Support the GITP forums on Patreon
Help support GITP's forums (and ongoing server maintenance) via Patreon
Page 8 of 50 FirstFirst 12345678910111213141516171833 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 240 of 1483
  1. - Top - End - #211
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2012

    Default Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Thread #3

    2e Dark sun is just BETTER WRITTEN.

    Its cities based off of ancient empires, each one cleverly embracing the savagery but uniqueness of it all.

    You just don't get this type of clever stuff no more.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fawkes View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Fralex View Post
    A little condescending
    That pretty much sums up the Scowling Dragon experience.

  2. - Top - End - #212
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    NJ
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Thread #3

    Quote Originally Posted by Scowling Dragon View Post
    2e Dark sun is just BETTER WRITTEN.

    Its cities based off of ancient empires, each one cleverly embracing the savagery but uniqueness of it all.

    You just don't get this type of clever stuff no more.
    I'd say all of 2ed campaign settings were just better written than the 3e versions. And certainly the 4e versions.

    However, 2nd edition kind of dropped the ball in terms of Greyhawk. Neither here nor there, though.

    The point is that what makes the campaign setting interesting and fun is not new rules, new classes, etc., but good writing, interesting ideas well thought out and exploited, and so on. That, and the ability to make use of the setting without having to go and empty your wallet entirely on various splat books just to make it work on even a basic level.
    It doesn't matter what game you're playing as long as you're having fun.

  3. - Top - End - #213
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2012

    Default Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Thread #3

    I think.....Yeah. The secret to a good campaign setting is just Good writing.

    Thats about it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fawkes View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Fralex View Post
    A little condescending
    That pretty much sums up the Scowling Dragon experience.

  4. - Top - End - #214
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    SamuraiGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Thread #3

    I've been looking into a lot of 3.5 homebrew, jus' cuz, and there's something I noticed... A lot of the best homebrew are fashioned using unique mechanics from splatclasses, or other additive features of the game... Meaning, the original stuff is actually improved on by adapting it to the new stuff... For instance, the Voldur here uses a Warblade's manuever as it's racial ability.

    Opinions aside, it is a unique way to build a race, but ultimately would require the knowledge that the Warblade was going to exist if this kind of building was established in the beginning.

    I don't know if I'm getting my point across... Lessee. Gnomes. Gnomes get cantrips per their class feature, and it's limited to the spells produced in the PHB. That means, despite however many cantrips are developed in splat books (like even ones specifically partaining to Gnomes...) a gnome can ONLY have those spell-like-abilities.

    I see this as the fault of lack of foresight, but is entirely understandable. For 3.5...

    With all the material that has been presented in DnD's long run, how likely do you think it is that Next will incorporate ideas that they're not producing yet into books they are? Will they use an interesting PrC's ability as an idea for a racial feature, even though the PrC's not done yet, or will they do as they have done in the past? It's like making a clay pot.
    You either start with a little, and slap on chunks as you go, giving it a hashed together feel, or you start with way too much pot, and slowly scrape away the excess unto you have what you want...

    With the module idea, it SOUNDS like it'll be the latter... But what do you guys think?

  5. - Top - End - #215
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Eldan's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Switzerland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Thread #3

    Quote Originally Posted by Narsil View Post
    Shush you. We don't need that kind of logic here. :P
    All D&D books I've ever seen cost at least 50$. Probably 60+ now, that the dollar is so cheap.
    "Après la vie - le mort, après le mort, la vie de noveau.
    Après le monde - le gris; après le gris - le monde de nouveau.
    "

  6. - Top - End - #216
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2012

    Default Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Thread #3

    Quote Originally Posted by Eldan View Post
    All D&D books I've ever seen cost at least 50$. Probably 60+ now, that the dollar is so cheap.
    Well whatever. You know what I mean.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fawkes View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Fralex View Post
    A little condescending
    That pretty much sums up the Scowling Dragon experience.

  7. - Top - End - #217
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Scots Dragon's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Trapped in England
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Thread #3

    Quote Originally Posted by Eldan View Post
    All D&D books I've ever seen cost at least 50$. Probably 60+ now, that the dollar is so cheap.
    I don't actually use dollars, and the conversion sometimes tends to vary, but the core books for 4e usually go for about £20, according to Amazon. Though they're on offer at the minute, apparently.

  8. - Top - End - #218
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Yora's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Germany

    Default Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Thread #3

    Quote Originally Posted by Eldan View Post
    All D&D books I've ever seen cost at least 50$. Probably 60+ now, that the dollar is so cheap.
    Aren't you from Switzerland? Everything is super-expensive there.
    All my 3rd Edition books say $29.95 on the back.
    We are not standing on the shoulders of giants, but on very tall tower of other dwarves.

    Beneath the Leaves of Kaendor - Writing Sword & Sorcery
    Spriggan's Den Heroic Fantasy Roleplaying

  9. - Top - End - #219
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    LansXero's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Lima, Peru
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Thread #3

    What I would like to see is more modules that are fully usable outside of the box and pretty-ed up.

