|
MonsterEnvy posted:Most of the 3e problems are gone from my experience. You think 5e's intellect devourer is acceptable and balanced. You are really bad at looking at that game fairly, and are not a good advocate in any way, shape, or form.
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 06:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:46 |
|
|
5e claims another thread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 06:03
|
|
|
Please do not get this thread locked. It's one of the few lines of communication I have with the outside world during work. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 06:05
|
|
|
To be fair I think Monster Envy's "nothing special" comment meant 'not too outside the norm of this hobby' and not 'not worth caring about'. Not that the former is a good thing either, mind.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 06:06
|
|
|
Ash Rose posted:To be fair I think Monster Envy's "nothing special" comment meant 'not too outside the norm of this hobby' and not 'not worth caring about'. Nah. He's been using that kind of language to dismiss everything for years now. You want to find the idiot troll, look at him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 06:08
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:gently caress off. Your desperate "defend 5e at all costs!" schtick wore thin months ago. I don't like Zak S. I just don't think this minor thing is worth your toxicity and hate towards it. The assisting thing never happened. The defended part did. Nothing special was referring to Mearls. I don't agree that it's bad. I like the game. I understand you not liking it. But bullying people who do does not help. As well only two of those 3 people did the crime your accusing it of. And neither of them designed the game. The third just didn't do anything from what I have found out. The fact that you call it lip service means that you never would have accepted anything due to your grudge. Anyway please don't come into the 5e thread when it reopens if all you are going to do is try and ruin it. (Also it was 2014 when the game came out but I digress) Kai Tave posted:People have repeatedly explained it in detail. Maybe you don't like their explanations, maybe you don't really care, but this whole "no I'm not seeing it, you should continue to hold my hand and walk me through it in ever-elaborate explanations to my satisfaction" shtick is really fuckin insufferable no matter what people are arguing about. No they have not really. This is what I understand. Zak S did lovely thing like harassing friend. (understandable and good reason for hating him) Zak S was consulted about game as one of the notable people in the hobby. His inputs were largely ignored and Mearls has largely distanced himself from Zak S since then. Still he was consulted so his name was put in the book. You guys don't like this and contact Mearls and tell him Zak S is a piece of poo poo and a harasser. Mearls talks to Zak about this. But largely discounts the accusations due to the fact that something awful forum people had a habit of harassing him. Zak doubles down on harassment. You guys keep being angry about Zak's name being an easily missable footnote in the book. This is what I have been able to gather. Edit:From the new page people are calling me a troll now. And I don't want this to get locked. MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 06:29 on Feb 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 06:21
|
|
|
Yo he shared names of people who said Zak was a harasser with Zak which then caused a double down on that harassment that took an actually good game designer off the internet entirely. So long as Mearls gets money from 5E that's a reason to boycott 5E.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 06:26
|
|
|
Ash Rose posted:To be fair I think Monster Envy's "nothing special" comment meant 'not too outside the norm of this hobby' and not 'not worth caring about'. The nothing special was referring to Mearls. Not Zak. Zak is super lovely from what I have seen of him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 06:27
|
|
|
Hell, Mikan had already self banned from SA by then.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 06:28
|
|
|
Mr. Maltose posted:Yo he shared names of people who said Zak was a harasser with Zak which then caused a double down on that harassment that took an actually good game designer off the internet entirely. So long as Mearls gets money from 5E that's a reason to boycott 5E. Ok thank you I did not know that part. Details like this is why I was asking for you guys to explain it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 06:30
|
|
|
