Elmo Oxygen posted:

Yep, no one has ever had any real issues with clerics being solely responsible for healing in D&D. No sir.

Kai Tave posted:

Winson_Paine posted:

I think it is because rolling more dice is fun. Like, that is the actual reason. Having a lot of dice to throw around is a visceral appeal, and having a little pile of dice you can spend is fun as a whole mess of indie games have shown. I am pretty sure at the heart of things that really is the deal.

Winson_Paine posted:

Well, gently caress those special abilities. I think one of the reasons I like the new Cortex+ Marvel game is generating whacky dice pools for every roll.

Majuju posted:

Gau: there was a Danger Patrol game but it only ran for like two pages before it was abandoned I miss my GHOST DETECTIVE.

petrol blue posted:

The only way I can comment on D&D Next with a meat reference.

petrol blue posted:

I'd really disagree with 4e not taking things from MMOs - the idea of the tank that punishes the target for hitting anyone else, abilities being on a cooldown.

ProfessorCirno posted:

The grand irony is that, by and large, 4e fans aren't buying it. But the crowd that hates 4e is. They've managed to piss up the group they were trying to set up as their supporters while failing to win over the group they were vaguely trying to trick in.

Kai Tave posted:

angry fair-weather fans

ImpactVector posted:

Warhammer Fantasy and Star Wars both ditch the grid, but keep an abstracted positional system that seems kinda similar to what I remember from my brief glance at 13A, where the distance between combatants is measured in the number of movement actions between them. But between WHFRP's card focus and both system's gimmick dice that generate story/situation twists on the fly I'm extremely intrigued. After I wrap up my Dungeon World campaign in a few weeks I'll likely run the Star Wars beginner's set for my group.

AlphaDog posted:

Also, the bees will help defend the brewery, because any decent sort of apocalypse will turn them into giant intelligent bees who are my friends.

Lord Frisk posted:

So what characteristic would need to be retained for TG to consider it D&D?

TalonDemonKing posted:

So whats TGs opinion on Glennfiddtch?

Mendrian posted:

My basic opinion is that if you want to become a billionaire writing RPGs, you need to pump out a lot of very innovative products very quickly. You need to become the RPG equivalent of Stephen King.

Spoilers Below posted:

I think part of the problem is that TTRPGs can't really be done in isolation, and there's a pretty large curve for GMing well. I can buy a console and a bunch of games and enjoy myself without every having spoken to another person about it. I can buy some needles, yarn, and an instruction booklet and I'm pretty much good to go. And it's also unlike the problem that TCGs have with bad players: you spend 15-30 minutes playing the guy, then it's over and you play someone else. The jackass at your D&D table doesn't have this sort of built in removal mechanic.

Not so with any TTRPG. You need at least one more person, preferably 3-4 more, willing to commit to a mutually agreed upon system and schedule for at least a few months. Not impossible by any means, as most of us have found, but certainly more difficult than doing something by yourself when you have free time and are in the mood. Having a contingent of established folks who actively hostile towards new players can make a game rather difficult to set up. Those assholes in the back of the gaming store really can hurt the business and lower sales. The bar for entry is much, much lower for WoW or Diablo or any other game that costs less than your average gaming manual to start, or, indeed, most hobbies. If I don't like my knitting circle, I find a new group of friends to sit around a gab with while we knit, or I can do it alone while watching television or something.

Rexides posted:

Augmented reality battlegrids. Just point your phone's camera on the grid and witness the amazing animated virtual miniature action taking place on your table.

AlphaDog posted:

3) Assuming that the D&D team managed to overcome the previous two points, which isn't impossible, can you imagine what the fan reaction would look like if D&D Next came with some software that you could use to play the game on the internet?

whydirt posted:

I don't inherently mind the fighter killing the warlord and taking its stuff

Rexides posted:

Personally I don't mind if my Warlord's character sheet actually says "Fighter (warlord build)".

Jimbozig posted:

Wait, wtf. When i take 10 damage and te cleric heals me, my guts are miraculously returning to my body?!

