|
It feels like just yesterday the slap fights over whatever new thing monsterenvy said was the dumbest thing going on in this thread. That said, it is interesting watching how far Tremek will go on doubling down at not getting the point. For anything. Even their own points they are making.
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 17:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:27 |
|
|
Dameius posted:It feels like just yesterday the slap fights over whatever new thing monsterenvy said was the dumbest thing going on in this thread. That said, it is interesting watching how far Tremek will go on doubling down at not getting the point. For anything. Even their own points they are making. Assuming we don't get a Puppet Defense in the next couple of pages.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 17:23
|
|
|
Koreban, I didn’t mention the Forgotten Realms at all. The core rulebooks for 5e are setting agnostic by the way. What I’m trying to say is that the traditional drow as defined in the 5e PHB or whatever are part of D&D as defined in those books. Changing drow from what is in those books means that your game isn’t strictly truly D&D as defined in those books. That’s fine, it’s just different. Conversely though, presenting the standard idea of drow in the core rulebooks makes sense because you are presenting the standard idea of the game.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 17:24
|
|
|
Proud Rat Mom posted:its easy as gently caress for a new dm to mess up and not give you the proper encounter chain to lead you to the first appropriate area at level 3. the book splits information across the whole thing. engaging with the story + npc's is the only thing players need to do to keep things running smooth and don't roll your eyes if u get rescued by dm fiat, as i'm pretty sure early levels it's almost expected to happen. Have fun! We are starting at level 3 anyway so maybe he's already looked into that part. Otherwise we have been pretty combat focused in our other experimentation so far and he's stressing the social interaction part of this so maybe we are off on the right foot. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 17:25
|
|
|
acumen posted:My group is pretty new to dnd and starting Princes of the Apocalypse tomorrow but I've read that it can be a little messy or disjointed. Is there anything I can do as a player to make the DMs job easier at all? Do your best to know how your abilities/spells/etc work and do what math you can in advance. (Index note cards can be handy, particularly if you've got a long spell list.) Time spent leafing through a book to find how something works is time not doing fun/interesting stuff. Think ahead about what you're going to do, particularly in a fight. Again, it cuts down dead time of going "Ummmmm...." while everyone else twiddles their fingers. And recognize that while in-character choices are one thing, you as a player are there to go on an adventure and play. Don't be that person who actively fights against the flow of the plot - stick with the tour group, follow the tracks, find in-character excuses and reasons as needed. Throw wrenches into things once all of you are better experienced, for the beginning just roll with it and go where the DM's trying to take you rather than fighting it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 17:29
|
|
|
I need to really refresh tabs more often. But basically half the issue with "Drow's flaws are DEEP LORE" is because GMs and Modules never respect those flaws. It's only ever trotted out for PCs. When it's NPC time? Magic eyepatches and being impossible to get a daylight fight for every drow. Every possible measure will be taken to ensure NPC Drow are not the least bit inconvenienced even as they brag about how meaningful their flaws are. Because they know if they actually have to put up with their flaws, you can't make Johnny McSpiderfuck look cooler than the players. You are more likely to get a vampire into direct sunlight mid combat than you are an NPC Drow. So quite often all arguing that "The lore says-" does even if you mean well? Is remind your players how much you don't (apparently) give poo poo about the lore. Because if you did, obviously it would be a meaningful factor anywhere but as a gotcha for PCs more than 'next to never'. Section Z fucked around with this message at 17:56 on Sep 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 17:39
|
|
|
I did the (very long) player base survey D&D is currently collecting data on and the best part was the one where you rate 'the total creative freedom' you have in D&D on a scale from 'Not Important at All' to 'Very Important' without being able to dispute the existence of the thing. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 17:42
|
|
|
Proud Rat Mom posted:Dragon heist is shite and i'm disappointed I got hoodwinked into buying it, as a adventure it's almost with no exaggeration completely unusable and there is no actual heist (which the developers straight up lied about on promotional videos). the only use I can see out of it is a bunch of fleshed out characters and a setting to run your own waterdeep adventures. Is there at least a dragon?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 17:47
|
|
|
Proud Rat Mom posted:Dragon heist is shite and i'm disappointed I got hoodwinked into buying it, as a adventure it's almost with no exaggeration completely unusable and there is no actual heist (which the developers straight up lied about on promotional videos). the only use I can see out of it is a bunch of fleshed out characters and a setting to run your own waterdeep adventures. I don't know if you heard... Dragon Heist is state of the art tabletop design! https://www.polygon.com/2018/9/11/17845902/dungeons-and-dragons-waterdeep-dragon-heist-review
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 18:20
|
|
|
okay what the hell is going on with this chart:    if the PHB 1 for 4th Edition was released in June of 2008, and the black line I approximated between 2006 and 2008 should then stand for 2007, how the gently caress does 4e have representation to the left of that line, when it hadn't been released yet?! (for that matter, you've also got "Pathfinder" pre-dating 4e, which is also completely crazy) are you loving with us?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 18:32
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:okay what the hell is going on with this chart: 4e and Pathfinder did sell some preview and playtest material, respectively. I'm not sure about that far back or in those numbers, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 18:42
|
|
|
Glazius posted:4e and Pathfinder did sell some preview and playtest material, respectively. In Pathfinder's case, someone might not be familiar with the distinction between Pathfinder as a product and Pathfinder as a system and include the 3.5 adventure paths.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 18:43
|
|
|
Doesn't the PHB (maybe DMG) explicitly state multiple times that you can bend and change pretty much any mechanic you wish in order to suit the needs/wants of your group/world/adventure, thus rendering the argument of what's "truly playing" DnD both stupid and dumb?
