|
Siivola posted:This sounds really brilliant. Old School Hack is all kinds of brilliant, and also free! Unfortunately the game's also unfinished (the Basic game, which was supposed to be the first of many, only covers levels 1-5) and is not going to be finished as the author has since gone on to other things, and it's also far from perfectly balanced (The Dwarf, for an example, has a power that's basically "Once per arena you can bash someone with a shield or a hammer making them unable to attack for one turn" and another that's "You always win drinking contests" and both powers are seen by the game as equally valuable.). It's one of my favorite D&D-likes, but it really doesn't have much support beyond very short campaigns or one-shots. Definitely my go-to game when I just want to kill dudes (because the combat mini-game is really fun!) and drink beer with my friends.
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 13:37 |
|
|
I did a one-shot of Old School Hack and it was brilliant.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
I recently decided I wanted to try some of this old school tabletop action, as I've never had the pleasure of playing pen and paper before. I recently ordered the D&D Starter set, but most the people I know that play, play Pathfinder and keep telling me to take a look at that. I have some veteran friends who are willing to give it a try with me, as they played D&D 3rd edition a long time ago and been wanting to play Pen and Paper again. So I'm wondering how all of you find D&D Next, how it is compared to Pathfinder, and if its perfect for a new player like me to get in to?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
Depends what you want. If the experience you want is '3e with less crappy balance', I'd just grab the E6 houserules and play with those. Yeah, you don't ever get to the point where wizards can create 3/day universes, but that's sorta the entire problem with 3e. Pathfinder is just 3e with a better paintjob - it has several changes, but ultimately doesn't really fix underlying problems. There's ongoing support and modules for it, though, so you've got a lot of stuff you can run. Next is difficult to get into as a new player, since they're trying to be 'rules light', but coming at it from the angle that you already know how to play dnd, so there's no reason to explain things again. 4e is much more balanced, but it's got its own style and the Encounter/Daily/At Will setup rubs some people the wrong way. Still, combat runs pretty well. Tunicate fucked around with this message at 00:52 on Mar 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 00:48
|
|
|
I want to go on a adventure with friends, and have a good time. One of the people I know and am trying to talk in to joining usually DMs, and I heard he is pretty good at it. So I'm hoping he can help me with most of the rules.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
You'll probably just want to go with the flow. A lot of this community will be critical of the game, including me, but if you're new I'd avoid trying to change much without more experience. Check out the newbie advice thread.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
Semos posted:I want to go on a adventure with friends, and have a good time. Pretty much everyone here is going to recommend Dungeon World, which I personally have never played, but it is cheap and has a lot fewer fiddly rules than D&D.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
Really Pants posted:Pretty much everyone here is going to recommend Dungeon World, which I personally have never played, but it is cheap and has a lot fewer fiddly rules than D&D. I will recommend Not Dungeon World.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
Really Pants posted:Pretty much everyone here is going to recommend Dungeon World, which I personally have never played, but it is cheap and has a lot fewer fiddly rules than D&D. It's not D&D but FFG's star wars is a pretty great fantasy adventure game. EDIT: Even has a free adventure pack with some pre-made characters to try out! kingcom fucked around with this message at 01:35 on Mar 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
Basically if you just want to have fun pretending to be elves with your friends, and nobody has any issues with the books or character sheets not saying "Dungeons and Dragons," then you can find a million better and cheaper options out there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 01:22
|
|
|
Semos posted:I recently decided I wanted to try some of this old school tabletop action, as I've never had the pleasure of playing pen and paper before. I recently ordered the D&D Starter set, but most the people I know that play, play Pathfinder and keep telling me to take a look at that. What exactly are you asking about? Next's about as good a game as any to get started on the hobby, as "having fun while playing" is more a social thing than anything else. Next has flaws, but besides "it is perhaps too easy to die at level 1, and therefore the DM should try to get you out of level 1 by halfway through or at the end of the first session" you're not really going to run into them until/unless you're plugged-in to the mechanics of the game. Pathfinder has an advantage of being completely free, but since you already ordered the D&D Starter Set then you're already there. They're both derived from 3rd Edition D&D, so anything I say about how "D&D isn't really a great choice for learning RPGs for the first time because it actually has way too many rules to keep track of" applies to both, with Next being marginally easier. If you're asking about what other game you could play that serves as a better introduction to the hobby, there's more than a few better cheaper(freer) suggestions out there. gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 01:34 on Mar 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 01:30
