Results 121 to 150 of 210
Thread: What makes an RPG good?
-
2021-04-08, 11:38 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2010
Re: What makes an RPG good?
Re: FFG Star Wars:
I still think this is a "suitable for your preferences" issue, rather than an "objectively bad" issue. It's pretty clear they're going for a more zero-to-hero game, and don't want you to start as Han/Luke/etc.
That might mean it's a bad game for what you want to do (emulate those stories right off the bat), but that's a mismatch between intended experience and desired experience, not a failure to deliver on what it does.
Re: Chutes and Ladders
Again, C&L does what it sets out to do - it makes an easily played game for preschoolers so that they can have fun. And said preschoolers still love it. It's successful at that.
It's not a very good game for adult gamers or even teenagers or even most primary school kids because of the lack of choice/etc.
Re: 4e "not feeling like" D&D
For people not coming from a heavy D&D background, that's probably ludicrous. For people coming from a 3e background, less so (for all the various reasons).
I'm a bit more complex, really.
I started with Moldvay B/X and a lot of 1e. Jumped over to GURPS in the mid 80s.
Played a bit of 3e when it came out, and thought it was a cool upgrade. Then I started seeing weirdness... people "dipping" classes to get extra powers, etc etc. This didn't really "feel like D&D" to me. As the splats came out, and people started talking about their 3So/4Wi/2Cl/3Art or whatever, that feeling just intensififed. This wasn't the D&D I knew. And talking to people about how you could do anything with 3e really rubbed me wrong... I didn't want D&D as a generic system. I wanted D&D to be the thing where you sat down and picked a class and had a streamlined experience, but maybe with some more interesting stuff for fighters. I'm also a big open-world kinda guy, and not big on the planned adventures, even though that seemed to be where the majority of gaming was heading.
I thought 4e was cool. It wasn't "my" D&D, but at least Fighters were Fighters and Clerics were Clerics again - the level of multiclass insanity that 3.x encouraged was gone. And while "kill stuff, do RP thing, kill stuff" wasn't my preferred play style, I recognized that 4e was well aimed at servicing that. I had some issues with it - I would have preferred to see Fighters on a different ability schedule, so that they'd have more at-wills, and maybe a few encounters, for instance, but overall I thought it was decent. The healing surge mechanic made fights interesting, as it balanced danger per fight with resource attrition, and it didn't bother me since it really reminded me of fighters catching a breath between rounds in MMA/boxing. The numbers caused some confusion at first, since they went against my gut feelings of what hp/damage should be, but they mostly worked.
The weird thing that I saw was the number of people saying just flat out untrue things - saying that things were removed that weren't, for instance.
4e still isn't, and won't be "my game". But it's a decent game for the things that it does well, that suffered for an (I think) fairly small number of objective issues that were fairly quickly patched, as well as a large number of subjective issues. I prefer it to 3.x for exactly the same reasons most 3.x fans hate it."Gosh 2D8HP, you are so very correct (and also good looking)"
-
2021-04-08, 12:30 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2016
- Location
- Corvallis, OR
- Gender
Re: What makes an RPG good?
Before 4e, I'd only played the CRPG versions of D&D. But had done so extensively, starting with Baldur's Gate through the NWN series. So I had a fairly decent exposure to (one version of) the 2e and 3e mindsets.
I picked up 4e when I was asked to run a RPG club at a high school where I taught. For that format, it was a bad fit and I happily jumped to 5e when that came out. But I enjoyed 4e. Didn't have any problems feeling like D&D to me.