Mearls decided to hire a serial harasser and a fascist as consultants. It doesn't really matter how much design work they actually did, or how much he paid them, and least of all if he's currently Facebook friends with them. He also repeated edition war memes in interviews and updates--which is not on the same level, but it's all of a piece with him looking at the most angry, stupid, childish aspects of D&D fandom and said "Yes, I should tap into this." I don't care if Mearls loves Pundit or if hiring him was a cynical marketing ploy. Likewise his courting the worst parts of the online discussion (he certainly spent months of updates and interviews discussing design ideas that never made it into 5e). It's just pathetic that he thought his target market should be, basically, lonely immature men. It would be horrible even if 5e was brilliant design. Arivia posted:And fyi I try to stick to my guns about these things. I mentioned it in this thread before, but I'm no longer buying Paizo products after that poo poo with Kingdom Death, despite all the other good they've done. And you all know how much I like Pathfinder. If someone came up to me and asked if I'd recommend Pathfinder at this point I'd say no because of that poo poo, and tell them why. I know one guy who bought it and he says the design is good, and that the dick monsters and boobarians are only a small part of the game. But GIS for Kingdom Death only gives me titty-studded dickwolves.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 06:35
|
|
|
Yeah. Mikan, along with others, told Mearls. Mearls told Zak about it. Suddenly Mikan is literally driven off the internet by a coordinated harassment campaign. Mearls gets money from 5E. People should know.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 06:36
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:I don't like Zak S. I just don't think this minor thing is worth your toxicity and hate towards it. The assisting thing never happened. The defended part did. Nothing special was referring to Mearls. People don't like 5e because they don't like 5e, hth. You seem to take this as a challenge and constantly demand further explanation. This is why nobody wants to engage you. Only a handful of people are specifically severing from 5e because of that whole scandal. Like if somebody wanted to talk about how they don't like dry mustard, would you ask for increasingly specific reasons why and challenge their answers?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 06:49
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:People don't like 5e because they don't like 5e, hth. Nope that is a fair point. But I can understand not liking 5e game design wise. I disagree on a lot of counts, but I can understand as that stuff is subjective. But I honestly just wanted that scandal explained to me better. Because I did not understand it completely. Though once the thread is back up I do hope they stop harassing the people there. As the thread was greatly improving from how toxic it was for a while.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 06:57
|
|
|
Arivia posted:And fyi I try to stick to my guns about these things. I mentioned it in this thread before, but I'm no longer buying Paizo products after that poo poo with Kingdom Death, despite all the other good they've done. And you all know how much I like Pathfinder. If someone came up to me and asked if I'd recommend Pathfinder at this point I'd say no because of that poo poo, and tell them why. Wow. I'm both impressed and a little saddened that happened for something you seemed to enjoy a lot. It's not something I really think about not being directly involved, but it must be pretty disappointing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 07:01
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:What is Kingdom Death even. I cannot understand the demand for it. I wish I had market research on the customer base, probably because on some level I enjoy recoiling in horror. It's a cooperative minis game with above-average-for-a-dungeon-crawler pseudo-AI combat and a shitton of physical assets with sometimes-good-but-way-more-often-questionable art that made an insane amount of Kickstarter money off the backs of said art/minis. If you want to know more here's a good explanation of its mechanics as well as the surrounding art/issues: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3VzOayLcYs
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 07:24
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:From what I've read of gradenko's excellent detective work, at the outset of 4e the design team went in with the idea that all classes would have powers; from the monster math (if not the early adventure design) it was also pretty clear that their intention was that PCs should actually be capable of handling what you throw at them. 5e isn't as machined as well, but even 4e's monster math and calibration ended up wonky and needing multiple monster manuals or whatever to refine. There was also vastly more variance in raw offensive and defensive power between hypothetical 4e PCs and hypothetical 5e PCs. It doesn't reaaaally worry me that CR is a crapshoot or whatever. I just want fighters to get dailies back! gently caress!
