|
doesn't Traveller assume space combat is done with Newtonian physics?
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2018 10:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 08:28 |
|
|
Twitter thread on running a TG business, from AFAIK the guy who did Baby Bestiary: https://twitter.com/MetalWeaveGames/status/967013937920258050
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2018 17:32
|
|
|
moths posted:Is it weird that there's a Tumblr consisting of nothing but unreasonable attacks on tos over this issue? That seems weird to me. Chapo Trap House got accused of being ableist for not having podcast transcripts. It happens.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2018 19:23
|
|
|
Captain Rufus posted:Most game companies don't survive things like Age of Sigmar's launch year or 4th ed DnD. (yes y'all here adore it. Many did not for good or ill.) Every edition of D&D has always been the most successful edition of D&D that's been released, up to that point.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2018 05:51
|
|
|
Terrible Opinions posted:Except Essentials if you count it. The fact that we have to qualify that statement with an "if you count it" is also why that statement is true, yes 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2018 05:59
|
|
|
I actually wouldn't put it past AD&D 2e to not have maintained that pattern, not only because of the timing of AD&D 1e, but also because it was contemporary with BECMI and the Rules Cyclopedia. If I recall correctly they killed off that game line because it was still relatively (if not more) popular, but then it was the AD&D line that cut Arneson out of the royalties.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2018 08:15
|
|
|
RPG box sets are cool - store the full rules (because of course your game isn't more than 50 pages or so), a fold-out map, some dice, minis, and an adventure. Sell it right next to Monopoly Black Panther Edition.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2018 15:03
|
|
|
JesterOfAmerica posted:What about gumshoe? I would kill a man for a Dungeon Fantasy hack of GUMSHOE
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2018 18:53
|
|
|
slap me and kiss me posted:Think it'll have a Warlord? PF1* never even had the Marshal. The Warlord would be completely out of the question. _______ * how grand that I am writing that acronym now
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2018 04:23
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:I seem to recall hit points were invented for naval simulation war games, where they represented large ships getting hit with cannonballs. A big boat could remain quite capable of combat under sustained punishment until it finally capsized. When the rules were adapted for leisure instead of training, they ported the mechanics over without caring much about realism, down through Chainmail's more expensive ancestors and into video games. I couldn't tell the precise pedigree, but this also applies to miniatures wargaming: you have a stand of six footmen miniatures, and you roll d6 to attack, and any 6's are considered "hits", and a "hit" removes a single miniature from the formation. OD&D called it "accumulative hits", which meant that a single character could take more than one "hit". It didn't get translated into "hit points" until some time later when people figured that that was a better way to describe the relationship between "hits" and damage. Thanlis posted:Not any risk of me drowning out the Pathfinder 2 glee, right? Good. Thanks for this! I am extremely excited about it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2018 04:51
|
|
|
DalaranJ posted:The action economy changes in general seem pretty drastic. The action economy changes already exist: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/unchained-rules/unchained-action-economy/ Every character gets 3 "Acts", and doing things costs 1, 2, or 3 Acts, with most things costing 1 Act
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2018 03:09
|
|
|
DalaranJ posted:How much did PF1 change in playtest? Did they actually change the design at all? I feel like this deserves a longer write-up, but I do have a copy of the original Pathfinder Alpha playtest, and as a quick example: * The Fighter does not yet have Bravery in the playtest * The Bonus Feats ability in the playtest does not have the clause that allows the Fighter to trade them out * Armor Training in the playtest gave the Fighter a +1 armor bonus to AC, and a -1 reduction of the armor check penalty. More armor training let you select a new armor type to gain this bonus in, but you could select the same armor type multiple times (why wouldn't you?) to gain the bonus multiple times, for a total of +4 armor bonus to AC and a -4 reduction in the armor check penalty. In comparison, the Core Fighter's Armor training reduces the reduces the armor check penalty and increases the maximum allowed Dex bonus. * Weapon Training in the playtest gave the Fighter a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls with a selected weapon group. You could select the same