Later, I had the opportunity to play in a PF game. That felt like D&D...but was a total slog. I jumped in at about 5th level. Building the character alone took 3-4 hours with a dedicated tool to sort through the options and advice from the playground. And that was a pretty standard Oracle, nothing fancy. And then by 6th level, the witch and I shut down a boss encounter (the boss didn't get to do anything) by using obvious pieces of kit. The ludicrous imbalance there was apparent even purely by accident. Neither of us were trying to make strong characters, but it was inevitable. And beyond that, doing anything in that game was a bunch of time spent (by the DM) cross-referencing a whole set of rules in various places (seriously, PF stat blocks are a total mess, especially printed. Because they just contain pointers to rules found elsewhere, and lots and lots of chaff). Individual turns taking 3-4 minutes when people knew what they were doing. And all sorts of edge cases and things needing adjudication, plus straight up un-fun things (a scarf that, if you touch it, causes a save or die. No warning, no way to avoid it, just straight up save or die. And if you save, you still have tons of penalties and it sticks to you and imposes more save-or-dies until you fulfill the specific (and no-where specified) conditions for ending it. No, that wasn't homebrew. That was straight out of the AP.).
I was able to play decent (at low level) games of 4e in a 30 minute window with people who didn't own any of the books and whose character building experience was "pick from list, do a little customization". Yeah, a single fight may take several sessions. But it was doable. I'd never have been able to even start a 3e campaign, let alone play.
So for me, 4e felt way more like D&D than PF did. And was a much better fit. I'd gladly play it again, given the right group. I prefer running 5e for many reasons, but if I had to say, I'd say 5e > 4e > 2e >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3e. But the important thing is that's just my personal opinion. Not some objective fact.Dawn of Hope: a 5e setting. http://wiki.admiralbenbo.org
Rogue Equivalent Damage calculator, now prettier and more configurable!
5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!
NIH system 5e fork, very much WIP. Base github repo.
NIH System PDF Up to date main-branch build version.
-
2021-04-08, 12:56 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Location
- Somewhere in Utah...
- Gender
Re: What makes an RPG good?
It is a debatable point. You can play a creditable Han Solo-style character in the game, just not as a starting character. Whether that is an objective problem with the system or a subjective "to taste" problem is something I could go either way on.
Cinematic Star Wars doesn't really do "zero to hero" with its protagonists. They often have humble beginnings from a social perspective, true, but they are never unskilled. Luke can fight better than any stormtrooper at the beginning of the movie, can lead a flight of starfighters on a bombing run the first time he's ever sat in one, and can fix just about anything. Nine-year-old Anakin has superhuman piloting and repair skills to start with, and let's not even get started on Rey. The power level for starting characters in FFG Star Wars feels too low to me, but it can be argued that you can just start with more xp than is suggested in the books and still play Star Wars the way you want to.
The Jedi inability to deflect blaster bolts is much more clearly an objective failure of the system, though, because no Jedi in the game can really do it like they do it in the movies, not even with a ridiculous level of xp spent on various light saber combat trees.
Played a bit of 3e when it came out, and thought it was a cool upgrade. Then I started seeing weirdness... people "dipping" classes to get extra powers, etc etc. This didn't really "feel like D&D" to me. As the splats came out, and people started talking about their 3So/4Wi/2Cl/3Art or whatever, that feeling just intensififed. This wasn't the D&D I knew.
The later edition designers seem to agree with us that it all got out of hand.
-
2021-04-09, 06:39 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2021
- Location
- UK
- Gender
Re: What makes an RPG good?
As I think the most important thing in RPG projects is an interesting, full of all sorts of interactive and adventurous world. In general, an alive world.
-
2021-04-09, 01:30 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
Re: What makes an RPG good?
You are correct. I have not. Even in the thread you linked (and created), I did not. Because I have no intention of fighting that fight.
If others try to nail down a definition, I'll respond… with agreement / by adapting my beliefs… or with my 2¢… or, if that is ignored, with a more *thorough* response, much like I did with the definitions of CaS vs CaW.
However, I'll point those who are interested in my personal / working definition in the general direction:
Spoiler: hintYou are correct that being "about" role-playing, or having "rules" for role-playing are not good qualifiers for the definition of an RPG.
