|
friendlyfire posted:I've read quite a bit of this thread over time, but the constant echo-chamber of negativity makes back-reading unpleasant. Forgive me if I am re-trodding something that has been beat to death. These two things may be related somehow 
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 10:55 |
|
|
friendlyfire posted:I responded to his implication. I'm sure he is glad that you've got his back, though. His implication was clearly that you're misattributing your fun to lovely, swingy math in older game systems, when you should be attributing it to the fun you always have when doing silly things with friends.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
Somberbrero posted:The problem is that the CR system values monsters that are at demonstrably, drastically different levels of deadliness at the same level. I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "fuzzy." Do you mean that, as a DM, you want to have a vague idea of whether or not an encounter is appropriate for your group? I don't think I understand the merit of such a system. Can you explain? The more important point here seems to be that this is eminently fixable with the superior game design expertise demonstrated in this thread. Challenge ratings are essentially a list of monsters with a numeral next to them. If some or many of the monsters are misclassified, a more constructive project than griping would be to develop a more accurate list. What CR do you think Intellect Devourers should be? S.J. posted:You're intentionally ignoring a problem and acting like it, therefore, isn't a problem, and that doesn't strike you as odd? Why are you even still posting? I certainly don't give a poo poo about your weak tea "masterstokes", and I doubt anybody else is deriving value from them. You don't like 5e. We get it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
friendlyfire posted:I have DM'd for a long time. I'm great at it! My DM bona fides are unimpeachable. If the encounter system is really and truly too swingy then that's very unfortunate. I can even see how that would happen given the way that the playtesting worked. But I have always shrugged off encounter design systems in favor of my own internal baseline, so I don't perceive it is a real problem. I feel like it's indicative of fundamental problems if players are ignoring core rules as written in favor of a internally developed system. What incentive is there to buy a product if you are a more competent game designer than the people who made D&D Next? Would you recommend this game to players who have not played Dungeons and Dragons before?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
friendlyfire posted:I have DM'd for a long time. I'm great at it! My DM bona fides are unimpeachable. If the encounter system is really and truly too swingy then that's very unfortunate. I can even see how that would happen given the way that the playtesting worked. But I have always shrugged off encounter design systems in favor of my own internal baseline, so I don't perceive it is a real problem. Truly green DMs will mostly be running modules, which in the future will hopefully have level-appropriate challenges regardless of the CR system. If that's not true of the modules we have thus far, I would not be surprised if some of that is a clash of expectations: 4e players would almost certainly perceive a general increase in lethality as a mistake rather than deliberate. I have only glanced over Dead In Thay, but my assumption based on the premise is that it is designed to be unusually lethal, just as a matter of format. Ok; on the bolded portion? This is an honest, actual question. If you trust your gut more than the rules you paid $150 for, why did you spend $150?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
IT BEGINS posted:Then why do you care if the math is solid or swingy anyway? If you're ignoring what the system tells you anyway, why would you argue for any particular system? I understand that not everybody has my sensibilities. I am also not, as far as I am aware, arguing in favor of any particular system. Somberbrero posted:I feel like it's indicative of fundamental problems if players are ignoring core rules as written in favor of a internally developed system. What incentive is there to buy a product if you are a more competent game designer than the people who made D&D Next? Would you recommend this game to players who have not played Dungeons and Dragons before? Players have house ruled every edition of d&d and probably most other RPGs. House ruling is part of playing a system, whether it is to address a deficiency of that system or just to reflect the sensibilities of that group or DM. I don't regard that as especially bad. Even errata is a variation of house rules, and lord knows 4e had poo poo tons of that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
ascendance posted:but once I stopped paying for DDI, I stopped playing the game. Character generation and tracking without computer assistance was just about impossible. The books were basically useless after a while because of all the errata. Imagine trying to play a game as complicated as Magic the Gathering (at more than a super casual level) from a book over the course of 4+ years. No card databases, deck building programs, or updated rules documents. It's pretty nuts right? But that's basically what you have to do to play a game as complex as modern D&D from a book. Including 3e, where you don't even have the option of paying for tools. And yeah, I hated the subscription model. I'd much prefer to pay for what I want and then have it to keep. You could kind of do that with the old character builder, but it wasn't perfect.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
friendlyfire posted:Even errata is a variation of house rules, and lord knows 4e had poo poo tons of that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
