|
http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidewalt/2015/04/15/new-dungeons-dragons-fifth-edition/quote:David Ewalt: How has fifth edition Dungeons & Dragons been selling? Emphasis mine. They mentioned all the other D&D editions except one. And for gently caress's sake, "aiding the tabletop play in a way that encourages more eye-to-eye contact" is letting players access their rulebook PDFs through a tablet.
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 08:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 00:36 |
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidewalt/2015/04/15/new-dungeons-dragons-fifth-edition/ quote:You’ve also been using adventure books to introduce new rules and races. Are there plans for new sourcebooks beyond the core three, stuff like a Player’s Handbook 2? Or are you just concentrating on stories now? Huh weird, I was under the impression rules drove games. Surely this isn't just because "stories" dont actually require playtesting and sell gangbusters to the "read on the toilet" demographic
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 08:36
|
|
|
So they have no real plans for books coming out anytime soon, no real plans for electronic aids, and their big news is their isometric PC game made by a company known for making Nintendo DS ports, a mediocre jRPG, and the critically acclaimed Hannah Montana license. But they do brag about having "some of the members of the group of leaders that created Dragon Age: Origin" which is just specific enough to be hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 13:49
|
|
|
Mordiceius posted:I liked how 4e's Gamma World handled random rolls. You get 18 in your primary origin's stat. 16 in your secondary origin's stat. Then you random roll everything else. If both origins share the same stat, then you get 20 in that stat and random roll everything else. So if you're against random rolling, why not just let everyone have 18s across the board, or 12s, or any other arbitrary number since no one would outshine anyone else that way?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 14:09
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:So if you're against random rolling, why not just let everyone have 18s across the board, or 12s, or any other arbitrary number since no one would outshine anyone else that way? You are saying this like it is a bad thing, but isn't this exactly what a standard array is?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 14:24
|
|
|
I linked that a while back, but my favorite thing about the interview is how he says that they'd like to publish books in settings beyond the Forgotten Realms, but they aren't going to do that until FR stops making them money.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 14:31
|
|
|
Grandicap posted:You are saying this like it is a bad thing, but isn't this exactly what a standard array is? No, because a standard array still allows for putting your best scores into the wrong choice. A fighter with low Dex con and str.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 14:31
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:So if you're against random rolling, why not just let everyone have 18s across the board, or 12s, or any other arbitrary number since no one would outshine anyone else that way? In 4e, there was a conscious effort to try to keep the player and monster math in sync so that players hit on-level monsters roughly 60-70% of the time. And to do that, players needed to start with 18s in their primary ability score. Granted, there was a lot of unnecessary busy work that went into keeping those numbers in sync, and it didn't always work. But it was arguably necessary if they wanted to keep a lot of the trappings of 3e and earlier editions (numbers going up and items that added to hit). Now that the math is a lot more obfuscated (or, arguably, nonexistent), it's a lot harder to figure out where those ability scores should be set. But it's absolutely true that having higher numbers grants a player more agency to succeed at what they want to accomplish. And in a game like D&D where people tend to play long campaigns, the world is often billed as a sandbox, and with no mechanical incentive for creating drama (failing), that's a pretty big deal. There's a huge incentive to beeline a 20 in your primary ability score. And if you can do so ahead of the curve, that's basically free feats in a game where feats are relatively powerful.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 14:56
