|
Has anyone played a game far enough yet to get to the awesome Animate Dead?
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2014 09:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 22:40 |
|
|
EDIT: On mooks - I think your idea is fine; a similar thought I had was to deal damage in terms of entire hit dice.Talmonis posted:Or the party can run away from a clearly bad matchup rather than expect that every encounter can be beaten and set up perfectly for their current power level. Then come back later with a plan. Not to mention that it's good to remember that most humanoids would probably not fight to the death if they can avoid it. Creatures might only take one person, if they're trying to eat someone. Another might only chase someone as far as their disturbed lair. It might be difficult to telegraph this to players before they lose someone, or even before all of them die. It's one thing to put a Troll in a room and expect the level 1 party to think their way around him. It's quite another to already be fighting an encounter and getting the party to realize that they can (or rather, should) beat a retreat. As well, having the party lose a fight and having to tackle it again would seem to me like the combat equivalent of a lock failure: "you failed, nothing happens, do something else" There's also the issue of trying to 'sell' the unspoken word to the party that you really only killed one of them as part of the plot and not because you're trying to let them eke out a draw/minor loss. gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 17:14 on Oct 6, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
ocrumsprug posted:It is pretty hard to argue with you about that as it is a perfectly reasonable attitude to take. It seems like Next has the problem that it is pretty easy to accidentally do it, if you are not paying super close attention to the encounters. (Or not willing to fudge it in play.) Yes, that's pretty much exactly the problem - the CR assignments aren't well calibrated to the actual lethality of a monster, so making a fight that's easy, or difficult or just-right for any given party is anybody's guess.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
So either the Intellect Devourer knows how much intellect there is to be devoured in its prey, in which case it should go for the 10 (or less) INT Fighter because it's the easiest target, or it doesn't know in which case it's going to go for the Fighter anyway because the Fighter is the one in melee range. Alternatively, you could put your Wizard up in front so that the Intellect Devourer will attack him first as the nearest target, or that the Devourer will attack him because he's got the "tastiest" brain despite the brain being more difficult to eat, but even then, with [12 AC, 21 HP and 2d4+2 damage] the Devourer could just straight-up melee the Wizard instead. MonsterEnvy posted:This was in 4e as well. It been it every edition. It's just an option you don't have to use it. It's still by far the stupidest complaint. Some people like to roll for it. The book even says "if you don't like it do this instead" The book doesn't present the different options as being on the same level as each other, though. Mr Beens posted:Re: exp awards for killing monsters/encounters and how to assign exp to custom minons types. I agree with this wholeheartedly for most systems. You're going to end up doing all sorts of fudgey bullshit anyway like trying to justify the party hitting level 2 because encounter balance is so hosed that you need to level them up right now, or throwing MMO-grind-esque encounters at a party just to get them to earn enough to level up or arbitrarily increasing the arbitrary amounts of "quest reward" experience to achieve the same effect.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2014 08:07
|
|
|
Even if there was no resting or any kind of post-combat recovery between 4 encounters of 1 Orc each, those 4 encounters are still very different in terms of difficulty compared to a single encounter of 4 Orcs.Malcolm posted:Otherwise you might as well just do a gut check per encounter to determine how much XP was gained based on encounter difficulty. And what an insane system that would be. Not really. Awarding an extra amount of exp in the form of a multiplier to account for the fact that 4 Orcs can focus fire, or overwhelm the party's tanks/defenses, or force more abilities to be blown through overkill, etc etc is not arbitrary. Or at least, no more arbitrary than awarding exp based on a skill check or a roleplaying/quest reward.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2014 09:36
|
|
|
If it were any other system, I'd be more inclined to agree with you, but the system already acknowledges that some encounters are more "deadly" than others and already has a multiplier in place to describe it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2014 10:17
|
|
|
The Real Foogla posted:CR already is a way to express "is worth an amount of xp" and "is this dangerous", so why not drop XP entierly, say you need x CRs to level up and balance CR from there? The first TTRPG I played did something like this: Microlite20 posted:Encounter Level = Hit Dice of defeated monsters, or the given EL for the trap, situation, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2014 11:12
|
|
|
