|
1 year ago ::
May 21, 2012 - 6:13AM
#491
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
Can I have a gamblers anonymous module with my D&D please.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 21, 2012 - 10:52AM
#492
|
|
|
A rogue sneaking and throat stabbing the guards is an example of the rogue handling an encounter by themselves on their own power.
So they are going to put in special rules for the rogue to insta-kill mobs if they sneak up on them? or are they going to leave it up to DM fiat?
Who knows. What we know is that they plan on having all classes be competent in all pillars, even the ones they don't "shine" in, and that they want adventures to be the focus, rather than individual encounters, and so instead of on character destroying everying in one or two rounds, and another doing so in another round/s, like we often see in 4e, this happens encounter per encounter.
Or, you know, you can build encounters using the tactical combat module, that will probably run more like 4e.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
I could say anything in D&D is silly though, because it's a silly game and we are silly people.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 21, 2012 - 10:18PM
#493
|
|
|
A rogue sneaking and throat stabbing the guards is an example of the rogue handling an encounter by themselves on their own power.
So they are going to put in special rules for the rogue to insta-kill mobs if they sneak up on them? or are they going to leave it up to DM fiat?
Who knows. What we know is that they plan on having all classes be competent in all pillars, even the ones they don't "shine" in, and that they want adventures to be the focus, rather than individual encounters, and so instead of on character destroying everying in one or two rounds, and another doing so in another round/s, like we often see in 4e, this happens encounter per encounter.
Or, you know, you can build encounters using the tactical combat module, that will probably run more like 4e.
I keep hearing people tout the 'module' aspect, but I'm not seeing it listed or talked about in the latest articles. I'm not completely sure that people aren't going overboard in using it as an excuse to say 'you can play how you want by inserting this module'. I'm just not seeing them talk about different modules. I think maybe when they said that they were talking about themes and backgrounds and the fact that you aren't required to use either, not that the entire system will be a modular system where you can pull a module here and put another module in there to get the game you want. I'm just not seeing it...
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 21, 2012 - 10:42PM
#494
|
Date Joined:
Jun 29, 2010
|
A rogue sneaking and throat stabbing the guards is an example of the rogue handling an encounter by themselves on their own power.
So they are going to put in special rules for the rogue to insta-kill mobs if they sneak up on them? or are they going to leave it up to DM fiat?
Who knows. What we know is that they plan on having all classes be competent in all pillars, even the ones they don't "shine" in, and that they want adventures to be the focus, rather than individual encounters, and so instead of on character destroying everying in one or two rounds, and another doing so in another round/s, like we often see in 4e, this happens encounter per encounter.
Or, you know, you can build encounters using the tactical combat module, that will probably run more like 4e.
I keep hearing people tout the 'module' aspect, but I'm not seeing it listed or talked about in the latest articles. I'm not completely sure that people aren't going overboard in using it as an excuse to say 'you can play how you want by inserting this module'. I'm just not seeing them talk about different modules. I think maybe when they said that they were talking about themes and backgrounds and the fact that you aren't required to use either, not that the entire system will be a modular system where you can pull a module here and put another module in there to get the game you want. I'm just not seeing it...
It was how they were talking until very recently. Perhaps fallout of Cook leaving is that they've given up on making the product appeal to a variety of people.
DISCLAIMER - Everything said by anyone is absolute subjective opinion. There are no objective claims being made by me, or anyone else, unless they overtly state 'The following is an objective claim'. At this point if you choose to be offended by anything I (or anyone else) say the problem is ENTIRELY your own.
WotC won't let us give them money because they won't produce a game we want to play.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 21, 2012 - 11:00PM
#495
|
|
|
A rogue sneaking and throat stabbing the guards is an example of the rogue handling an encounter by themselves on their own power.
So they are going to put in special rules for the rogue to insta-kill mobs if they sneak up on them? or are they going to leave it up to DM fiat?
Who knows. What we know is that they plan on having all classes be competent in all pillars, even the ones they don't "shine" in, and that they want adventures to be the focus, rather than individual encounters, and so instead of on character destroying everying in one or two rounds, and another doing so in another round/s, like we often see in 4e, this happens encounter per encounter.
Or, you know, you can build encounters using the tactical combat module, that will probably run more like 4e.
I keep hearing people tout the 'module' aspect, but I'm not seeing it listed or talked about in the latest articles. I'm not completely sure that people aren't going overboard in using it as an excuse to say 'you can play how you want by inserting this module'. I'm just not seeing them talk about different modules. I think maybe when they said that they were talking about themes and backgrounds and the fact that you aren't required to use either, not that the entire system will be a modular system where you can pull a module here and put another module in there to get the game you want. I'm just not seeing it...