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, why is it so difficult to understand that the reason random rolling for stats is a BAD IDEA is because the math of the game relies on certain expected numbers to be in certain expected stats for all classes. You can "roleplay" with bad numbers until you're blue in the God drat face but it won't change the fact that the hard mechanics of the game expect you to be X tall to ride this loving ride, and you're not pulling your God damned weight if you do not meet this criteria. Ability scores matter so much to the character's basic functionality that rolling them randomly is already a strike against your character if you happen to roll like poo poo. Anyone who prefers random rolling really needs to divorce themselves from the idea that "I could roll really well, so it's fine!" or "Well I could roleplay a low STR Fighter!" with the fact that the actual game itself has expectations. Your low STR Fighter is going to be loving USELESS because he won't be able to hit the God damned enemy! Something, I might add, that by the very mechanics of the game, is the ONLY thing he is SUPPOSED to be good at. Anyone who denies this isn't playing loving dungeons and dragons.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 14:57
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:So if you're against random rolling, why not just let everyone have 18s across the board, or 12s, or any other arbitrary number since no one would outshine anyone else that way? Technically it works if: 1. The arbitrary number is set to whatever it is the game needs for it to be set for the rest of the underlying math to work 2. You use the set arbitrary numbers for all of the stats that matter. That can be a single stat for a Wizard, or two for a Fighter (unless you're using DEX, whatever), or three for a Paladin/Monk, and so on and so forth. Not having played Gamma World, I do not know if there's a MAD situation in that game. So yeah, "give me set stat numbers for the important stuff, let me roll the rest" can work, but it's kind of like random rolling with a lot of fail-safe procedures: at some point you've taken so many steps to guarantee a decent set of numbers that you might as well just flat-out use a decent set of numbers. Even if we excuse random rolling your CHA for a chance of getting to roleplay a character with 6 CHA and all that that entails - if you wanted to do that you should just do that irrespective of your actual stats. EDIT: And the next step after "always just use a decent set of numbers" is to do away with a player's ability to gently caress around with their mission critical numbers in the first place. If you're going to guarantee that a Fighter always has an 18 to play with and if you're going to tell the Fighter to always put that 18 into STR, cut out the middle man and stop giving them the 18 to stop them from sticking it somewhere they shouldn't gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 15:27 on Apr 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 15:08
|
|
|
You could just reduce the impact ability modifiers have on rolls so you can more comfortably have a deviation from the "expected" value. Base your system around the d100 and watch as the importance of a +1 modifier shrinks to a fifth! The sky or your ability to make regular polyhedral objects is the limit, and we live in the age of 3D printers! 
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 15:14
|
|
|
Agent Boogeyman posted:Holy poo poo, why is it so difficult to understand that the reason random rolling for stats is a BAD IDEA is because the math of the game relies on certain expected numbers to be in certain expected stats for all classes. You can "roleplay" with bad numbers until you're blue in the God drat face but it won't change the fact that the hard mechanics of the game expect you to be X tall to ride this loving ride, and you're not pulling your God damned weight if you do not meet this criteria. Ability scores matter so much to the character's basic functionality that rolling them randomly is already a strike against your character if you happen to roll like poo poo. Anyone who prefers random rolling really needs to divorce themselves from the idea that "I could roll really well, so it's fine!" or "Well I could roleplay a low STR Fighter!" with the fact that the actual game itself has expectations. Your low STR Fighter is going to be loving USELESS because he won't be able to hit the God damned enemy! Something, I might add, that by the very mechanics of the game, is the ONLY thing he is SUPPOSED to be good at. Anyone who denies this isn't playing loving dungeons and dragons. This indirectly explains a goddamn ton about why some of the D&D players I've met over the past 6 months come across as joyless, domineering douchebags.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:No, because a standard array still allows for putting your best scores into the wrong choice. A fighter with low Dex con and str. Keeping all four does add more customization to the game (dex vs str fighters), but at the cost of creating huge system mastery traps. If you just made your combat effectiveness a function of Class and Level, you can cut out the middle man and describe your fighting style however you want (or through your power/manouver choices).