    I would certainly buy them if a module came with:
    - Cardboard pregen PCs
    - Paper empty char sheets
    - Apropriate tokens / minis for the encounters in the module, not random stuff
    - Apropriate map grids for the encounters in the module, not generic stuff
    - Stat cards for the monsters in the module
    - Empty monster stat card
    - Dice probably.
    - Module with cardboard handouts that you can tear off and hand out, split between an adventure intro booklet, a mechanics summary for the DM to run encounters with, and the stuff he is supposed to read out loud.

    I have no idea how feasible or economical would it be to make this, but Id love to see more of this. The main thing holding D&D back is how much of a time comitment it demands, and how much of the work is put on a single person.

  10. - Top - End - #220
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    SamuraiGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    By Bellevue, WA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Thread #3

    My only issues with the 3.5 splatbooks was the fact that they made the rules become bloated and crazy. Is it that hard to test the splatbooks to make them in line with the main rules, so there is no bloated broken craziness?

    I found as I DMed 3.5 that the encounter system was really hard to get a handle on. It was hit or miss, and if you used what was in the Monster Manual, the encounters were fairly short. Also, statting up npcs took a while and would end up being a waste of time because they would die really fast.

    I think one of the main things about 4e that i liked was that it was easier to DM it than it was to DM 3.5. You could be an inexperienced DM and have things running pretty quick. In 3.5, it was a challenge and still is for me. Learning to DM 3.5 has been a challenge and i still have issues. I get yelled at about having a bad tactical sense. I tried making encounters be tough but they ended up always being easy or too easy. Of course i have several min-maxers/powergamers in my gaming group. I can see already serious signs of similiar issues for the DM is running our current saturday game. I also had xp awards and treasure hand-out issues.

    I hope 5e is fairly easy to DM for, and has a decently made encounter system. I think that for options, each class should have a skeleton to it, then you can add abilities and features that you can qualify for.

    For example: The wizard class) You can do spellcasting and get some spells that represent a basic required learning for it. Then you pick spells/abilities/features to round out your stuff. As you level up, more options become available if you meet the preqs.

    I wasn't particulary fond of Vancian Magic. It had its good points yeah, but it caused the odd wizard/sorceror spiel. Wizards knew alot of spells and cast a few. Sorcerors knew a few and cast alot. Otherwise they were just flipsides on a coin. Then you throw in the Tiers, and explain to me why you wouldn't just be a wizard anyway? or just a cleric or druid? Oh, you could be a fighter type, if you used the Tome of battle stuff.

    Making the classes more equal was nice. That way, my high level fighter can do more than just make sandwiches for your high level wizard. Do we really still need the wizard to be able to defeat encounters all on their own? At higher levels, wizards tend to end up ruling the game. They can deal with all problems, find out everything they need to, and can handle pretty much anything that comes their way.

    I would like to see 5e being something that would be enjoyable to play, but i don't it to be just a copy of pathfinder; which functions basically as 3.5 with house rules. Some stuff that worked in 4e should be viewed at or looked at for adding in.

    I happen to like 3.5 aside from its issues i have when i try to run games. I liked 4th and enjoyed it alot, but i ended up just back to 3.5 since i could find a game for that, and the 4e stuff was absorbing money and shelf space.
    Last edited by russdm; 2012-05-10 at 05:13 PM.
    Blog Read and Comment! I use green for joking and Blue for sarcasm.
    Published two Kindle Books on Amazon, both are 99 cents. Ask Me about them!
    Quote Originally Posted by Peelee View Post
    Wookiee. 2 E's. [I am obsessed with this]
    My First Let's Play -- Temporary Haitus (I plan to get back to it eventually)

  11. - Top - End - #221
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    PairO'Dice Lost's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Malsheem, Nessus
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Thread #3

    Quote Originally Posted by russdm View Post
    My only issues with the 3.5 splatbooks was the fact that they made the rules become bloated and crazy. Is it that hard to test the splatbooks to make them in line with the main rules, so there is no bloated broken craziness?
    For people who know the system? Not hard at all. For WotC? Apparently so.

    I'm sure by now you've heard the story about how WotC told the old CharOp boards "Hey guys, we've heard people think our books aren't very balanced. We'll let you playtest the next few books and tell us the broken stuff, and you'll get your forum names in the back under playtest credits." People liked the idea and enthusiastically offered their critique...but WotC ignored most of it, and what they didn't ignore went into the books uncredited.

    It's perfectly possible to get a few competent people who know the game like the back of their hands to review and playtest things, and to do it quickly and efficiently, but WotC (A) doesn't hire good reviewers and playtesters, apparently, and (B) apparently doesn't like to hear criticism from outside sources. At least they were subtle about it, unlike Paizo's open playtest and their responses to criticism there, but still, playtesting has never been WotC's strong suit.

    And this isn't just a 3e thing, either--keep in mind that the CharOp boards broke 4e in several ways before it was even officially released. It's just that the structure of 4e was strict enough that the devs couldn't release anything too crazy, and though it took the devs until the last year or two of each edition to get a better handle on how the system actually worked (and even then...truenamer....) that came a lot earlier for 4e because the inner workings were more visible.

