|
Honestly, I'd just be happy if all fighters got "Come and Get it" from 4e. 5e is great in its own right, but 4e nailed the fighter in a way that I don't know if any other system will replicate. And really should just rip off the best parts of it.
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 20:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:47 |
|
|
No. 1 Apartheid Fan posted:Just FWIW to soothe my restless mind as someone who's now spent a lot of time DMing and playing 5E: the Battlemaster's maneuver and superiority dice mechanics should literally be the core mechanic of the Fighter class, right? They used to be during the playtest phase, but then they corralled it into an archetype, made Champion so there would be a 'simple' alternative for people that get confused by having resources in notoriously rules-light tabtletop game Dungeons & Dragons, and then a third archetype whose features are 'can use magic'.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 20:44
|
|
|
No. 1 Apartheid Fan posted:Just FWIW to soothe my restless mind as someone who's now spent a lot of time DMing and playing 5E: the Battlemaster's maneuver and superiority dice mechanics should literally be the core mechanic of the Fighter class, right? Yes, absolutely. Arguably every Fighter should get all of the Battlemaster features for free, and the actual archetype is just selecting one of everything else. Like, the recent conversation has been about how it's "boring" if all you're ever doing is rolling attack rolls against AC and hoping for a hit, which is very true, and the solution is to make sure everyone has "controllable" abilities by which they can trigger specific effects (or even chances for effects) so that they can push for Things To Happen when they need to.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 20:44
|
|
|
Glagha posted:I love when people say that about 4e because at the very least 4e included a chart of "hey if someone tries something you didn't plan, here's a chart of DCs appropriate for different levels of difficulty, and here's some appropriate damage values if someone does something that should hurt but isn't covered under basic attack/a power." I mean they weren't good but they made an ATTEMPT. Me and my friends have a running joke of declaring "But I can't roleplay in this system!" every time we do roleplay based bullshit. I mean, 4th ed has it's own flaws, but me and my pals personal experience with directly talking to people who hate it are of the sort who complain they can't roleplay in 4th edition because there they trimmed down how many skills they need to roll dice in place of roleplaying  The big irony of crying that you can't roleplay your way through content, without a bunch of dice roll rules that replace roleplaying. Hardly unique to any edition of DnD, Star wars, or any system. So I can't exactly praise 4th edition over it any more than I could praise 5th edition. No. 1 Apartheid Fan posted:Just FWIW to soothe my restless mind as someone who's now spent a lot of time DMing and playing 5E: the Battlemaster's maneuver and superiority dice mechanics should literally be the core mechanic of the Fighter class, right? I don't have too much of a problem with 5th as a whole, on top of it being what my pals play more often these days due to the ease of "Oh poo poo we can actually play" rembering what does what. I don't want to kill myself over the thought of trying to make characters without a builder program. The biggest strength of 4th ed is also it's biggest weakness, like an ironic hell. I think a good example of the mentality of 5th edition split between "We took away 4th ed mechanics" and "We kept 4th ed mechanics". Are the people who STILL say "Wizards can only cast magic missile so many times a day! You can swing your sword as much as you want!" even though wizards unlock infinity castings of magic missile before fighters get their 4th swing. I think it's great that casters get stuff that prevents sitting on your rear end doing nothing after you blow your load. But it's annoying how little self awareness so many people have about it. Section Z fucked around with this message at 21:14 on Jul 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 20:44
|
|
|
No. 1 Apartheid Fan posted:Just FWIW to soothe my restless mind as someone who's now spent a lot of time DMing and playing 5E: the Battlemaster's maneuver and superiority dice mechanics should literally be the core mechanic of the Fighter class, right? Didn't they initially do this when they were playtesting 5e? But yeah I totally agree.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 20:44
|
|
|
No. 1 Apartheid Fan posted:Just FWIW to soothe my restless mind as someone who's now spent a lot of time DMing and playing 5E: the Battlemaster's maneuver and superiority dice mechanics should literally be the core mechanic of the Fighter class, right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 20:45