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
ImpactVector posted:It's been pointed out before but you're basically making the popular 4e "Death to Ability Scores" argument here. In a game with Class, Level, Skills, and Ability Score, at least one of those is going to be redundant in describing the capabilities of a character. Yet this takes away from playing an ultra smart fighter or super strong wizard. The math expectation of optimization limits your choices. So instead of going back to a fixed math system like 4e, smooth out the bonuses so that it isn't required to max your primary stat or else. Basically it boils down to option of playing Conan or batman or whatever else. Either you allow random rolling so that kind of character shows up now and then, or just make every hero perfect unless they want to roleplay lower stats.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 15:39
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:No, because a standard array still allows for putting your best scores into the wrong choice. A fighter with low Dex con and str. That's just another reason why arrays are better than rolling, then. It's the best of both worlds. If you want to be effective, you can put your big numbers in the right spots. If you think it's creative role-playing to have a character who's useless at their basic functions, you can put your big numbers in the verisimilitudinous spots instead. Everybody wins! Except when they want to role-play losing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 15:39
|
|
|
Really Pants posted:That's just another reason why arrays are better than rolling, then. It's the best of both worlds. If you want to be effective, you can put your big numbers in the right spots. If you think it's creative role-playing to have a character who's useless at their basic functions, you can put your big numbers in the verisimilitudinous spots instead. Everybody wins! Except when they want to role-play losing. No , because you can never get exceptional all around characters that way, and its neat to see them. The people I play with have historically similar rolling-2 of them repeatedly roll incredibly well, another guy and myself incredibly poorly. I'm fine with my guy being subpar when it lets the guy playing the priest have a huge con and str score on top of his wisdom and be an absolute beast
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Yet this takes away from playing an ultra smart fighter or super strong wizard. The math expectation of optimization limits your choices. So instead of going back to a fixed math system like 4e, smooth out the bonuses so that it isn't required to max your primary stat or else. Or hell, you could random roll your skill selections. As long as they're well balanced (i.e. we don't have the Perception problem) and we don't have any that are required for the party to have (like trap-disarming skills), this is a pretty cool way to do random characters. And you can weight the rolls however you want, so they're all an even chance or you're more likely to play in-type. Or if you have required skills, you can always allow players to select some of their skills.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
ImpactVector posted:In what way does DTAS "take away" from playing off-beat characters? If you want to play a high-Int fighter you take the History skill. Likewise, a high-Str wizard would just take the Athletics skill. Then the player gets to choose what kind of character you are, and aren't forced to play in-type. Skills aren't stats.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
I might be misunderstanding, but is one of your points that your role-playing in largely restricted by your stats?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 15:59
|
|
|
Grimpond posted:I might be misunderstanding, but is one of your points that your role-playing in largely restricted by your stats? I think so, yeah. For instance, if you don't have a high wisdom or int your character shouldn't be coming up with intelligent solutions to problems. Heck, just having a very low str is interesting when everyone is discussing hauling or carrying something and you point out you can't do that. Or if your musclewizard can in fact do that , that's also interesting. They're used as a baseline to represent your character in all situations, instead of just looking at your skill list and seeing what you can apply that to. Hell, you shouldn't be able to pull a jean valjean and lift a carriage off of someone with an 8 in str, even if you did take the skill athletics. You should also be hitting things a bunch better and harder (than others of your class and level) if you're the strongest guy alive . etcetc. This isn't complicated mastershakeman fucked around with this message at 16:13 on Apr 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