    I wasn't particulary fond of Vancian Magic. It had its good points yeah, but it caused the odd wizard/sorceror spiel. Wizards knew alot of spells and cast a few. Sorcerors knew a few and cast alot. Otherwise they were just flipsides on a coin. Then you throw in the Tiers, and explain to me why you wouldn't just be a wizard anyway? or just a cleric or druid? Oh, you could be a fighter type, if you used the Tome of battle stuff.
    The sorcerer exists because there was no spontaneous casting before 3e and the devs wanted to try something new. The fact that they drastically overvalued it's usefulness, like they did for many innocuous mechanics over the years (cough cough warlock), is what led to sorcerers being strictly inferior to wizards in many scenarios, though again once the devs got their act together the sorcerer started to pull ahead in several areas.

    If you play 3e using the assumptions of AD&D, it actually plays fine up through high levels. The devs meant to make a game that let you play AD&D in a more streamlined manner, and they did an excellent job of that. They just didn't realize that the changes they made would result in a very different playstyle when considering how the game actually works, which is why we got the Tiers and all that.
    Better to DM in Baator than play in Celestia
    You can just call me Dice; that's how I roll.


    Spoiler: Sig of Holding
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by abadguy View Post
    Darn you PoDL for making me care about a bunch of NPC Commoners!
    Quote Originally Posted by Chambers View Post
    I'm pretty sure turning Waterdeep into a sheet of glass wasn't the best win condition for that fight. We lived though!
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxiDuRaritry View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'DiceLost View Post
    <Snip>
    Where are my Like, Love, and Want to Have Your Manchildren (Totally Homo) buttons for this post?
    Won a cookie for this, won everything for this

  12. - Top - End - #222
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Eldan's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Switzerland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Thread #3

    Eh. Crazy overpoweredness was not so much a problem with the splatbooks. They made being overpowered a bit more easy and convenient, perhaps, but most of the strongest spells were in core, as were most Tier 1 classes.

    But a lot of those books just didn't have much that was acutally interesting. Most of the prestige classes weren't really worth taking from a mechanical standpoint, and didn't offer much fluffwise. Except for casters of course, who would be stupid not to take a PrC, as they mostly don't lose anything.
    "Après la vie - le mort, après le mort, la vie de noveau.
    Après le monde - le gris; après le gris - le monde de nouveau.
    "

  13. - Top - End - #223
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    PairO'Dice Lost's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Malsheem, Nessus
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Thread #3

    Quote Originally Posted by Eldan View Post
    Eh. Crazy overpoweredness was not so much a problem with the splatbooks. They made being overpowered a bit more easy and convenient, perhaps, but most of the strongest spells were in core, as were most Tier 1 classes.

    But a lot of those books just didn't have much that was acutally interesting. Most of the prestige classes weren't really worth taking from a mechanical standpoint, and didn't offer much fluffwise. Except for casters of course, who would be stupid not to take a PrC, as they mostly don't lose anything.
    Granted, Sturgeon's Law applies to splatbook material as much as anything else, but there's plenty of arguably broken stuff in splats (DMM + nightsticks, truenamers, celerity, StP erudite, Planar Shepherd...) that the devs should have noticed easily but missed. The fact that the PHB is the most unbalanced book doesn't excuse the devs from at least trying to clean up their act with the later stuff, and that perception of splats being broken, even if untrue, was a big problem if only because it made people want to run core-only games.
    Better to DM in Baator than play in Celestia
    You can just call me Dice; that's how I roll.


    Spoiler: Sig of Holding
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by abadguy View Post
    Darn you PoDL for making me care about a bunch of NPC Commoners!
    Quote Originally Posted by Chambers View Post
    I'm pretty sure turning Waterdeep into a sheet of glass wasn't the best win condition for that fight. We lived though!
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxiDuRaritry View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'DiceLost View Post
    <Snip>
    Where are my Like, Love, and Want to Have Your Manchildren (Totally Homo) buttons for this post?
    Won a cookie for this, won everything for this

  14. - Top - End - #224
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    SamuraiGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    By Bellevue, WA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Thread #3

    @PairOdiceLost: I was meaning the developers, not the players. I thought that the 3.5 CharOp boards were for shameless powergamers more interested in sucking the funness out of the game by making characters that made the rest of party redundent. As well as causing DMs troubles since the characters became able to trash the encounters without harm.

    I would have thought that Wizards would have listened to the playtesting results and improve the game system thanks to it. Did they not simply care at that point? or was this during the build up of 4th edition?

    Tome of Battle is one of the best splatbooks. It makes martial classes jump up the tier to tier 2 or tier 3. I didn't really care about 4e's brokenness. I happen to like the sorceror and warlock classes. They are both interesting kinds of casters. Sorcerors are really great when you add in the metamagic that lets them cast spells quickly.

