|
AlphaDog posted:Because that's how you get ants. 
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 15:25 |
|
|
Wurzag posted:As far as we we're concerned it's working just fine for my group.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 00:39
|
|
|
Yeah man, you are objectively wrong for enjoying a game, as indicated by this meta-analysis
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
How about everyone on both sides stop arguing and being antagonistic. It's hard because goons are terrible but if we work together we can make an enjoyable thread out of a bad game. Much like having fun with a bad game. See? We can all make jokes without being assholes!
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
Petr posted:Yeah man, you are objectively wrong for enjoying a game, as indicated by this meta-analysis
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 01:00
|
|
|
I've just started a game where the gimmick is we are 0 level characters, each with 6 hp. We rolled 4d6 (minus lowest) in order, then could move two of the stats. What's more, when we get to 1st level we each get an ASI or feat. The variant humans get two, although he's unsure if that is OP. I went into this thinking I'd like a CHA based character and / or a wizard. I went for high elf for the DEX and INT stat boost and the sword and bow proficiencies. I like the idea of a sword swinging pure spellcaster. My stats after rolling, moving and adjusting are: S:12 - D:13 - C:12 - I:14 - W:11 - Ch:16 So I've got a hosed Dex score there, given I don't intend to pump it with ASI. What's handy is getting the feat at 1st level, it gives a chance to compensate for the shortcoming of the deficiency. So my plan is do 1st level as a Bard and take the moderately armored feat for +1 Dex and medium armor and shields. Then take Wizard and take School of Bladesinger (from Sword Coast book), which gets me 2 attacks per turn at 6th level while still a pure caster. I'd like to get Bard to 3rd level max for Jack of all Trades and Lore Bard abilities. Then Wizard all the way, still able to unlock 9th level spells down the track. At 4th level Wizard take War Caster. I will of course Animate Dead to create my porter to collect and carry my medium armor, shield and light armor as required. I haven't reached high levels in 5e yet, the consensus here seems to be that without primary stats of 20 you're dead. Should my Bladesinger Bard commit suicide now or what?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:I'm actually curious about that insane dm who makes you roll down the line. would he let you bring in a new character in the same session if you died? I'm sure if you suicided 5 characters he'd figure it out but it'd work a few times. This guy isn't really as bad as I may have made him sound, he's just got certain tastes in gaming. (Badwrong tastes, sure.) He runs games just fine and I know that if my stats prove to be a hideous problem, he'll find some in-game way to bolster me. Maybe with a magic item or something. My stats are low-ish for 5e, especially given the rest of the party and that's an issue but it's not as if I'm crippled with straight 3's. But to answer your question, if I died I'd reroll and get introduced at the earliest opportune moment, I'm sure. I have considered the suicidal approach but I wanted to give it a shot first. That's why I came here looking for experiences with pure buff-casters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 01:20
|
|
|
Admiral Joeslop posted:How about everyone on both sides stop arguing and being antagonistic. It's hard because goons are terrible but if we work together we can make an enjoyable thread out of a bad game. Some of the best threads on SA over the years have been people being critical about lovely things that the rest of the internet has gone crazy over for no reason (or the reverse, in the case of mangosteens.) Guess what! The rest of the Internet has gone crazy over 5e for no reason. Let's make a good thread the way SA always has: tear it to loving shreds. @clusterfuck: Don't do that. Using math goes against the Holy Word of Mearls and makes your game less fun by its mere mention. Look away from this heresy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
Hey I'm all for tearing 5E to shreds but we don't have to be assholes to each other about it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 01:44
|
|
|
Ambi posted:You dense motherfucker. They are not wrong for enjoying the game, they are engaging in the "correlation equals causation" fallacy. I had fun watching The Room with my friends, that does not make it a good movie. It turns out, and watch out this is a real hot take, that doing stuff with your friends is fun! This thread never stops amazing me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 02:00
|
|
|
