Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
  • Locked thread
Gerund
Sep 12, 2007

He push a man


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.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Chaltab
Feb 16, 2011

So shocked someone got me an avatar!


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.

FMguru
Sep 10, 2003

peed on;
sexually

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.

When FAR WEST is released, THEN there will be customers, when we release it wide. So perhaps your argument that he is a “potential” customer is true — we don’t know. Perhaps the President will get an itch and buy a copy — it could happen, who knows? Meaningless to speculate.

Glukeose
Jun 6, 2014



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.

>player: "I roll Intimidate"
>DM: "What do you say?"
>player: "I just stare at him like this"
>DM: "OK, nothing happens"

Cue buttfrustrated player claiming the DM is loving him over while in reality you need a Feat to make Intimidate checks without speaking.

Honestly, players creatively interpreting the rules and then getting angry when they're called out on it pisses me off the most.

I think the most disturbing thing is that I can no longer separate trolling from just legitimate toxic opinions.

SunAndSpring
Dec 4, 2013


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.


I think the most disturbing thing is that I can no longer separate trolling from just legitimate toxic opinions.

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?

"RPGPundit is a big fat meanie who says mean things to me and made me cry and drop my lollipop?"

You see, that's why so many of the other side decided to try to pretend I wanted to persecute gay people or something, because the lies make me out to be a monster, while the truths make them out to be 5 year olds crying to their mommy.

That I'm not a nice person to people who I think are trying to destroy my hobby (and again, not being mean to them for who they are or how they were born, but being mean to them for what they DO and SAY), in what way is that sufficient to invalidate my capabilities as a critically honest reviewer, an expert on old-school gaming, and the guy Mike Mearls knows won't blow smoke up his rear end and will tell him the absolute truth no matter what?

If "being an rear end in a top hat about RPGs" was a qualification to be banned for life, then pretty much anyone associated with the Forge should never work again anywhere. And, as Zak pointed out, what do we do with Ettin, who after having absolute confirmation that a guy was falsely accused of surprise sex threats, goes on to promote that people CONTINUE to accuse him of surprise sex threats anyways because they don't like the rpgs he writes?
Or that sad festering shitsack waste of oxygen Bruce Baugh, who pretends that he wants to have an honest discussion about the topic of inclusivity and the consultants, and then goes out of his way to try to cover up my statement in 100% support of the inclusivity because what he really wanted to do was slander me as a homophobe? What do we do with that filthy lying rotting piece of semi-ambulant garbage?

What do you do with someone who spreads out false accusations about homophobia against someone he absolutely knows is not a homophobe? Or someone who intentionally keeps spreading false surprise sex-threat accusations against someone he absolutely knew had never accused someone of surprise sex?

Because I mean, if the idea is that I should never work for a large company again because I say mean (true) things about people on the internet, what the gently caress do we do with those guys? How do we scale up to a punishment appropriate?

RPGPundit

quote:

Continuing To Confront the Fake-Outrage Brigade; and Getting Just a Bit Sappy
So I don't have much time to be writing today; I'm about to rush off to a local gaming Con sponsored by the city government; yes, Uruguay has turned into one of those weird socialist countries that have state-sponsored Gaming events. Since I was especially invited, I'd best not be more than fashionably late.

But I can't avoid addressing yet again the assholes who continue to try to slander me as a homophobe, making up that lie because it is much easier to get a (righteous) response from people at the suggestion that I'm a homophobe or transphobe than it would be to give anyone to give a poo poo that I hurt your feelings about elfgames.

It pisses me off immensely, these rpg.net and SA-goons spreading this meme about me being homo- or trans-phobic. And you'd think that the fact that, as far as I know, I'm the FIRST loving guy to ever put a transgender character on the cover of an RPG rulebook would be proof enough that they're full of poo poo.

Luckily, the tide seems to be somewhat turning. A significant number of people have spoken out in support of me, in exhaustion at the Outrage Brigade's antics, and in condemnatory suspicion of their utterly unsubstantiated claims. Even in some of the places where these guys reign supreme, they've actually had to face people demanding that they offer up some kind of proof.

So apparently, these guys have scoured my blog with a fine-toothed comb in a desperate effort to come up with some kind of evidence that I'm in fact the raging LGBT-hater they want to make me out to be. You'd think if their claims was true that would be easy, but of course, that hasn't worked out for them. Instead, they've managed to come up with only two frankly absurd exhibits that they want to try to make people believe is 'proof', one extremely old the other very recent.

