|
gtrmp posted:That's only to be expected from a grognard, really. Grogs come from the branch of nerdkind that obsessively memorizes minutiae of mythology without ever internalizing the social or religious context that gave birth to them. That kind of geek can name a dozen shapechanger myths from eastern Asia, but if you ask him what we can infer from the fact that people in the originating culture thought these stories were worth retelling, you'll get a blank stare. This is more or less the origin of the wizard problem, too. Grogs can see all these wizards in different sources of media be it literature, mythology, or other games, and they immidiately think "Ok the wizard can do all of this." They never once think about what role the wizard typically plays, how much they actually utilize their magic, or even how much they appear in the story - it's a clear cut "There are wizards that do magic in mythology ergo wizards can just do magic all the time." So rather then thinking about deus ex machina, or narrative roles, or the difference between a protagonist and side character, they just say "look Merlin was a wizard who could shapeshift ergo all wizards can shapeshift, and because wizards in this one book threw fireballs and could stop time all wizards can do that too, also they're a playable character choice."
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2011 12:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 08:56 |
|
|
Squizzle posted:Wait, don't I recognize your name from groggin' you've done at ENW? I post there but to my knowledge I haven't grogged there. At the very least I haven't been quoted on this thread; typically my posting is against the hilariously awful grognards that exist to post the weekly "4e is dying today and this is totally different from what I've been saying for three years, because:" Also Eberron came so close to getting it right by saying almost nothing actually has a rigid alignment including dragons; if only they had gone the extra length and just killed the drat thing while they were there.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2011 23:10
|
|
|
Splicer posted:With a good GM and good players it's not "Stop playing", since the GM just says "You're on Team Monster now... think you could take out the cleric?" and lets the player keep playing. Yeah, depending on how much control the GM actually takes and how into it the player can get, mind control can be a blast. If the GM just says "Give me your character sheet" or the player tries to chucklefuck his way out of it by suddenly deciding his character will still attack the monsters or will just leave combat entirely, then it's dumb.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2011 02:22
|
|
|
RE: Hirelings: The one good thing about the whole fighters get hirelings and a keep thing - and probably the only good thing - is that it implied your fighter actually had a hold on the setting. Certainly it's dismal compared to wizards who are flying around altering the very fabric of the universe, but at least your fighter has that one castle and the outlying lands. Then 3.x made Leadership a feat for everyone - a feat usually used to get a wizard or cleric as a follower and to make them your actual character.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2011 01:16
|
|
|
LIke I said, Fall 2013, 4e is dead. Like I said, Spring 2013, 4e is dead. Like I've been saying for three loving years now, tomorrow, 4e is dead. I can't get over the insane amount of dissonance needed to do this. Even the 2e grogs stopped swearing 3e was dead "any day now" early on after 3e had come out.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2011 10:40
|
|
|
I'd be amazed if they could find more then just a handful of grogs that actually like stuff from Japan. Grogs in general tend to be laughably terrible about their Orientalism. Let's not forget the grog rallying cry of "B-b-but it's like anime  ," all while boasting about their siderules for the actual "Oriental Adventures" book that just reeks of exoticism with it's mystic "geishas" and bizarre and strange "samurais."The standard understanding of a grognard is that the monk class is a literal representation of all Asian people.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2011 23:16
|
|
|
Drox posted:Is that the reason why Japan et al. is full of inscrutable old people? They maxed out monk and no longer age. I'd actually be really curious to see just how high the amount of casual racism is in grognards, even when you ignore the really radical outliers who think orcs are literally black people. When I look at grog-games, assuming there actually is a setting outside of Sorta Medieval England, it tends to be filled with unscrupulous Arabs that all swear by their camel, Japan, just Japan, because they think all of Asia is the same thing, Aztecs that actually worship evil demons and are all themselves evil, and kooky dumb "savages" from not-Africa that need to be educated by the good white people. Oh, and they all worship the same lovely white-gods-only greek pantheon that Sorta Medieval England does. I mean gently caress, TSR actually enforced that covers all had to have a white male human as the central figure.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2011 00:44
|
|
|
Just how much of that giant post could be consumed with "Use inherent bonuses because inherent bonuses are the best?" And that's more or less how you "fix" the economy, too. Use inherent bonuses, stop giving a gently caress about the hilariously dumb 3.x method of players needing 46,000 gold at level 9. If the adventurers find a giant Scrooge McDuck pool of gold then congrats, they get to take that back to their fortress and swim around in it. To be fair, some of that list is good. Like, having more utilities is great, and cutting down on the master race system for different classes is pretty good. A lot of it just seems way too complicated - it's biggest flaw is that it's on The Gaming Den and is thus subject to Frank Trollman babbling about garbage he doesn't understand in the slightest.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2011 03:28
|
|
|
opaopa13 posted:Wow, I wish I had been playing "What's the most retarded possible problem someone could have with this", this would've been a jackpot. The key to understanding Trollman and the mentality of The Gaming Den at large is that it is built 100% around bending the rules of 3.x as much as possible. The whole Tome series is about trying to make everyone as powerful as wizards so that they, too, can bend the rules as much as possible. 4e is anathema to their mindset. Not only are the rules meant to not be bent horribly, but it's rather open about the rules not being meant to cover everything. They cannot comprehend the concept of not having rules to bend. Because they aren't using familiars to play with balls of yarn, they're making familiars that know a single language then utilize their wands in battle to act as a second initiative track. It's some kind of horrible slurry of grognardism and autism combined.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2011 03:56
