|
A Catastrophe posted:There is a place for a generalist or versatile game, and indeed any long running game needs some variety of content. DnD is such a ubiquitous game that it's fair to say that it's a generalist/versatile game despite its clear design bias. Servicing that role is a valid goal and one any update of DnD should pursue.  Have you literally played no other system? This is like when I first got into D&D in early high school and thought I could make awesome DBZ campaigns by using D&D as the base system and tweaking it, because no other system existed!
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 05:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:19 |
|
|
Chaltab posted:Wait... when you roll initiative--? So you only get them at the start of an encounter and are SOL for the rest of the fight? I didn't pick up on this until you pointed it out. That is hilariously terrible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 05:15
|
|
|
Fenarisk posted:
Do not let the scribbly binders of a misspent youth color your opinion of the wide wide world of much better ideas other people have had.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
petrol blue posted:Y'know, the trollers actually have a point - this is becoming just another grog tear-down thread at this point. Has there been enough released so far to start houseruling it into a Real Game? I'm a big fan of upcycling, and Mearls supports me on this! I don't have "a" group, I've had... I dunno, long since lost count. Things I've played include a couple of Shadowrun or Cyberpunk (though not much of either), GURPS, various 2e/3e/4e White Wolf games (including Trinity), Ars Magica, Runequest, Call of Cthulhu, the old FASA Doctor Who RPG, Toon, and... Probably other stuff? Lots of it? I will try nearly anything RPGish once. I like most RPG systems. For some reason, GURPS affects me like day-old chewing gum; I simply cannot experience setting flavor through that filter. As a general observation, I tend to strongly prefer fantasy-themed games. I like combat, I like roleplaying, and I like having reasonably solid rules so I can make informed decisions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 05:25
|
|
|
Chernobyl Peace Prize posted:He's right, and you sound like you're projecting maybe a touch? Just because the 3e/d20 system debacle was a hilarious explosion of bad ideas and poorly-formatted shovelware doesn't mean you have to go digging through drivethru to find a game to play the genre you want, and if you have a decent enough framework you can service a Lot of concepts in pretty much any given system if the playstyle it encourages works for the playstyle you seek to emulate. "We get together in a group that goes and adventures at a place where there is combat! [sci fi|fantasy|action]" can be handled pretty well by 4e (or any other edition or game where you can reskin/rename/limit spells/powers, like Mutants and Masterminds), the *world system lends itself fairly well to a huge variety of genres (post-apocalyptic adventure | fantasy | detective pulp | high school monster drama) so long as your playstyle is narrative-back-and-forth-heavy. poo poo, you could probably even run a lethal-as-hell Fantasy loving Vietnam campaign of dungeon crawling with Dread. D&D is not a good generic system for two reasons. 1) It is not generic. It is heavily steeped in its own assumptions. D&D-specific things are like, 70% of the game. 2) It is not a good system.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 06:18
|
|
|
Chernobyl Peace Prize posted:He's right, and you sound like you're projecting maybe a touch? Just because the 3e/d20 system debacle was a hilarious explosion of bad ideas and poorly-formatted shovelware quote:if you have a decent enough framework you can service a Lot of concepts in pretty much any given system quote:the *world system lends itself fairly well to a huge variety of genres (post-apocalyptic adventure | fantasy | detective pulp | high school monster drama) so long as your playstyle is narrative-back-and-forth-heavy. quote:poo poo, you could probably even run a lethal-as-hell Fantasy loving Vietnam campaign of dungeon crawling with Dread. quote:Do not let the scribbly binders of a misspent youth color your opinion of the wide wide world of much better ideas other people have had. Fenarisk fucked around with this message at 06:40 on Aug 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 06:38
|
|
|
Fenarisk posted:4e was a good system for what it was, but didn't lend to much else. I loved 4e but I would never work on making it for settings its not a fit for (a lot of them). I tend to play more story/narrative games these days and its better to use a system with mechanics that enforce/boost that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 06:54
|
|
|
When you use the D&D system as a base for a game, you're only really ever going to get D&D out of it. In other words, what you actually end up with will vary wildly. But it's going to vary wildly based on the edition of D&D you used as a base, not the genre you're trying to play in. Did anyone play both original Call of Cthulhu and d20 Call of Cthulhu? Was it even close to the same game?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 07:18
|
|
|
Fenarisk posted:
