|
Kai Tave posted:Remember that Monte Cook also wrote Ptolus which was an even more massive (I think like 800 pages) city book based off of his D&D games if I recall its history correctly. I've never known anyone who actually sat down and was like "yeah, I'm totally gonna use this 800 page city guide to run the ultimate campaign!" Game books like that mainly seem to exist as the equivalent of a coffee table book or curio, people buy it to have an 800 page city book by Monte Cook. Actually using it doesn't seem to be much of a consideration. You guys are describing the same book and it's very good for a few reasons. Number one is that it lists dozens (literally) of places that you find in a city that are well fleshed out and easy to drag and drop into most campaigns, saving you a lot of time. Number two is inspiration: it's got a bunch of cool setting elements, intrigues and unique doo-hickeys to feed your creativity for a drat long time. As you point out, there's like a million pages of this, and as everyone admits this is Monte Cook's strong point. Thirdly, its production values are awesome. Tons of good maps and characterful artwork. I guess a fourth reason is that it's the campaign setting that birthed the implied setting of third edition itself, so it has historical relevance and it can be neat to see where the fluff from this world influence the rules of the game. It's like the apotheosis of the old-school D&D gazeteer world book. It's like a crunchy sandbox setting unto itself. If you don't plan on using 100% of it to run "the ultimate campaign!", that is of course fine. There's just soooooo much stuff in there. Having all of that information to use or be inspired by is incredibly useful. If you look at that book and think its only use is to sit on your coffee table then I think you've never DMed a game. If you are running almost any game that takes place in a medieval-ish city, Ptolus has loving got your back.
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 16:16 |
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Thing is, this is exactly what most 3.x fans want in my experience. For far too many people, minutia and metagaming is what constitutes as "immersion." You know I'm starting to wonder if a lot of hate for 4e comes from a lot more of the page count being given over to being a rule-book with stats and such and not a fantasy Almanac/Travelogue with some occasional easily-ignored statblocks in it. In other words, how many people defending 3.5 don't actually intend to play it and just treat it as fantasy literature?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:You know I'm starting to wonder if a lot of hate for 4e comes from a lot more of the page count being given over to being a rule-book with stats and such and not a fantasy Almanac/Travelogue with some occasional easily-ignored statblocks in it. In other words, how many people defending 3.5 don't actually intend to play it and just treat it as fantasy literature? The 3.x core books are the driest textbook poo poo imaginable, though. Like I do enjoy reading some RPG books but maaan.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 04:04
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:You know I'm starting to wonder if a lot of hate for 4e comes from a lot more of the page count being given over to being a rule-book with stats and such and not a fantasy Almanac/Travelogue with some occasional easily-ignored statblocks in it. In other words, how many people defending 3.5 don't actually intend to play it and just treat it as fantasy literature?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 04:07
|
|
|
Waffleman_ posted:GOO.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 04:23
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:You know I'm starting to wonder if a lot of hate for 4e comes from a lot more of the page count being given over to being a rule-book with stats and such and not a fantasy Almanac/Travelogue with some occasional easily-ignored statblocks in it. In other words, how many people defending 3.5 don't actually intend to play it and just treat it as fantasy literature? If that's what they wanted, they'd play 5E or 2E instead. Try reading the 3E MM's, every monster's literally just a brief physical description and then a statblock. In 2E and 5E, every monster's got at least a page to itself and usually comes with something to hook it into a campaign world(behavior, enemies, what potion you can turn its liver into, etc.). Just enough to make it more than a thing to beat up for XP.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 04:41
|
|
|
