|
Seftir posted:Personally, I don't get the 'dumbed down for WOW players' thing because I've watched people play that and have them try to explain to me what's going on and it flies over my head every time. IF you mean WOW, it's because it has its own language just like D&D, or any game, really. You know that glazed over look people get when you start talking about AC and saves? Yeah, that's what I feel like when talking to mid to high tier WoW players.
|
#
¿
May 27, 2009 19:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 05:50 |
|
|
Amish Ninja posted:I am going to make a new character every day for the next hundred days. Cycling through the game systems that I have easy access to. (that is Noblis, exalted, nMage, Gurps 3rd, BESM 3rd, G:tT, L:tT, P:tF) So by the end of this I should have 10-20 characters for each of those systems. Although if any one has any other games they want me to look at just post a link. I like this idea. And request you throw at least one nVampire character into the list. Just for the mirth factor. As for first system. Noblis, only because I don't know the system.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2009 19:58
|
|
|
Drox posted:Uhh... Yeah, noticed after I posted. That's just the sort of thing I do just to be retarded and have nothing better to do. 'Look I can make X character out of Y system.' No. No I'd never play the poo poo, either. Thought experiments keep me amused when I have nothing else.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2009 20:37
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:And they again show they have the economic skills of feces-throwing monkeys in the “Selling Equipment” section – “You cannot sell mundane armor, weapons, or adventuring gear unless your DM allows, in which case you receive one-fifth of an item’s market price.” Has he ever tried selling used equipment of any kind? Try selling an old videogame to someone. Unless you've got a diehard, you won't be getting anywhere NEAR full price. And if you sell at game stop, you'll be lucky to see 1/5th the full price. I guess I'm saying the guy's an idiot.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2009 18:05
|
|
|
Etherwind posted:In fairness, that logic doesn't really apply to things like masterwork swords and the like. But standard equipment definitely gets that logic. MAsterwork items fit in the modern 'collectible' category. Get the guy who wants that particular sword, you can get full price. Otherwise, it's just a better sword.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2009 18:31
|
|
|
Bieeardo posted:The NPC who's selling has a storefront, a market, and other things to sell while waiting for someone to take those swords off his hands. The PC who wants to dump a handful of swords in Olde Buttefucke doesn't. The NPC also has costs in materials, time, workers' salaries and the like, which means that he's probably earning 50% worth of what the sword costs at base price at best. I was just looking at it from the adventurer's standpoint, really. IF we look at it completely from the real world idea, this information is definitely important to consider.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2009 19:00
|
|
|
Cyrai posted:I'm sure I'm missing something here, but what is this big Pathfinder debate? It's a prestige class in the 4e PHB, and it does look powerful, but I don't understand why there's some controversy about it Pathfinder is Paizo's answer to 4th Edition. Basically, 'Let's ignore that part of the reason people are upset with 4th is because it's more books they have to buy already, and put out our own books!' Yeah. . . that's marketing genius. I thought the alpha documents looked good, haven't seen anything since the Alpha 2nd release, so no comment on its current incarnation.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2009 19:30
|
|
|
Amish Ninja posted:Here you go http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsnvANYBRWo That is by far the most fun and vile idea I've ever heard of.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2009 20:12
|
|
|
Kerison posted:well it was always a tabletop miniatures wargame so that's not as outrageous or insulting I got my first F in history, does that count?
