|
Arivia posted:I'll restate it just in case you haven't read my posts, or maybe don't understand what I'm saying. That was really harsh out of nowhere. I read all your posts and didn't understand something and asked for clarification. If stats are unequal in ubiquity I don't understand how it isn't inherently imbalanced to have classes that key off of some or not others. Giving a toy example for a fictional system, if there are 10 skills that get plusses for characters that specc in Charisma and only 2 skills for Strength, that is exactly a demonstration of poor balance. One character is getting more stuff just because of what they picked ; the bard is just better than the fighter because the system says so. And this is just skills, not like combat or other things that get the vast majority of rules in a D&D style system.
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 19:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 18:16 |
|
|
Arivia posted:No. It's not a bad thing to have a score that's just hey, here's more hit points and Fortitude save bonuses. Arivia posted:You can change a lot of things about D&D, the scope has expanded and shifted over the years. Considering how much of the game's mythology and genre is built on top of six ability scores, I wouldn't want to touch the number or which ones there are. It's like alignment: yes, it's not realistic, or great, but it's a basic building block of the game, and you keep it because it is a foundational part of D&D. Splicer fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Jan 29, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 19:44
|
|
|
Warthur posted:It was practically an RPG.net darling for a while. I think even RPGPundit waved the white flag on it and conceded it being a REAL TESTOSTERONE-INTACT RPG instead of some sort of degenerate soy-fuelled storygame after sufficient people on theRPGsite dunked on him for his misconceptions about the game. I want to clarify this because you're being too generous to Pundit and that is unacceptable at all times. He had this incredibly long lovely thread on his forum where he said a bunch of wrong dumbass nonsense. One of the DW authors (Sage I think?) wasted his precious life force patiently and politely correcting him and other posters for hours. Eventually the stupidity ground the interaction to a halt, though plenty of the inmates continued to hoot and holler about fail forward making no sense after Sage turned into a pumpkin. Days later Pundit pops back in to say having finally gotten around to reading DW that, despite its insidious storygame elements, it is nonetheless an actual for-real RPG. He is such a loving toolbag.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 19:51
|
|
|
That Old Tree posted:
God if I could just watch that "person" like step into a puddle on repeat for hours.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 20:02
|
|
|
SkySteak posted:Thanks for the. I am aware of what PbtA can offer (I dabbled in a Blades in the Dark hack, which whilst isn't technically a PbtA system is close enough iirc) but when it comes to new people looking for that general D&D experience, I feel like trying to steer them on a complete separate path (beyond something close to D&D) is an act of pissing in the wind. The one real caution here is that DW was played by people who read and enjoyed Apocalypse World and internalized a ton of it, to the point that they will quote Apocalypse World language without fully explaining what it means, and don't explain the boundary conditions as well as they should. You should definitely also read Apocalypse World and pay attention to how it tells you to deal with problems that arise during play.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 20:16
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:That was really harsh out of nowhere. I read all your posts and didn't understand something and asked for clarification. If you really wanted to press this you'd be more concerned about the classes that have Charisma as their key ability, because that just influences a couple skill rolls. But you're not; and again, the math works out fine, no one's being forced to put points into Con at the expense of something else. All of the ability scores provide diverse benefits to all kinds of PCs. This isn't some sort of SAD or MAD argument like it was 3e again. It's really apparent you and Splicer haven't looked at the system and are just repeating a cult idea of DTAS because you think that's a major issue with D&D. Which I don't give a poo poo about. I'm interested in playing good D&D, not Strike or something else that isn't D&D. And for a modern, tactical D&D? PF2e is far and away the best there is. Splicer posted:It is bad if it costs the same points as ones that give you more. Then it's a trap. quote:e: Nah, overly snarky. But your argument seems to be, now, that you're agreeing that the big six are bad, but tradition trumps good?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 20:41
|
|
|
Glazius posted:The one real caution here is that DW was played by people who read and enjoyed Apocalypse World and internalized a ton of it, to the point that they will quote Apocalypse World language without fully explaining what it means, and don't explain the boundary conditions as well as they should. You should definitely also read Apocalypse World and pay attention to how it tells you to deal with problems that arise during play. I'm a big fan of DW and this is absolutely true. I had to read Apoc World and Monsterhearts before I fully understood what was going on with DW -- it expects you to know PbtA before you start.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 20:58
|
|
|