The first is something from the archives of my old blog, a throwaway comedic line from a blog entry where I was bemoaning the shift in demographics in gamer's ages that happened in the 90s. There, I commented along the lines that before White Wolf's games came out, the average gamer was 13 and obsessed with barbarians, big guns, mecha, etc., and the hobby catered to that; after White Wolf, the gamer being catered to was a college kid "wearing all black, listening to the Cure and questioning their sexuality". The point being that the shift in age-range from making games to draw in young teenagers to making games for pretentious college kids did not have a good effect on the hobby.

Now let's note something: this was from a blog entry that I wrote something like 8 or 9 YEARS ago. Eight or nine years ago, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were against gay marriage; as were the majority of the population of the U.S. (I'll note that even 8 or 9 years ago, I was FOR gay marriage).

I could point out that right around that same time, I made a blog entry about a kid named Zach Stark who had been forced by his parents to be interned in a 'gay reparation' (read brainwashing) clinic against his will. Some of you might remember the case, you can read about it here. I wrote about that too, expressing my outrage and trying to draw attention to what had been done to him, linking to a campaign that tried (and failed) to get action to have him released (in the end, as you can see in wikipedia, the 'therapy' didn't work, surprise, surprise).

So right around the same time, you see me trying to defend the rights of a gay kid.

But more importantly, in 8 years language and humor have changed, I probably wouldn't use that line about "questioning sexuality" now in that same exact way. Back then, I sometimes still used "gay" as a synonym for "lame", which I wouldn't do now either. The point is, even in the context of history, while I've continued to evolve, by the standards of 2005 you could say I was already ahead of the curve in terms of a straight guy supporting gay rights.


The only other quote they got to use against me? A line from a very recent DCC campaign update; where it's not even my own words, but a 10 year old who's a player in that group. I reported how he's playing a wizard that changes gender when he spellcasts, something he's been not at all bothered by; I was inspired by that (and trying to make sure that the kid saw his character's gender fluidity as something not unique in the setting) to introduce an order of wizards who are all in some form or another not 'cisgendered'.
Now, I called these guys the "Grand Inclusive & Non-Hierarchical Azure Order", which maybe some people interpreted as mockery; the thing is, anyone who's been reading my DCC updates knows that the entire campaign has been a little bit silly, and this order are just about the least silly thing in it. As I've said in other DCC updates, the Azure Order are both powerful and the 'good guys', using their powers to help protect the helpless from the many horrors of the post-apocalyptic fantasy setting they're in. But it would have stood out like a sore thumb if they weren't at least a tiny bit silly, because EVERYTHING in that campaign has been a little bit silly.
The part that has been used as proof against me, somehow, is that my young player, when invited to join the order, said "no thanks" because he felt completely comfortable and included in his current group (the PC party). He later changed his mind and joined after all, I'll note, when he cannily realized that he could raid the Azure Order's library for spell research purposes. That's a good gamer if ever I saw one!
Oh yes, he also referred to his character as "trigendered". I don't know where he got the term from, but it was his term, not mine; so really, if you have to resort to using a term I quoted a fifth grader as using (and not one I see anything particularly wrong with!), you've pretty much got nothing.

Seriously, if this is the best they can do, it's pathetic.


But anyways, it always pisses me off when the anti-pundit crowd resort to making up lies about me to try to "get me"; but this particular bit of libel bugs me a lot more than most.

I have to admit bothers me in a particular way; maybe more now than it ever would have in the past. I don't have kids of my own, but in the last two years, for the first time, I've had a couple of kids (one in his mid-teens, the other the aforementioned 10 years old) playing in my gaming group. They're the sons of a very dear friend of mine; whose family we've spent a lot of time with. I'm very close to both of those kids and would be proud if I were ever to have a kid like either of them.

The older one identifies as straight, the younger one has not said outright one way or the other but has been really happy playing a wizard who changes into a girl when he spellcasts. And just the thought that, if either of them were in fact LGBT and should happen to end up finding something on the internet that would suggest to them that I would hate them for who they are, it absolutely loving sickens me to think that for a second they might imagine (because of these what these assholes wrote) that I wouldn't accept and love them unconditionally.

Sorry for getting sappy there, but it's true. And I want it on record as much as possible, just in case. For my awesome DCC player, for any theoretical future kid, nephew, niece, whatever. Don't believe for a second I wouldn't be on your side, don't ever think you couldn't tell me anything.

RPGPundit

Currently Smoking: Ben Wade Canadian + Image Latakia

Even when he's being sentimental he's a dick.

SunAndSpring fucked around with this message at 05:06 on Jul 7, 2014

Nancy_Noxious
Apr 10, 2013

by Smythe


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.

