|
moths posted:I wonder how much of that goes back to the necessity of miniatures or tokens to make monsters accountable for their positions. Yeah, it's not like we can have fighters moving to intercept, all willy-nilly. Get that mmo poo poo out of my D&D.
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 09:15 |
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:Thing I don't get is, 4e had the "simple fighter" thing with Essentials (you could argue they're not really that simple; I don't agree, but that's not the point I'm getting at). Slayers and Knights used just basic attacks, and their features were all some augmentation of the basic attack.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
Arggh, If Next actually wrote rules that matched the play style they TELL YOU TO PLAY Theater of the Mind would work fine, even as a tactical thing. Plenty of games of actual rules that tell you how to track positions in a meaningful way without using a grid or minis. Hell, some of the older editions kind of hinted at that sort of thing with ranks and marching order.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
wallawallawingwang posted:Arggh, If Next actually wrote rules that matched the play style they TELL YOU TO PLAY Theater of the Mind would work fine, even as a tactical thing. Plenty of games of actual rules that tell you how to track positions in a meaningful way without using a grid or minis. Hell, some of the older editions kind of hinted at that sort of thing with ranks and marching order. Right. At the moment, it's "Can I reach the orc attacking the Wizard? What about the two attacking the Cleric? Could I engage those both at once? Is the one attacking the Wizard close enough that I could use my maneuver to push it 15 feet towards the Cleric and then engage it and those two orcs all at once? If I do that, will I provoke an opportunity attack from the orc shaman between the Wizard and the Cleric?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
moths posted:I wonder how much of that goes back to the necessity of miniatures or tokens to make monsters accountable for their positions. The grid is great. All hail the grid. The grid allows truly tactical use of the terrain and emergent properties. The first part is theoretically possible in TotM, but the second is not. DMs tend to see exploiting combinations of positions and terrain in TotM as, well, exploitative instead of as good play.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
D&D has ALWAYS been a miniatures game that people sorta glossed over and made shittier by refusing to use them. 5e carries on the proud tradition of poo poo mechanics while desperately jacking off onto your AD&D books. Like if you made a phantom 4e where it went the OPPOSITE route and instead embraced the whole "THEATER OF THE MIIIIND" thing instead of going for more hard process battlemaps and poo poo, that'd be pretty cool, but, and this is the kicker, it'd be just as different from D&D as 4e was, if not more so.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Like if you made a phantom 4e where it went the OPPOSITE route and instead embraced the whole "THEATER OF THE MIIIIND" thing instead of going for more hard process battlemaps and poo poo, that'd be pretty cool, but, and this is the kicker, it'd be just as different from D&D as 4e was, if not more so. I wonder if the same grognards would have protested or if it would have made a different set of grognards mad. (I don't think we can really answer that question definitively aside from saying "probably a little of both")
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:D&D has ALWAYS been a miniatures game that people sorta glossed over and made shittier by refusing to use them. 5e carries on the proud tradition of poo poo mechanics while desperately jacking off onto your AD&D books.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:D&D has ALWAYS been a miniatures game that people sorta glossed over and made shittier by refusing to use them. 5e carries on the proud tradition of poo poo mechanics while desperately jacking off onto your AD&D books. FMguru posted:OD&D told you to use CHAINMAIL if fights got big or complicated. AD&D 1E and 2E listed ranges and movement rates as inches on the battleboard and would vary depending on whether you were on a wilderness map or a dungeon map (as in fireballs traveled three times farther outdoors). Half of 3E's combat rules and feats required very precise positioning to determine how flanking bonuses and attacks of opportunity would work. Yet somehow it was 4E that was just an MMO boardgame that wouldn't let you roleplay (as opposed to rollplay). The fact that people are so hung up on "THEATRE OF THE MIIIIND" when, as a legacy, D&D never truly supported it is incredibly hilarious to me. I mean, as we just mentioned, D&D is the extension of the miniatures game CHAINMAIL. On top of that, the grog's favorite class (wizard) has a ton of spell effects which are essentially blast templates - in order to model it fairly, you kind of need the grid. If I'm not mistaken, didn't some of the 3e rulebooks come with a grid anyway? Also what kind of rating do you think 5e will get on RPGGeek? I'm only asking because while 3.5e and 4e hover near each other, apparently Pathfinder is rated a full point higher despite being what is essentially 3.75e - the minor quality of life adjustments do not warrant a score that much higher and a place in the top 30 RPGs, but that's just me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