|
|
|
Without fail, a very particular few posters in this thread will jump on people who are talking about their fun and effectively say. "No, but you see. Your fun is wrong and doesn't exist!" It's really kind of pathetic at this point. Last page might have been the worst I have seen of it. Improvising rolls for crazy stuff your players do is a big part of running the game, tote gave what might be the most simple and easy improvised action ever and yet people are still telling him that despite it working just fine, D&D 5E doesn't really work for that. I understand a lot of you guys are salty about what went down with the playtests for the game, I really do. Looking at some of the stuff they had but scrapped makes me a bit salty too that I don't get to use it without homebrewing. I'm also far from someone who is going to defend the lead devs all the time, like with that ridiculous Shield Master ruling recently on twitter. But the game does allow for narrative fun. Whether it's going all Pirates of the Caribbean zany antics, or something like last Sunday where I asked the DM "Can I attempt a called shot at the goblins throat with my whip to have it wrap around his neck?" and instead of stomping his foot and going "NO! NOT IN THE RULES! NOW ROLL YOUR D20!" He grinned and said go for it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 21:12
|
|
|
Honestly part of the problrm is that the Really Cool Improvised Attacks are actually the same half dozen boring things we've all seen in movies and every single person tries to replicate in d&d because they want to do an end run around the encounter It's always drop the chandelier, swing across the room on a rope, drop a curtain, use a whip to choke out or disarm an enemy. Maybe throw in a headbutt, eye poke or push enemy off the cliff while you're at it Then add in that TSR used to have rules for a lot of this before doing their silly "streamlining" that removed everything and suddenly it's up to the DM to say "uh roll a d20 against a DC of....15" and never using one of those maneuevers against the party because gosh that's just not fair If you want to play that type of game you shouldn't be playing modern d&d. There's a lot of other options with super detailed mechanics to very loose ones, but they all support nonstandard stuff a lot better than wotc does
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 21:18
|
|
|
Arthil posted:Without fail, a very particular few posters in this thread will jump on people who are talking about their fun and effectively say. "No, but you see. Your fun is wrong and doesn't exist!" I mean the part where people said, 'use one roll instead of two' is excellent advise tho.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 21:19
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:I mean the part where people said, 'use one roll instead of two' is excellent advise tho. Oh 100%, I wasn't talking about that poster at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 21:20
|
|
|
Asking a player to both roll an Athletics check AND a Dex check to do something as simple as "pull a curtain off a wall" is not-good because the chances of succeeding at both is so low. That said, it's pretty easy to correct that behavior, no big deal. The other thing to consider is that once you do set it up that "pull a curtain off a wall" is a single roll against a single reasonable DC, then you have to decide what it does, and it's a little bit harder to get that right: if you want to make it mechanically distinct from a plain sword-swing, you'd have to make it strong enough that it actually matters. On the other hand, if all you're doing is letting the player describe things happening the way that they want, but the actual effect is still [1d8+Str] damage, then sure, more power to you, go ahead and do it, but 5e is not special in that regard.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 21:24
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:Perception is the worst skill and shouldn't even exist. No. 1 Apartheid Fan posted:Just FWIW to soothe my restless mind as someone who's now spent a lot of time DMing and playing 5E: the Battlemaster's maneuver and superiority dice mechanics should literally be the core mechanic of the Fighter class, right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 21:24
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Asking a player to both roll an Athletics check AND a Dex check to do something as simple as "pull a curtain off a wall" is not-good because the chances of succeeding at both is so low. That said, it's pretty easy to correct that behavior, no big deal. On the fly in such a moment I'd give a quick think to where they are. If it's some old decrepit place the DC is probably 12 at best. If they're in a maintained mansion/palace? Closer to 15-16. Being blinded is an obvious effect of having a curtain dropped onto you, and I'd treat it similar to the net where it is very easy to escape with just an attack. (Nets are garbage)