|
|
|
ritorix posted:I am running a OD&D one-shot game soon, it's ready to go after my 4e Dark Sun game finishes up. Rules Compendium + one of the boxed set dungeons from the early 90s. It will be awesome and/or horrible. In all honesty, emphasis to some degree the wackiness. OD&D was bizarro and silly as gently caress. Sentient acid-jello, giant floating eyeballs with more eyeballs - I mean, most of the monsters came from Gygax just grabbing kids toys and going "This one...uh...it's antenna turns things to rust! Yes!" Alternately, play up the two second character creation rules and run it Paranoia style. Fully expect Bigby to be followed by Rigby and Digdy. Or both!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2011 07:22
|
|
|
BrilliantGameologists can be pretty drat groggy, but you quoted from Sunic_Flames who is actually from The Gaming Den. And at this point, The Gaming Den is almost cheating. Almost. In general Brilliant Gameologists don't really talk about 4e - they have their fun playing 3e and more or less do the vague thought experiments on bizarre and often times hilarious ways of breaking the game. When editions get brought up the grog is carted in, but that tends to either not happen or it comes from an outside source such as Sunic. And now for some more grognard. quote:You are letting your wants to know "why" outweigh your needs, and others needs/wants to play a game with "no tieflings". LOOK WE'RE HERE TO PLAY D&D NOW STOP TALKING AND HAVING FUN
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2011 11:30
|
|
|
From my admittedly highly-biased perspective, the change from 2e to 3e took the game focus away from character *play* (fluff) and put it firmly on to character *build* (crunch). System mastery went from being useful to being essential. Powergamers and number-crunchers finally had the D+D they'd always wanted. The rest of us wondered what had happened. The 3e-4e change was almost as big, but in a different way - more in feel than anything else, for me it seemed to be much smoother and more pre-packaged than any earlier edition. Kinda like the difference between a hypothetical song performed first by Metallica (1e, rough around the edges but loud as hell, sold some records and got played at lots of parties) then by Def Leppard (3e, still vaguely metal but much more radio-friendly, a massive hit in its day) then by Celine Dion (4e, a hit in some circles but so bland it's almost unrecognizable from the original).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2011 11:46
|
|
|
Normal, is sports, fast gas guzzling cars for nobody can take you seriously if you don't have status and huge expensive cars is a great phallic symbol, cop shows, hospital shows, detective shows, sports sport sports sports, talk shows, beer guzzling jocks who were high school heroes and can describe their winning playbook fourty years later, accountants, D&D is for people who don't fit in society, and only normal people make up society. And Protestant Christians too (not to turn this into a religious rant but you asked) Not nerds and geeks. Nerds and geeks should just stay trapped in the closet and should only come out when a normal person can't understand a computer glitch of some sort. According to some people. For the record, I am not normal.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2011 11:52
|
|
|
As mentioned in another thread, it isn't always about "friends" when one DMs, but about someone running a game so that others may have a game. I don't DM because I have some need for more friends. I DM so that others have a game to play it. Sometimes games I really didn't like as a stand-in for a DM who was a friend, but for players I didn't know and could really care les about. The only thing that mattered to me was I was the only one available to take the task at hand, so did the job. So I don't see it being about this thread because the thread isn't about "how to make more friends as a DM", but about "why some people can't accept 'dont like it' from a DM, be they friend or new acquaintance." So again the view from the "friends only" section of the bleachers doesn't show what people are talking about, as well the view from "trying to make these players into friends" doesn't show it, and actually dismisses a portion of DMs that do it because there is no one else, and for the sake of there being a game, no matter who is playing. Also your story didnt say anything but you met them, not what position you held during the game, so it doesn't offer that to the discussion. Were you the DM at the game stores? I would assume you were at Cons since several posts today indicate so. So how often and how many did you run games for people at game stores? Which game stores? You experiences could be just a few similar people, not viewing the whole of gaming like the initial person I responded to. I mentioned two other NC based cons that you did not mention, nor respond to. Have you done things at those to see what kind of people were at them? Or are you self-segregating yourself from them, such as the initial person by playing only with those that are friends, so basically, and quite possibly unintentionally, viewing it with blinders on? Also are you segregating yourself only to RPGs, and dont see gamers in general that show evidence of this behavior? Where the person running the game has set forth some rules based on whatever reason, and players hen-peck them about it. Being dismissive of those who are doing it to make sure it is done, only acts as a disservice. It would be great if the game was popular enough in all areas for people to be able to make friends with enough people to game with, but that isn't the case. Sometiems you have to do things so that the job gets done, in those cases, the job comes first before these emotional ties. You also seem to hint at a posibility that if one running a game for people that are not friends, they view those people as enemies. that is not true, if it is the case. It may just be the person doesn't need anymore friends for gaming or other. Not everyone seeks to have the entire world be their friend, nor needs it. (See the thread about finding a good group) quote:You seem to suggest that some GMs might have the attitude that, "I'm here to run a game, not to make friends." And if that is their