It was how they were talking until very recently. Perhaps fallout of Cook leaving is that they've given up on making the product appeal to a variety of people.
Cook specifically said he supported the design decisions of his fellow designers. The fallout related to corporate nonsense.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 22, 2012 - 12:52AM
#496
|
|
|
A rogue sneaking and throat stabbing the guards is an example of the rogue handling an encounter by themselves on their own power.
So they are going to put in special rules for the rogue to insta-kill mobs if they sneak up on them? or are they going to leave it up to DM fiat?
Who knows. What we know is that they plan on having all classes be competent in all pillars, even the ones they don't "shine" in, and that they want adventures to be the focus, rather than individual encounters, and so instead of on character destroying everying in one or two rounds, and another doing so in another round/s, like we often see in 4e, this happens encounter per encounter.
Or, you know, you can build encounters using the tactical combat module, that will probably run more like 4e.
I keep hearing people tout the 'module' aspect, but I'm not seeing it listed or talked about in the latest articles. I'm not completely sure that people aren't going overboard in using it as an excuse to say 'you can play how you want by inserting this module'. I'm just not seeing them talk about different modules. I think maybe when they said that they were talking about themes and backgrounds and the fact that you aren't required to use either, not that the entire system will be a modular system where you can pull a module here and put another module in there to get the game you want. I'm just not seeing it...
The tactical combat module is something that one of the lead designers is in charge of, with the purpose to model 4e style grid combat.
it's not a leap, it's a reasonable extrapolation.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
I could say anything in D&D is silly though, because it's a silly game and we are silly people.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 22, 2012 - 5:58AM
#497
|
|
|
I keep hearing people tout the 'module' aspect, but I'm not seeing it listed or talked about in the latest articles. I'm not completely sure that people aren't going overboard in using it as an excuse to say 'you can play how you want by inserting this module'. I'm just not seeing them talk about different modules. I think maybe when they said that they were talking about themes and backgrounds and the fact that you aren't required to use either, not that the entire system will be a modular system where you can pull a module here and put another module in there to get the game you want. I'm just not seeing it...
It was how they were talking until very recently. Perhaps fallout of Cook leaving is that they've given up on making the product appeal to a variety of people.
That's a mighty big leap when there's no real reason for them to keep talking about it. It's a design focus. Once they tell you "Hey, we are making it modular" there is no reason for them to keep talking about that and there is no reason to think they are steering away from it unless the say "Hey, we are no longer making it modular."
They are still very early in the development phase with the public playtesting just around the corner. We only have a fraction of the information available to us. Just because they are not highlighting specific details as modular when they are discussing things publically does not mean it has gone by the wayside.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 22, 2012 - 12:06PM
#498
|
|
|
They have specifically said that they are focused on the kernel right now. This makes sense, since they want the kernel to be sound before they start adding modules. They haven't said, "Cook's gone, modules was his idea and none of the rest of us liked it". If anything, I think modules was Mearls' idea. I personally haven't seen anything that causes me to doubt they are still focused on a modular game.
My hypothesis is that Cook wanted the kernel to be unbalanced classes (like 3.xe) with modules for balancing classes. Other people wanted the kernel to have balanced classes (like 4e) with modules for creating unbalanced classes. Since that is a disagreement over what should be in the kernel, (and more broadly a disagreement over how the magic system should work) I can see how that would create an impasse.
Note to moderators: If my last paragaraph is over the line, feel free to delete it. I won't bring it up again.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 22, 2012 - 12:28PM
#499
|
Date Joined:
Apr 27, 2012
|
I would love to know what the dispute was about because it would be very informative. I do think that there is a difference between wanting to be part of a design team and accepting the game. Monte may very well end up liking 5e when it comes out. Or not. Who knows. But in creative endeavors, I can definitely understand not wanting to associate with something that is against your own principles for some reason. Once you've published it with your name on it you can't take it back.
What thrills me about modular design is that we are limited to sanctioned modules. The mere fact they are designing for modularity means houseruling will be easier. This is why I am hopeful. They will really have to embed something bad in the core to get me to hate this game. Flexibility and houserulability is a high value in my group.
4e is the only game we played without a single houserule. I surmise the reason was that it was so different we didn't feel comfortable houseruling it right away. Once we had learned enough we just didn't want to play anymore thus houseruling didn't come up.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 22, 2012 - 12:59PM
#500
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2009
|
4e is the only game we played without a single houserule. I surmise the reason was that it was so different we didn't feel comfortable houseruling it right away. Once we had learned enough we just didn't want to play anymore thus houseruling didn't come up.
For my group 4e is the first game we had to knowingly house rule on frequent occasion. Mainly because we made it past that learning wall without giving up on the edition. I guess we just got to the house rules fast enough to keep the game fun and interesting.
|
|
|
