|
Bloody Hedgehog posted:Yeah, this sort of thing is totally cool. I suppose I have no way of actually knowing but I really suspect that's an uncommon way of doing it.
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2014 05:14
|
|
large enough for how I felt when that stuff started going down.
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 17:22 |
|
|
kingcom posted:See I get the opposite problem where games like D&D require me to do so much number crunching theres not point where I try to get into character that involves the system. If I do I'm likely to gently caress myself over because of all the poo poo I need to be paying attention to. Yeah, stuff like AW is much easier to get into since looking up the rules tends to be fast and, once you've internalized the basics, executing on the moves comes quickly and easily, without too much fiddling with numbers or having long stretches that really come down to fiat without any dice use (and without any surprises). D&D always seems to me like there's so much putzing around, looking up stuff in the book, and getting lost and unsure whether there is a rule or not, that you end up just kind of playing this weird half-assed boardgame. Grogs get all vocal about "rulings not rules" but then don't have a game that's so unevenly rule heavy in some places and rules light (or absent) in others.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2014 05:24
|
|
|
Most of my real crunchy combat experience has been with pbps, where "group initiative" generally ends up being the norm. It would be nice for a game to be actually balanced against the assumption that the PCs and enemies go in unified waves in mechanical terms, since some games tend to get a little wonky if the PCs can make uninterrupted combos.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2014 05:01
|
|
|
If spells are going to appear on several different spell lists (for example, druids and bards both having some cleric spells but also some wizard spells), I'm not sure what a better choice would be rather than just an alphabetical list.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2014 03:19
|
|
|
Lord of Bore posted:At least sorting them by spell level would be nice, so that you can just look in the contents and see "Oh, 5th level spells are between pages blah and blah", rather than "Well it starts with an S, so I guess it's somewhere in the latter half of this 90 page clusterfuck" This would be neat. I'd respond with "what if some classes have them at different levels" but I absolutely hated when 3e did that, so eh.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
One thing I didn't like about 4e was actually the relative simplicity of building a character in terms of selecting powers. There weren't power chains. 3e wizards had the same problem for me, you could just pick whatever spells you wanted without being obligated to build up certain paths over time. You could just take fireball or fly or teleport or whatever, without ever having taken a similar spell beforehand. It seemed really stupid then, and now with 4e it seemed like that was extended to all the classes. My problem with it is that it feels like you're just playing a game of "what's the best spell," and now "what's the best power," and that's the only question, what power out of these choices is the best, without having to worry about whether that power will qualify you for later powers or whether you've taken the qualifying powers already. When there's a tree of powers, it becomes more about finding a thematically cohesive tree that fits your character. It's easier to balance a large-scale power tree overall as opposed to balancing each individual level of powers; maybe the power for one tree is weaker than that for the other at an individual level, but you can make up for it by evening out the tree as a whole. If you're just taking whichever powers you want, then it's much more difficult to ensure every single power is equal at every tier. I know that people will say feat chains were poo poo in 3e and they were, but I don't think it's an inherent flaw in power chains in general. You simply need to ensure there are lots of different chains to choose from, that the opening powers at the start are all roughly equal, and that the chains are about even in power over the course of, say, each tier, without any outstanding capstones or obligatory gems that show up in the middle. Maybe someone will laugh at "simply," and I'm sure it would be a challenging thing to design, but I think that's going to be a lot easier than insuring that every power is equal at every level, and I feel like the way that having good and bad powers stifles creativity is much worse than having set chains.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:The thing is, there were. They were just built into synergies rather then explicitly enforced. Look at some of the power combos people put together; I've seen monks use powers that are normally not good at all but have such amazing combo potential with something else that they become a thousand times better. Honestly scouring books for feat/power/item combos that click just perfectly is my least favorite part of the game, largely because I have a perverse compulsion to keep doing it. I would much prefer a game having a handful of relatively clear options that you pick, like, two or three of and a promise that any one combination won't be particularly horrible or awesome. I feel like stuff like frostcheese was unintentional, and even something like that monk combo might have been as well. It makes me really uncomfortable that this is a power that's "not good at all" that suddenly becomes awesome when used right, because I get the feeling that either the "not good at all" option was meant to be the actual option to use and the good combo is unintended and abusive, or that the game is designed with bad options in the first place. Neither of those seems like a good thing.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
