Quote from: Declan MacManus;498765Because making players roll their attacks is more engaging than waiting for the DM to tell you whether or not your spell worked.

Besides, savings throws as an effect duration tracker was one of the good ideas that 4E had.

Instead, why don't we get rid of "until the start of your next turn" effects and simply end things on a save.

Saving throws are too much of a legacy issue to remove.  You can still use saving throws as a duration tracker even with 3e-style saving throws.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;498532They made a game for you. It's called Gurps.

Wait, do they still make that?

Oh dear me no, the game you're thinking of is The Fantasy Trip and they don't make it anymore.  A bit simplistic and narrow for my tastes but it did have a certain compelling elegance.

GURPS is closer to my liking, though it's far too idealistic in its blatant trust of players to make characters that are even remotely functional and fourth edition actually went and kept all the cruft that had been grafted on over the years making it a brutally messy thing to keep in line.  Imagine the mess D&D 4e would be if had grandfathered in all the second edition "Complete Book of..." splats all the Players Option books and all the Third edition splats.  Well, GURPS 4e did just that, keeping additive power modifiers and maneuvers and so many other cludgy little things.

But no I'm primarily a Rolemaster Standard System guy.  All the advantages of D&D and GURPS with none of the drawbacks.  Sure it's got its own drawbacks but whatareygonnado?

On the other hand I suspect you agree with my basic point which is essentially that turning D&D into TFT would not improve its place in the market place.

Quote from: David Johansen;498904On the other hand I suspect you agree with my basic point which is essentially that turning D&D into TFT would not improve its place in the market place.

Well, yes. But then I have no idea what really sells. Like you, I just know what I like.

True enough but no matter how big a TFT fan you are I bet you wouldn't want D&D to turn into GURPS at any rate.

I own piles of rulebooks from pretty much every edition (OD&D, AD&D, 2E, 3E, 4E) and I'm not a rules junkie. I enjoy OD&D as my main default. Why? Because I feel like more lists of what you can do ends up being lists of things that players can't do, or things that players won't try.

I like the concept of 4E in many ways, but wish that they had kept things simple. Oh, folks are always telling me how simple 4E is, but what they mean is that it's easy to learn if you've never played a RPG before. My concept of simple is a system where I can run a game with minimal effort, which means no lengthy NPC skill lists, no giganto monster stat blocks, and the like. I feel like many of the good things in 4E got lost in the madness of so many powers, each with lengthy explaination of how to use them. I see this as complex. I once took a PDF of the Player's Handbook and copied all of the powers for levels 1-10 and only the four key classes (fighter, wizard, cleric, thief) into a Word doc and it was 40 pages. Seriously?

My players love 4E. It has lots of options and lots of cool things that players can do. 4E has cool races, neat classes, dazzling choices. It also has lengthy and sometimes boring battles. As a player it's a neat game, but as a GM I don't enjoy running the thing.

Essentials was a step in the right direction, although if you add up the page counts in the five main rulebooks I own (rules compendium, GM book, Monster Vault, Fallen Lands, and Forgotten Kingdoms) it still tops 1600 pages. As a non rules-lawyer type, that is just plain crazy.

I'm hoping that 5E takes the good parts of all of the editions and puts them together. Give me a page count around 1/4 of Essentials. Give me short monster stat blocks. Make it easy for me to create NPCs. If they can do that I really don't care so much if the go back to old saving throws, use AC that goes up or down, or many of the other points that folks want to argue over.

Just my two cents.

Quote from: finarvyn;498946Because I feel like more lists of what you can do ends up being lists of things that players can't do, or things that players won't try.

This is my biggest contention against 4e.  That adding another power to a character does not give more options, but distracts from the infinite choices that table top games provides.  It is the greatest strength that this type of game provides and I hope they play up to it in 5e.

I cannot understand how people can say pre-4e fighters were boring or lacking options.  How limited can full access to your imagination be?

