|
I continue to run a 13A game online! That's the only major plan for the time being.
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2015 10:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 04:29 |
|
|
paradoxGentleman posted:From the last thread: One of the creators of D&D 5e had a personal vendetta against Blue Rose and wanted to see that exact sub-genre die completely and worked to kill the game. Tabletop gaming!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:As big an rear end in a top hat as the Pundit is, credeting him with being one of Next's creators is a serious stretch. He's a "consultant" or more likely a mascot. Next is a lovely game and Pundit is a lovely person but there's no need to ascribe him more importance than he deserves. You wouldn't know this by how hard he's been trumpeting it. Lay with dogs...
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 04:29
|
|
|
Covok posted:Also, I know absolute poo poo about magic, but the whole "premise" is that there are multiple planes of existences fighting, right? How bad of an idea would it be for WotC's to a limited print run where some iconic D&D characters are made into cards? Not that I think they should do it, it's just a thought I had and, since I know jack poo poo about Magic, I don't know how bad of an idea it is and am now curious. Magic is kept as far the gently caress away from D&D as possible. WotC doesn't want D&D fans anywhere near their cash cow.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:I still cannot figure out why nobody's done this yet. Close to zero interlap between "people in the ttg hobby who make games" and "people interested in fun mechanics and cool video games" I assume.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
The general thought of "Well the wizard COULD memorize Knock and Invisibility and all that, but why would he step on the thief's toes? Why not just let the thief do it?" misses a very important question: Why not just have two wizards? This sorta came to it's full end in 3.x, where your party could be a cleric, a druid, and two wizards, and you've basically superceded the fighter and the thief entirely. It's the same imbalance that means you can't make a party of a fighter, a rogue, a ranger, and a paladin. I'm reminded of when I used to be a Pathfinder fan and posted on the Paizo forums, and had an argument with Sean K Reynolds about the cleric; he insisted again and again that the cleric needed to be powerful enough to replace the fighter "in case nobody rolls a fighter or in case the fighter doesn't show up that day," and ignored every question of "so what happens if the cleric or wizard don't show?"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
Quarex posted:I actually think, and I am being fairly serious here, the balancing mechanism for the wizard in earlier versions of Dungeons & Dragons was the fact that anyone who always played the same character class was seen as a boring jerk, so everyone got to be the mage once in a while, or had to be the cleric/thief once in a while. Sorta. It was more that the idea of people having a single DM who ran strict adventures once a week with everyone playing the same consistent characters wasn't actually planned. OD&D - pre-AD&D D&D - operated strongly under the idea that people are going to have a whole stable of characters running in different games with different GMs. That's why the whole "Monty Haul" or "roll your stats in front of me" exists - a DM that lets someone cheat on attributes or gives off tons and tons of magic items was potentially unbalancing other games because the whole idea is that your character just wanders to different adventures. It's why healing times were so long; you weren't supposed to just shrug and fast forward a few months, that player would go "Ok, then while Bigby and Rigby are resting to heal off their wounds, I'm going to play my fighter Digby..." This also ran concurrent with gold as XP. If you had to bring in a level 1 character to a level 5 group, they could actually just pool up a bunch of cash, dump it on you, and power level you up! The main thing to remember is that D&D was a big G Game first, and one that resembled early online games more then anything else, what with the idea of having several "alts" to go with your main character and your friends having other alts and everyone mixing and matching along. The whole "roleplaying" thing came long after the idea. So one balancing mechanism for the wizard was simply that you probably weren't going to be playing it every game. Sometimes you'd bring out your fighter, or your dwarf, or your cleric (but basically never your thief because those were terrible). If you look at the aforementioned Rythlondar (and you should, it loving owns), you see characters kinda move in and out of the action as their players make other characters. Of course, the other balancing mechanism was that wizards had a bunch of annoying poo poo to deal with, like potentially starting off with completely useless spells and never gaining a good spell (randomly rolled treasure!), or being essentially unable to rest inside of dungeons (roll random encounters every ten minutes - and you want to rest 8 hours?)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2015 04:07
|
|
|
FWIW the whole "everyone saves up gold and then just dumps it on the level one character" is something that happened kinda often in Gygax's games. The thing to remember is that there was often a somewhat sizable gap between "what Gygax said to do in his books" and "what Gygax actually did in his ames."