You have to sleep with me because I've got high Charisma.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Skills aren't stats. I mean, granted, DTAS will never be a thing in D&D. Ability Scores are a pretty central sacred cow (more so than skills even). This is all just a thought experiment. Even I'm too lazy to try to shoehorn them into the edition that'd best support them. But rolling for scores is even crazier. What happens when you get bored with playing a sidekick and watching your cleric buddy succeed at everything? When do you get the spotlight? That dynamic really isn't healthy for long campaigns. A bored player will try to shake things up somehow, often to the detriment of the ongoing story. They'll usually try to retire the character, either with permission or forcefully (by getting him killed), which can create headaches for the DM if they had character-specific plans for the campaign.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Hell, you shouldn't be able to pull a jean valjean and lift a carriage off of someone with an 8 in str, even if you did take the skill athletics. You should also be hitting things a bunch better and harder (than others of your class and level) if you're the strongest guy alive . etcetc. This isn't complicated If ability scores didn't exist (so Strength wasn't a thing), why couldn't basing what your character can do off his skills be enough to play non-stereotypical versions of his class? You could then fluff class abilities to fit whatever direction you are going for.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Hell, you shouldn't be able to pull a jean valjean and lift a carriage off of someone with an 8 in str, even if you did take the skill athletics. Why not? He could still roll high on his Strength check. Rolling is everything in role-playing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
Kibner posted:If ability scores didn't exist (so Strength wasn't a thing), why couldn't basing what your character can do off his skills be enough to play non-stereotypical versions of his class? You could then fluff class abilities to fit whatever direction you are going for. Don't you end up coming full circle on this and creating skills that model ability scores? What's the point? Hell, I'd much, much rather get rid of skills and keep ability scores, going back to nonweapon proficiencies/weapon proficiencies ala 2e. And if you're so very worried that the non-existent math and class balance will be ruined by rolling for scores, just 'choose' the ability scores exactly like you would skills. mastershakeman fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Apr 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Don't you end up coming full circle on this and creating skills that model ability scores? What's the point? HeroQuest doesn't have ability scores or skills. Instead, you take "abilities" which is a thing you make up that your character can use to solve problems. If DnD was able to get away with something similar to that, it could work well (at least, in my mind).
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Don't you end up coming full circle on this and creating skills that model ability scores? What's the point? Giving people the ability to function in their class and then a set of skills that do NOT model ability scores is the goal. You would not have a skill "is strong." You would have a skill "climbing walls" that does not automatically also make you an arrow-dodging ninja who is also really good with a bow.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Don't you end up coming full circle on this and creating skills that model ability scores? What's the point?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
Okay, so let's say you're playing with a standard array, and you want to make a "Smart Fighter", so when assigning your highest stat, you put it into INT. Except the rules-as-written state that your to-hit and damage bonuses are still derived from your STR, so then you're always going to be deliberately worse off in combat, and you're playing D&D, which is really focused on combat, so what then? If the argument is instead that you'd be using randomly rolled stats so that you can get a Fighter that has three 18s that you can sink into STR, CON and INT, why not just use a modified array that has multiple 18s so you're not taking a chance and you're not the only one with a really good character? I mean, ultimately this argument is probably going to circle around to "randomly rolled stats is fine if you know exactly what you're getting into and everyone agrees to it", but that's part of why it's bad: people usually don't understand the reasons why it should or shouldn't be used and therefore will agree to it without a good grasp of the implications.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
Why is this argument always about smart fighters and strong wizards? Never once have I seen someone want to play like an especially charismatic priest. Also why do people think that playing a buff wizard is like extra-special good roleplaying?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
theironjef posted:Why is this argument always about smart fighters and strong wizards? Never once have I seen someone want to play like an especially charismatic priest.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 17:34
|
|
|
theironjef posted:Why is this argument always about smart fighters and strong wizards? Never once have I seen someone want to play like an especially charismatic priest. Well ... mastershakeman posted:For instance, if you don't have a high wisdom or int your character shouldn't be coming up with intelligent solutions to problems. ... he says this with regards to playing a game about fantasy swords-and-sorcery, so it's part-grog, part using a system that condemns you to being shitfarmers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