To be fair to 3E, once caster supremacy kicked in you probably didn't really need a map and minis because fights were being resolved on a whole different level than "attack enemies and reduce hitpoints to 0." You don't need to know the Fighter's exact position relative to other enemies if the Fighter is spending the entire combat dominated or paralyzed or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:To be fair to 3E, once caster supremacy kicked in you probably didn't really need a map and minis because fights were being resolved on a whole different level than "attack enemies and reduce hitpoints to 0." You don't need to know the Fighter's exact position relative to other enemies if the Fighter is spending the entire combat dominated or paralyzed or whatever. Nor do you need to know where everyone is once combat is over in one round. Honestly though, 3e had a lot of rules about combat that centered around knowing who was where and when - it was one of the thicker chapters of the PHB for that reason. Of course, D&D has always had a ton of rules about combat and I think a lot of people didn't like 4e because 4e recognized that combat was at the core of D&D and built the system around it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:To be fair to 3E, once caster supremacy kicked in you probably didn't really need a map and minis because fights were being resolved on a whole different level than "attack enemies and reduce hitpoints to 0." You don't need to know the Fighter's exact position relative to other enemies if the Fighter is spending the entire combat dominated or paralyzed or whatever. This is a somewhat valid point, although range and area of effect still come up some in large battles. In our Pathfinder games, I note, caster supremacy isn't entirely present even at 20th level. Sure, my wizard can remove things from battle in a single round. But then, the party's samurai has done over 1300 damage in a round more than once, and the things that don't get killed by that are things that I might not be able to kill by doing damage even if they just stood there and let me cast spells until I ran out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Basically, The Raid, or the recent Dredd movie, but with a likeable 4-person team cast, and with orcs. the twist is instead of going UP into the building they go DOWN into a dungeon!!!!
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
Anyone put all the spells onto cards yet? That would seem to be the obvious way to make slogging through the PHB to find your spells a bit less horrible. When someone has the spell prepped, chuck them the card. Use smarties of different colours to show how many slots you have left and eat them as you cast spells. (or use tokens or some poo poo if you're boring)
Gort fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Aug 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
Gort posted:Anyone put all the spells onto cards yet? That would seem to be the obvious way to make slogging through the PHB to find your spells a bit less horrible. When someone has the spell prepped, chuck them the card. Use smarties of different colours to show how many slots you have left and eat them as you cast spells. (or use tokens or some poo poo if you're boring) Gale Force 9 is ready to sell these cards to you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
Nancy_Noxious posted:No. I went to their site and felt 13th-aged all over again — I was get pretty pumped up "Wow, this game looks super cool, I think I'll like it a lot!" only to be splashed with a bucket of cold water when I went to read the Fighter's abilities. This is why I think 'peacemaker' design is bullshit, even leaving aside the design failures it causes- fans of 4e are not going to enjoy a game which basically immortalizes the edition war in print, and forces them to deal with it and cop it's nonsense anew every friday night. The Grog Tax is terrible for community spirit, at least amongst those people who didn't pump their fist like the hero at the end of an 80's dance movie when they saw those book burning pics. Everybody is so fixated on those poor grogs and their fragile feels that they don't care about the enthusiasm of the other players at the table- which can be damaged by poor design, or indeed, jut smug, bitchy design. And if POE's fighter is not up to snuff, you best believe that OE is going to hear about it, because I will be the one saying it loud and clear. But it genuinely remains to be seen what the POE fighter will look like. I have concerns too, but it really, genuinely will come down to seeing how those interrupt radius rules work in play, and whether the fighter's edge in that department is substantial and meaningful, or just another case of Miserly Incremental Bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:Gale Force 9 is ready to sell these cards to you. Between free adventures and the basic rules, I think I can probably get all I'm gonna get outta fifth ed without spending a penny.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