Arivia
Mar 17, 2011


The best of Pathfinder's Adventure Paths:

quote:

Rise of the Runelords is the best if you want good old fashioned dungeon crawl.

Jade Regent has great pacing and feels like a right-proper "Epic Journey."

Reign of Winter just... Felt fresh and fun for me, not to mention the love-sick Winter Wolf Waifu was fantastic.

Kingmaker is a mix-up; the storyline itself is forgettable and the pacing is frankly just plain bad, but everyone loves it (for good reason) because it's got kingdom building mechanics... Which has become irrelevant because those kingdom building mechanics were released in "Ultimate Campaign."

Skulls and Shackles + Serpent's Skull are fun because it's one DM/Player conversation away from jungle fever, which is all sorts of hot.

potatocubed
Jul 26, 2012

"Tiger tiger doing what?"



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:
You're banned from commenting here for:
1. Lying
and
2. Not answering questions when asked
if you want to dig yourself out of that hole, start apologizing beneath this thread:
http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.co...-me-fix-me.html

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...%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 11:41 on Jul 8, 2014

Wilde Jagd
Jan 2, 2014

by XyloJW


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.

I would love to see a ranger with favored enemy: women just for the lulz. It'd atleast be different. And would ward off those annoying chaotic neutral male playing females I hate so much... If only the ranger didn't suck so bad in third edition. I suppose in fourth edition you could just roleplay the favored enemy, and maybe make homebrew powers/feats to accomodate it. Like I'd make a paladin who has a detect evil ability, specifically designed to sniff out sexual decedance. With minor auras being fleeting thoughts of infidelity, to the all encompassing aura of the **** house...

Luckiely fourth edition does not simply imply alignment isn't a straight jacket, but actively practices it by not putting alignment in the rules. (Or atleast not as visibly as in 3rd edition and prior) This means my paladin can be as mean, ruthless, maybe even "evil" as he wants. And still exist within the confines of how I see him, rather then how the DM sees him and have to hope my DM spares my character's soul and doesn't turn him into a warrior npc... (Like paladins in third edition really needed that anyway. They were tier 5)

God-drat I wish there was a FATAL d20. I love that book, but I definitelly don't feel like attempting to run or play in a game with such draconic mechanics! As far as personal gaming experiences, no. I havn't had the pleasure of being an overly misogynistic or gay bashing game. And my gaming career has suffered cause of it. That sounds friggin' awesome. Not that I'd immagine I'd do half the crap that was meationed in the FATAL handbook. It would just be a breath of fresh air from the self indulgent bullcrap of self loathing we're supposed to endure. Ain't the whole point of an rpg to get away from the mondays of real life? Besides... when there's demons attacking your soul and dragons eating entire villages. Smacking a woman around for speaking outside of form just doesn't have the sortof shock value it would have in a mundane world like ours... Which was kind of why it was so stupid in AD&D and in alot of standard third edition games poison/disease was delighted as "evil warfare". Oh, I'm sorry! Did I kill you all painfully with cancerous lumps and collapsing lungs? I'll make sure to be more considerate next time and just take a sword and stab you in the ribs. I'm sure your families will be ever so grateful and think I'm an okay guy...

Darwinism
Jan 6, 2008

Hail to the king, baby.


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.

But it's upon reading through the Basic Rules that I finally get it. I finally get why so many people said there was no roleplaying in 4e - because there's so much of it in 5e.

The problem isn't the roleplaying - it never was. The lack of roleplaying was a symptom - a symptom of a lack of flavor written into the rulebooks, a lack of focus on elements that encourage roleplaying. And, ultimately, a lack of focus on the very heart of D&D.

Chaltab
Feb 16, 2011

So shocked someone got me an avatar!


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.

GorfZaplen
Jan 20, 2012



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?

PST
Jul 5, 2012

If only Milliband had eaten a vegan sausage roll instead of a bacon sandwich, we wouldn't be in this mess.

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.

On the other hand, it sort of limits a potential market. Plus, it will be sad to see another unnecessary schism in the gaming community.

So all in all, a game that was touted as the inclusive edition, has a poison pill (or a white knight) baked in. And that is all I am going to say about that.

fosborb
Dec 15, 2006




grog on Polygon! Be sure to check the comments later for even more!

http://www.polygon.com/2014/7/9/588...ungeons-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.

The changes made the game far more inviting to an audience of video game enthusiasts; like a video game, its mechanics, player abilities and progression systems were almost entirely determined by the game itself. While the multitude of options afforded to players by the game wasn't lacking in quantity or variety, longtime D&D players found the system too restrictive, and far less imaginative than past editions.

