MonsterEnvy posted:

P.d0t posted:

Basically the metal-detector scene from The Matrix.

Underwhelmed posted:

Common sense? No! I must wring out and cheese every rule, no matter what its intention, so I can be the most powerful character by technicality possible.

Edit: I say this, because I have had players over the years try and stack bonuses that shouldn't be stackable, when the rules were ambiguous like this.

Kai Tave posted:

It is true, though, that they both aren't getting hung up on fannish minutiae to a pathological degree and that the vast, vast majority of their business isn't coming from comics grognards but from a much broader moviegoing audience. Yeah, the comics still exist and get printed, but the comics aren't making billions of dollars a year and Marvel has to know this.

eth0.n posted:

Games are popular. Video games, card games, board games, they're all doing well. What's instrumental is that they're all focused on providing good gameplay first.

RPGs are, frankly, bad at gameplay. Feel and tradition get in the way, and flaws are excused with "GM can fix it". Problem is, GM-fiat and arbitrary GM-fixes (like fudging dice, or "going easy" during combat) kill gameplay. Even a good RPG like Dungeon World has relatively little gameplay, being so GM-fiat-heavy. And Fiasco's barely a game at all, being more an inspiration-engine for mostly freeform roleplaying. 4E and WHFRP3E tried, but they've still got dumb bullshit weighing them down, and RPGs have such a lousy reputation, they were probably doomed to fail to breakthrough to the mainstream no matter what.

I'm not sure what the answer is. As long as there's an expectation that you can do anything, not just what's spelled out in the rules, there will be GM-fiat that bypasses and interferes with gameplay. And that expectation is the heart of tabletop RPGs.

I wonder if the 80s heyday of RPGs was mostly about the gameplay they offered (that video games now provide in a mostly superior form), instead of the collaborative storytelling that now differentiates the tabletop niche.

Generic Octopus posted:

Ooooooh right, that. Our dm didn't even bother with it because all it did was give you advantage on a roll iirc. When I think of roleplay mechanics I think of stuff like FATE where it's pretty integral, not "hey, because you stayed in character, roll twice next time."

MonsterEnvy posted:

but you won't be doing it anyway for Kobolds.

MonsterEnvy posted:

On this note they stated they plan on focusing more on quality adventures then splats. As they don't want to over saturate the market. It showed a decent amount of insight on their part.

seebs posted:

Pretty much this. So, for instance, if you decide to just charge off after something way bigger than you, you're likely to get smacked, because that's what would happen, etc.

And in that context, the answer to "how many skeletons are there" depends on where you are and what makes sense given the world's established traits.

Note also, I don't see anything saying you can point at someplace that you think there are probably bones underground, I think you actually have to point to bones.

MonsterEnvy posted:

Could you stop with the skeletons at this point it's starting to get really annoying.

dichloroisocyanuric posted:

With everything bad about the book... it's just not really that bad, and I do prefer it to the alternatives I was looking at.

sarmhan posted:

A game that is balanced and fun? The two are not mutually exclusive - the opposite really, as imbalances will cause frustration with the game.

ascendance posted:

4e kind of ignores one of the best features of BECMI - that maybe, after a certain point, your character might want to do something other than go into dungeons and look for bigger and bigger numbers.

Yorkshire Tea posted:

Okay, so I disagree with you on my perception of D&D and you get so angry that you crack an insult about me being anti-Semitic.

Against my better judgement I'll engage with what you've said anyway. Nobody forced me to make a DPS spreadsheet, but it was my perception when I played that that would be the best way to get the most out of my character because of the way the game played. I stopped because I don't want to engage with that feeling.

I don't feel the same way about 5e as cited by the fact that I was most attracted by the warlock telepathy ability.



I agree and if you really want to play a fighter that must suck. But I was hoping to show why someone might enjoy 3.5 or 5 more than 4 despite issues of balance.

Yorkshire Tea posted:

Honestly? I don't know what those are, would have to learn the systems, convince everyone to play them and I really enjoy 3.5 and am enjoy 5e right now. I feel like D&D is giving me what I want out of an RPG

Kaizer88 posted:

I have to agree with that. When you're past 9th level, your pc's power levels start becoming more like some episode of DBZ. Players of that level could slaughter whole legions of town guards. I think 5th edition is at least better with regards to the power difference between really high level things and 1st level schlubs ; Ac doesn't go much higher than 20, and proficiency bonuses don't go higher than 6. You'd still get the ridiculous HP bloat though.

ascendance posted:

well, you've described old school play in a mean spirited, but not inaccurate nutshell.

Edit: Which, by the way, may be why it works a little better for some people, and the types of games they want to run.