friendlyfire posted:If the encounter system is really and truly too swingy then that's very unfortunate. I can even see how that would happen given the way that the playtesting worked. But I have always shrugged off encounter design systems in favor of my own internal baseline, so I don't perceive it is a real problem. Truly green DMs will mostly be running modules, which in the future will hopefully have level-appropriate challenges regardless of the CR system. friendlyfire posted:The more important point here seems to be that this is eminently fixable with the superior game design expertise demonstrated in this thread. Challenge ratings are essentially a list of monsters with a numeral next to them. If some or many of the monsters are misclassified, a more constructive project than griping would be to develop a more accurate list. What CR do you think Intellect Devourers should be? If what you're saying is that eventually people will be able to figure out the "real" CR of monsters, "the Centaur is really more of a high-CR 1, and that one you shouldn't throw at a party that doesn't have a Cleric or a Bard, and this one is inappropriate for 2-3 person parties", wouldn't it be nice if that sort of thing was already part of the book, as it was written? I sort of understand having to "make do" if I'm running one of those labor-of-love systems that come in a single PDF, but we're griping because classifying the Intellect Devourer into an appropriate CR is presumably one of those things that justifies having to pay for a product.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
Bassetking posted:Ok; on the bolded portion? This is an honest, actual question. For starters, I didn't. I'm probably not going to run 5e so I don't feel the need to buy them. But more generally, I just skip the sections dealing with challenge ratings and encounter design. I prefer to rely on my own familiarity with the combat system and player characters. Thank you for asking a candid question instead of goony disingenuous crap like everybody else. I do not enjoy having to basically take on everybody else in this thread just to not have a negative viewpoint about 5e.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
Power Player posted:No it's not. Errata is not a variation of the house rules. If you show up to an official game or whatever run by Wizards, they're gonna use the errata. That's like saying having to download the latest patch to play an online game is a house rule. Man, World of Warcraft has thousands of house rules. It's also a stupid response to "why are you paying $150 for a system just to redesign it yourself". Obviously errata is not redesigning it yourself, so what the hell does that have to do with the post he was responding to? Btw, as far as the "everything has house rules", the only house rule I ever played in 4E was this one DM had a huge boner for his dice-rolling scheme so we used it. The only common ones I'm aware of were those feat tax fixes that gave everyone I think two specific feats for free. Massive houseruling just to fix the game is actually not that common outside D&D!
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
friendlyfire posted:Why are you even still posting? I certainly don't give a poo poo about your weak tea "masterstokes", and I doubt anybody else is deriving value from them. You don't like 5e. We get it. I'm just trying to get a solid answer out of you that isn't 'well, I just kind of ignore things and do whatever, so it isn't a problem.' No one gives a poo poo whether or not you like anyone else's posts, sorry. I've been asking you genuine questions this entire time, so, again, you'll just have to come to terms with that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
friendlyfire posted:I understand that not everybody has my sensibilities. I am also not, as far as I am aware, arguing in favor of any particular system. Maybe I misunderstood, but it seemed pretty clear to me that you were arguing in favor of a more swingy system, explaining that it is 'more fun'. Again, if you're ignoring the system math anyway, why do you even care if people have complaints about it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
Once you release a RPG into the wild you can never update it. You're basically stuck with that rule until a new edition. Did you hear how longswords deal 2d20 damage instead of 1d8 because of a printing error? Well, that's it, sixth edition is ruined. Better luck next time, guys!
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:If what you're saying is that eventually people will be able to figure out the "real" CR of monsters, "the Centaur is really more of a high-CR 1, and that one you shouldn't throw at a party that doesn't have a Cleric or a Bard, and this one is inappropriate for 2-3 person parties", wouldn't it be nice if that sort of thing was already part of the book, as it was written? Mike Mearls does not know whether my players optimize their characters well, whether they make sound strategic decisions or just gently caress around, or whether they make good use of teamwork. I do. One party's TPK is another party's cakewalk. As an aside, are you demanding that every monster be perfectly classified? I expect some mistakes, even some really big ones.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
ImpactVector posted:And yeah, I hated the subscription model. I'd much prefer to pay for what I want and then have it to keep. You could kind of do that with the old character builder, but it wasn't perfect. Yeah, I had the last offline character builder, and some of the unofficial updates for it. However, it was getting kind of creaky and not fully functional.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
friendlyfire posted:If some or many of the monsters are misclassified, a more constructive project than griping would be to develop a more accurate list. What CR do you think Intellect Devourers should be? So, another question. I understand that what might be more constructive than griping would be to run thousands and thousands of rounds of combat using each monster, both on its own, and in combination with a number of other thematically appropriately grouped monsters. Why should I do that, and pay $50 for the privilege? Sell me on the edition. I've got six systems I've already paid for, and four of them do this job already. Why should I buy this; if this is the level of work I have to do to make it workable and usable? I GENUINELY want to be convinced, here, this is not some Masterstroke, or cunning trap.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