Arivia posted:No, it's not; it's not a choice between one or your primary stat. This isn't point-buy where you have to subtract from your Strength to get that Dexterity and Constitution up, while the wizard can just put everything into Intelligence. The opportunity cost is weighed against the other secondary statistics to your class, and in that scope, Con is fine. Arivia posted:The barbarian class entry tells me I also want Con and Dex, so I'll put my free boost into Con. Stats that are not Con also increase skill checks. Someone who eschews Con for other skills gets not just additional skill ranks, but will have higher base bonuses to apply to those skills. This is bad. Splicer fucked around with this message at 21:19 on Jan 29, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 21:14
|
|
|
Arivia posted:If you really wanted to press this you'd be more concerned about the classes that have Charisma as their key ability, because that just influences a couple skill rolls. But you're not; and again, the math works out fine, no one's being forced to put points into Con at the expense of something else. All of the ability scores provide diverse benefits to all kinds of PCs. This isn't some sort of SAD or MAD argument like it was 3e again. It's really apparent you and Splicer haven't looked at the system and are just repeating a cult idea of DTAS because you think that's a major issue with D&D. Whoah. I am actually concerned about that but that's not what we were discussing so I didn't bring it up. And I disagree that the math works out "fine". In as much as it's "fine" you can jiggle it and house-rule and make it work. (Although I fully admit that I've only read the Pathfinder 2e stuff and not played it so I'm coming from at best an academic perspective ; but I mean this to be domain general and not in response specifically to that system.) Can you define what D&D means to you so we have a baseline to discuss? Also we've basically never talked like ever I don't know why you keep being randomly acerbic to me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 21:25
|
|
|
I wonder how PF2e would play with Str and Con hacked together to be the same stat, and chargen were altered with the assumption that you're choosing between five ability scores rather than six.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 21:28
|
|
|
Splicer posted:In which you say that this class wants Con more than other classes (or does every class say "you need con"?) and ends up with 3 boosts in Con when Int directly translates into skills, which are out of combat benefits. A high Con character has less out of combat functionality than a low Con character. This is bad. I just checked, and every class has Con listed as a secondary ability score, yes. Sure, Int translates directly into skills, but I have all the skills I need for this character: Acrobatics, Athletics, Intimidation, Labor Lore, Nature, and Survival. If I wanted more I could just take another boost to Int, or use my first skill increase, or use that ancestry feat I noted. Whatever, I have plenty of options. Characters in PF2e, no matter who they are, are not without out-of-combat options. It's really apparent you haven't actually read, engaged with, or played the system, and you're just trying your old axe to grind. Let it go, it's old and it's tiring. Sure, I have bonuses to skill checks from other ability scores. Con helps me not die and gives me benefits both in combat and out of combat (if I'm not taking so long to rest, I've got more downtime and more opportunity for Day Job checks and other downtime activities.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 21:44
|
|
|
Please take this to some sort of dnd thread?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 21:49
|
|
|
You know it's clear you both have different tastes but I feel like you're making things more personal than Splicer is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 21:50
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Can you define what D&D means to you so we have a baseline to discuss? People trying to argue about a system that they've never played because it doesn't cater to their pet issues is really frustrating. If you're going to be critical, do your job first and actually understand what you're talking about. My definition of a modern D&D (as opposed to what I'd like out of an old school game like a B/X retroclone) is a fantasy adventure game with a strong tactical combat system; detailed race, class and level character creation system with options for customization; rules for noncombat challenges and systems (ranging from diplomatic negotiation to dungeon exploration); a supplement treadmill so I have lots of new, exciting content to look forward to; a large portion of D&D's creative elements that have evolved over time; a solid backbone of rules with reliable math (including balanced player options and power) so that I can rely on its guidance for how to run the game and set up challenges as GM; and a clear relationship or replacement for legacy mechanics from past editions so that I can update or adapt creative elements I liked that are no longer part of the current resources for the game (for example, I'm running my Pathfinder 2e game in the 3e Forgotten Realms setting.) I'm not blind to the fact that D&D has been a lot of different things at different times; I'm not unaware that it's frequently had different play styles. Right before Pathfinder 2e, I was running Basic with a couple things from 1e AD&D, for crying out loud! I'm not going to pretend that I don't want a D&D that has beholders and dungeon crawling and belts of giant strength in it though. This is the same thing for any long-lasting RPG: we all want to play that RPG, not something similar with the creative elements worn off or whatever. You're talking about D&D in this weird way like it can be taken apart, like you'd expect a version of Vampire the Masquerade with none of the existing clans or the lovely Storyteller dice system or something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 21:53
|
|
|