In the age of the computer/tablet/roll20/whatever it's not really hard to track down exp, even if you have to do it per player, and even if we were to go back to the days of different xp requirements per class/race, if you really wanted to. What I think the Next-specific problem is, is that the game already acknowledges that there is a way to qualitatively measure the difference between four one-Orc encounters and one four-Orc encounter, but then refuses to give any of that back to the players. EDIT: The other layer of the problem being that the CR categorization of the monsters is hosed, which means even if the game did award more experience for the four-Orc encounter, that's still as arbitrary as anything else! It would have been fine if the game just let this all go unmentioned, but the fact that they made a system for it, a system that then sucks and would be easier if it were just ignored altogether, sucks. gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 17:16 on Oct 7, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
ocrumsprug posted:I think the guy running it is planning on a 4d6 in order roll (yes, I know) for character creation. We rolled for our current 4E characters back when we started the campaign, before we appreciated how much the math of the game depended on you not, and managed to make it work out. Considering how Next looks, I suspect the numbers don't really matter much, so I am not going to worry overly much about it. I did mention to the DM that he probably needs to keep an eye on the encounters if we roll, but that was before the MM was released and I thought it might matter. I can kind of understand wanting to roll for stats, but in order?  Why the hell would you do that unless you were deliberately going into this as a clusterfuck comedy session.Arcturas posted:That's a pretty strong statement. My limited (one session) experience is that it's pretty good as a basic D&D game if you don't want to go whole-hog on the MMO-light 4e and want something more recent than 3.5. There might be better options out there (Pathfinder, I assume?) and 5e has got some big problems, but it's still fantasy roleplaying and that excuses a lot of sins. Straight-up, I don't see why you'd ever choose 5th edition as your "basic, simpler than 4E" game when the OSR is a thing.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
ocrumsprug posted:Basically we are all old enough to have played Basic, and have been playing together for long enough that there is no concerns about being useless (though the unfortunately stat'd Shaman one guy did roll at one point was close) or the DM being a dick for the sake of being a dick. Plus we all played enough Living Greyhawk and other RPGA campaigns with stat arrays so we would rather change it up. Okay, yeah, going into it knowing exactly what you're getting into is the one way I expected that it would go down well. Good luck!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
What exactly is stopping people from just going in and sharing their experience? Like, go back one page and you see someone ask about the Champion and the Fighter subtypes and he gets a straight answer.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
Might it make a difference if this were run in an "E6" style, with a capped level progression?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
Gort posted:I've often thought you could combine many of the "martial" classes into a single class called "hero" and let him do pretty much all of their things. Fighting, berserker rage, sneaking, picking locks, shooting arrows... generally speaking those classes just have a single set of things they can be doing at any one time (EG: You can't wield a greataxe and a bow at the same time) so being good at all of them wouldn't really unbalance anything. I think one of the D&D editions had martial class that could switch between martial feats at will. Higher levels meant being able to take more feats and switch oftener, so he could be a great thief, or a great defender, or a great shooter, or a great cleaver depending on the situation. Babylon Astronaut posted:That's pretty much the reason I don't allow thieves in od&d based games like RC. There's a skill system, so you don't need the crappy percentile thing. That's interesting and I might implement that as well. I feel strongly about the "roll under attribute" system to be sufficient for pretty much everything, and I did not like how bad the Thief percentile skill tables were, but at the same time giving the Thief a +2 or +4 bonus to roll attribute checks felt redundant if he's going to have 16-18 DEX anyway, plus the fact that they stuck the poor guy with a d4 hit die. gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 19:12 on Oct 9, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
ascendance posted:well, it becomes another situation where the DM just has to make a house rule because the existing rule is stupid. Interesting thought: poor design forces you to take ownership of your own campaign, and make changes to suit the kind of game you want to play. Having a tightly balanced, well constructed discourages people from tinkering. No. Poor design forces the DM to make house-rules that have no guarantees on actually improving the quality of the game because he's just some guy who doesn't spend all his time designing a good rules because that's not his job. It's like telling the Fighter "well just roleplay some poo poo to make your turns more interesting than normal attacks all the time!". Okay, so he says he's going to disarm a dude, and the DM makes him undergo a skill check or a Strength opposed roll or whatever. How is the DM supposed to know that it's a good ruling?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2014 08:53
|
|
|