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Next has flaws, but besides "it is perhaps too easy to die at level 1, and therefore the DM should try to get you out of level 1 by halfway through or at the end of the first session" you're not really going to run into them until/unless you're plugged-in to the mechanics of the game. I don't agree with this at all; I think it's incredibly easy to accidentally bump into them and not recognize them, and then to blame them on "the group" or on "power-gamers" or any other number of things other than the system itself. If two people play martial characters and two play casters there's a fairly decent chance that the first two players will start to feel burnout faster as their characters seem to have less and less agency as time goes on. This isn't an obvious math imbalance or anything (in fact I've noticed the opposite, where people point to martial characters being overpowered because they do too much damage), you won't know it just from glancing at the PHB if you have no experience with rpgs, but it is hardly unheard of. That said you should definitely give it a whirl if you bought it already since people can like all sorts of stuff and the best way to learn if you like something is to try it out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
Semos posted:I recently decided I wanted to try some of this old school tabletop action, as I've never had the pleasure of playing pen and paper before. I recently ordered the D&D Starter set, but most the people I know that play, play Pathfinder and keep telling me to take a look at that. Splicer fucked around with this message at 02:04 on Mar 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
I suppose what I really meant was that if I started going on about "martials vs casters" and the problems of Vancian magic and save-or-suck spells it's all just going to sound like so much technobabble to someone who hasn't played the game yet, even if I agree with you that those are issues that can affect players from word-go. (and that they're also issues with Pathfinder, if that was the only other alternative)
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:I don't agree with this at all; I think it's incredibly easy to accidentally bump into them and not recognize them, and then to blame them on "the group" or on "power-gamers" or any other number of things other than the system itself. If two people play martial characters and two play casters there's a fairly decent chance that the first two players will start to feel burnout faster as their characters seem to have less and less agency as time goes on. This isn't an obvious math imbalance or anything (in fact I've noticed the opposite, where people point to martial characters being overpowered because they do too much damage), you won't know it just from glancing at the PHB if you have no experience with rpgs, but it is hardly unheard of. More context is better.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 02:02
|
|
|
Basically Semos what we're saying is maybe play the intro pack (and hey it does come with some tokens that you can use in lots of fantasy games!) and see if you enjoy it and take a note of what you liked and didn't like, but then maybe pick a different game. edit: Though to be fair if someone ever asked "I want a moderate-to-high crunch fantasy RPG, but better and more balanced and with clearer rules than DnD" I'm not sure what I could tell them. Reign fits some of those qualities I guess. 13th Age? Look at a specific subset of 4e books? Maybe Strike is a good game and I should check that out. bewilderment fucked around with this message at 04:14 on Mar 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 03:58
|
|
|
Splicer posted:I would suggest playing two or more of the following: Dungeon World, FATE Core or FATE Accelerated, Danger Patrol, or the FFG Star Wars Starter Pack. The first three are free (well, FATE is PWYW) and available online, the Star Wars FFG Starter Pack is not free but if you can get it it's a good intro. Then I would play the D&D Starter set. Especially if you're playing with 3.x vets, running something non-D&D will allow you to develop your own bad habits instead of just absorbing theirs. What, isn't FATE the system where you have to solve quadratic equations and during character creation you have to roll for things like anal circumference? e: nm I was thinking of FATAL. God, FATAL is such a hosed up thing
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
bewilderment posted:Basically Semos what we're saying is maybe play the intro pack (and hey it does come with some tokens that you can use in lots of fantasy games!) and see if you enjoy it and take a note of what you liked and didn't like, but then maybe pick a different game. Strike is a good game but is explicitly and by-design flavorless - It assumes you have a setting in mind and can plug that into its mechanics to bring your game to life. I think that's a perfectly fair thing, but it's probably going to turn off some people. That said I think that's more of a mental hang-up than a situation that can't be fixed; Everyone, especially people interested in D&D, is already versed in fantasy tropes and it hardly takes much of an imagination to go from there even as a roleplaying novice. Worst case you buy an Eberron or Forgotten Realms DM Guide and wholesale steal that setting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 04:46
|
|
|
bewilderment posted:"I want a moderate-to-high crunch fantasy RPG, but better and more balanced and with clearer rules than DnD" I'm not sure what I could tell them. Torchbearer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 05:16
|
|
|
bewilderment posted:edit: Though to be fair if someone ever asked "I want a moderate-to-high crunch fantasy RPG, but better and more balanced and with clearer rules than DnD" I'm not sure what I could tell them. Reign fits some of those qualities I guess. 13th Age? Look at a specific subset of 4e books? Maybe Strike is a good game and I should check that out. I cut my teeth on Microlite20, although that's basically 3.5 cut down to its bare essentials. 4e would be a good fit, although there's quite a few caveats to be aware of: Essentials has everything but the classes can be much more boring (unless you also track down the free Class Compendium guides), you need to use MM3 math, you need to be aware of the feat taxes, regular 4e classes are much better but you need the books, etc etc 13th Age I think is also a good fit, but there are some who really have issues with the class design that I keep hearing about.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 06:52
|
|
|