I'm a level 8 necro in my long-running open world game, and my GM was nice enough to give me an infinite bag of bones for my magic item when I created the character. I've had fun with it, giving my skeletons recurring personalities, but it feels groggy to me to try and max out my DPS by painstakingly making a skeleton army before a fight, so I think I'm going to have more fun playing another character (Our GM let us buy a building in our hub city that lets new characters come in at the same level as our old people, so we get to try out different classes without losing too much). The party also found a giant skeleton and after much pleading from me, the GM let me reanimate it at the cost of all my other skeletons. This was really worth it while I was riding around on his shoulder lording over everyone, but then some giants threw a boulder at him and killed him again, double RIP. 5e is good, 4e is good, anything is good as long as you get to create crazy stories with your friends.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 02:03
|
|
|
Dracula Factory posted:5e is good, 4e is good, anything is good as long as you get to create crazy stories with your friends. Playing games to have fun is a massive trigger for some posters itt.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 02:06
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:What toxic attitudes? adversarial play without consideration for properly bounding randomness, properly balancing characters, clearly articulating rules, or even making characters simple enough to be disposable it's not worse than, say, 3e, but 3e didn't reach out to get RPG Pundit's seal of approval either
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 02:09
|
|
|
If we're not arguing about RAW semantics or the ethics of staying in your gaming groups then why are we even here
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
"D&D Next/5e: Fun is a Fallacy" would be a pgood thread title.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 02:09
|
|
|
Kaysette posted:Playing games to have fun is a massive trigger for some posters itt. So I can't tell if people are being willfully ignorant but the 'fallacy' part is that if you say 'its not bad because I had fun' then you run into this problem where you can't criticise anything ever for any reason because if you spent time hanging with your friends while you did it then you probably enjoyed yourself. So do you never criticise anything? Is everything flawless? Where do you draw the line of 'well I had fun but I think it was despite Problems X and Y'. Thats why it becomes a bit of a problem to use the idea that 'someone had fun' as a value judgement because its so specific and conditional.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 02:57
|
|
|
It's the usual anti-intellectual bs from people for whom it is not enough that they don't want to discuss game design, nobody else is allowed to either.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 03:05
|
|
|
I don't see where anybody said or implied that you can't criticize 5e. I would posit, however, that some people currently doing so in this thread are literally insane.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 03:08
|
|
|
I really like 5e and have been having a ball but I'm only really playing with new dudes and we dick around with it a bit if it seems more fun. I can't speak to previous editions but I think the game is loving awesome, but maybe that's my lack of rpg experience.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 03:11
|
|
|
Petr posted:I don't see where anybody said or implied that you can't criticize 5e. I would posit, however, that some people currently doing so in this thread are literally insane. i would posit that you can gently caress right off with this passive aggressive nonsense. address people's claims directly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 03:16
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:i would posit that you can gently caress right off with this passive aggressive nonsense. address people's claims directly. Yes that's what this thread needs
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 03:19
|
|
|
JBP posted:I really like 5e and have been having a ball but I'm only really playing with new dudes and we dick around with it a bit if it seems more fun. I can't speak to previous editions but I think the game is loving awesome, but maybe that's my lack of rpg experience. Maybe thats the reason, its hard to really break down group dynamics like that especially without having a 1st person and unbiased perspective and its the big reason people usually toss that information out when evaluating it (hence why when people tend to critically analyse rpgs its done in a vacuum of players or done assuming a less desirable and/or inexperienced group that falls for common mistakes/issues). If you enjoy it, keep playing it until you stop enjoying it really though obviously make sure everyone else is enjoying it and not feeling left out. In my experience a bad system is actually got a lot of complaints amongst a group after enough play time but nobody wants to speak and risk rocking the boat. If that isn't a problem I hope you and you're friends enjoy yourselves! For me I feel like I've played enough RPGs at this point so that when a dice result means 'you missed and nothing happened', I genuinely check out of