Guilty Spork
Feb 25, 2011

Thunder rolled. It rolled a six.


Try to read this if you hate yourself.

Babylon Astronaut
Apr 19, 2012


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.

Chaltab
Feb 16, 2011

So shocked someone got me an avatar!


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

Piell
Sep 3, 2006

Grey Worm's Ken doll-like groin throbbed with the anticipatory pleasure that only a slightly warm and moist piece of lemoncake could offer



Young Orc

Regarding how to make Shadowrun 5 adepts good

Doc Dee posted:

OR

Don't powergame, just have fun. That's always an option.

I personally prefer "fun concept" over "optimization" and "balance, as if it's a competition"

I'll happily play a Driving Adept or a Troll Aspected Enchanter over Mechanically Optimized Street Samurai #7

But that's just me.

Wilde Jagd
Jan 2, 2014

by XyloJW


I wonder how misogyny is discussed in Pathfinder?


quote:

Misogynistic Rage CR 3

Type wrathful
Notice Perception DC 15 (to hear the sound of a woman’s shrill voice saying, “What do you get up to down in the damp below?”; hp 6
Trigger proximity; Reset automatic (24 hours)

EFFECT
The haunted character must make a DC 14 Will save or be compelled to attack the closest female, using all of his capabilities in an attempt to kill the target—this haunting continues beyond the surprise round for 1d4 rounds. If no suitable target is within sight he instead attacks himself, leaping out the window if no weapon is handy.

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.

An andrazku grows excited when it senses its prey’s fear, but becomes frustrated if the hunt lasts for too long. Despite these demons’ masculine appearance and aggression, most of them are impotent and some completely lack genitalia, rendering their lust pointless. Their nature is to berate, degrade, and beat; they tend to kill only when they feel an urge to eat, when their stymied passion becomes too great to tolerate, or when they are mocked for their shortcomings.

An andrazku prefers to attack with its bite and fists (often contemptuously slapping foes, minions, and prey with an open hand), but a vicious one may use a scourge and jagged-bladed sword as if pretending to be a balor. Sadistic and cruel, andrazkus have been known to chase down their prey, batter it for a while, and then release it, giving it enough of a head start that it thinks it has a chance of escaping. The andrazkus then track it down (using locate creature and teleport) to repeat the cycle again.

Andrazkus loathe associating with more powerful female demons in any way, and curse under their breath at mariliths and similar demons of great stature. Among female demons of similar power, they are quick with clever words, believable boasts, and secret confessions of desire, but these are all lies to disguise the hatred crackling beneath the surface. If given the opportunity, an andrazku would capture and torture a succubus merely because she is female (though a succubus is physically more powerful than a lone misogyny demon, and the hairy brutes have to gang up to have any chance of defeating a “weakling” succubus). Succubi and mariliths are aware of these simple-minded feelings held by andrazkus and they delight in tormenting the brutish creatures. Those female demons know they hold greater strength and power than andrazkus, and they enjoy lording over the creatures, even going so far as to kidnap them from time to time, bringing them to their own lairs and forcing the creatures into servitude.

dwarf74
Sep 2, 2012



Buglord

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.

karl fungus
May 6, 2011

Baeume sind auch Freunde


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.

WoW has a very cartoony look, but the world looks beautiful in places and characters look pretty cool within that cartooniness.

Skyrim is beautiful beyond words, and looks much more realistic.

What these two games have in common is a western-centric aesthetic. While pathfinder does have quintessentially Eastern options sprinkled here and there (I'm looking at you, monk) it really is another take on the whole alternate medieval Europe idea. An anime/eastern looking game wouldn't make a shred of sense to me.

Chaltab
Feb 16, 2011

So shocked someone got me an avatar!


"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.

dwarf74
Sep 2, 2012



Buglord

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.

It would be like if I said "Halflings are meachanized tenatacled elder gods that sleep beneath the world and wait to be awoken by mad cultists."

And then insisted that this is the sole halfling narrative in my big-tent D&D game. And that if you wanted to play the "original" halfling, you could, as an option, maybe, but you might have to wait for the "Greyhawk Campaign Setting" or make a house rule, maybe because mechanized tentacled elder god halflings were once referenced in some novel or drawn in a comic book and that's BRAND RECOGNITION, baby!

It's a cool narrative, but it's not what halflings are for a lot of folks. And the original halfling is perfectly fine, so there's no real need to redefine everyone's halfling.

