|
Oh come on guys you're smarter than this.
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 00:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 11:10 |
|
|
We all know that's not true.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 00:47
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Chess is just pussified Hnefatafl. Hnefatafl is just Go for nerds! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 02:00
|
|
|
Down With People posted:Hnefatafl is just Go for nerds! Get a drat spear and stop inventing games. I wanna have meat for dinner tonight and if you don't help hunt instead of trying to talk to the spirits its more dirty roots.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 02:02
|
|
|
Down With People posted:Hnefatafl is just Go for nerds! There's no place for weeaboo crap in my psuedohistorical pseudoeuropean fantasy setting 
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 02:02
|
|
|
I'm sorry, but the discussion of war games starts and ends with Little Wars: a game for boys from twelve years of age to one hundred and fifty and for that more intelligent sort of girl who likes boys' games and books., the apex of which HG Wells codified back in 1913 in his superlative prose. It fixed the problems of Floor Games, and I haven't seen any improvements worth incorporating. If you want to play your silly computer games, fine, but don't bring your silly "Space" marines or magical wizard artillery to the table. And if I wanted the rigid restrictions of Chess and games of that sort, I'd just play Solitaire, because, really, it's all the same game after a while, isn't it? No, no, the flexibility of Little Wars is what makes it the best. It is good enough for Peter Cushing and it is good enough for me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEC7dsFlvIE If you wish to make silly voices while moving your men about the yard, I suppose that's alright, but remember proper decorum when the neighbors are around for gosh sake!
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 02:09
|
|
|
Appropos of nothing, some of the WOTC/DDN staff, including Mike Mearls, are playing Dungeon World tonight and tweeting about it. Nothing profound, but it sounds like they're having a good time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 02:32
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Won't it fail because it's too much like... actually, I dunno what it's too much like since Blizzard hasn't really released a non-sequel fantasy game since 4e. Maybe Next could go back to being too similar to Diablo, like 3e used to be. Or a simplified baby version of AD&D, like 2e was. D&D Next is just Kingdoms of Amalur is just Offline Wow!!
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 03:31
|
|
|
Elmo Oxygen posted:Appropos of nothing, some of the WOTC/DDN staff, including Mike Mearls, are playing Dungeon World tonight and tweeting about it. Doing better than those old Next livestreams then? With all the wallchat?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 03:32
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:Doing better than those old Next livestreams then? With all the wallchat? Rodney Thompson @wotc_rodney 4h Right now we are conducting employee performance reviews for dragon cultists in an abandoned warehouse with a nonmagical fish lady. Mike Mearls @mikemearls 3h We're using HR tactics to get the evil cultists to stack rank themselves, and then using the good review reward to murder the best of them. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 04:51
|
|
|
moths posted:And then add on another level of complexity where you're pretending to be an imaginary person talking to another imaginary person through a proxy. Did the DM just smile at the audacity your story or is the guard buying it? So, ask! As I said before, I'm not just talking about realtime improv roleplaying. Hell, I'm terrible at that. Probably the worst in my group, and we tend not to do that a lot when it comes to difficult social situations. We mostly do narration, and abstract declarations of intent. What I'm talking about isn't "skill rolls" vs "realtime improv". Its resolving social interaction with skill mechanics vs with DM adjudication. And my point is that, unlike with most other skills like climbing and swordfighting, there's much better grounds for a DM to make a judgement call based on the particulars of the situation and the subtleties of the approach the player is describing. However they describe it. Whether it's a perfect impression of Clint Eastwood, or just "I threaten him like Dirty Harry would", I don't care. It's not what I'm talking about. Additionally, the DM and players share a much greater shared understanding of the essential dynamics of social interactions, than just about anything else that could come up in a game, and thus don't have as much need for mechanics to provide a basis to act with a reasonable expectation of outcome. quote:We've been talking about accessibility for a shy, introverted player have access. But those rules also prevent a straight up real-life con artist from scamming the DM at every turn. If by "scamming" you mean "abuse", game mechanics are not a good solution to abusive players. If not, then what's the problem? Smooth talkers tending to gain benefit is only a problem when it's trampling on social mechanics. Without them, there's no such problem. Death Bot posted:These characters are supposed to be far beyond actual human skill in terms of social ability; if you're going to let a warrior say "I do the sword-swinging-thing at the Orc [with the objective of hitting and killing him]" (rolls 18, hits) then why not just allow "I do the really-good-talking thing to try to convince the guy to tell us his secret" (rolls 18, learns about the secret passage) if that's what the players want to do? If a game is meant to support characters far beyond actual human skill, then yes, there probably should