|
treeboy posted:The discussion point was more the idea that he's intentionally avoiding something he may well enjoy for the sheer "gently caress you it's not what I wanted" factor. It's exactly what 3x/PF grogs did to 4e. It's still really dumb. Ah yes, exactly what I said. How dare I not play a rehashed version of something I didn't like when I was 17. Also the 3.x/4e thing was/is very different because grogs said 4e wasn't real dnd because it discouraged roleplaying and all that bullshit about how it was watered down for WoW babbys. And yeah what SJ said. It wouldn't be because of the game, because for once I have a good group.
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:17 |
|
|
Countblanc posted:Uhm... correct? I can't really tell what you're trying to say here. Expecting a game to make you have fun with your friends is the wrong expectation to approach pretty much any game. You find people you enjoy playing with and you'll likely enjoy a bunch of different games, flawed or not. Calling out 5e for fitting the mold of every game ever created is not a knock against it (nor for it).
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
treeboy posted:Expecting a game to make you have fun with your friends is the wrong expectation to approach pretty much any game. Not "make" as in "force," but Space Alert has done a hell of a lot more to encourage fun with friends (on a per session basis) than Monopoly ever has. I cannot imagine that this is an unusual experience, though the particular games likely vary. A well-designed game encourages fun interactions and some games, including RPGs, do that better than others. I feel like I have to be misunderstanding your point to have to make such a basic statement, so I'm absolutely open to hearing a clarification.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
treeboy posted:Expecting a game to make you have fun with your friends is the wrong expectation to approach pretty much any game. You find people you enjoy playing with and you'll likely enjoy a bunch of different games, flawed or not. Calling out 5e for fitting the mold of every game ever created is not a knock against it (nor for it).
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Not "make" as in "force," but Space Alert has done a hell of a lot more to encourage fun with friends (on a per session basis) than Monopoly ever has. I cannot imagine that this is an unusual experience, though the particular games likely vary. A well-designed game encourages fun interactions and some games, including RPGs, do that better than others. I was repudiating the statement that fun occurs despite 5e. I was simply pointing out that this could be said for almost any game (even 4e). If we want to extend the conversation to ways in which 5e encourages or discourages fun then we can (and have been to some extent, though many have focused on the negatives) but my empty seemingly pointless reply was to an equally pointless statement.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:Uhm... correct? I can't really tell what you're trying to say here. Therefor you HAVE to play this one. Or if you don't you can't complain it's not good enough. And suggesting it's not as good as it could be is calling it 'literally the devil'. I guess??? I dunno. people who act like their enjoyment of a game is somehow under siege if anyone examines the game critically, expressing reasoned out complaints, are weird. edit: also just noticed this treeboy posted:Don't people mock the hardline 3x fans who never even tried 4e because of something they read on the interweb? You're contributing to the exact same problem with the new edition. No, not at all? It was that the reasons they gave were completely fabricated and showed they never even read the rules. Or just stuff that made no sense on any level (4e restricts roleplaying more than other editions because...???). Do you really not see how critiques based on the actual rules is a wee bit different? Just a smidge? Skyelan fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Aug 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
treeboy posted:I was repudiating the statement that fun occurs despite 5e. I was simply pointing out that this could be said for almost any game (even 4e). If we want to extend the conversation to ways in which 5e encourages or discourages fun then we can (and have been to some extent, though many have focused on the negatives) but my empty seemingly pointless reply was to an equally pointless statement. I'm pretty sure that by saying "We might have fun while playing the game, but we wouldn't have fun because of the game we are playing" S.J. is talking about exactly what I posted. That a game wouldn't be one of the "becauses" of fun is certainly not unique, but (if true) it would be worth noting as a massive limitation of the game. The point of a game is to further fun, to enhance it, to be a "because."