goal then I suppose that the more taciturn approach is likely to help them in that goal. I would simply counter that, even if you're not looking for friends, you're looking for people that you're going o be spending a LOT of time with. Why not adopt a friendly tone regardless? What I get for replying to parts as I read them..... What is not friendly about not wishing to explain the reasoning behind your likes or dislikes to total strangers? I would say it more unfriendly to be sticking your nose into someone's business so deeply you just met. Which brings back to the first part of your post, Yes I do have a problem with it and thank you for not directly asking about it, since you DID take the social cue and recognized and didn't ask further. Which is what this thread really is all about. Someone infers or says directly they "don't like" something, then don't push the subject. Now if players within a game were as wise to take that social cue and not push elements for whatever reason, we probably wouldn't have this thread at all. quote:Lastly I'll say that there are those in this thread that seem to be interpreting my approach as one that is anti-GM and pro-player. That's not the case at all. I would give the exact same response if a GM asked a question of the player. I'm saying (and I don't feel like I can put it more simply than this) that being willing to give an answer and communicate is to the benefit of both parties because they will each have additional information. As someone else said, to communicate MAY offer more beneficial to at least one party, it doesn't always do so for both parties involved. Why can't someone not liking something be enough for you (in general as always), to accept their decision? This is mostly psychological. What is your need for knowing more? Since we are discussing "reasons", would you care to share your specific reason or reasons and DM not liking something would not be enough for your personally? Is it because it doesn't give enough information for you? Is it because you feel they aren't being friendly enough for you? Is there some other reason? There is really a lot of psychology going on revolving around all this we all are discussing. But all in all it is still personal preferences. A DM with a preference against something, and players with a preference to know more about the DMs preference. Which one's preference gets the greater weight? quote:I absolutely hold forth the possibility that the player in question will take the opportunity to stridently push an agenda that the GM doesn't want in his game. I absolutely uphold the right of the GM to run a game that doesn't cater to such an agenda. It is however my belief that a GM might learn through the course of that communication that this pushy jerk of a player doesn't need to be in his game in the first place! And wouldn't it be better to know that sooner than later? Again the psychology and all that coming into play. quote:Again, shadzar, if you care to continue discussing the general points in this thread you are free to do so. If you have any questions about my moderation above and are unclear about how to post without being jerkish then I suggest you PM myself or one of the other moderators (Piratecat is a good option). Maybe you are seeing jerkish as tone does not translate via text, but I am as calm and enjoying the discussion, save that that part I dislike, so maybe you should PM myself if you think there is something you said but maybe I missed? I am looking at all things in the thread from the same light as the one where I continued "Random Designer Shadzar" as a variable. Maybe you misread or misinterpreted something I wrote, and will be more than happy to discuss it. We have one point out of the way already I think with these last two posts. Otherwise I am still curious about those "non friend" places you were, as to whether you may have segregated yourself from some gamers from being in very specific focused places, such as that of Patryn. Did you DM at the game stores? Whose idea was it? Have you attended a Mace or Stellercon? Have you ran games for either? These sorts of things can help the position of many, as well show if the different views of gamers are causing the different, well, views. (Hope that makes sense.)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2011 11:56
|
|
|
20 alcohol siphoning litterbugs in your house? I would say cursed rather than blessed, but whatever floats you boat. But you see you point to what I am talking about though. Why only 20 after 7 years with of all that? Is that all that showed up over those 7 years? Your data really leaves too many questions to be of anything but more anecdote. Why weren't all the rest there? Even if you were discussing thing, a key point that makes Obryn's post moot, is that we are all here in this thread because we WANT to discuss things. Take the answer I gave that you responding to as "good reasons" someone else hearing those simple reason could have had great fun playing an assassin and a strong liking to them. Had I said I don't like them, they may have asked why not, and gotten that as the answer. Then due to their affiliation with them or strong feelings about them, and argument erupts because somehow my dislike has hurt their past experience and potential future experience with assassins. In this case not giving a reason would have been better than giving it. An ounce of prevention versus a pound of pain.... As has been shown by others some people can get quite attached that a reason for one not liking something or doing it a different way, somehow instantly offends someone who does like it. It only gets worse when personal reasons are brought into it. I don't know what kind of people you meet at NC State at your little things, but it had never interested me as it is a phony as other things claiming something that is not representative of the whole as far as I am concerned, but odds are you don't have every type of player attending because of lower attendance based on reasons such as Mace and StellarCon. Both of which will have people that are not very agreeable at them, at ALL game tables and wondering around the booths. The many different people that would come into a game store or open game club as opposed to one held in places like a college, that seems and sometimes is, an event for those attending/enrolled there, are vastly different. Don't even get me started talking about people from one specific store that was about as elitist as you could get as well snobbish. So your weekend party didn't have everyone, couldnt have, from your events. There had to be a reason other than how many the house would hold as to why some didn't attend your house party. Take the guy who left a game and never heard from again but passed on the street in the "walk away" thread. Different people are different. Some non confrontational and just walk away, other raring for a fight. So someone saying "don't like it", might just also be one of those non confrontational people rather than have some DM superiority complex. Likewise some you invited might not have RSVP'd just so they didn't have to give a reason for not attending your get together. As such simple questioning of anothers likes or dislikes is viewed by many as just plain rude....to bring this all back on topic.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2011 11:57