While we're on the subject, other than 'marketing and product support', what does 5e do better than 13th Age in a way that makes it more appealing? The shorter word count as well as providing a bit of an inbuilt setting means there's less player and GM advice in 13th Age, but beyond that?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 07:38
|
|
|
As far as I can tell not a whole hell of a lot. I personally have not run 13th Age yet, but I've read through the book and everything there sounds better than 5e: a Theater-of-the-Mind system that's actually fully supported, better class balance (again, some people balk at this, but I've never heard of a real breakdown as to why), martial classes that have their own dedicated powers*, lots of practical player and DM advice, monster creation guidelines that are very straightforward with a firm mathematical grounding, and a truly versatile skill system that 5e just barely stopped short of completely aping for the sake of tradition. * As an example, a level 1 Fighter can choose 3 Maneuvers out of 10, and they're not saddled with a Superiority Dice mechanic to pull use them. Further, Maneuvers are segregated into levels, which avoids the 5e Battle Master's problem of "take the 3-4 nicest Maneuvers you want, then by the time you're level 18 you're actually choosing the worst ones because their power scaling is completely flat"
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 07:56
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:As far as I can tell not a whole hell of a lot. I distinctly remember someone breaking down that a DPS-built cleric could out-DPS the most DPS-y fighter, so that's a mark against it even if it's still a *much* narrower gap than the 5e game, and naturally much narrower than the 3.5 gap. I remember the 5e playtests where I think they actually went with generic background skills. A shame they didn't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 08:42
|
|
|
bewilderment posted:While we're on the subject, other than 'marketing and product support', what does 5e do better than 13th Age in a way that makes it more appealing? The shorter word count as well as providing a bit of an inbuilt setting means there's less player and GM advice in 13th Age, but beyond that? Depending on what you want out of an rpg, 13th age characters are generally really options light compared to other editions of D&D and the balance isn't really any better than 5E. Barbarians are just as hosed in 13th age as they are in 5E, fighters get powers but so many of them are just bad it's hard to place them and every other class just has more to do in 5e than they would in 13th age. I think only the rogue really comes out ahead in 13th age since their power list is solid. 13th age still has a lot of value in it though. There are a lot of systems in there that I am ripping out and putting into a 4th ed game I am running, like backgrounds, rituals, icon relationships, one unique thing and the escalation die, all of which are easy transfers. The setting material is honestly pretty interesting and a much more interesting base setting than anything outside of Eberron. It is also a drat easy system to run from the DM side of thing. Monster creation is a breeze and good improv tools are built into the system. So for me, I would rather play 5th edition, because I've been in this hobby for 20 years and I like having poo poo to do. But I would rather run 13th age, because I am a lazy DM and the less prep I have to do the better.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 09:29
|
|
|
Thanks for the advice everyone, its much appreciated. I'll give the starter set a try, and look at the other suggestions you all came with.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 09:32
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:As far as I can tell not a whole hell of a lot. IIRC druid is terrible and bard is a little too amazing. Or I may have that backwards.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 09:32
|
|
|
The main problem with 13th Age in my opinion is that it's very much built around the assumption that you've already played D&D in some form or another. The game doesn't even bother explaining what the six stats are supposed to represent, meaning that a first-time GM has no way to know which stat a Background check should go under beyond trying to extrapolate the meanings of the stats from the rest of the mechanics. As far as the game's balance goes, there's not a significant gap between the weakest and strongest classes (which is largely due to combat damage increasing by level and spellcasters getting new spell slots on a staggered schedule) but there are some problems: the Fighter, for an example, is reliant on the whims of their attack roll to decide which of their powers they get to use, and similarly Rogues need to track momentum, which is also entirely reliant on the whims of the dice (cool, I hit, now to hope that I don't get hit before my next turn). The spellcasting classes don't have to worry about the dice making their powers unavailable (beyond recharge powers, of course). Anyway, since we're apparently recommending simpler games than D&D 5e to newbies, I'd like to give a shout-out to Old School Hack again: as I noted upthread, it's not perfectly balanced, but it's free and it's the perfect game for you if you just want to punch dragons in dungeons with your friends! There are very few system traps, for most part the game's non-combat stats don't interact with the game's combat balance, and when they do it is often unintrusive, and it's even got rules for hitting your opponent in the face! And if you've already got those tokens and maps that come with the starter set, you can easily use those tokens in Old School Hack.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 09:42
|
|
|
Failboattootoot posted:There are a lot of systems in there that I am ripping out and putting into a 4th ed game I am running, like backgrounds, rituals, icon relationships, one unique thing and the escalation die, all of which are easy transfers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 10:49
|
|
|
