Now that Reflex, Fortitude and Will are target numbers for attack resolution, is AC redundant? Should it be removed in 5e?
Perhaps, AC could be damage reduction.
I am particularly interested in Abyssal Maw's opinion on the matter.
Quote from: Rum Cove;498199Now that Reflex, Fortitude and Will are target numbers for attack resolution, is AC redundant? Should it be removed in 5e?
Perhaps, AC could be damage reduction.
I am particularly interested in Abyssal Maw's opinion on the matter.
AC was removed from Star Wars Saga Edition. Reflex was used for physical attacks. As such, 4e was an affirmation of the concept in some ways, rather than a move away from.
(My opinion might not be that interesting)
I (bet) AC still stays. I don't know what "5e" will be like. I do know that there will be a special adventure at DDXP next month that might be insightful. I don't know if I'll get to play it.
In 4e AC really isn't redundant at all, because D&D is just as much about tough guys clashing in battle as it is nimble characters dodging and battles of wits. It makes sense that it goes away in Star Wars, because.. well blasters. Having the different defenses in D&D, though, is an interesting gambling game- do you concentrate on attacks that focus on toe to toe stuff, or do you look at ways to go for the weak point or to cover your own defenses. I think that makes combat interesting.
How about we ignore 4e's defenses and return to saving throws?
Quote from: B.T.;498217How about we ignore 4e's defenses and return to saving throws?
In previous editions of D&D a saving throw was something that happened after you were already screwed.. usually already dead. The saving throw in that way was a last chance.
Petrification..unless you save. Poison.. unless you save. Spell.. unless you save. Often these were game-ending effects.
Over time, people started to think of them just as a dice roll. Like there are traps in Hidden Shrine of Tamoa-chan where you rolled a save to avoid setting off a pit trap or the hall of thrashing canes or whatever else.
By the time 3e rolls around, saves have been fully recast as a sort of defense. For example, if you encounter an Entangle spell you roll a save to avoid being entangled.
I really think 4e brought them closer back to their original intent: you make saving throws very rarely, and usually to stop a potentially lethal effect: you save for death, for example, or ongoing poison, or save for a medusa gaze.
5e???
It is not out yet.
I will wait until it comes out and we shall see if it is a topic worth arguing about.
Nah, I will save you the trouble. I do not care because it will be what it is no matter what people want so I will not argue about something I have no control over.
RE: Saving Throws
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;498221Over time, people started to think of them just as a dice roll. Like there are traps in Hidden Shrine of Tamoa-chan where you rolled a save to avoid setting off a pit trap or the hall of thrashing canes or whatever else.
I think it was in Castle Amber that -
Spoiler
a Saving Throw vs. Magic was performed and if it failed, a positive effect was given. Which I'm sure encouraged people to not cheat only to find they missed out
- which I really liked.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;498221I really think 4e brought them closer back to their original intent: you make saving throws very rarely, and usually to stop a potentially lethal effect: you save for death, for example, or ongoing poison, or save for a medusa gaze.
Saving Throws in 4e were one of the changes that I really enjoyed, among others. Though, in the end I must join the crowd that uses that poor defense of "it doesn't feel like D&D".
My major issues, which I can expand on by request, were the loss of magic and wonder (something the designers agreed with and the late patches didn't fix completely) and the illusion of choice.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;498216(My opinion might not be that interesting)
I know that you're heavily involved in 4e and would have better insight.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;498216I (bet) AC still stays. I don't know what "5e" will be like.
I agreed, AC will stay as it is. The riots it would cause if removed or downgraded would be unlike any before.
Though, I do feel that the game should be streamlined so that AC is changed to damage reduction and AC attacks are given over to Reflex. Just seems a like a natural progression.
Quote from: Ancientgamer1970;4982725e???
It is not out yet.
I will wait until it comes out and we shall see if it is a topic worth arguing about.
No need to argue, though speculation is always fun.
From the Legends & Lore columns on Wizards.com, there seems to be a direction that Mr. Mearls and Mr. Cook would like to take it that the posters there completely disagree with.
I, on the other hand, have agreed with them completely and would prefer to see their version without pandering to the vocal masses.
Hopefully, it will be a nice hybrid of the original Basic/Expert and 4e.
Quote from: Rum Cove;498280No need to argue, though speculation is always fun.
From the Legends & Lore columns on Wizards.com, there seems to be a direction that Mr. Mearls and Mr. Cook would like to take it that the posters there completely disagree with.
I, on the other hand, have agreed with them completely and would prefer to see their version without pandering to the vocal masses.
Hopefully, it will be a nice hybrid of the original Basic/Expert and 4e.
Link to the article please...
I like the multiple defense of 4e, offers different dimensions to combat. I hope they stay for 5e, but 5e won't matter. The hobby is too far fractured with Crapfinder, 4e, RPGA and the OSR to put back together into a cohesive "D&D" with a unified fanbase...unless a new fanbase is created via an online game table experience.
Ever since S&W:WB came out, I've ditched the old style saves of D&D and our game has only improved.
Quote from: Ancientgamer1970;498323Link to the article please...
They even collected all the columns from 2011 into one file!
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20111227 (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20111227)
Quote from: Rum Cove;498280Hopefully, it will be a nice hybrid of the original Basic/Expert and 4e.
Not a bad idea, but it would only piss off OSR fans and 4e fans. I doubt any faction would be appeased. OSR fans vomit on rules not penned by Gygax and 4e fans would miss the structure of their gameplay.
And Crapfinder fans would keep playing Crapfinder. As much as I loathe 3e, Paizo does a great job giving 3e fans more of exactly what they want. The Paizo guys are smart fuckers.
So, yeah, as an avowed hater I sincerely hope they drop AC and get rid of polyhedral damage dice, and character classes, and levels or even any one of those because it would be the last nail in their coffin and "crapfinder" as someone once called it has shown quite clearly that they are only dead wood that we never really needed.