|
|
|
There are some great stories here on this thread, but I'm a little perplexed by how many people here think rape is a worse crime than murder...I can think of several movies I've seen, as well, where the main character is both very likable and a rapist (High Plains Drifter, Flesh + Blood, ect). Now, I'm not usually into highly sexualized narratives in my games, but I have seen it done well a couple of times. I think, in my experience, it comes down to the overall maturity level of a game and whether or not the players are genuinely trying to explore interesting flaws in their characters.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2011 11:58
|
|
|
Wolfstar76, I’m a little troubled with the content of your post on the first page of the thread, that would be post #21 right here. Here’s the issue. You quote the bold portion from the following passage that I wrote concerning WotC's current support for organized play: quote:You say this, notwithstanding the fact they pulled the plug on LFR in June of 2010, have released no new material for LFR since then. And as for the past 8 months? They have done nothing for organized play outside of D&D Encounters -- which they *just* this past week have started up again with season two "four"? On the best case scenario, they plan to do nothing further for organized play for at least the next seven months, too. So who is the “they” in my post that your quote is referring to? Well, it’s the same entity we’ve been talking about the whole thread – and the same entity that is referred to in the thread title. I am talking about Wizards of the Coast LLC, a subsidiary of Hasbro Inc.. I was not talking about the community of LFR players. I never did. That wasn’t the subject matter of the thread. But that did not stop you from posting this in response which some ENWorlders evidently thought was an “authoritative” and “official” response wherein you said the following: quote:We've actually released content just this year - there were problems and we've restructured a bit, so things haven't been (and won't be) the fast-and-furious "adventure a week" pace we've held in the past, but so far this year we've released: * ”We've actually released content just this year...” * "we've restructured a bit..." * "we've held in the past..." * "so far this year we've released..." * "We also hosted a Battle Interactive at DDXP..." * "Our campaign [sic] documentation..." * "So, to say that we're not releasing anything is quite the misnomer." * "We've released content, and we're working on more content for the coming months" Quite the misnomer? Wolfstar, I never said a DAMNED THING about the community supporters of LFR, of which, you are an admin. I wasn't talking about what you and your fellow community members were doing. I was talking about how Wizards of the Coast wrongfully threw you under the bus. The question wasn’t about whether the LFR community was generating content for each other to use, the question was whether or not WotC was authoring, creating, developing, editing and releasing that content. My guess is, at the least, that the Gencon convention material that WotC probably authored (I’m assuming they did, I guess that I may be wrong) made its way to LFR. But you don’t even talk about that. No, you are too busy using pronouns and official “we” when the subject was never about you – it was about WotC. That’s a distinction with a difference. It would be like a Pathfinder Society Venture-Captain coming onto the boards when Paizo was being bashed for "not doing something”, and responding that "Yes we are, as we’ve done A B and C!" – in reference to his local or state Pathfinder Society Chapter. Well, that wouldn’t be Paizo, would it? And you are not WotC. On this point, we have no disagreement. In my initial response, I asked you this about the "we" part of your post: quote:If by "we" you mean the LFR admins, when the issue as phrased, touched and concerned WotC's direct support? Then as you might appreciate, that might be a little confusing to readers. You responded by saying: quote:Maybe it's just too early in the morning, but I honestly don't understand your question? Let me be more clear then: When you used the pronoun "We" in relation to a statment that WotC had not released anything, and said words to the effect: Not true! Misnomer!! "We released A, B and C" You misled readers at ENworld into thinking that WotC had authored and released the material, when, in fact, WotC did no such thing at all. Before you suggest I'm being unfair in saying this, let's look at the XP points comments under your post. Was anybody who read your post confused about that? Let’s take a look at the people who posted XP props for you and draw reasonable inferences, shall we? Maggan: Great of you to stop by! renau1g: Thanks Wolfstar OnlineDM: Thanks for chiming in with some authority! Aberzanzorax: Always a pleasure to be enlightened by you Wolfstar, thanks! Vyvyan Basterd: Thanks for dispelling wild and inaccurate rumors. Pour: Appreciate the facts! darjr: Thanks for stopping by. Herschel: Well done, good sir. Gulla: Thanks for taking the time to clear things up. "Authority?" "Wild and inaccurate rumours?" "Facts?" "Clearing things up?" Let me ask you: How do you think your use of the pronouns “We” "we've" and "our" was taken by those commenters when you were responding to a criticism levelled directly at WotC – and not *you*, by using those pronouns? So let’s return to the topic at hand: What material, specifically, has Wizards of the Coast LLC, a subsidiary of Hasbro Inc., authored, created, developed and released for use with Living Forgotten Realms Organized Play program since July, 2010? The impression you left in more than a few posters was that it was a whole number of modules – with more on the way. Except, reading your post carefully, in fact, that wasn’t WotC at all. Those modules were instead created by the LFR community itself. Recap: Near as I can tell, there is nothing wild and inaccurate in what I posted at all. WotC has not released material for organized play, outside