Fresh Shesh Besh fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Sep 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 18:45
|
|
|
Fresh Shesh Besh posted:Doesn't the PHB (maybe DMG) explicitly state multiple times that you can bend and change pretty much any mechanic you wish in order to suit the needs/wants of your group/world/adventure, thus rendering the argument of what's "truly playing" DnD both stupid and dumb? Well yeah sure. I mean, "ask your DM" is pretty much D&D's cloak of invulnerability against any and all rules arguments. The issue is that a new DM is going to feel bound to keep things orthodox rather than making sweeping changes that they may not understand the ramifications of. So what's in the core book still matters even if we're not all bound by it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 18:52
|
|
|
Glazius posted:4e and Pathfinder did sell some preview and playtest material, respectively. In just that screenshot it also shows the AGE system having sales in ~2005, five years before the original iteration came out and four before the game it was based on, Dragon Age: Origins. It's obviously a really flawed chart. vvv I've got no dog in this fight, but 'shifted ahead by 1-2 quarters'? That chart's got poo poo on it taking marketshare half a decade prior to a product's release. It's obviously bad data and that you're even attempting to defend it is nuts. Tempest_56 fucked around with this message at 19:08 on Sep 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 18:57
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:okay what the hell is going on with this chart: Not my data, but if I were looking for the simplest answer I'd wager the dates on the X axis are shifted "ahead" by 1-2 quarters. Or, pre-order revenue. Here's something else to think about :  If my face-of-the-genre IP/brand/property is outsold for 13 consecutive quarters, neither I nor my stockholders are considering that success. Tremek fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Sep 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 18:57
|
|
|
I continue to love anyone that uses ICV2 seriously. Did their methodology ever change from, "Well we gathered a few numbers then just called some people and guessed for the rest."?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 19:02
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:I continue to love anyone that uses ICV2 seriously. Did their methodology ever change from, "Well we gathered a few numbers then just called some people and guessed for the rest."? I continue to love that literally no one else in here has shown any data to support their argument. Have something better to share? Something is better than pure conjecture & invective. By the way, the ICv2 survey, the graph above, and Hasbro's 10-Ks all mysteriously align. Is it all fake news? WE REPORT, YOU DECIDE Tremek fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Sep 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 19:08
|
|
|
Tremek posted:I continue to love that literally no one else in here has shown any data to support their argument. Have something better to share? Something is better than pure conjecture & invective. Oh my god go away
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 19:09
|
|
|
Tremek posted:I continue to love that literally no one else in here has shown any data to support their argument. Have something better to share? Something is better than pure conjecture & invective. If no good numbers are available it is usually considered best to not fabricate numbers At least I thought that
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 19:12
|
|
|
Tremek posted:I continue to love that literally no one else in here has shown any data to support their argument. Have something better to share? Something is better than pure conjecture & invective. how can they align when we know the graph is false? please stop. unless 1-2 quarters take up multiple years in which case nothing matters anymore and lol.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 19:14
|
|
|
Tremek posted:I continue to love that literally no one else in here has shown any data to support their argument. Have something better to share? Something is better than pure conjecture & invective. My argument has been that Drow edgelords are an invention of pre 4th edition, so bad drow players have gently caress all to do with "Wanting no sunlight weakness means you are a mary sue! May as well ask to play a mind flayer!" claims. A stance that would remain accurate if 4th edition actually resulted in financial debt rather than any amount of profit. So I'm even more baffled than most by the cost benefit analyses charts being thrown around, due to how meaningless they are even if you were right that 4th ed was the least profitable tabletop game of all time. Section Z fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Sep 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 19:27
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:Well yeah sure. I mean, "ask your DM" is pretty much D&D's cloak of invulnerability against any and all rules arguments. You're not wrong. And I don't think there's anything wrong with a new DM sticking closely source material, but I also think once you've got some game time under your belt you'll have a decent idea of how the game might break. If someone is experienced enough to be agonizing over one or two mechanics, just change the drat things and be done with it. In my personal experience you can tinker a lot and really not drastically effect the overall flow of the game.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 19:29
