|
Really Pants posted:"It has the name" and "It doesn't matter if it's bad" are not good reasons to like it. If you go from "playing with friends" to "gently caress them Im better than this" because of some edition war crap, your friends are probably better off without you. If your friends all want to play Warhammer, and you have a meltdown because "Bloodbowl is better you ignorant plebeians!", there is definitely a problem. If your friends all want to play DungeonMouseBurningHammer and you have a fit because its "not DnD" then you are doing the same thing in reverse.
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:02 |
|
|
What if one of your group has a deep objection to playing a given game, and you refuse to consider changing systems/not playing that game on that basis...
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:What if one of your group has a deep objection to playing a given game, and you refuse to consider changing systems/not playing that game on that basis... If the rest of the group doesn't see any issues with the system, you tell that one player, "Well, you don't have to play." And then your friend/role play buddy/"edition warrior" has to take that ultimatum to heart and make the decision of not playing the kind of game he wants to play or not play a game at all. And it makes said player look and feel like the rear end in a top hat. Sometimes that player chooses the latter option because ultimately he isn't having fun and the rest of the group doesn't really care because they don't see the problem and he doesn't want to be "that rear end in a top hat."
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:So for the purposes of coming up with some sort of feat-chain progression to tack onto the Fighter, I've been working on categorizing feats. Here's what I've come up with: Alright, I've been doing some pondering on this, so if anyone wants to appraise my very rough take on the idea, please let me know your thoughts. 1. Fighters gain a bonus feat at every level in which they gain Extra Attack. These feats are picked based on their Fighting Style, as follows: TWF or Archery Defensive Duelist Skulker Sharpshooter Crossbow Expert Dual Wielder Protection Inspiring Leader Defensive Duelist Shield Master GWF Savage Attacker Great Weapon Master Polearm Master Defense or Dueling choose from 1 of the other lists (any Fighting Style) Medium Armor Master Mobile Mounted Combat Charger 2. Fighters gain the following feats when they choose their Martial Archetype at level 3: Eldritch Knight War Caster Mage Slayer /or/ Sentinel Champion or Battle Master (choose 2) Defensive Duelist Mage Slayer Sentinel 3. Fighters gain a bonus feat at every level in which they gain Martial Archetype Features (including 3rd level). These feats are picked based on their Martial Archetype, as follows: Eldritch Knight Durable Heavy Armor Master Keen Mind Linguist Observant Resilient Ritual Caster Elemental Adept Spell Sniper Champion or Battle Master Athlete Actor Durable Heavy Armor Master Resilient Tavern Brawler Grappler Inspiring Leader 4. Fighters gain an additional Background feature at each level that they gain a use of Action Surge: (Suggested backgrounds) Battle Master: Soldier, Sailor, Knight, Guild Artisan Champion: Gladiator, Folk Hero, Outlander, Pirate Eldritch Knight: Acolyte, Hermit, Noble, Sage 
P.d0t fucked around with this message at 21:14 on Jun 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:No one in here cares about the name. But none of this is what's happening? There are a lot of legitimate problems with 5E. Those problems make it an unfun game to a lot of people. I, for one, have no obligation to partake in an unfun activity just because other people that I like like it, and saying so is the best possible course in social situations rather than just grinning and bearing it because your friends like it. People aren't being morally superior when they say that there are hordes of better-crafted systems out there; they're being factual. edit: That's pretty antagonistic, sorry, but I honestly have not found a situation where 5E would do better than another system, so going, "If you don't like playing 5E you're an elitist," annoys me Darwinism fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Jun 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:No one in here cares about the name.  All the goony bullshit about the game being fundamentally unplayable is lovely too, but let's not confuse different kinds of shittiness.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
Every edition has numerous faults that make it unfun for certain people. This may be ameliorated by playing with a good group of people. Everyone in my group has an edition preference that is not necessarily 5e (or even D&D, I personally like 13th Age) but we all play 5e together and have a good time. We always have two DM's going and we alternate between their campaigns each week. Sometimes one of the DM's will take a break for a campaign and we slot in another player and give them a chance to DM. This really helps balance out the strengths and weaknesses of each DM. I highly recommend a system like this as it keeps things from getting stagnant and we all get to learn from each other. I emphasize this because I believe firmly that it is the group that makes the game. I am not suggesting that 5e isn't flawed in many ways but if your group wants to do it and you really, really don't I would suggest finding a group that fits more of your criteria rather than battling with other players over which edition is better.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
