Quote from: Will;801319You are still not answering me about 3e. I assume the answer is 'little/none'?

Enough.

QuoteSo for 13 years, the published version of D&D, the biggest, most influential roleplaying game in the world was exactly what you are saying is inconsequential.

Thats actually not what I said was inconsequential, but I'm fine with saying that now in regards to this conversation, not the goal-post shifting irrelevance of the game's sales or influence.

What I'm seeing here is a trend: you, Will, do not roleplay currently, but even when you did, you did not play old school, the style that is not only the most popular on this board, but is also currently what the "biggest, most influential roleplaying game in the world" was forced to turn back to after the failure of taking the type of play that you're arguing to its logical extremes. It created the OSR out of a necessity for people who actually wanted to roleplay, and not engage in math theory or min-maxing. As such you are arguing in this and other threads from a PoV on game design and an approach to playing games that is not shared by the majority, and in particular is one that rejects imagination and creativity for mathematical acumen. I'm not going to tell you you're wrong for (not) playing that way, but there's no reason for you to expect any poster here to meet you on those terms. The good news is, the net is full of forums where your style of play is not only preferred but vigorously pursued and argued. I know, because a number of them have come here to troll, and just by the general wailing and gnashing of teeth in other places over 5th edition.

Quote from: TristramEvans;801336What I'm seeing here is a trend: you, Will, do not roleplay currently, but even when you did, you did not play old school, the style that is not only the most popular on this board, but is also currently what the "biggest, most influential roleplaying game in the world" was forced to turn back to after the failure of taking the type of play that you're arguing to its logical extremes. It created the OSR out of a necessity for people who actually wanted to roleplay, and not engage in math theory or min-maxing.

  Two problems with the "Triumphant Victory of the OSR Over Theorycrafters/Bitter Non Gamers/New Schoolers" narrative, despite how hard the Pundit wants to push it (any news on how "My Struggle Against the Swine" is coming? ).

  1. 5E's got swift healing, no XP for treasure (unless that's an option in the DMG), Inspiration and Plot Point options and other things that don't look very 'old school'. It might be more old-school-friendly, but it's not "thou shalt play the True Way of Demogygax or be cast forth into the Storygaming/Theorycrafting Darkness!".
  2. Pathfinder is still going strong, and while it's arguably more Old School than 4E, it's also doubled down on many of the things the OSR detests.

Quote from: One Horse Town;801329Who fucking cares. Some people have low thresholds for being a little baby, while others just play their character.

As we've seen elsewhere, a lot of people here don't actually play the games they talk about every day on this forum.

QuoteOh, i forgot in all the excitement, this thread has fuck all to do with gaming and more to do with being bored at work.

Work? A lot of them don't seem to have jobs either. Which is why they post all day, just about every hour on the hour.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;801338Two problems with the "Triumphant Victory of the OSR Over Theorycrafters/Bitter Non Gamers/New Schoolers" narrative, despite how hard the Pundit wants to push it (any news on how "My Struggle Against the Swine" is coming? ).

  1. 5E's got swift healing, no XP for treasure (unless that's an option in the DMG), Inspiration and Plot Point options and other things that don't look very 'old school'. It might be more old-school-friendly, but it's not "thou shalt play the True Way of Demogygax or be cast forth into the Storygaming/Theorycrafting Darkness!".
  2. Pathfinder is still going strong, and while it's arguably more Old School than 4E, it's also doubled down on many of the things the OSR detests.

Oh, Im not saying 5e is perfect, or even the Edition that will end the OSR! just that its been at least recognized on a corporate level that the min-maxing style of play is not sustainable in and of itself. My point overall was more about this foruum and the incongruity between Will's arguments and the completely incompatible style of play the posts hes trying to debate are engaging.

Since people have short memories (not a complaint, this is a game forum, not a business) and tend to typecast whomever they are talking to based on whatever their immediate discussion is...

I generally favor system light, qualitative games where a lot of numbery fiddly details don't come up much. My favorite gaming was in BRP CoC, with random generation of stuff. I like Fate (I don't love it, but I like it), Dungeon World, and Risus.

It strikes me that this and related topics end up really being edition wars. It'd also be helpful, perhaps, to preface what scope/edition you are engaging.