My understanding is that the POE fighter defaults to having a lot of passives that basically encourage you to maneuver it into place and let it sit there attacking, but that it's possible to choose a bunch of activated powers for it instead. I could be making this up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
IIRC the POE fighter cannot reach build option parity with for instance, the POE Wizard.Jack the Lad posted:Right. At the moment, it's "Can I reach the orc attacking the Wizard? What about the two attacking the Cleric? Could I engage those both at once? Is the one attacking the Wizard close enough that I could use my maneuver to push it 15 feet towards the Cleric and then engage it and those two orcs all at once? If I do that, will I provoke an opportunity attack from the orc shaman between the Wizard and the Cleric?" "Wait that assassin can't reach me! I'm way in the back! No, I wasn't even IN the room, I was firing into it-" "Why can't I see the dragon if I can see the kobold sorcerer? How can the sorceror fire at me if he's on the dragon's back? I'm hiding under the-" And on, and on, and ON, and the more enthusiastic people are about the game, the more it happens, so the better the game is going, the more potential arguments there are. Of course, The more disengaged or stagnant a group is, the less it happens 'at my table'.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
What is wrong with the 13A Fighter's improved intercept? I'm not asking rhetorically or to be argumentative - I realize it's not as great as the 4e Fighter's suite of tanking mechanics, but it seems passable in the game's semi-abstract melee. e: Is it the kinda lackluster sticking power of Threatening? Because that is pretty mediocre. moths fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Aug 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:D&D has absolutely no cultural gravitas at all. The only people outside of the hobby who know of it, know it as a stupid nerd joke. Stupid nerd jokes are incredibly profitable this decade.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:Stupid nerd jokes are incredibly profitable this decade. So what you're saying is we need a Big Bang Theory branded D&D? No fighters or wizards, but Sheldons or... the other ones?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 03:04
|
|
|
Lord of Bore posted:So what you're saying is we need a Big Bang Theory branded D&D? No fighters or wizards, but Sheldons or... the other ones? Actually a te skinned D&D set in an office might actually draw attention. Especially if it was a rpg lite board game like the pathfinder game. I work in gaming and I had more than a couple of my coworkers who'd never played a ttrpg until they got into it via Pathfiner board game. Something more mundane and less "nerdy" (but ironically more nerdy) might be a better draw
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
treeboy posted:Actually a te skinned D&D set in an office might actually draw attention. Especially if it was a rpg lite board game like the pathfinder game. I work in gaming and I had more than a couple of my coworkers who'd never played a ttrpg until they got into it via Pathfiner board game. Something more mundane and less "nerdy" (but ironically more nerdy) might be a better draw D&D flavoured version of 'The Office' where their job is to rent out adventurers to people who need poo poo done.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 03:56
|
|
|
or rather than The Office, more like Archer - the show is just about their inter-relationships rather than the stuff they do
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
starkebn posted:or rather than The Office, more like Archer - the show is just about their inter-relationships rather than the stuff they do Which is why it won't work with D&D, because D&D is explicitly and 100% about what you do, not who you are.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 05:14
|
|
|
Archer has a shitload of mission scenes, and they work fine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
Can someone summarize everyone's issues with 5e? I'm getting generally negative vibes from this thread but I feel like there are as many reasons 5e is terrible as there are people complaining about it. I've played off and on since 2nd Edition, but never enough in any of the editions to really understand where the system breaks down. I remember being excited that THAC0 was fixed in 3e, and feeling like 4e valued the minis combat above all else, but that's it. I just DM'd my first 5e game and had a great time. I like the simplified d20 system for combat/abilities. I like that combat in general can be as simple or complex as you like (no more PC abilities that explicitly affect grid combat mechanics from 4e). And while this isn't unique to 5e at all, I like the emphasis on creating character back stories that can affect how you interact with the world.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 06:16
|
|
|
The math is bad, a good chunk of the classes are pointless, it gives absolutely nothing new and does nothing better then any other edition, and the whole thing is just dull, lazy, and unimaginative, while relying on DMs to fix the myriad of problems and calling it a "feature."
