|
Why do people keep insist on making things - things I am not interested in? Why would anyone publish a game that didn't also generate an unending stream of additional adventures and rulebooks? What kind of person would buy a game that only came in one or two books? quote:New Unsupported Games: Why? e: If you work for sub-poverty wages in the RPG industry but don't publish an unending stream of pre-cooked adventure modules, then you obviously don't care about your game or gaming. the same guy posted:There are a few of us (very few apparently) that are more likely to buy the game if the author cared enough to support it with an adventure. FMguru fucked around with this message at 20:22 on Jan 23, 2015 |
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 10:21 |
|
|
paradoxGentleman posted:Right, sorry. "There is no RPG except Dungeons and Dragons, and Gygax (PBUH) is the messenger of Dungeons and Dragons" Or is Pundit the messenger in this case? FrostyPox fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Jan 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
FrostyPox posted:"There is no RPG except Dungeons and Dragons, and Gygax (PBUH) is the messenger of Dungeons and Dragons"
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
Dulkor posted:The funniest part to me about the 'MARTIAL POWERS CAN'T DO THIS!' debate is the sheer overlap between comic book fans and RPG fans. Haven't these folks ever heard of Batman and his utility belt? Or trick/special arrows? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
Asimo posted:I'm pretty sure 4e didn't even have martial controllers anyway, didn't it? (Partly because the whole role was invented so wizards could be Special). So the whole argument is dumb from the ground floor. I think the only example was that one Essentials ranger-variant that wasn't really good and mostly did archer tricks. It never did, and there was even a developer blog post once to the tune of "look, parity between roles and power sources just isn't that important guys." I think the Seeker would have been really easy to flavor as a martial controller though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
Asimo posted:I'm pretty sure 4e didn't even have martial controllers anyway, didn't it? (Partly because the whole role was invented so wizards could be Special). So the whole argument is dumb from the ground floor. I think the only example was that one Essentials ranger-variant that wasn't really good and mostly did archer tricks. Even that Essentials Ranger was hybrid between martial and primal. All his really cool controller stuff was primal, his wilderness survival and combat stances were martial. theironjef posted:It never did, and there was even a developer blog post once to the tune of "look, parity between roles and power sources just isn't that important guys." I think the Seeker would have been really easy to flavor as a martial controller though. But but but... I have it on reliable authority that WotC just pumped out classes because they wanted to meaninglessly fill their role/source grid! That's why the Warlord exists, right, to fill out a 4e classes bingo card? Right? Guys?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
Sage Genesis posted:But but but... I have it on reliable authority that WotC just pumped out classes because they wanted to meaninglessly fill their role/source grid! That's why the Warlord exists, right, to fill out a 4e classes bingo card? Right? Guys? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
Asymmetrikon posted:This is wrong. Part of the audience is players who like being better than other players. Any good game designer includes traps for the unwary. And it's fair to the ones who don't get it either, because they don't know any better. And if they find out then they get the pleasure of feeling like they got better. Without things like this there is no mastery to be gained, which kills the fun for people who enjoy figuring things out and getting better.  Holy poo poo, source? This has to be some sort of loving ur-grog - the primordial font from which all other grognardism
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:This would be funnier if not for PHB3. Also the 4e Monk was fun as hell to play.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
Thesaurasaurus posted:
Monte "Timmy feats" Cook?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
Asimo posted:The irony is the PHB3 psychic classes were still probably the only sensible way to do that power source in D&D. The only one that really felt tacked on was the Ardent. Yeah, the Ardent was a little bit iffy, but honestly I liked the idea of someone with what basically amounted to effective, infectious emotions as a psychic. It just needed a bit of source reference to make it feel less like something completely out of the blue. Otherwise the book had two new redundancies. The Runepriest in particular is so close to the regular Cleric that it really feels like they could have made it a variety of Cleric instead, and again, the Seeker would be fine as a Martial Controller. Just replace all their zones and stuff with nets and gas arrows and boom it's Green Arrow.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
Ardents are empaths you guys Yes they should have just been called Empaths, I agree
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
FMguru posted:e: If you work for sub-poverty wages in the RPG industry but don't publish an unending stream of pre-cooked adventure modules, then you obviously don't care about your game or gaming. For anyone who can't be hosed wading through that thread, I posited that adventures for small-press RPGs sell worse than a box of dead badgers. I've got sales figures for an adventure, let's see how it stacks up against a box of dead badgers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