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:I'm pretty sure that by saying "We might have fun while playing the game, but we wouldn't have fun because of the game we are playing" S.J. is talking about exactly what I posted. That a game wouldn't be one of the "becauses" of fun is certainly not unique, but (if true) it would be worth noting as a massive limitation of the game. The point of a game is to further fun, to enhance it, to be a "because." it's also extremely particular to the individual. I know a guy who absolutely hates Paranoia. I think he's insane but he does not have fun with it. Does that make it a bad game? or a flawed game? It's certainly not *perfect* no system is. It also doesn't say anything about the game itself. edit: There are aspects to 5e that are annoying, disappointing, and more than a little frustrating. There are also neat aspects, improvements over 4e, and a bunch of stuff that's just kinda there and not really bad or good. Overall it's much better than 3.5 which is endlessly frustrating in the realm of Stupid Mechanics. In the end it's not a broken game (so far) nor is it some horrible piece of unplayable trash. My personal experiences so far have been largely positive both behind and in front of the screen. I hope these continue. That's more than enough to give it a $20 shot and see what happens, even if Fighters aren't amazing and wizards are poorly defined. treeboy fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Aug 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
treeboy posted:it's also extremely particular to the individual. Eh. We can talk about the successes or failures of design for a game (movie, TV show, book, album, painting, photo, poem, perfume, meal, pair of shoes,...) while still accepting that there's going to be individuals who, for a given thing, would respond positively or negatively. Particularly where things that might kill enjoyability for one group could be fixed without breaking something for anyone else.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
treeboy posted:I was repudiating the statement that fun occurs despite 5e. I was simply pointing out that this could be said for almost any game (even 4e). If we want to extend the conversation to ways in which 5e encourages or discourages fun then we can (and have been to some extent, though many have focused on the negatives) but my empty seemingly pointless reply was to an equally pointless statement. Just because it could be the case that any game fits that statement for a given group of players is completely missing the point.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
S.J. posted:Just because it could be the case that any game fits that statement for a given group of players is completely missing the point. No it's not missing the point, it's calling out a silly thing to say that contributes nothing to discussion. We should also probably define what fun is since people tend to know when they're having it but not why. I would argue it's generally the ability to effectively interact within a defined system. "Fun" tends to break down when actions don't matter either for: 1) lack of consequences 2) inability to effect consequence within the confines of the system to achieve an intended goal (whether long term or short term). To a lesser extent there is also a comparative quality, or: 3) One's ability to affect outcomes in comparison to another's ability (the Fighter/Wizard conundrum). 4) Difficulty in affecting outcomes within the system (a subset of #2). If climbing a ledge requires an intimate knowledge of advanced mathematics it isn't "fun" for most people, even simple tasks are burdensome if it requires multiple steps (time required) to conclude an action, this is where 4e broke down at higher levels. Too *low* of a difficulty also has issues, if every problem and challenge were solved by a simple 50/50 10+ roll it wouldn't be "fun" for #1 and 2, 5e is better designed for all classes than 3x or PF. #3 becomes a lot trickier, showing some signs of regression in design over 4e #4 5e is clearly superior to flaws in 4e edit: generally beyond these things "fun" is window dressing and flavor, and personal preferences begin to weigh in heavily.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
Because of its combat engine and great class design, 4e is distinctive. For years D&D had (IMO) nothing but brand recognition going on for it — lots of games could deliver a similar experience with better focused design. It is specially true for 3rd edition — stuff like Arcana Evolved, FantasyCraft, Iron Heroes, Blue Rose, etc. How many 4e knock-offs are available right now? If you know of any, please tell me — I'd be very interested in trying it. 5e goes back to where 3e was — there is competition. Take three of 5e's selling points: "draws inspiration from earlier versions of D&D", "TotM" and "it's about *~story*~" — 13th Age and Dungeon World do those three things much better. Why would I waste my time with 5e when there are games that can deliver a similar experience for a much lower grog tax?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
treeboy posted:No it's not missing the point You were calling out CFH for something specific - his ability to have fun while playing the game even though he didn't really like the game (which you then rephrased into a hyperbolic nonsense that you could argue with), not a general argument. My post was in response to that. Yes, you are entirely missing that point.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
S.J. posted:You were calling out CFH for something specific - his ability to have fun while playing the game even though he didn't really like the game (which you then rephrased into a hyperbolic nonsense that you could argue with), not a general argument. My post was in response to that. Yes, you are entirely missing that point. I was pointing out the ridiculous stance of completely giving a pass to something, without even trying it, while admitting he would likely enjoy it, simply out of spite or internet bandwagon, or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