Ability and intent?
Spoiler: abilityOne could roleplay the white knight, white queen, and black bishop as being in a love triangle.
One could roleplay the shoe as being claustrophobic, and desperately wanting the game to last forever, so that it doesn't have to go back in the box.
One could roleplay the Demonic Hordes as having a preference for eating basic Plains.
One could roleplay the lines as malicious liars, who delight in causing suffering and failure.
Does that enable Chess, Monopoly, MtG, and tennis to be RPGs?
Spoiler: intent(I don't know this story well, but) scientists were trying to invent a new, stronger tape. They failed. Their tape just readily pealed right off most surfaces. And thus was masking tape born.
Does their intent affect the success of their product?
My actual definition, were one to attempt to reverse engineer it from my tests, would involve words like "frequency", "extent", and "degree", rather than simple binary qualifiers. In that regard, you can look to your thread at Max's "hill" metaphor to understand the feel of my definition.
Unlike Max, though, my personal definition is based more on "the rules are the territory" than "the rules are the map" logic; changing this variable could impact which systems qualify as RPGs.
And, third time's the charm, my discussion with Max about HP is very telling for my notion of thresholds.
Also, don't forget, "like this world, *unless* specified otherwise".
If you're really trying to create my definition, you'll want phrases like "primary gameplay loop", but *without* the word "primary".
Looking at the "stances" is also valuable to matching my definition. As is understanding my stance on OOC information.
And throw in some (completely unfair) bias related to cognitive load, that one could divine from my comments on metagaming and role-playing, for good measure.
Confused yet? Now imagine how confused everyone would be if I tried *actually stating* my definition, and how big a fight it would be, just *explaining* what I meant, let alone with others' disagreements with my value judgements.
Able to see why I have no intention of going down that road?
EDIT: in short, with a PhD in my post history on the Playground, onecould likelywould have the information necessary to devise a heuristic to approximate my definition of an RPG.
In shorter, it's complicated
And what, do you think, an RPG can do to allow or prohibit the creation of such? What makes existing settings qualify / disqualified?Last edited by Quertus; 2021-04-09 at 03:26 PM.
-
2021-04-09, 05:27 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2005
- Location
- Toronto, Canada
- Gender
Re: What makes an RPG good?
To be perfectly honest, you certainly seem to be trying to fight that fight. You're just doing so in a way that denies anyone who disagrees with you the tools to do so effectively.
If you refuse to share a definition because you think it is too complex for others to understand, that definition is linguistically useless, and if you intend to use a definition that no one else is capable of understanding as a key aspect in communications, you are no longer communicating. If you have no intention of discussing why something is or is not an RPG, then there is no value to making the initial statement that a thing is or not an RPG.
In essence, if you did not want to have this tangent, why did you begin it?
For example, if I were to define a roleplaying game, I could do so very easily. A roleplaying game is a game in which there are rules of some kind, as well as the playing of roles, and the rules in some way directly connect to the playing of roles. That's really all it needs.
Any definition of an RPG that would exclude a game like D&D, of any edition, is fundamentally similar to a definition of coffee that excludes the latte because coffee does not contain milk.Last edited by Friv; 2021-04-09 at 05:29 PM.
If you like my thoughts, you'll love my writing. Visit me at www.mishahandman.com.
-
2021-04-09, 06:23 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2015
Re: What makes an RPG good?
If I'm going to go for the full answer we should probably break this off into its own thread (its only semi-on-topic) but the short version is: How do you do that just moving pieces around? They can't talk or even go places other than one of 64 spaces.
Confused yet? Now imagine how confused everyone would be if I tried *actually stating* my definition, and how big a fight it would be, just *explaining* what I meant, let alone with others' disagreements with my value judgements.