Stranger still, if I don't get that heal, I will continue to fight goblins at 2hp with LITERALLY my guts dragging on the floor?!
Mearls, are you serious?!

Asimo posted:

Crappy options leading to mechanical traps and broken combos are basically inevitable in a game full of discrete mechanical bits supported by a supplement treadmill

Bob Quixote posted:

I always thought of the increase in hit points between classes as a general indicator of toughness. Like, the wizard healing back to his full 4 HP while the fighter still has a few days to go to get back up to 10 doesn't mean that the wizard is bouncing around in the picture of health while the fighter is all hosed up, but more that the damage that the fighter suffered was more than enough to flatten two wizards put together and that only someone incredibly tough could hope to survive it.

EDIT

Plus since there aren't any wound penalties and only the last 1 HP matters as to whether or not you are dying its just a representation of the fighters greater durability and vitality, not that the wizard recovers from getting stabbed faster.

ProfessorCirno posted:

I feel that the fact that he directly quotes edition war rhetoric with his "you can't shout a hand back on!" in turn speaks volumes.

Kai Tave posted:

Also if you like things like pizza but find that the tomato sauce is too acidic, add just a little bit of milk to the sauce while prepping it. Not a bunch, just a little bit. It cuts the acidity right down and even gives it a bit of added richness.

Nessus posted:

"How can a Warlord give me a do over on a spell? Does he just shout at me so hard that I immediately remember the spell and conduct the exact scientifically rigorous action of that spell, expending the memorized slot (which he has also restored) including a total duplication of the spell components expended? That's a pretty major power to give some dumb sports coach."

ProfessorCirno posted:

Actually, here's the second catch: every negative prediction regarding 4e materials has been true so far. Boring fighters, vancian casting, divine only healing, no warlords, hell they even removed the warlock class!. We did wait. Why are you still waiting?

AlphaDog posted:

Hmm... we do most of that stuff, which got use down from "at-level combat takes an hour" to "30-40 minutes". Maybe we just play slow.

eth0.n posted:

And as for making retreat difficult... well, good? I'd rather PC death happen because the others decided to leave a man behind to a pack of worgs, than because I as the DM decided to coup de grace, which was pretty much what it took in 4E, or just because of a random fluke of the dice.

Payndz posted:

Best thing to do is come up with a god of some really random thing, whether from real-world mythology or made up. I'm partial to Terminus, god of boundary markers ("I smite thee in the name of accurate surveying!" "I restore your mangled face to its previously well-delinated borders!") or good old Dionysus/Bacchus, for whom getting shitfaced is a sign of your devotion. Or take a Pratchett-esque tilt and have your cleric be a follower of the God Of Lost Keys And Other Small But Surprisingly Important Items, or something equally mundane (yet possibly useful).

Actually, a paladin of Bacchus could be a lot of fun to play. Sure, you're lawful good, but you're going to have a loving great time spreading the word, since you're a follower of the god of wine, ritual madness and ecstasy. You'd only fall if you were a teetotal, self-denying prude.

AlphaDog posted:

Edit: Now I picturing a well-ordered drunken orgy.

Have Some Flowers! posted:

I'd agree that the way combat works in DND (4E and 3.5 especially) lends itself to one player micromanaging others. That doesn't really happen in Call of Cthulhu for instance because things are more nebulous and conceptual to begin with, and everyone's more interested in the story and playing their characters faithfully than sheer combat efficiency. Sometimes botanists drop their gun and run from a fight. Because that's what a botanist would do. And the GM usually plays along.

Making 'in character' moves in a 4E battle will just draw sneers from the grognards at your table.

Have Some Flowers! posted:

I don't agree here. Your stat allocation and feat selection made a huge difference as to your combat ability. We may have the exact same powers, but my to-hit bonuses, damage, defenses, durability and options could be much worse than yours if I selected different feats (instead opting for more skills, skill perks and benefits). Obviously that's a choice with pros and cons, and that's a good thing.