    I have played AD&D, Dark Sun to be precise, What were the assumptions?

    In General: I agree that the splatbooks didn't have much that was interesting, but there were some hidden gems amongst the refuse.
    Blog Read and Comment! I use green for joking and Blue for sarcasm.
    Published two Kindle Books on Amazon, both are 99 cents. Ask Me about them!
    Quote Originally Posted by Peelee View Post
    Wookiee. 2 E's. [I am obsessed with this]
    My First Let's Play -- Temporary Haitus (I plan to get back to it eventually)

  15. - Top - End - #225
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    PairO'Dice Lost's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Malsheem, Nessus
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Thread #3

    Quote Originally Posted by russdm View Post
    @PairOdiceLost: I was meaning the developers, not the players. I thought that the 3.5 CharOp boards were for shameless powergamers more interested in sucking the funness out of the game by making characters that made the rest of party redundent. As well as causing DMs troubles since the characters became able to trash the encounters without harm.
    I was referring to the developers as well. My point was that there were and are plenty of people out there, whether freelancers or random people on the internet, who had the knowledge and the desire to help WotC playtest things but the devs just didn't want to take advantage of that opportunity.

    I would have thought that Wizards would have listened to the playtesting results and improve the game system thanks to it. Did they not simply care at that point? or was this during the build up of 4th edition?
    I'm fairly sure it was in the Tome of Battle-to-Cityscape time period, so that would put it in the second half of 2006, at least a year before the start of development on 4e was announced; all the original threads are gone since the WotC forums went down in flames after Gleemax, so I can't find any particular dates.
    Better to DM in Baator than play in Celestia
    You can just call me Dice; that's how I roll.


    Spoiler: Sig of Holding
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by abadguy View Post
    Darn you PoDL for making me care about a bunch of NPC Commoners!
    Quote Originally Posted by Chambers View Post
    I'm pretty sure turning Waterdeep into a sheet of glass wasn't the best win condition for that fight. We lived though!
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxiDuRaritry View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'DiceLost View Post
    <Snip>
    Where are my Like, Love, and Want to Have Your Manchildren (Totally Homo) buttons for this post?
    Won a cookie for this, won everything for this

  16. - Top - End - #226
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tyndmyr's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Thread #3

    Quote Originally Posted by Yora View Post
    Aren't you from Switzerland? Everything is super-expensive there.
    All my 3rd Edition books say $29.95 on the back.
    They will. That said, good luck finding MiC for $29.95. The lack of supply of new books means many 3.5 books are climbing solidly in price.

    The older 3.0 books seem generally still reasonable, though.

  17. - Top - End - #227
    Banned
     
    JadePhoenix's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Thread #3

    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    If you play 3e using the assumptions of AD&D, it actually plays fine up through high levels. The devs meant to make a game that let you play AD&D in a more streamlined manner, and they did an excellent job of that. They just didn't realize that the changes they made would result in a very different playstyle when considering how the game actually works, which is why we got the Tiers and all that.
    Well said!

  18. - Top - End - #228
    Orc in the Playground
     
    Clawhound's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    MD
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Thread #3

    Indeed, it was/is a simulation vs. implementation problem.

    In one direction, the rules simulate the world, and in the other, the world implements the rules. Depending on which direction you choose, you get a significantly different answer.

    For people who want to play in a world, the rules exist to simulate the experience of that world, but ultimately, the world defines the feel, not the rules. That which violates the world is discouraged for forbidden.

    If you begin with the rules defining the world, then anything that the rules allow is allowed, and the implications of those rules are allowed as well. Thus, if spiked-chain wielders make the best infantry, then you would expect to find many spiked-chain wielding companies taking to the battlefield with their superior weapon.

    Mix the two worlds, and you get conflict. My guess is that World-First is the predominant play style, but on the boards, Rules-First might predominate.

  19. - Top - End - #229
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Oracle_Hunter's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Thread #3

    Quote Originally Posted by Clawhound View Post
    Indeed, it was/is a simulation vs. implementation problem.

    In one direction, the rules simulate the world, and in the other, the world implements the rules. Depending on which direction you choose, you get a significantly different answer.

    For people who want to play in a world, the rules exist to simulate the experience of that world, but ultimately, the world defines the feel, not the rules. That which violates the world is discouraged for forbidden.

    If you begin with the rules defining the world, then anything that the rules allow is allowed, and the implications of those rules are allowed as well. Thus, if spiked-chain wielders make the best infantry, then you would expect to find many spiked-chain wielding companies taking to the battlefield with their superior weapon.

    Mix the two worlds, and you get conflict. My guess is that World-First is the predominant play style, but on the boards, Rules-First might predominate.
    A novel concept, but I don't think this plays out the way you state.

    The rules of a game are analogous to the physics of the world: they define how outcomes of actions are determined. A weapon that does 1d10 damage per hit is, all other things being equal, a more lethal weapon than one that does 1d4. If your "world" says daggers are incredibly lethal while battleaxes are not and yet the rules say getting hit with a battleaxe is going to kill you quicker, you have a "world" that operates under an illusion.