treeboy posted:Or just enjoy the game as is, like you said you probably would, despite its imperfections or play something else? There are a lot of people complaining about a game they've decided not to play. It's weird.  For the benefit of anyone who is not awareMyself, kingcom, slydingdoor, and Ritorix post pretty regularly on this thread, and we all have 5e PbP experience under our belts (Ritorix being the DM guy of that grabbag) I'm sure I'm missing some other people but seriously if you only value the opinions of people who actually play the game, head over to The Game Room and check out the 5e/Next games to get an idea of who is talking from experience.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
Recycle Bin posted:"You just teleported everyone in to the back of the necromancer's elaborate throne room and slit his throat? poo poo! Well, I didn't have time to come up with anything else for the night sooooo...random encounters?" This is a pretty terrible criticism. "Oh, you draw your sword and attack? poo poo! Well, I didn't have time to come up anything other than this elaborate negotiation scene with the Genie diplomats, sooooo... go grab a pizza while I stat up this combat?" The players bypassed the planned session. It doesn't matter what edition of D&D you are playing, that screws up prep. To criticize D&D 4E, the edition where it is absolutely easiest to open the MM and select # of Monsters equal to # of players with level equal to the players, blam, encounter... as the one that is harder to prep for...? Of course I forgot that D&D 4E removes the ability to roleplay and the incredibly stimulating "The wizard cast two spells that ended the session via scry and die, now we sit around and talk." "You killed the necromancer, which was the entire purpose of the session, luckily I am just SO GOOD at world building which I do all the time, I can just come up with something on the fly!" 4E gets rid of the ability to be good at world building, you see, because you are making encounters really quickly instead writing lists of Wizard names. Wait that makes no loving sense and neither does your criticism. EVERY edition of D&D has this exact problem, D&D Next/5E included. If the players bypass the planned session, you have to run on the fly. D&D Next doesn't give me any tools to make this easier. I've done it in 3.X (with difficulty) and with 4E (easily, because combat is simple and roleplaying mechanics, with skill challenges, were dirt simple to throw together). Laphroaig fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Aug 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
treeboy posted:I was pointing out the ridiculous stance of completely giving a pass to something, without even trying it, while admitting he would likely enjoy it, simply out of spite or internet bandwagon, or whatever. He said he would have fun while playing it, because of the group of players he's playing with, despite the fact that he doesn't like anything he's heard about the game. There's nothing silly about wanting to avoid spending money or time on a game knowing that you'd probably have to have fun with people, while playing a game, getting fun out of probably anything other than playing the game. At that point we might as well only be drinking, why bother bringing a game to the table? Your rephrasing of what he's communicated to you isn't helping.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
I am withholding judgement of D&D NEXT entirely until I see the organized play materials. If the organized play materials are not amazing I will completely ignore NEXT, and frankly so far its not been great. The transition adventures were OK, but they didn't knock my socks off. And Dead in Thay's Doomvault, which I played through as a PC, was a terrible joke of a module that sucked as written.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
S.J. posted:He said he would have fun while playing it, because of the group of players he's playing with, despite the fact that he doesn't like anything he's heard about the game. There's nothing silly about wanting to avoid spending money or time on a game knowing that you'd probably have to have fun with people, while playing a game, getting fun out of probably anything other than playing the game. At that point we might as well only be drinking, why bother bringing a game to the table? Your rephrasing of what he's communicated to you isn't helping. Italicizing words doesn't prove a point. I don't know many people who have fun playing a game while not playing it, and groups often make or ruin games (the Best/Worst thread is proof enough of that). He hasn't heard anything good because whenever anyone brings up aspects they feel the game is succeeding at, this thread beats them back with some pretty groggy bullshit. He said: quote:I would try 5e, I really would. With my group, we'd probably have a good time because most of us have been playing TTRPGs for more than 10 years. He then continues on to describe his schadenfreude at the prospective failure of the edition. Sounds like it could be a fun system with experienced players! Why not try it? It's not as if there's no free basic rules available, which will continue to be updated with additional material as it becomes available, that people can use to try it out and make informed personal decisions as to whether they should shell out a trip to Chipotle for the PHB. edit: personally I'm looking forward to 5e, though I have reservations about late game play. It's enough for me to drop $20 on the PHB and then decide if i want to continue with the MM and DMG. It's a nice aspect of the staggered release. People would do better to let some of us willing to drop some money get their hands on it than regurgitate hate for a system they've not played. treeboy fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Aug 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
The Inspirational Reading appendix is a lot better than I'd expected. I particularly like this title. 
