|
Libertad! posted:If 4E is Communism and 3E/5E is Capitalism, then what economic ideology does the OSR adhere to?
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 05:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:53 |
|
|
Libertad! posted:If 4E is Communism and 3E/5E is Capitalism, then what economic ideology does the OSR adhere to? If their creator's belief can be used as evidence: libertarian.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 05:55
|
|
|
Libertad! posted:If 4E is Communism and 3E/5E is Capitalism, then what economic ideology does the OSR adhere to? The Confederate Primer
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 05:58
|
|
|
Yikes, it's getting all kinds of helter skelter here in this thread. At least I don't feel so alone anymore in my criticisms of DnD in general. I really do have to wonder though: why is it that here we can all talk and discuss game design in relative civility (Recent pages notwithstanding), yet literally ANYwhere else on the net our criticisms would be considered grounds for war? This has so far been the only place outside of my personal gaming circle where I have been met with any kind of similar thoughts on this stuff. Anywhere else, if I try to criticize 3E/PF or show support of 4E in any way I'm given nasty looks or spoken to like I just shouted "HEIL HITLER!" or something. It just seems odd to me that SO MANY of us all are agreeing and talking and DISCUSSING this poo poo not only on level ground but we're also in major agreement with one another.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 06:35
|
|
|
Wouldn't it be much more strange if someone who played lots of 3.X had no complaints about it at all? I think those dudes just read the books to be honest.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 06:44
|
|
|
ritorix posted:That's just the nature of the game really. The best stuff is almost always customized just for your group by a DM with way too much free time. Of the home campaigns that I ran, the two by far best were made mostly from scratch. They referenced a lot of setting material, but the actual play sessions were hand made. Both were 4e games too. Indeed. We are 2/3 of the way through the initial set of 9 official 4th edition modules (just hit epic) - the same DM has heavily modified all the adventures, added character arcs and sidequests. We level up when story says so. Started Keep on the Shadowfell when 4th edition came out  KoTS out of the box suffered from some wonky encounters (and too many of them) as I guess the adventure was being written at the same time as the rules were being ironed out, my DM tells me that the paragon adventures were much more balanced. We are all mid 30s and above with jobs, spread out all over the country so we don't get to play as a group as regular as we would like, but when we do manage to align we tend to do whole weekend blow outs:) The game is still fun and our party of 6 has kicked some serious rear end in massive long fights, had whole sessions with no combat, and everything in between. Every character has had it's spotlight time, 4 out of the 6 starting characters have all died at least once, always in a memorable and interesting way with added consequences, DM has never had to fudge any rolls. I like 4th edition over what I have seen of 5th so far, but I am sure with the right group and DM it can be a workable system. In fact the DM has been comissioned by WoTC to write an adventure for 5th, so is also running some test adventures for the members of our group that are still local to him even though he has reservations about the system. Mr Beens fucked around with this message at 06:57 on Sep 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 06:54
|
|
|
Agent Boogeyman posted:I really do have to wonder though: why is it that here we can all talk and discuss game design in relative civility (Recent pages notwithstanding), yet literally ANYwhere else on the net our criticisms would be considered grounds for war? This has so far been the only place outside of my personal gaming circle where I have been met with any kind of similar thoughts on this stuff. Anywhere else, if I try to criticize 3E/PF or show support of 4E in any way I'm given nasty looks or spoken to like I just shouted "HEIL HITLER!" or something. It just seems odd to me that SO MANY of us all are agreeing and talking and DISCUSSING this poo poo not only on level ground but we're also in major agreement with one another. Nerds self-identify as consumers of their favored products. Criticism of their products is thus lead to be thought of criticism against them. And nerds are very, very bad at handling criticism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 07:02
|
|
|
Mr Beens posted:I like 4th edition over what I have seen of 5th so far, but I am sure with the right group and DM it can be a workable system. In fact the DM has been comissioned by WoTC to write an adventure for 5th, so is also running some test adventures for the members of our group that are still local to him even though he has reservations about the system.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 07:34
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:No one will say that 5e can't work for a dungeon delve. 5e is one of the few editions that even works rules as written. The problem is it's boring and complicated in all the wrong places. Are there editions that don't work rules as written? I'm interpreting that as saying the game simply doesn't work at all, not that it is just convoluted or unbalanced.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 07:44
|
|
|
Covok posted:Are there editions that don't work rules as written? I'm interpreting that as saying the game simply doesn't work at all, not that it is just convoluted or unbalanced. Can you think of anyone who actually played 2nd or 3rd edition purely RAW? Anyone at all?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 07:50
|
|
|