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 21:30
|
|
|
Arthil posted:Without fail, a very particular few posters in this thread will jump on people who are talking about their fun and effectively say. "No, but you see. Your fun is wrong and doesn't exist!" Without fail, when someone points out failures and shortcomings in the system, someone comes in and jumps all over those people. Its really kind of pathetic at this point. Also, no one said anything about the example you gave in the last sentence. No one says you can't do stuff like that. The rules don't support it, so an experienced GM has to make stuff up. An inexperienced GM might not know how to do that. If you don't want to have a discussion about the game, don't get lovely with people that do because you disagree with them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 21:30
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Asking a player to both roll an Athletics check AND a Dex check to do something as simple as "pull a curtain off a wall" is not-good because the chances of succeeding at both is so low. That said, it's pretty easy to correct that behavior, no big deal. There's also the question of whether the stakes of a given roll should impact it's outcome. Dropping a chandelier on a group of brigands that outmatch the PCs should, logically, have the same outcome as dropping a chandelier on a single goblin; but the stakes are much lower in the second example, with less riding on it. I already know somebody ITT will say, 'same action same result' because rules == physics, but as a broader topic - does part of the art of adjudication involve sensing the spirit of what the PCs are trying to accomplish?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 21:31
|
|
|
Admiral Joeslop posted:Without fail, when someone points out failures and shortcomings in the system, someone comes in and jumps all over those people. Its really kind of pathetic at this point. Also, no one said anything about the example you gave in the last sentence. No one says you can't do stuff like that. The rules don't support it, so an experienced GM has to make stuff up. An inexperienced GM might not know how to do that. Y'know what? They kind of deserve it. Discussion is fine but when people repeat the same poo poo ad nauseum it isn't discussion anymore, it's just them taking every opportunity to tell people their fun is wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 21:34
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:as a broader topic - does part of the art of adjudication involve sensing the spirit of what the PCs are trying to accomplish? personally? yes, absolutely.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 21:37
|
|
|
Section Z posted:I mean, 4th ed has it's own flaws Oh hell yeah. I still like 4e better than 5e but like, I can bitch about all the flaws in that game. It's just that the actual flaws are never the ones that get brought up. I can talk about bad math, feat bloat, trap choices, and !skill challenges! any day. But instead it's always about how powers somehow stifle creativity and roleplay or how the fact that there isn't an option to put 4 skill points into underwater basketweaving means that every character is the same. Anyway I like how feats are nearly gone in 5e (but still present and still having a good number of them that are just better than others and making you spend the same resource on combat effectiveness and non-combat versatility but whatever) and martial characters get to do fun, actually good things even if spellcasters are generally better just by merit of having magic. Still mad about Warlords though. Put out a fuckin' book Wizards.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 21:39
|
|
|
Glagha posted:Oh hell yeah. I still like 4e better than 5e but like, I can bitch about all the flaws in that game. It's just that the actual flaws are never the ones that get brought up. I can talk about bad math, feat bloat, trap choices, and !skill challenges! any day. But instead it's always about how powers somehow stifle creativity and roleplay or how the fact that there isn't an option to put 4 skill points into underwater basketweaving means that every character is the same. Splicer posted:Perception shouldn't be a skill, it should be a core ability like Initiative or AC. Then you can add a proper system to it to make it actually work. Yet everyone expects rogues to be the guys to find the traps despite this longstanding disadvantage at finding traps. Because what loving rogue EVER has more than the bog standard default of Wisdom? In both 4th and 5th edition, a