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 07:29
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:What is Kingdom Death even. I cannot understand the demand for it. I wish I had market research on the customer base, probably because on some level I enjoy recoiling in horror. Your friend is right, except for the part about the design being good. The design is loving terrible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 08:19
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Though once the thread is back up I do hope they stop harassing the people there. As the thread was greatly improving from how toxic it was for a while. Disagreeing with people about the game being good isn't harassing them. It doesn't ruin the thread or make it unusable. You might not like it, but it's a fine thing to talk about. Alien Rope Burn posted:Wow. I'm both impressed and a little saddened that happened for something you seemed to enjoy a lot. It's not something I really think about not being directly involved, but it must be pretty disappointing. Yeah, it's frustrating in a lot of different ways. It hurts because I really respected the work Paizo was doing to involve more marginalized people and improve representation in pretty much every way they could. And then they sold off their most prominent women (including the lesbian couple) to the forced impregnation/tentacle rape/milking game. It was disappointing because I'd sold other people on Paizo and Pathfinder as a company that gets it, that is really working to make sure they're creating games for everyone. The most personally frustrating point about not buying new products is that I wasn't able to find a copy of the new digest-sized softcover Core Rulebook before all this went down. I was really looking forward to having one of those for actually running the game, but I'm not paying for one now. edit: Because let's be honest, between all the poo poo there is for Pathfinder and my old 3e stuff, there's nothing I don't already have covered. Bestiary 6 would have been cool, but I already have 11 books of monsters before I go looking at anything third-party or from books that aren't just new monsters cover to cover.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 08:23
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:I just want fighters to get dailies back! gently caress!  Less smarmy, the class really was the perfect addition to the game, emulated a shitload of fantasy hero archetypes that previous editions didn't really capture well, and had a lot of fun potential concepts and mechanics. And seeing it basically discarded before 4e was even halfway through it's life due to Mearls' dumb grog bullshit is aggravating.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 08:33
|
|
|
Asimo posted:I just want Warlords. If there's a single class called "wizard" with like every extant arcane spell, then the "fighter" gets, at minimum, all of fighter and all of warlord from 4e.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 08:39
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Most of the 3e problems are gone from my experience. I've been trying to avoid jumping into this conversation because it's just more "bagging on 5e", but come the gently caress on MonsterEnvy, this is just alternative facts level of denial. 5e is a badly designed game. The saving throw system is a loving sham. Each ability score is its own saving throw, and classes are generally "proficient" at two of them. Except the vast majority of spells target either the Dexterity save, the Constitution save, or the Wisdom save, which means if you the Fighter are proficient in Strength and Constitution, or you the Bard are proficient in Dexterity and Charisma, then the Strength and Charisma saves are largely useless because you never get to use them. It's like they really wanted to keep using Reflex (Dexterity) saves, Fortitude (Constitution) saves and Will (Wisdom) saves, but couldn't because they needed to be different, and then having already committed to tying it to the ability scores, they must have thought, gently caress it, let's include the other three as well! So you've got a Fighter that has good saving throws in Fortitude/Constitution and, quelle surprise, bad saving throws in Reflex/Dexterity and Will/Wisdom saves! Just like in 3e! But you have three other numbers that you have to keep track of anyway! The combat mechanics are a step backwards. We're back to a gentleman's agreement between the DM and the Player to please not have all the Orcs run past the Fighter after he's used his one Opportunity Attack. They've only just recently begun making a dent in this with the Unearthed Arcana articles, but taking the Knight archetype (if your DM allows it) means you get to miss out on the interactivity of a Battlemaster's Superiority Dice anyway. The healing mechanics are a step backwards. Clerics are back to spending Standard Actions to play healbot, and the tight, logical interaction of Healing Surges with the intra-day encounter mechanics was just entirely taken out. Credit to 5e for a lack of solid crafting rules so that you don't have to worry about the players making Wands of Cure Light Wounds anymore, but even the Healing Hit Dice design makes just about zero sense: it's always the rough equivalent of your health, and gaining more levels only means you get finer control over when and how you get to spend it. At level 1, you have 8 HP, and you have a single 1d8 Healing Hit Dice. At level 5, you have 8 + 4d8 HP, and 5d8 Healing Hit Dice. It doesn't give you more