|
I've followed and agree with most of the criticisms for this game, but I am a little confused about the ’not accessible to new players' thing. Sure it's not the best game for new players (due to not being great in general), but inaccessible? Maybe I am making too many assumptions about how to play. What exactly does DND next lack in the phb or dmg that other systems have to explain best practices? What is the 'correct' way to play that isn't explained?
SmellOfPetroleum fucked around with this message at 08:37 on Jan 18, 2015 |
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 08:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 20:23 |
|
|
Sanzuo posted:yea this was kind of a weird thing. I've literally never run a published adventure before and I wondered if it was a normal thing for adventurers to get guild invites in pnp games... No, it's not normal. But it is a very clever marketing move. Wizards should be pushing people towards their organized play. They have a lot of experience with Organized Play and the only real competitor in the roleplaying game organized play field is Pathfinder. That's a battle that Wizards could win. 5th edition could become the best roleplaying organized play experience in the world.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 08:36
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:There's a lot to like about Next! It's just regressive compared to a lot of games I'd prefer to play but I mean it's not like I didn't spend a good portion of my youth kicking down doors and punching orcs to death for 1d6+2 damage. THIS IS THE PROBLEM. And this makes me angrier than it really should. Like, D&D Next should not be an edition focused on assholes who're just looking for a nice hug and a reassurance that things haven't changed too much, it should be a continuing evolution of the game meant to draw in genuinely new players (and keep old ones, sure), not just people who've played D&D before and know what to expect from the stupidly specific game that D&D has become.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 08:37
|
|
|
SmellOfPetroleum posted:I've followed and agree with most of the criticisms for this game, but I am a little confused about the ’not accessible to new players' thing. Sure it's not the best game for new players, but inaccessible? Maybe I am making too many assumptions about how to play. What exactly does DND next lack in the phb or dmg that other systems have to explain best practices? What is the 'correct' way to play that isn't explained? Having played tabletop rpgs and especially D&D for a long time I really have no idea how accessible it is. As much as I love 4e I actually think of it as the least accessible system for new players with all the crunch and fiddly bits. I would think players new to rpgs would like something with more hand-waving and abstractness. And a good DM.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 08:43
|
|
|
To the people complaining that this thread is nothing but negative comments about Next: what the hell do you want people to discuss? It's not a big enough forum for people to really come here with build advice. There aren't any particularly interesting game mechanics to discuss outside of advantage/disadvantage and concentration. Like S.J. just said, I think this game is pretty aggressively boring game. It's a mediocre fix to 3.5 released almost 5 years after they stopped printing that game. It's got the same classes, the same monsters, the same races, the same gods, the same magic poo poo. People are going to play this game. People are going to love this game. It's already happening. But I don't think it's anyone's responsibility here to 'tread lightly' and act like it isn't really sad that one of the biggest and most well-funded RPG teams in the world made a less interesting and far less innovative game than a single guy working in his spare time on this forum. SmellOfPetroleum posted:I've followed and agree with most of the criticisms for this game, but I am a little confused about the ’not accessible to new players' thing. Sure it's not the best game for new players (due to not being great in general), but inaccessible? Maybe I am making too many assumptions about how to play. What exactly does DND next lack in the phb or dmg that other systems have to explain best practices? What is the 'correct' way to play that isn't explained? Not two hours ago I watched a player say 'I'll shoot my bow, since that's all I've really figured out how to do. So I guess I'll attack'. This isn't the first time I've seen something like this happen. There's a whole poo poo-ton of rules to this game, and a wide gulf between what some classes need to know (Champion Fighter vs. Druid) to play. Seriously, check out 174 - 206 in the PHB. Yeah, maybe you don't need to know about underwater combat as a first-time player, but like 80% of that is relevant to every player at the table. They also need to know and remember all of the stuff for their own class. That doesn't scream 'newbie-friendly' to me. IT BEGINS fucked around with this message at 08:51 on Jan 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 08:49
|
|
|
IT BEGINS posted:To the people complaining that this thread is nothing but negative comments about Next: what the hell do you want people to discuss? It's not a big enough forum for people to really come here with build advice. There aren't any particularly interesting game mechanics to discuss outside of advantage/disadvantage and concentration. Like S.J. just said, I think this game is pretty aggressively boring game. It's a mediocre fix to 3.5 released almost 5 years after they stopped printing that game. It's got the same classes, the same monsters, the same races, the same gods, the same magic poo poo. On my part it's just amusement at seeing the same "Wizard Good, Fighter Bad, Also Skeletons" posts over and over again. The game is so uninteresting or frustrating to the majority of posters in here but because it's #1 RPG, people are compelled to discuss it anyway. I'm not asking anyone to throttle back or put kid gloves on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 08:52
|
|
|
I just come in every thousand or two posts and ask if its gotten any better yet. The answer has so far been inevitably no.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 08:59
