|
ProfessorCirno posted:I think it's a bit of both. 5e certainly has a lot of stuff that comes down to "Mearls wanted this to be in the game, so it is." At the same time, I think in both general design philosophies and specific examples, they're taking inspirations from ENWorld. They're not flat out reading the forums at the edge of their seat to copy it up, no, but I think there's a lot of go between there.
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 02:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 15:21 |
|
|
Guilty Spork posted:What amuses me about all of this is that all throughout the time 4e was active Mearls was the figurehead that everyone who hated it would throw their vitriol at (even though Heinsoo was apparently much more important to the design). There are a lot of people to whom Next could be pretty much ideal who have claimed he's a complete and utter moron, based solely on him being involved in an elfgame they didn't care for. That's is the big problem 5e has to face and I'm not sure how'll they'll do it. Previous editions lost old players in an attempt to get new, unbiased players; 3e insulted 2e, 4e made jabs at 3e, 5e is going full out edition war on 4e (seriously, that podcast uses rhetoric you'd see from people banned from other websites). It was a way of saying "Hey new guy, come play THIS game, not that stinky old one!" It also serves as a rallying cry for people who played that previous edition but wanted certain tings fixed. But in 5e they're not going after new players, and they're not going after 4e players who want to see fixes to 4e. They're going all chips in on previous players of non-4e editions. Which is funny is a problem because most of them hate WotC. See the edition wars weren't just hating on 4e, it was hating on the entire company. That's where a lot of Paizo's success comes from. With 5e they not only have to try to sell a game to people who are already perfectly happy with the game they have, they have to sell the game to people who are marked for their dislike of new games, AND they have to sell it to people who are marked for their dislike of them, the company making it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 02:16
|
|
|
Guilty Spork posted:What amuses me about all of this is that all throughout the time 4e was active Mearls was the figurehead that everyone who hated it would throw their vitriol at (even though Heinsoo was apparently much more important to the design). There are a lot of people to whom Next could be pretty much ideal who have claimed he's a complete and utter moron, based solely on him being involved in an elfgame they didn't care for. There are still people who claim that about Mearls in spite of whatever 5E may shape up to be. I'm pretty sure some of them got quoted in g.txt. I remember back when it was announced that Monte Cook would be coming onboard for Next and there was a lot of groaning about Monte "caster supremacy" Cook and how we were headed back to the sins of 3.X but it was a good thing we had Mike Mearls, the guy who gave us Iron Heroes, to act as a counterpoint and ensure that martial classes didn't get the shaft. Remember that? I'm not an especially big fan of either dude as a lead designer, but I'm finding myself increasingly wondering what the Next we could have had would have looked like instead of the one we seem to be getting now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 02:17
|
|
|
It would have been disappointing to at least one D&D audience and stupid assholes would've gotten mad about it. D&D. D&D never changes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 04:01
|
|
|
MadRhetoric posted:It would have been disappointing to at least one D&D audience and stupid assholes would've gotten mad about it. Yes, but it possibly would have been an entirely different collection of stupid assholes mad about it for entirely different reasons. Or not, who can say. Monte Cook's new Kickstarted game sounds more interesting to me than Ptolus did, anyway. I was never a huge Arcana Unearthed fan, but who knows, maybe I'll like this one more.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 04:18
|
|
|
Oh, they've ditched the Warlord. That was my favorite 4e class, but oh well. Warlord is what Fighter always should have been - the tough dude with the skill-at-arms, tactical knowledge and inspirational personality that make a perfect Expedition Leader, to sum it up "Weapon guy with leadership". Then you've got Barbarian for "large weapon guy, angry", Ranger for "two-weapon and/or missile-weapon guy" (with bonus tracking and a pet wolf), Cleric for "weapon guy with heals" (also "vs undead guy"), and Rogue for "sneaky small weapon guy". That actually pretty much covers your Weapon Guys. "weapon guy without any other stuff" shouldn't be a class any more than "spellcaster without any other stuff" should be a class. Also, when you sum them up like that, it looks stupid as hell, which says a lot. If you were to divvy it up like below, you could build any non-wizardy Next class without stupid baggage like "a healy weapons guy is also a vs-undead fighter, always". Weapon guy with... One of: *Leader *Healer *Sneaky *Angry two of: *Big weapons *Two weapons at the same time *Weapon and shield *Missile weapons *Finesse weapons and one of: *bonus vs <opponent type> *gets a <companion type> *<special attack type> *<special defense type> It's like a recipe for awesome fighter type dudes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 04:41