But if you don't want to, we don't have to. But if I may echo Friv for a moment and give out some social advice*: If you don't want to get into a fight, don't be throwing the first blow. And you can't "oh its a good game, just a different type of game", to run with the fighting metaphor, that's just putting a bandage on the wound at best. Also (dropping metaphors) its rather useless unless you actually go into details about why, so don't do it half-way.
* Not that I am socialising professional.
-
2021-04-09, 10:42 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2020
- Location
- Area 51
Re: What makes an RPG good?
when player generated content is every bit as supported and welcome as DM content, You have a good game system. Players who feel like they can be creative, contribute, and make their mark upon the world, to me, this is important. Be the next Rary, Tasha, or Toreador. Be the next Morgan Blackhand or Corporate Dragon CEO of Seattle. Have your brand stamped on that mass produced pistol or cyberware. Stamp your face on the coins that fund wars in the realms with castles and warships fighting in your name.
I love to see players doodle stuff, like clockwork steampunk or specialized costumes, made up weapons, or pets. I like to see them composing legends, spinning tales, and asking What-ifs.
So stuff like ship building, magic item creation, empire building, spell research, programming, mecha design, mad scientist super power labs, space ship yards, or cookie recipe guides - hey this stuff is golden.
-
2021-04-10, 08:32 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
Re: What makes an RPG good?
Here's a few details that may help you understand my PoV:
My attacks on 4e are part of a long-running gag, whereby I am attempting to demonstrate the difference between a character and a caricature, by posting as a caricature of myself with regards to 4e. I've been saying that 4e is "not an RPG" for a long time now; this is the first time it's been likened to denying personhood.
Language is… messy and inefficient. There are times when "coffee" *is* a separate category from "latte", because "coffee" in this case has multiple definitions.
I don't not share my definition because it is difficult to understand. It *is* difficult to understand, but that is not the reason for not sharing it. The reason I don't want to detail it is because of the misunderstandings and arguments that would ensue.
Everything should be as simple as it can be, and no simpler. I'd not oversimplify my definition of an RPG to make it "linguistically useful", even if I *did* have any intention of sharing it.
Sigh. (Actually, I'm told "sigh" does not convey what I want it to. So, what conveys "this is a lot of work", but, unlike "*rolls up sleeves*", does not convey an industrious attitude towards that work, but an, "I had hoped not to have to do this work" attitude? Because that's what *I* mean by "sigh".)
How does one roleplay in combat, with only making attack rolls? Why, one roleplays "vengeful" by attacking the one who dealt you damage; "protective" by attacking the one who hurt your ally; "indecisive" by switching targets; cowardly by… I didn't include "movement" in the options, so… attacking one's self for subdual damage, perhaps?
In this example, the Knight moves to protect the Queen; the Queen avoids and perhaps even overlooks opportunities to capture the Bishop. If the Knight finds out, he may actively seek to capture the Bishop.
True.
But even if it *weren't* currently framed by me stating, "4e is not an RPG", I expect this to be a… difficult topic. Heck, even *you* have already likened it to denying personhood. How much more evidence of "not likely to produce scholarly responses" do I need?
If I'm ever up for the misunderstandings (and worse), how would you suggest I go about it?
Obviously, I was not up to it when you made your thread, and I am currently avoiding that level of drama, too. But should I ever actually *want* that headache, what would be the best way to approach explaining my complicated and controversial answer to a sensitive topic?
Shrug. Figure I gave an adequate (if incomplete) explanation the first time(s) I brought it up, when people were claiming that 4e wasn't D&D; it's just part of my caricature now, not something given thought or intent.
I'll not deny, the Heart of Tafiti, the power of Creation, is one of the best ways to ensure an awesome experience for me in an otherwise decent system. Sign me up!
-
2021-04-10, 05:40 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2015
Re: What makes an RPG good?
I could go over point-by-point making little clarifications and comments but I'm going to stick to just the most important one:[QUOTE=Quertus;25001797If I'm ever up for the misunderstandings (and worse), how would you suggest I go about it?[/QUOTE]This one I have several pieces of advice but one wins out as the most important. If you remember only one thing remember this: Allow yourself to be convinced.