ascendance posted:I think this kind of diy ethic comes from the early days of the game, where the barrier between the amateurs and the professionals was much more porous, and games were very thin on rules and required a lot of adjudication. Given self publishing, the barrier between amateur and pro is back to being extremely porous. I mean, ACKS has gone from self published PDF to running 2 successful kick starters. Pathfinder has poo poo like the Iron Game Designer contest, where they solicit stuff from fans to publish, etc. Etc. I don't discount the ability of a layman/paying customer to come up with a house-rule that actually improves the game, but that says less about the layman's ability to improvise and more about how poor the written rules are in the first place. As well, there's a difference between a game being deliberately light on rules and purposely requiring lots of adjudication, and a game where there is a rule for most outcomes, but the rules are either so vague they need adjudication anyway or they're not well-designed enough that you need to make up some changes of your own.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
ascendance posted:Its only an excuse because you think my reason is invalid. You do realize you're being disingenuous, right? People pointing out things like the CR system being useless as an estimate for encounter difficulty, martial vs caster balance, bad spell/bestiary list formatting and mechanics like 1-hour short rests and the Wild Surge table are no less valid criticisms for "I don't like this game for these reasons" than you going "ACKS still uses the saving throw mechanic from original versions of D&D" How would you feel if someone came into the retroclone thread defending ACKS by saying they had fun with it?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
It's a stripped-down 3.x that's quick to play and unbloated only because we still don't even have the DMG yet, but the bloat and the gonzo mechanics are guaranteed to show up later on once more books/modules are released.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2014 06:52
|
|
|
goldjas posted:I'm lazy(and can't really find the 4E and 5E stats easily on short notice) but if someone would link say, a 3.x orc, 4E orc, and 5e orc, and then a 3.x kobold, 4e kobold, and 5e Kobold I think what I mean by the monster design would be pretty abundantly clear. It's a long-rear end post and I'm not sure about the rules on posting this kind of thing so I just put it behind this pastebin
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
Has Dungeons and Dragons always been released this way? By that I mean that the basic rules, PHB, MM and DMG were staggered. How did people deal with that back in the 3.x or 4E days?Dahbadu posted:Over the last two years I played a lot Pathfinder. I didn't want to. I thought the system was ridiculous -- I found it convoluted, inflexible and cumbersome. Saying "5E is bad" is kind of imprecise anyway. It's mediocre and it's conservative and it's almost guaranteed that there's another game out there that does what you want (varies from person to person) but better, or cheaper, or both. Even if we set aside 4E as something that's just so out there that WOTC would never go back to it, there's also games like 13th Age or even pre-3.x D&D's to compare it to.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
I think it doesn't have to be XP per se, it just has to be something because CR currently isn't it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2014 03:36
|
|
|
polisurgist posted:That, plus the fact that the "standard" encounter isn't going to be a number of opponents equal to the number of characters, of a level equal to the characters, means the ability to lock down a couple enemies is a much bigger deal. Dahbadu said that it's Pathfinder minus a bunch of poo poo rules / mechanics, followed by liking the way Attacks of Opportunity are handled in Next. This is obviously going to be challenged because you can't make more than one Opportunity Attack per turn in Next, compared to being able to make as many as your DEX modifier will support with Combat Reflexes under Pathfinder/3.x, and more informed posters than I can speak to the options available to a Fighter in 4E Is the context different? Well yeah, sure it is - a Fighter didn't need to play mother-may-I with the DM in older versions of D&D because they were almost always fighting in 10 foot corridors and the monsters literally couldn't move through anyway. In 4E, the DM could try to go for the guys in the back, but the Fighter had more than enough abilities that the DM might not want to even if he absolutely could and didn't want to pull punches. And then you get to Next and ... one opportunity attack per round. And no, this doesn't invalidate Dahdabu or anyone else having fun and enjoying themselves, because that poo poo is subjective, but if you make a statement that can be argued and can examined, such as the ability of a Fighter to force the DM to attack him, of course it's going to be discussed, because that's what the thread is for.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
polisurgist posted:Multiattack. On. Every. loving. Thing is my big one. The DMG is supposedly going to have an alternate rule for "single strike, cumulative damage" On the topic of the DMG, I also found out that it's supposedly going to have rules for 13th Age-type backgrounds for a skill system, rest variants, second wind, and marking. Between those and optional feats (and granting that all of those we can create out of house-rules anyway), I think it'd be worth taking another look at. EDIT: Oh hey that post right above just reminded me of the "every attribute is now a save" system :welp: gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Oct 13, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Primarily the "deal with it" portion seems really anti-GM. Their entire job is getting people to have fun and the game to run smoothly. Being constrained by RAW constantly, (with "helpful" reminders of it every other round by certain gamers) is an issue that gets in the way. IMO of course. The Fighter isn't forcing your hand, he just has abilities that make it so that it's in your best interest to attack him regardless.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