Littlefinger posted:Monte "Timmy feats" Cook? (And, in doing so, completely understanding what the Timmy demographic actually is for Magic. Magic designs for Spike, who likes powerful and versatile tools to demonstrate mastery of the game rules, Timmy, who likes poo poo that is cool, and Johnny, who likes to be creative and come up with, often, unlikely but powerful combos. They also explicitly design so that Timmy can have fun without making awful decks, because everyone likes winning.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
theironjef posted:Yeah, the Ardent was a little bit iffy, but honestly I liked the idea of someone with what basically amounted to effective, infectious emotions as a psychic. It just needed a bit of source reference to make it feel less like something completely out of the blue. Otherwise the book had two new redundancies. The Runepriest in particular is so close to the regular Cleric that it really feels like they could have made it a variety of Cleric instead, and again, the Seeker would be fine as a Martial Controller. Just replace all their zones and stuff with nets and gas arrows and boom it's Green Arrow. Brawler Fighters make pretty good Martial Controllers, and if you're willing to throw away your theme on Escaped Slave you can even pick up a grab that dominates at level 9. You can't wreck an army in quite the same way as a wizard, but you're pretty good at ruining a single target's day. Ardent was a recycle of a 3e class from Complete Psionic, and shared their Mantle feature with the Divine Mind class- mantles basically functioned as domains. I kind of wish that the 4e version did more with the mantle and offered some non-weapon options/telepathy options.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
I always thought that the Rogue would have been good as a martial controller. They sneak up on people and are clever with traps and things. Sneak Attack could have been mostly for getting in some nice damage against opponents who are disabled by your controller-y effects. Playing a Fighter was a lot like being a controller, though, except all your zones are centered on you. They could have done that more explicitly with a martial artist type who is good at disabling and disorienting foes rather than tying them down. The whole "no martial controller" thing seemed almost a reaction to the grogs whining about role/power-source grids than anything else. As much as I like sticking it to grogs, they passed up a lot of perfectly good ideas by doing that. Assuming that 4e needed more classes, that is. A lot of stuff could have been done by allowing each class to have the option to be built for more than one primary (rather than secondary) role. Hodgepodge fucked around with this message at 03:33 on Jan 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 03:30
|
|
|
Bear in mind that for most of its life cycle, 4e was managed by a guy who doesn't like 4e, doesn't understand why anyone else liked it, and spent most of his tenure trying to make it into something else.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 04:21
|
|
|
I suspect this is a big part of why they were happy to kill 4e off a good, what, two years before 5e was ready? They were just waiting for the flimsiest excuse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
Torchlighter posted:The slayers of all things fun are not just in Atheism, Video Games, Comics, Film and Television…. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 10:01
|
|
|
Not really, each of those has large You though Zak S's antics were bad? You've seen nothing. (Hell, even poster child atheist Richard Dawkins can be absolutely awful on his bad days.) Anyway, their point was, as people are bound to call out lovely tropes or behaviours in communities related to each of those, this must be some orchestrated effort to ruin the "fun" for everyone who condones poo poo like that as they do. Because obviously people can't care about any of that unless they're part of some neo-Marxist plot. Where have we heard that before? Littlefinger fucked around with this message at 12:16 on Jan 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 11:17
|
|
|
Chaltab posted:One of these things is unlike the others, one of these things just doesn't belong Google "elevatorgate."
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 12:31
|
|
|
I know it's fine with RAW, but dual hand-crossbows makes me want to puke. I know D&D's logic with combat is shaky, at best, but this totally takes the sanity cake and tosses it out the window.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
Gazetteer posted:Google "elevatorgate."
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
Littlefinger posted:(Hell, even poster child atheist Richard Dawkins can be absolutely awful on his bad days.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
MadScientistWorking posted:Don't look up Richard Dawkins at all. The guy is basically the atheist equivalent of Zak and makes him look charming in comparison which is amazing. Isn't Dawkins' actual academic work at least partly in EvoPsych? Which is where we get  ?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
Littlefinger posted:Not really, I'm pretty sure Chaltab meant 'athiesm isn't an activity where the goal is to have fun'. Not 'there are no dicks who are athiests'.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
DalaranJ posted:I'm pretty sure Chaltab meant 'athiesm isn't an activity where the goal is to have fun'. Not 'there are no dicks who are athiests'. For no small number of nerdy white guys, athiesm IS an activity where the goal is to be smug and prove you're better then everyone around you - which is precisely how they consume media.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
DalaranJ posted:I'm pretty sure Chaltab meant 'athiesm isn't an activity where the goal is to have fun'. Not 'there are no dicks who are athiests'. The very next line from what he's quoting is: quote:They are now invading even tabletop gaming! Protect your dice, and roll for initiative as we discuss Social Justice in tabletop this Tuesday!