Quote from: David Johansen;498506So, yeah, as an avowed hater I sincerely hope they drop AC and get rid of polyhedral damage dice, and character classes, and levels or even any one of those because it would be the last nail in their coffin and "crapfinder" as someone once called it has shown quite clearly that they are only dead wood that we never really needed.
They made a game for you. It's called Gurps.
Wait, do they still make that?
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;498532They made a game for you. It's called Gurps.
Wait, do they still make that?
GURPS website says they do. But I guess it's just a conspiracy to bring down Teh 4th.
I think the AC will stay in 5th edition - it's pretty much a core concept, from the beginnings of time.
Quote from: Spinachcat;498336I like the multiple defense of 4e, offers different dimensions to combat. I hope they stay for 5e, but 5e won't matter. The hobby is too far fractured with Crapfinder, 4e, RPGA and the OSR to put back together into a cohesive "D&D" with a unified fanbase...unless a new fanbase is created via an online game table experience.
Ever since S&W:WB came out, I've ditched the old style saves of D&D and our game has only improved.
Crapfinder??? Is that what you stooges from DF call Pathfinder these days??? What happened to TETINTBN or whatever you all use. How old are you???
Quote from: Spinachcat;498336I hope they stay for 5e, but 5e won't matter. The hobby is too far fractured with Crapfinder, 4e, RPGA and the OSR to put back together into a cohesive "D&D" with a unified fanbase...unless a new fanbase is created via an online game table experience.
I actually don't think it would be that hard to reunite the various factions for 5e. The vitriol online comes from a small, vocal minority. Most doing it for the sake of doing it. Those that play, are happy playing whatever is in front of them at the time.
The OSR might act like they hold the original text as the final word, yet they are buying up any house rule variation put to print in the name of support.
The 3e players complained that they didn't want to buy all of their books over again, yet they are doing
exactly that with Pathfinder.
Most of the 4e players are enjoying the innovations and simplifications that newer editions bring. They know what is wrong with the current game, but (understandably) won't give an inch to people that have been trying to tell them that have been doing it wrong the whole time and should be ashamed for enjoying it.
Then there is the
actual majority of the hobby that don't spend time on forums, but actually play when they can and will give it a look.
If it's a good game, it will be supported.
I think that's exactly right.
You know the thing is, I like all of the other versions too, I don't see the issues. They are all a little different.
Quote from: Rum Cove;498598I actually don't think it would be that hard to reunite the various factions for 5e. The vitriol online comes from a small, vocal minority. Most doing it for the sake of doing it. Those that play, are happy playing whatever is in front of them at the time.
The OSR might act like they hold the original text as the final word, yet they are buying up any house rule variation put to print in the name of support.
The 3e players complained that they didn't want to buy all of their books over again, yet they are doing exactly that with Pathfinder.
Most of the 4e players are enjoying the innovations and simplifications that newer editions bring. They know what is wrong with the current game, but (understandably) won't give an inch to people that have been trying to tell them that have been doing it wrong the whole time and should be ashamed for enjoying it.
Then there is the actual majority of the hobby that don't spend time on forums, but actually play when they can and will give it a look.
If it's a good game, it will be supported.
Well said...
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;498221In previous editions of D&D a saving throw was something that happened after you were already screwed.. usually already dead. The saving throw in that way was a last chance.
(...) Spell.. unless you save. (...)
By the time 3e rolls around, saves have been fully recast as a sort of defense. For example, if you encounter an Entangle spell you roll a save to avoid being entangled.
I really think 4e brought them closer back to their original intent
Let me see if I can sum this up:
In AD&D, if someone cast
entangle on you and you made your save, you moved at 50% of your speed instead of being held fast. This was "a last chance"...
... and totally different than 3E where, if someone cast
entangle on you and you made your save, you move at half your speed instead of being held fast. This was "a sort of defense"...
... which is totally different than 4E where
entangle is gone and not a single ability in the PHB which creates the restrained condition actually allows for a saving throw. 'Cause that's exactly like AD&D.
...
No offense, but that's a load of nonsense.
With that being said, I think 4E opened up an interesting design space by exploring "save end" abilities in a way that previous editions really hadn't. I've done some interesting stuff in my home campaign with back-tracking that design space into an environment where the individual strengths and weaknesses of characters still affect saving throws.
While laying aside the fact that 4E saves are basically a completely different mechanic from pre-4E saving throws, the actual evolution of old school saving throws is interesting to look at:
(1) OD&D offered an incomplete, source/type-based array of saving throws. This created a couple of problems, one of which was that many effects would actually fall into multiple categories. Did the DM simply make a ruling for which applied? Did a character always use the best-applicable saving throw? Or should they always use the worst-applicable saving throw?
(2) AD&D eliminated that problem by establishing a fairly clear hierarchy of which saving throw category should be applied first. But it didn't fix the other problem, which is that many effects which required saving throws didn't conveniently fall into any particular category. There were two possible solutions: Add a new category every time you needed one or simply arbitrarily assign a saving throw category. In general, designers and DMs did the latter. This assignation was often based on a rough approximation of "method of avoidance" (you avoid dragon breath by ducking out of the the way, this effect could be avoided by ducking out of the way, so let's make it a save vs. dragon breath) or "similarity of effect" (dragon breath is a big blast of fire, this trap is creating a big blast of fire, so let's make it a save vs. dragon breath). (These methods often overlapped.)
(3) D&D3 eliminated that problem by swapping to a universal system based on method-of-avoidance. In some corner-case situations, this system actually reintroduces the lack-of-hierarchy problems from OD&D ("do I duck out of the way or do I tough it out?"), but most of the time there is a clear and obvious saving throw for any given effect.