|
|
|
I actually really like how abstracted everything seems. Less simulationist, but still plenty of fun on it's own for plotless dungeon rampages. I look forward to trying it out soon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 05:02
|
|
|
I had a strange conversation with one of my players in my not-DnD game tonight, talking about his regular DnD game. We both agreed that DnD was what 'everyone' plays first (expected). His regular game is 3.x, and he was actually complaining that the rules prevented him from 'doing nothing but hit stuff with increasingly better weapons'. I'd honestly thought it was just a grog argument, but apparently there is a demand for 'just one move' characters. This player has just joined our 4e game, I'm interested to hear his take on the (too many, imo) options his paladin has. His point basically came down to 'I'm not a geek, I don't want to be punished by lack of rules mastery', but I was intrigued that (presumably because of D&D?) he associates 'more options' with 'requires rules mastery'. In his mind, 'more options' basically means 'more traps'. e: It was mentioned before that D&D should accept it's role as the gateway drug, and I agree. If people still delve into the hobby after D&D, imagine how many more would get into it if their gateway drug was something that didn't pride itself on being user-unfriendly. petrol blue fucked around with this message at 05:26 on Mar 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 05:02
|
|
|
This was sort of the big divide that hit D&D between 2->3. At some point people looked at 3.x and said, "this game has too many options." And you know, really it does, and if 3.x has too many options, 4e has too many options too. For players who just want to dive into the game, options (particularly feat selection) is perceived as a barrier between them and what they want to do. Hell, given the semi-competitive nature of most D&D games people start to feel inadequate, so not only do they need to pick a drat feat every so many levels, they have to make sure it's the best one. 5e has the right idea with it's feat-delivery system. They tried to make feat selection more like picking a class to limit the total number of options. I applaud the effort, I really do. I think it's one of the best ideas Next has. I don't particularly care if it was a unique idea for Next either, but ramming the idea of Feats into the idea of Kits was a good decision, particularly since it isn't mandatory. This, in light of the fact that the grog solution to 'too many choices' is frequently, 'we should have no choices at all.'
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 05:52
|
|
|
This Warlord stuff is boring and depressing. Let's talk about curried egg salad! Curried egg salad is a really simple recipe, which I like because I am a terrible cook, and it's quite tasty. The core of a curried egg salad is simple: Hard-boiled eggs, mayonnaise, and curry powder. I prefer Sun Madras Curry Powder and will freely admit that most of my reason for it is the badass tin. Also, it's mildly smoky, and if there's a flavor I love, it's smoky. You'll want to add some crisp green vegetables to it, in order to round it out and make it feel less like eating great big spoonfuls of curried lard. If ya'll want a proper recipe, here it is (adapted from other curried egg recipies I've used) 6 hard-boiled large eggs, chopped 1/4 cup finely chopped celery (spinach works too, but remember to chop it extra-fine) 3 scallions, chopped 1/4 cup bottled mayonnaise 3/4 teaspoon curry powder (more or less) 1/8 teaspoon celery salt (or just salt) 1/8 teaspoon smoked paprika (if you like smoked everything, which I do) Sprinking of lemon juice Peel the eggs, chop them up, toss everything in a bowl and mix it. Season with salt and pepper, then serve it in sandwiches or on crackers. Serves four or five as a side-dish, or two as a main course.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 05:55
|
|
|
petrol blue posted:...he associates 'more options' with 'requires rules mastery'. In his mind, 'more options' basically means 'more traps'. My fiancee has this same problem, only with 4e, which is the first D&D she played. She really likes Basic D&D though, because the options seem to boil down much more to "What does my character do next?" than "What do I pick to write on my character sheet next?" (her words). She really likes FATE too, because "what do I write on my character sheet next" is almost entirely up to her, rather than constrained at character creation. Really, she's very much the person Next should be aimed at. A geeky (but not gamer-y) person who likes the idea of pretending to be a  HALF DEMON WARLOCK who melts people's brains because she knows the terrible secret of the universe, but really doesn't like the idea of reading through 200 pages of rules that even today kind of assume you know all the basic assumptions of the game world.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 06:12
|
|
|