theironjef posted:Why is this argument always about smart fighters and strong wizards? Never once have I seen someone want to play like an especially charismatic priest. Because high charisma is an excellent stat to have and is often the third highest stat. I was trying to use examples with a class having a high score in what would otherwise be its lowest.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Hell, you shouldn't be able to pull a jean valjean and lift a carriage off of someone with an 8 in str, even if you did take the skill athletics. You should also be hitting things a bunch better and harder (than others of your class and level) if you're the strongest guy alive . etcetc. This isn't complicated What does someone's STR score have to do with your ability to pull a carriage off them?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:I think so, yeah. For instance, if you don't have a high wisdom or int your character shouldn't be coming up with intelligent solutions to problems. Now wait a minute. Part of the eternal argument about LF/QW is that noncasters can actually contribute just as much to the out-of-combat game as casters through ~~roleplaying solutions~~. Now you're saying they can't even do that because they should have rolled better stats, peasant? What the hell?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
Guys, remember that mastershakeman is the reason this thread has the title it does, i.e. he's an idiot and you're all arguing with an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
theironjef posted:What does someone's STR score have to do with your ability to pull a carriage off them? Someone's strength doesn't have anything to do with their strength?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
Even a difference between a score of 8 and 18 is just a +5. That's a 25% better chance of lifting the cart off.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:No , because you can never get exceptional all around characters that way, and its neat to see them. The people I play with have historically similar rolling-2 of them repeatedly roll incredibly well, another guy and myself incredibly poorly. I'm fine with my guy being subpar when it lets the guy playing the priest have a huge con and str score on top of his wisdom and be an absolute beast  incoming:The problem you're trying to solve is "Ability scores as implemented in D&D require you to subtract from your core competencies to play a well-rounded character". Your proposed solution is "Give some people more ability scores than other people". This solution has two consequences: 1) some people roll flat better characters that everyone else 2) some people roll frankly unplayable characters Neither of these are seen as problems by you, since according to your arguments (1) is intended and the benefits of (1) outweigh the negatives of (2). Your reasoning is flawed in three ways. Firstly, both (1) and (2), but especially (2), are things that actively drive people away from the hobby. No matter how cool playing your all 18s character is, it is not worth losing players over. I know people who dropped out of the hobby for years due to not having fun playing a shitfarmer among demigods for their first couple of play sessions, and know of others who never came back for the same reason. I personally nearly stopped playing TTRPGs early because my first couple of characters failed everything they tried to do and died in their first sessions. The reason you believe it's worth it is because of basic sample bias. If something is only mildly annoying then you'll hear a lot of opinions about it. If something is sufficiently lovely that it actually makes people leave the community then you'll end up self-selecting for people who don't have a problem with it, or actively think it's a good thing. The reason this hobby is so small and insular is because we're really, really good at driving away the casuals. This self-selecting thing exists everywhere btw. It's called the echo chamber effect. Secondly, you're trying to solve a problem by addressing the symptoms rather than the root causes. Not only that, but one of the root causes ("Bigger numbers mean more player agency, Ability Scores have the biggest impact on your numbers") is actually exacerbated by your solution ("Some people have more/less Ability Scores, and therefore bigger/smaller numbers, and therefore more/less player agency than everyone else"). Nobody is arguing here that D&D's inability to have both well-rounded and also effective characters is a good thing, just that this particular solution is crap. There are other solutions with more focus on the root causes, such as deemphasising or entirely unlinking ability scores from class effectiveness, or replacing ability scores with another system entirely. Finally, you're treating arguments against random rolling as arguments against your reasons for random rolling. An argument against a solution is not an argument for the problem. Again, nobody is saying that being able to play a well-rounded and also effective character is a bad thing, quite the opposite. The argument is that random rolling (in the context of 3.X+ D&D) is a lovely solution that causes way more problems than it resolves. Even if all (or at least most of) the root causes are ignored, there are potentially better solutions that allow for disparate ability scores while keeping equivalent narrative agency that don't have the abysmal downsides of random rolling. At the least they'll have different abysmal downsides.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 00:36 |
|
|
"If your STR is 8 and you are proficient in Athletics, you should not be able to lift a cart" 8 STR is a -1 penalty to the roll Level 1 Proficiency is a +2 bonus to the roll 60% chance of succeeding on an Easy DC 10 35% chance of succeeding on a Moderate DC 15 10% chance of succeeding on a Hard DC 20 I guess what I'm trying to say is, if you as the DM were going to disallow the player from rolling on a "lift the cart" action because their character is "not strong", that's still an argument against the use of ability scores
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 19:22
|
|