quote:This is like when I first got into D&D in early high school and thought I could make awesome DBZ campaigns by using D&D as the base system and tweaking it, because no other system existed! Indeed, any game you can describe finds itself on a continuum. Some games are very narrow in scope, others are broader, or intended to be extended into various modes. Some games use a unified mechanics base, but others do not- to varying degrees of success, of course. But nor is focus a guarantee of quality, or even an effective maxim when seeking it. Task resolution is often broad enough to cover various actions, and it's rare for even games that boast of it to hit a really good feel for their mechanics when pursuing say, a strong and exclusive genre like horror or mystery. Piell posted:D&D is not a good generic system for two reasons. In any event, the discussion was about a potential design for dnd, not one of the current versions. Fenarisk posted:4e was a good system for what it was, but didn't lend to much else. I loved 4e but I would never work on making it for settings its not a fit for (a lot of them). I tend to play more story/narrative games these days and its better to use a system with mechanics that enforce/boost that. quote:Exactly, narrative heavy. Also it's a well designed system. However it doesn't work when you try and force it into playstyles that don't match or settings that aren't well defined in the moves. So you just proved how a lethal fantasy vietnam game would work best in a system designed for being immensely careful, avoiding risks, and ramping up tension. If you want murder hobos go D&D, if you want goofy narrative ghostbusters play InSpectres, if you want crunchy 90's style semi-hard scifi you don't loving spend hours forcing it to work in d20 which it won't, you go with Eclipse Phase, Gurps, etc. quote:Better ideas people have had = systems designed to emulate a game, fiction, or style you want without having to force it. Why not play a better system for what you want then forcing it into one that isn't that great or isn't meant for that kind of play? You wouldn't try and run old school Shadowrun in Lady Blackbird, so why try and make a goofy system like 3.x D&D5e into anything else? There's some good generic systems these days, mostly Savage Worlds and FATE, and there's a lot of reasons they're good at that and D&D isn't. And there's nothing stopping DnD from being that game, and it's quite obviously the same it should be. People do use it for everything from combat heavy games, to spy thrillers, to horror games, and beyond. It might not fit all of that, but it can fit more and do it well enough. Frankly I think focus is important, but I don't see that many success stories when looking over (or playing) the systems which claim to benefit from it. A Catastrophe fucked around with this message at 07:31 on Aug 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 07:24
|
|
|
Chaltab posted:Depends on what you mean by setting. D&D 4E is adaptable to any setting in which the actual game-play centers around adventures and tactical set-piece battles starring badasses. It's not hard to tweak the system to do heroic sci-fi or urban fantasy, for example.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 07:26
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:When you use the D&D system as a base for a game, you're only really ever going to get D&D out of it. In other words, what you actually end up with will vary wildly. But it's going to vary wildly based on the edition of D&D you used as a base, not the genre you're trying to play in. Sure they were. CoC is SAN. You could run it by freeforming everything but SAN and it would be CoC. Some games have signature systems that are powerful enough to do that--I'd say any game with Gumshoe grafted on it is pretty much Gumshoe, for example.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 07:44
|
|
|
MalcolmSheppard posted:Sure they were. CoC is SAN. You could run it by freeforming everything but SAN and it would be CoC. Some games have signature systems that are powerful enough to do that--I'd say any game with Gumshoe grafted on it is pretty much Gumshoe, for example. I'm not totally sold on that, because I think CoC relies somewhat on the chaosium system's balance. CoC d20 is a very different game, because you can genuinely outlevel threats. But I will say, fate chips make almost anything feel a lot more like deadlands. On the general topic of adapting games to rules: Comfort with a system can be at least as big a deal as the system's innate qualities when adapting it. I've done just fine using D&D rules for basically anything, just because I know them pretty well. (Note: I don't happen to want to play a gritty-and-harsh game like platonic-form CoC.) So since I'm used to the system and I can eyeball numbers in it really easily, I can basically freehand 3e and could probably do it with 4e given about 3-4 hours of prep time to read up on some likely monster stat blocks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 07:49
|
|
|
My choice isn't "play 5e with friends or play a better game," it's "play 5e with friends or play a better game with friends." I have no emotional connection to "D&D." I started with jRPGs before I played Baldur's Gate, and I didn't get into D&D proper until my late teens. Nothing in me screams "PLAY A GAME WITH D&D ON THE COVER," nor do any of my friends have an overwhelming need to play D&D. 5e provides nothing for me that I can't get in other, better games. Like whenever people say "I'm glad the combat is bad so it can be over fast and we can move on to roleplaying I just think "why are you playing D&D and not something based on that 'roleplaying?'" So as I've said before, 5e is a game for people who need to play D&D. As someone who doesn't need to play D&D, if this isn't a good game, I'm not interested in it. 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.... Oh I openly admit I was a huge grog for awhile. Like I'm just glad some of the more foul poo poo I said at the start of 4e is connected to a different name.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 09:14
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:So as I've said before, 5e is a game for people who need to play D&D. As someone who doesn't need to play D&D, if this isn't a good game, I'm not interested in it. So I never played D&D until university, how prolific is this mindset. I never really encountered it having not played it as a teen. ProfessorCirno posted:Oh I openly admit I was a huge grog for awhile. Like I'm just glad some of the more foul poo poo I said at the start of 4e is connected to a different name. SKR parachute account spotted.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 09:56
|
|
|
Wizard spells. Monk stuff. How about that level 20 feature?  Warlock stuff.  