polisurgist posted:Yeah, as much as I'm a proponent of 5th, I'm not on the "the DMG will make it all things to all people" train. I think if you want a game that plays like 4th, you should play 4th, and the "%th edition will be beloved by everyone" is an exaggeration of a marketing slogan and therefore at least two orders of magnitude distorted from reality. Speaking purely for myself, I acknowledge that 4E does a lot of things right, but I haven't ever attempted to run it. I don't like feat systems and I don't like skill systems, so the DMG got me just a little bit excited insofar as it may allow me to run a game of 5E that's stripped down enough to suit my style (and again acknowledging that I could probably do it right now already if I could get the table to agree to a bunch of houserules). I didn't write that as a "hey this is going to make 5E play a lot more like 4E, great!", I wrote that as "hey this is going to make 5E play a lot more like what I want to play, which neither 4E nor 5E currently are to me"
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
Peas and Rice posted:Oh come on, that's just saying "if your player wants to do something not covered in these actions, just use your head and have them make the appropriate roll" instead of making 50 pages of rules for every goddamned thing a character might maybe do once. There's a post somewhere in this thread where a guy DM'ed Next for the first time and he made the Rogue player roll DEX to grab onto a rope, roll DEX again to clamber on top of a cart, and roll DEX again to make a jumping attack on a Kobold. Sure, it's great the designers left that little sidebar open, but it's a crutch to just leave it up to the DM because it's not his fault if he doesn't understand probability well enough to know that three d20 skill checks are really biased against the Rogue, because frankly it's not his job.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
Quad posted:Looking at the other classes, I suppose everyone at 1st level is in a similar boat against something like a 15 AC Goblin, and I'm sure it gets better with levels, but man... a 40-50% chance to fail at the first 10 encounters or so at the start of the game just doesn't seem very 'fun'. I suppose in order to really make you feel the progression, they decided to basically make you retarded at 1st level? "You rolled too low, you missed, nothing happens, next player" is a problem that D&D (and other RPGs) have struggled with for a while. Some very basic ways around it are to guarantee 1 point of damage per attack even when the players (and only the players) miss, or giving the players (and only the players) a cumulative +1 to attack rolls for every round that they're actively fighting.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2014 15:21
|
|
|
ImpactVector posted:Or you could always ditch binary resolution. I've always wanted to do this but I'm not well versed enough on dice probabilities to set good ranges for critical failure-marginal failure-plain success-critical success on a d20. VVVVV I suppose that's something else I should think about as well. gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 15:50 on Oct 14, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2014 15:41
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:I wasn't necessarily getting salty at you in particular, I just hear all these stories about "he rolled a one and tripped on a banana peel" and it sounds awful. If you want to play the three stooges cool, but no hero is a comic sop 5% of the time. All it will make people do is play incredibly safe so the character they want to enjoy isn't the butt of a joke. Scaled success is a really good idea though. Consider ditching the d20 and use 3d6. The average is the same, but you are less likely to get the low and high end and more likely to have results around the middle. Then I could see extra penalties for rolling a 3 because it is going to be very rare. Same with all 6's, it will call for something really cool to happen. I could have sworn I saw a retroclone that worked with all d6's once. Maybe I'll root around for that for ideas. Thanks for the good post. polisurgist posted:I really don't think 4th edition has to play this way, but this is the impression one gets of how the game must play from people who feel compelled to squat in conversations about unrelated games to complain that those unrelated games aren't 4th edition. The encounter buildings guidelines being hosed, swingy math/disproportionately deadly monsters, mundane vs casters being imbalanced, the game having 3-4 saving throws too many (and not well supported by proficiency), short rests being unrealistic and/or mechanically screwy, some classes still having to go through "I attack, end turn" cycles are all issues that don't require the game be turned back into 4E to be solved.