|
|
|
That's what I mean by "unlearnable from the core books." Imagine D&D has no cache with you, you know, like most people. Maybe you heard of the retro computer games, and saw a parody episode of a sit com or something, but you're not exposed to the nitty gritty of actually running the game. Everyone I have ever met whom learned to play D&D learned from a more experienced DM. You can get through character generation, understand that the game is about exploring a dungeon, fighting monsters with your class abilities, and talking funny. That's fine, but four people who haven't been immersed in the tropes of the game will have zero chance of getting together and executing a game of D&D that will make them enjoy the experience from the advice inside of the 100 dollars of books they just bought. Maybe you thought that the DM bought the DMG and the players got the Player's Handbook, like you know, how anyone would understand those titles. hosed, can't play it. The book doesn't tell you how much of the core game you should flat out remove or ignore in the book if you are a new player. You need to ignore large parts of the rules if you want a first game that makes anyone want to play again. Everyone will be frustrated, and everyone will feel like poo poo for being heavily invested in something that is complete poo poo. Sorry guys, if you follow the encounter generating rules in the book, that's game over it will not work. Remember grappling? Someone wrapped their brains trying to figure out "bear hug a dude" you know, like heroic people do, your game comes to a stand still for something uninspiring. You're the guy in the game who does nothing and is complete dead weight, well no one warned you about that, game hosed. Not only are these problems with learning the game, they are one of the main features of the game. Everything is front loaded to the point that you can accidentally ruin the game by creating a character that isn't suited for the challenges you will face in the specific game, oops, game hosed. What if you listen to the book and play it without magical items? hosed. Without a tactical map? Double hosed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 09:05
|
|
|
tl;dr D&D Next is still designed with and operates under the assumption that you, the person at home, are well-versed in D&Dese or will be personally instructed by someone who is. It's chock-full of the same unexamined assumptions and D&Disms that may be old hat to someone who's been nerding it up for the last 10+ years but if you and your friends have never elfgamed before and want to know what this Dee 'n Dee you've heard so much about is like then there's nothing about Next that goes out of its way to reach out to you and make the experience a smooth one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 09:10
|
|
|
SmellOfPetroleum posted:I've followed and agree with most of the criticisms for this game, but I am a little confused about the ’not accessible to new players' thing. Sure it's not the best game for new players (due to not being great in general), but inaccessible? Maybe I am making too many assumptions about how to play. What exactly does DND next lack in the phb or dmg that other systems have to explain best practices? What is the 'correct' way to play that isn't explained? You are making assumptions about how to play, and you don't realise you're making them. The thing exactly that D&D Next lacks is clearly written rules. It's very, very easy to figure out how stuff should work if you already know how to play D&D, so the vaguely written poorly worded bullshit that sometimes passes for rules in these books is defended as "perfectly clear" by people who've missed the point about accessibility to new players. Here's an example which was discussed in the last few pages, illustrated. Blue is a Wizard, and Green are his allies. Red Star is a hobgoblin chief, and red circles are his allies. The grid is 5' squares.  Blue casts Lightning Bolt at Red Star. According to logic and common sense and how D&D has worked before, Blue's lightning bolt would look like this  But this is D&D Next, simplest and most easy to learn of all D&Ds! Blue's Lightning bolt does not look like that! Blue's Lightning bolt must start at the intersection of squares or hexes (DMG, p.251), so it might look like this:  ...and as long as you take the rulebook's phrase "If an area of effect is circular and covers a tleast half a square, it affects that square" as applying to all areas of effect and not just circular ones, then Blue's Lightning Bolt is actually 10' wide! Alternatively, I guess it's zero feet wide or something and doesn't hit anything, unless maybe that thing occupies more than one space. What if Blue had picked the other "front" corner of his square as the origin? What would happen then? Now... obviously obviously that's not how you play it, right? You know that's dumb, and so you can ignore the silly way the rule is written and do it the first way, which is the way that doesn't make stupid poo poo arguments happen. But you can't look at that and say "the rulebook has done a good job of explaining areas of effect to someone who hasn't played before". Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 09:19 on Jan 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 09:11
|
|
|
Now draw a freaking table and chairs, you know one of the most common things you will encounter in rooms, to scale. What you find may amaze you. What if instead of shooting lightning, they all sat at a table to play cards, what would the rules dictate the table look like?IT BEGINS posted:Not two hours ago I watched a player say 'I'll shoot my bow, since that's all I've really figured out how to do. So I guess I'll attack'. This isn't the first time I've seen something like this happen. There's a whole poo poo-ton of rules to this game, and a wide gulf between what some classes need to know (Champion Fighter vs. Druid) to play. Seriously, check out 174 - 206 in the PHB. Yeah, maybe you don't need to know about underwater combat as a first-time player, but like 80% of that is relevant to every player at the table. They also need to know and remember all of the stuff for their own class. That doesn't scream 'newbie-friendly' to me. quote:"I'll do basic attack because that's what I understand." quote:"I'm going to try to make a running jump across a 30 ft chasm, less than an inch above the world record" quote:"My guy is 4ft tall, wizened old dwarf I don't think I can jump up there" Babylon Astronaut fucked around with this message at 09:31 on Jan 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 09:17