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2009 21:32
|
|
|
Kerison posted:do you get so angry you want to punch the television whenever you channel surf past the History channel Ah, nah, I love History channel. I just hate lectures.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2009 21:37
|
|
|
So. . . I never thought I'd find something truly grognard worthy. . . but a buddy of mine decided to run his mouth tonight. Sorry, it's a chat log, I cleaned it up best I could:quote:Ricky says (12:42 AM): lighttigersoul fucked around with this message at 06:26 on May 31, 2009 |
|
#
¿
May 31, 2009 06:19
|
|
|
brennon posted:whos supposed to be the grognard Now that you ask. . . I'll say that's a good question. I wouldn't see myself as one. . . but I guess my comments really lend that flavor.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2009 06:34
|
|
|
The General posted:I would say someone who doesn't give their character some personality is a scrub who shouldn't be allowed at the table Totally agree. @Whaleporn: that was kinda my basic thought when looking over the list.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2009 19:28
|
|
|
Commoners posted:My pixie has no combat skills, has burn-out alcoholism, is paranoid, and sells drugs to schoolchildren. Deal with it. So who's the next contestant on roleplaying dick comparison?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2009 01:02
|
|
|
Etherwind posted:The number of in-jokes in this post, and the fact that I get them all, makes me feel really loving nerdy. I only missed one or two, so don't feel too bad.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2009 20:17
|
|
|
Varinn posted:he hates Repo! The Genetic Opera and puts rape in his pen and paper games, this has been a summary of the general, thank you have a good night Just because everyone seems to have missed that it wasn't Repo Man he bagging on. He does get creepy though.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2009 17:20
|
|
|
Yessod posted:At the risk of going all goonsay I mean, in LoTR did Gimli say "You have my axe and my other axe and my crossbow and my dagger in case i get grappled"? No he didn't because they all had one weapon that's why Legolas had to stab someone with an arrow cause he didn't have any other weapons. Are we discussing the movie or the book? In the book, I won't comment on weapons as they can easily be left from narrative, but in the movie, Gimli had his primary axe, and at least two throwing axes, Legolas had a pair of scimitars, Aragorn had a bow for a little while, and a dagger. They had a few weapons for various functions. But definitely not 'armed to the teeth' as the former examples imply.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2009 18:59
|
|
|
The General posted:I think it changed when I showed up. Somehow, this wouldn't suprise me.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2009 04:39
|
|
|
Another magic post:quote:I f*in knew it. Some drawing and quartering and/or keelhauling needs to be done. The designers of Magic officially think we're stupid.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2009 07:20
|
|
|
And since that's what they're going for, well, unaligned is what they should be I guess. I just think that they should be good aligned. As dragon's, I've always run the Metallics as having the long view of good, and a somewhat alien mindset as a description for why they do what they do at seemingly random as a part of their plan on promoting good. However, they're always tried and true champions, who at the inherent core of their being are champions and heroes. As much a part of them as their desire for delicious treasure and their ability to use magic. Unaligned is just being a wishy-washy fence sitter (in my more then a little upturned nose, highly slanted, opinion) that can't step up to the plate to be a real hero or fess up to how rotten of a person they are and just go evil. Again, highly slanted and more then a bit mean spirited in what will hopefully get a good solid eye roll or a chuckle, not trying to start a big alignment debate (I know, how odd for me...). But lots of my complaints about 4th have to do with what the design staff decided to do with alignment, dichotomy in monsters and concepts, and their general attitude towards previous editions. And don't even get me started on how their view of the elements is so much better then Plato. As much as I'm not a fan of 2nd ed (I never liked the mechanics really), the setting info, the way the alignments worked, the planar interactions, etc, kept me coming back. Guess what was thrown out as being "lame" for 4th? I have a very, very low opinion of the 4th ed design staff in general and to a lesser extent the R&D crew. On the flip side of that coin, one of the reasons I like Pathfinder so much, is that they are trying to keep the spirit of those elements I love so much alive in their game. I show this with my checking account. I will NEVER buy a 4th ed book. Instead, I buy Pathfinder books. I buy Shadowrun, Exalted, and Scion books. I support my local game shop. But not 4th ed DnD. It's not much of a protest, but since I bought all but a handful of books for 3rd ed, it's the protest I can make. They burned a loyal customer. Ta hell with 'em. You like 4th ed? Fine and dandy. I can even kinda get why. There's some interesting mechanical changes and rule updates. Go nuts. I'm happy to tell you why I don't, especially in threads established to bitch about 4th ed monster books...
