|
That was a hilarious read. Video game players obliviously wondering why fighters are boring is just perfect. Like, sorry dude, there was a whole culture war about it and fighters lost. The writing being sociopathic and based on swingy skill check math is amazing.
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 00:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 04:36 |
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Yes! Thanks! That's really helpful! I'll ask around and see if I can find some folks to play BOARD GAMES with!
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 02:05
|
|
|
Finally finished my first draft of my Avatar Fate Condensed Hack. It's currently at 260 pages. The big issue is the all encompassing GM Reserve mechanic. I greatly increased the scope of the mechanics. Now, everything is purchased from the Reserve, including obstacle difficulty. Conversely, players get a lot more potential for stunt benefits. The math may need tweaking but, if done right, the goal was to turn the Reserve Mechanic into both a pacing and difficulty control. GM having limited resources should push for more equal pacing to avoid depleting your reserve. If you do too much at once, you got to slow down as the reserve builds up 1 FP per PC. It encourages big climatic ends to session due to Refresh. All good stuff. It also gives PCs control of scope: stronger PC equal stronger bad guys. Math is probably hosed atm. Needs playtesting. About 40 pages are rules. The other 220 is in depth setting guides and GM advice. I put a lot of effort telling GM how you can do an Avatar game. Like, campaign ideas, themes, etc. I hope it's all good. I haven't done a proper edit so I apologize for typos. Any comments or suggestions are deeply appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 04:26
|
|
|
Father Wendigo posted:Has there been any discussion of the Baulder's Gate 3 beta? Because this is giving me flashbacks to the disastrous D&D Next beta. quote:I've always preferred to play magic-users, but the first few levels of a wizard's life are incredibly painful due to their lack of hit points, quickly exhausted spells, and inability to wear decent armor or hit the broad side of a barn with their silly little newbie staves. quote:With a squishy magic-using main, my battles felt like a constant, awkward strain to keep a never-ending stream of better armed and armored combatants off of me—and for much of the time, doing so with nothing more than a cleric and a thief, neither of which is a tank in its own right. I'm cackling like a madman at Larian making a pitch-perfect, source-faithful adaptation of the 5e rules and having it yield PRECISELY the exact gameplay that I've always known 5e to produce, if only people didn't keep papering over the cracks with their own houserules. This is what people have defended for years as being a good system. Now they get to sleep in the bed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 05:03
|
|
|
It's not pitch-perfect. They've actually made a lot of action economy changes, from my understanding.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 05:09
|
|
|
Prokhor posted:Thanks! That's really helpful! I'll ask around and see if I can find some folks to play BOARD GAMES with! *sounding probably like the Zweihander* guy voice* I run a discord for playing weird indie RPG's but board games are totally on brand. If you wanted to play some cool games with cool people I'd be down. *I can't get over the fact the they put all this effort in but never got the vowel right. There's an umlaut you dingus. It's not decorative. It changes the vowel and shows it's plural.. You did all this but can't even spell?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 05:11
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:*I can't get over the fact the they put all this effort in but never got the vowel right. There's an umlaut you dingus. It's not decorative. It changes the vowel and shows it's plural.. You did all this but can't even spell? Are you annoyed that they are inconsistent in the marketing material? Because it always has the umlaut in the logo and in the text of the books.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 05:42
|
|
|
potatocubed posted:Yep, that sounds like Mearls consulted on it alright. Lets not pretend Mearls did anything besides collect a paycheck
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 07:22
|
|
|
quote:Your character and party feel like insignificant gnats and are forced by circumstance to do and see awful things that they're not powerful enough to change. Way I figure it, back in the day it was the same target group that was drawn to D&D that was drawn to home computers and video games. And specifically PCs too, with their complex simulations, rather than consoles and the arcades. Making a D&D home computer game was a no brainer and a precise translation of the tabletop mechanics was exactly what the target group desired. BG3 will have its fans because the folks who appreciate that aspect are still around in troves, but in terms of being a video game it sounds like it's not gonna cut it outside of that niche. Video games have changed a lot since then, PC or console is largely an academic distinction as far as available content is concerned, and we're collectively used to game mechanics that are their own thing rather than the computer just calculating pen & paper maths for us. And that's not even going into how the tabletop RPG community is more faceted these days too and gritty medieval shitworld has long ago lost its appeal for a lot of people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 07:48
|
|
|
Baldur's Gate 3, by only releasing the first chapter in Early Access and the rest of the campaign TBD, faithfully represents a typical live D&D campaign where you play consistently for the first couple of weeks then fail to schedule any further sessions due to players other commitments and go on hiatus for a while. It's perfect!