|
|
|
This game makes no real mention of needing a grid to play. There is a small foot-note in the combat section of the PHB noting that maybe you would want to play with a grid because sometimes areas are confusing. Where are these rules? 251 pages deep in a completely different book. They're also a page after the section that explains how to back-convert areas into something usable for ToTM. Easy for a beginner, right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 09:26
|
|
|
Would we be even noting that Next isn't really easy for beginners if it wasn't for the spate of "D&D still exists, wowie zowie!" posts all over the internet? Genuine question.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 09:28
|
|
|
Why wouldn't we when there are actual beginners posting in this thread going "Huh, D&D, maybe me and my friends will give Next a try"? Is the implication that people are reaching in terms of their criticism, because no, Next kinda sucks in that regard.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 09:32
|
|
|
This poo poo is why the thread's not an instance of Next being the best thing since forever for tabletop gaming; it's got nearly nothing original, is not friendly to new players, and is generally nothing more than a silly love letter to people who're already going to buy it because it's D&D. For a game that has one of, if not the, largest budgets in the goddamn industry there should be much higher expectations than, "It's playable and even fun if you already know how to play D&D." It is very possible to play the game and have fun! That does not make it a good game. That makes it passably functional, which should be a base requirement, not the end result.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 09:33
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:Would we be even noting that Next isn't really easy for beginners if it wasn't for the spate of "D&D still exists, wowie zowie!" posts all over the internet? Genuine question. I think it's more to do with the fact that "the new D&D is super easy for new players to understand" is now a statement that people are actually making. I wouldn't make that statement about any edition that's come out since I started playing in 1988. Because it's not true. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 09:37 on Jan 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 09:33
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:Why wouldn't we when there are actual beginners posting in this thread going "Huh, D&D, maybe me and my friends will give Next a try"? Is the implication that people are reaching in terms of their criticism, because no, Next kinda sucks in that regard. I wonder how much of that is a result of things like the Boston Globe having an article about it? So to anyone who's never played a tabletop RPG before who now wants to try out D&D, what made you want to do that? AlphaDog posted:I think it's more to do with the fact that "the new D&D is super easy for new players to understand" is now a statement that people are actually making. Yeah and how much of that is people just parroting what all those articles said?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 09:35
|
|
|
Absolutely. Since 3e, D&D has been too complicated for me and I play much D&D. If I hadn't gone through d20 hell, there is no way I would have made it through playtesting like I did. D&D's exposure has been circling the drain, so the last thing they need to do is make it less approachable. If someone want to play and learn D&D from complete unfamiliarity, Mentzer red box and module b-2 keep on the borderland. Go through it completely RAW. Do the CYOA, everything. When you are done, the other games will at least be learnable. b-2 is important because it eases you into expert by having the rules exposed to you in a logical progression from easiest to hardest and the general idea of wilderness adventure. This is available on pdf from drivethrurpg.com for less than 10 bucks last I checked for a bitching scan that looks and works well on a tablet or whatever. Hell, put the map on a tv or something. Office D&D with projectors and lazer pointers is good too, no one will tell you this. You have a lazer printer, there are various ways you can go hogwild all in my new book "how to go hogwild in D&D with a lazer printer" There WOTC, pay me. Babylon Astronaut fucked around with this message at 09:45 on Jan 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 09:37
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:I wonder how much of that is a result of things like the Boston Globe having an article about it? D&D doesn't need articles in the Boston Globe to permeate the nerdy circles of pop culture consciousness, though. A new edition of D&D will make headlines across every sphere of geek media no matter how tangential. The Escapist, a website devoted to video games that rides almost entirely on the coattails of Zero Punctuation, ran articles about it. Penny Arcade surely made reference to it, and Scott Kurtz too I guess. I'm sure there were plenty of tweets and blogposts and who the gently caress knows what else about it that made everyone who even ever once played a video game or watched a comic book movie know HEY GUYS DID YOU KNOW THERE'S A NEW EDITION OF D&D OKAY SEE YA.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 09:39
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:Yeah and how much of that is people just parroting what all those articles said? If "easy to learn" was part of the advertising/reporting then I'd guess a lot of people 100% believed it. It's what you want to hear, right? I have no idea how anyone could read these rulebooks and call them "easy to learn", but I wouldn't be surprised if some people have managed to come to that conclusion without listening to anyone else (eg, well it's easier to understand than 3.5, so...)