goldjas posted:Can you think of anyone who actually played 2nd or 3rd edition purely RAW? Anyone at all? Once. A long time ago. Briefly mentioned by a player in a game I was running. Of course, the validity...is suspect. Regardless, both those titles, to my very limited knowledge, functioned to a degree RAW. Maybe I'm just taking the statement too literally, but I assumed he meant the games didn't function on any level when he said that. Probably taking the statement too far.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 07:56
|
|
|
goldjas posted:Can you think of anyone who actually played 2nd or 3rd edition purely RAW? Anyone at all? Well surely most people who played them when they first came out, as they hadn't had the chance to work out what was broken yet? Saying that there was a lot of grog criticism about 4th when it came out with people who thought they new better making changes to the game before they had played it, then complaining that the game was broken I played 2nd as a kid, didn't know any better and stuck to the rules.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 08:09
|
|
|
AD&D probably works quite well RAW. Actually managing to do that would be nigh-impossible though. The AD&D PHB alone is obscurely laid out enough that it would be hard to get every single rule right, but the DMG is a giant clusterfuck of semi-optional subsystems, rules that overrule or modify rules from the PHB, giant paragraphs about game design, countless tables, advice about running the game, and, occasionally, actual rules that aren't in the PHB. I've run it as close as I could to RAW*, but good loving luck getting absolutely nothing wrong, especially when you've also played a lot of BECMI, 2e, and Hackmaster. *Which also involves reading all Gygax's dense-as-gently caress stuff about how the game is meant to be run and played, and then running it like that with players who will play it like that. This produces fun, eventually. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 08:35 on Sep 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 08:32
|
|
|
I mean like Basic completely breaks if you go outside and the Immortal box doesn't have enough rules to play it as a game and not a thought experiment. If you follow the DMG from 3.0 to a T, the game is too weird to live. The one in the wooden box was missing vital instructions too I think.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 09:14
|
|
|
Some of the 2e box-set campaigns are loving weird too. Not necessarily unplayable, but they do dumbfuck stuff that you're pretty much going to have to ignore if you want to have fun. Like, Planescape fucks with the math (losing +x from weapons as you move from their origin plane) and makes spells horribly unreliable. Not in a good way either, like on some planes healing spells might not work, or might actually hurt you instead. It's all very thematic and awesome, but it's a math/bookkeeping nightmare that could easily TPK everyone unless all the casters were (somehow) super knowledgeable about the modified spells. Spelljammer RAW has these actually really fun spaceship combat rules, but ever using them means that the wizard or cleric is relegated to sitting on the Helm powering the ship. Like, he can't get up and participate in boarding combats or whatever. Also if he's powered the ship out to the <adventure>, you have to park outside for a day until he can get his spells back. Birthright... I can't remember specifics, but there were really weird interactions that happen when you're Regent-style characters but also low-level. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 10:18 on Sep 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 10:15
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:AD&D probably works quite well RAW. Actually managing to do that would be nigh-impossible though. The AD&D PHB alone is obscurely laid out enough that it would be hard to get every single rule right, but the DMG is a giant clusterfuck of semi-optional subsystems, rules that overrule or modify rules from the PHB, giant paragraphs about game design, countless tables, advice about running the game, and, occasionally, actual rules that aren't in the PHB.  
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 12:33
|
|
|
Those are amazing, doesn't every D&D murderhobo by default gain proficiency in the home invasion skill, though?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 13:24
|
|
|
2nd Edition AD&D was a blast. The monstrous manual will always be one of my favorite books of all time, to say nothing of the excellent monstrous compendiums. 3.5 was a nightmare to run and to play in, if you have a munchkin among you though. Nothing was more irritating then having RAW arguments about armor spikes damage at range.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 13:40
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:I mean like Basic completely breaks if you go outside... Isn't that working as intended? Basic was meant only for dungeon adventuring -- the idea was that at Basic levels, you'd just be commuting back and forth between your home base and whatever starter dungeon the DM threw at you. You were supposed to avoid longer outdoor journeys and wilderness exploration until you had enough levels under your belt to move on to the Expert rules.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 13:47
|
|
|
Libertad! posted:If 4E is Communism and 3E/5E is Capitalism, then what economic ideology does the OSR adhere to? Dark Enlightenment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 14:01
|
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:My favourite example of AD&D rules that override the PHB is the fall damage change:
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 14:10
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:This is amazing. Are there more? The artist is Jason Thompson. He's the same guy who did the visual walkthrough of the old crashed spaceship module that was posted earlier in the thread, and he's done a bunch of walkthroughs of other old modules and other D&D related bits. I can't find them all in one place, but his website is https://www.mockman.com
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 14:25
