|
A lot of the old 4e adventures are great for dungeon world if you just use the maps and general ideas, so they've got that going for them. Of course so does the old 3e sunless citadel. I still love that adventure.
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 03:34 |
|
|
zachol posted:I think there's a big unknown about what input they actually even got. I'm sure 4e players who were paying attention and cared were raising a stink, but there were also plenty of people complaining about how it wasn't going far enough the other way. Most of the people who gave a gently caress about good game design gave up very early, because none fo the feedback surveys gave a teeny tiny toss about it. I know I did, for that very reason, and I stuck it longer than most. The surveys and the playtest were a big excercise in getting the feel right and trying to get the grogs back on board. They weren't really a playtest, that all happened in the closed alpha.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
Yeah, anyone who says that "good adventures" were a strength of early 4e is simply wrong. It's no surprise to me that a bunch of people gave up on it after Keep on the Shadowfell. It's sad, but it's no surprise.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:Yeah, anyone who says that "good adventures" were a strength of early 4e is simply wrong. It's no surprise to me that a bunch of people gave up on it after Keep on the Shadowfell. It's sad, but it's no surprise.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
IT BEGINS http://community.wizards.com/forum/product-and-general-dd-discussions/threads/4121401 actual PHB reviews (well, I say reviews, that one doesn't actually seem to mention much about the GAME, just effusively praises the art layout and readability of the book).
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
FMguru posted:I thought some of the later, fancier 4E modules were supposed to be good (Tomb of Horrors, Gardmore Abbey, Neverwinter, etc.) And Neverwinter was a setting; 4e has stellar sandbox settings.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:It got better. Not much of worth before 2011 though, which is too drat late. I liked the Points of Light conceit that 4E came with. It conveyed a feel of world quite well without requiring any specific setting trappings.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
Most of what was good (and bad, lots of bad) in 4e module publishing was in LFR. It has some absolute gems - and some real stinkers too. The early stages of the Epic campaign, particularly in 3-2 and 3-3, are outstanding in showing just how cinematic and evocative good encounter design can be, especially the one with the pyramid getting swamped in mud, the one where you surf down the acid river, and the one where you descend through a spider-web-and-column filled pit whilst the columns domino down around your ears. And, to bring it round to 5e, in all of those cases, I can't see it having been anywhere near as convincing in TotM combat - part of what made it convincing was the way the map changed and advanced before your eyes, and watching death gradually creep up in huge scale on your tiny, innocent minis... TotM can work, but even in the TotMest of games, I still feel the need to draw maps for the players, just to make sure we're all on the same page.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
I feel like there's a fair difference between having a general map of, say, the cave area, so players can point to one spot or another and say "I go there, that's cover right" or "I circle around this way" and there being an outright gridded map with miniatures where square-by-square positioning matters. Not sure if you'd call that first kind of play "theater of the mind" or not, but it feels pretty different, and I could imagine someone wanting it over the precise grids. Not that I'd imagine 5e would work particularly well with that method, you'd want a game designed around that assumption of the level of detail/positioning.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:IT BEGINS http://community.wizards.com/forum/product-and-general-dd-discussions/threads/4121401 actual PHB reviews (well, I say reviews, that one doesn't actually seem to mention much about the GAME, just effusively praises the art layout and readability of the book). Now that I know the appendix and table of contents are well laid out I can pre order the PHB with confidence!