of D&D Encounters, for the past 8 months. If I’m wrong, tell me I’m wrong (Hell even **I** think I might be wrong when it comes to material written for use at conventions!) But at least be accurate in what you say and how you say it. Re: RPGA I asked you, in pretty specific terms, the following: quote:Are you aware of what, exactly, the RPGA is being used for now? If there is no reporting requirment or membership necessary to participate in organized play -- then what, exactly, is its current function? Is if fair to say it's unclear, or is there some other function it now serves that I am failing to understand? You’ll forgive an old lawyer for recognizing the witness didn’t care to answer the question. But yes, I noticed. Rather then actually answer the question, you responded with this: quote:Well, let's step back a bit, and look at the way WotC sees it's D&D Organized Play programs to get a better picture of things. It would have been far more helpful had you simply answered a straightforward question, rather than have me have to parse it out, line by line, to distill the following from your posts: * RPGA number are no longer tracked or required at events; * The RPGA has been replaced by the WPN * If you wanted to actually JOIN the RPGA right now? You can't. (If you google it, Wizards' website prompts you to join the Wizards' Play Network. The RPGA has vanished off their official website.) So what's left of the RPGA witihn WotC as a formal organization for organized play? Not much at all. What does WotC do for it? Well, again, not much at all. [Edit: According to David Christ on the Paizo Message Boards, WotC is still sponsoring for -- and paying for -- DMs and table space at cons. I didn't suggest they weren't. But apparently, this is being done under the RPGA banner. If so, that's a big something that has not been mentioned here.] In terms of the LFR website, according to you, WotC: * hosts it. * provides general guidance to LFR admins should WotC break the rules of LFR with a new book; * WotC will permit RPGA/LFR to use the banners they already have at conventions; and, * WotC will let the LFR website create and distribute modules, for FREE, by LFR fans to other LFR fans, using the marks and IP of WotC So -- after decades, that’s what the RPGA is now. Am I correct? If so, do I still think that means that WotC has "killed the RPGA off?" Yes. I. Do. Do I think that means that LFR and RPGA are now essentially circling the bowl? Yes. I. Do. And I am not "ashamed" to say it, either. Saddened? Yes. I was a past member of the RPGA. But ashamed? No. That shame doesn't come to roost in my rafters; nor yours. That truly isn’t meant to be a slam on you or the other organizers of LFR. Quite the opposite: it’s my expression of sadness (and yes, a little contempt) concerning the people at WotC who decided to throw some of their best and most loyal fans they had in the entire world under the bus when they abandoned the RPGA brand -- and abandoned active development for professionally authored, developed and created and illustrated LFR modules. Those best and most loyal fans in the world? That would be *you*.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2011 12:20
|
|
|
Missing in the last post: just random loving words and sentences suddenly being written in orange for some ungodly reason.Red_Mage posted:Sunic flames totally has an account on BG, cause I was CPing entirely from there in that batch. Won't be able to cp form the gaming den for much longer now I think... Oh, I know - what I mean is, Sunic originates from the Gaming Den and went to BG. Most of BG is relatively benign until someone else brings up 4e. Mystic Mongol posted:Where are you getting this? It's heartwrenching! I feel so bad for these people. ENWorld! It has far more then just lovely 5e threads.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2011 12:21
|
|
|
Squizzle posted:As much as this is tempting to assume and probably in part true, I think that the objections are based more on the idea that D&D is supposed to correspond to reality where there is a real referent, instead of corresponding to genre or fun-having. They believe in caster supremacy because a person could only achieve so much, even with training, but magic can do anything. 4E gleefully abandons realism in favor of enjoyment first and action-hero thrills second, and this just blows their grogminds. They don't want a game; they want a "real" world they can engage with. But even that doesn't make sense, because D&D itself has always gleefully abandoned any idea of a "real" world by more or less ignoring the changes magic would make on a setting.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2011 20:31
|
|
|
The Three Kingdoms era of China is basically just badass warlords and fighters being supremely awesome nonstop, without any magic at all. The fact is, when you get down to it, the vast majority of protagonists are martial types, fighter-rogues in a way. And while many of them have divine gifts, you also need to remember that magic itself was a divine gift. The idea of magic being divided or separated from the divine all but didn't exist. Magicians who used entirely their own power to do things is, relatively speaking, a modern thought, and one that is in of itself born from the mythology of Persian priests. Even the word "magic" originates from magi, which denoted Zoroastrian priests.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2011 22:19
|
|
|
Listen, in 3e I could make the players do detective work to discover clues and information about the assassination, while in 4e it's just literally impossible to ever think about anything because combaaaaaaaaaaaat. Wait the wizard in 3e cast a divination spell nevermind. It's this bizarre 3e-ism because even in the older editions they were explicit on the rules not explaining everything. What I'm saying is 3e has given gamers brain damage.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2011 21:39
|
|
|