Jack the Lad fucked around with this message at 10:31 on Aug 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 10:14
|
|
|
Oh wow, Wish made it in. Awesome. Also, what would be wrong with writing "You can speak to animals" instead of "You can cast 'Speak With Animals' at will, without expending a spell slot"?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 10:34
|
|
|
Because any, any fantastical ability that heroes and monsters of myth and legend ever had must be traced back to a laundry list of wizard spells with exact durations and 'Range: 10 yards + 2 yards/level' specifications and thus made unappeasingly boring and mundane. That's what the D&D feeeel is all about, sorry to disappoint you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 10:42
|
|
|
On the next page it's got "You can read all writing" instead of "...cast read languages etc...". Which is natural language.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 11:01
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Oh wow, Wish made it in. Awesome. Quoting in hopes it will convince Jack the Lad to post a picture of Wish
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 11:07
|
|
|
Wonder how polymorph works. That poo poo was the worst in 3e.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 11:10
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Oh wow, Wish made it in. Awesome. The difference, of course, is that you can't use the ability that's phrased as a spell in an anti-magic field. Having said that, the idea of someone in a fantasy adventure losing their ability to talk to woodland critters when they step into the Forest of Anti-Magic is hella dumb conceptually.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 11:14
|
|
|
MalcolmSheppard posted:Sure they were. CoC is SAN. You could run it by freeforming everything but SAN and it would be CoC. Some games have signature systems that are powerful enough to do that--I'd say any game with Gumshoe grafted on it is pretty much Gumshoe, for example. D20 is another of those heavy flavors, which absolutely overwhelmed any hint of CoC. Levels, needless classes, and emphasis on combat all crush CoC's core gameplay experience. One game's signature mechanic doesn't outweigh a preponderance of another's. Edit: Next exemplifies this problem with their "something for everyone" uniting the editions rules buffet. Having sorta-surges doesn't musically invoke 4e's clockwork of in-game interactions, especially when it's drowned in wizard supremacy and the rest of the legacy cruft. moths fucked around with this message at 11:26 on Aug 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 11:16
|
|
|
moths posted:D20 is another of those heavy flavors, which absolutely overwhelmed any hint of CoC. Levels, needless classes, and emphasis on combat all crush CoC's core gameplay experience. That was the point I was trying to make, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 11:18
|
|
|
Zombies' Downfall posted:Quoting in hopes it will convince Jack the Lad to post a picture of Wish Also, Enchanter wizards are pretty crazy: quote:Hypnotic Gaze: Choose a creature within 5 feet,creature must make a wis save or be unable to move, or act and is visibly dazed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 11:29
|
|
|
Yeah idk how anyone can look at d20 CoC and think for a second it's the same deal as CoC. It's like the difference between Monte Cook's or GURPS WoD and WoD.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 11:30
|
|
|
kingcom posted:So I never played D&D until university, how prolific is this mindset. I never really encountered it having not played it as a teen. Like I've said many times, the RPG newbies I know are mostly interested in playing D&D. Most of the other games that newer players want to try are either licensed from something else, or were licensed themselves. The big ones would be Star Wars, DC and Marvel, the One Ring, Dragon Age, L5R, Warhammer RPGs, (if those count?) etc. Besides D&D the big one for the latter would be Shadowrun and a lot of people still love Mechwarrior, so Battletech probably counts too. From what I've seen for the most part such players don't even hear about games like Fate, never mind become interested until they have a couple years under their belts. Lightning Lord fucked around with this message at 11:57 on Aug 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 11:55
|
|
|
It really just depends on the social context. I usually end up roping in new players who haven't touched RPGs before at all, so I go with either Fiasco, Apocalypse World, or FATE. Hell, usually if I run into somebody who's all One True System about roleplaying that's a big red flag saying they are going to power-bottom their way into making it unpleasant to GM for them. And I won't accept the premise "you can run anything in d20 and have it go well", because back in the 3.x/d20 modern days, I tried to do that. Yes, it's possible to run a game using any system if you put enough work in, but the work I put in and the poo poo I got out of the existing game barely intersected. What was said upthread about D20 making any game you run in it taste the same is pretty much right. Forums Barber fucked around with this message at 14:10 on Aug 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 14:07