Translating Fate into a computer game is basically impossible, but translating a setting isn't. I would totally be down to play Inverse World: Compucellerated.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 04:54
|
|
|
The best way to make a Monsterhearts video game is obviously to make it a visual novel.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
Really, the only RPGs that would materially benefit from becoming computer games are the ones that are full of numbers and simple on-off widgets. Rolemaster, D&D, etc. I think no small part of GemStone's and Neverwinter Nights' popularity was that they let you play Rolemaster and D&D without having to undertake the normal hassle of playing Rolemaster or D&D. Part of what you're coming to these systems for is to play around in their guts, but even for someone who enjoys doing that kind of poo poo, it is too often a drag when it comes to actually just loving playing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 05:20
|
|
|
PublicOpinion posted:The best way to make a Monsterhearts video game is obviously to make it a visual novel. Persona with a mass effect style dialog wheel and about half as much combat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
Error 404 posted:Persona with a mass effect style dialog wheel and about half as much combat. Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
PublicOpinion posted:The best way to make a Monsterhearts video game is obviously to make it a visual novel. Guess it already has the underage sex part covered.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 05:30
|
|
|
Covok posted:As someone who has never played rolemaster, care to explain? Rolemaster is a very different game mechanically, though 3e inherits some things like move / standard / full actions from it or numerical attributes to power types to dice bonuses derived from attribute scores. The main thing it inherits from Rolemaster in my opinion is the idea that you have to represent everything mechanically, using a modular design for everything, and not only that, but that those horrendously overwrought mechanics can be translated to cyberpunk or space... it's a design attitude that if there is a thing, it will have rules for it, and those rules will be modular and that everything is pretty strictly "constructed" out of them, even if it isn't particularly useful, like with 3e's monster design.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 06:11
|
|
|
Guilty Spork posted:4e, especially early on, kinda went to the opposite extreme, being hyper-focused on just what's relevant to running a campaign. I liked how some of the later 4e books started developing the setting and general flavor more, but I definitely don't want to bother with another book like the 3rd Edition Forgotten Realms setting, which at times was very much the dry fantasy almanac thing. i read both 3.5 and 4e and i felt like i had a way clearer picture of the world of 4e than i ever did of 3.5. Elfgames fucked around with this message at 06:17 on Mar 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 06:13
|
|
|
Oh god I forgot all about the Rolemaster cyberpunk RPG.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 06:24
|
|
|
Alien Rope Burn posted:it's a design attitude that if there is a thing, it will have rules for it, and those rules will be modular and that everything is pretty strictly "constructed" out of them, even if it isn't particularly useful, like with 3e's monster design. Which is a hilarious bit of irony, since Rolemaster stuck with asymmetry between PCs and monsters since the beginning. Especially with how common stat-drain was in Rolemaster. "What practical effect does draining 2d10 Strength have on a hobgoblin? gently caress if I know! If only it had a Strength score." It always seemed weird that they went to so much trouble to revise, even in relatively minor ways, a whole bunch of stuff in 1994, but then they just literally reprinted half their 15 year old game for the rest of it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 06:33
|
|
|
I would love a Feng Shui video game. Like, I don't even care about the mechanics, I just want to run around in the setting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 06:38
|
|
|
Loki_XLII posted:I would love a Feng Shui video game. Like, I don't even care about the mechanics, I just want to run around in the setting. I am fine with this as long as its made by Platinum.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 06:42
|
|
|
Loki_XLII posted:I would love a Feng Shui video game. Like, I don't even care about the mechanics, I just want to run around in the setting. Agreed, yes. The rules mechanics in FS are garbage and don't look that much better in FS2, but goddamn is the setting fun.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 06:45