Jack the Lad fucked around with this message at 21:21 on Aug 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
treeboy posted:I don't know many people who have fun playing a game while not playing it Yeah, okay, you are completely misunderstanding what's going on here. 'We'd probably have a good time because most of us have been playing TTRPGs for more than 10 years' is not 'We'd probably have a good time because we'd really enjoy the game and what it brings to the play experience/whatever'.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:The Inspirational Reading appendix is a lot better than I'd expected. Points for Martin and Sanderson, but no Butcher? I am not impressed  S.J. posted:Yeah, okay, you are completely misunderstanding what's going on here. 'We'd probably have a good time because most of us have been playing TTRPGs for more than 10 years' is not 'We'd probably have a good time because we'd really enjoy the game and what it brings to the play experience/whatever'. I completely get what you're arguing, I'm simply saying it's a dumb argument without practical experience to back up the claim.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
With the advent of semi-successful indie darlings, social media to track it, and the rise of competitor companies such as evil hat I really don't get why WotC doesn't actually just hire proven competent designers. Like Jesus fire these idiots and hire Stolze, Fred Hicks, or anyone else that has a grasp on what makes a game mechanically good and WORK, not to mention keep on schedule when it isn't even their full time job most of the time. You wouldn't keep a board game designer on staff that requires a ton of house rules or errata to work. That's the most frustrating part for me, that people are paid a living wage for something they should be laid off for producing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
treeboy posted:He hasn't heard anything good because whenever anyone brings up aspects they feel the game is succeeding at, this thread beats them back with some pretty groggy bullshit. The usual response to whenever someone posts a reason they like about 5E is "how exactly does 5E do that more/better than 4E or any game?" And usually the answer is, it really doesn't. How you play a game, and who with, often ends up being more significant to the experience than what the game actually provides. But in a critical discussion of a game, that's irrelevant. The point of a critical discussion is to talk about the ways a game does or does not tend to promote an engaging, enjoyable experience. That's independent of the quality of a particular play group. quote:Sounds like it could be a fun system with experienced players! Having fun playing a game is not the same as it being a "fun system". The total experience can be positive, even if the game system part of it is completely awful. Presumably, he expects to have more fun with systems that are better designed than 5E, so doesn't plan to play 5E. quote:I completely get what you're arguing, I'm simply saying it's a dumb argument without practical experience to back up the claim. It really isn't. One does not need to play a game to constructively analyze it and critique it. Especially one so blatantly similar to a game many of us have plenty of experience with. And most of the discussion about Next here is constructive. Just more in the "designing a game" perspective, than in the "how to play Next" perspective, and not in ways Mearls would ever listen to, because good design angers certain people for stupid reasons. Also, there's a difference between "I've seen this before, it was bad, I'm not wasting my time playing it again", and "It's new, therefore bad, I'm not wasting my time". Most response to Next here is the former. Classic grog response to 4E was the latter. The problem isn't simply judging without playing. It's judging for bad reasons. eth0.n fucked around with this message at 21:32 on Aug 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
Laphroaig posted:This is a pretty terrible criticism. "Oh, you draw your sword and attack? poo poo! Well, I didn't have time to come up anything other than this elaborate negotiation scene with the Genie diplomats, sooooo... go grab a pizza while I stat up this combat?" Easy on, now. It was a minor complaint. My point was that if you only have a few hours a week to world build for your campaign, time spent coming up with elaborate TACTICAL encounters is time not spent on other things. Yes, you can always make poo poo up on the fly, but it's much more fun if there's some planning and forethought involved. 4e is at it's best when running elaborate encounters that force the characters to move around and think tactically from round to round, and it's at it's worst when combat is just "I attack the orc(again)". Look, I think 4e is awesome, and I loved DMing for it but MAN did it sting when the players figured out a way around my encounters. I want to be excited that they came up with a clever solution, not pissed that a bunch of work went down the drain.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
I've had the experience of DMing and playing D&D Next in person in an organized play setting as it has evolved into the last playtest. That means I was interacting regularly with players who were completely new to D&D and to RPGs in general. I'll be playing more in person when it launches, but my feelings are in agreement with the general consensus here. It's not an unfun game, but it does unfairly advantage some classes over others in terms of versatility and narrative impact. DMing it is harder than DMing 4E because of having to look up spells for monsters and odd balance issues (an enemy spellcaster, even a throw-away one, is just so much more powerful than non-casting enemies). Yes combat is deemphasized, but that doesn't mean combat is more fun or that I felt like my players were enjoying the overall experience more.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
eth0.n posted:One does not need to play a game to constructively analyze it and critique it. Especially one so blatantly similar to a game many of us have plenty of experience with. And most of the discussion about Next here is constructive. Just more in the "designing a game" perspective, than in the "how to play Next" perspective, and not in ways Mearls would ever listen to, because good design angers certain people for stupid reasons. I am on the side of "we can tell some stuff is bad just by looking at it", but it really did happen that people looked at 4e and thought they could tell it was a badly-designed game -- and that all classes played the same way -- just by thumbing through the books. If they'd played it . . .