(4) 4E then took that mechanic and did two things. First, it inverted the facing of the mechanic. Instead of the defender making the saving throw roll, it's the attacker rolling against the save.
This is an interesting choice. And to understand why, let's consider the fact that they could have done the exact opposite with AC: Instead of the attacker rolling vs. AC, they could have swapped AC so that it works like old school saving throws (with the defender rolling against the attacker's static score).
It's important to understand that, in terms of mathematics and game balance, this change is completely irrelevant. It has no effect whatsoever.
In my (admittedly anecdotal) experience, however, the psychological effect of this mechanic is to make the person initiating the action feel passive: They announce the action their character is taking in the game world, but they take no "action" in the real world. Instead, the target takes the real world action.
Or, to put it another way: If you roll for an attack, the emphasis of the game becomes trying to hit people with your sword. If you roll for defense, the emphasis of the game becomes trying to dodge or deflect the blows of others. (If you roll for both, no such emphasis occurs. But this becomes too swingy with D&D's d20-based mechanics.)
As a result, in 4E, you are always active on your turn and always passive on every other character's turn. In 3E, on the other hand, the differentiation between the facing of attack rolls and the facing of saving throws mixes the experience up: Spellcasters generally feel more "passive" than fighters on their turn. Meanwhile, players frequently become "active" on other characters' turns because saving throws will be called for.
Here, as with many of its design choices, 4E is flattening the game experience into something more "consistent", but also blander and less varied. No player will ever feel as if they "didn't do anything" on their turn, but the trade-off is that they literally do nothing while everyone else is taking their turn. (Theoretically this is then balanced out with the plethora of immediate actions that 4E adds. BID.)
The second major change 4E implemented, however, to basically eradicate any clear connection between the action in the game world and the save/defense being used. (For example, a cleric can use his weapon vs. AC, vs. Fort, and vs. Will. Why? Because the mechanics say so.) They embrace this dissociation of the mechanics because it allows them to give every character class the ability to target different defenses without having them actually take different types of actions.
Laying aside the general effects of dissociated mechanics for the moment, this second change has the practical effect of watering down the actual meaning of the various defense scores. When Radiant Brilliance lets you charge your weapon with divine energy and trigger an explosion by hitting your target with a vs. Reflex attack and Holy Spark lets you do basically the same thing with a vs. Will attack... what's the difference between Reflex and Will defenses? Absolutely nothing, of course. They're just arbitrary categories that we drop various powers into for an interesting mechanical mix.
When I play D&D I think I like the classic features (AC, d20 roll, 6 attributes, races, classes, vancian magic, etc). So I am in favor of retaining AC. D&D is a game I would like to see refined, but not one I want to see experiment with new directions. There are plenty of other games out there that cover new and interesting mechanical ground. But for me, D&D has always been the old standby.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;498676Let me see if I can sum this up...
Thanks for this post, by the way. It's productive and useful.
Quote from: B.T.;498217How about we ignore 4e's defenses and return to saving throws?
Because 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.
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.
I'm not sure I agree with this. Resolving spell attacks in exactly the same way as physical attacks makes them feel like physical attacks in play.
It genericizes things, which I find tends to result in a detachment, rather than an engagement.
I like variety, which I think the saving throw system of TSR editions, although flawed, did provide.
Quote from: Kaldric;498773I'm not sure I agree with this. Resolving spell attacks in exactly the same way as physical attacks makes them feel like physical attacks in play.
It genericizes things, which I find tends to result in a detachment, rather than an engagement.
I like variety, which I think the saving throw system of TSR editions, although flawed, did provide.
Personally, I wish we'd go a step further in the other direction and differentiate weapon damage types a la Fantasy Craft to make things more engaging. Or maybe come up with an alternate system for rogue-like characters to interact with.
I'm surprised there's no big contingent on the internet pushing for a return to 3.x era rules, but with more of slowly building semi-sim immersive crunch that built up throughout all of D&D's earlier editions. I hardly think late 2e, 3e and especially not 4e is the limit of crunchy detail that D&D can support.
Quote from: Kaldric;498773I'm not sure I agree with this. Resolving spell attacks in exactly the same way as physical attacks makes them feel like physical attacks in play.
It genericizes things, which I find tends to result in a detachment, rather than an engagement.
I like variety, which I think the saving throw system of TSR editions, although flawed, did provide.
You resolve attacks in D&D (latter) by rolling a d20 + mods vs. target number, the very same way that you resolve a diplomacy or knowledge check. Do skill rolls feel like physical attacks in play?
The 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.
Quote from: Pedantic;498790I'm surprised there's no big contingent on the internet pushing for a return to 3.x era rules, but with more of slowly building semi-sim immersive crunch that built up throughout all of D&D's earlier editions. I hardly think late 2e, 3e and especially not 4e is the limit of crunchy detail that D&D can support.
I'm not at all surprised, actually. The majority of gamers out there are casual fans who play once or maybe twice a week, and then put the books and dice out of their minds until the next game night. These people don't want to have to navigate arcane and labyrinthine rule systems in order to play a game with friends. Really, the only people who actually want that level of crunch are a relatively small contingent of soulless, number-fellating, aspie bureaucrat psychos who are choking up the forums. These are the type of people whom, if it weren't for arbitrarily complicated rpg rules, would find their outlet circle jerking eachother over a stack of tax law books. These are the last people that D&D should be catering to.
Quote from: Declan MacManus;498814I'm not at all surprised, actually. The majority of gamers out there are casual fans who play once or maybe twice a week, and then put the books and dice out of their minds until the next game night. These people don't want to have to navigate arcane and labyrinthine rule systems in order to play a game with friends. Really, the only people who actually want that level of crunch are a relatively small contingent of soulless, number-fellating, aspie bureaucrat psychos who are choking up the forums. These are the type of people whom, if it weren't for arbitrarily complicated rpg rules, would find their outlet circle jerking eachother over a stack of tax law books. These are the last people that D&D should be catering to.