I know I "battled" my DM and other players with "edition wars" crap. Crap like, "I know you're worried about balancing encounters, DM, but you know you wouldn't have nearly wiped out the entire group in the first round of combat in 4e since monster damage is based around character hitpoints." Or, "I know you know that martials are weaksauce compared to casters, but there are other editions that didn't have this problem." Or, "Hey, I know you're worried about our resource management, especially in terms of our hitpoints and hit die, but there was this one system that had these things called healing surges." But as I tried to bring up problems with the system, problems that the DM knew were issues in this edition but curiously aren't in others, he and the other players would double down on the actual edition warring. "5e promotes roleplay," "5e is simpler," "4e combat is a slog," (said unironically by the DM after the DM spent two rounds that session rolling all 16d6 on a dragon's fire breath), "4e was made for video game fans," and other nonsense. And so it felt like my actually constructive criticism was thrown out because they specifically wanted to play the newest edition of DnD, even the DM who'd run 4e and was having trouble reconciling the fact that 5e wasn't actually the game he wanted to run but thought it was anyway. It came down to me arguing against the actual systemic issues of the game versus the rest of the group's "feel." So, maybe you're right. Maybe it is the group that makes the game fun. But a fun group for me wouldn't be running 5e.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
Mecha Gojira posted:I know I "battled" my DM and other players with "edition wars" crap. Crap like, "I know you're worried about balancing encounters, DM, but you know you wouldn't have nearly wiped out the entire group in the first round of combat in 4e since monster damage is based around character hitpoints." Or, "I know you know that martials are weaksauce compared to casters, but there are other editions that didn't have this problem." Or, "Hey, I know you're worried about our resource management, especially in terms of our hitpoints and hit die, but there was this one system that had these things called healing surges." Do you think with modification of the rules that 5e could be something that you enjoy more? I realize that this is somewhat of a cop-out but it may highlight that the DM may be at least part of the problem. Obviously, I don't know the ins and outs of your group situation, but I feel like a strong DM should be able to adapt the system in a way that at least attempts to suit all of the players. This may not be a possibility if one fundamentally disagrees with the system or if the group (more importantly, the DM) is resistant to modification but it is at least an option for other players with the same issue. I know that DM'ing isn't in everyone's wheelhouse but you might try picking it up and running a campaign with modifications more in line with what you would like to see. This could be a learning experience for everyone. That is quite a bit of work to put in and it may just be better to sit out or find another group but I am really happy with the multiple DM setup that we have and it might be worth a try for others.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
denimgorilla posted:Do you think with modification of the rules that 5e could be something that you enjoy more? I realize that this is somewhat of a cop-out but it may highlight that the DM may be at least part of the problem. Obviously, I don't know the ins and outs of your group situation, but I feel like a strong DM should be able to adapt the system in a way that at least attempts to suit all of the players. This may not be a possibility if one fundamentally disagrees with the system or if the group (more importantly, the DM) is resistant to modification but it is at least an option for other players with the same issue. You would have to redo monster creation rules from the ground up and do complete redesigns of half the classes in the game in order to get something approaching balanced classes and encounters.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
denimgorilla posted:Do you think with modification of the rules that 5e could be something that you enjoy more? I realize that this is somewhat of a cop-out but it may highlight that the DM may be at least part of the problem. Obviously, I don't know the ins and outs of your group situation, but I feel like a strong DM should be able to adapt the system in a way that at least attempts to suit all of the players. This may not be a possibility if one fundamentally disagrees with the system or if the group (more importantly, the DM) is resistant to modification but it is at least an option for other players with the same issue. This is why my group has been playing FFG Star Wars for a few years now after 4E. They never cared to optimize characters or learn all the rules or even learn what all their multitude of powers did, so I had to do all of it as the DM. Combats lasted so long even at level 9 that I had to start handwaving a lot. FFG Star Wars has almost none of the problems with complexity that 4E had. It's a godsend for me as a permanent GM.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
denimgorilla posted:Do you think with modification of the rules that 5e could be something that you enjoy more? I realize that this is somewhat of a cop-out but it may highlight that the DM may be at least part of the problem. Obviously, I don't know the ins and outs of your group situation, but I feel like a strong DM should be able to adapt the system in a way that at least attempts to suit all of the players. This may not be a possibility if one fundamentally disagrees with the system or if the group (more importantly, the DM) is resistant to modification but it is at least an option for other players with the same issue. Yes, 5e could be a better game if you changed all the rules. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:Yes, 5e could be a better game if you changed all the rules. Fair enough, just trying to provide alternatives while still working within that framework. I've certainly had plenty of fun with 5e, even if its not my favorite system but I approach it with adaptability. Is that a sign of a weak product? Sure, but if you are going to play it anyways might as well make the best of it. edit: alg posted:This is why my group has been playing FFG Star Wars for a few years now after 4E. They never cared to optimize characters or learn all the rules or even learn what all their multitude of powers did, so I had to do all of it as the DM. Combats lasted so long even at level 9 that I had to start handwaving a lot. I've been eyeballing that Star Wars system. It looks like a lot of fun and I do love glowsticks. imagine dungeons fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Jun 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