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:The Inspirational Reading appendix is a lot better than I'd expected. I like that they included A Wizard of Earthsea, a story where the conciet of magic is that wizards shouldn't cast spells.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
Here's the thing: I'd be willing to give next a play - and so would most of the people in my group. I''d just NOT be willing to run it, and nor would anyone else in my group, so... it's not going to get played.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
homullus posted:I am on the side of "we can tell some stuff is bad just by looking at it", but it really did happen that people looked at 4e and thought they could tell it was a badly-designed game -- and that all classes played the same way -- just by thumbing through the books. If they'd played it . . . Sure, judging without playing is something you have to be careful about. In particular, if it's a concept you haven't seen before, you should probably not speak with any real certainty, and be willing to be shown to be wrong. The problem here was people being faced with a novel idea, at least to D&D (classes all following the same progression, presented in the same way), and instead of tempering their initial gut feeling with an understanding that they could be wrong, set that feeling in stone. That's where the grog sets in.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
eth0.n posted:Sure, judging without playing is something you have to be careful about. In particular, if it's a concept you haven't seen before, you should probably not speak with any real certainty, and be willing to be shown to be wrong. I would argue that currently, here, the exact opposite is happening. Just because classes progress differently, and are similar in ways to which we have previous experience, many are going with their gut that it must be just as broken and annoying as those previous instances. In reality there are a lot of differences, despite the similarities, yet in the last few pages we've had people seriously claiming this is the worst edition ever, and it technically hasn't been released yet. There are a handful of people who have played the available materials extensively, yourself included, and from what I can tell they tend to be more moderate in the "it does some stuff well, some stuff eh, and a few things i'm pretty concerned about, with a dash of one or two neat ideas." Personally that (as well as some more limited personal experience) describes a decent RPG to me, one worth trying out or sinking a few dollars into, so I am. Knee-jerk rejection by others in the thread is ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
^^^Edit: Please go read the Dead In Thay PbP in the game room.thespaceinvader posted:Here's the thing: I'd be willing to give next a play - and so would most of the people in my group. I''d just NOT be willing to run it, and nor would anyone else in my group, so... it's not going to get played. I'm on the other side of this coin; everyone I play with are 3.5/PF fanboys and they won't even give 5e a sniff. I'd happily play it (maybe even run it) with them, but they're like "eh, don't care."