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 08:21
|
|
|
Y'all are really casting a wide net of what people think about BG3 based on one review of a wildly unfinished early access game
Blockhouse fucked around with this message at 09:20 on Oct 8, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 09:17
|
|
|
I'm seeing anecdotes that the game is kind of groggy as hell so if that's the kind of thing you're looking for, go for broke.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 09:49
|
|
|
Blockhouse posted:Y'all are really casting a wide net of what people think about BG3 based on one review of a wildly unfinished early access game Yeah, the critics right now are widely giving the game good reviews.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 12:26
|
|
|
CitizenKeen posted:Yeah, the critics right now are widely giving the game good reviews. It's not like that really means anything, especially for a big name.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 12:37
|
|
|
By most accounts it's basically a D:OS game set in the Forgotten Realms so I think there's a lot of people for whom this is exactly their jam. Regardless of how little I personally find it appealing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 12:50
|
|
|
Octavo posted:That was a hilarious read. Video game players obliviously wondering why fighters are boring is just perfect. Like, sorry dude, there was a whole culture war about it and fighters lost. ... And noting the fact that it's much more normal in video games to replay the game and make different choices. That can break a lot of choices that would normally work in an RPG.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 13:21
|
|
|
From what I can gather, at least one of his complaints about one of his party members hating him was because he ignored their requests for aid earlier.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 13:42
|
|
|
Also I'm downgrading my value taken from anyone who starts a d&d thing with "I played a while ago and I always preferred wizards and fighters are boring and it was great!" Just like "I don't understand or recognize even the most basic failures in game design anyway here's my review!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 16:28
|
|
|
Cherry-picking game reviews that happen to agree with our own views about 5e isn't fair, exactly, and nobody should take it as objective. But it's satisfying. And it's OK sometimes to read something that satisfyingly agrees with us. But let's do also remember that 5e-liking goons are around here too and picking edition wars fights with them is tiresome.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 17:54
|
|
|
If it makes you feel better I'm a very old and so the people I'm used to casually disregarding because they're all "This game is great if you know to specifically play wizards and no I don't see the obvious flaw in that" are usually veterans of 2nd and 3rd (which I also suspect is the case with this reviewer).
theironjef fucked around with this message at 18:15 on Oct 8, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 18:03
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:But let's do also remember that 5e-liking goons are around here too and picking edition wars fights with them is tiresome. They shouldn't get a free pass on liking Mearls' game or continuing to funnel money into WotC's pockets.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 18:06
|
|
|
It's a below-mediocre game which holds an unfortunate monopoly on the genre but there's no need for antagonizing people for liking it like it's a moral failing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 18:26
|
|
|
Except WotC doxxed Trans people, and turned over all the info of people reporting it to an abuser. So it kind of is a moral failing to look past that because you want to play the popular version of pretend.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 18:34
|
|
|
theironjef posted:If it makes you feel better I'm a very old and so the people I'm used to casually disregarding because they're all "This game is great if you know to specifically play wizards and no I don't see the obvious flaw in that" are usually veterans of 2nd and 3rd (which I also suspect is the case with this reviewer). I'm not seeing where he says the game (either D&D or BG3) is great if you specifically play wizards. He just says he favors playing casters but knows they're delicate at early levels, while fighters are more durable but boring. But yeah he also says he has a lot of D&D tabletop and video game experience too: quote:When I got the chance to play Baldur's Gate 3 in early access, I jumped on it—I've been a Dungeons & Dragons enthusiast for roughly 40 years, going back to Blue Book Basic D&D as a small child in the late 1970s. To the best of my knowledge, I've played every licensed D&D and AD&D computer RPG ever made. They haven't all been winners, but the original Baldur's Gate was probably the most widely loved of the franchise—it boasted an expansive, interesting world with bold voice talent and characters. I guess there's some implicit approval in playing D&D for that long, being aware of the reality of the class imbalances, and still chugging along, but overall he sounds more annoyed with Baldur's Gate 3 than anything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 18:47
|
|
|
I'm as excited as the rest of you to discover that Baldur's Gate 3 is dogshit, but I was not very impressed with that guy's review. His confusion at the idea of getting to take only one action per turn makes me really wonder how much actual D&D he's played, because that seems like it should only throw people whose D&D experience is exclusive to real time with pause CRPGS. I'm also pretty sure that he just missed the signposting about that one dialogue check which killed him being dangerous (and/or the fact that the followup wisdom check being a big risk/reward thing which actually would have paid dividends).