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 09:50
|
|
|
Come on. You all need to get some perspective. Compared to quantum particle physics Next is actually kind of easy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 09:54
|
|
|
DalaranJ posted:No, it's not normal. Except they have failed miserably at doing so by making it store-exclusive, more-or-less. They had a very good low barrier-to-entry organised play system in 4e, I'm not sure why they didn't just lift it wholesale into 5e - they grabbed the majority of the staff. But for some reason they felt the need to paygate the adventures and make organised play impossible to do at home. We don't have any stores nearby where we can play, and we don't want to rent the back room of a pub when we have comfortable homes available for free. D&D is already an expensive hobby, it doesn't need to be more so. The in-game organisations were something LFR was trialling in its closing years, and they went down reasonably well but got next to no support and half the ones that were supposed to come out, never did, so a bunch of characters went without. I think they probably missed their market again with this - my impression of the organised play scene is that it revolves primarily around cons and home play and getting either done in Next seems difficult
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 09:56
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:D&D doesn't need articles in the Boston Globe to permeate the nerdy circles of pop culture consciousness, though. A new edition of D&D will make headlines across every sphere of geek media no matter how tangential. The Escapist, a website devoted to video games that rides almost entirely on the coattails of Zero Punctuation, ran articles about it. Penny Arcade surely made reference to it, and Scott Kurtz too I guess. I'm sure there were plenty of tweets and blogposts and who the gently caress knows what else about it that made everyone who even ever once played a video game or watched a comic book movie know HEY GUYS DID YOU KNOW THERE'S A NEW EDITION OF D&D OKAY SEE YA. Yeah, that's part and parcel of what I'm talking about, I was going to mention io9 but really, the Boston Globe? Guess they had a deeper marketing budget than I thought. AlphaDog posted:I have no idea how anyone could read these rulebooks and call them "easy to learn", but I wouldn't be surprised if some people have managed to come to that conclusion without listening to anyone else (eg, well it's easier to understand than 3.5, so...) On a basic glance even this D&D is easy to learn. Roll to hit, cast some spells, here are the classes. It's when you dig down and see that some parts don't quite fit well and don't play nice with others that you realize it isn't at all. thespaceinvader posted:D&D is already an expensive hobby, it doesn't need to be more so. I don't think it is, but maybe I've been traumatized by Magic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 10:04
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:Yeah, that's part and parcel of what I'm talking about, I was going to mention io9 but really, the Boston Globe? Guess they had a deeper marketing budget than I thought. How does a marketing budget figure into getting someone at the Boston Globe to write a puff piece about "nerdy hobby from the 70's still around somehow"? Sending out a press release is free, assuming that they had to even do that much and someone at the Globe didn't float the article themselves. Really, most of D&D's marketing is done for it gratis by various nerd media outlets as well as the occasional namedrop on a sitcom or something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 10:09
|
|
|
Okay looked at some different playtests. 121712 had 20 levels, all classes except Wizard gets Martial Damage Dice and Martial Damage Bonus, though the Cleric has a slower progression. Only the Fighter and Monk have built in maneuvers, though the Rogue has something similar that uses the Skill Die instead. Unless I missed one this was the first packet with 20 levels. No Extra Attacks. Except through some Maneuvers but those are limited in targeting. Everyone except the Wizard has a Melee Attack Bonus, this is before a constant Proficiency system was used. Wizard has a Spell Attack Bonus instead, and Cleric has both but at a reduced pace. Also at the time the Monk capstone was that all their stats became 20. 111312 has 10 levels, same thing with a Weapon Attack Bonus and Spell Attack Bonus. Cleric starts at +2 for both and goes up to +3. Wizard gets +2 for all 10 levels on Weapon Attack Bonus, but otherwise gets +2 at start up to +5. The other classes get no Spell Attack Bonus but have a Weapon Attack Bonus going from +2 up to +5. Monk and Wizard get a bonus to Save DC starting at +1 and going up to +3. The Cleric's is probably a typo since it seems to start at +0 and goes up to +1. In this playtest it looks like your maneuvers are chosen based on the Fighting Style you choose, instead of being able to pick which ones you want at the Maneuver levels. Instead of Skill Tricks Rogues get Rogue Maneuvers, while Fighters get Fighter Maneuvers. Flurry of Blows is spend Expertise Dice to make additional attacks, the attack deals damage equal to the die rolled, with no bonus. Doesn't seem like it would be all that useful unless you want to spread damage around or your first attack missed. 