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2009 07:02
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:Is he like trying to act like 4e is destroying gaming I honestly couldn't tell you. Now, I've definitely spent alot of time learning how to say very little in as many words as possible, but this guy is a master. I swear he basically said 4Th Ed is trash without any real evidence over the course of three pages of discussion. And it took him that long to make the post. As for Plato, don't look at me, I was confused, too.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2009 08:58
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:Oh I GOT it. He's saying that the Greek 4 element system is a standby and its against all logic to break it, and 4e introduced the "elemental chaos". How could someone really bitch about the elemental chaos? It fits more closely with mythologies creations myths, the sort of protomatter that becomes the material plane. .. What am I doing here. . . I'm trying to logic against grognard. . . am I nuts?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2009 09:11
|
|
|
Joe Anglican posted:He may be aware that 4e is presently one of the best selling things at any FLGS. Only Magic is doing better according to my local folks. Was the downright truth at my store before it closed. Actually, after a while, 4th Ed was selling better than magic.. .
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2009 19:55
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:Now we edit the definition of roleplaying until it fits what we want. Hell, some games need even less roleplaying than 4th. YA know, cause Diplomacy isn't 'he likes me' anymore. LEt's talk WOD. Which doesn't need you to EVER roleplay an encounter, with all the social skills and attributes, you could play with an 'I beat it attitude'.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2009 02:04
|
|
|
FMguru posted:So you picked a class because it looked cool and it turned out to be useless? Well, I guess you'll just have to be the party pack mule and inventory tracker while the rest of us have all the fun. Hey, how come you stopped coming to the Thursday night game? Hey, I played 3.0 Bards, we could do more than be the party pack mule. We could also get the better prices for selling that gear off. Of course, that's if the DM let diplomacy work that way.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2009 20:35
|
|
|
clockworkjoe posted:http://jhkimrpg.livejournal.com/70484.html I love the link in the first comment to that post. The copyright office says outright that the only thing that is copyrighted is the style of presentation, the game, its gameplay, and the style of play can't be copyrighted. And in fact states that there is no law stopping someone from making a similar game using the rules with a new face.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2009 18:37
|
|
|
MAgic Grognard again:quote:And the reason I'm focusing on Vintage is because it boasts the most consistently powerful cards in the game. Legacy is Vintage lite, Extended is Legacy reduced, and Standard is focused sealed. If a card can't measure up in Vintage, it isn't powerful enough.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2009 00:15
|
|
|
Seftir posted:magic grognards are my favorite grognards They're just freaking baffling.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2009 01:19
|
|
|
Seftir posted:I have a couple questions about what WOTC means by "core". Typically CORE has only ever meant the big three. All the 'twos' only expand the experience. I assume Eberron will only need the primary three to function well, but as with all settings, you can expand the experience with more books.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2009 18:26
|
|
|
Ryoshi posted:This is from a few pages back and not relevant to the actual thread but....doesn't WotC own the patent on trading card games? How does that work? Patent and copyright are two different things. Oh, Grognards: quote:4e - Play it if you're a beginner and complicated systems are too much for you. Or if you really really really want to play Tabletop WoW. quote:3.5 is a failed attempt at doing everything. lighttigersoul fucked around with this message at 00:33 on Jun 26, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2009 00:31
|
|
|
The General posted:I just think it's funny that grognards and hip cool kids both don't like playing with eachother for essentially the same reason Having been 'the hip cool kid' in a group of grognards, I can attest. Really, if we're playing 3.5, please use the 3.5 rules to resolve combat, not the Advanced rules you learned as a teenager. I spent alot of gold to get 10 sneak attacks a round.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2009 05:49
|
|
|
Amish Ninja posted:I love Dread. Just thought I'd put that out there, dawgs. I'm gonna continue this trend and say the same.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2009 05:25
|
|
|
NinjaDebugger posted:Unironically agreeing with huge chunks of this post. I did pretty much the same thing, without the lengthy posts, in my own games before 4e came out, and it works drat well. I was going to say, reading that wall of text, his system sounds remarkably like 4TH Ed - Magic. Or more, that seems to be his goal. Kinda odd spellcaster nerfing though.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2009 19:36
|
|
|