ranger proficient in lockpicks is often a better than a rogue with expertise/feats on perception at the whole "I search for traps" gig. Aside from that, is the general broad area of NPCs just ignoring stealth and perception rules because the module or plot says so. Or simply being given hacks abilities to bypass them so the GM doesn't have to bother. It's not the perception rules themselves in any system that get to me. So much as the usual grognard implementation of them in any system. One time I was playing HERO/Champions and when I rolled a 1 on perc check the GM declared "You go blind" just out of rote reflex. When pressed why they said "Uh... I don't know, a stroke?" and I walked them through less idiotic options until we landed on my alien's sunglasses being melted by the energy rifle of the cloaked sniper on an opposite skyscraper shooting at me. Section Z fucked around with this message at 21:53 on Jul 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 21:50
|
|
|
Glagha posted:Still mad about Warlords though. Put out a fuckin' book Wizards. The most upsetting part about warlords is that a third of them got distributed to Battlemaster Fighter, a third to Valor Bard, and the last third thrown out entirely
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 21:57
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Honestly part of the problrm is that the Really Cool Improvised Attacks are actually the same half dozen boring things we've all seen in movies and every single person tries to replicate in d&d because they want to do an end run around the encounter My Head posted:The player spends an action and describe what they intend to do. The GM chooses an appropriate skill and the enemy makes an appropriate saving throw vs 8 + skill. The GM chooses a damage from the below table: Splicer fucked around with this message at 22:14 on Jul 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 22:09
|
|
|
Glagha posted:Still mad about Warlords though. Put out a fuckin' book Wizards. The "issue" with Warlords is that they force people to address the nature of what HP actually represents. Is it some abstract combination of stamina and injury, or is it literally your health? Clerics can handwave the issue by pulling the "It's maaaaaagic" card, but Warlords don't have that luxury. So the grognards see the warlord's healing and think "The warlord yells at me and my wounds just go away!? MUH VERISIMILITUDE!" It's possible to surmount that mental hurdle by having the warlord grant temporary HP in lieu of healing (representing determination to ignore injuries), but that could get a bit fiddly giving a different healing mechanic just for the sake of immersion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 22:21
|
|
|
It's amazing how so many people refuse to accept the idea that HP is a representation of how many scrapes, bruises, and close calls you can take before your stamina runs out and you get hit by The Big One. Because it definitely makes more sense that every time you get his by a sword, you're taking a full on stab or cut to the vitals.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 22:35
|
|
|
Wyvernil posted:The "issue" with Warlords is that they force people to address the nature of what HP actually represents. Is it some abstract combination of stamina and injury, or is it literally your health? Wyvernil posted:It's possible to surmount that mental hurdle by having the warlord grant temporary HP in lieu of healing (representing determination to ignore injuries), but that could get a bit fiddly giving a different healing mechanic just for the sake of immersion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 22:38
|
|
|
I mean the answer to that is gently caress grognards, adapt or die. Also there's literally a paragraph in the AD&D PHB saying "HP is not literally your meat points, it is an abstraction of many factors that decide when an attack will kill you" so they don't even have an excuse.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 23:11
|
|
|
Glagha posted:I mean the answer to that is gently caress grognards, adapt or die. Also there's literally a paragraph in the AD&D PHB saying "HP is not literally your meat points, it is an abstraction of many factors that decide when an attack will kill you" so they don't even have an excuse. More sad, is how for some dumb reason I never remember this at the time. Only after the fact when I've wasted my breath assuming it was an honest question  Thank goodness for friends who share similar funhaver opinions  Even our guy who makes us count every individual arrow or bullet like a the dread stereotype, has a habit of fast tracking us into being a fantasy/post apocalyptic/whatever tycoon so that essentially turns into "Friend loves spreadsheets so much he'll handle that poo poo for you and remind you when you are low on potions".