It comes down to what skills are for. In the original D&D where there weren't skills, it was just generally assumed your adventurer knew how to do "adventuring things" and your fluff stuff was roleplayed out. There wasn't a "tie ropes" skill because, well, you're an adventurer - you know how to tie ropes. Furthermore, the assumption is that, as an adventurer, you were already someone noteworthy. Fighters were already masters at arms, wizards had finished their apprentice training. Dungeons weren't laughably deadly because you all suck, it's because their horrible evil hell-dungeons. 2e's NWP was based on fluff skills more then "adventuring" skills. It actually had poo poo like baking or playing an instrument or knowing astronomy, and it was a strictly optional rule. It also cut back on adventurers already being veterans and made them more beginners at things. 3e tried to mash NWPs and thief skills together, and it shows, in a bad way. There's way too loving many skills, and a lot of them are insultingly dumb. How many adventurers out there apparently don't know how to swim? Or how to tie simple knots? Level 1 meant you were still an apprentice at wizard school, or that you were some chump farm boy who had never handled a weapon in your life. So 4e took it the opposite way 2e did, and reversed on 3e - skills are there for adventuring. The skills that exist are the ones that need to be rolled. Diplomacy isn't making small talk, it's being an ace negotiator. If you're just making jokes at Ye Olde Tavern, you don't need to make a diplomacy check. It's when you're trying to convince the king that his viceroy is really a succubus in disguise that you use it. It also jumped back to the original idea that as an adventurer you already mean something. DCs are set as level challenge markers rather then flat marks to succeed at things, because the assumption is "You can float on your back or doggy paddle, you're a goddamn adventurer." Whenever people claim 4e isn't "D&D" I have to laugh, because it's closer to the original D&D in a lot of ways that 3e and 2e weren't. Edit: This is in reference to last page, I take way too long to type things
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2011 23:10
|
|
|
To be fair, the Frank Trollman idiocy isn't limited to just D&D, or to The Gaming Den! Before he was banned, he used to post at rpg.net, in fact! Let's see his thoughts about World of Darkness.quote:* You gotta roll back the whole "personal horror" crap. If you're going to have a supernatural organization, they need global reach. They need to have vast resources, and be a powerful conspiracy that is vying to take over the world. They need this for two reasons. First, so that you have to care about them. The nWoD version of the Carthians where it's seriously 20 guys who meet at irregular intervals somewhere in the LA Basin has simply got to go. If you could live for forty years in a city and not know that there was a Prince, let alone who he was - that's totally unacceptable. But also because the players need incentives to actually advance within those groups. Which means that the groups need to provide genuine perks that you couldn't get just by going and working at a job and earning money and buying stuff you want. Frank Trollman honestly believes that the World of Darkness should be about as little horror as possible, and should be 100% lovely global organization politicking. He even made a homebrew WoD setting and system based off of Shadowrun to cover this. He also thinks that all the different types of supernatural characters should be mandated because he literally does not grasp the concept of "optional." World of Darkness to him is an episode of the Superfriends.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2011 12:00
|
|
|
Let's get some more grog in here. Mr. Mearls postulating on the history of D&D and trying to unify the D&D audience. Quite a laugh-er. "What we forget, though, is that the path to our future stretches back through our past." More like what HE forgot while designing 4th edition.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2011 22:09
|
|
|
Sorry, but being lead designer of 4th ed means he green lit pg 115 of the 4E PHB. A clear dig at Pathfinder. You don't get to call for gamer unity when your very design and promotion is what fractured the community to begin with. If 4E were a raging success and Pathfinder an abject failure Mr Mearls would not be calling for gamer unity, I'm sure.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2011 22:10
|
|
|
Wizards of the Coasts thoughtless marketing practices, and their desire to serve the bottom line profit amount to both greed and incompetence in my book, and is the view of roughly the last 27 gamers I spoke with. A great iron curtain descends down from the annual lay-offs, to the misleading statements made at GenCon 2008 (see YouTube) for a list of unfulfilled promises, to an array of m4rketing splat governed by an iron-clad GSL whos tight legalities attempted to shut down the Open Game Movement over the past years. It is a matter of business fact that the OGL given in perpetuity, is the document wotc moved away from, and drew "first blood" in this very divisive plan. The idea to call gamers to action and unity by invoking Gygax is a fine one, but Mearls imho has lost this privelege, just as I would not trust Slavicsec, Mearls nor Perkins as spokespersons for gaming unity - they are keenly responsible for our division, and I understand those like the OP who would say that Mearls' statements appear dishonest, given his involvement in bringing Magic The Gathering and Video Game logic into Dungeons & Dragons. The damage done by so-called business decisions over these years will not be "smoothed-over" by an insincere call for unity. In fact, as a point of history, the act of out-producing OGL material in the industry is the equivalent of a crime against the gaming community. The countless small third party publishers shut down because of 4e alone, was itself a hostile coup as wotc attempted to reign in third party publishers under their control once again. A deep appreciation is felt by countless gamers for Erik Mona who led the charge with his article/thread, "4e, PAIZO IS STILL UNDECIDED". Through his commission of Jason Bulmahn to flesh out and deliver Pathfinder RPG from Oct08-09, he became the hier to the gygaxian legacy, NOT Mearls. For those of us who followed every step the wotc made in those days, we can never forget how hurtful it felt to have our commonalities under the OGL ripped asunder by wotc, as the game was converted toward so-called non-backward compatibility. If Mearls wishes to speak about history, have him look at the list of those fired from wotc each Thanksgiving since 2008. Perhaps Mearls feels a bit alone there in his ivory tower, perhaps sad that he was the right hand of marketing greed. And if not, perhaps he misses those of us who continued to play Dungeons & Dragons via Pathfinder RPG without him, or wotci's infamous brand name.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2011 22:11
|
|
|
PHB1 PG:115 Pathfinder Exploits Wrong Step Pathfinder Attack 11 Act Together Pathfinder Utility 12 To me that's a jab. Clear and simple. No tin foil hat required. Pathfinder existed as a brand at the time and the writing on the wall was pretty clear Paizo was not jumping on the 4E wagon. No, the PFRPG did not exist yet, but Paizo was continuing on with 3E-OGL work until they sorted out their strategy which became the PFRPG.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2011 22:12