Xarbala posted:I wonder how PF2e would play with Str and Con hacked together to be the same stat, and chargen were altered with the assumption that you're choosing between five ability scores rather than six. Arivia posted:I just checked, and every class has Con listed as a secondary ability score, yes. Sure, Int translates directly into skills, but I have all the skills I need for this character: Acrobatics, Athletics, Intimidation, Labor Lore, Nature, and Survival. If I wanted more I could just take another boost to Int, or use my first skill increase, or use that ancestry feat I noted. Whatever, I have plenty of options. Characters in PF2e, no matter who they are, are not without out-of-combat options. It's really apparent you haven't actually read, engaged with, or played the system, and you're just trying your old axe to grind. Let it go, it's old and it's tiring. The answer is yes. e: Also lol at every class saying Con is a secondary. Splicer fucked around with this message at 21:58 on Jan 29, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 21:55
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Does someone with high con have less out of combat utility than someone with lower con, assuming nothing changes but where they allocated their stats? If the answer is yes, I'm right. Go ahead and tell me what you think out of combat utility is. For bonus points, explain how that works in each of the three modes of play in Pathfinder 2e: encounter, exploration, and downtime. I don't think you can, because it's obvious you haven't looked at the system at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 21:58
|
|
|
Arivia posted:You're talking about D&D in this weird way like it can be taken apart, like you'd expect a version of Vampire the Masquerade with none of the existing clans or the lovely Storyteller dice system or something. Well hammering D&D into something it's not is basically the pastime for the roleplaying hobby as a whole, especially people playing D&D.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 21:59
|
|
|
Xarbala posted:Well hammering D&D into something it's not is basically the pastime for the roleplaying hobby as a whole, especially people playing D&D. You'd think people in this thread who know about the existence of other RPGs would try something else that is more to their taste then, instead of repeatedly banging at D&D for not being their favourite.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 21:59
|
|
|
Arivia posted:Go ahead and tell me what you think out of combat utility is. For bonus points, explain how that works in each of the three modes of play in Pathfinder 2e: encounter, exploration, and downtime. I don't think you can, because it's obvious you haven't looked at the system at all. The ability to state "I'm doing this" and be able to point to something on your sheet that says you are in fact doing this And When a roll is required, the likelyhood of success
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 22:00
|
|
|
Splicer posted:In this circumstance, out of combat utility is: Sure, everyone has similar options for that no matter what skills or ability scores they have. I'm not going to run the exact numbers for you because that would be a lot of work (finding every specifically trained skill action and comparing those, for example), but yes. I can point to my sheet and say Labour Lore is my Day Job, or that I'm using Survival to Subsist in the wilderness or whatever. The likelihood of success is going to be very similar because Paizo actually did all the playtesting and math to make sure the numbers work.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 22:03
|
|
|
Arivia posted:You're talking about D&D in this weird way like it can be taken apart, like you'd expect a version of Vampire the Masquerade with none of the existing clans or the lovely Storyteller dice system or something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 22:03
|
|
|
Arivia posted:Sure, everyone has similar options for that no matter what skills or ability scores they have. I'm not going to run the exact numbers for you because that would be a lot of work (finding every specifically trained skill action and comparing those, for example), but yes. I can point to my sheet and say Labour Lore is my Day Job, or that I'm using Survival to Subsist in the wilderness or whatever. The likelihood of success is going to be very similar because Paizo actually did all the playtesting and math to make sure the numbers work. e: If yes, is it some weird overly complex system that only exists to make Con less bad?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 22:05
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:These two games are not comparable. D&D can absolutely be taken apart; both its rules and its setting are a mishmash of stuff the creators liked. No, that's not true. Especially in the scope of a modern D&D where there's a much larger ecosystem of rules and rules concepts, there's a list of common monsters/classes/spells/etc necessary to make a D&D setting. Sure, you can replace or remove some of these, but that's still getting away from the core idea of a D&D setting (that common fibre that connects Greyhawk, Dark Sun, and Eberron, to name three). And in Vampire, there are options for removing the clans or whatever else you'd like, but you're still running a variant game that isn't the usual default and requires adjustment. That Vampire game wouldn't be appropriate for the core rulebooks of that game, either. I don't disagree with you that D&D is a mishmash of various influences; but collectively those influences have come together to form a creative weight and idea among players, fans, and culture at large. You can see how Demogorgon has expanded into a larger sign with more meanings after Stranger Things for an example of that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 22:08
|
|
|
I've never run or played in a D&D game where Demogorgon showed up. Was I playing Fake D&D?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 22:12
|
|
|