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:those arent strange abilities its just straight up being a ninja wizard. No, it really isn't obvious, unless the obvious answer you aiming for was "it's always been done a certain way" If the only way to do supernatural stuff is with "magic", then yeah, sure, the only way for a Fighter to ever compete with the Wizard is if you also give the Fighter the ability to perform magic. But that's because of a fundamental disconnect that what many other games consider "ability" or "power" has to be "magic" when it comes to D&D. moths posted:I'd be interested in hearing why people are so hell-bent on polishing this turd. Is it seriously just brand loyalty? Grog vindication? Mearls fanboy-ism? I really do not like skill and feat mechanisms and all the cruft from AD&D onwards. Basic is extremely my poo poo, and 5E feels like it could be something that's nearly as streamlined while also adding more class and ability options. That's my "at least neutral" take on the game. It's just that you throw on the 150 USD pricetag on it as well and there's always Swords and Wizardry or TAAC or 13th Age or Dungeon World. I mean, if I'm going to convince my friends to go along with a bunch of houserules either way then I might as well convince them that there's more to the hobby than D&D too.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
friendlyfire posted:If the encounter system is really and truly too swingy then that's very unfortunate. I can even see how that would happen given the way that the playtesting worked. But I have always shrugged off encounter design systems in favor of my own internal baseline, so I don't perceive it is a real problem. Truly green DMs will mostly be running modules, which in the future will hopefully have level-appropriate challenges regardless of the CR system. friendlyfire posted:The more important point here seems to be that this is eminently fixable with the superior game design expertise demonstrated in this thread. Challenge ratings are essentially a list of monsters with a numeral next to them. If some or many of the monsters are misclassified, a more constructive project than griping would be to develop a more accurate list. What CR do you think Intellect Devourers should be? If what you're saying is that eventually people will be able to figure out the "real" CR of monsters, "the Centaur is really more of a high-CR 1, and that one you shouldn't throw at a party that doesn't have a Cleric or a Bard, and this one is inappropriate for 2-3 person parties", wouldn't it be nice if that sort of thing was already part of the book, as it was written? I sort of understand having to "make do" if I'm running one of those labor-of-love systems that come in a single PDF, but we're griping because classifying the Intellect Devourer into an appropriate CR is presumably one of those things that justifies having to pay for a product.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
friendlyfire posted:But more generally, I just skip the sections dealing with challenge ratings and encounter design. I prefer to rely on my own familiarity with the combat system and player characters. Ignoring a rule and being able to play a game while ignoring that rule, does not make that rule better nor does it mean that that rule is exempt from critical examination. friendlyfire posted:As an aside, are you demanding that every monster be perfectly classified? I expect some mistakes, even some really big ones. No, I don't demand that every monster be perfectly classified. I expected better classification, or looser classification if they couldn't pin it down further, or no classification at all if it's just going to be misleading.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
ascendance posted:so, you want worse or better classification, but the current system is the least optimal it could possibly be? Yes. If the DM is going to have to wing it or come up with his own system or wait for the internet/larger D&D community to come up with one anyway then better that they didn't include a CR at all.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
friendlyfire posted:You could house rule at least some of the biggest complaints in this thread in like two sentences. E.g. I'd give fighters indomitable at 1st level and advantage on all saves at 9th. One could also house-rule fighters to have unlimited attacks of opportunity, were one so inclined. If a DM wants to go through the monster manual and pencil in CRs that he feels are more appropriate, that's pretty easy too. These changes are hardly "massive." If these issues can be fixed by some simple houserules, what does it say about the quality of the work of the designers that they didn't catch it? If, on the other hand, the game is supposedly well-designed/well-balanced, how do you know that implementing these houserules is actually an improvement on the game?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
Glukeose posted:I guess I'm just doing it wrong, but I've found it actually pretty easy to GM. I definitely won't be getting the MM because from my point of view it looks like dumb crap, so I've tested out a series of "templates" for monsters that I feel will be appropriate for the party to face, and then I don't have to play them as being mentally handicapped. Thus far it's working out pretty well, with the monsters I intended to be threatening coming across as such, and the shifty fodder enemies providing a decent tarpit for the bigger foes. I also put in minions, because they feel like they fit more with 5e than they ever did with 4e. Just going through the DM Basic Rules and the guidelines for building your own monsters is like an episode of Seinfeld. The only real concrete thing it says is the size of the hit die by monster size (plus the CON modifier!) and the proficiency bonus by CR, but you can't even use the latter one because how are you supposed to know how "challenging" a monster is before you build it, if the proficiency bonus also factors into how challenging it is? AC, hit damage, attributes and everything else is just "well try to think about how powerful you want the monster to be".
