Quote from: The Butcher;543768And there you have it why no edition of D&D will ever satisfy both camps; because they're fundamentally at odds. 3.0e/3.5e were probably the closest to the middle of the road that we'll ever get.

I don't really believe that the pseudo-middleground 3.0 represented can't be better embodied by a functional, modular game system like Next. If you look at it in the details, there are in fact few mechanics concerned when the focus is to what they want to both groups of players (i.e. fate points, how healing/SoD/Level Drain/Rust monsters work, etc etc). A few of these are touching to the core of the game system (I'm thinking HP economy and how that plays domino with other elements in the game like weapon damage, hit points of creatures, and so on, so forth), but none which I think has to be one way or the other. So I think there's a possibility to make things right for both groups in Next (by revising the HP economy, by proposing random HPs for creatures AND fixed HPs at the same time, by thinking about variant effects of situations like SoD and level drain, etc) and propose options people can turn on and off to get the game they want out of it.

Now it's NOT easy. It's a complex affair. And there will/is a lot of bitching and the sky is falling ans stuff involved in the meantime - and honestly, I think you kind of need to have it that way to see what really makes each group react positively and negatively to what you've got in the game system being playtested - but I do think it is possible to get there.

Quote from: pryingeyes;543760I'm not entirely sure that I'd agree with your assertion that new school rules believe the players involved are selfish pricks, and that the rules are there to keep them in line. However, if the tone of the rules is an issue for some, I would fully support changing it.

Constructing rules to control behavior and prevent "bad GMs" is one of the hallmark signifiers of a "new school" game.

Quote from: pryingeyes;543760I don't feel accused by new school rules - I just like (generally fairly mundane) character concepts that aren't completely shafted by these rules, and to have adventures where player choice is important, rather than 'whatever the DM says'.

Any rules system designed with a shred of thought towards power relationships at the table is by definition "New School", if not outright Forgite.

To quote the philsopher Sam Kinison, "If you don't trust the pussy, why are you fucking the pussy?"

Every game I've ever played in outside a convention has dealt with bad players and bad GMs the old fashioned way, discussion and voting-via-foot.  The "but the rules say..." conversation has always happened, but it has turned into a rules obsession due to WotC managing D&D like Magic, focusing solely on tournament-style rules.

When I attempt to do something with my character that the rules might not cover exactly, and I ask the GM what happens, I'm just asking a referee to make a call, I'm not genuflecting and kissing his sacred cockhead.

This shit is so Gen-Y it's pathetic.

Quote from: pryingeyes;543756For starters, I'm a 3/3.5 player at heart. I don't own a 4e book, even.

I like some of 4e's ideas because to me - they encourage more risk and reward. Lots more.

When you have a highly codified and tactical combat system, for instance, you have a lot more control over the stakes. As a player, you take clearer choices with clearer effects on the battle rather than having to negotiate for these. Therefore, the DM doesn't have to play the monsters with a hand tied behind his back and the players know this - it is truly competitive, in the strictest sense of the term. Players aren't entitled to shine - they're able to if they play well - and they know the DM's going to play well.  

To me having a more tactical combat system is a different thing than having spotlight parity. You can have a very tactical combat system with little to know spotlight parity. Where 4E breaks down for me is the powers mechanics (dailies, utilities, encounter and at will) which appear designed to give everyone an equally rationed amount of shine time in combat (spotlight parity). A game where tactics mattered and where decisions players made had important mechanical consequences wouldn't bother me the way 4E does, it is the way 4E does it, which is through parity at each stage of the game. Just not for me.

Quote(I'm more of a combat light guy and prefer to play faster!)

And no, I certainly don't believe every group or every system should have spotlight parity (and certainly not every instance!)  (quick edit: I'm not trying to imply I was accused of this) But I do have a strong preference for systems that encourage equally powered characters as to not shaft players.

I am combat light as well.

Balance is fine. But I don't think it should be centered entirely around combat, and I don't think it means everyone has to be assured of equal spotlight time.

Quote from: CRKrueger;543798Every game I've ever played in outside a convention has dealt with bad players and bad GMs the old fashioned way, discussion and voting-via-foot.  The "but the rules say..." conversation has always happened, but it has turned into a rules obsession due to WotC managing D&D like Magic, focusing solely on tournament-style rules.

When I attempt to do something with my character that the rules might not cover exactly, and I ask the GM what happens, I'm just asking a referee to make a call, I'm not genuflecting and kissing his sacred cockhead.

I'm glad we're on the same page about this.

I don't want to genuflect and fellate my GM, or play rules lawyer with him in order to affect the situation. I want a nice framework in which out-of-rules actions make sense.

And I have no idea why you think that a new school system that acknowledges the relationship between player and GM somehow excludes out of game meta negotiations, leaving the game altogether, etc. It doesn't.