    As much as I hate to say it, "worlds" that disagree with the rules they operate under lack verisimilitude and, to many people, that means they are bad worlds. "World-First" playstyles only work when Players don't read the rules of the game; they take the authors at their word. But, when they try to operate within the world using the rules they will quickly discover that the authors have lied to them and the world is very different than they had been lead to believe.
    Lead Designer for Oracle Hunter Games
    Today a Blog, Tomorrow a Business!


    ~ Awesome Avatar by the phantastic Phase ~
    Spoiler
    Show

    Elflad

  20. - Top - End - #230
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    PirateGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2009

    Default Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Thread #3

    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle_Hunter View Post
    A novel concept, but I don't think this plays out the way you state.

    The rules of a game are analogous to the physics of the world: they define how outcomes of actions are determined. A weapon that does 1d10 damage per hit is, all other things being equal, a more lethal weapon than one that does 1d4. If your "world" says daggers are incredibly lethal while battleaxes are not and yet the rules say getting hit with a battleaxe is going to kill you quicker, you have a "world" that operates under an illusion.

    As much as I hate to say it, "worlds" that disagree with the rules they operate under lack verisimilitude and, to many people, that means they are bad worlds. "World-First" playstyles only work when Players don't read the rules of the game; they take the authors at their word. But, when they try to operate within the world using the rules they will quickly discover that the authors have lied to them and the world is very different than they had been lead to believe.
    This. Just because people thought standing in a line and shooting each other with muskets was the right way to fight, doesn't mean you should keep doing that when machine guns are available.

    So, if spiked chain are indeed better, why don't they use it? Cause it sounds stupid? Well, if it works, it ain't stupid.
    Last edited by 2xMachina; 2012-05-11 at 01:44 PM.

  21. - Top - End - #231
    Orc in the Playground
     
    Clawhound's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    MD
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Thread #3

    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle_Hunter View Post
    A novel concept, but I don't think this plays out the way you state.

    The rules of a game are analogous to the physics of the world: they define how outcomes of actions are determined. A weapon that does 1d10 damage per hit is, all other things being equal, a more lethal weapon than one that does 1d4. If your "world" says daggers are incredibly lethal while battleaxes are not and yet the rules say getting hit with a battleaxe is going to kill you quicker, you have a "world" that operates under an illusion.

    As much as I hate to say it, "worlds" that disagree with the rules they operate under lack verisimilitude and, to many people, that means they are bad worlds. "World-First" playstyles only work when Players don't read the rules of the game; they take the authors at their word. But, when they try to operate within the world using the rules they will quickly discover that the authors have lied to them and the world is very different than they had been lead to believe.
    Exactly. You have the "rules first" point of view. That's what works for you.

    Let's start with world first. If I am going to run a Arthurian style game, I can choose D&D to do that. Choices which works with Arthurian verisimilitude are smiled upon, but many options won't work with Arthurian. The problem here is not the world. The problem is that the rules set is imperfect. Should imperfections and quirks in the rules set then drive the setting, so that Sir Ninja and Sir Dread Necromancer go searching for the Holy Grail? No.

    In a rules-driven world, if you change the rules system, then the world must change with it.

    In world first, the rules only approximate the world, they do not define it. The game rules are merely a common language to engage in the adventure. You could just as easily use GURPS or Rock-Paper-Scissors to adventure. The world remains the same no matter which system that you use.

  22. - Top - End - #232
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2012

    Default Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Thread #3

    It looks like they won't be releasing it this year....But they could be lying.

    If they did that the backlash would cause bleeding.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fawkes View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Fralex View Post
    A little condescending
    That pretty much sums up the Scowling Dragon experience.

  23. - Top - End - #233
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Oracle_Hunter's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Thread #3

    Quote Originally Posted by Clawhound View Post
    Let's start with world first. If I am going to run a Arthurian style game, I can choose D&D to do that. Choices which works with Arthurian verisimilitude are smiled upon, but many options won't work with Arthurian. The problem here is not the world. The problem is that the rules set is imperfect. Should imperfections and quirks in the rules set then drive the setting, so that Sir Ninja and Sir Dread Necromancer go searching for the Holy Grail? No.

    In a rules-driven world, if you change the rules system, then the world must change with it.

    In world first, the rules only approximate the world, they do not define it. The game rules are merely a common language to engage in the adventure. You could just as easily use GURPS or Rock-Paper-Scissors to adventure. The world remains the same no matter which system that you use.
    ...unless you're talking about changing the rules to fit the world-view you're aiming for, it sounds an awful lot like willful ignorance to me. Which I guess is cool, but I'd rather play a game where the rules match the world, rather than have to pretend that certain rules don't exist.

    If your world posits the increasing dominance of firearms over older tech, what do you do if the rules actually make old tech as good -- if not better -- than the new? Pretend that the legions of musketmen aren't getting slaughtered by some guy with two swords? Do people actually choose that sort of gameplay? If so, why?
    Lead Designer for Oracle Hunter Games
    Today a Blog, Tomorrow a Business!