be social mechanics of some sort. But in a remotely D&D-like game, they probably shouldn't be the same mechanics as for hitting Orcs, or have an opportunity cost for those mechanics. And to be clear, an example of what I'm suggesting for play without social mechanics is: "I do the really-good-talking thing to try to convince the guy to tell us his secret", and then the DM decides "you've established your character as having a silver tongue, and this guy's drunk, so sure, it works". MadScientistWorking posted:The general default is that everyone has problems being able to converse, form arguments, and understand social situations. And yet tons of people, even including RPG players, manage to function in a world where social interaction is the most important fact of life. Perfection is not necessary. In fact, perfection is boring. It's OK to make mistakes. It's OK for mistakes to have consequences in a game. It's fun. quote:I've gotten into the general mechanics of social interactions and it gets kind of insane and really tends to lean heavily into psychology once you start getting into the really elaborate techniques. My most favorite example is called the Gorillas in Our Midst study which is overtly referenced in Fate of all games because its a huge mechanical underpinning of how a lot of crimes like pick pocketing are committed. I have no problem with using Gorillas in Our Midst as a basis for social mechanics. Sounds like a great idea. Spoilers Below posted:I'm of the opinion that if a high level fighter can suplex a dragon, toss entire mountains into castles, and pull up new islands with his fishing pole, then a high level bard should be convincing people he is the moon with his powers of wit and charm, singing songs so beautiful that all other music is ruined for the listeners forever, and twanging power chords that shatter down fortress walls. For this style of game, yes, there should be social mechanics of some sort. For example, starting from a 3.5 baseline, I'd get rid of the social skills, and give that bard specific abilities to do those things and more. Much like spells in mechanical effect, but as manifestations of them being so awesomely charismatic, not arcane magic. I think the key is that social mechanics should augment a player's own abilities, by providing additional well-defined tools to use, not try to wholly replace a player's social skills with die roll modifiers. In the same way that 4E's Warlord represents tactical genius not by providing a bonus to a Tactics skill that a player can roll to instantly win combats, but by providing abilities themed as tactical genius that the player can use in conjunction with their own tactical abilities.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 06:22
|
|
|
I'm not saying let the PC convince the ST every time. In fact, as I've mentioned previously, I think avoiding absolutes is probably good here. At my table we tend to talk, and then roll. When I'm the DM, I don't care how lovely the argument is OOC; if it's even remotely plasuible, it becomes eloquent, post-hoc, if the PC rolls well. That is to say, the NPCs respond as if it was a good argument. If anything is lost in translation, I ask them what their intention is before they roll. My groups have always enjoyed IC conversation and I like it because it helps me establish stakes before hand. But I mean, it's completely valid if your players don't enjoy that kind of thing too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 06:31
|
|
|
Piell posted:This, right here, is why Next is going to fail. D&D Next has gone to great lengths to ignore literally everything that 4th Edition did or even that it existed at all, and somehow 3.5/Pathfinder edition warriors who think 4E is a MMO still think its too much like 4th edition. D&D Next isn't going to get 4th edition players to switch (because none of the good things in 4th edition have come back) and it isn't going to get 3.5/Pathfinder players to switch (because they're dumb enough to think that Next has any elements from 4th edition). The basic problem is that the WotC employees walked in and thought "Boy, I bet there are rational people with legitimate concerns behind all these edition wars!" When even the most casual glance through EN World would very rapidly dispel that idea.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 06:36
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:The basic problem is that the WotC employees walked in and thought "Boy, I bet there are rational people with legitimate concerns behind all these edition wars!" I think one of the basic problems is that 3rd edition addressed problems 2nd edition players had with 2nd edition, 4th edition addressed problems that 3rd edition players had with 3rd edition, and Next addresses problems that 3rd edition players have with 4th edition.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 15:47
|
|
|
eth0.n posted:If a game is meant to support characters far beyond actual human skill, then yes, there probably should be social mechanics of some sort. But in a remotely D&D-like game, they probably shouldn't be the same mechanics as for hitting Orcs, or have an opportunity cost for those mechanics. Oh, well then that makes sense! I was just trying to say that a player should be able to role-play exactly as much as they want to, and I definitely agree that for most players, using the same rules for climbing and talking is a little silly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 16:14
|
|
|
fatherdog posted:I think one of the basic problems is that 3rd edition addressed problems 2nd edition players had with 2nd edition, 4th edition addressed problems that 3rd edition players had with 3rd edition, and Next addresses problems that 3rd edition players have with 4th edition. Might this catering to 3.x players have to do with how bloated (read: profitable  ) that edition ended up being? Not that I'd call 4e 'slimmed down'..