weapon group multiple times to get the bonus again, for a total of +4 if you kept picking the same weapon. In comparison, the Core Fighter's Weapon Training always makes you pick a new group, but the old group has its bonus increased by one, so you'd have one group at +4, a second group at +3, a third group at +2, and a fourth group at +1. As well, the bonus would apply to Combat Maneuver checks made while using these weapons. * In the playtest, Armor Mastery, a level 19 ability, gave the Fighter DR 10/- while wearing a specific selected armor type. In Core, Armor Mastery gives the Fighter DR 5/- as long as they're wearing any kind of armor. * Weapon Mastery was unchanged from playtest to Core: The Fighter selects any one weapon, and any critical threats made using that weapon are automatically confirmed, and the critical damage multiplier is increased by 1, and the Fighter cannot be disarmed from that weapon. This is a level 20 ability.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2018 04:49
|
|
|
DalaranJ posted:The thing that alarmed me the most is that it effectively gives monsters the ability to attack twice at 1st level. (Technically 3 times, but a -10 is so bad as to be ignorable at 1st, I think.) I don't know how much (or less) they're going to change things for PF2, but at least as far as the PF1 Unchained version goes: Yes, you're correct that this allows all characters to do a two-to-three attack multi-attack at level 1. It's arguably a large buff to monsters and a nerf to martials, since now every class can attack the maximum number of times (thrice), and martials lose their fourth attack at +16 BAB and beyond. Another distortion is that classes that rely heavily on Swift Actions, such as Investigators, tend to lose under this model because formerly Swift Actions always cost 1 Act. In the few discussions I've seen about these rules, people tend to side towards needing to "recreate" Swift Actions anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2018 08:53
|
|
|
if the idea is that Linear Fighters Quadratic Wizards will never be "solved" by DnD because any game that doesn't have Vancian casting, doesn't limit Fighters to terrestrial capabilities, and doesn't have arcane spells with universally-useful effects is by definition not DnD, that's only tautological in that you're using an excessively narrow definition of what DnD is. (and it falls into trap of believing the talking point of 4e as a major departure from "what DnD is", as opposed to a thoughtful iteration of 3.5 meant to address specific issues and yield specific outcomes)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2018 02:24
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:What I don't understand is when was the action economy in D&D a huge problem? Both 5e and PF 2 are making shows of being strict about it but even in 3.x, barring "bag of rats" silliness it wasn't a major issue. The problem is mostly around the long lists of classifications as to what counts as which kind of action. For example, the 5 foot step counts as "not an action", except only if you haven't already moved.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2018 05:00
|
|
|
counterspin posted:I just find it hilarious that PF continued to be a thing after 5e. Why bother? because 5e was made to pander to customers allegedly lost by 4e that switched to PF, so sticking to PF shows that they're not sellouts nor rubes
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2018 06:26
|
|
|
quote:ALWAYS AVAILABLE ABILITIES Are you telling me that 4e would have been better had the abilities been written out like this?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2018 09:24
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Where did you get the idea that 4e was the best selling edition of D&D at the time? 1. the number of DnD Insider subscribers, which was a publicly known figure, would have blown any sort of competition out of the water. 2. Pathfinder finally tying with 4e coincided with 4e Essentials, which pissed off people who already liked 4e as it was and didn't appreciate Mike Mearls doing a 180 on the design, which didn't win back any of the grogs that hated 4e for groggy reasons, and which scared off retailers because of a feared repeat of the 3.0-to-3.5 kerfuffle
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2018 10:29
|
|
|
someone who wanted a simple Fighter in 4e could have taken nothing but the "hit dude for damage" powers. That was an explicit goal of the design and a deliberate decision to include those powers.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2018 01:53
|
|
|
I think it's also the case that when you pick a "low skill, low ceiling" character in DOTA 2, you're only playing that character for anywhere between 20 to 60 minutes. As you get better with the game, you can easily transition to a "better" character*. This is different in TTRPGs where there's this ugly and unpleasant trend of only playing the same character over weeks or even months, such that even after you're more comfortable with the game's mechanics, you're still playing a Fighter. The idea of a "beginner class" would be a lot more palatable if every game had a clause that allowed you to remake your entire character with zero restrictions after half-a-dozen hours of play or something. ________ * setting aside the fact that a lot of DOTA 2 characters are good enough to be played at the highest competitive levels, and that there's an order of magnitude more characters than there are classes.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2018 03:50
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:Isn't the entire selling point of 13th Age is that it's D&D without a grid? That's not "the best D&D" that's "a perfectly nice game that lacks one of the few both defining and positive traits of every version of D&D." Insofar as every Captain Insano that ever pooh-poohed 4e did so because they bitched and whined about how they were now forced to use a grid as opposed to being able to play 3.5 for years without it (loving God knows how), for 13th Age to not require a grid is still Mission goddamn Accomplished
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2018 03:53
|
|
|
TSR-era D&D did not "mandate" the use of a grid insofar as tactical combat didn't require it, and non-combat movement could be done with wargame-type ruled measurements. Dungeon maps tended to be gridded regardless because it was easier that way, but when Fireball says 10' radius, you could also use a ruler to determine that, and it's even a Murphy's rule that a Fireball become huge the moment you step outside the dungeon because the inch-conversion changes. When you got to 3rd Edition D&D, the grid became inescapable. That Old Tree posted:Did 3.0 even "mandate" you use a grid? Didn't it just give up the fiction that the rules weren't absolutely built around gridded/mapped combat? From specifically the 3.0 PHB:  that's Page 6. Now, every time this comes up, it's usually rebutted that it's only a "nice to have", especially compared to the language used by the 3.5 PHB:  that's Page 4 of the 3.5 PHB but to think that it's optional is ludicrous given the examples of combat given in the game:  page 116 of the 3.0 PHB  page 122 of the 3.0 PHB  page 123 of the 3.0 PHB I'm not going to comment on whether "grids" or "gridded combat" has "always" been a part of D&D, but: 1. grids and gridded combat was undoubtedly a part of 3rd Edition D&D 2. arguments by grogs about how 4e was the "first time" that grids and gridded combat was forced upon them are disingenuous ones 3. for 13th Age to not have grids is still thematically correct in the context of the game being some sort of "compromise candidate" in the post-4e era
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2018 05:56
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:It really is hard to state just how much 3e changed poo poo while pretending otherwise. It absolutely was not "AD&D 3e." It was absolutely it's own new game. Zerilan posted:Just changing rounds from 1 minute to 6 seconds was a bigger conceptual change to combat than anything any other edition did to combat imo. A lot, and I mean a lot of what we'd come to know of 3rd Edition combat was adapted from AD&D 2e's Combat & Tactics. That probably didn't make the medicine go down any better if it wasn't a widely circulated/played/used book, but it was all there if you looked for it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2018 06:03
|
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:D&D should go back to its wargaming roots A wargame about setting up and maintaining a logistics train from the town to the wilderness to a dungeon's FEBA would unironically own. You'd start with caravans and caravan guards, then move to mule trains as you get to rougher terrain, then porters and torchbearers inside the dungeon itself. Moving through the dungeon costs food and water points, with more being consumed as the adventurers engage in fights. Hope you don't run out of a stockpile or else that [X] 4-3 Fighter counter is going to be flipped to its (0)-2 depleted side!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2018 08:18
|
|
|
Thranguy posted:Wake me up when we get to 9th edition, which will pretty much just be 4th edition on a hex grid. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/hexGrid.htm 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2018 09:25
|
|
|
I started an AD&D campaign in TYOOL 2016 but every few weeks I'd let the other players run something else, with them as the GM, to break up the monotony. After doing V:TM 20th Anniversary and Tenra Bansho Zero, we ditched AD&D entirely.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2018 06:41
|
|
|
Pieces of Peace posted:(Also, don't blame John Rogers for Catwoman or The Core, those were lovely re-writes and he still owns up to them.) I enjoyed The Core. I think most of the knocks against it were about the "bad science", but the action and drama wasn't that bad.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2018 03:36
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:Someone really needs to let GMS know that there are plenty more varieties of fruit besides sour grapes.  