    ~ Awesome Avatar by the phantastic Phase ~
    Spoiler
    Show

    Elflad

  24. - Top - End - #234
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2012

    Default Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Thread #3

    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle_Hunter View Post
    ...unless you're talking about changing the rules to fit the world-view you're aiming for, it sounds an awful lot like willful ignorance to me. Which I guess is cool, but I'd rather play a game where the rules match the world, rather than have to pretend that certain rules don't exist.
    Unfortunately that usually requires a system thats completely balanced.

    Because otherwise I must ask: When you play 4e do you always play the optimal 300damage per round dealing rouge? Because otherwise your just not making sense. All other options would be willful ignorance .

    edit:

    In fact your entire campaign must be filled with nothing BUT these types of characters. I mean, If this is the most powerful build therefore everybody else MUST have to play it as well.
    Last edited by Scowling Dragon; 2012-05-11 at 03:54 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fawkes View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Fralex View Post
    A little condescending
    That pretty much sums up the Scowling Dragon experience.

  25. - Top - End - #235
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Oracle_Hunter's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Thread #3

    Quote Originally Posted by Scowling Dragon View Post
    Unfortunately that usually requires a system thats completely balanced.

    Because otherwise I must ask: When you play 4e do you always play the optimal 300damage per round dealing rouge? Because otherwise your just not making sense. All other options would be willful ignorance .
    Ah, hello strawman. Nice to meet you

    No, I am not making the argument that everyone always works with total optimality. That's false for many reasons; what I am arguing is that people operate with reasonable optimality.
    Spoiler
    Show
    Armies use good weapons and armor because they win wars. Armies which use inferior weapons and armor tend to lose, all other things being equal. At the smaller level, mercenaries can't afford to choose sub-standard gear because they think it should work better: when you are in a high-risk profession, natural selection tends to weed out people who hold fast to false assumptions.

    That said, there is a lot of space between "the best" and "good enough." For individuals it is enough to kill the other guy before he kills you -- it doesn't usually matter whether you kill him in round 1 or round 3. In 4e in particular there are plenty of options which are "good enough" that they would be reasonable to choose between them -- not everyone should be a Caster.

    But this isn't about Edition Warz; it's about (*sigh*) verisimilitude. Most people prize verisimilitude in their games for various reasons, but for me it has always been about satisfying expectations: it is easier to make decisions in a game where one can have a reasonable understanding of the costs and benefits of the decisions. If a game tells me that Fighters are the best at fighting then I'd expect to be at least good at fighting were I to play one; it would be jarring to discover that Fighters are actually pretty bad at fighting when compared to Clerics -- who are supposed to be good at healing, not fighting. On a larger scale, every time the fluff of the world does not match up with the crunch it prompts the question of "why is the world like this?" Why is The Empire rolling over everyone with their advanced technology when my character's sword & shield is more than a match for their guns? If Clerics can cast Mending at will, why does anyone bother to fix things by hand?

    You can Hand Wave your way around a lot of it -- Clerics are far rarer than you'd think or your sword & shield technique is usable by one in a million while training with guns is easier -- but some things are harder to Hand Wave than others. The classic example is easy resurrection: why is the king afraid of assassins when he can be magically resurrected basically at will. If your world hinges on the assumption that death is final (see Arthurian Fantasy) it can become awkward to the DM when the Players roll up to Arthur's corpse and cast Raise Dead. Of course, there are ways to Scotch Tape over it, but wouldn't it be better to simply use rules that match your world rather than glaring at your Players every time they do something that is allowed but declasse?

    The short of it is that people make sub-optimal choices for all sorts of reasons, but in high-risk situations there are intense selection pressures against making truly inferior choices. Verisimilitude is, to a large extent, the matching of Player expectations (i.e. the fluff) with reality (i.e. the rules); every time there is a disconnect the DM must either invent a reason why or tell the Players it isn't polite to point. IMHO games work better when the degree of verisimilitude is higher.

    I also honestly can't imagine sitting down a game and being told to ignore the rules we are given. Why use a rules set at all if it isn't what the game is about? Every "world-first" game would work better diceless.
    Lead Designer for Oracle Hunter Games
    Today a Blog, Tomorrow a Business!


    ~ Awesome Avatar by the phantastic Phase ~
    Spoiler
    Show

    Elflad

  26. - Top - End - #236
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2012

    Default Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Thread #3

    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle_Hunter View Post
    Ah, hello strawman. Nice to meet you
    Aw hello, its my twin brother "Izah. OK .whenitsanotsamygame".

    No, I am not making the argument that everyone always works with total optimality. That's false for many reasons; what I am arguing is that people operate with reasonable optimality.
    And thats a subjective thing. You ignore rules. You just pretend that your ignoring them "The right way".

    Edit:

    Mostly, this is not a game we play to win. Its to have fun and experiment with different combinations.
    Last edited by Scowling Dragon; 2012-05-11 at 04:25 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fawkes View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Fralex View Post
    A little condescending
    That pretty much sums up the Scowling Dragon experience.