|
|
|
Now I'm just remembering that "review" Ryan Dancey did of Warhammer Fantasy RPG 2e, based on the first edition which came out long before 3e, and called it a poor man's copy of 3e, and listed flaws such as "doesn't use the d20 engine." And made a chunk of his "review" into just rattling on about how Chris Pramas is when he works at WotC, which was unrelated to everything. And yet somehow didn't mention anything about fate points or insanity rolls or anything else unique in WHFRG, but was sure to point out that it was basically just "humans, elves, dwarfs (sic), and halflings who become more powerful over time as they kill monsters, take their stuff, and power up." It also gave this amazing quote: quote:The question each publisher has to ask themselves when they create an RPG in the post-OGL/D20 world is this: Is my game so much better than an OGL/D20 option that I want to force my customers & players to pay a tax to play that game, and will those people perceive the value I'm offering and voluntarily submit to that taxation? But he swears it was just a neutral review! ProfessorCirno fucked around with this message at 06:55 on Mar 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 06:53
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:[review] of Warhammer Fantasy RPG 2e, based on the first edition Whehuh? Galaga Galaxian posted:I am fine with this as long as its made by Platinum. Holy gently caress yes this is one of those amazing ideas that will never happen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 06:53
|
|
|
Plague of Hats posted:Whehuh? He quoted multiple instances of things that existed in the first edition of WHFRG, and then called them out as copying D&D 3e, which came out long after WHFRG's first edition.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 06:56
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:He quoted multiple instances of things that existed in the first edition of WHFRG, and then called them out as copying D&D 3e, which came out long after WHFRG's first edition. Truly one of our industry's luminaries.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 07:01
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Now I'm just remembering that "review" Ryan Dancey did of Warhammer Fantasy RPG 2e, based on the first edition which came out long before 3e, and called it a poor man's copy of 3e, and listed flaws such as "doesn't use the d20 engine." And made a chunk of his "review" into just rattling on about how Chris Pramas is when he works at WotC, which was unrelated to everything. And yet somehow didn't mention anything about fate points or insanity rolls or anything else unique in WHFRG, but was sure to point out that it was basically just "humans, elves, dwarfs (sic), and halflings who become more powerful over time as they kill monsters, take their stuff, and power up." I've played a lot of WHFRP2e, and I don't think 'kill monsters, take their stuff, and power up' has ever described a campaign I've been in. It's usually more 'Jesus christ everything in this world is ridiculous dangerous and we're constantly poor and society thinks we're insane for being adventurers but we've got to save Yon Village anyway because no-one else will.' And then eventually graduating to staking some vampire count or battling a Chaos Lord in the final act and saving way more than Yon Village.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 07:02
|
|
|
Plague of Hats posted:Truly one of our industry's luminaries. The best thing about Ryan Dancey is that literally nothing he has ever made for a company has gone on to reward that company. He is a plague that people just continue to invite into their houses.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 07:06
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:I've played a lot of WHFRP2e, and I don't think 'kill monsters, take their stuff, and power up' has ever described a campaign I've been in. It's usually more 'Jesus christ everything in this world is ridiculous dangerous and we're constantly poor and society thinks we're insane for being adventurers but we've got to save Yon Village anyway because no-one else will.' "If you are looking for more "flavor" material to help you understand the Warhammer Fantasy world, then the first half of this book will be helpful. If you can figure out for yourself why demons, orcs, skaven, dragons, ogres, and vampires are evil and should be killed & looted, you may wonder what you're supposed to do with 65 pages of average or below-average quality, stream of conscious, intentionally error-riddled fiction."