|
|
|
moths posted:Yeah idk how anyone can look at d20 CoC and think for a second it's the same deal as CoC. It's like the difference between Monte Cook's or GURPS WoD and WoD. Seems like it's best as a supplement for fighting shoggoths in your 3.5 game. Forums Barber posted:It really just depends on the social context. I usually end up roping in new players who haven't touched RPGs before at all, so I go with either Fiasco, Apocalypse World, or FATE. Hell, usually if I run into somebody who's all One True System about roleplaying that's a big red flag saying they are going to power-bottom their way into making it unpleasant to GM for them. You're a luckier man than I am, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 14:10
|
|
|
I've been playing the basic Starter set and good lord am I bored. This is the first edition of D&D I've actually played (though I'm really familiar with 3rd ed from NWN and stuff) and the thing that strikes me is that nothing about the system is at all fun. I'm playing the Criminal halfling rogue and my contribution in combat is to say "I stab the bugbear in the back. Did I hit? Okay I killed it. I missed? Ok nothing happens." and it's exactly the same every turn. The fighter is the same. The wizard and the cleric have a couple of things to do but it doesn't seem much better. The roleplay is fine, but the roleplay would be just as fine (or better) under any other system or literally no system at all. Why would someone play this game?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 14:31
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:You're a luckier man than I am, I guess. I got so sick of dealing with grogs that now I just start with well-adjusted people who like to do nerdy poo poo, and introduce them to RPGs. This group would get together and have some beers and play a boardgame or something, so it wasn't that hard to build off of. It's worth the effort, believe me. Boing posted:Why would someone play this game?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 14:42
|
|
|
Forums Barber posted:I got so sick of dealing with grogs that now I just start with well-adjusted people who like to do nerdy poo poo, and introduce them to RPGs. This group would get together and have some beers and play a boardgame or something, so it wasn't that hard to build off of. It's worth the effort, believe me. The people I play with are all well-adjusted friends and all except one are new to RPGs. They just react to other games like this "What's Savage Worlds? Is that like D&D? Why aren't we playing D&D? I heard Pathfinder is the new D&D. Can we play that?" I keep harping on this but it seems like some believe the only people who refuse to play indie/alternative/ or however you personally refer to less crunchy smaller press RPGs are grognards. I don't think that's the case. Lightning Lord fucked around with this message at 15:23 on Aug 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 14:50
|
|
|
Boing posted:I've been playing the basic Starter set and good lord am I bored. This is the first edition of D&D I've actually played (though I'm really familiar with 3rd ed from NWN and stuff) and the thing that strikes me is that nothing about the system is at all fun.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 14:53
|
|
|
My logic is that if you want cool fiction-driven action and narrative freeform roleplay you should be playing Dungeon World, and if you want crunchy tabletop miniature combat you should go all out and play Descent: Journeys in the Dark or something. I've never tried 4E but I've liked most of the things I've heard about it. The thing that puts me off is apparently it takes a very, very long time to do combat? Which doesn't seem very attractive for a combat-driven system. What contributes to the length? Is it a significant setback?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 14:57
|
|
|
Forums Barber posted:I got so sick of dealing with grogs that now I just start with well-adjusted people who like to do nerdy poo poo, and introduce them to RPGs. This group would get together and have some beers and play a boardgame or something, so it wasn't that hard to build off of. It's worth the effort, believe me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 15:12
|
|
|
Boing posted:My logic is that if you want cool fiction-driven action and narrative freeform roleplay you should be playing Dungeon World, and if you want crunchy tabletop miniature combat you should go all out and play Descent: Journeys in the Dark or something. I've never tried 4E but I've liked most of the things I've heard about it. The thing that puts me off is apparently it takes a very, very long time to do combat? Which doesn't seem very attractive for a combat-driven system. What contributes to the length? Is it a significant setback? bloat at higher levels as new powers don't adequately replace lower level options and power interactions/conditions become increasingly complex with additional modifiers. at level 5 you're doing "cool encounter move +1 for bless and +2 for flanking" at level 10+ you're doing 'cool encounter move II with +1 bless, +2 flanking, reroll all 1's and 2's, crits give four additional rolls, oh poo poo i forgot the +3 from my other feature when i *do* roll a 2, and he's dazed so my other feature activates granting me *another* +2 to attack and damage..." edit: it's not *terrible* but it's ultimately kind of annoying and slow, and its boring as hell for anyone whose turn it's not. treeboy fucked around with this message at 15:17 on Aug 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 15:14