  27. - Top - End - #237
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    SamuraiGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    By Bellevue, WA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Thread #3

    Which makes little sense and turns things into the Forgotten Realms mess of alot npcs that pop up, hang out for quite a while, and then you are expected to adventure along. So you end up with alot of high level powerful characters who then do what? nothing? Are these powerful characters just going to do nothing or something like keep adventuring?

    D&D works because of the sense of disbelief. Having characters that are not superly optimitized should be fine to play, not a mess and a problem the party has to overcome. The OOTS party works as a believable party because they are functional and certainly capable. Maybe they aren't in some crazy powergamering/minmaxing way, but parties with characters designed that way are not very fun in my experience. YOu have to constantly keep up with the others to be viable and not just some joke character.

    As for a pair of swordsman fighting Musketmen, it does make sense. IF you miss with a musket, then you will likely be hitting something or someone else. Without Bayonets, muskets can not be used for melee combat well. They need space to shoot, so those swordsmen are able to get in real close and hack away with impunity. Add bayonets to the muskets, the swordsmen don't have a chance. Besides, compared to what spellcasters can do at higher levels, having an anti-matter rifle is actually weaker. A fireball cast by a 6th level 3.5 wizard does an equal amount of damage, and then surpasses it. I am assuming that the anti-matter is doing 6d6, it actually may different, but i don't want to grab my dmg right now.

    Players should be always able to play the characters they want to, not whats most damage effective or most powerful leaving no room for fun. Waltzing through encounters without any trouble is just as unfun as being unable to fight anything you encounter.

    The rules are intended as guidelines, not actual rules with concrete power. You can modify the rules to suit you, or just use them as written. Either way works to allow for a playable game.

    When making characters, the concern should always be what kind of character do you want to play, not what kinds of rules you want to play. The Rules are made to fit the world you are making, not the other way around. IF you want a world without arcane casters, you can modify the rules to fit that world. IF you make a world to fit the rules, there is only one kind of world that can fit for the rules as written. Otherwise, you are usually changing the fluff around to fit the rules. IF you go past the fluff, then you are changing the rules around.

    D&D has struggled with this issue its entire life. The rules either get beefed up at the expense of Fluff or the fluff gets beefed up at the expense of rules. Trying to do both in equal measures was hard, and i think it turned very much into 4th Edition. The fluff needs to be modular and adaptable so DMs can use it however they need to. The rules need to experience the same but still be workable across the full spectrum.

    In 3.5, making characters using the PHB when you have access to TOme of Blade is foolish. The rules in Tome of Blade are considerably better than the rules in the PHB. THis is a major problem because renders the core book mostly useless for stuff that is supposedly the heart of the game!

    I'm stopping my comments at this point in this post because i think i have lost trick of my point. More of my two coppers.
    Blog Read and Comment! I use green for joking and Blue for sarcasm.
    Published two Kindle Books on Amazon, both are 99 cents. Ask Me about them!
    Quote Originally Posted by Peelee View Post
    Wookiee. 2 E's. [I am obsessed with this]
    My First Let's Play -- Temporary Haitus (I plan to get back to it eventually)

  28. - Top - End - #238
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Oracle_Hunter's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Thread #3

    Quote Originally Posted by russdm View Post
    The rules are intended as guidelines, not actual rules with concrete power. You can modify the rules to suit you, or just use them as written. Either way works to allow for a playable game.
    QFT

    My objection with Clawhound's point was that he seemed to be saying "play the game as the fluff says, not the way the rules say" which is not the same as "change the rules of the game to fit the fluff." I'm all for tweaking the rules of the game to fit whatever fluff you've set up -- if firearms are supposed to be dangerous, then make them dangerous -- but what I got out of his post was that one should instead simply pretend that the firearms are as dangerous as the fluff says, even if the rules don't support it.

    @Scowling Dragon: I'm not going to say that my position doesn't have wiggle room in it -- verisimilitude is a very fuzzy concept -- but I did try to lay down some guidelines. As I elaborated above, it is one thing to say "the king was killed with a super-special weapon which does not permit resurrection" and another to say "no, don't try to resurrect the king. It wouldn't be in character."

    In any case, I hope the excerpt from russdm's post better elaborates my position.
    Lead Designer for Oracle Hunter Games
    Today a Blog, Tomorrow a Business!


    ~ Awesome Avatar by the phantastic Phase ~
    Spoiler
    Show

    Elflad

  29. - Top - End - #239
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    SamuraiGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    By Bellevue, WA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Thread #3

    Quote Originally Posted by Scowling Dragon View Post
    Mostly, this is not a game we play to win. Its to have fun and experiment with different combinations.
    What about the players who make characters this way or those who see the game in the terms of winning it? The game system encourages playing to win while hand-waving in having fun. Some classes are simply better than others and they happen to be also more fun to play. Think about the Tiers and they completely affect gameplay. Clerics and Druids are simply better than fighters and rogues, and end up being more fun to play. Being a fighter means being able to hit things in different ways, while being a rogue means being able to sneak attack rarely, be the trapsmith/skill monkey, and be sneaky. Being the cleric means being able to function just as well if not better at hitting things in different ways, find traps like the roguey, and have a decent amount of skills. A cleric has access to divination spells that remove alot of the benefit the rogue has for information gathering. Why not cast a spell that will give you the answers you need instead of having the rogue try to sneak in and get those answers while dealing with the fact the rogue could get caught and thus ruin any chance of finding anything out that you need to?