the game. To me its such a backwards game style that you can find the opportunity to have something that falls in their skillset or you've waited for combat to bounce around the table and the end result of all of that is nothing. Thats for me the biggest issue and show stopper for rpgs at this point and its an issue that has been solved in many different ways before so its pretty shocking to see that its still a thing in D&D after all these years. Cease to Hope posted:i would posit that you can gently caress right off with this passive aggressive nonsense. address people's claims directly. Yeah I'm not able to tell if hes intentionally trying to stir people up or he's really stirred up by the thread but all the anatogism and poo poo thats been derailing the thread for pages has come from him so I guess thats about the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 03:21
|
|
|
kingcom posted:Yeah I'm not able to tell if hes intentionally trying to stir people up or he's really stirred up by the thread but all the anatogism and poo poo thats been derailing the thread for pages has come from him so I guess thats about the same thing. He's literally telling me to argue with people more. Look, when someone posts a cogent opinion about some aspect of the system, I'm happy to discuss that. You can see me doing that earlier, like when people were talking about whether 5e encourages down-the-line rolling. But if you're gonna reply to someone who says "I enjoy this game" with "that's a logical fallacy," that's just dumb. Edit: And for the record, I'm not calling people posting those cogent thoughts insane.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 03:27
|
|
|
Yeah I think the whole miss thing or failed roll just gives us an opportunity to say funny things and make up the action in our heads, but I can understand that there are probably less vague rulesets around. We spend most of our games laughing at poo poo, acting badly and trying to anger the DM by styling on his creations.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
Wurzag posted:Ran an 8 player game of 5e for a bunch of people who have no prior experience with rpgs whatsoever. Say what you will about 5e being imperfect but everyone seemed to have a great time. Since your players have no previous RPG experience, they have no basis for comparison on what might actually be more or less fun with regards to it. Like if I was living under a rock and had never heard of sports and then was introduced to basketball I might think it was fun, but then might never discover I really love soccer if I never give it a try. -- With regards to Animate Dead I figure the 'soft balance' is enough that if you're toting around a bunch of skeletons then people are going to get really antsy at you toting around a bunch of skeletons. Skeletons also take up space. In the course of normal adventuring you are going to climb things, cross things, voyage on enough things, and have to dodge enough AoE traps (even without the GM specifically targeting you with them) that you will lose skeletons to attrition anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 03:31
|
|
|
Petr posted:He's literally telling me to argue with people more. It's not "I enjoy this game", it's "I enjoy this game, therefore it's good"
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 03:32
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:It's not "I enjoy this game", it's "I enjoy this game, therefore it's good" If you look at Wurzag's post, I don't think he was saying that. It seems like people are talking past each other because we're having two different discussions at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 03:33
|
|
|
Dracula Factory posted:I'm a level 8 necro in my long-running open world game, and my GM was nice enough to give me an infinite bag of bones for my magic item when I created the character. I've had fun with it, giving my skeletons recurring personalities, but it feels groggy to me to try and max out my DPS by painstakingly making a skeleton army before a fight, so I think I'm going to have more fun playing another character (Our GM let us buy a building in our hub city that lets new characters come in at the same level as our old people, so we get to try out different classes without losing too much). The party also found a giant skeleton and after much pleading from me, the GM let me reanimate it at the cost of all my other skeletons. This was really worth it while I was riding around on his shoulder lording over everyone, but then some giants threw a boulder at him and killed him again, double RIP. If I was a DM I'd have made that infinite bag of bones look like a bucket of fried chicken or maybe a platter of ribs just for comedy. "Good news guys! I've found a solution to rations and my skeleton kleptomania!" :produces magical family sized bucket of KFC:
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 03:35
|
|
|