RPGs as a hobby/pastime have two big hurdles to clear in terms of getting new players involved: 1). They tend to be stupidly dense. To most RPG fans, a 64-page game would be considered "lite" or "streamlined." To most other people, even board-gamers or WoW raid regulars or the like, 64 pages is ridiculous. 2). They are frontloaded with a whole lot of setup and prep even beyond understanding the rules. You have to get yourself and 3-4 of your friends to block out 4-6 hours of time to sit around a table all to roll dice and pretend to be an elf. I'm not trying to put pretending to be an elf down, mind you, that would be hugely hypocritical, but even with a group of genuinely enthusiastic RPG players my last three years of face-to-face tabletop gaming were characterized by not-too-infrequent bouts of "oh poo poo, something's come up and [PLAYER] can't make it, welp, time to bust out some board games." RPGs often require a serious commitment from a playgroup to get off the ground. Board games require a bunch of people to sit around a table too, but board games generally only take about an hour or so unless you're playing something really complex (or Monopoly, but if you're playing Monopoly you have bigger problems to worry about than time). Video games are all about casual play and instant gratification...if you want to play some WoW, you sit down at the computer and BAM, you're running around Azeroth. This is one of the reasons I'm so big on PbP games these days, I can play in one of those for the cost of a half-hour, maybe an hour a day. I like 4E. I think 4E is much less laden with traps than its immediate predecessor was. But I can definitely see why someone who isn't that exact sort of "gamer-y" would look at 4E and be like NOPE.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 06:40
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:This was sort of the big divide that hit D&D between 2->3. 3.x doesn't have too many options. 3.x has too many options that are poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 06:47
|
|
|
D&D is definitely too complex, and I think this is one clear direction DDNext could have aimed for- take all the refinements of past editions, balance between classes, a unified core mechanic, etc., and make it much simpler. 4e streamlined some of 3e's cruft, but it could still be easier. Arguably Essentials stepped a little in that direction. And technically they have a simple Core as a goal, but they want to sneak in a bunch of legacy stuff too and that's an obstacle.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 06:52
|
|
|
If they wanted to streamline and simplify, they should have kept the grid as the default. That's a million times more intuitive than "GM May I?" 4e's complications came from the absurd number of feats, some of which literally obsoleted others (while many only effectively did), and combat math that wasn't hard but just took too long; The stability a grid offers makes everything much more simple.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 07:10
|
|
|
fatherdog posted:3.x doesn't have too many options. 3.x has too many options that are poo poo.  Crappy options leading to mechanical traps and broken combos are basically inevitable in a game full of discrete mechanical bits supported by a supplement treadmill, and it's not just 3e's problem. 4e had a horrible issue with feats as it went along, and to a lesser degree with paragon paths and powers too.Countblanc posted:If they wanted to streamline and simplify, they should have kept the grid as the default. That's a million times more intuitive than "GM May I?" 4e's complications came from the absurd number of feats, some of which literally obsoleted others (while many only effectively did), and combat math that wasn't hard but just took too long; The stability a grid offers makes everything much more simple.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 07:17
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Really, she's very much the person Next should be aimed at. A geeky (but not gamer-y) person who likes the idea of pretending to be a Get that WoW poo poo out of here, Next is only for elf wizards and dwarf fighters. ( No really, I have very heavy doubts we'll actually be seeing tieflings or warlocks or demonic characters or anything like that ) Also... Kai Tave posted:1). They tend to be stupidly dense. To most RPG fans, a 64-page game would be considered "lite" or "streamlined." To most other people, even board-gamers or WoW raid regulars or the like, 64 pages is ridiculous. Maxwell Lord posted:And technically they have a simple Core as a goal, but they want to sneak in a bunch of legacy stuff too and that's an obstacle. This made me laugh because of how hilariously true it is. If WotC wants to make a truly "basic" version of D&D they need to make a character sheet that holds literally all of your character. In easy to read and reference ways to boot. Maybe two sheets. The rules themselves need to fit in a small booklet. And we all know that will never happen. What's maddening is that every now and then they'll begin approaching a good idea, and then they scream and run away as fast as they can. Like hey, your attributes are your skills. That could totally work! It's how OD&D worked! Except no, we have to make this stupid complicated list of skills - most of which are lovely - and traits and all this other poo poo. Oh and we need to be 3e too so attributes ALSO effects your combat performance to an incredible degree at every step so you're stuck there, too. Did I mention all that's randomly rolled? Yep! WotC keeps talking about wanting an easy basic Core, but all that really seems to mean is "all the other options stripped out" while keeping all the goddamn rules that necessitate those options to begin with!