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 18:56
|
|
|
People want BG3 in the same way they want D&D. They want all the trappings of the old thing, but they're frustrated when the new thing doesn't have features other new things have. People want D&D the video game. I don't think anybody was particularly clamoring for D&D 5th Edition the video game.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 18:59
|
|
|
Personally, I would like a game that has D&D4e rules and some concessions to XCOM-style movement points and overwatch-mechanics, but with the same core of explicit gridded combat and robust yet standardized options. Troubleshooter: Advent Children exists for this, but is also a LOT more, and complex systems + a translation and localization team learning as they go = frequent headache breaks, even a couple dozen hours in.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 19:07
|
|
|
Rip_Van_Winkle posted:Any variation of the tepid Standard/Move/Minor combat engine that RPGs have been leaning on for a longass time is really boring and has hugely obvious problems, especially when compared to how far PC RPGs have come. And it's a simple solution to a real problem: some classes need to move more than others. So if you allow movement to be exchanged for more actions, that means that classes that don't need to move (primarily ranged classes) get to do more fun stuff. Obviously there are other ways to solve this, like making sure melee classes and other classes that need to move get more powerful and interesting attacks than ranged classes do. But I really like the simple solution of keeping movement separate. And will people have movement left over at the end of the round? Sure, you won't always use every point. But if you are having all your movement points left over every round, there's a problem - the combat is too static. You need to make sure characters have a reason to move places! Even the ranged ones should be taking cover or avoiding hazards or taking advantageous positions or achieving side objectives or traversing the dungeon ahead of a time limit or ... You get the idea. Having move actions separate removes the disincentive to move, but you still need a positive incentive to move. There are lots of ways to give people that incentive. "My characters have move points left over" is a silly complaint. But "my characters never have to move" is a legit complaint! And that does come from 5e. 5e combat does not have dynamic movement. Why? Because they had to make it compatible with theater of the mind! So they don't have any good tactical movement stuff because they can't assume you are on a grid.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 19:54
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:I'm as excited as the rest of you to discover that Baldur's Gate 3 is dogshit, but I was not very impressed with that guy's review. His confusion at the idea of getting to take only one action per turn makes me really wonder how much actual D&D he's played, because that seems like it should only throw people whose D&D experience is exclusive to real time with pause CRPGS. I'm also pretty sure that he just missed the signposting about that one dialogue check which killed him being dangerous (and/or the fact that the followup wisdom check being a big risk/reward thing which actually would have paid dividends). Let's not forget one of their complaints is "Why does the game drop me into a high stakes situation at level 1 and treats the characters as actual adventurers. I should be killing rats and doing fetch quests." There are some valid critiques of how it's difficult to mesh old Infinity Engine/Fallout game style "Dialogue trees and text convey the action" with really high quality modern video game graphics, especially when you do a weird mix of cinematic action showing you animations with "Ok, now use your imagination to see this other interaction happen" though I imagine the final product will have some kind of overlay that hides "all the models mull about while this script/dialogue tree story event is happening." I also can agree some of the tonal aspects and stuff like "Succeeding this roll puts you in a gently caress you position" is really bad GMing though, and really conflicts with trying to make you feel like a heroic adventurer. The way they frame it is like the game punishing you for clicking on an interact-able, or a bad GM saying "You search the trapped mindflayer? Ok roll INT. If you fail you're too stupid to notice anything useful. Oh you didn't fail? Uh.. ok then you're so smart the mindflayer wants to eat you! Now roll an even more difficult WIS check or die instantly." Which is bad game design if you're not explicitly setting the player up for deathtrap dungeon. Though that whole mindflayer scene could also be a situation where the writer is misrepresenting how many warning signs and clues the game gives that his intelligence check was for a bad idea like "Debate the mindflayer you just saw mind control people" with the party and game warning you it's a really bad idea, and he had a bunch of other options but chose it because he had the high INT and saw it was tagged as an INT check, or like you said it's very explicitly set up as taking the high risk/high reward option, where they could back out at any time and not just back to back save-or-sucks for daring to click a thing. Coolness Averted fucked around with this message at 19:59 on Oct 8, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 19:56
|
|
|