With a chain you can have somewhat lackluster and somewhat more powerful options along a chain and not run into a problem as long as the chain as a whole is balanced. Say you have powers at levels 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 10, and at each one of those a choice between A, B, and C. Say that, no matter what, the team takes the time to ensure that all three are very balanced at 1, 2, 5, and 10, those being the early level powers and then the midpoint and capstone powers that are a little more important. Then, you still have 3, 7, and 9 to deal with. The team doesn't have the time to make sure each set is balanced, there're two more tiers and six more classes to work on, so there are some variations, and at each level one of A, B, and C is a winner. In terms of charop, you've got four points where there's mildly a better option but its mostly up to combat style and the needs of the group, and three were after a year of testing they figure out which is the best option at each level, say A at 3, B at 7, and C at 9. If you had power chains, then all you have to worry about is picking A, B, or C. Instead of the design team having to make sure A, B, and C are good at seven different points, now it's more like five, and they can take a step back and judge the chains holistically, not worrying whether A at 3 interacts with C at 7 and B at 10 to break the game somehow. There's much less work; maybe they've even saved enough time to construct D and E, when before they would've never had the time to do that on an individual level basis. Although there's strictly speaking less choice, with 5 choices instead of 3^7, there were still thematic lines inherent to the powers before that basically broke down into three archetypes and the ability to make fairly minor variations within those, whereas now there are two more entirely new ones with totally different types of behavior, at the cost of that ability to make minor variations.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:Why would you want lackluster abilities period? This is the approach old-school D&D takes to "balancing" spellcasters, by saying "yeah at early levels you suck but man, just wait until you level up some!" I obviously don't "want" lackluster powers, I think they're inevitable and that chains are a better way to soften their impact and the impact inevitably unbalanced individual powers will have. Balancing five different chains of powers once from a holistic point of view seems like an easier task than repeatedly balancing five powers fifteen or twenty (or whatever) times over and ensuring no combination is particularly overpowered or lackluster. I think you could realistically produce a game where you could confidently say "any one of these five choices will turn out to be equally competitive," but not one where you'd claim "any combination of five choices each spread over the fifteen points you have a choice will be equal to another."
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:If lackluster powers are a given (which I agree, they're going to happen in any game with as many of them as your typical mid-to-high crunch RPG) then forcing people to take them if they also want to take that really cool ability over yonder strikes me as a real lovely way to go about it. With a "pick what you want" approach you're at least free to skirt around those lackluster choices as you see fit rather than having to go "well I really want Ultimate Facesmasher Stance but that means wasting my level 3 and level 7 picks on poo poo I don't want, or I could take the Bloodmurder chain I guess..." The point would be, you'd have three or five or whatever thematically distinct options starting at level 1 (this is the chain that pushes people around, this is the chain that focuses on defending allies, this is the chain that creates slowing/entangling zones), and you pick which of those options you want your general combat career to be about, and then that's it, you're done, no more choices that you have to make. Maybe you pick the pushing chain and then at level 13 think oh man that entanging power over there is pretty neat, bummer I don't have it, but that's not a major issue because you're still focused on and enjoying the overall combat style that the chain you picked offers, and the totality of your pushing chain is still preferable to the totality of that entangling chain, for the sort of character you want to play and the role you have in the party. The fact that you couldn't pick that level 13 entanging power, to me, is an acceptable price to pay for the assurance you get that your pushing chain is guaranteed to be "a good choice" overall. Not being able to pick that power also means that you don't have to worry whether or not you made the "right" choices at level 10, 9, 7, 5, etc all the way back, since you can just look at your own chain, and then the chain that grants that power, and feel comfortable about how your chain overall is a good choice for your character and group dynamic in a way that other chain isn't, without having to make that decision again and again each time you get a new option between some powers.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:If this is what it's all about then this is a problem that's easily solvable simply by featuring several "quick pick ability packages" that are worth half a drat. You could do this exact thing in 4E right now if you wanted to put the work into it. You don't need to put character development on rails solely to cater to folks with analysis paralysis, there are ways you can achieve that goal without sacrificing the flexibility other people want (or that those people with analysis paralysis themselves might find desirable after they get used to the game and how it plays). Quick packages would solve a number of problems, mainly to have an assurance from the designers that "these packages are all tested and acceptable, and can be used as benchmarks." I think that would be an alright compromise, and I understand the enjoyment others get out of making combinations and stuff. A lot of my unhappiness with the system comes more from the possibility of there being underwhelming combos, of powers that manage to both fill the same sort of design space while hampering each other, and having a sort of idiot-proof list that I know won't disappoint or drag down the rest of the party would be great. neonchameleon posted:Why? Why do you think they are inevitable? In my mind, if you have ten levels of powers, and five powers at each juncture, that's 5^10 different combinations you have to keep in mind, any one of which might be overpowered (somewhat unlikely) or inefficient (more likely, and more numerous). If you have five chains, that's five different combinations of powers you have to look at, which is much more manageable, and allows you to have powers that are more interesting on an individual basis without worrying that they'll conflict with or augment two other random powers in one of the various combinations you didn't have the time to think about. Your trifolds have a way more manageable number of powers to look at. I think it's a great design choice and overall a better way of doing it than either 4e or my stupid power chain stuff. I should've been clear that if you have the number of powers involved in 4e, then some will inevitably be lackluster.