Without that its not a discussion, its a lecture. I stopped making caster/martial disparity threads because I reached that point on that topic. If you want a lecture about my views on the topic I can give it to you but I would be surprised if there was actually anything new to discuss.* Now you might be thinking, "Isn't irrelevant if I'm right? Isn't that just saying prepare to be wrong." OK there is an element of that as I don't know what your argument is so for all I know it is catastrophically unsound. But mostly its because people can tell if you are approaching the conversation with an open mind or not (not every time but as the thread goes on). And you want the most sure fire way (within forum rules) to make people actively reject your argument: make it clear you aren't interested in theirs.
Other than that: Be polite, don't get angry (wait before posting if you have to), write for someone who is new to the form and has only read this thread, repeat the important context in a reply chain, ask questions and always be clear about what is a joke. I think that is everything.
* I think I have seen every argument and counter-argument about caster/martial disparity. It reached the point I could see two other people disagreeing about it and could then explain to them why they were disagreeing. Also consistent usage of a term among all parties is very important, I learned that from the many meanings of magic.
-
2021-04-10, 06:49 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
Re: What makes an RPG good?
Thank you for the advice.
I am rarely angry, but often irritated at myself. I'll endeavour not to post when I'm irritated at how poorly I've explained something.
I don't think I have the one true answer… but… combined with "post for someone new" (which was the plan, btw), it would come off as "the lecture to end all lectures", as it would probably take several dozen posts just to give the background information (like defining the stances, for example) necessary to understand my definition.
I'd probably not use humor at all - there wouldn't be room
My personal definition for an RPG… is not an argument, nor would the expansion thereof be. Now, after the fact, explaining *why* I define RPGs the way I do, and dealing with attempts to oversimplify the definition would involve argumentation, but the first couple dozen posts (of providing the background to understand my definition, followed by the statement of my definition) would involve 0 argument, 100% lecture.
Hmmm… the only way to get anywhere near that end… without lecturing… would be… to ask questions… like asking others what criteria *they* use when evaluating an RPG… and, if the thread goes well enough, they'll do my legwork of explaining all these things for me, and I can just, at an appropriate moment say, "that reminds me (now that all the pieces are in place), my *personal* definition for an RPG is…".
But man that feels disingenuous.
-----
So, what makes an RPG good?
Recently, I've heard more posters talk about how Pendragon is good. Used to be, people claimed it would be good, but nobody played it. Is the system *more* good now that people are playing it?
I think that there's an "is latte a subset of coffee or a different menu section" linguistic issue here with the word "good". As I use the term, is more akin to "quality", and the quality of Pendragon did not, does not, and cannot change based on who or how many are playing it.
So, while I agree that "how many people are playing" / "how easy is it to get people to play" is relevant to the experience of an RPG, I reject the notion of a casual arrow in the direction "more players -> higher quality".
I think it would be nice if "higher quality -> more players", but the world doesn't work that way. Perhaps the best "totally not a rant" on that fact I've seen was in Neal Stephenson's "In the Beginning... was the Command Line".
So, despite how very many criteria my personal definition of an RPG has, I'm not seeing "popularity" as a valid metric for the *quality* of an RPG.Last edited by Quertus; 2021-04-10 at 06:58 PM.
-
2021-04-10, 07:00 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2020
Re: What makes an RPG good?
An RPG is good if ppl enjoyed playing it. Ppl did not enjoy playing 4e.
-
2021-04-10, 07:42 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2015
Re: What makes an RPG good?
-
2021-04-10, 08:13 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2015
Re: What makes an RPG good?
At first I was wondering if he had gotten his memories of 4e and 3e mixed up or something. since 4e combat was a gripping leap forward for D&D. Although that wouldn't make much sense either, 3e was pretty fun in its own right, it just had some gaping rules problems (looking at you stealth) and later on massive balance problems from splat. Which 4e eventually came to have too.