|
|
|
This article, combined with last year's "We never set out to get rid of our fans!" interview, sound very much to me like: a) attempts at damage control on a corporate level ("Come back to us, well-heeled grognards!"), and b) attempts at damage control on a personal level ("For the love of the game, what have I wrought???") To that extent, I wish him luck in rehabilitating the reputations of both WotC and himself. It's a tough challenge, assuming it's even possible. Of course, I may be misreading completely; I have never met him and have only the words on the page to go by. -The Gneech
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2011 22:15
|
|
|
This is the nub of my main problems with 4e, usually summed up by some min-maxer orgasmically squealing about how "The fluff doesn't matter!" and "You can always re-fluff it!" How I loathe the term "fluff" and wish it to the darkest depths of Orcus's fleshy nether regions, never to be seen again. For me, the "fluff" is the "crunch," which is to say, whatever the description of a creature or spell says it is, that should be the major rule when adjudicating it, and the mechanics placed alongside it are just there to help model that, and when they fail, they should be tossed out or supplemented. In other words, as a DM I want to use common sense and description, not some arcane chess variation with absurd loopholes that bears little resemblance to reality
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2011 22:17
|
|
|
As far as 5th Edition goes, it's in the works. At this point, it has to be, as they've already rehashed everything in 4e style, and they're running out of ideas(or simply canceling them). I remember back in around '07, on the WotC boards, someone(I can't recall the name) made a thread about 4th Edition. They were very Chicken Little about it, crying that this is the end of 3e, WotC is lying, the sky is falling, etc. Everyone else told them they were crazy, there was planned 3e material for the then foreseeable future. A rep from WotC even made a comment saying there was no 4e, and no plans to be a 4e, that 3e was DnD and that was where all the creative work was being done. Less than 6 months later they announced 4e at GenCon. So yeah, 5e is on it's way, but I think this time they're going to handle things differently, and try and be a little more slick with it. It's not going to be called 5e. It's going to fly in under the assumption that it's compatible with 4e, but still new and fresh, so they can have their restart and get rid of the old books at the same time. Oddly enough Essentials already did this... I still firmly believe they won't be so bold as to call it 5th Edition, I don't think WotC can survive another edition war. Might help their case if they don't give their old fans the middle finger in the announcement...
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2011 22:20
|
|
|
Meh, unity? You mean they feel we should recommend their products as equal to anything else? As in, they have a product that is just different? Hmm. Let me see. Where's my Dragon Magazine? No unity there. Where's my Dungeon mag? No Unity there. Where's software to create characters from every 3.5 Complete book I own? No Unity there. Where's my Dragonlance for 3.5? No Unity there. Wow, this is getting a little un-unified. In fact, it seems rather WIPED OUT! If they think that edition wars was about people prefering a particular product over another, they are way way way sadly mistaken. Its about how you treat a human being and the response you get for telling them what they should want. That is what the edition wars are about. No forgiveness. And I will never forgive them, ever.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2011 22:20
|
|
|
Mearls has officially jumped the shark. I just skimmed part II of his bait and switch blog. And I would agree with Dragonchess that this is a veiled survey, and a crappy one. Did he actually resort to putting my childhood sandbox mini up there to pull my heartstring? Jeez. (Paizo did that with class btw like five years ago in Dragon Ecologies.) Isn't Mearls like...five years LATE with this survey? O I like grids to tell me what to do. O I like to actually play D&D. Where were the surveys when wotc 1) Non-renewed Paizo's Dragon and Dungeon? 2) attempted to close down third party publishers with an iron clad GSL 3) disassociated themselves from grognards and old schoolers 4) distanced themselves from v.3.5 and marketed saying "this is not your daddy's dnd" or 5) Pulled the legacy .pdfs of AD&D from the web? Its time to pay the piper, Faust! G4ME OVER
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2011 22:23
|
|
|
O I like grids to tell me what to do. O I like to actually play D&D. Scott makes an interesting observation, but misses the point. Its true that the way that survey is viewed says a lot... about its author! It seemed the second article contained an illustration of a typical "Russian Front" sales choice. Mearls wrote: O A set of guidelines used by the DM O A hard and fast rule determined by the grid As in, "Which would you prefer:" O A yummy treat O Having your eyes gouged out and your elbows broken My point is that anyone in his position shouldn't be asking lame questions, poorly asked-and I agree its very telling. Excellent gamers and authors understand the gygaxian line that GMs straddle between the perception of rule limitations and the GM's actual authority. Based on Mearl's second article, I feel like it drips with trickery, sales sludge, and set-up. These are not the respectful and forthright tactics I expect from any steward of the game. One doesn't need a tinfoil hat to smell the stygian stink of Fifth Edition in the works here. Final analysis: When the former lead-designer askes such a biased question on such a complex topic with only tiny radio buttons and little room for actual comments... it plays like a green hag wearing a see-through nightgown. When she points and curls her little finger beckoning you over, you get a sick feeling of disgust. Its just too bad that Hasbro's directive to D&D R&D seems to be the premise of "make a game that sells", rather than "make great D&D". These are two distinct approaches. It is my belief that when making great D&D became an impediment to making great money, that company chose the latter. And, unfortunate that they lacked the creativity, communication, and skill to have the best of both. It far too late for them now. G4me Over.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2011 22:23
|
|
|