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 07:12
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:"If you are looking for more "flavor" material to help you understand the Warhammer Fantasy world, then the first half of this book will be helpful. If you can figure out for yourself why demons, orcs, skaven, dragons, ogres, and vampires are evil and should be killed & looted, you may wonder what you're supposed to do with 65 pages of average or below-average quality, stream of conscious, intentionally error-riddled fiction." The more I read about him the more I'm convinced Ryan Dancey is some kind of ridiculous ancient imp that escaped from a mystic puzzle box and exists as a sort of test of wits for gaming companies: Are you wise enough not to listen to his counsel and invite ruin by his mischief?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 07:15
|
|
|
on the plus side, ryan dancey has not led any harassment campaigns (that i am aware of)
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 07:17
|
|
|
Anyone who liked the D&D settings using 3.5 basically had to track down old 2nd edition fluff books for things like Planescape, Dark Sun, and Spelljammer. WotC just straight up murdered proper fluff of any kind.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 07:23
|
|
|
But at least it still wasn't 2e.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 07:56
|
|
|
PresidentBeard posted:Anyone who liked the D&D settings using 3.5 basically had to track down old 2nd edition fluff books for things like Planescape, Dark Sun, and Spelljammer. WotC just straight up murdered proper fluff of any kind. Honestly, that's the case for all D&D editions, the whole thing peaked, fluff-wise in 2E. Planescape, Birthright, Dark Sun, Spelljammer, Ravenloft. Any versions of them after that point seem to have taken a few crippling blows to the head and some weird changes for no good reason, or just never get revived. I'm personally really sad we never got a Birthright for 4E, the two seem like they'd have fit together pretty well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 08:10
|
|
|
PresidentBeard posted:Anyone who liked the D&D settings using 3.5 basically had to track down old 2nd edition fluff books for things like Planescape, Dark Sun, and Spelljammer. WotC just straight up murdered proper fluff of any kind. gradenko_2000 posted:3. The closest thing you're going to get is Original or Basic D&D: the lack of rules for everything means you can make up whatever you want for them, although technically that's also true for every edition as long as you're not yet in combat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 08:44
|
|
|
The whole "rule for everything mentality" came from Advanced D&D, didn't it? I read a bit of Designer and Dragons and I believe it claimed Gygax made Advanced to unify the game across tables by codifying more circumstances with rules. Of course, I can be misremembering.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 08:48
|
|
|
It came from a lot of places in the late 70's and early 80's. That's a little unfair, though, because back then everyone was throwing just whatever into a book, and thought "Use whatever you want, it's all optional." Except people are dumb about that kind of stuff, and the players of the 80's grew up to write the completionist-style RPGs of the 90's where the trend really reached its nadir.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 09:08
|
|
|
Plague of Hats posted:It came from a lot of places in the late 70's and early 80's. That's a little unfair, though, because back then everyone was throwing just whatever into a book, and thought "Use whatever you want, it's all optional." Except people are dumb about that kind of stuff, and the players of the 80's grew up to write the completionist-style RPGs of the 90's where the trend really reached its nadir. Well , she didn't imply it was only Gygax. She referenced Rolemaster's creator and other such sources, but she said that's the moment it really came to D&D. I didn't think about it that way, but, yeah, all the optional rules probably did lead to 90s design.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 09:17
|
|
|
Covok posted:Well , she didn't imply it was only Gygax. She referenced Rolemaster's creator and other such sources, but she said that's the moment it really came to D&D. I didn't think about it that way, but, yeah, all the optional rules probably did lead to 90s design. Are you talking about Shannon Applecline? He's a "he" as far as I know.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 09:19
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:I'm personally really sad we never got a Birthright for 4E, the two seem like they'd have fit together pretty well. Did 4e ever have its own version of mass combat rules? Babylon Astronaut posted:Red Box basic had a catch all rule for anything that you could do not covered by the rest of the game. I think 4e had a similar system somewhere. It's really nice because then you don't have that 3e moment when you're just referencing books back and forth and finding complete jibberish about something unrelated. The three books thing really sucked. Yeah Basic's roll under rule and 4e's per-level skill DCs and damage assumptions are just a few of the things that make DM'ing it such a breeze. gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 10:06 on Mar 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 10:04
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Did 4e ever have its own version of mass combat rules? I don't know, but Birthright had its own, simplified, ruleset for mass combat, effectively completely separate from the D&D rules. It was really very neat and I hardly think it would've even needed upgrading.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 10:24
|
|
|
I've heard enough horror stories about pathfinder rules to chase me off but on the other hand the dumb throw-everything-in setting sounds exactly like something I'd like. Should I look into it? Make decisions for me, TG chat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 10:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 16:16 |
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Did 4e ever have its own version of mass combat rules? Not officially, but there were at least a couple homebrewed ways of doing it. Honestly, you don't need mass combat rules for 4E; just stat units as monsters and then play normal 4E combat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 10:57
|
|