102912 is pretty similar to the later 111312, except no Monk. Going back to the future with 012813 playtest and the Barbarian is added. They get the full 6d6 Martial Damage Dice and +2 Martial Damage Bonus that the Fighter, Rogue and Monk get. They get Rage 2/day that slowly increases to 5/day and at 20th level goes Unlimited/day. They get bonus Rage Damage Bonus that starts at +2 and scales to +14. I believe that is per hit instead of per turn, but the Barbarian is not built for multiple attacks like the Monk is, or the Fighter can be when spreading the damage to multiple targets. Needed to take a Short Rest between Rages, but I think at the time Short Rests were 5 minutes or maybe 15. Back then Rage gave straight up resistance to Bludgeoning, Slashing and Piercing. Later iterations got rid of that, or limited it in some way. Rage gave advantage on Strength Attack Rolls and Strength Checks, and Relentless Assault was specifically for when you weren't Raging. And the big change at 032113. Martial Damage Dice and Martial Damage Bonus are a thing of the past. In their place is Deadly Strike. This gives the more "combat" oriented classes, i.e. not Wizard and the Cleric gets a slower progression, an extra weapon damage die on a successful attack once per turn. So a 20th level cleric may swing a 1d8 mace with their 16 str, and if they hit do 3d8+3 while a Barbarian with 20 strength and using some great axe would be doing 5d12+5. These are just examples, I didn't look up the damage die size of the weapons or anything. Oh yeah Barbarians at level 10 heal 5 hp every round while Raging. This packet also introduced the Druid. The Druid already had a Choice between Oak, aka Land, and Moon. Doesn't look like it ever got above 5 wild shapes per day, and Moon just got better forms. It did not get all the MM, or future MM, as forms. It had specific forms at specific levels like fish, steed, bird, etc. With Moon getting actual battle capable forms, again specific forms with them improving as you level instead of just being MM monsters. I think this was my favorite version of the Druid's Wild Shape, though it would have been nice if Moon Druid's got more uses per day, or unlimited eventually. Man that is getting long. Okay Fighters get Expertise Dice again! They are somewhere in between the old version and the current version. They start with 2d6, and eventually max out at 17th level with 6d6. Using one expends it until you take a short or long rest, which replenishes all of them, or if you are empty you can get 1 back by using an action. They pick an option from a list at various levels for things they can use them for, some are even kind of leaderish. Others allow them to get another attack in or deal more damage. At 5th level they pick a feature that is either ranged or melee that lets them attack two targets, gaining more targets as they level, maxing out at 5. Good for spreading the damage. Monks don't have a feature that gives them a special Unarmed Strike in this packet, instead they have a feature that gives them a feat that gives them an unarmed strike. Not seeing a Flurry of Blows, though the feat they get gives them a light finesse unarmed strike that can be dual wielded. Paladin also shows up in this packet, this was back when there were 3 options. Cavalier, Warden and Blackguard. Each with their own Channel Divinity choices, and each with a themed mount at level 8. I remember being disappointed in the later versions of Paladin in comparison. Ranger was also introduced in this packet. Had 3 choices of "favored enemy". Each gives a bonus on lore checks for a specific group of enemies, grants a few features that give you extra damage in certain situations, and another benefit or two that fits the theme. Rogues have an actual Sneak Attack now that is not just the same dice as others get, starts at 1d6 but scales to 10d8. Rogue picks a theme, each theme has a collection of abilities including one ability that gives them advantage on attack rolls in a specific situation. Assassin is for when attacking something that has a hostile creature next to it, like one of your allies. Acrobat if you started your turn at least 20 feet away before moving in for the attack. Rake is pretty much the opposite of what Assassin gets. Also Sneak Attack is a once on your turn when you make an attack that doesn't have disadvantage you can make the attack with disadvantage for the bonus damage. Which is kind of stupid.' I think this is when Wizards first gained Arcane Recovery as a feature.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 10:15
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:I don't think it is, but maybe I've been traumatized by Magic. Compared to playing WH40K or whatever it's not bad at all, but D&D is expensive for a TTRPG. To buy the core D&D books costs me $150 (or $180 if I don't go to the cheapest place near here which is run by dickheads). Yeah yeah, the "starter" set is only $20, but I can get other full games for $20. $150 is expensive as hell for the core rules of a TTRPG. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 10:20 on Jan 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 10:18
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:Imagine D&D has no cache with you, you know, like most people. Maybe you heard of the retro computer games, and saw a parody episode of a sit com or something, but you're not exposed to the nitty gritty of actually running the game. Everyone I have ever met whom learned to play D&D learned from a more experienced DM. See, this was me until about April of last year. I played all of the Infinity Engine and Neverwinter Nights games but never really got deep into the mechanics (even then I kept wondering why the Fighter never did anything more than auto-attack, and why the Wizards didn't use mana), and I even listed to the Crit Juice podcast for most of 2013 despite never really understanding what was happening beyond their raw narration events (he rolled a crit! woo!), but actual tabletop gaming was always an arcane art to me. The impression I got from that one Dexter's Lab episode and other pop-culture references to D&D was that they had these really long, confusing character sheets and "the DM" had to have an encyclopedic knowledge of everything. I did read grognards.txt before I knew how to play TTRPGs, but only because "these guys are assholes/racists/sexists" and "Pathfinder is a cheap cash-in" and "people are mad over 4e for nonsensical reasons" are things that you can conclude and laugh at