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 07:23
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:This made me laugh because of how hilariously true it is. If WotC wants to make a truly "basic" version of D&D they need to make a character sheet that holds literally all of your character. In easy to read and reference ways to boot. Maybe two sheets. The rules themselves need to fit in a small booklet. And we all know that will never happen. I feel like 32 pages is about the cutoff point between "yeah okay, I'll give this a shot" and "what the gently caress am I reading?" for casual not-quite-gamers. There are board games that have 32 page rule booklets, they tend to be a little more on the complex side but they're still an easier sell than a 200-page hardback tome. I'd even be willing to cut them a technicality and say they could do a 32 page player book and also a 32 page DM/monster book. Put it in a nice box with some dice, some tokens, and a bunch of one page broad-strokes "adventure starters."
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 07:46
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Get that WoW poo poo out of here, Next is only for elf wizards and dwarf fighters. She doesn't like videogames that are any more complicated than Mario Kart (or maybe Mario Kart 64), and isn't a big fan of fantasy in general, beyond the Buffy show. She is a huge graphic design nerd, and likes scifi quite a lot, but when she gets into fantasy, it's Constantine or Hellboy and not Conan or Lord Of The Rings. When you show someone like that the D&D rules, saying "come pretend to be fantasy adventurers with us", let them have a read for a week, and tell them to pick the Race and Class that they think is cool, that's exactly what they do. They absolutely don't care that this wasn't in that edition, or sucked in the other edition. They go "lady with demon heritage, sounds cool, picture is awesome and looks kinda like a girl version of Hellboy" and "I like the demon heritage thing, and this class has lots of demon stuff so it probably matches, but I like the "terrible secrets from beyond the stars" thing better so I'll go with that build. Also it looks like I can use a dagger as a magic wand, which sounds useful". They then play the game and have fun and give not a single gently caress what it might have been like 3 editions ago when you couldn't be a demon girl that looks a bit like Hellboy. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 08:31 on Mar 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 07:58
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:This made me laugh because of how hilariously true it is. If WotC wants to make a truly "basic" version of D&D they need to make a character sheet that holds literally all of your character. In easy to read and reference ways to boot. Maybe two sheets. I think the thing with D&D as it stands now is that they almost can't simplify everything down to 64 pages - its business model is based around selling thick, glossy and expensive hardback books, the DM having to own at least three just to play the game.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 10:14
|
|
|
I've gotta admit that this is the thing that keeps me from getting into Fantasycraft. Every time I think to myself "Hm, Fantasycraft seems like a really neat d20 game, maybe I should apply to a PbP" I go and open up the .pdf and then I remember why I never follow through, because Fantasycraft is this dense tome full of fiddly interactions and flipping back and forth to find all the details for how this one spell works in practice and there are all these feats and different weapon keywords and...I mean dang. Like, serious question, do they ever just tell you in the Fantasycraft book what sort of stat array you should be aiming for? I've noticed a lot of peoples' FC characters, even decently leveled ones, have stat arrays without a single 18 anywhere. This suggests to me that the six attributes aren't as heavily weighted in FC as they are in other d20 iterations. So how am I supposed to figure that out on my own, precisely? Am I just being stupid and overlooking some obvious sidebar?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 10:40
|
|
|
Asimo posted:Crappy options leading to mechanical traps and broken combos are basically inevitable in a game full of discrete mechanical bits supported by a supplement treadmill The problem is the parts that interact. If the only difference between being an Elf Wizard and a Dwarf Wizard is that the Dwarf Wizard gets Second Wind instead of Teleport then you can be whatever you want. Sure you can probably come up with some power combo that exploits teleport rather than tunnel better but that's far from a mechanical trap. The problem comes in when being a Dwarf Wizard instead of an Elf Wizard has a direct impact on how other choices function, such as ability score bumps to key stats. Similarly if you can pile passive effect upon passive effect then you get effectively punished for playing a Teleport Wizard Dwarf because activating Second Wind doesn't trigger your eleven different "when you perform a teleport action" feats. If mechanical bits were actually discrete, each being mutually exclusive or have limited activations, you could poo poo out as many options as you like with minimal character creation comboing possible, while also limiting the "damage" caused by taking a sub-optimal power. There'd obviously still be a power scale (Taking an encounter power that prones on a hit along with one that can be triggered out of turn when someone stands up from prone is obviously going to be better than taking one of them along with a generic "just do a fuckton of damage" power) but it would be much, much smaller. Splicer fucked around with this message at 13:57 on Mar 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 13:52
|
|
|
Splicer posted:There'd obviously still be a power scale (Taking an encounter power that prones on a hit along with one that can be triggered out of turn when someone stands up from prone is obviously going to be better than taking one of them along with a generic "just do a fuckton of damage" power) but it would be much, much smaller. That's ok though, because at that point it would be something that even newbies could work with. If I want to be a pugilist and pick all the powers related to pugilism, there is a good chance that they are going to work well with each other. And hey, if the player discovers a combination that works well, then even better!