Well, my soul is probably gone, but I can say I'd rather fellate men than stacks of d12s, and have had some small success in doing so. Speaking for my personal preferences, I cringe whenever I run across someone going on a rant for "simple character creation" or "cutting down the rules bloat."
That out of the way, I'm not sure the position is that worthy of snide dismissal. Consider the progress of D&D pre 3e. Gamers were inundated with more and more rules in modular subsystems to model more and more content in increasingly exhaustive detail. The drive for simplification in games is a pretty recent trend, and, I think, tied less to the supposed complexity of modern games, than to their base assumptions.
A simple base game, without heavy concern for precise balance in the compulsive probability calculator way 4e does, with easy to apply modules for upwards complexity, drives demand for more and more of those modules allowing for more and more precise customization. Somehow, that sort of expanding ruleset has fallen completely beside the wayside after 3e.
In 4e, I'm convinced that's because fans are more concerned with keeping the numbers boring and have given up any pretense of objective world modeling or verisimilitude boosting through mechanical means.
I am curious why it's fallen by the wayside in other forms of D&D, particularly what's grown out of 3e. I suppose we see some PF alternative rulesystems (if you can dignify their piecemeal armor or armor as DR variants with that) and the OSR is obviously still doing it, but all the rhetoric is about simplicity.
Quote from: Pedantic;498828The drive for simplification in games is a pretty recent trend, and, I think, tied less to the supposed complexity of modern games, than to their base assumptions.
Not that recent. The push for rules-light systems starts to really crop up in the late '80s.
If you look at the history of mechanical design, there's actually a very clear arc:
(1) You start with games that have very specific game structure that has been placed into a wider "world simulation". (The influence from wargames is clear here.)
(2) The level of detail in the world simulation begins to grow, but is still largely contained to clear game structures. (Basically, the desire to simulate reality found within the existing wargames community began to expand as the focus of the games expanded beyond the battlefield.)
(3) Generic games appear. In seeking to provide universal rules, however, these games actually end up stripping out the game structures that still existed in RPGs. (Reading contemporary documents, it seems pretty clear that people at the time weren't really conscious of the game structures in RPGs. In fact, most gamers still aren't.)
(4) Between the universal focus and the removal of game structures, the desire for simulation metastasizes. Throughout the late '70s and early '80s, every game that came out tried to graft on more and more detail, accuracy, and specificity. (For example, look at the first edition of
Paranoia: Hilarious, evocative game universe. But the rule system is completely obsessed with detailed simulation.)
(5) Around the mid-'80s, however, you start to see the backlash. A growing body of games are being designed with deliberately simpler rules because other games have gotten too complex (this is even talked about in the rulebooks themselves). (I generally point to WEG as an early instigator for this with Ghostbusters and Star Wars, but that may just be a perspective bias on my part.)
(6) The first wave of these "rules lighter" games generally just scaled back the rules while maintaining the same focus on world simulation, but by the early '90s you start seeing some designers really embrace the rules-light movement by looking at radically alternative approaches. (Amber DRPG and other diceless games are a really noticeable part of this.)
The fallout from this, IMO and IME, was that the entire spectrum of RPG system design was basically open for business: We'd explored rules heavy, bounced back to rules light (now featuring unified mechanics), and now people were basically experimenting all over the place.
If there was a major trendline in the '90s it was the boom of splatbook-universes (Torg, WoD, L5R, Deadlands, Heavy Gear, Jovian Chronicles, AD&D's campaign worlds, and a ton of wannabes). As you hit the late '90s, these product lines all burn out their supplement treadmills. Shortly thereafter you get the D20 boom and the STG revolution.
But I digress.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;498837The fallout from this, IMO and IME, was that the entire spectrum of RPG system design was basically open for business: We'd explored rules heavy, bounced back to rules light (now featuring unified mechanics), and now people were basically experimenting all over the place.
I suppose I'm really complaining about a small niche of a small niche of the D&Dverse that never went far enough in the direction I wanted and reacting to the frustrating crowd of players who seem to think 4e is a stunning, overwhelming masterpiece of rules complexity.*
I think there's potential for so much more to be done with 3e. You could, for example, cut down the obviously problematic portions of the combat system (iterative attacks tied to movement is a huge offender) and then expanded it (use something like Iron Heroes resource management and ToB style maneuvers as the baseline for martial combat).
Even if there's not a huge demographic looking for something like that, surely there's someone. Aside from me.
*There's nothing particularly compelling about combat that is funneled into repetitive hit-point ablation with forced movement slathered on top and consistent, boring percentages. Frankly, I'm amazed the system bothers with levels when they've made the math all but meaninglessly consistent.
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?
Quote from: misterguignol;498985Diplomacy check? Role-play that shit!
Well yeah, but we're talking about different systems here. 'You can just ignore the rules' is not much of a defence for a shitty ruleset.
Quote from: misterguignol;498985Get out your longbow and continue describing your combat manoeuvers.
Borderline useless in actual play.
Quote from: misterguignol;498985...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.
Charm and dominate are actually pretty shit now, it's certainly not something that is likely to turn the tide of the encounter.
"roleplay that shit" puts the entire situation in the hands of the DM. Why have rules for combat at all if you're willing to allow the DM to plunge you into it entirely by fiat?
Quote from: soviet;498987I'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.
A pre-4e Fighter of 1st level can attempt
any ability/power of a 4e Fighter of
any level. Not only that, but a pre-4e Fighter can attempt
any power of
any 4e class (some might require magic items to be successful).
Of course, there might be some penalties involved. Feats were introduced to counter this (eg. fighting with two-weapons).
You know what'd be cool in D&D 5e?