To chip in my two cents on the matter I play 5e and have enjoyed playing 5e. I think there's elements of a good game in there that are brought down by some fundamental problems with the rules. I have no problem with people discussing the game's mechanical flaws so long as they're actually putting effort into contributing to the discussion: I've learned a decent amount about game design theory from people's more in-depth analysis of the fundamental flaws in 5e's design. That said I feel like there's a general hostility from some people in this thread towards newcomers who are coming here with a genuine enjoyment of 5e and I feel like that's not really leading to a healthy discussion. We've had a couple of people just sort of quietly back out of the thread because people were getting into a 5e-hating tantrum. That and there are a couple of people who aren't really contributing to the discussion at hand and are just sort of rehashing the same "5e sucks" "Ask your GM" chestnuts over and over again. That poo poo's not going to demonstrate the systemic and social* flaws inherent in 5e's general design, it's just making GBS threads up the thread. Basically what I'm saying is I think that 5e is a fundamentally flawed system and discussing that should happen in this thread but I feel like we can do better than repeated mantras and shitposts. *- I'm using social here for lack of a better term. I'm basically talking about the poo poo with Zak S and Pundit being involved as consultants and the resulting fooferah Mearls pulled in the aftermath.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 03:36
|
|
|
Petr posted:If you look at Wurzag's post, I don't think he was saying that. It seems like people are talking past each other because we're having two different discussions at the same time. quote:Say what you will about 5e being imperfect but everyone seemed to have a great time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 03:38
|
|
|
JBP posted:Yeah I think the whole miss thing or failed roll just gives us an opportunity to say funny things and make up the action in our heads, but I can understand that there are probably less vague rulesets around. We spend most of our games laughing at poo poo, acting badly and trying to anger the DM by styling on his creations. Yeah thats what I did and I think most people do but once I got exposed to systems that had 'fail forward mechanics', especially if they are entirely about rewarding the player with doing something silly/spontaneous/creative/exciting then those are really clever mechanics. I use the star wars Edge of the Empire system as an example because its the perfect blend of mechanics and free form roleplaying that lets me be creative. Its the system known for having non-standard dice (so not numbers on them, instead it has symbols). Some of the symbols help you pass or fail and check while the others let you 'the player' come up with something unexpectedly good or unexpectedly bad that happens as part of the result. The more of these you get the bigger the thing can be but ultimately its about what thing you can come up with. One good example was a player trying to talk information out of someone after buying him a drink and he failed. Normally that would be the end of the encounter or maybe a fight starts or something. Instead due to getting a few unexpected good points (its not their name but im just going to call them that) as part of the roll, the played decided 'oh im going to draw my blaster and shoot that drink hes holding and its going to burst into flames all over him!' and boom, it happened. It turned what is often a dead end into the player taking hold of the narrative and getting to shift it in a direction they think is cool. Its fair to say the guy was terrified enough to spill the beans but it probably drew unwanted attention etc. I got used to doing things like and having the freedom on 90% of skill checks to inject a bit of narrative and creativity into the scene. I find that a lot harder to do in something like D&D which is very strict and rigid for what you can do (unless you're a wizard lol). Also class balance in D&D is a pretty rough issue but its been discussed to death so ill run over that terrain again. EDIT: Hope this doesn't drive you off, I want to shitpost and laugh at bitter vets but I genuinely want to hear what clicks and what doesn't with new plays to an RPG. Like why choose this of anything else? The branding enough to hook you in? kingcom fucked around with this message at 03:43 on Apr 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 03:38
|
|
|
I definitely think the "partial success" mechanic in systems like Dungeon World is really good for failing-forward, and I wish D&D had that more explicitly. Good DMs do that out of habit, but the system doesn't encourage it in its base rules.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 03:43
|
|
|