    Druids have access to an animal companion, spells that are useful, and get abilities taht make them able to fight better than the fighter. They can also sneak better than rogue since they could just turn themselves into birds to fly around as. They can also gather intelligence alot easier. Take Wild Shape: Turn into a bird for a number of hours per day equal to level and then you can go into places to find things out. Birds are common enough in the D&D world that they aren't viewed as a concern.

    Wizards are even worse than clerics and druids. Aside from the spells and special abilities taht clerics and druids get, Wizards can do anything the other classes do alot better and alot quicker. At 5th level, a fighter cannot take out a number of enemies without it taking a few rounds, while a 5th level wizard can just blast away with a fireball and get rid of the enemies in a round. Wizards can later gain the ability to polymorph, fight more effectively than the fighter, sneak more efficiently than the rogue, and gather intelligence even better than the cleric or druid can.

    Yes wizards have to deal with armor issues and low hit points, but those are easily solved. pick up the toughness feat or improved toughness feat. Get spells that make it harder to hit you. Get items or make some that make getting hit hard or make you take less damage. Take a few levels in cleric or druid to get healing for yourself. You may take a hit at spellcasting some, but you can get wands and scrolls that will offset that, and picking up clerical magic is a worthwhile result from taking a level hit to your spellcasting.

    These are all things i have seen from both playing and running 3.5 games. Each additional splatbook made the higher tier characters more powerfuller than the lower tier ones. Nearly every splatbook adds some kind of new spells for casters, which are pretty worth taking to some extent. The Spell Compendium adds even more options for wizards or clerics to not need characters of other classes. Spell resistence doesn't hurt a wizard that much and it happens to easily fixed as a problem. Use spells that don't allow it to be applied agaisnt them. Having to cast spells when at risk of getting hurt? mix out your concentration skill and cast defensively. the only real problem for wizards is the mageslayer feat, and unless you happen to know about it, most DMs probably don't give their enemies it. But you can get around mageslayer by using items, I think since i am not looking at the feat right now.

    4th edition tried to bring the classes more in line in terms of power and alot of people complained about that. They wanted to have the tiers still be important to the game so they could make the other party members feel unnecessary or unneeded.
    Blog Read and Comment! I use green for joking and Blue for sarcasm.
    Published two Kindle Books on Amazon, both are 99 cents. Ask Me about them!
    Quote Originally Posted by Peelee View Post
    Wookiee. 2 E's. [I am obsessed with this]
    My First Let's Play -- Temporary Haitus (I plan to get back to it eventually)

  30. - Top - End - #240
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    SamuraiGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    By Bellevue, WA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Thread #3

    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle_Hunter View Post
    As I elaborated above, it is one thing to say "the king was killed with a super-special weapon which does not permit resurrection" and another to say "no, don't try to resurrect the king. It wouldn't be in character."

    In any case, I hope the excerpt from russdm's post better elaborates my position.
    The school of bringing people back from the dead: Raise dead, True rez, Rez, Reincarnate is somewhat baffling to me. The game acts like death is a pretty big deal, but once you have accces to weakest of the school's spells, death is no longer an issue. You don't have to be worried about it and so can do more dumb stuff with the hope that your party is decent enough to bring you back. Also, when you add in the fact that some classes give abilities that mean you dont age, you dont have to worry about dying anyway. And dying of old age is rarely an issue anyway since most don't actually chart their characters' ages. I have played with characters who would stay the same age despite however how much time would pass. You can play for a long time and yet have your character still be 24 in game years without having added a year.

    The king could let himself be killed by the assassins. THen he could have one of his high level priests/clerics raise him back from the dead or use something more powerful. Death is only a concern for characters who don't have enough money or are not high enough level to able to use raise dead or similiar stuff. And the rules say nothing about whether dead characters aren't able to adventure. Isn't Ghostwalk a supplement for deceased characters to use? and isn't there are rules allowing for undead to be used as character races?

    Why should the king worry about being killed? He should only be worried old age, since he can't come back after that point. Since the DM or campaign is not very likely to reach the point where old age is his concern either, he has no worries.

    Somethings in the game simply don't make any sense at all.
    Blog Read and Comment! I use green for joking and Blue for sarcasm.
    Published two Kindle Books on Amazon, both are 99 cents. Ask Me about them!
    Quote Originally Posted by Peelee View Post
    Wookiee. 2 E's. [I am obsessed with this]
    My First Let's Play -- Temporary Haitus (I plan to get back to it eventually)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •