Looking at the jumping off point of this subthread (post 456) I see Robiswrong responding to something that Phillip addressed to no one in particular as if Phillip was criticizing rob specifically.

 I could be wrong.

Quote from: Arminius;762405Looking at the jumping off point of this subthread (post 456) I see Robiswrong responding to something that Phillip addressed to no one in particular as if Phillip was criticizing rob specifically.

 I could be wrong.

Possibly.

Phillip, was that comment directed at me?

Quote from: GnomeWorks;762241Fuckers like you use it as a "gotcha" opportunity rather than try to be useful.

If the asshole you quoted had actually been useful and pointed out where I was apparently factually incorrect, that would have potentially led to a useful exchange of information, and perhaps even a retraction on my part. I'm not above admitting when I'm factually wrong.

But instead, old-school assholes like to use instances like that to say, "AHA! You don't know about obscure rule 73.b from a rule set double your age, so you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about and everything you've said about anything ever is rendered invalid!"

To which I say: go fuck yourself.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;759727That's... kinda funny.

You can't really argue that the social encounter systems in D&D - pick an edition - hold a candle to the amount of mechanics that exist for combat.

Your own words, shitbreath.

Hey, look!  It's your very own personalized, engraved invitation to my "Tongue my pee hole!" list.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;762335If that were true then XP for combat wouldn't be so piddly compared to that for treasure. Looking at the XP tables and how paltry the awards are for combat it is clear that such awards are more of a booby prize for screwing up than a reward for good play.

Agreed.

The thing is,  whether you're old school Taliban or new school Ayatollah,  you're not going to like some stuff that a lot of other fans like.  If you style yourself  OS,  you will crap on stuff that was actually part of the scene back in the '70s because it does not match your provincial custom.

Fundamentalists of any stripe just remove themselves from the market that matters.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;762333The undelying issue, is that some people don't see rpgs as games. Instead they are treated as a vehicle for ego stroking wish fulfilment. If we are THE heroes then we HAVE to win eventually, even if there are setbacks. This is OUR story played to show US kicking ass! :rolleyes:

Its a game. If you die, put in another quarter and keep playing.

That works fine for any version of Dnd made before 1989 or so or some video game that costs 25¢…Houston, we have a problem....

Let me clarify. The Seahawks are the Superbowl champions, soccer is only behind the NFL as the USA's most popular professional sport in my age group (under 40). Things change and they change fast. 5e and the new generation games are aimed at me not veteran Dnd players.

Were they are being smart is that they are trying to make it possible for 5e to be a bridge game to the older editions.

Quote from: Marleycat;762466That works fine for any version of Dnd made before 1989 or so or some video game that costs 25¢…Houston, we have a problem....

Let me clarify. The Seahawks are the Superbowl champions, soccer is only behind the NFL as the USA's most popular professional sport in my age group (under 40). Things change and they change fast. 5e and the new generation games are aimed at me not veteran Dnd players.

Were they are being smart is that they are trying to make it possible for 5e to be a bridge game to the older editions.

I would say they want to get back to having the frp lingua franca, the baseline that opens up to as much elaboration as you want,  just where you happen to want it.

It is really,  truly not rocket science to make the game more or less one of "big damn heroes"  versus "Hit?  60% chance it's time to roll up a new character!"  Ditto most other preferences. Most people want quick character generation if pcs are going to die in droves, but others might still want more detail.

It's generally  easier to add modular complications to a simple rules set than to simplify a tightly bound together complex one.

Those whose notion of playing the game is building Pun Pun are going to be pissed off by not having some mandate that a zillion rules are binding,  but who really came up with that in the first place?  Themselves! They can make the same mess for themselves again.

Those who hated this or that in the AD&D era will no doubt be among those whinging about other people being "allowed" to play such and such a character type or use such and such a rules elaboration.

They can get a room and bash each other over which should be anathematized for "wrecking the game."