|
|
|
Boing posted:My logic is that if you want cool fiction-driven action and narrative freeform roleplay you should be playing Dungeon World, and if you want crunchy tabletop miniature combat you should go all out and play Descent: Journeys in the Dark or something. I've never tried 4E but I've liked most of the things I've heard about it. The thing that puts me off is apparently it takes a very, very long time to do combat? Which doesn't seem very attractive for a combat-driven system. What contributes to the length? Is it a significant setback? I haven't played a ton of 4e but my biggest complaint is that there are lots of fiddly conditional modifiers. The engine is reasonably streamlined and simplifies a lot of basic conditions and modifiers, but then there are a lot of bells and whistles complicating things. For example, attack bonuses from flanking, surprise attacks, attacking a helpless enemy, etc. are all rolled together into a single binary "combat advantage" mechanic (EDIT: not to be confused with 5e's "advantage" system), and a lot of common effects are codified into simple, easy to run conditions. But then there are all kinds of class features and feats that give modifiers (which are frequently variable) for all kinds of specific conditions and situations, and then on top of that half the powers you get (and half the things monsters do) will stick temporary conditional modifiers on things, including monsters and other players. the holy poopacy fucked around with this message at 15:19 on Aug 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 15:17
|
|
|
Boing posted:The thing that puts me off is apparently it takes a very, very long time to do combat? Which doesn't seem very attractive for a combat-driven system. What contributes to the length? Is it a significant setback? Combat can be long in heroic (first 10 levels), and definitely gets more complicated come paragon (levels 11-20; epic is 21-30 which has it's own set of problems) because of all the status effects & abilities & conditional elements that start to come into play, but honestly if everyone's playing ideally (both PCs and DM) the encounter is usually decided in the first couple rounds (either in team PC's favor or not) followed by 6 or 7 rounds of "clean-up" or running the gently caress away. Really the best thing to mitigate the lengthy combat is to have a DM who can say "alright, team monster has pretty much lost now, how y'all want to finish them off?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 15:17
|
|
|
Boing posted:My logic is that if you want cool fiction-driven action and narrative freeform roleplay you should be playing Dungeon World, and if you want crunchy tabletop miniature combat you should go all out and play Descent: Journeys in the Dark or something. I've never tried 4E but I've liked most of the things I've heard about it. The thing that puts me off is apparently it takes a very, very long time to do combat? Which doesn't seem very attractive for a combat-driven system. What contributes to the length? Is it a significant setback? 4e combat is "disproportionately long" (and fun!) rather than "very, very long", and assumes the presence of the full party in each, which leads to a different sort of play experience.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 15:20
|
|
|
homullus posted:4e combat is "disproportionately long" (and fun!) rather than "very, very long", and assumes the presence of the full party in each, which leads to a different sort of play experience. My turns take ~90 seconds resolve tops. "I move here and use [standard action power] [and maybe minor action power]" plus rolls and fluff. You'll have a problem if everyone is like "oh, huh, it's my turn? Wait, which one of those monsters is bloodied again? Who needs healing? Did I use my daily yet? Okay hang on let me decide what power to use" but that is not a failing of the system. When I GM I go around the table like "Jim you're up, Bob you're up next" and Bob decides what he's gonna do while Jim takes his turn. It's super easy. In terms of modifiers, go build a level 10 character and see how many fiddly/eont modifiers you end up with. If they really bother you it's easy not to pick any at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 15:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:19 |
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:Monk stuff. How about that level 20 feature? Father Wendigo fucked around with this message at 15:39 on Aug 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 15:35
|
|