Splicer posted:But if I put more points into Con won't those numbers will be lower? Do I get some manner of compensation to mitigate this? Sure, they'll be lower by like what, 1 or 2? I have enough of a base bonus to that skill to make it still usable, and it's going to keep pace just by being trained in the first place; having a +3 instead of a +4 modifier isn't going to ruin the math for me, and is in the exact same range of skill bonuses that I have with all my skills at 1st level. Later on? Specialization, skill feats, better proficiencies and so on are going to make for much bigger changes than one single modifier will. By level 20 the advice for setting DCs to GMs is "a character with legendary proficiency and the appropriate feats is going to succeed at any skill check for that skill; plan accordingly." Again, it really shows that you haven't read the system or looked at the math at all. You're taking a preconception from what, 3e? 4e? 5e? and assuming it works the same way in a game that was completely rebuilt from the ground up to actually work from levels 1-20.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 22:12
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:I've never run or played in a D&D game where Demogorgon showed up. Was I playing Fake D&D? A cultural text can be more than your single reading, interpretation, or repetition of a fragment or section of it. Now shoo with this absurd sophistry.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 22:13
|
|
|
You keep getting butthurt in defense of D&D but dismiss any request to define D&D as sophistry. I predict this will go in circles until a mod gets sick of it, so have fun showing your entire rear end.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 22:14
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:You keep getting butthurt in defense of D&D but dismiss any request to define D&D as sophistry. I predict this will go in circles until a mod gets sick of it, so have fun showing your entire rear end. I defined it above in response to Xiahou Dun's request. I'm not responsible for the fact that you can't understand that people who like a cultural property like it as a collective, and that trying to lessen it by poking away at single creative elements just makes you look like a fool.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 22:18
|
|
|
Arivia posted:Sure, they'll be lower by like what, 1 or 2? If you want to pivot to "yes but not by much", I know that 2E ranks successes by degrees of 10, so a difference of 2 means I am getting lower results 10% of the time. That adds up Jerry! Unless you're saying your stats are usually so high that you're guaranteed maximum success, in which case wow, that's a lot of wasted sheet space spent on numbers that don't matter. So we have identified one of the drawbacks to having unbalanced ability scores. What benefits are there to keeping con and str split that make this drawback worthwhile? Splicer fucked around with this message at 22:40 on Jan 29, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 22:38
|
|
|
Splicer posted:So that's a yes? So I'm right then. If you take con you're worse off out of combat than if you did not. Which is bad. I'm not engaging with you any more because you are cherrypicking only what you want to see, and ignoring the actual larger system. It's shameful, and you should be ashamed of yourself for pulling that bullshit. That's not good, or fair, discussion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 22:41
|
|
|
Arivia posted:I'm not engaging with you any more because you are cherrypicking only what you want to see, and ignoring the actual larger system. It's shameful, and you should be ashamed of yourself for pulling that bullshit. That's not good, or fair, discussion. keep going i almost have a bingo
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 22:43
|
|
|
I remember when I used to argue with Arivia about Pathfinder How're you guys enjoying it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 22:56
|
|
|
Honest question here: what changes have been made to the implementation of the Big 6 in PF 2E? From what Arivia has described, most of the alterations from its D&D 3E roots are superficial. Str and to a lesser extent Dex are the primary attack stats, Con is mostly a defensive parameter, stats are less useful for their intrinsic value than for their derived bonuses, etc. Is this valid? Or no?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 22:58
|
|
|
The definition of D&D put forward seems... narrow. Highly calibrated. One might easily argue that ‘wizards being more effectual than fighters’ is as much a cultural fixation with D&D as ‘there are beholders and the six ability scores’ so I’m wondering why that didn’t make the cut?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 23:00
|
|
|
Maybe it's just because I started with 2e, but I have trouble seeing D&D as anything but a sometimes messy collection of modular rules designed to be added or removed or tweaked as necessary to reach the desired tone of play. (This may be why I mostly design bespoke systems today, rather than using other people's engines.) Still, the notion that D&D cannot be altered and made into something new without stopping being D&D is a ridiculous notion. OSR games may have different names, but they're still often D&D. Pathfinder is absolutely D&D! In part, this is due to there not being a single definition of D&D that everyone can agree to (beyond the overly simplistic "it is these specific texts"). But in part, it's because of the cultural penetration of D&D as a brand and genre unto itself. While I am very much not making D&D games, I still have to be aware of what D&D is and what D&D has been, in order to chart out the position of my design. Now, Arivia is probably going to call this sophistry on my part, but I really don't think it is. I think that there is more to D&D than just the texts, I think that the concepts have spread and bled and cannot be neatly excised from TTRPG, and so it is something that all designers must come to terms with at some point. Hell, I think that's a large part of what the Forge was, in all of its messiness, a means for that generation of designers to understand and reject D&D. These conversations are constantly ongoing, though, and while there is likely no end to them, I will state here clearly the following: of course D&D can be analyzed and synthesized outside of its original texts. It is durable enough to survive being pulled apart then put back together into strange pieces.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 23:02