without really knowing how to play the game. I got into the hobby because I stumbled into TG's GURPS megathread for some reason I can't even recall anymore, and forums user King Hotpants summarized it thus: quote:Almost everything in the game uses the same dice roll. You roll 3d6 against some number; lower is better. You roll low, you succeed. You roll high, you fail. You roll an 18, you fail in a particularly interesting way. Probably more interesting for everyone else than you, but that can't be helped. And that just clicked. This was something I could do! I tracked down the GURPS Lite PDF and on the second page, it says this: quote:GURPS uses six-sided dice only. To figure combat damage (and several other things), the “dice+adds” system is used. If a weapon does “4d+2” damage, this is shorthand for “roll 4 dice and add 2 to the total.” Likewise, “3d-3” means “roll 3 dice and subtract 3 from the total.” If you see just “2d,” that means “roll two dice.” I never did learn how to play from a more experienced DM though, and maybe the accessibility of free PDFs and gamebooks and this very subforum and the internet in general helped a lot, but I just jumped into the hobby headfirst. Now, the idea of someone running GURPS as their very first RPG, sight unseen, is very funny to me looking back, but D&D Next's Player's Handbook takes three whole pages (6-8) to explain how the game works to you, and it already throws jargon like ability scores, ability modifiers, proficiency, Difficulty Class, Armor Class and Advantage and Disadvantage right off the bat. World of Dungeons is really good at this too: quote:When you attempt something risky, sum 2d6 and add one of your attribute scores, based on the action you’re taking. (the gm will tell you some of the possible consequences before you roll, so you can decide if it’s worth the risk or if you want to revise your action.) I wrote the post that I did for the OP (to do a thing, roll d20, add modifier, add proficiency if it fits, beat a number set by the DM) because nobody deserves to flail around their hundred dollar books for hours just because nobody bothered to break it down like that. And I'm just going to close this out with a passage from 4th Edition's PHB, page 11: quote:How do you know if your sword-swing hurts the dragon or just bounces off its iron-hard scales? How do you know if the ogre believes your outrageous bluff, or if you can swim the raging river and reach the other side? All these actions depend on very basic, simple rules: Decide what you want your character to do and tell the Dungeon Master. The DM tells you to make a check and figures out your chance of success (a target number for the check). EDIT: For completeness' sake, this is how gameplay is described in Next's Basic Rules PDF: quote:Does an adventurer’s sword swing hurt a dragon or just bounce of its iron-hard scales? Will the ogre believe an outrageous bluff? Can a character swim across a raging river? Can a character avoid the main blast of a freball, or does he or she take full damage from the blaze? In cases where the outcome of an action is uncertain, the Dungeons & Dragons game relies on rolls of a 20-sided die, a d20, to determine success or failure. Emphasis mine gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 10:41 on Jan 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 10:27
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Compared to playing WH40K or whatever it's not bad at all, but D&D is expensive for a TTRPG. I mean that's not really new to Next, it's always been the case with D&D's three corebook model. But considering it's poised as the "gateway" RPG yeah, it's a pretty pricey buy in. For $150 bucks I could buy two to three high quality board games (Kemet, a recent purchase of mine, cost $70 and is a substantial game with lots of high quality components and excellent gameplay with plenty of replay value that seats up to five), a shitload of games on Steam sales or a few new releases off-sale, enough X-Wing minis to assemble a fairly decent pair of squads, or at least three or four other RPGs that don't require multiple corebook purchases.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 10:28
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:I mean that's not really new to Next, it's always been the case with D&D's three corebook model. But considering it's poised as the "gateway" RPG yeah, it's a pretty pricey buy in. For $150 bucks I could buy two to three high quality board games (Kemet, a recent purchase of mine, cost $70 and is a substantial game with lots of high quality components and excellent gameplay with plenty of replay value that seats up to five), a shitload of games on Steam sales or a few new releases off-sale, enough X-Wing minis to assemble a fairly decent pair of squads, or at least three or four other RPGs that don't require multiple corebook purchases. I didn't say "D&D Next is..."  But yeah, what you said is exactly what I'm getting at. I could buy a crapload of other whole games for $150. Alternatively, I could get the full rulebook, ~120 miniatures, 20 dice, some templates, some punch-out terrain, a super well-done full-color starter guide with photos of how to do everything, and some army list stuff in the "Open Fire!" starter box for Flames of War* for half** of what I'm paying for D&D. I'm going to end up spending more than that on FoW if I get into it, but that's true of D&D as well *That's what a well-done starter set looks like. **$74.99 at the same local place I can get D&D from for $150. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 10:46 on Jan 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 10:40