|
|
|
thelazyblank posted:how can they align when we know the graph is false? please stop. unless 1-2 quarters take up multiple years in which case nothing matters anymore and lol. That's Amazon data and you could buy Pathfinder (3.5) products in that date range and pre-order both Pathfinder and 4e in 2007, as you said please stop
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 19:31
|
|
|
Section Z posted:My argument has been that Drow edgelords are an invention of pre 4th edition, so bad drow players have gently caress all to do with "Wanting no sunlight weakness means you are a mary sue! May as well ask to play a mind flayer!" claims. PS if that's your argument great, I myself never once argued any connection between drow, edgelords, and 4e. I only brought 4e into the discussion as a passing reference to "the brand wasn't doing well before 5e" and then we got way, way off track here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 19:33
|
|
|
Tremek posted:That's Amazon data and you could buy Pathfinder (3.5) products in that date range and pre-order both Pathfinder and 4e in 2007, as you said please stop look at the graph, it shows 2006 and previous. do you know how to read a graph?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 19:33
|
|
|
So we've established that the random dig on 4e outta nowhere is a total non-sequitur then?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 19:37
|
|
|
Tremek posted:PS if that's your argument great, I myself never once argued any connection between drow, edgelords, and 4e. I only brought 4e into the discussion as a passing reference to "the brand wasn't doing well before 5e" and then we got way, way off track here. You could erase the editions at hand from all claims, and that still leaves the "No need for magic sunlglasses? what a mary sue. Go ask to play a troglodyte" hot take with no basis on reality. Nothing to do with finance. Nothing to do with 4th ed. Just straight up falsehood shouting at clouds about how the most basic of changes (Which NPCs never put up with anyways to any meaningful degree) means you may as well go all in and play brain eating gandalf. Now if we were talking something like wannabe Vampire PCs, I could see it. Because NPC Vampires face detrimental effects from the sun during combat about 5,000% more often than Drow across all media. So it's an actual factor not based entirely on one sided hypocrisy ala "Drow lore says sun bad. Yes, we know you've never seen it happen all campaign, but trust us." Section Z fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Sep 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 19:40
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:So we've established that the random dig on 4e outta nowhere is a total non-sequitur then? Yup, although clearly much e-honour has been sullied throughout this exchange thelazyblank posted:look at the graph, it shows 2006 and previous. do you know how to read a graph? Thanks I do, chances are the data attributed there is Paizo-published Dragon mag sales attributed back to 2002 lumped under Pathfinder due to Paizo being the publisher. I know this won't soothe the seething discontent in your soul, but none of this invalidates the rest of the graph following the '07/08 timeframe of Pathfinder & 4e's launch and the end of Paizo publishing Dragon. As you said, please stop.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 19:41
|
|
|
so the graph just lumps together all sorts of poo poo that isn't Pathfinder and also is Pathfinder, and also lumps together Old School Revival as a single category while having separate lines for C&C and SWN, and also stretches back Dragon Age to before it existed, and we're supposed to believe you're not just talking out your rear end? go away
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 19:48
|
|
|
As a bookseller in the US, it's worth noting that while Amazon's sales tracker is illustrative, it's not really the whole story about sales, either. Not that it really matters, but trust me, people who shop Amazon versus B&M are pretty different and have different tastes. Also it completely ignores the fact that people could access all of 4e's content without any books at all, but they were still giving money directly to WotC. I'm not married to 4e being successful or not being successful, really. I think it was a good game and I think that a lot of 3.5 fanboys have been trying to 'prove' that it was an objectively bad game based on sales data since it was released and we're never really going to know outside of anecdotes one way or the other. Like, for instance, 4e came out just before the recession, so, you know, that also impacted sales. Pathfinder also ate a lot of 4e's ice cream which had nothing to do with 4e as a product. So given that, I'm checking out of this argument, I've already had it a dozen times.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 19:53