Power Player posted:No it's not. Errata is not a variation of the house rules. If you show up to an official game or whatever run by Wizards, they're gonna use the errata. That's like saying having to download the latest patch to play an online game is a house rule. Man, World of Warcraft has thousands of house rules. It's entirely possible to find a player group on meetups or wherever and have them not use the errata at all. It's something that you have to bring to the table or not. It's basically an officially endorsed set of house rules. Also, your painful analogy would have been more accurate if you used something like Diablo II. You have to patch the game if you want to play online, but you can run a LAN game with an older version, just fine. S.J. posted:I'm just trying to get a solid answer out of you that isn't 'well, I just kind of ignore things and do whatever, so it isn't a problem.' No one gives a poo poo whether or not you like anyone else's posts, sorry. I've been asking you genuine questions this entire time, so, again, you'll just have to come to terms with that. You've been doing that thing where you ask disingenuous, snipey questions that it is a complete waste of time to even acknowledge. Your edition hate is particularly grating. Basically, I don't like you. friendlyfire fucked around with this message at 21:25 on Oct 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
Bassetking posted:I GENUINELY want to be convinced, here, this is not some Masterstroke, or cunning trap. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
Bassetking posted:So, another question. I understand that what might be more constructive than griping would be to run thousands and thousands of rounds of combat using each monster, both on its own, and in combination with a number of other thematically appropriately grouped monsters. I mean or you could design them mechanically and test the forumulas rather than just literally every monster.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:Massive houseruling just to fix the game is actually not that common outside D&D! Sure it is. Prove me wrong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
friendlyfire posted:Sure it is. Prove me wrong. I already listed 4E as an example, so?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
friendlyfire posted:It's entirely possible to find a player group on meetups or wherever and have them not use the errata at all. It's something that you have to bring to the table or not. It's basically an officially endorsed set of house rules. Also, your painful analogy would have been more accurate if you used something like Diablo II. You have to patch the game if you want to play online, but you can run a LAN game with an older version, just fine. To make an extreme example, last time I checked, states don't pick and choose which of the constitutional amendments they follow, no matter how long after the original constitution was signed that they were added.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:I already listed 4E as an example, so? You're telling me that if I google "4e house rules" I'm going to come up empty. Every DM likes to put on the game designer hat, even if it's just a little. All of the 4e groups I have player with used at least a house rules, not even counting errata. If you really haven't seen that many house rules, I'm surprised.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
friendlyfire posted:You're telling me that if I google "4e house rules" I'm going to come up empty. Every DM likes to put on the game designer hat, even if it's just a little. All of the 4e groups I have player with used at least a house rules, not even counting errata. If you really haven't seen that many house rules, I'm surprised. That's not what he said. He said massive house rules in order to fix the system, not the presence or absence of house rules.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:I already listed 4E as an example, so?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
friendlyfire posted:But more generally, I just skip the sections dealing with challenge ratings and encounter design. I prefer to rely on my own familiarity with the combat system and player characters. Ignoring a rule and being able to play a game while ignoring that rule, does not make that rule better nor does it mean that that rule is exempt from critical examination. friendlyfire posted:As an aside, are you demanding that every monster be perfectly classified? I expect some mistakes, even some really big ones. No, I don't demand that every monster be perfectly classified. I expected better classification, or looser classification if they couldn't pin it down further, or no classification at all if it's just going to be misleading.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
friendlyfire posted:I have DM'd for a long time. I'm great at it! My DM bona fides are unimpeachable. I DM'd a bit in 2E, pretty much skipped 3/3.5E entirely, and reengaged with D&D in 4E. The reason I reengaged then was how easy 4E made it to build fun, exciting, and interesting combat encounters. There was a ton of crap I didn't like about 4E, but it was awesome on that front. I've tried to get into 5E - I'm running two games and playing in one. But on the DM side, it seems to require substantially more of my time and effort to have confidence that the encounters I'm planning are going to hit the right notes. There's been a lot of adjusting on the fly (both pulling punches and in terms of oh hey turns out there was a second wave of kobolds!1!). I'm not going to say that it's stressful, because we're talking about elfgames. But it hasn't been nearly as fun to DM as 4th edition was. Now, I'm just not a very experienced DM when it comes to the 3.5/5 style, so going with my gut hasn't been as accurate. I'm sure with more practice and greater system mastery, I could get better at it. But it just seems silly to set up new DMs for that kind of learning curve. And I don't think I'm alone in that department - I've at least got some 4E experience to work from. I get that for you the lack of CRs/encounter building consistency isn't an issue, but it seems like that's the kind of thing newer DM will struggle with. I guess if their target market is "3.5 and Pathfinder fans", 5th edition is A-OK. But I don't see why that would their target (and frankly I don't think their marketing strategy speaks to that actually being their target).