Have any tried resurrecting the Playtest version(s) of the Fighter?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 01:51
|
|
|
denimgorilla posted:Is that a sign of a weak product? Sure, but if you are going to play it anyways might as well make the best of it. This right here is what gets me. It's a weak product, you know it's a weak product. What is the reason for avoiding stronger products? edit: I'm not trying to say that you must optimize your game's fun or you're doing it wrong, I'm genuinely curious as to what makes people go, "Well, I know this system isn't very good, but I may as well play it instead of a better one" Darwinism fucked around with this message at 03:38 on Jun 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:This right here is what gets me. It's a weak product, you know it's a weak product. What is the reason for avoiding stronger products?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
Yea, 5e has dumb poo poo and it's a step backwards but it's not some unplayable trash pile that everyone who uses it is just lying to themselves to endure. It's an ok game with stupid rear end design choices in some places like many average, forgettable, games out there. My group has had fun with it, that's literally the only standard I use.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:Because different people enjoy different types of games, and the inherent shittiness of 5e has been somewhat overstated? For a lot of groups, an easy consensus game like 5e is what they need. It just seems like the Monopoly argument. There are tons of better games out there, games that people would probably love if they tried. But they don't try it because everyone knows Monopoly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 06:36
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:It just seems like the Monopoly argument. There are tons of better games out there, games that people would probably love if they tried. But they don't try it because everyone knows Monopoly. Yeah and getting mad at Monopoly players because they say "nah" when you suggest they could be playing Tigris and Euphrates instead is just as dumb.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 06:48
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:It just seems like the Monopoly argument. There are tons of better games out there, games that people would probably love if they tried. But they don't try it because everyone knows Monopoly. Games are not objectively quantifiable. You can get 5 people to all agree 5e is a weak game but none of them can agree on a better game, for example. I'm not saying that's great but... It's not just that people 'know' Monopoly. Imagine if you have 5 people and all are them are neutral to semi-positive about Monopoly. All of them agree it's a mediocre game. One guy suggests Sorry, which two people reject; another person suggests Twilight Imperium which sends three of the people into fits, and so on. "Which game can we all get jazzed about" is a pretty valid question when you sit down to run a game. 5e would not be my first choice either but I know I can't convince everybody to play 4e or Dungeon World and you'd need to put me in some kind of harness to get me to agree to play 3.x. 5e is not so bad of a game (for me) that I'd rather play no game at all, but I suppose for many people it could be, and I respect that. Just recognize that "game won't light the world on fire" doesn't necessarily generate a cogent case for the group being able to play a different, comparable game. Many times, the group won't play anything if that's the case.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 06:56
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:Yeah and getting mad at Monopoly players because they say "nah" when you suggest they could be playing Tigris and Euphrates instead is just as dumb. Why do people keep insisting that you have to be angry at other people playing games wrong to wonder why they're playing pretty bad games? Mendrian posted:Games are not objectively quantifiable. You can get 5 people to all agree 5e is a weak game but none of them can agree on a better game, for example. I'm not saying that's great but... Yeah, this all makes sense - I guess I just really dislike the weight that, "We're used to it," has. Darwinism fucked around with this message at 07:06 on Jun 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 06:58
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:Why do people keep insisting that you have to be angry at other people playing games wrong to wonder why they're playing pretty bad games? I'm still wondering where the whole moral superiority thing came from.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 07:26
|
|
|
alg posted:This is why my group has been playing FFG Star Wars for a few years now after 4E. They never cared to optimize characters or learn all the rules or even learn what all their multitude of powers did, so I had to do all of it as the DM. Combats lasted so long even at level 9 that I had to start handwaving a lot. See that's another thing; Star Wars might be a genre I'm interested in, but I start looking at the actual game rules and I glaze over. I loved 4e before it started getting spergy, but nowadays I'd rather play 5e than try something Completely Different™
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 08:01
