|
treeboy posted:Yes and no. The design of 5e quite aptly identified and improved upon flaws in combat flow and speed of 4e. It's faster, but that's only because it's far less interesting and far more arbitrary. It's like saying you can lose weight by chopping off your arm. As it bulks, condition tracking and fiat matters are likely to make combat slower and flow poorly, and it doesn't really have very good flow right now, with spellcasters and other bursters likely to dominate pacing both inside and outside combat.
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 04:31 |
|
|
We're trading "I don't understand my class!" for frequent symposiums regarding who's in cover, while everyone else plays with smartphones.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
ManMythLegend posted:Listen here you forge loving storygamer. Reading the game books at lunch is what's ruined the game because then non-gamers can see them and ask you questions and maybe get interested in playing and now WotC has to pander to the normals and water the game down to Pretty Princess Magical Tea Party. Yeah, if I were a traitor to everything gaming has ever stood for and were willing to consume food while non-gamers were present, that could be a problem.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
Hey, are you the same seebs that just wrote like a six page defense of Zak S and Pundit?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
treeboy posted:What? Nobody is forgetting that 4e exists, not a page can go by where the two aren't (favorably or unfavorably) compared and contrasted. Here, yes. On the rest of the Internet it's "Thank God Wizards is returning to tradition! :1000 words of nostalgic reminiscing:" The grognards won. Game design is moving backwards.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 02:07
|
|
|
moths posted:Hey, are you the same seebs that just wrote like a six page defense of Zak S and Pundit? I would prefer not to talk about that in a thread that has an actual topic of interest to discuss. Feel free to yell at me on tumblr or in email if you think I'm an idiot or I've made errors. There are any number of ways in which I've hosed up so far in that drama, and I would rather not inflict them on this thread. But yes, same "seebs".
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 02:19
|
|
moths posted:Hey, are you the same seebs that just wrote like a six page defense of Zak S and Pundit? Yes, he is. And then he wrote a thing in support of Zak's latest bit: he will give ten whole dollars to a charity for every time that you agree he's right and jump through hoops for him.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 02:20
|
|
seebs posted:I would prefer not to talk about that in a thread that has an actual topic of interest to discuss. Feel free to yell at me on tumblr or in email if you think I'm an idiot or I've made errors. There are any number of ways in which I've hosed up so far in that drama, and I would rather not inflict them on this thread. But yes, same "seebs". I would prefer that you cut your hands off and have to post with your face all the time, but we can't always get what we want, can we?
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
seebs posted:I would prefer not to talk about that in a thread that has an actual topic of interest to discuss. Feel free to yell at me on tumblr or in email if you think I'm an idiot or I've made errors. There are any number of ways in which I've hosed up so far in that drama, and I would rather not inflict them on this thread. But yes, same "seebs". how do you feel about Zak quoting you as evidence of his good character in literally the same post where he holds charity hostage in service to his ego? Do feel free to answer on any of said social media too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 02:22
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Here, yes. On the rest of the Internet it's "Thank God Wizards is returning to tradition! :1000 words of nostalgic reminiscing:" Huh, I see a lot more diversity than that. I know at least one person who absolutely refuses to even look at 5e because she hated 4e so much... but she loves Pathfinder and FATE, and I'm not inclined to think of her as a grognard in any obvious sense. YMMV. I am pretty sure my regular gaming group's going to be doing 3.5e next game, after Pathfinder this game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
poo poo I did not want to import drama, I was just curious.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 02:23
|
|
seebs posted:Huh, I see a lot more diversity than that. I know at least one person who absolutely refuses to even look at 5e because she hated 4e so much... but she loves Pathfinder and FATE, and I'm not inclined to think of her as a grognard in any obvious sense. YMMV. I am pretty sure my regular gaming group's going to be doing 3.5e next game, after Pathfinder this game. Pathfinder is not an example of modern game design. Why would a marginal set of adjustments to a design from more than a decade ago be considered modern?