|
|
|
Also, the implementation of ability scores as a number used to derive an additional number that has wide utility sucks butt. in the bad way
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 23:03
|
|
|
Arivia posted:I'm not engaging with you any more because you are cherrypicking only what you want to see, and ignoring the actual larger system. It's shameful, and you should be ashamed of yourself for pulling that bullshit. That's not good, or fair, discussion. Speaking of what's the benefit of splashing str to buff your athletics defense over throwing an extra skill from int in there for +2 instead while also getting buffs to all those int skills? Other than getting to carry everyone's stuff. Splicer fucked around with this message at 23:35 on Jan 29, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 23:28
|
|
|
Ability scores are mostly traps and opportunities to make a character that sucks If someone picked the class "wizard" they probably want to be able to wiz
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 23:37
|
|
|
NGDBSS posted:Honest question here: what changes have been made to the implementation of the Big 6 in PF 2E? From what Arivia has described, most of the alterations from its D&D 3E roots are superficial. Str and to a lesser extent Dex are the primary attack stats, Con is mostly a defensive parameter, stats are less useful for their intrinsic value than for their derived bonuses, etc. I think this is valid. The ability scores themselves haven't changed, but the ways in which they're interpreted and used have, often significantly. Classes now have a primary stat they use for all features, there's no such thing as ability checks any more, so forth and so on. This is also why I got frustrated with Splicer, because he hasn't made any effort to understand the system and is applying severely wrong, baseless criticism because of that. Joe Slowboat posted:The definition of D&D put forward seems... narrow. Highly calibrated. One might easily argue that ‘wizards being more effectual than fighters’ is as much a cultural fixation with D&D as ‘there are beholders and the six ability scores’ so I’m wondering why that didn’t make the cut? I got asked for my personal definition of what I think D&D is. Wizards being more effective than fighters was a historical aberration that 3e continued to extremity, so I don't consider it an important part of the game. It was a mistake, not a feature. But a D&D without Vancian spellcasting and a variety of spells for use in different situations wouldn't be a good or fitting D&D to me. Meinberg posted:Maybe it's just because I started with 2e, but I have trouble seeing D&D as anything but a sometimes messy collection of modular rules designed to be added or removed or tweaked as necessary to reach the desired tone of play. (This may be why I mostly design bespoke systems today, rather than using other people's engines.) Still, the notion that D&D cannot be altered and made into something new without stopping being D&D is a ridiculous notion. OSR games may have different names, but they're still often D&D. Pathfinder is absolutely D&D! I started with 2e too, so I'm also familiar with D&D as a series of weird nesting modular rules. I don't think you're being sophist for stating that you're aware of the contours of D&D and attempt to work outside those contours. I think you're falling prone to the same error of thought that many of the others are though: D&D as modern large brand publishing exercise and D&D as the specific game we play at a table are two different things. I specifically noted my ideal D&D as being a modern one, rooted in 3.5 and later editions, and following much of that design; not my choices for something old-school or retroclone. The priorities of each incarnation of D&D are as different as those scopes are. Take retroclones as an example, you often see different retroclones with different focuses and different approaches. ACKS makes specific changes and emphasizes particular content in order to promote the subset of play it wants to engender (domain play), but the more generic or strict interpretation retroclones (like Old-School Essentials) do not have that narrow focus, and do not make those changes in order to be more compatible with a larger breadth of ideas about D&D. The requirements for an edition or a ruleset are different from the requirements for a campaign setting, an adventure, or the home campaigns and adventures we run ourselves. Yes, D&D is many things to many people, but that configuration of which things to which people happens at a more specific and smaller scope than the full edition. In effect, there's multiple competing interpretations, readings, retransmissions, and so on of D&D as text; questioning those products does not assail the core essence of D&D itself. Cutting and pasting up D&D in a completely different manner is great, it's just not the same critical argument or exercise as the original edition itself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 00:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 18:16 |
|
|
NGDBSS posted:Honest question here: what changes have been made to the implementation of the Big 6 in PF 2E? From what Arivia has described, most of the alterations from its D&D 3E roots are superficial. Str and to a lesser extent Dex are the primary attack stats, quote:Speaking of what's the benefit of splashing str to buff your athletics defense over throwing an extra skill from int in there for +2 instead while also getting buffs to all those int skills? Other than getting to carry everyone's stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 00:08
|
|