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:IT BEGINS http://community.wizards.com/forum/product-and-general-dd-discussions/threads/4121401 actual PHB reviews (well, I say reviews, that one doesn't actually seem to mention much about the GAME, just effusively praises the art layout and readability of the book). This says... absolutely nothing about the game. What the hell is this poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
Sade posted:This says... absolutely nothing about the game. What the hell is this poo poo? That is what happens when you get an advance copy for 'review'.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
ritorix posted:That is what happens when you get an advance copy for 'review'.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
There is better information coming out of an enworld thread where some guy bought the book early.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
D&D Next: Unabashedly Loved by Illiterates.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
That is pretty strange. The review is about...well, the actual book. Not the content in the book. I don't think I've ever seen a book review of any sort do that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
Daetrin posted:That is pretty strange. The review is about...well, the actual book. Not the content in the book. I don't think I've ever seen a book review of any sort do that. "The paper binding didn't fall apart in my hands and it really is show some quality gluing. The must have used a 2588 model printing unit that can comfortably fire off several hundred books without needing to double check its alignment. 5/5 stars." All I can imagine is this guy reviewing the book: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAOhBBEQwE8
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
Daetrin posted:That is pretty strange. The review is about...well, the actual book. Not the content in the book. I don't think I've ever seen a book review of any sort do that. * Paul Lukas, the guy who published Beer Frame magazine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
kingcom posted:"without needing to double check its alignment." Arguably a desirable feature in this genre.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:While I pretty much agree, there's a case to be made for recommending it on the basis that it's currently the easiest game to find a casual group for. At least in my area, the Pathfinder Society players are very friendly and welcoming to newbies. That said, if community is your main factor, you should keep an eye out for how they react to 5e, and other games such as 13a. You might find a group semi-orbiting that scene which is more to your liking. Ederick posted:I'm a bit confused by what people mean by PoE and being disappointed in its design... That's Obsidian's Pillars of Eternity, right? A single-player computer RPG, not a tabletop game? I was under the impression that those CRPGs were one of the legit cases where "simple, mostly passive ability Fighter" and "57 spell slot Caster" actually worked because you're not controlling just a single piece, you're controlling the entire party. It allows you to have a few big, beefy pawns that you can place for some not-mentally-tasking tactical action, while letting you play with all the spells and special abilities of your more complex classes. It's a different realm of design than tabletop games and it seemingly worked for the old Infinity Engine RPGs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
A Catastrophe posted:Certainly the fact that it's a single player CPRG is noteworthy, but it's still a game which is meant to emulate this style of play and where, for instance, a player might want their PC to be their main token in the combats, as opposed to a thug class that doesn't take much tending. I'm fairly certain they've said at one point or another the fighter can be just a passive guy if you want them to just be a tankor you can pick all the active abilities which lowers damage/health but lets you drop effects on things.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
kingcom posted:"The paper binding didn't fall apart in my hands and it really is show some quality gluing. The must have used a 2588 model printing unit that can comfortably fire off several hundred books without needing to double check its alignment. 5/5 stars." You joke, but I wouldn't mind RPG reviews touching on the material quality of the book like board game reviews will touch on the quality of chits and meeples and stuff, especially in an industry where shoddy print quality is commonplace.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
kingcom posted:I'm fairly certain they've said at one point or another the fighter can be just a passive guy if you want them to just be a tankor you can pick all the active abilities which lowers damage/health but lets you drop effects on things. SirFozzie posted:A lot of the negative people in this thread hate that 5E doesn't build solely on 4th edition and throws back to prior 4th edition games. That's all it is. WOTC is in a dammed if you do, damned if you don't situation. Build on 4th? Continue to lose the core audience that hated 4th edition. Throwback? Risk alienating the newer fans. In addition it's misleading to say that 4e drove off the core audience. Plenty of the core audience stayed and played quite happily. If anything, it's the fringe audience, who hasn't been buying for years, that 5e is aimed at.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
A Catastrophe posted:Most of the people ITT would have been happy with a new approach as long as it was still a good game- they were fans of 4e after all, right? Yea I was actually really looking forward to a minimalist type of game designed to be very easy to get into and play but unfortunately 5e is already cumbersome enough and theres a huge enough disparity between people who optimize and don't optimize that this isn't really a possibility.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
Lord of Bore posted:This is one of the weird things I've had with my DM. He hates defender marks completely (and has started making weird house rules about them) because they mean he can't ignore my warden to wander off and slap someone else without me getting in some retaliation. It's kinda maddening.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
kingcom posted:Yea I was actually really looking forward to a minimalist type of game designed to be very easy to get into and play but unfortunately 5e is already cumbersome enough and theres a huge enough disparity between people who optimize and don't optimize that this isn't really a possibility. Yeah, the marketing before the playtest seemed to indicate it would be BECMI + GURPS. Pretty disappointed this isn't what's happening.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