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2018 09:54
|
|
|
Serf posted:clearly you make a d&d movie with guns I too enjoyed Antoine Fuqua's The Magnificent Six remake
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2018 12:50
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:...no? pretty sure ARB is taking the piss
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2018 15:43
|
|
|
DalaranJ posted:It’s one better than a dragon. Eungeons and Eragons is tabletop Warhammer Online for babbies
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2018 15:58
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/HillaryMonahan/status/974439081479491585 looks like we're not the only ones seeing that STOP policy as hosed up and bullshit
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2018 14:48
|
|
|
Enola Gay-For-Pay posted:What the gently caress is even an "attack against the company?" Like, outside of this context or the lobby scene from the Matrix, what does attacking a company even loving look like? Saying mean things online? What this effectively means is that the company cares more about what a case will do in terms of external press and public perception about the company. To pull what's probably a clumsy analogy, Larry Nassar was reported to college authorities over a hundred times for sexual abuse and harassment, and yet authorities never did anything because they didn't want to stain the name of the school with a sex scandal. Because if your company is organized around making a profit, and then you get embroiled in something that might damage your company's ability to make that profit, then you can be motivated in a way that prioritizes the protection of the company over the victim of a case.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2018 04:18
|
|
|
Exemplars & Eidolons is a booklet, but then that's because it was specifically written to be a case study in replicating the layout of OD&D
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2018 18:57
|
|
|
Kevin Crawford's comment on that post posted:I can confirm a significant sales boost when POD releases are simultaneous with PDF, as compared to getting the POD up a week or two later. With some of my early products, I impatiently put up the PDF before the POD proof had cleared; sales there took a noticeable hit compared to simultaneous releases.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2018 09:04
|
|
|
JackMann posted:Apropos of nothing, I vaguely remember a game designer once had a tone deaf suggestion of using the inner city as the setting for a dungeon crawl. I want to say this was from something in the 90's. Does anyone else remember this, or am I going crazy? No, you're not hallucinating. That was either Stephen or Davis Chenault, of Castles & Crusades, suggesting that one might do "modern dungeon crawls" in urban poor areas. I believe they caught a ban from rpg.net for that.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2018 05:28
|
|
|
Serf posted:wouldn't it be more accurate if the dungeon crawl took place in a gated community or private billionaire island or some poo poo? they would actually have things to take, private security and traps and they'd be full of weird, alien monsters You know what has labyrinthine corridors, multiple levels, lots of esoteric equipment to plunder, and a hierarchical organization of monsters? The Pentagon That's my new SOTDL hack: Shadows of the Defense Lanyards
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2018 14:26
|
|
|
TBH it had occurred to me that making an entire game from scratch, and then having people write hacks of a game that didn't exist yet was necessarily going to take a long-rear end time and would involve even more "creator miscellaneous peril" because of the more-than-usual amount of time that it would require for someone to be alive and healthy and capable of writing. I didn't even think about the compensation part - I thought we were lucky to get even some of the BITD hacks that we've already gotten.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2018 17:09
|
|
|
   
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2018 06:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 08:28 |
|
|
That Old Tree posted:Why did Pundit turn so hard against Mearls and Crawford? I don't remember either of them having the guts to publicly regret throwing Pundit some pity relevancy. Did they just not genuflect enough for his tastes? There is no reasoning with these people. Pundit's politics (as are most reactionaries) is based on resentment, and there was never going to be a situation where WOTC hires him and he "backs down" and throws his support behind the product - the fact that they did allow him to attach his name to D&D only gives him more reason to push all the harder, because why stop at an inch if they already gave you the inch?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2018 06:59
|
|