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
MadScientistWorking posted:Don't forget Mearls and someone else at WoTC who actually went out of their way to harass a Paizo employee on Twitter. I missed this. What happened? dwarf74 posted:Going back to this. My goodness, ENWorld has gotten terrible. At least during the 3e/4e edition Wars, you could have a conversation. Now, anything outside "5e is awesome and doing awesome" gets you dogpiled. 5e basically is ENWorld edition. Mearls co-opted a lot of their language, kept their board owner and basically only the board owner in the loop as far as what was going down in 5e (and there's evidence he was leaking poo poo to Morrus before 5e came out in ways he wasn't supposed to), and ENWorld was the only actual forums he posted in during the 5e lead up - inluding not posting in WotC's own forums.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:A friend of mine bought the Monte Cook "City by the Spire" book which was this 640 page omnibus of this gigantic city for adventuring and it was just horrendous. Just pages and pages of minutae about where shops are located, who the shopkeeper is, what they look like, street names, etc. At least 75% of what I saw skimming it was just totally banal stuff that wouldn't even make a guidebook for the average city. Something is very wrong with Monte Cook. Thing is, this is exactly what most 3.x fans want in my experience. For far too many people, minutia and metagaming is what constitutes as "immersion."
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2015 03:11
|
|
|
Now I'm just remembering that "review" Ryan Dancey did of Warhammer Fantasy RPG 2e, based on the first edition which came out long before 3e, and called it a poor man's copy of 3e, and listed flaws such as "doesn't use the d20 engine." And made a chunk of his "review" into just rattling on about how Chris Pramas is when he works at WotC, which was unrelated to everything. And yet somehow didn't mention anything about fate points or insanity rolls or anything else unique in WHFRG, but was sure to point out that it was basically just "humans, elves, dwarfs (sic), and halflings who become more powerful over time as they kill monsters, take their stuff, and power up." It also gave this amazing quote: quote:The question each publisher has to ask themselves when they create an RPG in the post-OGL/D20 world is this: Is my game so much better than an OGL/D20 option that I want to force my customers & players to pay a tax to play that game, and will those people perceive the value I'm offering and voluntarily submit to that taxation? But he swears it was just a neutral review! ProfessorCirno fucked around with this message at 06:55 on Mar 11, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2015 06:53
|
|
|
Plague of Hats posted:Whehuh? He quoted multiple instances of things that existed in the first edition of WHFRG, and then called them out as copying D&D 3e, which came out long after WHFRG's first edition.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2015 06:56
|
|
|
Plague of Hats posted:Truly one of our industry's luminaries. The best thing about Ryan Dancey is that literally nothing he has ever made for a company has gone on to reward that company. He is a plague that people just continue to invite into their houses.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2015 07:06
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:I've played a lot of WHFRP2e, and I don't think 'kill monsters, take their stuff, and power up' has ever described a campaign I've been in. It's usually more 'Jesus christ everything in this world is ridiculous dangerous and we're constantly poor and society thinks we're insane for being adventurers but we've got to save Yon Village anyway because no-one else will.' "If you are looking for more "flavor" material to help you understand the Warhammer Fantasy world, then the first half of this book will be helpful. If you can figure out for yourself why demons, orcs, skaven, dragons, ogres, and vampires are evil and should be killed & looted, you may wonder what you're supposed to do with 65 pages of average or below-average quality, stream of conscious, intentionally error-riddled fiction."