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
Bendigeidfran posted:From context the grog means "internet anti-theist communities" instead of, like, Buddhist and Hindu strains of atheism or residual atheism in formerly Communist countries. And Internet Anti-theism is definitely something you can lump into certain classes of angry nerd. Very much so. I'm an atheist and I used to engage in internet atheist communities at a point in my life. Obviously, back in those days I couldn't see how toxic those communities were, and I'm glad I stopped frequenting them given how they've become even shittier since then. Long story short, there seems to be a significant overlap between online atheist communities and MRAs, in addition to which there's a lot of "I'm not a racist, in fact I don't see race" type of rhetoric coming from white guys in those communities.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:Isn't Dawkins' actual academic work at least partly in EvoPsych? Which is where we get That would be a hell of a thing, since EvoPsych isn't academia at all. Dawkins' most influential works were The Blind Watchmaker, which was written largely as a counterargument to Intelligent Design and Irreducible Complexity, and The Selfish Gene, in which he made a very compelling case for re-framing discussion of evolution with the fundamental metric being the success of the gene, not individual actors. He only really started going batshit with The God Delusion, which is everything we think of when we hear about smug internet Atheists and Redditors. predate Dawkins by a looooong time, and the term doesn't come from any sort of scientific study. It comes from the Gor novels.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:For no small number of nerdy white guys, athiesm IS an activity where the goal is to be smug and prove you're better then everyone around you - which is precisely how they consume media.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
Thesaurasaurus posted:It comes from the Gor novels. And who is doing a gor rpg? The circle of terribleness is complete
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
The Selfish Gene does get into Evo Psych, though, iirc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
DigitalRaven posted:For anyone who can't be hosed wading through that thread, I posited that adventures for small-press RPGs sell worse than a box of dead badgers. I've got sales figures for an adventure, let's see how it stacks up against a box of dead badgers. this is amazing. I wish you the best of luck.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
Error 404 posted:And who is doing a gor rpg? Is that answer Richard Dawkins? Because I would love to see the public response to that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
Bob Quixote posted:Is that answer Richard Dawkins? Because I would love to see the public response to that. No, james desborough is. And jd leads to zak who leads to pundit who... oh god I'm not good at conspiracy theories it was a joke. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
Thesaurasaurus posted:That would be a hell of a thing, since EvoPsych isn't academia at all. Dawkins' most influential works were The Blind Watchmaker, which was written largely as a counterargument to Intelligent Design and Irreducible Complexity, and The Selfish Gene, in which he made a very compelling case for re-framing discussion of evolution with the fundamental metric being the success of the gene, not individual actors. He only really started going batshit with The God Delusion, which is everything we think of when we hear about smug internet Atheists and Redditors. DalaranJ posted:I'm pretty sure Chaltab meant 'athiesm isn't an activity where the goal is to have fun'. Not 'there are no dicks who are athiests'.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
I, too, was once an annoying internet atheist. I'm still an atheist, but drat was I an annoying little poo poo in my college years. Internet atheism is at the point now where I'm hesitant to say that I'm an atheist so I don't get conflated with that bunch. (Also, surprise surprise, around the same time I was also a huge grog about gaming. Funny how that is.) In real life, I've noticed more and more that I tend to live in places or hang out I'm groups where atheism just isn't remarkable, and I like it that way. Some of us are atheists and that's cool and nobody really cares either way. It's refreshing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
Harrow posted:I, too, was once an annoying internet atheist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 10:21 |
|
|
MadScientistWorking posted:Annoying is one thing. Actively going around a blaming people for their rape is a completely different thing. Luckily I was out of the internet atheist spell by the time elevatorgate happened, or that time Dawkins said bringing a child up in a religion is worse than child molestation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 23:20
|
|