Petr posted:He's literally telling me to argue with people more. A common response to any criticism of an RPG is "it's working just fine for my group" or "well I enjoy it anyway". This is not a response that furthers any discussion of the RPG's mechanics, or even takes into account the criticism - it is shutting down the discussion by saying that they think the system is fit for purpose as-is and do not want to discuss it. Which is rude as gently caress in a thread ostensibly about discussing that system, but it's entirely possible that they weren't saying that and were just stating an opinion. Also Cease to Hope is actually telling you to argue with people less, they are asking you to stop dismissing points via passive aggressive barbs at mental health. I'd also like it if you could stop doing that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 03:47
|
|
|
Petr posted:I definitely think the "partial success" mechanic in systems like Dungeon World is really good for failing-forward, and I wish D&D had that more explicitly. Good DMs do that out of habit, but the system doesn't encourage it in its base rules. I think the big thing, at least from what I've noticed, is that if you put it on the GM to do it doesn't have the same rewarding impact is if the onus is on both the player AND the gm to determine what the fail forward/partial success does. I find most people will be far more passive without some kind of prompt to tell them they should come up with the 'what happens next?' part of the result. If the GM is doing it, they're just continuing to direct the narrative, if the Player does it then they're getting a good chance to take narrative control, even if it might just be for a brief moment. Also its the thing that affects almost every single thing you do in an rpg, its not just a minor sweetener to the experience. As a result putting the burden on the GM to do this and come up with something interesting and creative can be a pretty exhaustive task. For me at least its pretty frustrating when its such a common issue.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 03:47
|
|
|
Ambi posted:As Gradenko mentioned, the fallacy is "I enjoy this game, therefore it's good". I've probably been pretty rude ITT, but Wurzag definitely wasn't. I don't think anybody posting their appreciation for 5e has even hinted "therefore you can't criticize any aspect of it." I'm being dismissive because it seems to me that some of you here are so anxious to poo poo on 5e that you take people saying "I like it" so far out of context that you're accusing them of aristotelian fallacies, and that just strikes me as absurd and impossible to engage with on a constructive level.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 04:01
|
|
|
Guys, I think I have the answer: All editions of D&D are bad in their own special and unique ways.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 04:08
|
|
|
All I want is 2nd ed without THAC0, is that too much to ask?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 04:11
|
|
|
Gold usage is a good criticism of 5e, I feel like the official materials should have a section more or less telling DMs to come up with ways for the players to spend money. My campaign has us building new stuff for our town and rolling the dice on new magic item effects so we have fun with it, but it is an extra pressure for the DM to come up with stuff like that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 04:27
|
|
|
5e would have benefited from some good fail-forward advice. A hint of that is tucked away in the DMG chapter on how to play, buried in page 200-something. I doubt it gets read often, something like that really needs to be up-front in the PHB to set player expectations as well. But the PHB just talks about binary success/failure resolution. Something else that gets ignored, and I don't have a good term for it, is what I'll call "respecting failure". I see this a lot - a player rolls a trained skill, fails the DC, so the game narration focuses on how the character fucks up badly, doesn't know poo poo, trips over their own feet or is otherwise terrible at their skill. I like to respect the character's training so that, while they do generally know what they are doing, it wasn't appropriate at this time or ran into complications. A failed Performance check may have been culturally inappropriate or hit the wrong emotional tone for the audience, not because the trained performer can't even play the instrument. Failed knowledge checks may bring up a red-herring or something factually true but irrelevant to the situation. Failed Persuasion during a bribery attempt may have unknowingly offended the honor of the target. I don't think of it as a "fail forward" thing, it's still a failure, but a "fail with a good reason".
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 04:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 15:25 |
|
|
ritorix posted:Failed knowledge checks may bring up a red-herring or something factually true but irrelevant to the situation. Failed Persuasion during a bribery attempt may have unknowingly offended the honor of the target. This is fun, but difficult to do since it's usually the player who rolls the check, so they'd know they hosed up. That said, I have seen games where the DM handled all rolls behind the screen, and the players just talked. I haven't seen that with 5e, so I don't know if it would work or be fun.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 04:34
|
|