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2015 07:12
|
|
|
Have there been situations where this hobby has interacted with the real world outside it's bubble and didn't come off as a poor joke?bunnielab posted:Doesn't like every game that tries to include real world cultures engage in the sweeping stereotypes and generalizations? Is there any way to use the real word as a game setting that isn't going to piss off someone? I think it largely depends on how respectful it is and how far you go to actually try to engage. The link mentions Assassin's Creed as a positive example; Ubisoft actually hired people on to help them regarding their depictions of Mohawk culture and approached it from the sense of "ok we don't actually know much about this, help us not be blithering assholes," and the end result worked out really well (shame about the actual game though...  ). In this case Monte Cook Games just went full Peter Pan. It's one step away from transcribing "What Made the Red Man Red?"quote:Also, when the hell did kobolds become related to dragons? D&D 3e.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
Quarex posted:You mean through its representation of the real world? I guess I mean more the industry rather then the hobby. Like, have there been many - or any - cases where people deep in this industry suddenly have outside attention put on them and they don't immediately ruin everything?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
bunnielab posted:Exactly, they are fuckin dog-men. Why was that so bad? Because it's dumb and boring, and we already have goblins. "Goblins, BUT THEY USE TRAPS" is a poo poo niche. I like kobolds as dog-lizards who are somehow connected to dragons but nobody is quite sure how.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
I still have a huge soft spot for the rat-lizards who barked of AD&D 2e. Look at this little guy! He's got a scorpion on a stick! He's going to get into so much mischief!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2015 11:33
|
|
|
Splicer posted:I could have sworn that 4E let you play a vampire vampire vampire vampire, but for the life of me I cannot remember where the last vampire comes from. You can play a level 1 zombie zombie vampire vampire vampire werewolf though. I only know vampire vampire vampire. On the other hand, a Revenant (Vryloka) Vampire with Vampiric Heritage with the Avenging Haunt paragon path, the Archliche epic destiny, and the Ghost of the Path theme, is the zombified double ghost of a triple vampire lich. They're ununununununundead!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
One idea I've had is that everyone - enemy and PC - acts simultaniously (outside of maybe a talent for specific situations). It'd probably work best if it was some kinda card based game so everyone would lay their card down and flip it together to see what went down.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
Lichtenstein posted:Draw a hand of X cards. Each suit corresponds to an action type ( I've actually been thinking more about a modern era-ish game built around cheesy 80's action movies or the Far Cry series (absolutely including Blood Dragon). Each player chooses a suit to fit their stereotype (so spades are THE WARRIOR, hearts are THE CHARMER, diamonds are THE TECHIE, clubs are THE SURVIVALIST, that sorta thing). For the DM, the suite they choose for each baddie or group of baddies is who they attack unless they have a special baddie who can do their own abilities on different cards. Each character sheet would have abilities pertaining to cards, so THE TECHIE has disabled all alarms the baddies have if they play a card above 9 (just to make poo poo up off the top of my head), while the DM can only sound the alarms if they play a card above 9 for the SCOUT BADDIE or the TECH BADDIE; the SURVIVALIST can use a clubs card to make a sneak attack and move before everyone else in the fight to take down specific dangerous targets first. Baddies go down in one hit and there isn't an attack roll in proper 80's bloodsoaked fashion, unless they're specific SPECIAL ARMORED GUYS or NAMED ANTAGONISTS. You get the idea. Outside of combat, challenge DCs are set by card number and are geared to specific characters, with the assumption that the character succeeds for everyone; THE CHARMER gets information for everyone by pretending to be an enemy soldier, or maybe just plain talks their way into getting the whole group into the enemy base ("Sorry sir, he don't talk. Lost his tongue in 'Nam.").
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2015 20:43
|
|
Attack, 
Defend, 
Spell/Skill, 
Move). Card value indicates initiative. Everyone chooses a card and reveals it simultenously, details (who do I actually attack) are decided when you act. You can use a card to perform out-of-suit action by not flipping it up, but then you always go last.