But it's understandable why few people would sacrifice their effectiveness in combat for more and better skills. The skill system was given little attention or interest compared to the combat system. I can make dozens of unique swordsmen with complex interactions of powers, feats, weapon choice, magic items and so on. And then combat will test that swordsmen in dozens of different and interesting ways.

Skill challenges attempted to bridge the gap, but they were still heavily under-developed and misunderstood compared to combat.

I didn't say you couldn't make skill or social specialists, I'm just questioning why you'd bother (for the reasons above). I agree that players can make very strong and well-rounded characters by focusing on combat with one or two specialties on the side, but that's not what some players want to do. Look at the equally true alternative : I'm sure some players would take zero skills if that would give them better combat bonuses.

But what I've found as a GM is that some players just don't care about the mechanics of combat. To them dice rolling and miniature play aren't interesting compared to social interplay with NPCs and other PCs, things like problem solving, puzzles, story and so on.

If one player at the party decides to be a pacifist thief with amazing skills and utility, that should in no way at all hurt the party. And why should it not hurt the party? Because the GM should be tailoring content specifically to the party. Then that player gets to be who they want to be, and maybe the Ranger or Monk in your party who really wants to just roll huge damage dice gets the spotlight for what they wanted to do, too.

We had a player once who was obsessed with party logistics, rationing, weight allowances and pack distribution. Normally I don't give a poo poo about it, and neither does anyone else. But it was a big deal to him, so I made sure to challenge him with dilemmas and situations he could work through. And it was great.

Obviously it's something you try to resolve at an individual level, but it's an identified issue with all cooperative games. The most knowledgeable player often railroads the rest, even when he's being a nice guy or just trying to be educational and helpful.

The issue isn't even with optimized vs non-optimized play (because the GM should always tailor content to your party). It's the relative level of ability of players at your table. If 2 guys are okay and 3 are clueless, the 2 decent players will make the majority of the decisions. That's just how it works in cooperative games. In a game like D&D where 'being your character' can be just as important as 'beating the game', that hurts. I'm just looking for creative mechanics or ways to address it.

Have Some Flowers! posted:

Myself and thousands (millions?) of others have enjoyed the non-combat interaction and challenges in D&D. I don't think it's unreasonable to put attention on the non-combat aspects of the game, because that's a huge draw for many players, even for players like myself who also really enjoy the combat.

Kai Tave posted:

To drag this poo poo back on topic, remember when Next was supposed to address the whole "combat/social/exploration" business directly, via some "three pillar" system? Yeah, remember that? Whatever happened to that? Have they brought it up at all recently?

Have Some Flowers! posted:

That's a fair point, too. It is what you make of it, and always has been. I think the confusion comes from where the players see all the structure is. If the majority of the instruction about the game is about combat, it makes sense that a player would feel like they were doing it wrong by focusing on non-combat roleplaying.

Think about your first experiences with making a character. Most of your decisions affect your powers and abilities in combat, and only a few speak to your background, quirks, relationships, motives and so on. I guess it's just assumed that players will focus on those things outside of the system, but I know many players (especially new ones) aren't wired that way unless you prompt them.

The initial state for most new players is "okay, what am I allowed to do" rather than "what can't I try?"

Kai Tave posted:

This is the crux of the issue with every edition change in every game ever except maybe Call of Cthulhu and even then I'm not 100% sure. If you're comfortable and familiar with the current edition, why would you change to the new one? Well, there are a couple reasons maybe, how compelling they are is debatable:

AlphaDog posted:

Oh?

Then my memory's flawed. Because what I remember is WotC saying "Three pillars, separated stuff, sounds pretty awesome, right?" and then the fanbase immediately responding with various renditions "Oh cool, so you can easily see that out of fight/explore/discuss, a fighter has like 100/0/0 and a cleric has 50/25/25 and a rogue has 25/50/25 and a wizard has 100/100/100! This is the best thing!" I don't think that's necessarily what WotC originally meant.

But I might be remembering goons (I think mainly you and Splicer) talking about how to do "siloing" the right way.