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 06:20
|
|
|
It's an aggressively mediocre game that suffers a lot from not abandoning old, lovely design. It's not a horrible system, but a massive disappointment for anyone hoping that WotC had learned something of game design during the 14 or so years since the release of 3E.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 06:21
|
|
|
It's a little lackluster, but enjoyable, and better than many previous editions in some ways, while deficient in others. Most people in the thread are (understandably) heartbroken that 5e was not an evolution from 4e, but rather a step back towards 3.5(with a few new interesting things thrown in). Especially when you consider that during the playtest there was some legitimately cool stuff happening. Personally I'm DM'ing a 5e campaign for my friends and we're having a blast so far, flaws and all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 06:27
|
|
|
I think to a certain extent some people's anger (or "irritation," if "anger" is too strong a word) is the feeling that 5e is squandering its position. It's not as if it's an offensively bad game, but rather that it encourages a regressive, outdated, and unthoughtful style of play while also being the most recognizable brand. People will have 5e as their first exposure to tabletop games, and learn some bad habits regarding the place and scope of a GM and how they're expected to behave, and how the rules of a game should behave. That's all pretty vague, but the easiest example of this is Mearls' long line of tweets, which so often have the phrasing "I would rule this way" or whatever, with the expectation that it's up to the GM to make those kinds of decisions, so often on rules questions that should have a explicit, codified answer due to how the rules in general function. The current rules of D&D 5e give fairly specific answers to rather minute points, yet are also silent on many other points that are, seemingly, just as relevant and important, and on the same level of detail or scale. An easy example is the elven meditation question--someone asked "what does elven meditation count as for the purpose of being surprised," and Mearls answered something like "I would rule as sleep." The line in the elf description about meditation was phrased in a way that made it sound like it wasn't as deep as regular sleep; why? Why even bother mentioning elven meditation in a way that makes it seem mechanically important? Why not elaborate on that detail, whether it actually makes a difference in terms of being surprised? Everywhere in the book there are similar situations, where it's not clear whether a line is simply descriptive fluff, or whether it has important mechanical consequences. Another example, is a thrown weapon is considered melee, ranged, or both? It's filed under melee, but does this change? do bonuses to "melee weapons" still apply when thrown? what about "ranged weapons," do those start applying when thrown? Really, the specific answer to that question doesn't matter. What's frustrating is the game feels like it's making the claim that GMs should be in a position to make these decisions, that GMs should have this responsibility, and that tabletop games should be designed in this sort of open ended fashion. Having this as the most well known brand, as the new edition of D&D, encourages it to spread, and as more people encounter this as their first game, as just "I know that name, I'll start with that," as bookstores automatically stock "the newest D&D" like they always do (if they stock any games at all), it will spread around these assumptions and expectations. Obviously, people can have their own opinions on whether all that is a good thing. Personally, for me, I think it's an extremely bad thing, toxic to innovation and tightly designed games, and encouraging of a mindset that the GM is the most important and rightly most powerful member of the group. It encourages them to be paternalistic, for the game to rest on their choices and decisions, on their go-ahead. I feel the playstyle is offensive, would hate to be a player in that type of group, would particularly hate to run that type of group, and dislike that by spreading that playstyle as popular or normal, more and more people will adapt to that playstyle and hold it up as the way things should be, making it more difficult to find other RPG players who don't enjoy it. Anyway that's a lot of stupid words, hope it made at least a little sense.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 06:46
|
|
|
moths posted:What is wrong with the 13A Fighter's improved intercept? I'm not asking rhetorically or to be argumentative - I realize it's not as great as the 4e Fighter's suite of tanking mechanics, but it seems passable in the game's semi-abstract melee. It only lets you disengage from 1 enemy without incurring opportunity attacks. A defender should have a bunch of guys on them, so this is bad.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 07:01