|
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:That said, both the maul and the greataxe are worse than the glaive (which gives you 3 attacks), and the glaive is in turn worse than the hand crossbow (which gives you 3 attacks at +2 attack). And I'm assuming the Hand Crossbow giving three attacks comes from when you duel-wield it and have Crossbow Mastery or whatever, meaning you get two attacks at +dex modifier damage and one attack without.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 15:05
|
|
|
Mr Beens posted:Not sure if you are being serious here or not? I was talking about how the scope of most D&D campaigns become less grounded and more over the top after 9th level. Not personally a fan of high level play as most other posters here seem to be.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 15:27
|
|
|
Power Player posted:I know this is from a while ago but how does the Glaive give you three attacks? You get one from attacking and one from the Polearm Mastery, where's the third attack? Sorry. That was specific to the scenario I was looking at, where the Fighter had 2 attacks base. It's talking about the +1 for PM or CE.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 15:27
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:Wouldn't it be much more strange if someone who played lots of 3.X had no complaints about it at all? I think those dudes just read the books to be honest. Out of the literally hundreds of different people I have gamed with, only a handful (Like, maybe 10, tops?) didn't feel like 3E/3.5/PF was God's gift to gaming. This staggeringly large number of people would broach absolutely NO criticism of 3E/3.X/PF like it was some kind of pure anathema to them or something, let alone have positive opinions of 4E. So no, this forum really IS like stepping into the Twilight Zone for me. For the longest time it was because of this mentality that I became absolutely embittered by 3E and its derivatives and refused to run them let alone play them. goldjas posted:Can you think of anyone who actually played 2nd or 3rd edition purely RAW? Anyone at all? Every instance of 2E I have played (Which, granted, isn't nearly as much as 3E or 4E. I have never played anything pre-2E) was always RAW. 3E though? Maybe once have I played a game of 3E era DnD where it was actually RAW. It's kind of funny, actually, that 3E, straight from 2000 was my first real tabletop experience. My friends and I played it together and the thing with the system is that unless you read EVERYthing you're not going to know EVERY rule there is to know. Out of the box we weren't playing RAW because we hadn't learned all of the rules yet. The more we DID learn the rules though, the less we started to like it, and when I started to branch out to other gaming groups I quickly learned that virtually no one was playing the game RAW. I knew this because my friends and I had spent the good portion of an entire school year LEARNING all the rules. So imagine my amazement when I started going to other circles and noticed something not being played by the rules only to have the GM point out that they either A) Didn't know that was a rule or B) had actively changed the rule. And this was in the early years of the 2000's! When 3.5 rolled around I took the time to learn ALL of the changes, and again, despite the major move to 3.5, not many people played RAW. Then Pathfinder entered the picture and I can't even begin to count how many people were still playing by 3.5 rules and didn't even BOTHER to look at what PF changed and continued playing it as they always have. I even recently had an argument with a supposed "seasoned veteran" of all three editions of 3E who believed all sorts of things that were either NEVER in ANY of the rulesets or specifically changed in Pathfinder to be less stupid. They still thought crafting magic items still had an experience cost and had no idea there was an item called a "spell component pouch" and outright refused to believe me when I told him that no, you only need to care about spell components when A) you don't have a spell component pouch and B) when the spell itself lists a monetary cost as a "M" Material component. He didn't even know what the gently caress Combat Manuever Bonuses were for, Christ. The people who defend 3E/3.5/PF the MOST don't even know the rules to their own loving systems. I have such a huge hateboner for anything 3E related and refuse to run OR play in them unless I actually KNOW the people involved aren't mental fucktards. I know this is all really anecdotal, but let's just say when it comes to DnD I must be like the Charlie Brown of the gaming world. AAAAAAUGH! Agent Boogeyman fucked around with this message at 15:58 on Sep 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
Agent Boogeyman posted:The people who defend 3E/3.5/PF the MOST don't even know the rules to their own loving systems. I have such a huge hateboner for anything 3E related and refuse to run OR play in them unless I actually KNOW the people involved aren't mental fucktards. I can't agree enough. Many times I sat down to play and the DM didn't know what the gently caress the rules were for 3.5 when I, being a bored nerd, actually read the PHB and DMG back in the day and would offer up "That's not how that works," and they would just shrug or say "Rule Zero". Is this a trait of a system with too many complex and convoluted rules, a showing of the demographic it attracts, or a bug marked as a feature?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
Most people learn game rules by osmosis during play, not by sitting down and reading the rulebook line-by-line. So the rules they learn are usually some skewed game-of-telephone version of the actual rules, which they then teach to new players, and so on. Even relatively simple games are like this (see how most families play Monopoly with cash from Free Parking and not auctioning off landed-on properties). People also get weirdly defensive when you point out that the way they're playing is opposite of what the rules say.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