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 02:25
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Pathfinder is not an example of modern game design. Why would a marginal set of adjustments to a design from more than a decade ago be considered modern? Well, lemme just double-down on dogma and point out that "modern" arguably refers to maybe the 1970s or thereabouts so by now we should be to "postmodern"... Nah, that's silly. Mostly, I think of FATE as being from a much more modern school of game design than any of the D&D family. My point was that I don't usually see people exclusively preferring "modern" or "not-modern" approaches. Also, it's really hard for me to think of d20 as "not-modern" given that it's been around less than half the time I've been playing D&D, even though I recognize that its design philosophy is still rooted in a lot of earlier systems.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Pathfinder is not an example of modern game design. Why would a marginal set of adjustments to a design from more than a decade ago be considered modern?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
moths posted:poo poo I did not want to import drama, I was just curious. No worries, it's a reasonable question. I'm easy to find if you have others. (I'd send a PM but I haven't bothered to buy PMs.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 02:32
|
|
seebs posted:Well, lemme just double-down on dogma and point out that "modern" arguably refers to maybe the 1970s or thereabouts so by now we should be to "postmodern"... Okay, so people will allow one of the more conventional modern games as long as they aren't sullying D&D with their touch? Because FATE's core elements date back to 2003 as well, and although there's been significant changes between the first and fourth editions of it (or third and fourth), it's still hardly the vanguard of design. Even people who genuinely believe that modern games are destroying RPGs will still allow FATE as long as they strip out the nasty stuff. dwarf74 posted:Are you talking about 5e or Pathfinder? Or both? Pathfinder. 5e does make large enough shifts in the mechanics to not be marginal in changes.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Okay, so people will allow one of the more conventional modern games as long as they aren't sullying D&D with their touch? Because FATE's core elements date back to 2003 as well, and although there's been significant changes between the first and fourth editions of it (or third and fourth), it's still hardly the vanguard of design. Even people who genuinely believe that modern games are destroying RPGs will still allow FATE as long as they strip out the nasty stuff. Honestly, I don't even think she remotely objects to "modern", just to 4e's feel being too different in the area of resource management. I'm not sure; I'm not super qualified to comment on her preferences. And like I've said, of the previous D&Ds, 4e was my favorite in terms of rules/mechanics.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:I guess it's up to me to be relentlessly negative~! Gort posted:I think the biggest thing that has me coming back to D&D edition after edition is the sheer quantity of stuff available for it. There's always mountains of classes, adventures, feats, magic items and all that stuff available. It's simultaneously a strength and a weakness, and I don't think there's another RPG that matches D&D for sheer quantity of material. Not to mention a large player base, which allows you to steal awesome stuff like this from other players.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 03:41
|
|
|
seebs posted:I am pretty sure my regular gaming group's going to be doing 3.5e next game, after Pathfinder this game. So here's a weird question from somebody who's been playing D&D since 2E was contemporary and has played in multiple 3E, 3.5, and PF games: why do some people prefer 3.5 to Pathfinder? It's like the exact same game except non-casters aren't quite as worthless and there aren't as many terrible stupid PRCs and spells. Is the fact that none of its splat bloat is as loving terrible as stuff like the BoED or the Complete base classes the reason some people don't like it? That seems really crazy. Frankly I prefer AD&D and mid-stage 4E both to any iteration of 3E, but I can't fathom why a person would not play Pathfinder if 3E was their D&D of choice. It even has a better SRD and better artwork.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
Zombies' Downfall posted:So here's a weird question from somebody who's been playing D&D since 2E was contemporary and has played in multiple 3E, 3.5, and PF games: why do some people prefer 3.5 to Pathfinder? It's like the exact same game except non-casters aren't quite as worthless and there aren't as many terrible stupid PRCs and spells. Is the fact that none of its splat bloat is as loving terrible as stuff like the BoED or the Complete base classes the reason some people don't like it? That seems really crazy. Pathfinder fixed up a lot of things, but it broke a fair number, and there are a number of cases where SRD omissions became rules changes in effect. (Like, the enormous nerf to foresight, or the lack of clarity about the scope of prestidigitation.) Also, Pathfinder buffed basically everything. So, say you have a 3.5 sourcebook and you want to use the classes from it for flavor. If you play PF, those classes are Automatically Bad unless you rework them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
Zombies' Downfall posted:but I can't fathom why a person would not play Pathfinder if 3E was their D&D of choice. Brand loyalty or already having all the books would be my guess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
Zombies' Downfall posted:why do some people prefer 3.5 to Pathfinder? Also, there's cool poo poo like Bo9S. And despite being around for more time, it's less bloated than pf.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 04:03
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Okay, so people will allow one of the more conventional modern games as long as they aren't sullying D&D with their touch? Because FATE's core elements date back to 2003 as well, and although there's been significant changes between the first and fourth editions of it (or third and fourth), it's still hardly the vanguard of design. Even people who genuinely believe that modern games are destroying RPGs will still allow FATE as long as they strip out the nasty stuff. What would you say defines modern design in RPGs today? I'm not being rhetorical here, I'm genuinely curious.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
Recycle Bin posted:What would you say defines modern design in RPGs today? I'm not being rhetorical here, I'm genuinely curious. So instead of having flaws that give you build points (WoD and Savage Worlds) and generally incentivize actively avoiding said flaws in-game, with Fate's Aspects you get rewarded when your flaws make your life difficult. For example, a character with the Alcoholic trait will often get into trouble because they can't control their drinking instead of avoiding booze like the plague for fear of penalties. BW Beliefs have a similar relationship with D&D's Alignment.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 05:13
|
|
|
So, you wanna see something odd? As the levels go up a monster of a given CR is actually more expensive than the "Hard" encounter budget for a party of the same level. If you follow the projection then a single CR 13 creature is a "challenging" encounter for a party of 4 level 20 PCs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 06:00
|
|
|
Recycle Bin posted:What would you say defines modern design in RPGs today? I'm not being rhetorical here, I'm genuinely curious. *world's "fiction first" approach would be something in addition to the stuff ImpactVector mentioned (not that it's the only game that does it, but it's a great example).