Coolness Averted posted:I also can agree some of the tonal aspects and stuff like "Succeeding this roll puts you in a gently caress you position" is really bad GMing though, and really conflicts with trying to make you feel like a heroic adventurer. The way they frame it is like the game punishing you for clicking on an interact-able, or a bad GM saying "You search the trapped mindflayer? Ok roll INT. If you fail you're too stupid to notice anything useful. Oh you didn't fail? Uh.. ok then you're so smart the mindflayer wants to eat you! Now roll an even more difficult WIS check or die instantly." Which is bad game design if you're not explicitly setting the player up for deathtrap dungeon. If you look at the screenshots provided you can see that the int check is optional - the prompt is like "you manage to resist the control for now", dialogue 1 is like "(intelligence) probe deeper into its mind anyway", and dialogue 2 is like "pull out while you can". So I'm actually willing to give Larian the benefit of the doubt on this one and assume there was adequate signposting to let an attentive player know that they were doing something dangerous.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 20:07
|
|
|
From the sound of it, though, the complaint wasn't about the choice to make the Intelligence check; it was about the fact that failing the resultant Intelligence check was likely to have a better outcome. I think there's a definite attitude shift between the media there. I mean, think of a situation where the PCs make a Diplomacy check to get an audience with the king. If they fail, they can either walk away or get into a fight with the guards. If they make the Diplomacy check, they can meet the King, but learn that he is possessed and he attempts to Fireball them which puts them in much more danger than a fight with the guards, with no particular benefit. In an RPG, even the quantum-beariest grog would likely not complain that the PCs are "rewarded" for failing their Diplomacy check by not entering the dangerous encounter with the possessed king. But in a computer game it seems much more reasonable. This is likely because choices in an RPG tend to be immediate narrative contributions with unknown results, whereas computer games - because of save-and-reload - tend to be about exploring the entire space of available options over time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 20:25
|
|
|
What exactly is the quantum bear, other than a (referential?) junk item in some Fallout game?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 20:27
|
|
|
hyphz posted:From the sound of it, though, the complaint wasn't about the choice to make the Intelligence check; it was about the fact that failing the resultant Intelligence check was likely to have a better outcome. It's not clear to me that failing the intelligence check was strictly better than passing it; for all we know, the followup wisdom check might have yielded some kind of significant bonus. It's like passing a stealth check to sneak into a guarded vault; you're in more danger after you succeed, but it's a risk/reward thing. Generally, I was not impressed with that reviewer's analysis of what he did see and don't really trust them to have really grasped the significance of everything they were doing. They seemed too preoccupied with NPCs not being nice enough.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 20:32
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:What exactly is the quantum bear, other than a (referential?) junk item in some Fallout game? my best guess is a dumb "simulationist" strawman about the fact something doesn't exist in a game until you roll it on a random encounter table or fail a check. So like there's both bears in the forest and not. A true stable RPG genius would stat out how the the forest 'really is,' and the players would encounter it based on their actions and could explain the precautions they took to avoid getting attacked at night, instead of a dice roll during watch creating a 'quantum bear, simultaneously living there and not' Like it's a direct attack on the concept of "Oh, you rolled badly, I'm going to invent a wrinkle." Edit: Or "Ok if you travel here at level 3 I have a level 3 encounter with some bears. I scale it up or skip it if you enter at level 6." vs the "Yes, you encounter these bears who hve the same level no matter what and must deal with them even if it's guaranteed death, or a time wasting steamroll. How dare things change behind the scenes without 'in world' justification." Coolness Averted fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Oct 8, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 20:35
|
|
|
if there's one thing crpgs could take from disco elysium, its that a failed roll should sometimes be better than succeeding. or at least it should also lead to an interesting outcome
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 20:36