If they made a mechanic how to combine Magic: The Gathering cards with story, and how to adapt a MtG card's abilities to spells/monsters.
I totally itch to GM a game about Planewalkers, and use some random 60 cards + 15 land cards I picked off from my Magic collection for my entire narration - I draw a goblin, party meets a goblin. They change planes? I draw an Island card from the deck - here they are, on an island, or whatever's in the picture.
Quote from: Rincewind1;498996You know what'd be cool in D&D 5e?
You could do that now, with any game system. Why not try it?
Quote from: Rum Cove;498998You could do that now, with any game system. Why not try it?
I know I can do it, and I plan to. Just like I can turn 4E into a game of courtroom drama, if I care to mod it enough. But I think it'd be nice if they gave some guidelines. I could use them, I could discard them in favour of my own - but it'd be a nice touch. Just to save me some time if I agree with their interpretation.
After all, you can just buy OD&D and houserule everything, or you can buy some other RPGs for just that - interpretations.
Quote from: Rum Cove;498993A pre-4e Fighter of 1st level can attempt any ability/power of a 4e Fighter of any level. Not only that, but a pre-4e Fighter can attempt any power of any 4e class (some might require magic items to be successful).
No, they can't. This is simply wrong.
Quote from: soviet;499005No, they can't. This is simply wrong.
In your opinion, which is fine.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;498986Where 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.
Completely in agreement. I was really disappointed by the 4e version of the Cursed Weapon in the Book of Vile Darkness.
Quote from: Rum Cove;499017In your opinion, which is fine.
Dude, unless you're talking about a lot of houseruling, it's fact.
Looking at a level 1 fighter using just the 4e PHB he can do the following:
Push someone back one square every time he hits them, following up into the vacated square if he chooses (Tide of Iron)
Stop someone moving when he opportunity attacks them (Combat Superiority)
Attack someone when they attack someone else (Combat Challenge)
Attack someone and give an ally a bonus move (Covering Attack)
Attack someone, move, and then attack someone else (Passing Attack)
Attack someone and knock them prone (Spinning Sweep)
Attack someone and greatly restrict their movement for a turn (Steel Serpent Strike)
Attack someone and heal himself (Comeback Strike)
A pre-4e fighter can only do most of those via house-ruling. Some of them can be attempted as overbearing attacks or the like, which a) requires a feat if you don't want to trigger an attack of opportunity, b) is hard to accomplish, and c) is not as effective in the long run as simply hitting someone with a sword. The 4e fighter can try any of these manoeuvres with a good chance of success AND do decent damage at the same time.
I will address your last post, even though after seeing how you brushed aside responses from
misterguignol and myself, it won't make a lick of difference to you. Instead, I hope that this will give insight to others and improve their gaming experience by experimenting a little more and looking past a list of skills/powers.
First off, I should clarify that I am talking about TSR versions of D&D (and their variations), when I talk about pre-4e. Although it shouldn't be a problem with 3e (or their variations) to do the same, I don't want to get into petty arguments over Feat requirements or turn efficiency.
Quote from: soviet;499038Push someone back one square every time he hits them, following up into the vacated square if he chooses (Tide of Iron)
"My fighter will force the enemy back with his shield, while striking with his weapon. I am willing to accept any penalties this might cause to my attack roll."
Quote from: soviet;499038Stop someone moving when he opportunity attacks them (Combat Superiority)
"My fighter will wait, should the enemy move, he will bar his movement and attack. I am willing to accept any penalties this might cause to my attack roll."
Quote from: soviet;499038Attack someone when they attack someone else (Combat Challenge)
"My fighter will wait, should the enemy attack my ally, he will attack first and step between them, if possible. I am willing to accept any penalties this might cause to my attack roll."
Quote from: soviet;499038Attack someone and give an ally a bonus move (Covering Attack)
"Pushing my ally out of the way, my fighter will attack the enemy. I am willing to accept any penalties this might cause to my attack roll."
Quote from: soviet;499038Attack someone, move, and then attack someone else (Passing Attack)
"My fighter will strike with the weapon in his off hand, move to the next enemy and strike with the weapon in his other hand. I am willing to accept any penalties this might cause to my attack roll."
Quote from: soviet;499038Attack someone and knock them prone (Spinning Sweep)
"My fighter will strike the enemy with the intent of knocking them over. I am willing to accept any penalties this might cause to my attack roll."
Quote from: soviet;499038Attack someone and greatly restrict their movement for a turn (Steel Serpent Strike)
"My fighter will cut the tendons on the enemy's leg to slow him down. I am willing to accept any penalties this might cause to my attack roll."
Quote from: soviet;499038Attack someone and heal himself (Comeback Strike)
"My fighter will strike and quaff a healing potion at the same time. I am willing to accept any penalties this might cause to my attack roll."
As a friendly suggestion, bring a 4e Player's Handbook to the next game of pre-4e D&D for ideas. Simply take the flavour text of each power and state that to the DM. Explain what you are trying to accomplish and accept any penalties that might occur with a minimal amount of debate.
Between sessions, tell your DM that you intend to experiment and agree on the best way to communicate your goals. Most DMs will enjoy the variety, over the constant barrage of "I attack". Chances are, other players will begin to do the same.
What he was saying is that in 1st edition AD&D, for instance, a 1st level fighter could 'attempt' any of those things.
You don't need a rule that says you can do it, to try to do it. You may fail. The mechanical resolution is likely to be different. It wouldn't hurt to have some justification as to why it should work. But you're always allowed to try.
Quote from: Kaldric;499061What he was saying is that in 1st edition AD&D, for instance, a 1st level fighter could 'attempt' any of those things.
You don't need a rule that says you can do it, to try to do it. You may fail. The mechanical resolution is likely to be different. It wouldn't hurt to have some justification as to why it should work. But you're always allowed to try.