Meanwhile,  everyone else can get on with actually playing. Tournaments can specify what set of rules applies. This is old hat,  people.

Quote from: Opaopajr;762361Cobra la la la la la la la!

2e
Grab Object: Called Shot. If contested, Str check contest between contestants.

I am imagining this to the tune of the opening for the movie.

Quote2-E! bum-bum-ba-dum 2-E!

Grab a person pow, Get a called shot now, 2-E! bum-bum-ba-dum 2-E!

Next's playtest Grapple was a STR vs STR or DEX contest. Drag them along at 1/2 speed or restrain them for another STR contest.

Quote from: Omega;762477I am imagining this to the tune of the opening for the movie.

Damn, now that's going to be in my head all day.  Well played.

Quote from: Phillip;762476It is really,  truly not rocket science to make the game more or less one of "big damn heroes"  versus "Hit?  60% chance it's time to roll up a new character!"  

Nope, not at all.  It's the right move to make.  Most people are playing "Big Damn Heroes" and so a new edition of the game should support that.

That's actually one of the things I think that they did right with 4e - get rid of a lot of things that made sense in the "open table" environment but didn't really translate well to "Big Damn Heroes".  They did a lot wrong, too, don't get me wrong, but looking at "hey, for a game with low death rates and where everybody plays the same character, does it really make sense to have this kind of 'wizards start weak, but end up powerful' thing going on?" was a good move.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;762333The undelying issue, is that some people don't see rpgs as games. Instead they are treated as a vehicle for ego stroking wish fulfilment. If we are THE heroes then we HAVE to win eventually, even if there are setbacks. This is OUR story played to show US kicking ass! :rolleyes:

QuoteIts a game. If you die, put in another quarter and keep playing.

Both attitudes are polar enough to warrant equal pity from me. I seek neither the fake development of Twilight's Mary Sues nor the shallowness of Mario from RPGs.

Quote from: robiswrong;762529Nope, not at all.  It's the right move to make.  Most people are playing "Big Damn Heroes" and so a new edition of the game should support that.

That's actually one of the things I think that they did right with 4e - get rid of a lot of things that made sense in the "open table" environment but didn't really translate well to "Big Damn Heroes".  They did a lot wrong, too, don't get me wrong, but looking at "hey, for a game with low death rates and where everybody plays the same character, does it really make sense to have this kind of 'wizards start weak, but end up powerful' thing going on?" was a good move.

I don't think it was a good move to make such a radical change as they did.  I say,  be inclusive,  not exclusive. (Balance by level and xp makes sense, though, quite apart from this issue.)

There are new defaults as to how fast you can get the xp to gain early levels. One can easily multiply those amounts by 5 (or whatever one likes) -  without need to change anything else whatsoever!

Likewise,  it's dead simple with an old edition to start characters at,  say,  4th level -  something some old hands prefer,  since they have already "been there,  done that" to their satisfaction as far as low level play goes.

The point of "not rocket science" is that we don't need to have Big Brother give us a heavy lock down contraption,  as if somebody  playing some other way than I prefer is some kind of rogue nuclear warhead or something.

They have already suggested that veteran Dnd players should start at 3rd level anyway. We used to start at 2-3rd level in 2e all the time and it never broke anything.

Quote from: Phillip;762533I don't think it was a good move to make such a radical change as they did.

No doubt.  Making something that didn't look like D&D was probably the *biggest* mistake they made with 4e.  Almost worse, it fell into the "uncanny valley" in a lot of ways.

Quote from: Phillip;762533as if somebody  playing some other way than I prefer is some kind of rogue nuclear warhead or something.

Fortunately, nobody seems to be saying that someone playing other than the way they prefer is a rogue nuclear warhead.  Go team!

In the old game,  you can still expect MUs to bite the dust from magic missiles and fireballs and whatnot even with 10 hit points instead of 2 to 3. If you were going to treat them with kid gloves and soft pitches anyway, it makes even less difference.