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 14:50
|
|
|
Question: does anyone have a dumpling recipe that doesn't suck? Everytime I make chicken and dumplings I get these hard little shotputs which are tasty but ultimately not really satisfying. I want floofy poofs of dumpling. Help.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 15:00
|
|
|
Winson_Paine posted:Question: does anyone have a dumpling recipe that doesn't suck? Everytime I make chicken and dumplings I get these hard little shotputs which are tasty but ultimately not really satisfying. I want floofy poofs of dumpling. Help. What kind of dumplings? For chinese style its in the thickness of the dough and your skill at searing the bottoms in the pan. If you're making the dough to thick and it overpowers your filling consider steaming them. It won't give you the wonderful seared bottom but they won't break open or be too thick to compensate. If you're having problems with them being dry make them like Canton Buns with added semi-soup liquid inside to prevent them from totally drying out. Whats the best cheese for Northern Buns? I'm trying to get the beef and pork ones to come out better with cheese. I've been successful so far using a spicy buffalo muenster but there's got to be something better than just spice covering the things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 15:43
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:RPGs as a hobby/pastime have two big hurdles to clear in terms of getting new players involved: Asimo posted:In fairness it's probably both there, and one tends to lead to the other. MadScientistWorking fucked around with this message at 15:52 on Mar 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 15:46
|
|
|
Winson_Paine posted:Question: does anyone have a dumpling recipe that doesn't suck? Everytime I make chicken and dumplings I get these hard little shotputs which are tasty but ultimately not really satisfying. I want floofy poofs of dumpling. Help. Note that I have no idea whether this will work at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 15:53
|
|
|
MadScientistWorking posted:Surprisingly, this is probably a writing issue more than it is a game design issue. Very often rules are not presented in any consistent manner that allows people to easily understand them with minimal effort meaning that you will end up inflated page count for absolutely no reason. 4th edition is one of few RPGs I've seen which actually didn't default to Tim Buckley levels of words to describe something that didn't need it. Fantasy authors are often wordy as gently caress, and it's not surprising that fantasy game writers want to be wordy too. 4e has pretty concise rules by D&D standards, but it's still wordy and confusing. Probably the best part is that if a player reads their class section and most of the Combat chapter, they can start playing from there without having to go through 6 different chapters just to find the rules for missile weapons.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 16:11
|
|
|
Payndz posted:I think the thing with D&D as it stands now is that they almost can't simplify everything down to 64 pages - its business model is based around selling thick, glossy and expensive hardback books, the DM having to own at least three just to play the game. To be perfectly fair though, a lot of those extra books and pages boil down to "Here is a massive list of monsters, spells, feats, prestige classes, magical weapons, alternate rules, etc.". It's not like you need a 200 page Monster Manual to play, you just need some stats for some monsters, and hey why not have a bunch of monster while you're at it? I feel like you absolutely can boil down the core of the game down to a simple formula of "choose a Race, choose a Class, here is how you fight, here is how you overcome other obstacles, pretend to be an elf, GO!" and package it in say, a pamphlet form which can be given out at Cons or Free Comic Book Day or whatever. Then from there you can seque into "here buy this 200 page book, but don't be scared it is half spells and then a bunch of character options, if you are new you only need to pay attention to the 10-20 pages that specifically involve your class or general rules, then you can share it with your 5 friends". Obviously it is one thing for a GM to have enough knowledge to run a game for a bunch of players with different classes and be truly competent. And there is some argument for diminishing returns of splitting this into 3 distinct books that are required to play (seriously why not at least include a few classic monsters like Orcs and a simple Dragon in the DM Guide or something). But it has gotten to a point where the barrier for new players is ridiculous, and it really doesn't need to be.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 17:25
|
|
|
A new Next Q&A is posted!Rodney posted:Should the wizard heal faster than the fighter simply because the wizard has fewer hit points? The fighter can reach heights of fortitude the wizard cannot, by taking a long vacation to reach peak condition. Verisimilitude! Kai Tave posted:Yeah, but people bitched mightily about the Tome of Battle in pretty much the same fashion they wound up bitching about 4E. The word "anime" was used a lot, as I recall, possibly "weeaboo" as well. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 17:33