I agree with all that, but it's still houseruling. In a comparison of different editions, you have to go by what the rules actually say. Otherwise the whole discussion is pointless. You might as well say that all the editions are the same, because you can always houserule any differences away.
It is easier to houserule an addition to the rules than it is to houserule a removal from the rules, based on player expectations.
Quote from: Rum Cove;499069It is easier to houserule an addition to the rules than it is to houserule a removal from the rules, based on player expectations.
And based on a simple frigging logic of how humans work.
Take away from me? Bad.
Give it to me? Good.
Quote from: Pedantic;498828Well, my soul is probably gone, but I can say I'd rather fellate men than stacks of d12s, and have had some small success in doing so. Speaking for my personal preferences, I cringe whenever I run across someone going on a rant for "simple character creation" or "cutting down the rules bloat."
That out of the way, I'm not sure the position is that worthy of snide dismissal. Consider the progress of D&D pre 3e. Gamers were inundated with more and more rules in modular subsystems to model more and more content in increasingly exhaustive detail. The drive for simplification in games is a pretty recent trend, and, I think, tied less to the supposed complexity of modern games, than to their base assumptions.
A simple base game, without heavy concern for precise balance in the compulsive probability calculator way 4e does, with easy to apply modules for upwards complexity, drives demand for more and more of those modules allowing for more and more precise customization. Somehow, that sort of expanding ruleset has fallen completely beside the wayside after 3e.
In 4e, I'm convinced that's because fans are more concerned with keeping the numbers boring and have given up any pretense of objective world modeling or verisimilitude boosting through mechanical means.
I am curious why it's fallen by the wayside in other forms of D&D, particularly what's grown out of 3e. I suppose we see some PF alternative rulesystems (if you can dignify their piecemeal armor or armor as DR variants with that) and the OSR is obviously still doing it, but all the rhetoric is about simplicity.
No. That position is worthy of not only snide dismissal, but also open scorn and possibly corporal punishment.
When I come across people on the forums crying out for simpler character creation, less rules bloat and more pared down mechanics, it gives me hope that maybe the hobby will cater to actual people again, instead of just fleshy counting machines.
Here's the thing: role-playing games are supposed to be games of imagination. As such, they thrive when they rely on human elements: judgment, creativity, adaptability, etc. Without this element, then you are essentially playing a very, very low tech videogame wherein one set of numbers competes with another set of numbers in a numbers contest to win numbers that can be used to increase the numbers' numbers to take on bigger numbers.
D&D 3rd edition was the worst offender in this regard, with it's attempts to codify absolutely everything, turn character creation into magic-deck building and tie a rubber band around the DM's nuts with rules, it was less a roleplaying game and more of an exercise in abstract spread sheet building.
Actually, being that most of the decisions in the game were made by players while hanging out alone in a dank, odorous basement while sweatily poring over a pile of sourcebooks next to empty Zyprexa bottles, rather than during actual table play, I'd say that it was more the intellectual equivalent of people sitting in a circle and watching eachother masturbate.
4E was better in this regard, but not by a wide margin.
So the long and short of it is that you don't like RPG's. I'm sure that you've convinced yourself that you love them, but you don't. This hobby is for people, and you are just a machine that wants a videogame you can play without electricity. I think that you would be a much happier robot, if you gave up on RPG's and took up tax law as a hobby instead. Or maybe sudoku.
Quote from: B.T.;498843Saving 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.
See, that assumes that the 3.x/OGL system will still be alive in 5th edition, rather than drowned in a bathtub like an unwanted Chinese baby like it deserves.
You know?
It's amazing how I can hover between disgust and delight on this forum sometimes.
Quote from: Declan MacManus;499229So the long and short of it is that you don't like RPG's. I'm sure that you've convinced yourself that you love them, but you don't. This hobby is for people, and you are just a machine that wants a videogame you can play without electricity. I think that you would be a much happier robot, if you gave up on RPG's and took up tax law as a hobby instead. Or maybe sudoku.
Just out of curiosity, what RPG (s) do you play mainly, given that you dislike 3E and 4E?
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;499255Just out of curiosity, what RPG (s) do you play mainly, given that you dislike 3E and 4E?
Heavily pared down and houseruled BECMI/RC D&D usually. Also AD&D, Castles & Crusades, BASH! UE, Icons, Mini6 Star Wars, and whatever one of my friends puts in front of me that doesn't require accounting software for chargen.
If I need to make something up on the fly, I use PDQ with D&D style hit points grafted onto it because I like to run pulp-y games and the damage system is just weird to me.
As for 4E, I dislike the game as a whole, but I think the base is rather good. Get rid of skills, powers, feats and other special snowflake bullshit, I'd probably like it more than C&C
Upon further reflection, I think that (based on the Legend & Lore columns in 2011 (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20111227) and a crazy hunch) they will keep AC, but might remove Reflex/Fortitude/Will.
Instead, the character's ability scores will become targets (eg. Charm Person vs. the opponent's Wisdom).
Quote from: Declan MacManus;499229No. That position is worthy of not only snide dismissal, but also open scorn and possibly corporal punishment.
When I come across people on the forums crying out for simpler character creation, less rules bloat and more pared down mechanics, it gives me hope that maybe the hobby will cater to actual people again, instead of just fleshy counting machines.
Here's the thing: role-playing games are supposed to be games of imagination. As such, they thrive when they rely on human elements: judgment, creativity, adaptability, etc. Without this element, then you are essentially playing a very, very low tech videogame wherein one set of numbers competes with another set of numbers in a numbers contest to win numbers that can be used to increase the numbers' numbers to take on bigger numbers.
D&D 3rd edition was the worst offender in this regard, with it's attempts to codify absolutely everything, turn character creation into magic-deck building and tie a rubber band around the DM's nuts with rules, it was less a roleplaying game and more of an exercise in abstract spread sheet building.