Anyway, I think that a King should definitely have stats. What is this talk of "not supposed to" anything? The players should be able to do what they drat well please (even if there are consequences). If they manage to sneak into the castle and catch the King unawares in an attempt to assassinate him, then they should certainly be able to do that, even if it turns out the King is just a 5th level Noble. Making some parts of your campaign non-interactive because you don't want something to happen that isn't according to your plans is the definition of railroading. And if you're worried about the extra work it would take to make every NPC in 3.5, then you can really just approximate and get workable roles. Most townsfolk will go down in one hit, whether they're unconscious or dead or not - they generally don't want to get hurt anymore. If you're wondering if they're really dead, well, a 1st level commoner with an average CON (that's 10), has 4 HP. So, they'll at least be bleeding to death after a solid hit, and quite possibly dead at 14 damage. As for the skills, I don't like how a character can so easily just unlearn a series of skills or other abilities. That just seems unrealistic to me. Yes, it's a game, and that kind of system is beneficial to the game, but how can a person with a background as a thief just forget all her stealthy skills? In short, in order to make the game more accessible, realism took a dramatic blow in 4.0.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2009 08:11
|
|
|
I could probably get into a discussion about railroading, and that there is a relationship between minimal planning and railroading, but that should probably be reserved for another topic. These are my thoughts about 4th edition vs. 3.5. Maybe it is a little odd to ask for realism in a fantasy game. I mean, it's obviously not REALISTIC, as there are dragons and sorcerers and gods that actively make their presence known. But it could be realistic if you make certain assumptions - namely, that there are dragons and sorcerers and gods. 4th edition makes certain things just so silly, like the retraining I've already mentioned and healing surges. Being magically healed is realistic if you assume that there's magic - but healing surges just let you shake off sword wounds and stabs and burns. As many as you want after the combat is done. THAT's not realism, it's just weird. As for character regret, I feel like that builds character. The paladin I played for 24 levels in 3.5 took Tower Shield Proficiency at level 3 (because I was new and my friends told me it was good). I stopped using tower shields into the campaign, so that feat was never beneficial to me, but it was a sort of sentimental reminder of my past. Similarly, skills and feats can be indicative of a character's past - like putting ranks in Craft (woodworking) because your character is the son of a carpenter. Of course that's not going to be incredibly useful, but it gives the character a sense of identity. And I wouldn't doubt that 4th ed makes characters quicker and easier - the entire system is streamlined and simplified and dumbed down to make it more accessible and hopefully to sell more. If only all those little bars with all their colors didn't look so much like Hotkeys in World of Warcraft. Anyway, all the work that went into making 3.5 characters never seemed a lot like work to me - I enjoy making characters for 3.5 to fit a role that I've carved out for them - an interesting combat situation or a plot-related character. I don't see that same amount of depth in 4th edition. It's a company-wide trend, simplifying these esoteric games we love so much so that more people will buy them - Wizards is definitely in customer acquisition mode, and I feel 4.0 is a result of that. So I feel a little bit of enmity and not a small amount of bias towards it. In general, it feels that Wizards cares less about its long-time customers and more about attracting new people. If I didn't love Magic so much, I'd quit buying this stuff. >.< That said, I do see some positive sides about 4th edition. Because it is so quick and easy to make characters and encounters, I've resolved to use it for one-shot campaigns. Some smaller rules, like more HP at first level, do seem like a massive game-play improvement, and will probably be implemented in my campaigns. But any long campaign that I run will most definitely use 3.5. And I'm told this isn't unusual - the guys who started playing D&D in the 70s are still playing that edition, so I won't be alone in keeping with 3.5.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2009 08:24
|
|
|
Jackard posted:Looks like someone forgot that HP is supposed to be abstract I tried to point that out twice. . . He just doesn't want to pick up what I'm laying down.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2009 08:46
|
|
|
Kemper, whoever that person is, we need to find them and put them in an asylum, they really shouldn't be on the streets.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2009 16:27
|
|
|
quote:I am hard pressed to think of an example in recent literature where a beloved story series so richly woven with coherancy was abused so badly. Ten bucks this is also one of the Star Wars fans that decried the prequel trilogy like Lucas was asking his fans to drink the Kool-Aid.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2009 02:27
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:Bombadil So much I could say, but all of it would show off my Tolkien Grognard extremes.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2009 19:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 05:50 |
|
|
Kerison posted:Seriously if there's one thing this thread should have taught you it's how to argue a point without coming off like a loving jackass. And failing that, how to argue AND come off like a loving jackass. We have hundreds of examples.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2009 05:09
|
|