Quote from: finarvyn;498946I'm hoping that 5E takes the good parts of all of the editions and puts them together. Give me a page count around 1/4 of Essentials. Give me short monster stat blocks. Make it easy for me to create NPCs. If they can do that I really don't care so much if the go back to old saving throws, use AC that goes up or down, or many of the other points that folks want to argue over.

I agree and believe most gamers would too.  I also believe that Mr. Mearls and Mr. Cook are trying to do just that.

Rather than take the 4e approach of "everything is core", 5e should proclaim "everything is optional".

Quote from: finarvyn;498946It has lots of options and lots of cool things that players can do.

When I first read through 4e, my main concern were the powers.  If a power gave the ability for a character to trip an opponent does that mean that a character can only trip an opponent by using that power?

If I allow someone without the power the chance to trip an opponent, will there be complaints from a player that has spent one of their few power options on tripping?

If the tripping example doesn't work, exchange it with the Rogue's ability to blind opponents.

Quote from: Rum Cove;498957I cannot understand how people can say pre-4e fighters were boring or lacking options.  How limited can full access to your imagination be?

You can roleplay the conversation with the NPC as much as you want, as soon as the GM says 'Make a Diplomacy check', you're screwed.

You can describe your combat manoeuvres in as much cool detail as you want, as soon as the monster teleports away or levitates, you're screwed.

You can describe your character's fierce bravery in the face of the evil archmage as much as you want, as soon as you have to save vs charm, you're screwed.

Etcetera

Quote from: Rum Cove;498960When I first read through 4e, my main concern were the powers.  If a power gave the ability for a character to trip an opponent does that mean that a character can only trip an opponent by using that power?

If I allow someone without the power the chance to trip an opponent, will there be complaints from a player that has spent one of their few power options on tripping?

If the tripping example doesn't work, exchange it with the Rogue's ability to blind opponents.

The answer to this is page 42. PCs can always try combat manoeuvres like this, it's just not quite as good as having a specific power.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;498814The procedure might be the same, but the end result is what matters. That is where your variety should come from, rather than disparate and counter-intuitive procedures.

Intellectually, I know that every action in an RPG, for it to be perfect, should be resolved using d100. That's the simplest, most perfect unified mechanic. It is intuitive and appropriate for everything.

However, regardless of what I 'should' prefer, I find that using varied procedures produces a sense of pleasure, and that varied activities that use varied procedures are more memorable than varied activities with identical procedures. These senses of pleasure are unique to me - but why shouldn't I customize the game to provide me the greatest sense of pleasure? It's going to be my game, after all. I'm not going to publish it, so it's of little interest to anyone else, and I'm the one who, as referee, is going to be dealing with the rules - players can always just ignore them and tell me what they're doing, if they so choose. I'm talking about it on a forum to gather opinions and absorb other people's thinking on what good procedures might be, and where they're best implemented. Hence this thread.

So, rather than trying to force myself into using what 'should' give me pleasure, but doesn't, I'll try to come up with a differentiated set of procedures appropriate and intuitive for the activities they regulate.

The difficulty will be determining the number and application of such procedures. I know from experience that a single procedure simply doesn't work for me. I'll get tired of it, and everything, regardless of the patter that goes with it, will start to have a boring sameness. Then again, complex and counter-intuitive doesn't do it for me either.

Luckily, 'multiple' doesn't necessarily mean 'complex' or 'counter-intuitive'. There's more than one simple way of resolving an action. And, perhaps, more than one intuitive way of resolving an action.

Quote from: Kaldric;498971Intellectually, I know that every action in an RPG, for it to be perfect, should be resolved using d100. That's the simplest, most perfect unified mechanic. It is intuitive and appropriate for everything.

Side note, but related: Have you seen the Mythic GM Emulator?

Quote from: soviet;498968You can roleplay the conversation with the NPC as much as you want, as soon as the GM says 'Make a Diplomacy check', you're screwed.

I fail to see how this situation is unique to the Fighter, so I'll skip this one.

Quote from: soviet;498968You can describe your combat manoeuvres in as much cool detail as you want, as soon as the monster teleports away or levitates, you're screwed.

