quick prep More power to the DM grittier low levels (not quite 1e, but not superheroes like 4e) skill challenges should “die in a fire” because they mess up the narrative grid-based combat optional in core books The Questionable Both race and class give you a stat bump, which is fine in the abstract but I worry about it feeding the bad, below. Themes. They seem to be focusing a lot on these new themes, which is fine, kinda like 2e kits which I liked – but I worry they’re going to put too much power in them (some 2e kits were quite unbalanced too). But later they talk about them limiting class sprawl which is nice. The Bad I’m worried about the intense stat dependency. Stat min-maxing wasn’t so important in 1e but it’s all super important in 3e and that sucks. It makes people cry about rolling stats and makes them too min-maxable as they stack their race/class/point buy/etc on top to give themselves +5 to hit and 20 dps at first level. NPCs not being built like PCs. That’s 4e-ism and it sucks. Still talking about their “virtual table” and hedging about PDFs. Sigh. They’ll never write good software but they need to wake up and join the 2000′s in terms of digital content. Summary So… Awesome? Bringing simulation back to the game? Making sure you can do iconic 1e things? I have to admit, I am not convinced they can wean themselves off rules-heavy and take it to more of a 2e-ish approach. But I like 90% of what they’re saying! If they can restrain their impulse to write 500 pages of loving rules, and keep the stat dependency in check so there’s not the big hassle of min-maxing and stat dumping, this has potential. Maybe even potential to be better than Pathfinder – I love Pathfinder, their flavor and art and everything is nice, but it suffers from its 3.5e legacy of being so rules heavy – people try “cap at level six” variants like E6 to try to avoid the worst of the power inflation and craziness. Will 5e be the best yet? I still am not to the point where I’d bet money on it, but it seems like WotC has learned the lesson that Microsoft learned with Windows Vista – giving people what you want them to have instead of what they want never works out well for you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2012 21:28
|
|
|
Someone needs to have that Gary quote about how his game is a miserably bad simulator of medieval times hotkeyed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2012 21:31
|
|
|
OBFUSCATING RULES IN MUNDANE LANGUAGE IS A BAD THING YOU MORONS.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2012 21:32
|
|
|
Gau posted:Someone needs to have that Gary quote about how his game is a miserably bad simulator of medieval times hotkeyed. That's not very 1e of you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2012 21:32
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:WoW MMO anime bullshit Should we at least give him the credit of categorizing it under The Bad section?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2012 21:50
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:Saying there are orcs in the forest because the GM felt it makes sense for them to be there: storygamey. That guy doesn't say a thing about realism and essentially says that part of the fun comes from figuring out the story behind all the die-rolls' random results.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2012 21:52
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:That guy doesn't say a thing about realism and essentially says that part of the fun comes from figuring out the story behind all the die-rolls' random results. Except that a "living, breathing world" isn't created completely at random. If I run into a bear in the woods, it's not because some cosmic hand rolled a 5, it's because that's where bears live. e: My point is that if you want a world to make sense, you can't just jam poo poo together at random like everything exists independently of everything else. You have to put some thought into it and have things where they are because that's the most logical assembly, not because someone rolled on a chart. That's how you get the "swamp next to a desert" thing on maps, or monsters who do nothing but sit around and wait in a dungeon room for the PCs to show up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2012 21:53
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:That guy doesn't say a thing about realism and essentially says that part of the fun comes from figuring out the story behind all the die-rolls' random results. Well, there's a lot to be said from doing creative work inspired by some random rolls on tables. How To Host A Dungeon has re-inspired me in this area. "What should we put here ? <rolls dice, checks table> Nahh, we'll put one of those in instead." Of course, I feel free to pick a result instead of rolling and if I say there's some orcs in the woods there's some loving orcs in the woods. And they'll be there for the story 
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2012 22:00
|
|
|
Some anti-grog from the main man: Arguments & Complaints If an argument starts during a game, stop the game for a moment. Listen to both sides, and make a decision. Then continue the game as soon as possible. Do not allow an argument to continue for long. Explain that everyone is trying to have fun, and that the argument can be settled after the game if necessary. If a player complains about the way you are handling something in the game, try to listen to the objection. Be reasonable—he might be right! If you can fix the problem by changing a procedure, try to work out a reasonable compromise. For example, if a player says "You keep killing characters with poison!", you might try reducing the number of poison traps and monsters you have in your campaign. Be careful not to change rules that could overbalance the game in favor of the characters. The game system is carefully balanced to provide fun for all while challenging the characters. Some complaints may be caused by a player's greed. It should not be too easy to get treasure or experience; these things should be earned slowly, using the guidelines given. Beware of the "giveaway" (aka "Monty Haul") game! Your players may quickly become bored with easy riches, and their characters will easily overpower most monsters. If you are not sure how to handle a situation, just tell this to the players. Everyone has to learn, and learning a game like this can be a slow process. Your players will understand if you explain that you made a mistake, and they might have a sound and fair recommendation for ways you can handle the situation. When you admit your mistakes and try to correct them, you and your players will have a better game in the long run. Creating Characters When a newly created character has all low scores (all scores under 9), the player should be allowed to discard it. You should allow beginning players to use characters they like! It's hard to have fun playing when you are forced to use a poor character, with no score above 9 or two scores below 6; such characters should be discarded. (On the other hand, a player might want to play this character; if he does, let him.) If a player wants a certain class of character but rolls abilities that strongly favor another class, you may allow him to switch the ability scores around. Just switch the highest score rolled for the character to the Prime Requisite ability appropriate to the class the player wants. Assumed and Defined Actions In D&D games, the player does not normally have to describe every action his character takes throughout the day. For example, when the characters are doing long-distance traveling and time is being measured by the day, it's reasonable for everyone to assume that the characters do eat, rest after and sometimes during travel, talk to one another, behave in a normally prudent and careful fashion, and so forth, without the players having to role-play every single incident or encounter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2012 22:01
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:Except that a "living, breathing world" isn't created completely at random. If I run into a bear in the woods, it's not because some cosmic hand rolled a 5, it's because that's where bears live. But we do not want realism, we want verisimilitude, if you were a real roleplayer you would know the difference 
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2012 22:02
|
|
|
TK-31 posted:But we do not want realism, we want verisimilitude, if you were a real roleplayer you would know the difference I do like how he rolled to see what kind of orcs the were, and they weren't "a raiding party" or "scouts" or "cultists performing a ritual". They were 1 hp orcs. Because that's something the PCs could tell.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2012 22:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 06:49 |
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:Except that a "living, breathing world" isn't created completely at random. If I run into a bear in the woods, it's not because some cosmic hand rolled a 5, it's because that's where bears live. Don't use this argument with a grog, though, because to them it's just an argument that you need more detailed charts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2012 22:06
|
|