Actually, being that most of the decisions in the game were made by players while hanging out alone in a dank, odorous basement while sweatily poring over a pile of sourcebooks next to empty Zyprexa bottles, rather than during actual table play, I'd say that it was more the intellectual equivalent of people sitting in a circle and watching eachother masturbate.
4E was better in this regard, but not by a wide margin.
So the long and short of it is that you don't like RPG's. I'm sure that you've convinced yourself that you love them, but you don't. This hobby is for people, and you are just a machine that wants a videogame you can play without electricity. I think that you would be a much happier robot, if you gave up on RPG's and took up tax law as a hobby instead. Or maybe sudoku.
Fantastic, sir. I don't know if I've said this before, but I don't recall you, so.. welcome to theRPGsite!
RPGPundit
Quote from: Rum Cove;499060"My fighter will force the enemy back with his shield, while striking with his weapon. I am willing to accept any penalties this might cause to my attack roll."
So if the fighter can try doing all sorts of interesting stunts for tactical or roleplay-based reasons, but they take a penalty for doing so, the system/DM is punishing them for doing anything other than a basic attack. Keep that up and the player will simply stop bothering to try anything interesting.
I'm not fully keen on the way D&D4's power structure works, but there's definitely a lot of design space in the middle ground between "try anything at a penalty" and "you can do a bunch of cool tricks, but only those cool tricks".
Quote from: Ladybird;499715So if the fighter can try doing all sorts of interesting stunts for tactical or roleplay-based reasons, but they take a penalty for doing so, the system/DM is punishing them for doing anything other than a basic attack.
It is an adjustment to the attack roll based on the difficulty of the stunt, which occurs in
all editions. In 4e, some stunts may be easier to perform than they would be in older editions, but they are limited in frequency in which they can be attempted (ie, encounters and dailies) and are preselected at character creation at the expense of improvisation.
Sometimes the adjustment will be a positive modifier. Several of the above examples would have no attack modifier, but it is important for the player to accept what the rules and DM arbitration decide and not stop the game over petty details.
The players that see negative modifiers as punishment are the main reason why Feats were created. Examples: two weapon fighting, spell casters using magic in melee, tripping, disarming, called shots, etc.
QuoteSee, that assumes that the 3.x/OGL system will still be alive in 5th edition, rather than drowned in a bathtub like an unwanted Chinese baby like it deserves.
Given Pathfinder's success, it will. Though I'm amused at the thought that we need to go back to having five different saving throw categories.
QuoteNo. That position is worthy of not only snide dismissal, but also open scorn and possibly corporal punishment.
When I come across people on the forums crying out for simpler character creation, less rules bloat and more pared down mechanics, it gives me hope that maybe the hobby will cater to actual people again, instead of just fleshy counting machines.
Here's the thing: role-playing games are supposed to be games of imagination. As such, they thrive when they rely on human elements: judgment, creativity, adaptability, etc. Without this element, then you are essentially playing a very, very low tech videogame wherein one set of numbers competes with another set of numbers in a numbers contest to win numbers that can be used to increase the numbers' numbers to take on bigger numbers.
D&D 3rd edition was the worst offender in this regard, with it's attempts to codify absolutely everything, turn character creation into magic-deck building and tie a rubber band around the DM's nuts with rules, it was less a roleplaying game and more of an exercise in abstract spread sheet building.
Actually, being that most of the decisions in the game were made by players while hanging out alone in a dank, odorous basement while sweatily poring over a pile of sourcebooks next to empty Zyprexa bottles, rather than during actual table play, I'd say that it was more the intellectual equivalent of people sitting in a circle and watching eachother masturbate.
4E was better in this regard, but not by a wide margin.
So the long and short of it is that you don't like RPG's. I'm sure that you've convinced yourself that you love them, but you don't. This hobby is for people, and you are just a machine that wants a videogame you can play without electricity. I think that you would be a much happier robot, if you gave up on RPG's and took up tax law as a hobby instead. Or maybe sudoku.
As a long time gamer who broke the ice with Chainmail back in the day and playing every edition of D&D to now (37 years), all I can say is you are wrong. You have made your personal opinion and that is all it will be. So, you are the sole authority on what an RPG??? You are the only person in the whole gaming community that knows what the definition of an RPG is???
Just shut up...
Quote from: Ancientgamer1970;499779As a long time gamer who broke the ice with Chainmail back in the day and playing every edition of D&D to now (37 years), all I can say is you are wrong. You have made your personal opinion and that is all it will be. So, you are the sole authority on what an RPG??? You are the only person in the whole gaming community that knows what the definition of an RPG is???
Just shut up...
Waitaminute, fuck-o.
If you get to make statements like this:
Quote from: Ancientgamer1970;498815I can tell by the way people talk to me whether or not they will suck as a DM or not. I can tell by the way people post if they will be a good DM or not. I been doing this crap too long...
Then Declan MacManus may make whatever statements he wishes
because this is not your Private Idaho. Pundit has the final word here because it is his forum and he has declared it a Free Speech zone.
Take your self-righteous indignation and shove it up your ass.
Quote from: jeff37923;499785Waitaminute, fuck-o.
If you get to make statements like this:
Not sure if you've noticed, but Ancientgamer only posts here to take shots at people and to cry about how they weren't nice to him at Knights & Knaves Alehouse. He never actually starts threads about gaming; the conclusions pretty much draw themselves.
Quote from: misterguignol;499786Not sure if you've noticed, but Ancientgamer only posts here to take shots at people and to cry about how they weren't nice to him at Knights & Knaves Alehouse. He never actually starts threads about gaming; the conclusions pretty much draw themselves.
Actually, I hadn't noticed it. I will pay attention to it in the future, however.