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:so the graph just lumps together all sorts of poo poo that isn't Pathfinder and also is Pathfinder, and also lumps together Old School Revival as a single category while having separate lines for C&C and SWN, and also stretches back Dragon Age to before it existed, and we're supposed to believe you're not just talking out your rear end? Sorry this is kicking over your fragile mental D&D sandcastles, feel free to refute with something in turn. Don't like the graph, sure ok? Bad annual reports, mea culpa mentions in media (the infamous "no one at Wizards ever woke up one day and said "Let's get rid of all our fans and replace them," that was never the intent" quote), multiple directional indicators showing 4e wasn't doing well in the marketplace or critically, etc. aren't me talking out my rear end. Mendrian posted:As a bookseller in the US, it's worth noting that while Amazon's sales tracker is illustrative, it's not really the whole story about sales, either. Not that it really matters, but trust me, people who shop Amazon versus B&M are pretty different and have different tastes. Agreed that Amazon data isn't the One True Source, hence why I also brought in the ICv2 surveys, which again, are not absolute, but also indicative of trends. I don't care one whit about the superiority of any of the current or previous systems btw - my point was it didn't do well and 5e has most assuredly been better received critically, by players, financially both in sales and in profitability, etc. and that re: current mechanics, of course WOTC is going to do things (sometimes stark and sometimes subtle) to protect a now-very important revenue stream, which some of the grognards in here got all up in arms over. Let's get back to how bad drow PCs are and how awful the players are who like to play drow shall we Tremek fucked around with this message at 20:04 on Sep 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 20:00
|
|
|
We can't give data because Hasbro doesn't publish hard sales numbers specific to DnD. This is why we are skeptical of any charts, because they wouldn't have that data either. There was certainly a perception of 4e being unpopular within the established rpg player base, but there is evidence that suggest this was a result of a vocal minority. Newer players who tried out the system seemed to not have these issues. It's a bit like the controversy over the Last Jedi. There are many people decrying it who are not only invested in saying it's bad, but also in saying that it's unpopular. Yet when you compare ticket sales from that movie to past ones, it looks just as successful if not more so. In the case of DnD, however, we don't have the ticket sales to fairly judge one way or another. We have to extrapolate, which leaves more room for personal bias. Now, WOTC definitely decided to shape 5th edition based on the wants of that older player base, and that doesn't seem to have hurt sales, but that doesn't necessarily mean the old sales where noticeably worse, or speak to the quality of either design. Edit: Drow players are good, and cool, and my friends. Except when they arn't. Just like any fan of any playable race. glitchwraith fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Sep 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 20:02
|
|
|
Why does the 5e sales numbers on that chart stretch back to 2007?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 20:13
|
|
|
I think dark skinned spider ladies are cool and we should probably find a way to make them fun to play without being all creepy about it. That's my whole argument.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 20:15
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Why does the 5e sales numbers on that chart stretch back to 2007? Also, why do all sales always total to the same vertical height? That seems to be a chart of percentage of market share, not absolute sales.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 20:21
|
|
|
Wait wait did Tremek post a Mearls interview as more 'proof' that 4E's sales were bad? My dude, Mearls purposefully torpedoed 4E and he can never take accountability for his bad ideas, please don't think of him as a reliable source
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 20:24
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Also, why do all sales always total to the same vertical height? That seems to be a chart of percentage of market share, not absolute sales. Whoops: I hosed up (and apparently no one else also saw this): in the Imgur link, I grabbed the wrong image. The image we're debating is apparently "Morrus’ RPG Zeitgeist" data (I don't know what this is) which as it's represented, I think also matches your market-share or share-of-voice analysis, which I was also struggling with. So what that ostensibly is representing is similar to how Google represents what people are talking about at any given time, hence why we're seeing mentions of 5e and Pathfinder (well) in advance of releases. Below is the image the Imgur dump was actually referring to as Amazon sales data (for PHBs) and it's from the last 5 years:  I interpret the above as not telling us much about 4e. The podcast discussing all of this is also interesting. Tremek fucked around with this message at 20:34 on Sep 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 20:31
|
|
|
Why is this argument still persisting. Instead I'd like some more opinions about why Dragon Heist is bad before I get the better of myself and buy it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 20:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:27 |
|
|
SettingSun posted:Why is this argument still persisting. Instead I'd like some more opinions about why Dragon Heist is bad before I get the better of myself and buy it. It's fun, go get it. Much like the spergs mad about drow and making their own rules to get around the mechanics, if there's pieces of it that are imperfect (and there are), go change it. That's what I'm going to do.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 20:35
|
|