Then he started in on cinematic descriptions of using powers and I realized I'd just hate to play at the table with him, and his opinion on what is good and fun and enjoyable and what isn't will never match mine.
I will say even though I really miss how awesome 4e combat was, I've since moved on to enjoying the very fast (for WotC) paced combat that is 5e. 4e took what 3e started, making combat really tactical and fun. 5e doesn't make D&D as fast to resolve a turn as BECMI, but it's better 3e, 4e, or even many aspects of AD&D for enhancing combat resolution time. It just does that at the cost of a huge chunk of tactical play.
But if you play 5e combat so fast that players don't have time to overanalyze, which the system totally allows you to do, you introduce a special kind of tension which is a kind of fun, the fear of not having time to think properly, just having to do what you can to stay alive. Even though you're not really in much danger. 5e combat being fun is all about the DM maintaining pacing during combat.Last edited by Tanarii; 2021-04-10 at 08:23 PM.
-
2021-04-10, 08:36 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2010
-
2021-04-12, 12:49 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2021
Re: What makes an RPG good?
I think Story is the most important aspect of any self-respecting RPG. If the player is going to be spending upwards of 30–40 hours with a set of characters, they’re going to need to be compelling. Hopefully, they are compelling enough to make players think “I’d really like to meet these people in real life”. Then there’s the plot. If it doesn’t keep players on the edge of their seats throughout the adventure (if it isn’t full of twists and turns), then it isn’t likely to motivate players to get to the next dungeon or take on the next big battle. The worst thing an RPG can do is fail to hold the player’s interest. It’s a huge challenge for game designers, which is perhaps why the top-tier RPGs are so well-respected. The very best RPGs remain interesting throughout, even as they swing between intense action and quiet reflection. An interesting story, a compelling plot, and a carefully paced adventure are all critical ingredients.
-
2021-04-12, 02:59 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2018
-
2021-04-12, 03:01 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2015
Re: What makes an RPG good?
-
2021-04-12, 07:42 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Location
- Somewhere in Utah...
- Gender
Re: What makes an RPG good?
I agree. The quality of an RPG system is in no way dependent on how many people are playing it. A system that had lots of players, then no players for a time, and now has players again did not change in any objective sense.
I think "story quality" is too subjective a criteria. Everybody likes different things in their stories. It's also almost entirely dependent on your group and especially on your GM. The best written background material won't do you any good if your GM and the rest of your group ignores it. Personally, any game where a major attraction is to meet the NPCs of the setting sets off warning bells for me, because the GM then has to play them so that they are as cool as they appear in the background material.
You can also have games where the GM discards all of the published background story in the game, makes his own stuff up instead using just the rules, and it's completely brilliant. You can't go to other players and say "D&D 4 is brilliant because my GM ran a fantastic campaign with its rules" when it was the GM doing all the work that made it good.Last edited by Jason; 2021-04-12 at 07:51 AM.
-
2021-04-12, 09:41 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2010
Re: What makes an RPG good?
Semi-agree.
Popular games have to be at least good at some things, or they wouldn't be popular.
Unpopular games could be unpopular for any number of reasons - they could target small niches. They could have bad advertising. They might just be bad.
It's completely erroneous to say "this game is more popular than that one, therefore it's better"."Gosh 2D8HP, you are so very correct (and also good looking)"
-
2021-04-12, 10:15 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2005
- Location
- 61.2° N, 149.9° W
- Gender
Re: What makes an RPG good?
Paranoia says "Hi". Quiet reflection and careful pacing have no* place there, it's all comedy-action. In print and still good since 1984.
*Actually you can do them if you want. But I've had good games that were nothing more than "deliver this letter down the hall" and (d)evolved into Spy Vs Spy action with grenades on the highway.