Quote from: misterguignol;499786Not sure if you've noticed, but Ancientgamer only posts here to take shots at people and to cry about how they weren't nice to him at Knights & Knaves Alehouse. He never actually starts threads about gaming; the conclusions pretty much draw themselves.
The only thing that is true about your comment is that I have not started any NEW threads about gaming.
I have a million threads I would love to start but as seeing they might deevolve into slugfests and other things, I would feel that I was wasting other people's time.
Now as far as SOME of my comments are concerned toward certain members of a certain elitist site, I will target them because their elitism is angst of the fractured fanbase they create. So sad, so bad.
So as I see it, there are some posters on here who are allowed to constantly spout their vitrilic posts in the larger posts but I make a few posts and I am the bad guy???? No matter how many different posts I make, posters like this one will only concentrate on certain ones no matter the topic and generalize. Totally laughable...
QuoteWaitaminute, fuck-o.
Oooops, did not mean to make you shed a tear...;)
QuoteI will pay attention to it in the future, however.
Please do and you will see how how wrong you were lead to believe.
QuoteTake your self-righteous indignation and shove it up your ass.
I am practicing my Free Speech as you are... ;D
Quote from: Ancientgamer1970;499791I have a million threads I would love to start but as seeing they might deevolve into slugfests and other things, I would feel that I was wasting other people's time.
Only one way to find out - start one up!
Quote from: Ancientgamer1970;499791Please do and you will see how how wrong you were lead to believe.
I'm waiting. Show us what you got.
Remember -
it doesn't take a big man to stare the topic down,
just a little courage to lift the thread off the ground.
Quote from: Ancientgamer1970;499791The only thing that is true about your comment is that I have not started any NEW threads about gaming.
Right, that's why you insist on calling DungeonDelver "Bill Silvey" as if
Power Word: Real Name will make the bad man go away.
QuoteI have a million threads I would love to start but as seeing they might deevolve into slugfests and other things, I would feel that I was wasting other people's time.
Or maybe it's just easier taking pot-shots from the sidelines?
QuoteNow as far as SOME of my comments are concerned toward certain members of a certain elitist site, I will target them because their elitism is angst of the fractured fanbase they create. So sad, so bad.
So basically you are a whiny bitch who cries in public because certain people made of you on the internet. :rolleyes:
Also, I don't want to hug it out with you in PMs, so don't send me any more of those. I do enjoy your addiction to multiple question marks, though. ??? on, you crazy diamond!
Quote from: misterguignol;499800Right, that's why you insist on calling DungeonDelver "Bill Silvey" as if Power Word: Real Name will make the bad man go away.
Or maybe it's just easier taking pot-shots from the sidelines?
So basically you are a whiny bitch who cries in public because certain people made of you on the internet. :rolleyes:
Also, I don't want to hug it out with you in PMs, so don't send me any more of those. I do enjoy your addiction to multiple question marks, though. ??? on, you crazy diamond!
Typical of those socially inept posters who want to argue and then ask the person they have a issue with to stop posting. If you want the last word, you are welcome to have it after this post.
And to answer your one question though, I was always a firm beleiver that if you have problems with people, it is always best to deal with them personally because people are ALWAYS going to misconstrue things you may write/mean online in a forum. Speaking to people in person has the surprising effect of actually being productive instead of this wasted effort of reaching people who attempt to communicate with any civility online.
Quote from: Ancientgamer1970;499805Typical of those socially inept posters who want to argue and then ask the person they have a issue with to stop posting. If you want the last word, you are welcome to have it after this post.
I don't believe I've ever asked you to stop posting. All I've done is point out that you're a whiny douchebag who contributes very little to the discussion.
QuoteAlso, I don't want to hug it out with you in PMs, so don't send me any more of those. I do enjoy your addiction to multiple question marks, though. ??? on, you crazy diamond!
Can I still hug you in the PMs? :(
To take this back on topic:
I think DnD should take a clue from...
Warhammer 3e.
I despise it as heresy, but they got one thing great - they combined both DnD AC, and Warhammer's AP. And that's ingenious imo.
Quote from: Rincewind1;499809Can I still hug you in the PMs? :(
No reach-arounds.
QuoteTo take this back on topic:
I think DnD should take a clue from...
Warhammer 3e.
I despise it as heresy, but they got one thing great - they combined both DnD AC, and Warhammer's AP. And that's ingenious imo.
Can you go into more detail on how it works in Warhammer 3e? I've forgotten.
Quote from: misterguignol;499810Can you go into more detail on how it works in Warhammer 3e? I've forgotten.
I do not remember exact names for the characteristics, but it goes a bit like this:
Every armour has two stats (besides weight etc. etc.):
- Armour Class
- Armour Points.
Armour Class makes you harder to be actually hit - when you roll to hit, you add 1 black die (bad die, the die you want to avoid since it makes it easier to fail), to your roll
Armour Points make it harder to kill you when you are hit - you remove one point of damage for each Armour Point.
I think that combines the best of both worlds, really. I mean - technically it is a bit harder for the blow to even hurt someone a teensy bit when you hit the armour, the idea that DnD armour emulates, and the armour indeed, at least in case of weapons at disposal of people in Warhammer's technology level, will soak the power of the blow/bullet.
Quote from: misterguignol;499810No reach-arounds.
That's just bad manners.
I dunno Rincewind1, they removed Passive Defense from GURPS 4e for a good reason. Armor doesn't really do that at all.
I dunno, I like the idea of armor absorbing damage. I also think it should make you easier to hit since it hinders movement and thus dodging.
Of course, that would make it a different game.
I think that in WFRP 3e the penalty to hit is to point out that you might not pierce the armour at all, when you hit someone.
Which is already represented by DR reducing the damage to zero. It's just an unecessary complication. I do like a coverage save to get DR though. I think that's a decent way to represent partial armor while avoiding detailed hit locations.