Illvillainy posted:Genuinely curious: Are trash mob fights really that vital to hexcrawls?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
ImpactVector posted:Rogues/thieves have been a mistake for the entirety of this godforsaken hobby. The evolution of the rogue/thief is kind of weird. Didn't OD&D/AD&D have them unable to move while hidden in shadows, and only later the designers realized how terrible that was and let them just move in the darkness?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 17:05
|
|
|
FMguru posted:Most people learn game rules by osmosis during play, not by sitting down and reading the rulebook line-by-line. So the rules they learn are usually some skewed game-of-telephone version of the actual rules, which they then teach to new players, and so on. Even relatively simple games are like this (see how most families play Monopoly with cash from Free Parking and not auctioning off landed-on properties). People also get weirdly defensive when you point out that the way they're playing is opposite of what the rules say. A good analogy. Adding those two rules to Monopoly is what makes the game take so drat long. The first adds more money to the game, which makes bankrupting other players harder, and the second makes complete ownership of all properties by players take longer, which leads back to that first problem. But if you explain why this is so, people tend to not want to think about it, or don't want to understand why players having more money is a bad thing. Because if you have more money, you can buy more property and build more hotels, and that's great, right? No way would it make the game drag on and on and on... Not that these make the game any more fun or less fun, mind you (and I say this as someone who actually loves Monopoly), but they gently caress with the internal dynamic that make the system work. Much like dropping the "Fighter gets an army," "Charisma controls henchmen and social reactions NPCs have," and "DM chooses which spells the wizard gets" fucks with how the game plays.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
Rolling on the encounter table a few times could lead to some interesting DM challenges. How do you write up a sensible and fun encounter with these monsters? The PCs stumbling on a turf war between some kobold drake packs and goblin wolf riders could be very interesting, for example.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
Libertad! posted:If 4E is Communism and 3E/5E is Capitalism, then what economic ideology does the OSR adhere to? TLDR: in OSR, you are Hernan Cortes taken at face value.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
The Bee posted:Rolling on the encounter table a few times could lead to some interesting DM challenges. How do you write up a sensible and fun encounter with these monsters? The PCs stumbling on a turf war between some kobold drake packs and goblin wolf riders could be very interesting, for example.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
Selachian posted:Isn't that working as intended? Basic was meant only for dungeon adventuring -- the idea was that at Basic levels, you'd just be commuting back and forth between your home base and whatever starter dungeon the DM threw at you. You were supposed to avoid longer outdoor journeys and wilderness exploration until you had enough levels under your belt to move on to the Expert rules.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
Illvillainy posted:Yeah, encounter design seems like one of most fun things for the DM in 4E (and 13th Age, to a lesser extent). Whereas it sounds like a nightmare in 3.xE/PF and 5E. The compromise solution would be for the DM to roll up some encounters ahead of time, and then design them as set piece encounters.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
Usually for interesting encounters giving humanoid monsters class levels goes a long way and makes them viable as more than cannon fodder past third level, and makes interesting villains. That's any edition.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
greatn posted:Usually for interesting encounters giving humanoid monsters class levels goes a long way and makes them viable as more than cannon fodder past third level, and makes interesting villains. That's any edition.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
I think a LOT of people underestimate how hard it is to learn how to run 3.X D&D. You will absolutely try to run the game by the RAW when you first start out and your games are going to be much worse because of it, so when the game has terrible guidelines for encounter building or non-combat encounters it absolutely is ruining games for a huge amount of people. When I first started DMing I had no idea how to roll with player's ideas or improvise things to keep it interesting for the martial characters because the books I read didn't have any of that advice in them. The 3.5 DMG's version of page 42 is terrible and basically suggests you make martial characters play Mother-May-I in order to anything beyond moving and attacking, and that has a massive long lasting effect on new DMs.ascendance posted:Right, but preset encounters goes against the grain of spur of the moment randomness that hexcrawls suggest. And it's not a nightmare if most of the table is like d4+2 wolves, or 3d6 hobgoblins led by a bugbear. Random encounter generation like that only works when the monsters in question are borderline trivial to the PCs. You can do this just as well in 4th Edition by using say d4+2 wolf minions, or 3d6 hobgoblin minions led by a bugbear standard.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:53 |
|
|
ascendance posted:class levels is one of the lame rear end legacies of 3e, along with templates. If I want a level 5 bugbear cleric, why can't I just reskin a regular cleric and add in a couple of monster abilities? That's exactly what I do though. For instance some Orc monks I just took level 2 monks added the Orc HP and their movement ability.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 17:40
|
|