I've been careful to pick at problems specific to 3e (and, I THINK, 4e), and I think when people are used to OSR or other games and don't understand why people shy from randomness, it's because you are crossing editions.

I've attempted to explain, previously, why randomness can be a problem in 3e.

Feel free to point out why randomness is not a problem in specific other editions, and why.


It's not a fair complaint to say 'why are these people sweating small differences' when you aren't taking into account what games they play.

Quote from: Will;801341Since people have short memories (not a complaint, this is a game forum, not a business) and tend to typecast whomever they are talking to based on whatever their immediate discussion is...

I generally favor system light, qualitative games where a lot of numbery fiddly details don't come up much. My favorite gaming was in BRP CoC, with random generation of stuff. I like Fate (I don't love it, but I like it), Dungeon World, and Risus.

It strikes me that this and related topics end up really being edition wars. It'd also be helpful, perhaps, to preface what scope/edition you are engaging.

I've been careful to pick at problems specific to 3e (and, I THINK, 4e), and I think when people are used to OSR or other games and don't understand why people shy from randomness, it's because you are crossing editions.

I've attempted to explain, previously, why randomness can be a problem in 3e.

Feel free to point out why randomness is not a problem in specific other editions, and why.


It's not a fair complaint to say 'why are these people sweating small differences' when you aren't taking into account what games they play.

Whatever your preference is, I'm taking into account solely the arguments you're making.

Quote from: TristramEvans;801343Whatever your preference is, I'm taking into account solely the arguments you're making.

You are solely focusing on my arguments and not my preferences?

From an hour ago:

Quote from: TristramEvans;801336What I'm seeing here is a trend: you, Will, do not roleplay currently, but even when you did, you did not play old school, the style that is not only the most popular on this board, but is also currently what the "biggest, most influential roleplaying game in the world" was forced to turn back to after the failure of taking the type of play that you're arguing to its logical extremes. It created the OSR out of a necessity for people who actually wanted to roleplay, and not engage in math theory or min-maxing. As such you are arguing in this and other threads from a PoV on game design and an approach to playing games that is not shared by the majority, and in particular is one that rejects imagination and creativity for mathematical acumen. I'm not going to tell you you're wrong for (not) playing that way, but there's no reason for you to expect any poster here to meet you on those terms. The good news is, the net is full of forums where your style of play is not only preferred but vigorously pursued and argued. I know, because a number of them have come here to troll, and just by the general wailing and gnashing of teeth in other places over 5th edition.

Quote from: TristramEvans;801174If the game's not fun, I'd blame the GM not the stats

HERETIC OUTCAST UNCLEAN!!!

Marinate the Jesuit!  Marinate the Jesuit!

Quote from: TristramEvans;801257If a player feels useless its because they're acting useless.

Precisely.  See my post about my Jedi.  Worst stats, most awesome in play.

Quote from: Will;801261I disagree.

42 years of gaming tells me he's right.  If a player wants to be badass then they should act badass.

And I've also noticed that whiny players who bitch about somebody having a +1 they don't bitch about everything else as well.

I'm with Sacro here.  In 42 years of gaming it's never been a problem for me apart from players who were fucking crybabies in other ways too.

Of course, somebody on this site once told me that I wasn't really having fun in WW2 miniatures gaming because my Shermans were nowhere near the equal of a Panther.

So, what are folks actual experiences, preferences, games they haven't played?


Given the topic, one game where randomness never bothered me was Call of Cthulhu. For one thing, unfair results seem very emulative of Victorian Horror! For another, Cthulhu eats 1d6 Investigators per round -- when the highs and lows don't matter terribly much, eh, whatever.

Old Geezer:
30 years of gaming tells me players and GMs matter... but system has a big impact.


And, for what it's worth, my experiences have lead me to conclude I should avoid the systems where it has a big impact. Not just because of this, but because of other issues -- trying to fine tune encounters to be 'right' for a given party is just annoying.

Quote from: Will;801271If you are facing enemies that are tuned for characters of a certain power level, being significantly behind the curve with other characters can make you useless.

Two melee types, one with a +20 to hit, another with a +15. They face an enemy with AC 35. First guy is hitting 30% of the time, the other is hitting 5% of the time.

How is that going to look? How is that going to feel?

Be innovative all you want, when everything is incredibly hard for you to do compared to other folks and you have to play third string, at best?