MonsterEnvy posted:

It should be noted that 5e is selling really well right now. According to Mearls this has been WotC D&D's most successful launch having outdone both 4e and 3e in launch sales. Though he admits that the upcoming year matters a lot more then a good launch.

friendlyfire posted:

It is clear that Wizards chose to pursue a new edition that is decidedly unlike 4e. I am at a loss to explain this decision, unless it is that they felt that too many people were escaping to Pathfinder and other retro-clones. PF may or may not have outsold 4e, but it is obvious that it did well enough to threaten it.

friendlyfire posted:

I realize that chart is just a norm to base things around, but I really like the idea of the math being more "spikey" at certain levels than others, of this monster's super-dangerous attacks being balanced by its very poor defenses, of players really kicking rear end at 5th level because fireball rule until you start fighting encounters at 7th level. I dunno. Things being so mathematically predictable feels bland and un-magical to me. I realize this triggers goons' asperger's, but it's how I feel.

OneThousandMonkeys posted:

I think if there's one thing I would never like to see in D&D, it's facing.

The Malthusian posted:

I guess a monster that will either kill a PC in one shot or die itself to a single hit averages out to being a balanced encounter.

P.d0t posted:

Turn this the other way around: what if you split DEX up? Like, DEX always seemed like a manual thing to me, and agility more of a bodily thing (although your average dictionary would probably disagree, but whatever).
Make DEX do weapon stuff and sleight of hand and thievery, make Agility do Acrobatics and Initiative and Armor bonuses and poo poo.


Not saying you can't combine STR+CON, but..

Gerdalti posted:

I know there's a lot of Next hate around, but I'd like to offer a simple opinion to the contrary.

Next has a very low barrier of entry. I hadn't played D&D in nearly 20 years, and getting back into it with Next has been incredibly easy, and a lot of fun. Some of the rules are a little convoluted, but the whole thing is actually pretty well written and easy to get into. As a relative new-comer to the whole scene, I have no previous like or dislike for anyone in the community, so that doesn't bias my opinion at all.

I won't deny that other versions (3.5, PF and 4) may offer up something better, but honestly, 5e is a lot of fun.

Chipp Zanuff posted:

Thanks for the responses guys; as someone who hasn't played D&D before, i simply don't understand some of the hate fifth edition has in the thread.

SwitchbladeKult posted:

Oh look out! Some angry Internet nerd with Cheeto fingers is so mad at me they spent of their allowance to give me a red title. Sure showed me!

If you think melee characters are useless since they can't force monsters to attack them exclusively because you and your group are too dumb to figure out soft tanking tactics like having ranged players stand far enough back that the monster has to waste it's entire turn moving and eating AOOs or your combats are all taking place in featureless 50' by 50' rooms please go ahead. Clearly nothing I could say will convince you otherwise.

thespaceinvader posted:

Mearls just seems like a really, really terrible person to game with. As a DM he's dull, out of touch and obsessed with walls and WIS checks, as a player, he did very little prep and brought a totally off-spec and out-of-theme character and proceeded to 'hilariously' dominate the gameplay with his ridiculously dickish character.

It's a real shame he's in charge, basically.

Quantumfate posted:

Players walking around with a ton of wands that they just zap themselves seems like a poor example. If your players really want to walk around with wands and make all those checks to heal- why say no, you can't? There's still an idea and feeling of expenditure when it comes to consumables. Especially as that often means forfeiting an action within combat.

mastershakeman posted:

Right which is what the measuring stick is for. The grid seems great until all these ridiculous edge cases of schroedinger lightning bolts.

thespaceinvader posted:

You can't whip out a ruler in the Theatre of the MIIIIND though. But you may have meant playing on a map with a tape - which I don;t have a particular problem with, personally. All told I prefer a grid (hex, ideally) but if the game is measured, I'll happily measure. What bothers me is when the rules are semi-grid-semi-not (everything in 5' increments, creatures occupying the whole of 5' increment spaces, etc etc) without actually writing grid rules. If you're going to write a rulers-and-tapes game fine, write one. If you're going to write a grid game, write one. If you're going to write an abstracted game, write one. But please for goodness' sake don't write what you're pretending is an abstract game, only with measured distances, and gridded rules for how to use them.

The schroedinger lightning bolts are only lovely because the rule is badly written to be fair. Though 'hits everything in a straight line from X to Y' is not the easiest thing to do on a grid.

Omnicrom posted:

I got asked whether I thought Fighter or Rogue was more powerful. That was a sad thing to consider.

mastershakeman posted:

Probably because Mearls doesn't like 4e and doesn't want people thinking of the current D&D as something he doesn't like.