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
LFK posted:So, you wanna see something odd? This is using the legends and lore article CR chart, right? Oh god, what did they do to their website? Are there no longer proper article archives? It took me 10 minutes to find the article, and it's only a month old.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 06:23
|
|
|
DalaranJ posted:Oh god, what did they do to their website? Progress! Gone are the days of unexpected content, where the webmaster would explain it: "How did this get here, I am not good with computer." Now the webmaster puts things in places, probably, and says: "Where did that go to, I am not good with computer." Remember, if you don't completely overhaul your site design, breaking all links, every couple of years, you'll have problems such as
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 06:25
|
|
|
DalaranJ posted:This is using the legends and lore article CR chart, right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 06:44
|
|
Recycle Bin posted:What would you say defines modern design in RPGs today? I'm not being rhetorical here, I'm genuinely curious. One of the critical things which hasn't been mentioned yet is the abandonment of GM priority and emphasizing that the GM is just another player. This is more psychological than directly mechanical, but it ties heavily into various mechanical elements. Another thing is dissociation between character and player, like what Marvel Heroic Roleplaying did with its implicit assumption you'd swap characters around freely, or how Polaris degenerates the GM role into multiple players. Elaborating on what AlphaDog mentioned, there's also been more of a trend to use fictional works as the basis for gameplay pacing, though this isn't entirely modern.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 06:53
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:One of the critical things which hasn't been mentioned yet is the abandonment of GM priority and emphasizing that the GM is just another player. This is more psychological than directly mechanical, but it ties heavily into various mechanical elements. This strikes me as more a question of preference than unambiguously "progress". I mean, first time I saw a thing that had some of the roots of that was probably Ars Magica around 1988ish or so, with troupe play. (Wikipedia says 2nd edition was 1989, so I must have started sometime before the end of 1989, since I started with 1st edition.) For those unfamiliar: Most players would have one magus character, one "companion" character who was a non-caster, and there would be a bunch of "grogs" who were less powerful combat mooks. In any given session, one player would be GMing, one would play their magus, one would play their companion, and others would play grogs, typically. But the campaign as a whole was cooperative; you didn't have a fixed GM, and "GM" was just another role. At any given time, the GM was still a fairly traditional D&D-style GM who had significant authority in determining resolutions, but it was totally normal to rotate all the positions over time. And I don't particularly object to that, but I don't really like it as much as I like the setup where a given campaign has a GM, but a group might rotate GMs from one campaign to another. So while I can certainly see that such game designs have appeal, I think the comments about "progress" in RPGs earlier in the thread don't quite apply; this isn't a question of an unquestionably superior improvement in design, but a different direction of development towards different goals.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 07:10
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Elaborating on what AlphaDog mentioned, there's also been more of a trend to use fictional works as the basis for gameplay pacing, though this isn't entirely modern. I was referring more to the way that a DW game works as "a conversation" instead of a sequence of rounds/turns. The other thing DW does that I would call modern design is interesting failure. Yes, "make failure interesting" has been good advice for all RPGs forever, but I guarantee that I can join any group playing DW by the book and never ever hear "you miss, nothing happens, next player's turn".