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 19:30
|
|
|
I don't see how there were not elements of 4th edition in Next considering the reduction of the number of skills and grouping them according to what you were accomplishing i.e stealth, awareness, all day activated abilities for each and every class, etc. The things that 4th ed players liked might not be in it but there are elements of 4th edition to DnD Next. I personally intend to at least buy the core rulebooks for Next as I did with 4th edition and pathfinder in case I ever decide to play that edition. I think maybe the biggest issue for coming out with another new system is the fact that even though they are making outrageous amounts of money they are still having issues keeping everything in line with what comes out at first, i.e. keeping game balance. Its just like with MtG, the newer editions are better because they are ramping the power up. Also WotC needs to get a better freaking editing team. "I don't need a guild charter to kill you Inky." Drexith Heartblade
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
Drexith posted:Its just like with MtG, the newer editions are better because they are ramping the power up. I know this isn't really a Magic thread but in general Magic has been powering down over the long-term and has mostly just stayed relatively even lately, aside from the occasional breakout card. There's even formats which allow for playing cards from any period and aside from a few cards that were pretty obviously designed to be strong, most of them aren't really playable outside of the current rotation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
Okay, you've identified one single similarity between Next and 4e, which by your own admission was not part of the central appeal of 4e. So what? Why are you going to buy a set of corebooks just in case you decide to play it at some hypothetical future date? You can still buy the 3e core right now, if you want it. What did Inky ever do to you? Did he give you that name?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
I suspect Inky just has a pretty severe elemental weakness to guild charters.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
Mystic Mongol posted:I suspect Inky just has a pretty severe elemental weakness to guild charters. His mother dipped him in the river styx to take out his mortality but she held him with a guild charter. A shame really.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
The real question is how Pac Man feels about other guys butting into his ghost eating business.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
Given that it's Mr. Pac-Man I assume his full name is Drexith Heartblade Pac-Man.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
"I don't need a power pill to eat you Drexith Heartblade." Pac Man
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
The next game I run, I'm gonna have a totally cheesed out snowflake npc named Drexith Heartblade, all the towns people will speak of him in hushed whispers, and then, when the players actually meet him, he'll be an exceedingly short and pudgy drow (reskinned halfling) who will promptly trip on his own sword, and fall into a trap to his death within seconds of the players seeing him. The players will shrug and move on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
Mystic Mongol posted:"I don't need a power pill to eat you Drexith Heartblade." Pac Man
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
I think what we're saying is we put our flowery, convoluted, kind of stupid signatures to the LEFT, under our avatars. I'm a winner.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
Mystic Mongol posted:I think what we're saying is we put our flowery, convoluted, kind of stupid signatures to the LEFT, under our avatars. Is that what that is? I thought that was where other people put words for making fun of us for how badly we've hosed up on the forums. Come to think of it, there may not be much difference.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
Mystic Mongol posted:I suspect Inky just has a pretty severe elemental weakness to guild charters. Maybe he is the medieval version of a libertarian. A feudaltarian?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
Rexides posted:Maybe he is the medieval version of a libertarian. A feudaltarian? A libertarian would be huge into Guild Charters. If anything he'd be an Anarchist or Communist (for varying reasons) if the concept of Guild Charters offended him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
Yeah well as you can see by my avatar I am a stupid newbie, so thanks for the information on putting my sig under my avatar, I assume I have to pay for that as well. I already dummied up and bought a Platinum account instead of the avatar portion because I haven't had coffee or sleep, note to self, get coffee, ignore sleep. As far as the quote goes, its from a novel I am working on writing, in case anyone was wondering.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
Sure, that's the point. Inky, as a lawful Libertarian Level 11 Paladin, trusts in Guild Charters to organize and regiment society, and to grant him a bonus to saving throws. But the glorious Drexith Heartblade, Chaotic Isolationist Level 9 Wizard, knows that Guild Charters are surplus to requirements. He doesn't need a Guild Charter... he can simply turn Inky into a frog.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
Drexith posted:Yeah well as you can see by my avatar I am a stupid newbie, so thanks for the information on putting my sig under my avatar, I assume I have to pay for that as well. I already dummied up and bought a Platinum account instead of the avatar portion because I haven't had coffee or sleep, note to self, get coffee, ignore sleep. As far as the quote goes, its from a novel I am working on writing, in case anyone was wondering.  I'm so close to four in a row, here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
Four in a row? I'm afraid your meaning escapes me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
If mine were closer to the free space I could have gotten a bingo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 23:49
|
|
|
Drexith posted:Four in a row? I'm afraid your meaning escapes me. They continue, goonsir, to mock you. In this case, for acting like the very model of a first day goon to have arrived on a ship from some other forum where big dumb sigs are de riguer. Best bet now is to cut bait and lurk for a while.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
I made chili... and it had beans in it.  but really it was super good, Rotel + a little bit of every ground pepper in the mexican aisle ((the kind in the little plastic pouches)) Considering making a ground pork chili, since I have leftover ground pork.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
I AM THE MOON posted:I made chili... and it had beans in it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
petrol blue posted:I'm so close to four in a row, here. My fiancee insists that chili doesn't have beans in it. Her chili is pretty good, until my tongue goes numb from whatever chiles she's using. Halloween Jack fucked around with this message at 01:16 on Jan 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 01:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 11:10 |
|
|
I do lots of random meats + random beans + tomato something + spices + chocolate + coffee and if it's not chili I don't know what to call it, but it is super delicious and filling.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 01:17
|
|