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 17:46
|
|
|
MadScientistWorking posted:In what ways because when you say confusing there are different bouts of confusion in that game that make it extremely hard to figure out what you are refering to. I'm not saying your wrong but given the nature of 4E the issues of why its confusing can be the result of a dozen different issues. Huge numbers of stacking conditionals can be hard to keep track of, and there are some rules interactions that aren't explicitly delineated (last night, for instance, the question came up: "can I flank while prone?"). There are ways to keep track of these things but you're still often producing a huge volume of modifiers to all manner of numerical stat that can be tough to keep on top of.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 17:50
|
|
|
Nothing screams "realism" to me like a fighter that was to take a few extra weeks to sit around sipping tea to get back to full hit points. I feel like this whole line of conversation is an attempt to 'prove' that fixed-rate healing is objectively 'better'. Just say, "It's a little wonky, sure, but it's simple" and be done with it. Put your design priorities on the table, Next. Stop acting like these conclusions are the only logical conclusions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 17:57
|
|
|
Also a crapload of feats, that affect numbers and situations the significance of which that you probably won't understand until several actual battles later.Halloween Jack posted:A new Next Q&A is posted! Dear God, that was a lot of words just to say "Nope". I can understand why grogs were angry with mid-day fightan healing, but I honestly can't see where exactly rolling your hit-dice worth of levels during a long rest would clash with traditional DnD. Of course it will be technically faster healing rate than just one HP per level, but I thought that the random element would make it lovely enough to be accepted.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 18:02
|
|
|
FactsAreUseless posted:Here's an idea from my experience with egg noodles: separate out egg whites, add salt and pepper, then whip them until they're foamy. Then keep adding flour until you have something thick enough to scoop out in balls with a spoon, but not thick enough to actually knead. Something like cookie dough. Then scoop out dumpling-sized bits with a spoon and add it to boiling soup. The egg whites and less flour should give you something lighter. Something like this worked pretty well for my folks, except they used essentially pancake batter mix. Two parts bisquick or whatever to one part milk, mix until smooth, drop into soup.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 18:11
|
|
|
unseenlibrarian posted:Something like this worked pretty well for my folks, except they used essentially pancake batter mix. Two parts bisquick or whatever to one part milk, mix until smooth, drop into soup. Mom always used bisquick, and they turned out great. My attempts to make that from scratch have been flailing nightmares.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 18:13
|
|
|
Winson_Paine posted:Mom always used bisquick, and they turned out great. My attempts to make that from scratch have been flailing nightmares. Are you overmixing? If you stir too much that can over develop the gluten and that would make them hard.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 18:21
|
|
|
Why would you ever used fixed rate healing in a group game with defined by HP roles. That's just tedious and results in waiting around for your tank to heal while Mr. Wizard gets really, really impatient.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 18:29
|
|
|
Barudak posted:Why would you ever used fixed rate healing in a group game with defined by HP roles. That's just tedious and results in waiting around for your tank to heal while Mr. Wizard gets really, really impatient. Because it doesn't actually matter in practice. You're rarely going to use the fixed healing rates because your party has a cleric to take care of that sort of thing. What, your party doesn't include a cleric? Are you sure you're playing D&D?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 18:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 15:21 |
|
|
PeterWeller posted:Because it doesn't actually matter in practice. You're rarely going to use the fixed healing rates because your party has a cleric to take care of that sort of thing. What, your party doesn't include a cleric? Are you sure you're playing D&D? Which results in the next problem of "getting back to be able to fight a thing" involves managing a passive healing factor, the clerics healing, and the clerics healing spell regeneration. Its just layers of boredom to accomplish nothing unless Next brings back the wandering monster encounter tables.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 18:45
|
|