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
S.J. posted:That's not what he said. He said massive house rules in order to fix the system, not the presence or absence of house rules. And I did just search for this- here's the grand total list of common houseruling: - Feat tax fix - Some people really like the low-magic-item rules from dark sun and use them in everything - Some dick DM's really like to adjudicate when you can and cannot sleep to prevent you from having dailies "too often" (is this even a houserule, it's not changing anything in the rules) EDIT: I've of course seen other houserules mentioned, everyone has their pet dudes but these are the ones that are done by several people in my google search
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:No, I don't demand that every monster be perfectly classified. I expected better classification, or looser classification if they couldn't pin it down further, or no classification at all if it's just going to be misleading.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
friendlyfire posted:For starters, I didn't. I'm probably not going to run 5e so I don't feel the need to buy them. But more generally, I just skip the sections dealing with challenge ratings and encounter design. I prefer to rely on my own familiarity with the combat system and player characters. Hey all I haven't read the thread but I just wanted to say you're all stupid assholes for not wanting to play a game that I don't want to play either, ok peace
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
ascendance posted:I honestly don't give a poo poo if you play 5e or not. quote:I just want you to stfu if you have nothing constructive to say. quote:I'm not some kind of flunky of WOTC marketing. If you don't like 5e, don't play it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
Power Player posted:It's also possible to find a player group on meetups who are using the Book of Erotic Fantasy in their 4E games. I'm not sure where you're going with that. If you are going to play RAW, you need the errata. Like, of course the game is fine without the errata, but to act as if it's a house rule when it's what they're going to enforce at any official event is silly. It's the official way to play the game. Sometimes that way changes. I am not questioning the concept of errata, I'm saying that if players want to play a more perfect game, they need to patch the rules. Whether they do it or Wizards eventually gets around to doing it for them is not especially important to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
Bassetking posted:Asking to be convinced or sold as to the merits of the system by those who are its proponents is somehow not constructive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
ascendance posted:so, you want worse or better classification, but the current system is the least optimal it could possibly be? Basically. It's in the lovely middle ground of having rigid encounter guidelines and numbers, while at the same time having those numbers not actually match up at all to the actual challenge levels. Either direction is better. Either list monsters that are difficult to categorize with looser categories like 'CR 4-6 unless you don't have a healer, then it's CR 7', or bring the math in so that CR 5 = CR 5, and not CR 5 = CR 3 sometimes, CR 5 most of the time, and CR 9 rarely. Edit: Sorry, forgot the quote. IT BEGINS fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Oct 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
ascendance posted:It really loving isn't constructive, because its obvious to most of us here that you've already made up your mind, and just want an excuse to argue. Go use loving Google and read some of the many glowing reviews out there. A glowing review: quote:It's like Dragon Age, except you can have sex with anything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
S.J. posted:That's not what he said. He said massive house rules in order to fix the system, not the presence or absence of house rules. You could house rule at least some of the biggest complaints in this thread in like two sentences. E.g. I'd give fighters indomitable at 1st level and advantage on all saves at 9th. One could also house-rule fighters to have unlimited attacks of opportunity, were one so inclined. If a DM wants to go through the monster manual and pencil in CRs that he feels are more appropriate, that's pretty easy too. These changes are hardly "massive." ascendance posted:There are always going to be people who want to use existing systems as a framework for their own system building, and hence add a poo poo ton of new subsystems, and people who choose to run things as is. Yes, exactly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 21:40
|
|
|
D&D Next: This thread really loving isn't constructive
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
ascendance posted:so, you want worse or better classification, but the current system is the least optimal it could possibly be? Yes. If the DM is going to have to wing it or come up with his own system or wait for the internet/larger D&D community to come up with one anyway then better that they didn't include a CR at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 10:55 |
|
|
friendlyfire posted:You could house rule at least some of the biggest complaints in this thread in like two sentences. E.g. I'd give fighters indomitable at 1st level and advantage on all saves at 9th. One could also house-rule fighters to have unlimited attacks of opportunity, were one so inclined. If a DM wants to go through the monster manual and pencil in CRs that he feels are more appropriate, that's pretty easy too. These changes are hardly "massive." It's easy if you have no idea what you're doing and no intention of doing it well, you mean. Which will just lead to an equally broken mess for probably the exact same reasons. But that's not what anyone is talking about, they're talking about changing things so that the system works. It turns out that if the encounter building system, which basically every fight in the game is going to be based around in some way shape or form, doesn't work, then that is a pretty massive change you're going to have to make.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 21:43
|
|