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
It's not the worst edition ever (I think some of the racism of 1e helps it to rank very highly on the 'worst edition' scale, but then again it was the first), it's just what looks to be a thoroughly mediocre edition. For those who thought that 4e represented progressive design, this is kind of depressing. I'm willing to play it just to see for myself, but I'm not willing to plunk down my  to support it until I really see that it's a good product that does something unique compared to everything else I have on my shelf.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
I get where treeboy is coming from, it is kind of irritating that this thread is pretty much for griping about 5E. I'm not saying the complaining and criticism should stop or it's incorrect or fun trumps all, it would just be nice to have some other discussion too. Although it seems passive aggressive at times, I get why RPG.net has those + threads.Fenarisk posted:With the advent of semi-successful indie darlings, social media to track it, and the rise of competitor companies such as evil hat I really don't get why WotC doesn't actually just hire proven competent designers. Like Jesus fire these idiots and hire Stolze, Fred Hicks, or anyone else that has a grasp on what makes a game mechanically good and WORK, not to mention keep on schedule when it isn't even their full time job most of the time. You wouldn't keep a board game designer on staff that requires a ton of house rules or errata to work. That's the most frustrating part for me, that people are paid a living wage for something they should be laid off for producing. Because the D&D department is Wizards' dumping ground for employees who don't cut the mustard as Magic developers or designers. It's pretty clear. It's also possible that Wizards feels the same way as Marvel and DC does about companies like Fantagraphics and don't really view Evil Hat as competitors. Despite creating a product in the same category, they serve generally different demographics and the one that Evil Hat serves is generally vocally disinterested in Wizards' product. Jack the Lad posted:The Inspirational Reading appendix is a lot better than I'd expected. This list rules. Aside from some blunders like Piers Anthony and Terry Brooks, it's all stuff I'd hand to someone asking for fantasy suggestions myself. Aside from the classic Appendix N mainstays and the expected modern choices, you have Patricia McKillip, Lloyd Alexander, Ursula LeGuin, China Mieville, N.K. Jemisin... Lightning Lord fucked around with this message at 22:33 on Aug 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:it would just be nice to have some other discussion too. Having a Cleric in the party is interesting, because when it's out-of-combat time, you can get basically a free +1d4 to each skill check. So it's sort of like the Cleric gets to say "me too!" when the spotlight is on the rogue/bard.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:^^^Edit: Please go read the Dead In Thay PbP in the game room. I'll try giving it another shot, but first time I sat to read through it the overall "gently caress it whatever" tone kinda grated. On a completely unrelated note, anyone had thoughts or experience with ship based stuff? I don't know when, but I could very much see cannons coming into play at some point in my campaign and I haven't really nailed down how I'd like to handle them. Whether it's more narratively (through skill checks) or with more of a homebrewed "in-engine" design (with full hit/damage rolls, etc). I'll probably ask in the DM thread as well, but people in here might have some thoughts in regards to 5e specifically.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:Because the D&D department is Wizards' dumping ground for employees who don't cut the mustard as Magic developers or designers. It's pretty clear. It's also possible that much like how Marvel and DC don't really view say, Fantagraphics as competitors Wizards doesn't really view Evil Hat as such because despite creating a product in the same category, they serves generally different demographics and that demographic is generally vocally disinterested in their product. To go along with this, the impetus behind Next was "make a game that feels enough like D&D to get lapsed D&D players to pay money for it." Hiring someone like Greg Stolze would be a fruitless and frustrating endeavor for both parties because WotC wouldn't be hiring him to do anything that didn't ultimately boil down to "make D&D all over again, with some minor tweaks maybe." There's no point in hiring a guy who loves developing novel resolution mechanics and making games where you can soak attacks with your characters' personality traits to add a new coat of paint to D&D and it wouldn't give the target audience what they want.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
I feel like everyone is singing the praises of 4e. Where the hell were you people when the game first came out? I remember checking out the 4e thread on SA and it looked almost exactly like this thread. If history is any indication, I expect that when 6th edition comes out the pro-5e crowd will be in full force. Christ, the much beloved Pathfinder grew out of 3.5e and hoooooly poo poo was there ever a wailing and gnashing of teeth over 3.5....
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
treeboy posted:I'll try giving it another shot, but first time I sat to read through it the overall "gently caress it whatever" tone kinda grated. Well, you seem to need evidence of everything, so me telling you "the spellcasters are basically the only characters in the parties that matter or get to make interesting choices" won't really convince you. And this is a game that was like level 6-7; I can't see 5e bucking that trend at higher levels, when Fighters get the maneuvers they didn't want and Wizards get level 9 spells. I mean, yeah, Fighters will get more feats once they max their primary, but look how well "more feats" worked in 3.5
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:17 |
|
|
Recycle Bin posted:I feel like everyone is singing the praises of 4e. Where the hell were you people when the game first came out? I remember checking out the 4e thread on SA and it looked almost exactly like this thread. If history is any indication, I expect that when 6th edition comes out the pro-5e crowd will be in full force. Christ, the much beloved Pathfinder grew out of 3.5e and hoooooly poo poo was there ever a wailing and gnashing of teeth over 3.5.... I was 3 years prior to starting to play TTRPGs at all, personally...
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 22:41
|
|