quote:. . . Mike Mearls has always been up front about his enjoyment of old-school play . . . quote:Given that he DMs a AD&D 1st ed game on a weekly basis, I am fairly sure he could. quote:Mearls started playing in 1981, says he likes the old TSR editions of D&D, and runs an AD&D game. That's old-school enough for me. quote:I love the smell of Old School Snobbery in the morning! Really. I can't imagine it. --- This is why I love grognards. They assume that because they literally worship Gary Gygax, everyone else feels the same way about the developers of their own games. Enjoy watching your icon get criticized! That'll teach you for not properly understanding Old School Gaming!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2011 22:44
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:Is that the dude with the south park avatar on RPG.net? Because if it is I remember that "exchange", he posted in a thread Mearls had made to promote something with an angry rant about OSR and how D&D should just roll right back to Moldvay basic or some poo poo, and then the thread went on. Maybe the same guy? I mine from ENWorld and Paizo. The hate is pretty hilarious since the guys that work at Paizo get along with the guys at WotC. They've even played games together, though typically either Ravenloft or things like AD&D.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2011 22:52
|
|
|
A thread titled "Would you prefer it if your partner said you were a great GM, or great in bed?" So already we're off to a good start! Actually it was relatively benign if filled with terrible jokes. And then... --- Neither From my view, one of the things both GMing and 'post gaming activities' have in common is that the communication regarding quality will best come from nonverbal cues. While it would be nice to have someone tell me I am a good GM, I find it more satisfying when their actions and nonverbal cues say it instead. When I look around the table and see that the players are enjoying the game, that means more to me than someone telling me that I am doing a good job. When someone gets so sucked into the story that they legitimately show some level of emotion toward a NPC, that puts a smile on my face. When I saw someone a week ago that I hadn't seen in nearly two years, and one of their first questions was if I would start running a game again, that made me feel good. Hearing the words are nice, but I find that they don't mean as much as the other signs of being good. Likewise, I find body language, body spasms, and other such things to be better than words. Still, words aren't without merit. A poem I wrote a few years back might express the topic better. Natural Disaster Sweat drips Walls shake Muscles clench Bodies quiver Rapid pulse Erotic earthquake Hours pass Biological clocks Time stands still Gasp for air Nearly drowning Fierce aftershocks Heat Volcanic eruption Head spinning Cyclone swirl Thought disruption Carnal thunder Hurricane seduction Teeth Claws You say faster You say please Embrace me Taste me Take me Give me another Natural disaster
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2011 03:17
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:I Made the Bane Guard posted: There but for the grace of god. He was so close...and then the "4rries" comment.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2011 01:09
|
|
|
Wizards cannot do everything alone. Thus they employ many of the fighter types or they help many of the fighter types. Magic is rare, but a sword is always there for the swinging. But one has not changed in the majority of fantasy and that is that wizards are the baddest dudes in all the world. The fighter types cannot hope to stand against them unless they get close enough to lay hands on them with a sword which would not happen to often if they straight up ran at them and tried to swing. If you are a fighter type, you better have a plan, you better bring friends, and you better have some magical help of your own. That is fantasy. In fact, D&D is kinder to fighter types than most books. At least in D&D fighter types do the most damage at higher level. Wizards can't deal near as much damage to a single target as a fighter type can with feats like power attack and the like. Heck, I just put a 1200 hit point hydra against my party. The melees did 90% of the damage to it. The barbarian did 500 plus points of damage by himself. Fighter-types do fine in D&D. Just because a wizard can take them out in a one on one battle doesn't mean there is something wrong with either class. It's ridiculous that people think in a fantasy game a fighter should be on par in a one on one fight to a high level wizard. Totally against the tropes of fantasy.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2011 11:57
|
|
|
I have far more experience than you with all editions of D&D. I know for certain that wizards never have and do not now dominate at the D&D table. They are a useful part of the narrative, but they are far from the end all be all that you make them out to be. Once again I say you have been playing with DMs that don't know how to create encounters to challenge a complete party. I don't have the problems you have at all. In fact, I find it more difficult to challenge the melee characters in my parties than than the wizard types. In my groups wizards get one action a round. If the enemy makes their saving throw, their turn is over. They basically did nothing. Then the melees go with their three and four attacks with power attack and magic weapons stacked with bonuses and there is no save against damage, creatures start dying. Obviously your campaigns consisted of some weak, low save creature completely unprepared for dealing with a wizard enemy who allowed the wizard type to teleport in followed by it missing all its saves and dying in the first round to the first spell cast by the wizard. Sorry if I don't share your experience, but I don't. Your experience is as absurd as those that claim wizards are balanced with fighters one against one.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2011 11:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 08:56 |
|
|
My friends and I get together to game to be part of a fun story as well as build a strong character. If all we wanted was some game where all characters were balanced against each other we would stick with MMORPGs like WoW or EQ. We're interested in stories like the ones we read. One guy likes Terry Brooks. I'm big into Tolkien. Another guy likes A Song of Ice and Fire. But all the people I know ultimately play D&D for the story first and everything else is secondary to trying to capture the feel of being involved in an epic fantasy story and bringing a character to life.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2011 11:58
|
|