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:The math is bad, a good chunk of the classes are pointless, it gives absolutely nothing new and does nothing better then any other edition, and the whole thing is just dull, lazy, and unimaginative, while relying on DMs to fix the myriad of problems and calling it a "feature." IT BEGINS posted:It's an aggressively mediocre game that suffers a lot from not abandoning old, lovely design. It's not a horrible system, but a massive disappointment for anyone hoping that WotC had learned something of game design during the 14 or so years since the release of 3E. Like if people want D&D then implicitly they want the same old poo poo right? Anyone can re-invent the genre and herald in a new golden age of gaming, but it takes decades of hard work to churn out the same old poo poo I totally expect to have a blast playing 5E with some friends 
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 07:01
|
|
|
Speaking only for myself, I don't really care a lot about D&D as a brand or as the flagship game of the hobby or whatever. My disappointment stems from the fact that it's two to three years of "work" all to create a game that's basically warmed-over 3.75. My personal D&D experience is that up until 4E I didn't really care for D&D much. I owned the AD&D2E and 3E corebooks, I messed around with them some, and ultimately decided that I didn't really care much for D&D or the sort of thing it seemed to be aiming for (3E's genuinely broken design didn't exactly help). 4E is the game that actually made me go "yeah, this is really cool, I want to play this." I suppose this is exactly the reason why so many grognards threw a collective fit over it, because despite being a fantasy game of hitpoints and Armor Class and Fighters and Wizards killing goblins in a cave, 4E was trying a bunch of different stuff I hadn't really seen before in D&D up to that point. Me, I liked where it was going, so I had sort of vainly hoped that a game that originally pitched itself as "D&D for fans of all editions!" was actually going to do that (though even back then I was intensely skeptical about how well they could pull that off) instead of paying it lip service and then acting mystified when people point out that there's very little of 4E that carried over in Mike Mearls rush to cater to the crowd who experience existential breakdowns over damage on a miss. It's less "I hate Next and all it stands for!" and more annoyance over squandered opportunities and disingenuous double-talk. The whole deal with the Pundit and Zak S and Mearls' handling of that whole situation just adds an extra layer of shittiness to things.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 07:06
|
|
|
Recycle Bin posted:Can someone summarize everyone's issues with 5e? Thank you for this post. I popped into #badwrongfun last night and was asking similar questions, and really came across pretty much nobody who recommended I buy the 5e rulebook when it comes out next week. Most people directed me to Pathfinder for a game that's both 1.) got the support of an entire company behind it, 2.) decent for beginners, 3.) not inherently roleplay-intensive and 4.) has a large playerbase. Some others piped in with DW and 13th Age, as expected, or some older forks of D&D. As background, my tabletop RPG experience is really limited. I've done one PbP game of the Fantasy Flight Star Wars RPGs, and like two demo sessions of 4e with a friend of mine who's also an avid 4e fan and DM. That's all. I'm really in no position to judge a game system as being awful, since I lack that kind of experience with multiple different formats (I do think SW:EotE is really wonderful though), so I'm willing to give 5e a good shot. Of the D&D systems, I'm probably most familiar with 3.5 because of NWN2, and playing through BG:EE on PC has been getting me acquainted with 2e. Aside from that, I'm new to D&D. Really I'm just asking myself: if I want to get into a game system that meets my 4 requirements in the first paragraph, for which one do I want to shell out the ~30 euro for a core rulebook? Pathfinder has the virtue of being open-source, no rulebook required, so I'm able to get into it and start playing with nothing else than a laptop and an internet connection. Drone fucked around with this message at 07:39 on Aug 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 07:36
|
|
|
That's really it in a nutshell. Nothing about Next is tremendously compelling. Pathfinder's still going gangbusters, 4E still exists as does Dungeon World, I guess there's 13th Age if you really can't bring yourself to just play FATE, a slew of retroclones are out there each doing their own thing, and several of these options have free, open versions you can enjoy at your discretion. Next is banking really, really hard on "has the words 'Dungeons & Dragons' on the cover" and not bringing a lot else to the table. The question isn't really "is Next a bad game," by all accounts it's mediocre but serviceable and better than 3E at its worst (a low bar to hurdle but you work what you got), the question is "why play Next instead of any of those other games?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 07:46
|
|
|