Section Z fucked around with this message at 23:24 on Jul 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 23:21
|
|
|
Quidthulhu posted:Nobody in this thread seems to like this game very much. I don't mean to blow your mind but if you like a system, its really important to recognise when and where it fails in order to adjust and work around it. I would say people who don't like it or care are far less likely to analyse it and work to improve their game.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 00:14
|
|
|
kingcom posted:I don't mean to blow your mind but if you like a system, its really important to recognise when and where it fails in order to adjust and work around it. I would say people who don't like it or care are far less likely to analyse it and work to improve their game. That’s all fine and good. My comment was in reaction to people responding to “well the system isn’t perfect and you might need to adjust it a bit” by saying “no, the system isn’t designed for roleplaying so you shouldn’t try to fix it and should instead find a new system.” I personally think 5e has allowed all my groups to do the most roleplaying we’ve ever been able to do with D&D, but it’s possible that’s us getting better after playing more narrative systems and applying those concepts to D&D.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 00:19
|
|
|
The HP as meat is also complicated by it being tied to Constitution and going towards physical classes instead of being tied to willpower and over-the-top effects that always hit like fireballs or lightning. It's a reasonable thing to think if you look at the mechanics at a particular level. Quidthulhu posted:That’s all fine and good. My comment was in reaction to people responding to “well the system isn’t perfect and you might need to adjust it a bit” by saying “no, the system isn’t designed for roleplaying so you shouldn’t try to fix it and should instead find a new system.” the posts about this have been the most basic analysis of the game as written. They aren't especially critical of the system, they're saying it's strengths lie elsewhere. I've been at tables that slowed to a crawl because the gm had to figure out how to intersect skills, spells and combat and figure out the dc. the example of 'adjusting it a bit' that came up in the chat was pretty bad, but it wasn't that gm's fault because there's not much on how to do it If you have a problem with the really basic assertion that 'the game doesn't have many narrative options during combat', argue against it instead of saying people are being mean to the rule book
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 01:00
|
|
|
Arthil posted:Without fail, a very particular few posters in this thread will jump on people who are talking about their fun and effectively say. "No, but you see. Your fun is wrong and doesn't exist!" I mean, if you want to call me out you can just do that, this is SA lol. Quidthulhu posted:That’s all fine and good. My comment was in reaction to people responding to “well the system isn’t perfect and you might need to adjust it a bit” by saying “no, the system isn’t designed for roleplaying so you shouldn’t try to fix it and should instead find a new system.” Oh okay so I think this is a confusion on your part. People are not saying you can't roleplay or anything, it's just that D&D 5e inherently doesn't do anything to aid you with roleplaying or put give you a way to put your thumb on the dial with it. What D&D does with roleplaying is essentially free form role playing with an occasional dice roll if you need to confirm a yes/no question in your free form. Some people really like this and if they are enjoying it great! But its not really what I would call 'supporting' roleplaying. It can be great fun and if you're not running into any issues don't stress but for some people you might find that a bit off or alternatively you might not even realise there are other options! To take a really simple example. When you score a critical hit in combat, you often are going to get bonus damage. In a social situation, you cant critically succeed really and it doesn't do anything different. To go use Edge of the Empire as an example, critically succeeding (getting a Triumph) can let you spend it to convert the person you are talking to into a long term ally as just a set thing you can do. tote up a bags posted:Sorry I should've been more clear. I enjoy combat in D&D, it's a lot of fun. I should've said I am not a super fan of hours upon hours of it if it boils down to rolling dice against enemies' AC over and over. I think D&D does a great job of offering narrative combat options, and what I'm trying to express to my players is that your options in combat are plentiful and can be really narrative. Just keen to get them out of the MMO mentality. To be clear, I'm not trying to take a shot at you and your fun, I'm just saying that I'm very similiar to you. I don't have much interest in doing a lot of combat (I'm much more interested in a small number of more important set piece fights) and I believe the worst possible result to an action is 'nothing happens'. My favourite part of the rpgs is being able to explore my character and work/talk with NPCs, I just want there to be more than just a skill check and some back and forth dialogue. In my experience, roleplaying mechanics help narrative flourish and give power to the players to help shape the narrative. I see you're coming from in terms of a video game but for D&D is one of those games that is super heavily invested in the combat aspect, while other rpgs are entirely about different thing. For example Dread is an rpg where conflict resolution (think like an attack or skill check) is resolved by pulling blocks from a Jenga tower, if you knock the tower over, you die! kingcom fucked around with this message at 03:25 on Jul 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 01:01
