|
ZenMasterBullshit posted:No, it's not. The majority of the time I'm looking for what to roll when I hit. When the gently caress do you ever go to roll and attack and say "Hmmm, what was the max for this again." over "Which one of these do I need to roll?". I am going to answer this post. Please try to read it and, if you disagree, respond. Here is a thing that happens: A player looks at a long list of weapons and looks for the one that does the most damage (from the ones they can afford and which fit their class). If you think I am lying when I say this happens frequently during character generation, let me know. After this (because the player is playing an old game) the player finds the die that matches that and rolls that same die for a very long time thereafter. If you doubt this phenomena exists let me know and then explain why you think I'd make it up.
|
#
¿
May 31, 2012 02:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 18:45 |
|
|
Death Pits of Crap posted:Is maximum weapon damage really better than average weapon damage in AD&D? If your players really want to pick the big number lottery weapon that's cool, but have you tried explaining to them why they might want to have a high average instead? I explain a lot of things about the mechanics of the game. Some stick, some do not. Most of my players play fairly diegetically after character generation, though.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2012 02:11
|
|
|
Pangalin posted:Ok, Zak, taking for a moment the naive view that these two sentences were a legitimate attempt to tell us forthrightly that Ms. Kane has some specific issues with mathematics and that is why you have adopted this specific method of expressing damage, that is to say, for the benefit of Ms. Kane, who has a particular handicap, do you see why it might look like a statement of contempt toward your players generally. I don't think it's helpful to get into a big metadiscussion about the layers of good faith and bad faith assumptions here in this thread. Really, what I am telling you is: for certain audiences _other_ than alleged nostalgic Cheetoh-stained exclusionists range notation is sometimes useful. I have made a number of detailed posts about situations where this is so based on observed reality. Either you, overall, think I am a person who wants to lie about this for mysterious reasons or you don't. Pick one. In addition to people who suck at multiplying, we haven't even talked about the GM whose first priority scanning the monster manual (and remember, this is not a 4e manual with balanced encounters) "can this thing kill my players in one round with their current number of hit points?" This is a thing many DMs will want to know and will prioritize. Again, the best would be both. But there are reasons to have each.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2012 02:19
|
|
|
Scrape posted:Yeah, Zak is grasping at straws to defend an obvious legacy mechanic but two pages of nitpicky bullshit isn't funny, and I thought that this thread was for having a laugh at OSR's expense. A laugh. Listen, I call 'em as I see 'em. Most everyone who posts here is going off their own experience. And when they say "This happened in my game and it was horrible" then I believe them. They don't have a reason to lie about that. That happened and it gave them ideas about how games work and they are here now because of experiences like that. All I can talk about is what I myself have seen at game tables. (Some of which is up there in this thread.) And what I have read on the internet--which is pretty much a thousand examples of pretty much every single kind of thing that could go wrong going wrong in every kind of game for every kind of person ever born ever. So, yeah, I am going to talk from personal experience and I am going to expect people to believe it. I don't have a big dog in the 2-8 fight, like I said: I throw out old mechanics and ideas all the time because they aren't useful-- I just happened to have thought about a thing I noticed that I and other people were doing that made that make sense for us. So I have to go on that, not some imagined platonic gamers-eye-view. This thing is tiny but if we are talking about tiny differences, that's what I noticed. If we can't do that, basically nobody gets to say anything. All you have is personal experience. If you think I'm lying when I say what I have observed, you'll have to do a way better job of giving me a reason to lie about it. The assumption that I would even bother seems to come from some pervasive assumption that liking any old edition of D&D triggers a hormone that causes you to like things about it that make your own life worse. Kobolds? gently caress them. Save vs. Death Ray? I don't care. But 3-18 for a 2-handed sword against size L--I can see why someone would do that
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2012 02:52
|
|
|
CoC is weird--it has a lot of stuff that is totally outside what I want or need in a Lovecraftian horror game (detailed weapons list f'r'example--and stats for monsters you will seriously never kill) but the underlying system--BRP--is actually perfect if you're an experienced GM and want to hack together some new game--Lovecrafty or otherwise--in an hour. BRP is overbuilt for any one game, but that overbuild makes it really good for any new kind of human-scale one-shotty type genre you'd wanna throw together. I have played so many different kinds of games with BRP with just the thinnest coating of hack--scifi, fiasco-ish stuff, whatever. BRP should be given free to any GM after their third GMing anniversary.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2012 06:02
|
|
|
Scrape posted:Well I always hated the d% mechanic but I thought it worked for the dusty lovecraftian theme. It's pretty system-generic so I'll give you that. It is slightly weird to roll-under but newbies grasp the scale immediately and that's awesome. If somebody has a +3 to hit, they're like "is that good?" whereas if they're at 57% they know where they stand because the ceiling is obviously 100. Plus it's easy to modify a roll and to modify a skill slightly based on a class or race or background. In D&D you have to do everything in chunks of 5% which add up pretty fast.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2012 06:10
|
|
|
I have always thought WOTC should just print everything they think'll sell from all eras repackaged and organized like the comic book companies are trying to do now. However, if I understand the Angry Edition Warrior argument correctly (and this goes for edition warriors of all editions, older, newer and middler) their idea appears to be is they want: (1) As many new players to be brought up in their own edition and (presumed attached) playstyle as possible to increase their own player pool (and if you believe either side's claims to being more potentially popular, the size of the industry in general), and (2) They want new WOTC supplements to be written with their edition/playstyle in mind. So basically they see the potential fanbase and WOTC dev budget as limited resources which they are competing over with fans of other editions. They think publishing anything other than what they want risks depleting the share of these resources devoted to stuff they want. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2012 17:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 18:45 |
|
|
I AM THE DUMBEST MAN ON EARTH PLEASE STOP GIVING ME ATTENTION  (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2012 19:40
|
|