Unless you are playing a story-oriented game where dice don't come up a lot...

Ok, maybe some of you have no problem playing the spear carrier.

I've been in games where people have said 'oh, hey, just go with the flow, we'll make it work' and it's been incredibly frustrating. Maybe I'm just a terrible person.

)

Maybe you need to stop playing shitty rules sets.

I don't know what game you're quoting in your above example, but I wouldn't play it.  If random rolls can give you a character that is genuinely useless, the fucking game system needs fixing.

Remember, I'm the guy who thinks Star Wars d20 stinks worse than three feet up Jabba the Hutt's ass.  (Many Bothans died to bring us this information.)  I also explicitly deny that later games are necessarily better than earlier ones.  If your example above is from a real game, and I have no reason to doubt it is, I'll stick with OD&D, thank you.

Quote from: TristramEvans;801264OK, but its still true. A person can have no bonuses to any stats and still make themselves incredibly useful in any situation if they chose. The limitation of being "useless" in comparison to some other player character only makes sense if one doesn't see the game beyond a set of predetermined actions, like a videogame. The lack of a comparitive stat bonus doesn't prevent a player from being clever or innovative, and that counts for 1000x more than the ability to swing a sword or cast a spell. So if a player is sitting around pouting because they cant hit things as good as Fred the Barbarian, that's in effect a self-fulfilling prophecy.

That applies as much to real life as RPGs.

But... but... but... PWECIOUS SNOWFWAKE!!!

Quote from: Will;801341Since people have short memories (not a complaint, this is a game forum, not a business) and tend to typecast whomever they are talking to based on whatever their immediate discussion is...

I generally favor system light, qualitative games where a lot of numbery fiddly details don't come up much. My favorite gaming was in BRP CoC, with random generation of stuff. I like Fate (I don't love it, but I like it), Dungeon World, and Risus.

It strikes me that this and related topics end up really being edition wars. It'd also be helpful, perhaps, to preface what scope/edition you are engaging.

I've been careful to pick at problems specific to 3e (and, I THINK, 4e), and I think when people are used to OSR or other games and don't understand why people shy from randomness, it's because you are crossing editions.

I've attempted to explain, previously, why randomness can be a problem in 3e.

Feel free to point out why randomness is not a problem in specific other editions, and why.


It's not a fair complaint to say 'why are these people sweating small differences' when you aren't taking into account what games they play.

While I can acknowledge that from a certain point of view the random generation of stats and starting wealth, and possibly treasure and dungeons and encounters, does look to be starkly at odds with the 12-13 encounters of a CR equal to the party level assumption that is in 3e, 3.5, and PF.
However, to argue that because 3e and later 4e and even later 5e, use a CR system as a numeric classification of how difficult a specific monster or trap is, and then give at the least a small handful of pages explaining what the CRs mean and how to distribute encounters, that the unequal and random distribution of stats is somehow at odds with what is essentially, depending which specific game, a more or less clearer way of assigning experience points for the defeat of monsters and other trials. The CR system is just a more concrete way of saying roughly how dangerous a monsters is beyond hit dice with a number of pluses and asterisks. I have a small handful of WotC 3e/3.5 modules and they look horribly brutal, EL 8 encounters in a module for 3rd level characters that the PCs can't leave the dungeon once they enter.

The 3e DMG also has a table that shows just how many encounters of what EL/CR relative to the expected part level, which includes encounters 5 or more level higher. 3e also used average stats for the vast majority of its monsters, ie straight 10's modified by racial modifiers. And since this was a mass market game, the statistically average PC with rolled stats has what, 12's and 13's for stats, but if you really want, we could just unilaterally declare all PCs to have 13's plus racial modifiers, and it still wouldn't matter with the CR system. I've seen players tear through encounters of their level like they were nothing, and I've watched bad luck tear through PCs with similar encounters. Obviously random chance will then have to be removed. Now all PCs and monsters don't roll HP, or attacks, or skills, or damage. Because that is roughly what the expectation of the CR system is, that generally a group can do x number of encounters of a particular level before needing to retreat and rest. So either you accept that by playing a game with dice in it, things will not always fit the average expectation, or you play a game with different expectations. I mean I've had single players at 1st level kill monsters with CRs 3 level higher with one or two lucky hits and take no damage, but I've also done that same to PCs.