Please clarify this for me.  Are you suggesting that there should be an ability to counter this situation immediately available?  If the monster uses power X, I need to have power Y to counter?

This is the beauty of a tabletop game.  I have unlimited options at my disposal.  As a fighter, maybe I take out my bow to shoot the monster that teleported further away.  Maybe I lasso the limb of a levitating monster and drag it down.  Maybe I begin screaming in terror at the sight of such awesome magicks!  Again, unlimited options are available.

Or, being part of a team, I could swallow my pride and tag the Wizard in to deal with his specialty.

Quote from: soviet;498968You can describe your character's fierce bravery in the face of the evil archmage as much as you want, as soon as you have to save vs charm, you're screwed.

How has this changed?  Aside from being able to stack bonuses towards fear attacks to prove that my character is the most courageous.

I can understand that part of the key attraction to games is the power fantasy of being the ultimate protagonist, but without adversity and spontaneity I personally would be bored.

Quote from: soviet;498968You can roleplay the conversation with the NPC as much as you want, as soon as the GM says 'Make a Diplomacy check', you're screwed.

Diplomacy check?  Role-play that shit!

QuoteYou can describe your combat manoeuvres in as much cool detail as you want, as soon as the monster teleports away or levitates, you're screwed.

Get out your longbow and continue describing your combat manoeuvers.

QuoteYou can describe your character's fierce bravery in the face of the evil archmage as much as you want, as soon as you have to save vs charm, you're screwed.

...that still happens in 4e, more or less.  You can describe how brave and selfless your character is, but if you get hit with a "LOL you attack your friends!" power, your description no longer matters.

Quote from: Rum Cove;498982I can understand that part of the key attraction to games is the power fantasy of being the ultimate protagonist, but without adversity and spontaneity I personally would be bored.

Absolutely..Part of it is the macho-myth- that "we had it so much harder then, and death really meant death!" and everyone wanted "gritty, low magic settings" with "no raise dead" etc.

Everyone holds that up as an ideal to be sought, but all it means is, you never want to lose. Because when you lose the game ends.

Where WOTC failed is not they made the game less lethal- it isn't. The problem is they didn't make failure more interesting.  Failing stuff used to be hilarious. Like in AD&D when you pulled out something from the bag of tricks and it was a mouse. Or you put on a cursed item and it changed your gender. Tricks were as common- maybe more common, and always more fun-- than traps.

Quote from: Rum Cove;498982I fail to see how this situation is unique to the Fighter, so I'll skip this one.

It's not unique to the fighter, but it's worse for him than any other class because he has so few skill points and his class skills are so narrow.

Quote from: Rum Cove;498982Please clarify this for me.  Are you suggesting that there should be an ability to counter this situation immediately available?  If the monster uses power X, I need to have power Y to counter?

I'm suggesting it should at least be possible. In 4e for instance the fighter can mark his foes, stop them moving with an opportunity attack, and also use certain powers to immobilise or otherwise lock people down.

Quote from: Rum Cove;498982This is the beauty of a tabletop game.  I have unlimited options at my disposal.  As a fighter, maybe I take out my bow to shoot the monster that teleported further away.  Maybe I lasso the limb of a levitating monster and drag it down.  Maybe I begin screaming in terror at the sight of such awesome magicks!  Again, unlimited options are available.

Unlimited options in terms of what you describe, sure. But none of them are likely to have much of an effect in-game.

Quote from: Rum Cove;498982Or, being part of a team, I could swallow my pride and tag the Wizard in to deal with his specialty.

What, solving encounters? It's really boring for the fighter player to always have to defer to the casters.  

Quote from: Rum Cove;498982How has this changed?  Aside from being able to stack bonuses towards fear attacks to prove that my character is the most courageous.

In 4e fighters no longer have terrible saves, they can take utility powers that give them extra bonuses to such saves, and the effects of such spells are themselves much less drastic.

Quote from: Rum Cove;498982I can understand that part of the key attraction to games is the power fantasy of being the ultimate protagonist, but without adversity and spontaneity I personally would be bored.

What's that got to do with anything I said?