|
|
|
On the topic of improvising actions in combat, I feel like we're forgetting a big part of the picture when we look at whether the system technically allows you to do something versus whether the system encourages you to do so. I've watched a new DM agonize over whether to let a Fighter improvise an action that inflicts the restrained condition, because doing so might frustrate the purpose of being a spellcaster and using X spell or being a Battlemaster with Y maneuver. D&D features so many elements working in concert with each other that it's understandable for a DM to worry about disrupting a delicate balance struck by a complex machine full of moving parts designed by the experts who work on the most popular RPG. People tend to trust systems. That's why they buy them! Compare this with Dungeon Crawl Classics. Dungeon Crawl Classics has a die that the Warrior rolls in conjunction with their attack. On a certain result, the Warrior gets to make up whatever bullshit he wants and the DM has to make it happen. It won't always happen the way the player wants it to, but the onus then goes to the DM to adjudicate how this is going to work, for which the game provides a couple pages of guidelines (e.g. Just let the player throw a javelin through two orcs, but if they want to blind an enemy maybe roll a check with this DC, etc.). Dungeon Crawl Classics isn't just telling you the DM could allow a player to do this or that but then leaving it to the DM to decide if that's fair. It's actively encouraging the DM to let the Warrior do that, without needing to take the rest of the system into consideration. So sure, you could topple a cabinet onto an enemy in 5e if your DM allows it and figures out what to roll, what condition it imposes, etc. But where 5e says "design something for this moment if the DM feels comfortable doing that", Dungeon Crawl Classics invites you to trust the system when it tells you "yes, absolutely make this happen." When people talk about having narrative combat mechanics, they're not talking about just having the design space there. They're talking about the game making the GM feel comfortable engaging in that without fear that they're ruining the game.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 01:53
|
|
|
Glagha posted:I mean the answer to that is gently caress grognards, adapt or die. Also there's literally a paragraph in the AD&D PHB saying "HP is not literally your meat points, it is an abstraction of many factors that decide when an attack will kill you" so they don't even have an excuse. There's some kind of weird inertia of bullshit in this hobby. Like rolling stats on 3d6 in order, where the way people talk about it would make you think it's in AD&D instead of the several paragraphs that amount to "don't ever do 3d6 in order, it sucks so bad we didn't even include it". Or "you have to be behind someone to use Sneak Attack" which for gently caress's sake it's been 18 years and they even changed the name of the ability specifically to avoid this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 02:31
|
|
|
Wrestlepig posted:If you have a problem with the really basic assertion that 'the game doesn't have many narrative options during combat', argue against it instead of saying people are being mean to the rule book Narrate your combat? Say what you’re doing, roll, you or the GM describe the result? But really I think it probably is more this: kingcom posted:To take a really simple example. When you score a critical hit in combat, you often are going to get bonus damage. In a social situation, cant critically succeed really and it doesn't do anything different. To go use Edge of the Empire as an example, critically succeeding (getting a Triumph) can let you spend it to convert the person you are talking to into a long term ally as just a set thing you can do. That is a cool mechanical concept and I had never really considered the mechanical side of the roleplaying part. To me, if you get a crit while attempting a social roll, you succeed at what you’re trying to do REALLY WELL. And then the narrative forms out of that and informs how the DM describes the result and you’re all improving and spitballing, etc. I don’t see a ton of difference between Dungeon World & D&D from a narrative standpoint except that D&D’s combat is more complicated. I hadn’t really considered that getting tables for your social interactions might increase someone’s enjoyment of interpreting the dice and that’s a fair point, D&D definitely doesn’t do that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 03:21
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:There's some kind of weird inertia of bullshit in this hobby. Like rolling stats on 3d6 in order, where the way people talk about it would make you think it's in AD&D instead of the several paragraphs that amount to "don't ever do 3d6 in order, it sucks so bad we didn't even include it". My friends love DEX on Melee but after long stretches I still have to remind them they are allowed to, when they return to 5th ed after playing older editions with their in person friends. Section Z fucked around with this message at 03:26 on Jul 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 03:22
|
|
|
Basically the hardest part of D&D is being the DM and D&D could stand to do a better job training DMs. Navigating decades worth of restrictive vs permissive assumptions about the game is just about the hardest part of learning to DM too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 03:33
|
|
|