Someone asked before, but I couldn't find an answer: What is PoE? Google gives me a crpg, I'm guessing from context that that's not right? e: just saw A Catastrophe's response - so it is the crpg being referred to? Why is it relevant? petrol blue fucked around with this message at 01:37 on Aug 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
petrol blue posted:Someone asked before, but I couldn't find an answer: What is PoE? Google gives me a crpg, I'm guessing from context that that's not right? It is correct. Since Pillars of Eternity is basically a spiritual successor to the Infinity Engine games (Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, Planescape Torment) which ran on AD&D 2E rules, so people are interested in what type of system it's using. Lightning Lord fucked around with this message at 01:44 on Aug 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
Ah, that makes a lot more sense now, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
petrol blue posted:Someone asked before, but I couldn't find an answer: What is PoE? Google gives me a crpg, I'm guessing from context that that's not right? The comparison doesn't hold up everywhere, for instance their approach to ability scores might seem a good counter to DTAS dogma but I don't think it could be adopted to TTRPG use very easily. And it's certainly true that, for instance, a single player party CRPG makes a better argument for 'simple classes' than a multiplayer/party TTRPG. But there's still an issue there with somebody sitting down to play Aragorn and potentially ending up with Redgar. A Catastrophe fucked around with this message at 01:53 on Aug 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 01:47
|
|
|
Hmm, I agree it's an interesting comparison, but at the same time being on computer can cover a lot of clunky design - take 4e and mmos, for example (yeah, ok, a loaded comparison): a five-minute fight with ten PCs in an mmo becomes a two-hour one in a tabletop, so you need to do very different things with the design.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
petrol blue posted:Hmm, I agree it's an interesting comparison, but at the same time being on computer can cover a lot of clunky design - take 4e and mmos, for example (yeah, ok, a loaded comparison): a five-minute fight with ten PCs in an mmo becomes a two-hour one in a tabletop, so you need to do very different things with the design. Incursion is one of my favorite roguelikes despite being D&D 3.5 for this reason.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 02:01
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:Yeah, the marketing before the playtest seemed to indicate it would be BECMI + GURPS. Pretty disappointed this isn't what's happening. Don't remind me. Just thinking about the possibility that it could have been that is depressing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
Recycle Bin posted:5e emphasizes role playing in the sense that it doesn't emphasize combat. When I talk about role playing, I just mean the player's capacity to affect the world and story outside of physical combat. That doesn't mean there has to be a chart to consult for every NPC interaction. I like that 5e turns character backgrounds in to a semi mechanic and stresses the importance of bonds, flaws and ideals instead of just alignment. Somebody much wiser than me on the forums once told me that you pick your system based on the type of game you want to play, because every system excels at certain things over others. If I want to play an elfgame where role-playing is my primary concern, I whip out FATE Core because the system is entirely centered around the idea of the players and the GM working to collaboratively build a story based on how their characters interact with the world. If I want an investigative-style game, I use Call of Cthulhu or the GUMSHOE system. If I'm feeling really sassy and I want my players to amuse me, I play Paranoia. D&D has, and always will be, a murderhobo-style game. You can certainly use it to role-play and have some meaningful interactions - the system does not actively prevent that, just as FATE Core does not actively prevent you from resolving things through combat - but it's much better at handling combat than role-playing. 4e understood this and made it so that at all levels, every character had something to contribute to the combat. I don't think 4e skimped out on role-playing either - it made it very clear that your characters were Big Goddamn Heroes and as you grew in levels, your impact on the world also grew. 5e tries to tackle role-playing in a different way than D&D has done in the past by trying to tack on elements from FATE, but if I wanted to play a system with elements from FATE then I would just play FATE  To me, 5e occupies this nebulous space where it's not the best combat game (I'm starting to prefer WH40K's Deathwatch and Only War for my murderhobo desires) nor is it the best role-playing game and is just thoroughly mediocre all-around. That's not a compelling reason to purchase it, personally.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:You joke, but I wouldn't mind RPG reviews touching on the material quality of the book like board game reviews will touch on the quality of chits and meeples and stuff, especially in an industry where shoddy print quality is commonplace.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 04:36
|
|
|
Haha, the only hobby store in my area is getting a shipment of 5e because someone managed to convince 5e is the best of 4e with some minor 3.5e stuff on it 
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 04:54
|
|
|
Azran posted:Haha, the only hobby store in my area is getting a shipment of 5e because someone managed to convince 5e is the best of 4e with some minor 3.5e stuff on it I mean that's like a glaring omission given WOTCs earlier stated intention to have every class and race that had ever been in an edition's PHB1. I'll let them squeeze by not having the Eladrin because of the High Elf thing, but the lack of a Warlord is inexcusable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 06:44
|
|
|
The Battle Master's level 15 feature, Relentless, has been heavily nerfed. Before: If you start a turn with 0 Superiority Dice, regain 2. Now: If you have 0 Superiority Dice when you roll initiative, regain 1.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 09:16
|
|
|
Battle Master level 15 feature: Relentless, But Not Too Relentless, Let's Not Get Crazy Here
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 09:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 03:34 |
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:The Battle Master's level 15 feature, Relentless, has been heavily nerfed. "According to the leaked alpha PH, the 'Battle Master' fighter is pretty underwhelming." "The leaked alpha PH is outdated, you can't criticize the system based on it! Wait for the final PH, it will probably surprise you!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 11:28
|
|