If they just would've been call "Asmodear" or "The Faust" or "Devil-men" or "Turathi" we wouldn't be having this conversation. They'd be fine. I'd even welcome them into PS as a race likely to take an interest in planar affairs (much as I welcomed the Eladrin as such in my first PS4e campaign). But because the 4e team had a fetish for using evocative names for unrelated creatures (which, IIRC, one of Wyatt's 5e design philosophy articles even mentioned as not a great idea), now the people who use the word with its original intent are stuck telling people that some jerks went and redefined it and isn't that confusing and wouldn't it be better if they didn't?

So maybe instead of 5e continuing the trend of pissing in the cornflakes, it could've not done that, and let Tiefling also mean what it has meant since the '90's for a lot of players, and either expanded the definition or used a different word for the Turathis. But they doubled-down on the redefinition. Which is legit to be annoyed/disapponited by. It's not like I can't get another bowl of cornflakes, but that doesn't mean you didn't ruin THIS one for me.

Of course, useless to think about what could have been now. It's said, it's done, it is the way the thing is and now until at least 6e everyone using the term as it was originally defined to a player who's read the PH is going to have to take pains to remind players that they don't have to have handlebar-heads or chair-ending tails or red skin or be related to devils or generally play Setting Police over what someone is reasonable to think the books are talking about when they say "tiefling."

Best thing to do is treat Basic As Core, and add a PS setting to it so that the PH tiefling doesn't even come up. Which is a shame -- limiting options in PS is a bit against tone. But whatever. I got this thing.

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.

LuiCypher
Apr 24, 2010

NERF THIS!


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.

ProfessorCirno
Feb 17, 2011

The strongest! The smartest!
The rightest!


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.

ProfessorCirno
Feb 17, 2011

The strongest! The smartest!
The rightest!


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.

ProfessorCirno
Feb 17, 2011

The strongest! The smartest!
The rightest!


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.

ProfessorCirno
Feb 17, 2011

The strongest! The smartest!
The rightest!


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.

ProfessorCirno
Feb 17, 2011

The strongest! The smartest!
The rightest!


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.

ProfessorCirno
Feb 17, 2011

The strongest! The smartest!
The rightest!


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.

karl fungus
May 6, 2011

Baeume sind auch Freunde


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:

1) The natural depletion of resources will be a realistic and natural source of conflict between nations, cities, etc. Wood fuels nations but the need for wood fuels war.

2) The amount of forest depletion has to be kept in check. If characters like druids, rangers and woodland barbarians have an incentive to preserve their forests, this will create a fascinating new faction: The tree huggers. Whether you love them or just love killing them, nature oriented factions could be awesome if they had a real incentive to fight deforestation.

My 2 cents on lumber.

ProfessorCirno
Feb 17, 2011

The strongest! The smartest!
The rightest!


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.

ProfessorCirno
Feb 17, 2011

The strongest! The smartest!
The rightest!


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.

ProfessorCirno
Feb 17, 2011

The strongest! The smartest!
The rightest!


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.

ProfessorCirno
Feb 17, 2011

The strongest! The smartest!
The rightest!


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?

If I choose to play a fighter and call it a samurai, how does this affect your samurai classed character? If I choose to call my rogue a priest of Kord, again, how is that any of your business?

I am surprised by how many people seem to want to tell other people they are playing wrong. I think the game would be much better served if people could worry about their own characters and stop trying to play someone else's character for them.

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?

ProfessorCirno
Feb 17, 2011

The strongest! The smartest!
The rightest!


"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.

Rasamune
Jan 19, 2011

MORT
MORT
MORT


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.

Wilde Jagd
Jan 2, 2014

by XyloJW


quote:

The succubus enjoys fine clothes,jewelry of precious stones
and metals, and other accoutrements not for their
value but as props for their work-the appearance
of refinement and wealth can seduce as surely as
beauty and tantalizing words. Magical jewelry
is a particular favorite of succubi, but they are
not fond of armor unless it has been tailored
to augment rather than conceal their bodies.
Weapons are generally eschewed by succubi,
for their strengths lie not in combat but in
trickery and seduction. That said, succubi
who increase in power generally seek
weapons appropriate to their chosen
class. It should be noted that succubi,
more than any other demon, inspire
countless works of art, and quite adore
such objects. Paintings, poems, and
particularly statuary (such as images
of passionately entwined succubi) are
common mediums in which the succubus
has served as an erotic muse.

dwarf74
Sep 2, 2012



Buglord

Sum up 4e?

quote:

Cliff Notes? Yeah I can sum it up...
WoW: The Gathering

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

dwarf74
Sep 2, 2012



Buglord

dwarf74 posted:

Sum up 4e?
Same guy! So groggy I think he might be a sockpuppet of a banned guy!


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.

  • Locked thread