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:This right here is what gets me. It's a weak product, you know it's a weak product. What is the reason for avoiding stronger products? I don't think that this is an unfair question given what I've said but I do think that the answer is multifaceted. 1. This is the newest edition of D&D. Like it or not, it will have that brand-name allure and sentimentality is a very real thing. 2. I don't believe that it is necessarily more flawed than previous editions, however people have different criteria upon which they will judge the game. It may not be the game you like but that may also have little bearing on the opinions of others. 3. Monetary considerations. It is fairly hard to judge the game without that initial investment and it is a lot to ask a group of people that have spent $35-$100 each to abandon their investment and invest in another system that may or may not provide them with more entertainment. 4. A group consensus is reached and then we act upon that consensus. If things become untenable, you may have to reevaluate that decision but this simply has not come up in my group or various other groups. Not to be critical but I find many of the posts in this thread to be from people unhappy with the game that disagree with their groups opinions and come here seeking validation for their opinions rather than examining their own approach to the group consensus nature of roleplaying games. 5. It's fun for us and our players have broad and varying expectations of what will yield that fun. That is the most important criteria of all. Maybe we switch and someone else is unhappy? Not every system is going to be a fit with every person but I do think that 5e has a broad enough appeal to satisfy most people. Granted, I'm only functioning on personal and anecdotal experience but that's really all I have available to judge it on. I think 13th Age and Dungeon World are wonderful systems that deserve examination in their own right but my personal opinion on the matter doesn't need to override anyone else's. I'm willing to look past the (overstated) flaws of 5e and find enjoyment out of it rather than succumbing to the exaggerated despair of it not being a perfect system.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 10:16
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:Why do people keep insisting that you have to be angry at other people playing games wrong to wonder why they're playing pretty bad games? Call it whatever you want, and I'm fine and down with talking about how bad 5e is or whatever online, my problem is when it obnoxiously spills into real life. Kai Tave posted:I'm still wondering where the whole moral superiority thing came from. You're confusing eye rolling with "moral superiority" I'm pretty much just echoing stuff that FRINGE and denimgorilla have said way better than I can. Lightning Lord fucked around with this message at 10:38 on Jun 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 10:28
|
|
|
Honestly I think a huge part of the problem is that nothing is happening in 5e-land. There's nothing to talk about other than some adventures and what am I supposed to say about that? That Mike Schley's maps are cool? Pathfinder might not be liked by everybody here but that thread is jumping because there's just a ton to discuss. 5e still feels like it's in some sort of holding pattern, or that it was just made to deal with rights issues.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 11:28
|
|
|
This discussion is flawed because Monopoly is actually pgood if you don't gently caress it up with a bunch of stupid houserules that make it take a year to finish.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 14:05
|
|
|
It's the opposite of D&D in that respect, really.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 14:11
|
|
|
What I like about the Monopoly comparison is that Monopoly was initially conceived as a way to highlight the flaws in the very system by which it works.  e: like the idea behind The Landlord's Game was literally that you were supposed to play it, and have fun playing it, but also start questioning the ideals it's built on. My Lovely Horse fucked around with this message at 15:28 on Jun 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 14:12
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Alright, I've been doing some pondering on this, so if anyone wants to appraise my very rough take on the idea, please let me know your thoughts. You might want to add more feats to these two lists; especially the GWF one because not everyone is going to be a Polearm user - the 2d6 greatsword damage works better with GWF's feature than 1dd10+sometimes 1d4 I think
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 14:29
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:You're confusing eye rolling with "moral superiority" FRINGE posted:The discussion is more fun when people are talking about adjusting it to work better for different groups than fantasizing about moral superiority based on not playing a thing. Monopoly chat: It always makes me laugh when people use monopoly as a familiarity>playability example because monopoly is a game that was literally designed to be unfun and unfair. This is not hyperbole it is a statement of actual historical fact. P.d0t posted:See that's another thing; Star Wars might be a genre I'm interested in, but I start looking at the actual game rules and I glaze over. I loved 4e before it started getting spergy, but nowadays I'd rather play 5e than try something Completely Different™ denimgorilla posted:I've been eyeballing that Star Wars system. It looks like a lot of fun and I do love glowsticks. Splicer fucked around with this message at 15:22 on Jun 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