But really - it's a game, and you're probably playing with friends. 'Voting with your feet' is probably the worst case scenario. A framework that avoids that outcome while not intruding with actions while keeping the game fun is, in my opinion, ideal.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;543805Balance is fine. But I don't think it should be centered entirely around combat, and I don't think it means everyone has to be assured of equal spotlight time.

I think I disagree here. If I'm reading you right, you prefer characters to be balanced overall (ie one character might be good inside of combat, another be utility-based, another social), while I like having all characters contribute strongly in and outside of combat.

Quote from: pryingeyes;543808I think I disagree here. If I'm reading you right, you prefer characters to be balanced overall (ie one character might be good inside of combat, another be utility-based, another social), while I like having all characters contribute strongly in and outside of combat.

Yes, i think we just disagree. I dont mind if my character is combat weak but a great detective for example (or if he is terrible at social situationsbut a beast with a sword).

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;543809Yes, i think we just disagree. I dont mind if my character is combat weak but a great detective for example (or if he is terrible at social situationsbut a beast with a sword).

What's odd is that in certain game styles (absurdly, the kind I prefer), I'd agree a lot more with you.

But in either 4e-style lengthy, tactical combat games - or extremely rules-light social games, your style sort of breaks down at the table.

I think I just feel that the rules should sort of cover the last option as possibly occurring and balance from there.

Quote from: pryingeyes;543811What's odd is that in certain game styles (absurdly, the kind I prefer), I'd agree a lot more with you.

But in either 4e-style lengthy, tactical combat games - or extremely rules-light social games, your style sort of breaks down at the table.

I think I just feel that the rules should sort of cover the last option as possibly occurring and balance from there.

I most of my games the pcs dont go through a series of social encounters or a series of combat gauntlets, i let them try different coursesof action (sometimes it means bashing things over the head, sometimes it means they engage in political maneuverings, other times it mean sweat talking their way out of situation. So my games tend to be a strong mix. Personally games built around a series of long encounters bore me to tears.

Also, pryingeyes suggestion only really works if you basically buy into the Forge's design philosophy and focus on making your game "coherent" so that then, you can balance things between those game components or abilities that are more obviously prevalent than these other ones in game play. The farther away you get from Forge game design, the less likely you'll be able to separate the relative utility of two components between them in the game.

Quote from: pryingeyes;543807I want a nice framework in which out-of-rules actions make sense.

Well, obviously, no rules can give you that.

Quote from: pryingeyes;543807And I have no idea why you think that a new school system that acknowledges the relationship between player and GM somehow excludes out of game meta negotiations, leaving the game altogether, etc. It doesn't.

No, it doesn't, anymore then Chess doesn't, but one player wanting to play a casual game, while another wants to take seven hours per move is something that can render the game unstatisfying to both, but the rules have no purpose in that discussion. EVERY game that isn't single-player has the "outside of game" social aspect.  So what?  New School games go further into trying to define and codify that interaction.

Quote from: pryingeyes;543807But really - it's a game, and you're probably playing with friends. 'Voting with your feet' is probably the worst case scenario. A framework that avoids that outcome while not intruding with actions while keeping the game fun is, in my opinion, ideal.

What framework avoids the outcome?  4e?  Maybe, but you're talking about basically playing a wargame at that point.  

I know the odds, I know the situation because the rules have forced the GM to allocate me the proper magic items, they have forced the GM to set up a an encounter I know I can win, and now it's all about who plays the game better.  Fucking AWESOME wargame, shit roleplaying game.

Quote from: CRKrueger;543815What framework avoids the outcome?  4e?  Maybe, but you're talking about basically playing a wargame at that point.  

I know the odds, I know the situation because the rules have forced the GM to allocate me the proper magic items, they have forced the GM to set up a an encounter I know I can win, and now it's all about who plays the game better.  Fucking AWESOME wargame, shit roleplaying game.

4e doesn't avoid that outcome. But at least it tried - I don't play it myself, but I respect some of its ideas.

I don't know why you think rules that encourage (no rule can force anyone to do anything) fair encounters make a 'shit roleplaying game' necessarily. However, I wouldn't slavishly adhere to perfect balance within encounters or with magic items or whatever. So we may actually agree on that point.

Quote from: pryingeyes;543820I don't know why you think rules that encourage (no rule can force anyone to do anything) fair encounters make a 'shit roleplaying game' necessarily.

Because there is no fantasy, modern, or futuristic setting that I can think of where the inhabitants always face equivalent foes, and rarely have to run.  Any game that models something like that is far too self-aware to be immersive to me.

Quote from: CRKrueger;543798To quote the philsopher Sam Kinison, "If you don't trust the pussy, why are you fucking the pussy?"

YAY! New line in the sig for Sigmund