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Compared to playing WH40K or whatever it's not bad at all, but D&D is expensive for a TTRPG. Or put it this way; I got Dungeons World delivered to my door for £15, and if I'd felt less scrupulous, I could have had it delivered to my printer for the cost of paper and ink, as the entire rulebook including all the stuff about running campaigns is free online. In contrast, even buying one of the core rulebooks for D&D costs twice that. The free D&D rules are fine if you want to get into playing with someone who's already DMing or run one of the (paid-for at a cost of about the same as buying DW) published adventures, but they don't actually tell you how to write a campaign.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 10:45
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Or put it this way; I got Dungeons World delivered to my door for £15, and if I'd felt less scrupulous, I could have had it delivered to my printer for the cost of paper and ink, as the entire rulebook including all the stuff about running campaigns is free online. In contrast, even buying one of the core rulebooks for D&D costs twice that. I think I got DW cheaper than that, coverting what the AUD was like at the time to £. Then Inverse World was slightly cheaper and more awesome. I can only buy 4 more DW-based books before I'm up to the price of D&D though! And that's what pisses me off about "the D&D basic rules are free and/or the D&D starter set is only $20 so it's actually cheap". No it isn't. Not when it's "$150, or $20 for the demo, or free for a reference for when you're playing with someone who bought the books" and other games are "$25 including delivery, or free if you don't mind printing it out". Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 10:56 on Jan 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 10:49
|
|
|
I understand being angry at the game falsely advertising newbie friendliness, but it seems like no version of DND is easy to learn. Even with new players that have experienced players as guides, the only people I've seen really take to it at the word go have been theater improv folks. I am not sure if recent posters have been angry at the false articles (I agree) or are angry at next for not fulfilling something no DND has done inside its fantasy combat simulator restraints. Basically saying that learning complex rules isn't a flaw in itself. Roleplaying games are imo one of the better (fun) formats for experimenting and trial and error anyway as long as you aren't playing with jerks. That includes the raw if the group has to implement it a little at a time. Space Alert comes to mind, though that's not an RPG. To cover my bases, rules inconsistencies and false advertising are still bad. Edit: and yes I see the conversation has moved on to the ridiculous price. Got distracted a lot while typing. Edit x2: and gradenko did a good job explaining how the language in next fails. I personally like reading rules, so my above statements stand, but the side by side comparison really shows next struggling to explain things in the right order. SmellOfPetroleum fucked around with this message at 11:17 on Jan 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 11:05
|
|
|
SmellOfPetroleum posted:I understand being angry at the game falsely advertising newbie friendliness, but it seems like no version of DND is easy to learn. Even with new players that have experienced players as guides, the only people I've seen really take to it at the word go have been theater improv folks. I am not sure if recent posters have been angry at the false articles (I agree) or are angry at next for not fulfilling something no DND has done inside its fantasy combat simulator restraints. I'd say it's really more about the claims that "D&D Next is easy to learn", or when people say "it's the easiest version of D&D yet" when what they really mean is that it's easier than 3E or 4E. "Easiest yet" isn't very high bar to clear, and Next still doesn't claim the top spot compared to D&D Basic having a literal CYOA section of the game to let a single player reading the book all to themselves have a solo adventure while also learning the mechanics.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 11:24
|
|
|
SmellOfPetroleum posted:I understand being angry at the game falsely advertising newbie friendliness, but it seems like no version of DND is easy to learn. Even with new players that have experienced players as guides, the only people I've seen really take to it at the word go have been theater improv folks. I am not sure if recent posters have been angry at the false articles (I agree) or are angry at next for not fulfilling something no DND has done inside its fantasy combat simulator restraints. I think you've somewhat misunderstood me. I'm not saying the rules are too complicated, I'm saying they're badly or unclearly written. I'm all for complex games. I don't like the way that in this game, through lovely writing/editing, "I use this predefined AoE" becomes harder to figure out than "I'm shooting at long range from behind half-cover through smoke into partial concealment against the side armour of a heavy tank while under pinning fire" in a complex but well-written game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 11:30
|
|
|
Yeah sorry my posting kind of loses focus a lot. Maybe I wasn't clear. I agree with every reference to badly written rules so far. Those complaints make sense. I was more questioning statements like, "unlearnable from the core books," said by Babylon astronaut. Even poorly written, the mechanics aren't missing. New players are going to get the full run of crappy to fun.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 11:52
|
|
|