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:It's currently part of the July contest - should I make a separate thread? There's no way I'm stopping here; I have two groups of playtesters starting to line up and there's a lot more I can do including my own (small) bestiary. A thread seems fine, especially if you've got that much going on. There might be a use for a general "post your 4e retroclone and discuss the concept in general" thread.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:This isn't really a problem that's unique to 4E as far as RPGs, or even games in general, go. My experience in 3e and 4e was roughly the same in terms of character creation, in that I'd always first come up with a neat idea, pick a class that seemed close, and then gradually start picking different options, one thing feeding into another in terms of which feats and PrCs (in 3e) or powers (in 4e) I'd go for, and that this would go on for hours and hours, one feat or power or whatever leading to another, which would lead to another, which would obsolete one I'd chosen earlier, and then replacing that other one would ripple out to two more. In 4e, especially, a lot of it was along the lines of "I want a push/stun/whatever, should I have it be this encounter power or this one or this daily, or two or all three; I probably only need one, is there a different power at one of those levels that's significantly more attractive than at another, oh but at this level there's this other power that I'd wanted, so should I go for this one or that one," on and on and on. The problem is how there are so many powers that interact and overlap with each other, so that deciding a single power isn't just a matter of looking at, say, four powers and picking one, it's looking at dozens and dozens of powers, all of which only go in specific slots, and trying to weigh what each one offers, whether they're a more or less efficient means of getting a certain thing done, and to what degree in combat you're going to need to do that thing, whether you need multiple ways to get the same effect or inflict the same condition or whether just one is enough anyway. I just don't like spending all that time balancing things out that way. I want to be able to pick a thing and go and not get asked every couple levels whether I want to keep doing that thing or do a different thing or use this level now to do the thing I was doing before and replace the way I was doing that thing before with something else.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2014 02:39
|
|
|
Eh, I dunno. I was trying to make "a sniper who sneaks around," and while trying to get the hide skill to actually be reliable I found myself waffling between eladrin and drow for, like, several hours, trying to figure out how to actually get persistent hide. I forget the exact details, but it had to do with a way to get hide after a teleport, and I think at one point I'd transitioned fully into warlock over rogue. The same sort of thing happens repeatedly, and it really has to do with having multiple levels at which you can have powers to accomplish similar goals, where there's a choice between which to take (or both), and which other powers you'll take instead, and how there are a multitude of obscure feats and items that make one approach or another more reasonable, sometimes opening up completely new goals you need to start searching for (figuring out you can use this to hide after a teleport, so now you just need to figure out all the ways to teleport, which brings you to some items and feats, then Eladrin, then whether you want further riders on the teleport, then whether you should add in some warlock, etc). It's maddening, and I would've much rather wanted to be able to just say "hey I'm a sniper who sneaks around" and that's it, that's the only mechanical decision I need to make and the game takes care of everything else for me.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2014 06:02
|
|
|
Well that's what I started with, yeah. Maybe that's a bad example, I was trying to get reliable hiding regardless of terrain/lighting.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2014 06:19
|
|
|
Well yeah, I was trying to figure out a reliable way to always have concealment.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2014 08:03
|
|
|
Should the green zone be extended further to the right or something? Also I do really like the art.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
Yeah that list should be like a thousand times longer.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
Dammit, I totally got mixed up. I meant should it extend to the left? It seems like it goes off towards the right (indefinitely?), but on the left side the yellow I think covers it up. e: PleasingFungus posted:The weird thing for me is that the section that's in cover from yellow, green, & red is just marked with yellow/red. Not sure how you'd visually clarify that without it being a mess, though. This, yeah.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