Quidthulhu posted:That is a cool mechanical concept and I had never really considered the mechanical side of the roleplaying part. To me, if you get a crit while attempting a social roll, you succeed at what you’re trying to do REALLY WELL. And then the narrative forms out of that and informs how the DM describes the result and you’re all improving and spitballing, etc. I mean you don't need tables per say but simply have mechanic functionality or abilities that can fire off in social encounters or even social uses that trigger inside of combat. That Edge of the Empire 'turn someone in a long term ally' thing is a really good example because its something that can happen even if you fail what you are doing (due to the special dice that the system uses). The example people pull on is Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader, Luke is surrenders to Vader to turn to the light and fails but gets a Triumph. Much of the movie goes on and the ensuring fight on the Death Star happens and when the Emperor is killing Luke, that triumph he got several sessions ago triggers and Vader sacrifices himself to save Luke. A systems narrative mechanics are usually about building a certain type of tone, theme and narrative. Star Wars is about redemption and heroes struggling against a larger evil so having a basic mechanic that flips villains into sympathetic allies means that your own campaigns are going to tell this type of story. It not only is enjoyable to people but it helps to focus a system into doing something. The thing about just improving completely what happens on a critical role is often that the player's ideas and desires for what happens is going to be different to a GM's and it might not be a fault of either party. A critical success on a Persuade check doesn't actually do anything special mechanically, nor does it really give the player control on how to shape the narrative forwards. In your D&D game, when I roll a critical success do I get to the villain of the campaign my ally? Why or why not? What is your definition of 'REALLY WELL' vs my definition or your GM's definition. Mendrian posted:Basically the hardest part of D&D is being the DM and D&D could stand to do a better job training DMs. Navigating decades worth of restrictive vs permissive assumptions about the game is just about the hardest part of learning to DM too. This is extremely true. I'm running a 5e game and I do 10x as much work for it than any other system I run, having just closed off a Shadow of the Demon Lord game and a Star Wars Edge of the Empire campaign recently aswell, it feels like such a huge workload and burden to keep that game running mechanically, let alone narratively. kingcom fucked around with this message at 04:07 on Jul 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 03:37
|
|
|
Quidthulhu posted:Narrate your combat? Say what you’re doing, roll, you or the GM describe the result? But really I think it probably is more this: narrating combat doesn't actually do anything, according to the book. Whether I say my guy swings his sword or quietly chants to the god of war and makes a great cleave at the bugbear's head, nothing really changes. If it's Dungeon World, it's both the same move, but it gives you way more for the GM to work with, and the attack will change the circumstances of the fight (well not in dungeon world with Hack and Slash because it's badly written, but you get the idea). If I want to do a cool stunt, in dungeon world it's probably defy danger, but with D&D 5e it's whatever the gm can figure out, and has to figure out how to handle it, what DC it should be, because there aren't actually any rules for doing so in combat quote:To me, if you get a crit while attempting a social roll, you succeed at what you’re trying to do REALLY WELL. cool, what about the actual rules
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 03:37
|
|
|
More rules on social interactions just mean more rules a GM will ignore or selectively interpret when you try to take advantage of them rather than being restricted by them, if it's not something they would already enjoy letting the player get away with in D&D or ANY system. In a perfect world, having the rules for something would mean being able to do those things more often. In reality it's often just a bigger list of "You can't do X social interaction because you don't have Y feature!" At the end of the day, it really is down to the players and GM as people. Edge of the Empire just means if one person in your group fails their perc check before combat, the GM gets to declare unrelated consequences "because story game". (Edge of the Empire being the only SW system to say "Jesus Christ, Language barriers don't exist in star wars, get over yourself acting clever declaring that nobody in the party can understand eachother" is great though) Section Z fucked around with this message at 03:57 on Jul 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 03:48
|
|
|
E; why the gently caress am I bothering with this
Wrestlepig fucked around with this message at 04:00 on Jul 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 03:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:47 |
|
|
For example, you could have a game where super strength allows you to swing a park bench at people real good. But if the GM doesn't like that, they will cry you have to buy a reach attack if you keep that up. Even with the fact you're also following the rules that mean smashing people with a bench does half the damage of just punching them. "The rules say I can do X" is not the primary factor. It's the starting point. Though I'm sure wildly different overall experiences with gaming is the biggest factor here. A group that honestly wants to roleplay their way through problems will do better regardless of system, than a group with a constrained viewpoint handed a dozen extra tables intended for roleplay opportunities. Section Z fucked around with this message at 04:09 on Jul 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 04:02
|
|