Ratpick posted:The main problem with 13th Age in my opinion is that it's very much built around the assumption that you've already played D&D in some form or another. The game doesn't even bother explaining what the six stats are supposed to represent, meaning that a first-time GM has no way to know which stat a Background check should go under beyond trying to extrapolate the meanings of the stats from the rest of the mechanics. Yes it does explain what the stats are, but it does so in.... wait for it... the index & glossary section at the end of the book. Which is a perfect example of my own main issue with 13th Age (speaking as someone who likes and runs it): it's sometimes pretty unclear. Rules can be tucked away in some place you don't really expect it, some powers are pretty finicky, that kind of thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 11:16
|
|
|
Sage Genesis posted:Yes it does explain what the stats are, but it does so in.... wait for it... the index & glossary section at the end of the book. Which is a perfect example of my own main issue with 13th Age (speaking as someone who likes and runs it): it's sometimes pretty unclear. Rules can be tucked away in some place you don't really expect it, some powers are pretty finicky, that kind of thing. Or other rules (like the recharge rule) will flatly contradict themselves in different places because the developers couldn't agree which rule to use.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 13:24
|
|
|
djw175 posted:Or other rules (like the recharge rule) will flatly contradict themselves in different places because the developers couldn't agree which rule to use. I hadn't spotted any contradictions yet in the recharge rule? Would you happen to have some more details on that?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 13:52
|
|
|
It's about whether you roll to recharge a power once after the battle you use it, or after every battle until the next long rest. The index says after every battle, the page it points to doesn't. But then it also has a sidebar explaining that Rob and Jonathan's opinions on what's the right way differ, and I actually rather like that - it's not an editorial oversight, they're telling you there are two ways you can do this, and either one works fine. They don't say "DM's call" and leave you to figure out which way is more balanced or realistic or whatever you're going for.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 13:59
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:What, isn't FATE the system where you have to solve quadratic equations and during character creation you have to roll for things like anal circumference? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 14:03
|
|
|
My Lovely Horse posted:It's about whether you roll to recharge a power once after the battle you use it, or after every battle until the next long rest. The index says after every battle, the page it points to doesn't. But then it also has a sidebar explaining that Rob and Jonathan's opinions on what's the right way differ, and I actually rather like that - it's not an editorial oversight, they're telling you there are two ways you can do this, and either one works fine. They don't say "DM's call" and leave you to figure out which way is more balanced or realistic or whatever you're going for. Except either one doesn't work fine. The roll only once rule fucks over the barbarian such that it becomes pretty much the worst class with that rule.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 14:18
|
|
|
So hey, I hope you weren't holding your breath waiting for the conversion documents for other editions of D&D to Next. Mearls sez on Twitter that the guy who was supposed to approve said documents is on jury duty for the next four months.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 14:21
|
|
|
Selachian posted:So hey, I hope you weren't holding your breath waiting for the conversion documents for other editions of D&D to Next. Mearls sez on Twitter that the guy who was supposed to approve said documents is on jury duty for the next four months. Why can't Mike Mearls approve the final docs himself? Isn't he, like, in charge of D&D 5e (CR 1/2)?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 14:37
|
|
|
So, talking to some people who're still die-hard 3E fans(3E is the only truly high-powered epic fantasy game, they say, all the others just make you dirtfarmers, and yes, that includes 4E), being a PC in 5E D&D is pointless because anything you can do, 20 peasants (for skill checks) or 20 0th-level archers (for combat) can do better. I think this is the most insane critique I've heard of the system yet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 14:54
|
|
|
It's like they don't even know about skeletons.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 15:10
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:So, talking to some people who're still die-hard 3E fans(3E is the only truly high-powered epic fantasy game, they say, all the others just make you dirtfarmers, and yes, that includes 4E), being a PC in 5E D&D is pointless because anything you can do, 20 peasants (for skill checks) or 20 0th-level archers (for combat) can do better. Regarding the only high-powered fantasy game: 13th Age? Exalted? Anima Beyond Fantasy? Earthdawn? Legend of the Five Rings, if you're into the quasi-Japan angle? Anything run with FATE or a Mutants & Masterminds hack or whatever? Have these guys heard of anything other than D&D? (And yes, Pathfinder counts as "D&D" for this purpose.) Regarding 20 peasants can do stuff: While the peasant mobs are disproportionately powerful there is still a lot of stuff they can't do. Skill checks of DC 25, surviving a Fireball spell, sneaking into an evil warlord's castle (and expect to get away with it), stuff like that. I don't begrudge those people for wanting to stick to their favorite and familiar game, but come on, just loving admit you're not interested in learning about other options. Why does every elf-pretend game discussion always have to be couched in all these pointless lies and poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 13:37 |
|
|
Sage Genesis posted:I don't begrudge those people for wanting to stick to their favorite and familiar game, but come on, just loving admit you're not interested in learning about other options. Why does every elf-pretend game discussion always have to be couched in all these pointless lies and poo poo? Because that's the tradition. (I'm not even making a joke here, for once.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 00:12
|
|