SmellOfPetroleum posted:Yeah sorry my posting kind of loses focus a lot. Maybe I wasn't clear. I agree with every reference to badly written rules so far. Those complaints make sense. I was more questioning statements like, "unlearnable from the core books," said by Babylon astronaut. Even poorly written, the mechanics aren't missing. New players are going to get the full run of crappy to fun. The mechanic I'm referring to is missing. The books don't describe what to do when a non-circular AoE doesn't cover a whole square. It might be the same as what happens when a circular AoE doesn't cover a whole square, or it might not. You can't figure it out from the information given in the books. This is all the book says on the subject of grids and AoEs: DMG, page 251 posted:The area of effect of a spell, monster ability, or other feature must be translated onto squares or hexes to determine which potential targets are in the area and which aren't. Choose an intersection of squares or hexes as the point of origin of an area of effect, then follow its rules as normal. If an area of effect is circular and covers at least half a square, it affects that square. Lightning Bolt says only this about range and targeting: PHB page 255 posted:A stroke of lightning forming a line 100 feet long and 5 feet wide blasts out from you in a direction you choose. Since I have to pick an intersection of squares or hexes as my point of origin, there's no way to keep the bolt entirely within a row or column even if I want to (thus no way to ever cover a whole square with it), and no information about what to do when a whole square is not covered by a noncircular AoE. This is the sort of thing that makes people say that it's impossible to learn the game from the books. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 12:10 on Jan 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 12:02
|
|
|
SmellOfPetroleum posted:I understand being angry at the game falsely advertising newbie friendliness, but it seems like no version of DND is easy to learn. Babylon Astronaut fucked around with this message at 12:20 on Jan 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 12:15
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:Mentzer basic is very easy to learn. The book walks you through everything you need to know. The way it starts with an example of play, then a choose your own adventure, then a guided solo adventure before you even get to dice notation is amazing for learning. Don't forget that the DM's book has a step-by-step dungeon adventure included in it, and then a map for "level 2" of that adventure with advice on how to fill it up with monsters and treasure. Mentzer Basic is the game that an 8-year-old kid who doesn't even like to read much can pick up, read, play through solo for a couple hours, and then teach to his friends without getting anything wrong, because it holds his hand every step of the way (Thanks, Red Box!). edit: Yeah, it omits advanced rules because it's a basic set. It doesn't remove a couple of class options then dump the whole clusterfuck of rules in your lap and pretend to be easier, it's written entirely for brand-new beginners Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 12:34 on Jan 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 12:21
|
|
|
This is probably the worst edition in a couple of decades, which is quite bad enough, but unlearnable is straight hyperbole that doesn't withstand a laugh test. Someone made a shitpost, let's not spend too many paragraphs trying to spin poo poo into gold. 5E's just a regressive game that's learned nothing from modern design and could use a few tips on basic technical writing as well. In other words, a bad game. Also, you can buy the entire core set for less than $100 on Amazon before tax right now, and even if you don't, similar games will run you the same or more. The only thing this doesn't really beat are a bunch of tiny companies selling small paperback RPGs in black and white (when they have a new printing, if not you are looking for a PDF) of games that are generally much less mechanically dense than D&D. And for the most part you are going to get gouged a little if you buy those at your FLGS too, if you are lucky enough to wander in when they're in stock. In other words, consider D&D's actual market competitors, not indy operations. It's not remotely fair to compare this to the cost of Dungeon World, as the production value, availability, and even the games are obviously not the same.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 13:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 20:23 |
|
|
Yeah. I enjoyed the Next starter set adventure for a lot of reasons, but I was treating it as a way for me to introduce new players to the game. I was not viewing it as someone trying to learn the rules for the first time and then dm for other newbies. I went over it again to see how it held up, and you're mostly right. You do have to read the entire rulebook basically to get things going. The adventure, while simple, doesn't reference what rules will be necessary or introduce them in a logical progression. That said, I wouldn't say it dumps the whole clusterfuck of rules. For the most part it's copy/pasted, but they made a lot of edits (probably for page constraints instead of any good reason) that really improved readability.The rules explanation for the basic d20 roll over target number mechanic, for example, is half a column instead of an entire page like in the PHB. Mentzer basic sounds really great. Re: Lighting Bolt I got nothing. That's not true, but every counter argument either relies on further absence of rules (like that the end point doesn't have to follow the grid line and the line width doesn't have to be centered on the point of origin) or stretching a natural language remark to trump the intersection rule (PHB 204. Typically, a point of origin is a point in space, but some spells have an area whose origin is a creature...). No argument is very good though. Edit: Didn't one of the playtest packets include a segment of the Keep on the Borderlands / Caves of Chaos? Considering the number of times Temple of Elemental Evil gets repurposed for current editions, it would be nice if good old B/X era stuff ever came around again. I guess it wouldn't be that hard to do rules changes on the fly. SmellOfPetroleum fucked around with this message at 13:39 on Jan 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 13:14
|
|