|
Refining my ideas further as I saw some flaws immediately while making lunch, what if the suit cards were the actions, and different characters could change the suit? Example: Diamonds 5+: Disable any alarms in the area. If you are incognito or stealthed, it will reveal your team. Clubs 8+: Perform any act while stealthed; you remain stealthed even if this action would break it. THE TECHIE: Any card of any suit may additionally count as Diamonds. So for THE WARRIOR or THE CHARMER, they flat out cannot disable the alarms without alerting the base they're sneaking in. For THE TECHIE however, they can use an 8+ of Clubs to also count as an 8+ of Diamonds, allowing them to stealthily take out the alarms system. This means THE TECHIE is always able to do their technical stuff no matter what hand they have. It also means everyone can sneak in quietly and shoot enemies before they're caught (as any card can be used to make an attack), but THE SURVIVALIST is a master at it and can do other stuff alongside it. On the other side enemies will have abilities. To make up another example: GM: Diamonds 5+: The chosen enemy sounds the alarm! SCOUT: Life [ ] All PC Clubs cards count as one number lower. TECHNICAL: Life [ ] The Technical has favored suit: diamonds. So the Scout makes it harder for the good guys to stealth, and the technical can almost immediately and always sound the alarm once stealth is broken. There would be a number of solutions to this fairly easy set up for most (save the Charmer, who I'm realizing more and more would need more and better "in-fight" stuff), but in a stealth situation, the Survivalist shines. Anyone with a high enough clubs could kill either/or; the Soldier with a high enough clubs could kill both, and the Techie with a high enough clubs could disable the alarm without being caught, but the Survivalist could make any card count as a high enough Clubs, allowing them to copy Soldier or Techie. ProfessorCirno fucked around with this message at 21:19 on Mar 16, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:That's an interesting idea, but I think you'd have to have a lot of cards covering "basic" actions. There'd be a lot of predicting actions when designing. I think for the most part the only actions that would need to be covered would be stuff that happens under stress, AKA when enemies are about. Set a few basic obstacles (like the aforementioned alarms) and actions to clear them. Outside of that a basic guideline of example DCs should cover most stuff. The main issue I think would be coming up with the stereotypes. I made those four off the top of my head but I already see two issues; the Charmer doesn't have much to do in a fight, and the Soldier wouldn't have much to do outside of a fight.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
bunnielab posted:Not being a jerk but how are cards a batter way to involve randomness then dice? Just new a different? My three main thoughts: at least for my system you would have a hand of cards to choose from; cards have two "sets" already (number snd suit); most people have a deck of plaging cards.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
FAU is our Kelly
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 00:31
|
|
|
MadScientistWorking posted:It never is not amusing seeing people fall for FAU's antics. ProfessorCirno posted:FAU is our Kelly I mean I literally tried to say so at the top of this page.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 03:18
|
|
|
This industry is amazing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
Ettin posted:Take it to the industry thread, please! Somebody fucked around with this message at 09:59 on Mar 18, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2015 04:23
|
|
|
Serf posted:It's a shame that PA has gone to poo poo recently because they are still doing D&D games once a year at PAX and using 5E but I won't touch any of that with a ten-foot-pole anymore. As I understand the general quality of their D&D games has fallen downhill as well.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
To be fair the whole "higher levels you become the Lord" thing fits a lot of games I like so I'm all for it. Gimmie that Suikoden ttg.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
BrainParasite posted:I looked into this. It's pretty clear Raggi linked Varg's video because it's weird to see a hardcore racist/murderer talk about D&D. "[H]e really doesn't sound any different than anyone else around here." Raggi is mostly just kinda dumb, attention hungry, and a bit creepy. The bar for how terrible this hobby can be has sadly risen since people last paid active attention to him.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 11:47
|
|
|
CAH is like half actual hilarious potential card combos, half terribly bigotry. gently caress racist humor, I'm in it for the bleak humor. But that latter half just keeps poppin' up, ruining the game! Like I've had fun with CAH with friends, but that doesn't mean we wouldn't have way more fun with half those cards gone or replaced. Or playing other games to be honest, because most of the fun in CAH comes from "being with friends," not from the game itself.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 04:29 |
|
|
Lord Frisk posted:hey everybody, shut up and tell me what cocktail to make next. I have: gin, whiskey, bourbon, vodka, white rum, dry & sweet vermouth, soda and lemons. Take the whiskey, the vodka, the soda, and the lemons. Pour the whiskey in a chilled glass. Put away the soda and the lemons. Put the glass of whiskey down. Drink the vodka directly from the bottle. Proceed to cry.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2015 03:06
|
|