Drone posted:Really I'm just asking myself: if I want to get into a game system that meets my 4 requirements in the first paragraph, for which one do I want to shell out the ~30 euro for a core rulebook? Pathfinder has the virtue of being open-source, no rulebook required, so I'm able to get into it and start playing with nothing else than a laptop and an internet connection. The other big factor is who you play with and what they are doing. I'm guessing you don't have a regular group or this would already be sorted out. If you don't have a gaming group, Pathfinder has the 'pathfinder society' organized play, where you play canned adventures but keep your character progression as you go. 5e D&D has the same thing with adventurer's league, also called LFR in the 4e days. In theory you can pretty much show up at a store and get going, but you should probably call ahead first and coordinate a bit. Some stores have a group of regulars. For D&D, you can go here and find your nearest game store and call them up. Ask if they do PFS, ask if they do D&D nights ("D&D Encounters"), get contact info for DMs if they have it. Groups you find at stores tend to turn into home games if everyone gets along. PF is complex and I wouldn't call it beginner-friendly. It adds to 3.5, an already-complex game. That's part of the appeal for many of the players. But you aren't really a beginner there if you've played NWN2 a lot. If you start playing at a store there will be a lot of lingo and buzzwords flying around. As for 5e, the starter box is pretty cheap ($12 online from walmart in the US) and the rules pdf is free. That's a pretty low barrier to entry, you can at least flip through the basic rules. ritorix fucked around with this message at 08:47 on Aug 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 08:44
|
|
|
Yeah honestly I wasn't aware of these complaints about 13th Age. It sours me on it a bit I guess but it still seems like a pretty good solution to the Pathfinder blues. I just want to say I wasn't trying to grog - I thought the objection to it was based on rhetoric rather than actual mechanical issues. So my bad.FMguru posted:OD&D told you to use CHAINMAIL if fights got big or complicated. AD&D 1E and 2E listed ranges and movement rates as inches on the battleboard and would vary depending on whether you were on a wilderness map or a dungeon map (as in fireballs traveled three times farther outdoors). To be fair, 2E told you to use Battlesystem, but nobody did. Despite Rick Swan liking it. Kai Tave posted:That's really it in a nutshell. Nothing about Next is tremendously compelling. Pathfinder's still going gangbusters, 4E still exists as does Dungeon World, I guess there's 13th Age if you really can't bring yourself to just play FATE, a slew of retroclones are out there each doing their own thing, and several of these options have free, open versions you can enjoy at your discretion. Next is banking really, really hard on "has the words 'Dungeons & Dragons' on the cover" and not bringing a lot else to the table. You've answered your own question. It's new and says "D&D" on the box. I GM for 3 people, my personal friends. One of them is totally new to tabletop games aside from Magic and he wants to play D&D because "That's the number one game, right?" Another guy years ago played a badly run session of GURPS using Shadowrun as a setting, but I'm pretty sure the GM of that game was actually making up his own poo poo. From how my friend describes it, it sounds nothing like GURPS at all. It was a disaster, and as a result, he's suspicious of every other RPG now. The third is a veteran of the d20 era who had taken a hiatus from RPGs. We're playing Pathfinder because it's super popular and they know it's "a copy of D&D" from reading about it on the internet or hearing about it in our FLGS. Their reaction to Dungeon World would be like if the Super Bowl was preempted by a showing of the Seventh Seal. I can't even convince them to play Adventurer Conqueror King. But, they're my friends and they want to slay some goblins. Mechanics aside, I enjoy GMing for them, and who am I to tell them they want to play lovely RPGs? When the corebooks for 5E are out, I'll probably pick them up and switch over because despite the flaws of the system, for me it looks like it will sure beat GMing Pathfinder. For better or worse, that is the target audience for 5E. Lightning Lord fucked around with this message at 09:47 on Aug 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 09:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 09:15 |
|
|
Drone posted:Thank you for this post. I popped into #badwrongfun last night and was asking similar questions, and really came across pretty much nobody who recommended I buy the 5e rulebook when it comes out next week. Most people directed me to Pathfinder for a game that's both 1.) got the support of an entire company behind it, 2.) decent for beginners, 3.) not inherently roleplay-intensive and 4.) has a large playerbase. Some others piped in with DW and 13th Age, as expected, or some older forks of D&D. Anyone who recommends Pathfinder for beginners is an idiot. Anyway the reason 5E is looked down on is that the developer's goals were "Make the next D&D game". Not "Make the next D&D game good" or "Make the next D&D game balanced", just make the thing. Does it feel like D&D? Great, we did good! Is it balanced or does it do anything interesting? No, but they weren't aiming for that anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 09:48
|
|