I think to a certain extent some people's anger (or "irritation," if "anger" is too strong a word) is the feeling that 5e is squandering its position. It's not as if it's an offensively bad game, but rather that it encourages a regressive, outdated, and unthoughtful style of play while also being the most recognizable brand. People will have 5e as their first exposure to tabletop games, and learn some bad habits regarding the place and scope of a GM and how they're expected to behave, and how the rules of a game should behave. That's all pretty vague, but the easiest example of this is Mearls' long line of tweets, which so often have the phrasing "I would rule this way" or whatever, with the expectation that it's up to the GM to make those kinds of decisions, so often on rules questions that should have a explicit, codified answer due to how the rules in general function. The current rules of D&D 5e give fairly specific answers to rather minute points, yet are also silent on many other points that are, seemingly, just as relevant and important, and on the same level of detail or scale. An easy example is the elven meditation question--someone asked "what does elven meditation count as for the purpose of being surprised," and Mearls answered something like "I would rule as sleep." The line in the elf description about meditation was phrased in a way that made it sound like it wasn't as deep as regular sleep; why? Why even bother mentioning elven meditation in a way that makes it seem mechanically important? Why not elaborate on that detail, whether it actually makes a difference in terms of being surprised? Everywhere in the book there are similar situations, where it's not clear whether a line is simply descriptive fluff, or whether it has important mechanical consequences. Another example, is a thrown weapon is considered melee, ranged, or both? It's filed under melee, but does this change? do bonuses to "melee weapons" still apply when thrown? what about "ranged weapons," do those start applying when thrown? Really, the specific answer to that question doesn't matter. What's frustrating is the game feels like it's making the claim that GMs should be in a position to make these decisions, that GMs should have this responsibility, and that tabletop games should be designed in this sort of open ended fashion. Having this as the most well known brand, as the new edition of D&D, encourages it to spread, and as more people encounter this as their first game, as just "I know that name, I'll start with that," as bookstores automatically stock "the newest D&D" like they always do (if they stock any games at all), it will spread around these assumptions and expectations. Obviously, people can have their own opinions on whether all that is a good thing. Personally, for me, I think it's an extremely bad thing, toxic to innovation and tightly designed games, and encouraging of a mindset that the GM is the most important and rightly most powerful member of the group. It encourages them to be paternalistic, for the game to rest on their choices and decisions, on their go-ahead. I feel the playstyle is offensive, would hate to be a player in that type of group, would particularly hate to run that type of group, and dislike that by spreading that playstyle as popular or normal, more and more people will adapt to that playstyle and hold it up as the way things should be, making it more difficult to find other RPG players who don't enjoy it. Anyway that's a lot of stupid words, hope it made at least a little sense.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2014 06:46
|
|
|
I think there's a big unknown about what input they actually even got. I'm sure 4e players who were paying attention and cared were raising a stink, but there were also plenty of people complaining about how it wasn't going far enough the other way.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
I feel like there's a fair difference between having a general map of, say, the cave area, so players can point to one spot or another and say "I go there, that's cover right" or "I circle around this way" and there being an outright gridded map with miniatures where square-by-square positioning matters. Not sure if you'd call that first kind of play "theater of the mind" or not, but it feels pretty different, and I could imagine someone wanting it over the precise grids. Not that I'd imagine 5e would work particularly well with that method, you'd want a game designed around that assumption of the level of detail/positioning.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
A Dark Sun sourcebook would be super rad, especially with the 5e art style.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2014 07:32
|
|
|
I wonder if people would like having books that mixed a setting and also a "mechanical" supplement thing. Like if the psionics book and the Dark Sun book were the same book, with both parts mixed together. I mean I'm sure the answer is "no" but still.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2014 07:39
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:I like the idea of setting-specific mechanics, and hate the idea of mechanics that either Strength of Many posted:It would be a lot cleaner and concise if you didn't hide mechanics and classes people want to use behind a setting book. Also less page space. Otherwise you run the risk of setting, or mechanics, getting cut short to make room for the other. I think part of it would be significantly cutting down on the level of setting detail. It would be more like a psionics book that happens to use a lot of Dark Sun-flavored examples, with a cap of a few chapters of fluff or something. Like currently there's an implied setting that sort of runs underneath the splatbooks. At least with 3e, there was a lot of implied stuff with things like the orc/elf relationship, the generic fantasy setting in the DMG, stuff like that. So instead we'd get a splatbook using significantly different, possibly even directly contradictory, implied settings. The psionics book would use Dark Sun as an example of how to incorporate psionics into a setting, as well as a big discussion of the possibility of restricting magic, like with defiling.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2014 08:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 17:22 |
|
|
HP bloat combined with how damage really only increased with particular feat combos and how spell damage really didn't increase much either was one of several problems with 3e. I would've hoped they'd at least figured that out in 5e with the "flat math" stuff they were touting.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2014 03:06
|
|