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:What exactly is the quantum bear, other than a (referential?) junk item in some Fallout game? So more modern RPG designs go with the concept of "fail forward." A classic situation that you want to avoid is when the rogue fails to pick a lock, so the adventure just doesn't progress. At the extreme end, the DM actually needs you to get through that door for the adventure to progress, and didn't think about the consequences of failure. Or maybe a significant part of the adventure is just closed off to you, or you have to backtrack, which isn't interesting for anyone. A "fail forward" solution to the scenario is that the rogue's inept attempts to pick the lock create a lot of noise, which brings a bear crashing through the door. Now the obstacle is gone but we're punished with a wandering monster encounter. (Another solution could be that you get the door open, but spend so long doing it that you expend some torches. Or opening it triggered a trap that costs you some HP or a healing surge, whatever.) Now, for edition warrior grogs who believe in ideas like "the rules are the physics of the setting," this offends their sense of *~verisimilitude~* because the action of failing to pick a lock has summoned the bear. The setting is changing in arbitrary ways based on the result of a skill check. Interpreted in an extreme and extremely stupid way, this means that I can magically summon by sticking a lockpick in a door and fiddling around. (The original Quantum Bears is a criticism of Dungeon World, where rolling 7-9 means Success With A Cost and rolling 6- means Something Bad Happens. It doesn't really allow for "You failed to open the door so the door isn't open.) I believe that "Quantum Bears" is a meme from Frank Trollman's TheGamingDen forum. They have a whole lexicon of jargon specific to that forum, and use it so freely that it's practically illegible to anyone who isn't already part of the community. I have no idea how the place attracts new readers, if it ever does. Halloween Jack fucked around with this message at 20:45 on Oct 8, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 20:39
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:What exactly is the quantum bear, other than a (referential?) junk item in some Fallout game? Coolness Averted posted:my best guess is a dumb "simulationist" strawman about the fact something doesn't exist in a game until you roll it on a random encounter table or fail a check. So like there's both bears in the forest and not. A true stable RPG genius would stat out how the the forest 'really is,' and the players would encounter it based on their actions and could explain the precautions they took to avoid getting attacked at night, instead of a dice roll during watch creating a 'quantum bear, simultaneously living there and not' It's a term used by Frank Trollman trying and failing to understand (and getting mad about) the basic concepts of improv in a TTRPG: Obviously, if you think "bears attack" is a valid off-the-top-of-your-head occurrence at all, then you clearly think it's a valid improvisational response to any and all events. Because if, specifically, failing to pick a lock shouldn't result in just nothing, and it is valid to improv a result to make something happen, then picking a lock can always result in the sudden appearance of bears. Therefore, there always are and are not bears right around the corner, because improv gaming and the concept of fail forward exist. TLDR: Frank Trollman is a stupid weirdo who doesn't understand extremely basic concepts about the vast genre he spends a ton of time talking about.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 20:40
|
|
|
A successful stat roll should always be better to a failed one specifically as it pertains to the exercise of that stat. Whether its wider consequences are positive falls to the story. For instance, a critical hit should outdamage a normal hit, but that doesn’t mean landing a critical hit on your party member has to result in a good outcome for you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 20:41
|
|
|
hyphz posted:From the sound of it, though, the complaint wasn't about the choice to make the Intelligence check; it was about the fact that failing the resultant Intelligence check was likely to have a better outcome. I got the game and got eaten in that scene... I interacted with the MIndflayer because I thought it would be a reoccurring NPC and not just trap. Granted the game gives you a bunch of scrolls of Revive so you can bring people back if needed. Still hard to guess how things translate to the game, kicking myself for not just taking all social skills.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 20:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 04:36 |
|
|
Serf posted:if there's one thing crpgs could take from disco elysium, its that a failed roll should sometimes be better than succeeding. or at least it should also lead to an interesting outcome Yeah this reminds me a little of talking about Fire Emblem with a friend ages ago who was a big fan. Permadeath for characters didn't seem to add anything or contribute to the story in meaningful ways, and almost always just resulted in him abandoning/replaying a mission. Like a weird semi-optional fail state, where sometimes he'd weigh out if it was a character who was outclassed and had replaceable gear, and just sacrifice them on a slog mission, but otherwise a character dying meant a restart. It also was usually tied to stuff like half the characters being unique, while others were fodder or based on tropes in the series like "This character you get early on has great starting stats, but doesn't get better, so by the halfway point of the game is a liability. So you use them as a meatshield in a difficult mission" but all of that was based on weird tribal knowledge, not like character descriptions or signifiers and some characters being literally generic. It was also usually based on weird meta knowledge like "Ok now that I've failed this mission twice, I know I need to sacrifice someone to win," not something where you go into the mission knowing you'll probably lose 2-3 characters so you have to choose who to risk.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 20:52
|
|