-
2021-04-12, 10:30 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Location
- Somewhere in Utah...
- Gender
-
2021-04-18, 12:48 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Gender
Re: What makes an RPG good?
I always feel awkward when 4e gets brought up, because I feel like I didn't enjoy it for an unusual reason. I had trouble reading it. Parsing what each class did felt unusually difficult and I never figured out how magic items were supposed to work. So I get caught in this strange "I'll take your word on it" attitude when someone praises 4e because I don't understand it on a fundamental level.
I am certain it is not a complexity thing, as 3.5 was my jam for awhile and I was just defending THACO up thread. All I know is I do not grok 4e.My sig is something witty.
78% of DM's started their first campaign in a tavern. If you're one of the 22% that didn't, copy and paste this into your signature.
-
2021-04-18, 08:21 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2016
- Location
- The Lakes
Re: What makes an RPG good?
It is one thing to suspend your disbelief. It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.
Verisimilitude -- n, the appearance or semblance of truth, likelihood, or probability.
The concern is not realism in speculative fiction, but rather the sense that a setting or story could be real, fostered by internal consistency and coherence.
The Worldbuilding Forum -- where realities are born.
-
2021-04-18, 09:20 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2015
-
2021-04-18, 09:35 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2016
- Location
- Corvallis, OR
- Gender
Re: What makes an RPG good?
Dawn of Hope: a 5e setting. http://wiki.admiralbenbo.org
Rogue Equivalent Damage calculator, now prettier and more configurable!
5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!
NIH system 5e fork, very much WIP. Base github repo.
NIH System PDF Up to date main-branch build version.
-
2021-04-18, 01:33 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
Re: What makes an RPG good?
Oh, man, I'm so glad I picked that visual for my example - thanks for the laugh!
It's OK, the developers didn't understand 4e, either - otherwise, they wouldn't have claimed that the math just works, when it so clearly didn't.
*Ducks* *looks for claims comparing his running gag to dehumanization*
Personally, I didn't like 4e. I recognize that some people do, but, similarly to you, I haven't really understood *why* they liked it. At times, I feel like the Emperor, unable to see the beauty in Jade. I'm probably too stuck looking at so much of 4e as "D&D - for people who hate D&D"… and might have appreciated it more if it hadn't come out under the D&D label. Or not, since I'm loving dtd40k7e. Shrug.
-
2021-04-18, 01:39 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2015
Re: What makes an RPG good?
It's possible to see the beauty there while simultaneously understanding many of the reasons people don't like it. Heck, it's possible to see the beauty in a game while preferring to play a newer (or older) edition of the very same game.
Except for the perception that all the powers were the same. That one doesn't make sense, since it was provable not true. It's like claiming that all AD&D or 3e or 5e spells or feats are the same. Or that the classes are all the same because they all use the same "attack roll" system. Or later on share the same resolution for skills.Last edited by Tanarii; 2021-04-18 at 01:41 PM.
-
2021-04-18, 07:25 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2015
Re: What makes an RPG good?
The way powers were organised were the same and apparently that was enough for people. Which is weird because the no-refresh/short-rest/long-rest called problems before but put at-will/encounter/daily on the power and suddenly everything is uniform. And you can add frills but I think 5e is the first edition where spell-slots are more than a bunch of daily power pools.Spoiler: Humanity and 4th Edition... Did you read the section that explained why I made that comparison? I mean you probably did at the time but it is about using a statement about the structure of the argument.
Repeatedly bringing up something that sounds terrible is degrading. Especially if that terrible sounding this is unimportant and false, and I will maintain both of those things until someone forwards a reasonable argument to the contrary.
I don't get it either really. I found 4th edition's combat system to be the most engaging of any of the systems. Which is more a comment on the low bar set by other editions than the quality of 4th. (5e is at second at one and a half combats.)
-
2021-04-18, 08:17 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2005
- Location
- Toronto, Canada
- Gender