longevity, but it doesn't really get any better either - you just waste less of it as each Die starts representing a progressively smaller proportion of your health. Which brings me to my next point that Mearls does not have a single innovative bone in his body. The Healing Hit Dice is a direct rip-off of Reserve Points from Iron Heroes, except worse, because these Healing Hit Dice in 5e are rolled, so a level 1 Bard with 8 HP can't choose to restore just the 4 HP now and the 4 HP later. And Iron Heroes's Reserve Points itself was lifted out of 3e's Unearthed Arcana. The simplification of the Vancian spell system so that slots are no longer tied to spells? Yet another copy-paste from Unearthed Arcana, page 153. They still haven't meaningfully iterated upon the feat system, where Lucky is competing with Sentinel is competing with Tavern Brawler is competing with loving Linguist. They're still running on a system of 5-foot squares and measurements, despite telling people that you can totally run the game gridless. The damage/health ratios are a complete step backwards, where you've got level 1 characters with 8-12 HP fighting goblins that still deal 1d6 damage on a hit. The naturalistic language makes a total mess of trying to run the game "RAW", because there's just so much of it that you either have to fill in yourself or else it doesn't make any sense. Unarmed Attacks had to go through at least two different sets of errata, and woe betide the player that thinks Bonus Action means "an Action, but another one as a bonus" And that's not even covering the entire swathes of the DMG that were just copy-pasted from earlier books, the equipment list that has you spending individual copper coins on pieces of loving chalk when you start with 100 GP, the Unearthed Arcana where they couldn't be bothered to fix a math mistake from over a decade ago, and all the "balance" issues like the book Ranger being a piece of poo poo, the Berserker Barbarian being a piece of poo poo, and the entire goddamned dynamic of casters still being strictly superior to martial classes. ... Now, like Ferrinus said, it's not really hard to "bolt on" whatever pieces of homebrewed design you want to in an attempt to fix these issues. Set the confusing naturalistic language in stone, per your interpretation, for your home game. Copy over the Tome of Battle Maneuvers and give them to the Fighter. Limit the Wizard to only learning spells from scrolls that you as the DM deign to let them have. But if you're going to play armchair designer, you can download a copy of Basic Fantasy for free and use that instead. Won't cost you a dime. And if you're a newcomer to the genre, it's downright execrable to ask someone to play armchair designer by dead reckoning. How do they even know what the issues are that they need to fix, much less know how to fix them? And that, for me, is the core of my problem with 5th edition. I played it three separate times. The first resulted in a TPK. The second also in a TPK. Before I did the third I rolled up my shirtsleeves and redesigned the monster math from the ground up. Ran it again. Great session that time - an hour of medieval mystery to search for a stolen locket followed by a short dungeon crawl to clean out a Druid's grove of corrupting cultists. Finished on time, with a satisfying resolution, the players hurt and tense but not completely broken. After that I stopped - because if I needed to put in that much work to make it work, the designers weren't doing their drat jobs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 08:57
|
|
|
If I reopen the 5E thread will you folks quit recreating it in here? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 09:35
|
|
|
Open two 5e threads so my ignorant newguy questions don't have to go off and die in the war.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 09:46
|
|
|
I could swear there WAS two 5e threads, one for grogs and one for rookies. Edit: Found the newguy thread: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3699468
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 09:47
|
|
|
That's in the archives. I'm open to trying a new one if someone else wants to start it though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 10:37
|
|
|
Oh huh, teaches me to click links before I post them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 10:41
|
|
|
Nehru the Damaja posted:Open two 5e threads so my ignorant newguy questions don't have to go off and die in the war. Every single person who's asked a newbie question in the 5th ed thread has got at least a partial answer. There's plenty of Q&A and advice even in the last few poo poo filled pages before it got locked. e: I mean, there's also a fair chance that a question sets off the "I fixed it like X, other dude fixed it like Y", "other game does it like Z which works out ok", "you all just want to say the game is bad but actually its good" cycle but that's a separate issue. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 11:11 on Feb 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 11:01
|
|
|
I've been posting in the old-school D&D thread about the two B/X campaigns I've been running recently, one in real life for my actual friends, one online for a cool online dude I met through online RPG blogging years ago. I'm using Rules Cyclopedia for both games on account of it being easier on me to have all the rules available in one PDF, but I've decidedly kept some of the rules off the table (for an example, no skill rules at all and no weapons mastery for now; the latter I might introduce in some capacity later on), and for the latter I plugged in the Solo Heroes rules by Kevin Crawford so I don't actually have to specifically design encounters with one character in mind and can be safe in the knowledge that he can usually take on most encounters solo. What's been fun to me has been thinking about dungeon design in a way that works well for solo play, and as this happened to coincide with replaying Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past I've been trying to apply ideas from that game in a lot of places in my solo game, with regards to stuff like how to actually build interesting dungeons, how to make combat encounters that make use of the environment effectively. This has actually resulted in a lot of feedback into my other campaign, and it's made me realize that a lot of the lessons I've applied to my solo game apply equally well to standard group-based dungeon crawls. The most fun I've had has been with coming up with interesting magical items to throw at the players to allow for interesting ways to traverse the dungeon, essentially allowing for really elaborate ways of gating stuff off in the dungeon (for an example, the pile of boulders covering one tunnel which can only be cleared by a character who happens to have a potion of giant strength) besides the usual locked or stuck doors (which I've come to despise over the years). But all of this stuff has made me think about dungeon design in D&D in general and how many of the elements we take for granted in D&D dungeons actually have deliberate thought behind them. Like, how much of the stuff we see in traditional dungeon crawls has been deliberately placed with actual thought put into how its placement affects the flow of the dungeon, how players can traverse the dungeon and which paths are open and which are blocked to them. The few published dungeons I've played have been very much not like this, being essentially linear paths with maybe a side path or two, or alternately dungeons with multiple paths but all leading to the same end goal, each path being essentially linear. I understand that in a tabletop context chasing plot coupons to open new branches of the dungeon might not be very exciting, but people usually wrongly think of locked doors with matching keys immediately. I mean, sure, locked doors and keys are the most obvious method (and they allow for sequence-breaking the dungeon when you have a character who can pick locks, which I think is actually okay) but there's so much weird poo poo that the genre of D&D allows for that you can do, and the strength of the tabletop medium is that even though you might have one option presented to the players as the obvious solution (provided they're willing to explore) there are multiple approaches to each problem that the players can try: for an example, using the lens of true-seeing or whatever to see the illusory bridge that bridges the great big chasm. Even in this situation there's multiple ways to go around it: if the players are clever and assume that "no way would the GM put this great big chasm here unless there was some way to cross it" they might look around for illusory bridges, then use flour or sand or whatever to clearly mark the illusory bridge in the air, or if they're feeling particularly foolhardy have one of the characters jump over the chasm blindly hoping they succeed and then fix a zipline for the rest of the group to follow them, or something, I don't know. Hell, in the above example of my group cleverly sussing out that "Hey, this potion of giant strength we found in an ogre's lair when we took a side trek on the way to this dungeon might be the key to clearing out these rockcs" was not the only way they could've approached that: given enough time and work they could've cleared out the boulders together, the potion just made it so much quicker and meant they didn't have to deal with multiple wandering monsters. There's no real point to this, really. Video games rule and people should take more ideas from them while at the same time remembering that the limitations that exist in video games don't need to be applied to tabletop RPGs. Also I wish tabletop RPG designers put as much thought into designing dungeons as video game designers, I want more dungeons inspired by Metroidvanias and Zeldas damnit. Ratpick fucked around with this message at 11:17 on Feb 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 11:01
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Every single person who's asked a newbie question in the 5th ed thread has got at least a partial answer. There's plenty of Q&A and advice even in the last few poo poo filled pages before it got locked. I mean other peoples' mileage may vary but I've seen two threads in two days become a shitstorm, and even when things got answered it was buried in a billion or so posts of nuclear war over elfgames.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 11:14
|
|
|
We either need an edition war thread or grogs.txt back 
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 11:29
|
|
|
Former maybe latter no.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 12:10
|
|
|
I went to a session at a church where everyone is pretty new including the DMs. The DMing was pretty bleh and two guys desperately need the sword of the law to come down on them (plus some alignment shifts). After a fight with some basilisks, one NPC and one party member were both petrified and our low-level crew lacked the tools to help either. Our NPC rendezvous showed up with only one restoration potion. When someone was like "hey let's see if any of these other statues look like maybe the type who could fix everyone and we can kill a lot of birds with one stone," it became a story conceit that when the statues became weatherbeaten or broken, they were beyond recovery. Our lawful evil paladin instantly breaks a finger off the NPC statue to force the decision. If he had a good character reason for it, this would actually be pretty sweet. But it's mostly him and another guy flouting authority for the hell of it and the DM didn't have the heart to do anything about it. I'm probably not returning, but one guy brought his kid to play and he thought my character was THE COOLEST poo poo IN THE WORLD. I used Forge domain cleric's Artisan's Blessing to build him a new dagger. It has totally mundane stats but I sat with him and planned out how awesome it was gonna look just so he'd have something cool. We settled on a color-treated blade and a hilt and pommel stylized to look like a dwarf's head. Blade had copper-inlaid dwarven runes. Very rad. I suggested he come up with a name for the dagger. I think the overall experience was negative but it was cool to get this kid thinking of stuff beyond "I attack the goblin"
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 12:13
|
|
|
starkebn posted:We either need an edition war thread or grogs.txt back The grog mines are played out, there is no new grog. All you get is inferior, recycled grog or toxic grog tailings that will poison your groundwater for a dozen generations. As far as the controversy surrounding 5e with Mearls and the two assholes, everything that can be said has already been loving said. Either you think it's bad and you don't play 5e and you don't give Wizards money for it, you think it's bad and you play 5e and you do give Wizards money because there's no ethical consumption under capitalism and your pittance is a drop in the ocean, you don't give a poo poo one way or the other and you play 5e and you give Wizards money for it because it's D&D and that's what your dumbass friends are playing, you pirate it to attempt to dodge the ethical quandary, or you think it's good somehow and I don't want to ever speak to you again. There, pick one and shut up. Nobody has changed anybody's mind on this, and the argument is just going around and around in circles. (The correct answer is the first one, don't play 5e, don't give Wizards money for it) If you must discuss 5e as a game do it without constantly rehashing the same arguments from when it launched, preferably in a different thread so I can stop looking at all of this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 13:04
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:But I honestly just wanted that scandal explained to me better. Because I did not understand it completely. you've mindlessly defended 5e for three years on SA now, so I don't know how you can miss poo poo that gets repeated every time 5e discussion bleeds into any other thread. And I do mean mindlessly, since you dismiss every mechanical issue with it, even after it's been covered in-depth (see: gradenko's long summary of every mechanical debate the 5e thread has covered for years). I really don't get why you'd keep at it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 13:18
|
|
|
If the guy likes it he likes it. I find 5e miserable but I don't really care if that guys defending it. vOv
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 13:21
|
|
|
TRUMP YOU OLD BITCH MAKE THE TWEET EDIT: Um okay this isn't C-SPAM. gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 13:53 on Feb 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 13:50
|
|
|
Plutonis posted:If the guy likes it he likes it. I find 5e miserable but I don't really care if that guys defending it. vOv I think it's fine to like it, I've enjoyed many hours of 3e D&D, myself. The problem is that every every debate over 5e with MonsterEnvy ends up this way. I guess I could widen the scope of "I really don't get why you'd keep at it." to include both sides of this issue when he's involved. Then again, this entire fight in the 5e thread started because someone was deliberately fishing for an argument over whether it's a good game or not. It turns out that, yes, people will still climb out of every sewer entrance to tell you that the edition of D&D you play is bad. Just like what happened (and still happens) with 3e, 3e vs 4e, and 4e Essentials, only with the added bonus of being called a transmisogynist. That's how it's been with this edition on SA since it came out, and I don't know why you'd (using you in general here) spoil for a fight over it again.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 13:52
|
|
|
I think 5e is a garbage game designed by garbage people, which is why I don't click on the thread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 13:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:46 |
|
|
Kwyndig posted:The grog mines are played out, there is no new grog. All you get is inferior, recycled grog or toxic grog tailings that will poison your groundwater for a dozen generations. If what you say is true, it's probably a good thing. Each type of crazy unreasonable person has apparently found their preferred echo chamber where they can be happy. (It's very odd when, on rare occasion, some Gaming Den doctrinaire wanders out of TGD and starts blathering about "player agency" on RPGnet or wherever.) Halloween Jack fucked around with this message at 14:02 on Feb 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 13:58
|
|