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 07:41
|
|
|
Oh god, "Fail forwards" is the best. Anyone ever play an investigation game where you all sat in a room with a statue scratching your heads and suggesting ever-less-likely solutions, while the GM just says "Nope, nothing happens" for an hour? I have. I have.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 08:30
|
|
|
I think it's worthwhile to mention that 'fail forward' isn't necessarily a new thing. Guys were doing that back in the 90's when I started playing DnD and I'm sure there were people doing it earlier too. What I'm trying to figure out is how "fail nowhere" or "stall backward" style play ever got popularized in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 08:45
|
|
|
I guess it's kind of implied by the rules, and the idea that "You fail the lockpicking check" means you get no closer to your final goal, because otherwise why be good at things if you're going to get closer to victory whether you pass or fail? There are probably still some grogs out there who would say you're being a horrible Monty Haul GM if you do something like having an assassin with a note in his pocket saying "Evil Bob sent me" attack the party following a failed Streetwise check to find out who the villain is. If you didn't pass the check, you haven't earned that information.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 08:58
|
|
|
seebs posted:This strikes me as more a question of preference than unambiguously "progress". Nah, it's pretty unambiguously progress for RPGs to emphasize that the GM is, in fact, one single person out of a group and that RPGs, being a cooperative experience, rely on that group working together towards the mutual goal of having a good time because that is the actual factual truth and almost every story you hear about GMs taking hardline "I'm the GM and I wear the viking hat!" stances are purestrain catpiss. Now if the group wants an arbitrary, authoritative, or even adversarial GM then hey cool, whatever turns your crank, but that should be presented as one option of many and I think that RPGs have needed to explicitly spell out to gamers that RPGs are a cooperative effort between everyone and that the GM is not somehow magically elevated to the position of High Grand Poobah because he has a standup cardboard screen because that is largely how the group dynamic of your typical RPG is perceived throughout the hobby.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 09:01
|
|
|
The "GM is just a player" games also take some of the narrative burden from the GM. Instead of having to come up with a reason why Blackleaf the rogue is in the town of Holtburg to witness the murder of Lord Fauntleroy, you can just look at the player and say, "Why is Blackleaf in Holtburg and why does she recognise Lord Fauntleroy?" And at the end of the day, if a game isn't easy to GM, eventually it just doesn't get played.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 09:06
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:Nah, it's pretty unambiguously progress for RPGs to emphasize that the GM is, in fact, one single person out of a group and that RPGs, being a cooperative experience, rely on that group working together towards the mutual goal of having a good time because that is the actual factual truth and almost every story you hear about GMs taking hardline "I'm the GM and I wear the viking hat!" stances are purestrain catpiss. I think a connected concept here is "fun as goal" vs "GM vision as goal." By elevating one player's status you are implicitly declaring his fun having needs more important. If adversarial stuff is fun, then the players have elected it. If the GM needs this fight to be deadly because his story demands it, you've got a recipe for catpiss.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 09:12
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:I think it's worthwhile to mention that 'fail forward' isn't necessarily a new thing. Guys were doing that back in the 90's when I started playing DnD and I'm sure there were people doing it earlier too. What I'm trying to figure out is how "fail nowhere" or "stall backward" style play ever got popularized in the first place. I did mention that. It's also pretty clear that "stall" or "fail nowhere" were popularised by games primarily using binary resolution systems and also by the earlier D&D vibe of "Save vs death. Failed? Roll up a new character and join in again real soon".
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 09:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 04:31 |
|
|
Mendrian posted:I think a connected concept here is "fun as goal" vs "GM vision as goal." By elevating one player's status you are implicitly declaring his fun having needs more important. If adversarial stuff is fun, then the players have elected it. If the GM needs this fight to be deadly because his story demands it, you've got a recipe for catpiss. Part of the issue too is one that Gort touches on which is that the implicit, unspoken assumption of a lot of gamers which isn't really discouraged much by games themselves is that being the GM is basically a burden of sorts. The GM is sacrificing his ability to play the game and shouldering the responsibility of creating a whole world, running combats, making up the story, etc. And that the reward for this is that the GM gets to be the alpha nerd of the group and be able to say "No Bob, I don't care, that doesn't work." To me what this suggests is that this approach is fundamentally dysfunctional because it stems from the idea that RPGs can only be played when one person is willing to do stuff that's unfun and balancing that out with increased ability to arbitrate everyone else's fun and I don't know about you but that doesn't seem like a great idea to me. If the issue is that GMing is viewed as kind of an unfun burden that someone has to do or this game just isn't getting off the ground then what that suggests to me is: 1). The way games handle the GM/player split needs to be reexamined because in a game everyone ought to be having fun even if they aren't "natural GMs" or whatever, basically if the problem is that GMing is unfun then you need to figure out a way to make it more enjoyable, and 2). If GMing is a creative burden then one real easy way to mitigate that is to, as Gort suggested, make that burden a shared one. This is a thing that a lot of early RPGs simply didn't do at all...a player couldn't just be like "Oh actually I know of an NPC over here in Hamletville," that poo poo did not fly. The same went for worldbuilding, the GM made the world (or you used a premade setting) that told you what all the kingdoms were and what they were like, you didn't just make up a place and say "yeah, this exists in the setting now." Yes, I'm sure there were some GMs out there that did this stuff even before game writers started explicitly spelling it out, but part of advancing design is taking stuff like this and making it explicit rather than something you have to puzzle out for yourself like a lovely koan.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 09:24
|
|