Angrymog posted:You might want to add more feats to these two lists; especially the GWF one because not everyone is going to be a Polearm user - the 2d6 greatsword damage works better with GWF's feature than 1dd10+sometimes 1d4 I think Keep in mind there's the "any" list that these Styles could also pick from; there's a bunch of fairly broadly applicable feats there. Are there any particular feats you think should be added to GWF and/or Protection? As per the feat category post, I tried to put all the Bonus Action feats and Combat feats into the lists tied to Fighting Styles; whereas the lists tied to Martial Archetypes are all feats from the ASI, Reaction, Spellcasting Req, or Ability Req groups. Does that line of thinking make sense?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Did you not like the rules, or was it the idea of learning new rules at all that threw you? The learning curve seemed to be on par with D&D (which is/was a chore) but, having it explained to me, it sounded like the system was basically "any time you do anything, roll dem bones and narrate how you hosed up." Personally, I think that's alright for Skill Challenge Time™, but I don't want combat to bog down in that sort of thing. This also makes me leery of *World systems.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
Splicer posted:
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 15:46
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:This discussion is flawed because Monopoly is actually pgood if you don't gently caress it up with a bunch of stupid houserules that make it take a year to finish. This is true - the last two games of Monopoly I played, we went exactly by the book and the longest a game ever took was 90 minutes. It also helps that my family are all basically socialists so we just rolled along at the by-design concentration-of-wealth-via-randomness.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Keep in mind there's the "any" list that these Styles could also pick from; there's a bunch of fairly broadly applicable feats there. Are there any particular feats you think should be added to GWF and/or Protection? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
There were some unethical / lovely things and people involved in Next's creation. Objecting to a product on moral grounds isn't some radical position - It's more than a little disingenuous to accuse them of "fantasizing of moral superiority" for not supporting a company whose practices offend them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:Call it whatever you want, and I'm fine and down with talking about how bad 5e is or whatever online, my problem is when it obnoxiously spills into real life. Except nobody here is advocating doing that, that's some weird strawman FRINGE made up so he could yell at it which is par for the course for his posting. The only person here who's suggested being an rear end in a top hat about Next in real life in the last five pages or so is mastershakeman who, unsurprisingly, is also an idiot. There's a huge excluded middle between "shrug and do a thing that isn't fun for you out of social obligation" and "pitch the shittiest fit possible and act like a frothing edition warrior because how dare they play a sub-optimal game." I mean this isn't just some hypothetical situation either, Mecha Gojira sounds like they're dealing with it right now and it doesn't sound like they're being obnoxious in how they handle it, but it still boils down to them being caught between continuing to go along with a game that's increasingly unenjoyable to them or finding a different group or way to spend their recreational time since it sounds like he and the rest of his group are at an impasse. gradenko_2000 posted:This is true - the last two games of Monopoly I played, we went exactly by the book and the longest a game ever took was 90 minutes. This brings up an important part of the whole "having fun playing bad games" thing for me which is that the less time it takes to set up and play a "bad" game the less likely I am to care whether it's bad or not. Bang! isn't, like, a super great game or anything, it's more or less a random dice-fest with a tiny hidden role element that doesn't really matter too much on account of everything being down to rolling handfuls of dice over and over, but on the other hand a game of Bang! takes like 15 minutes so when people at board game night want to play a few rounds of Bang! then hey, that's cool. A bad game that takes hours to play through, by contrast, is something I'm less likely to want to play again in the future. Roleplaying games traditionally take a lot of time, the assumption isn't just "oh well you play for 90 minutes or two hours," the idea is that you're spending 4-8 hours every Saturday until ??? That's a pretty sizable opportunity cost of time to be sinking into something if you aren't enjoying it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:See that's another thing; Star Wars might be a genre I'm interested in, but I start looking at the actual game rules and I glaze over. I loved 4e before it started getting spergy, but nowadays I'd rather play 5e than try something Completely Different™ I can empathize with that. I go through phases where I will voraciously read systems, followed by phases where I literally can't force myself to read a rulebook.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:02 |
|
|
Kai Tave posted:, the assumption isn't just "oh well you play for 90 minutes or two hours," the idea is that you're spending 4-8 hours every Saturday until ??? That's a pretty sizable opportunity cost of time to be sinking into something if you aren't enjoying it. On a somewhat related note, 13th Age's concept of a "10-session campaign" where the players all level up after 1 session, culminating in a campaign-ending battle as they reach the game's peak of level 10 I thought was nice as far as it puts a definite length on how long it takes to get to the next level, puts a definite length on how long it takes for the players to get access to their high-level toys, and generally gives the whole table a good metric for wrapping up everything rather than a series of campaigns that never get past the first half dozen levels or one that just drags on forever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 17:04
|
|