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2014 07:30
|
|
|
IIRC from earlier in the thread, Relentless used to give you back 1 superiority die every turn, rather than every encounter. And that Next briefly flirted with damage-on-a-miss
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
Dahbadu posted:As someone who's played 5e for close to 20 hours (with a cool group of people including my wife -- so this may have colored my experience), most of the complaints in this thread (e.g. the save system sucks, fighters suck, opportunity attacks are worthless, the unconscious/death system sucks, etc.) conflict with my personal experience playing Hoard of the Dragon Queen. The line sort of blurs because the "make poo poo up as you go along" inherent in tabletop RPGs can shield a player/group from anything short of a disastrously bad system. Something like Lamentation of the Flame Princess can be unambiguously agreed upon as bad because of the content, something like Rolemaster can be unambiguously agreed upon as bad because of the mechanics, and then you have FATAL which does both. When you get to something as potentially subtle as the save system, mundane vs magic balance and encounter building, the DM can just paper over them and maybe it'll take so many more hours and plays and replays for the issues to rear its head. Throw in a smattering of "I found it fun!" and "yes, but I like it that way" and you end up with people talking past each other because even if we were to establish mechanic x as objectively badly designed, if the person actually playing the game never runs into it then the game can't really be that bad, can it?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
WOTC just posted a preview of the DMG, although its just an item rather than anything pertaining to mechanics:  AlphaDog posted:Maybe people who want to discuss the game should try discussing the game instead of whining that they didn't get a hug. I posted a fighter archetype homebrew a few pages ago, but nobody wants to comment on it, they want to complain that nobody's discussing the game. I thought it was a fairly clever way of letting the Fighter have his "I am a Lord now with an army/retinue" style without adding a bunch of NPCs that need to be controlled in combat gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 04:00 on Oct 16, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
"MMO-like" was an expression coined by Paizo (specifically by Ryan Dancey) to blow up edition warring as a wedge issue between 3.PF and 4E. It's as meaningless as "liberty" or "freedom" because you can twist it to anything you don't like about a particular TTRPG. Even if we acknowledge the flaws of 4E, they can still be described in more accurate terms than "MMO-like", and they'd still be flaws even without the comparison to computer games.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 10:23
|
|
|
There an episode of this Game Design podcast that I listen to where they interview Dancey and he's definitely pushing the angle that "When WoW was released, lots of players left the TTRPG hobby to played WoW instead, and WOTC designed 4E to try to win back some of those players by making 4E feel a lot like an MMO", along with the assertion that Pathfinder consistently beat D&D in sales.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 11:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 22:40 |
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:I'm no longer in the mood to play games that would benefit from more than a page or so of simple add-ons. I'm not interested in more or less rewriting every class description and changing fundamental mechanics, and I'm not interested in a game that I can't set down in front of a new player without also telling him about my cool house rule bible. Yeah, I agree. It's a hell of a thing to try to start a game at a table and say "oh yeah we'll be doing this this and this, none of which are in the actual rules, trust me it'll make the game better" unless you're all already on the same wavelength. It's sort of why I'm looking forward to the DMG because "official support" for the alternate skill system would make that medicine go down easier.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 21:47
|
|