|
1 year ago ::
May 12, 2012 - 5:21PM
#131
|
|
|
Expect TPKs, lots of them.
Why? The DM will keep it in line.
The game is built on a scam. You get +1? The monster gets +1. You get a fancy spell? The monster gets a fancy defense or attack. You are on a treadmill and there is no good way off it. So our unbalanced spells mean the monsters get more powerful too, and that means more dead parties.
Naw, the DM keeps it in line.
We too get bored, and fairly quickly, by constant automatic success. We need challenge or we walk away from the game. So we can't have these super spells that mean automatic wins. We turn a d20 roll into a coin flip, one where neither side is desirable in the long term.
Yeah, but the DM keeps it in line.
And the mechanical problems are massive as well. A quick look at the character opt boards shows that the players will be doing just about anything to get these spells. So there will be lots of hard work to keep these spells out of the "wrong hands". And 4e tells us that can only be done badly.
But the DM keeps it in line pretty well, in my experience.
So you want it done anyway? What's the benefit?
Because I find easily quantifiable spells very boring.
We only have so much time and energy. Why in the world should we devote some of that to ways to make the game worse?
Because worse for you isn't worse for me, it's better. So, I'd like to figure ways we can both get what we want. You seem to be invested in trying to convince me what I like is bad, and I shouldn't argue for it to be included in the game. But... you're pretty much going to fail. I like what I like. I worry slightly that you'll convince the designers that everybody thinks like you do, so I like to bounce around and remind them that's not the case.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 12, 2012 - 5:26PM
#132
|
|
|
Expect TPKs, lots of them.
Why? The DM will keep it in line.
The game is built on a scam. You get +1? The monster gets +1. You get a fancy spell? The monster gets a fancy defense or attack. You are on a treadmill and there is no good way off it. So our unbalanced spells mean the monsters get more powerful too, and that means more dead parties.
Naw, the DM keeps it in line.
We too get bored, and fairly quickly, by constant automatic success. We need challenge or we walk away from the game. So we can't have these super spells that mean automatic wins. We turn a d20 roll into a coin flip, one where neither side is desirable in the long term.
Yeah, but the DM keeps it in line.
And the mechanical problems are massive as well. A quick look at the character opt boards shows that the players will be doing just about anything to get these spells. So there will be lots of hard work to keep these spells out of the "wrong hands". And 4e tells us that can only be done badly.
But the DM keeps it in line pretty well, in my experience.
So you want it done anyway? What's the benefit?
Because I find easily quantifiable spells very boring.
We only have so much time and energy. Why in the world should we devote some of that to ways to make the game worse?
Because worse for you isn't worse for me, it's better. So, I'd like to figure ways we can both get what we want. You seem to be invested in trying to convince me what I like is bad, and I shouldn't argue for it to be included in the game. But... you're pretty much going to fail. I like what I like. I worry slightly that you'll convince the designers that everybody thinks like you do, so I like to bounce around and remind them that's not the case.
Assuming the DM will keep it in line is not a valid response. Escpecially if they are marketing to new players and new DMs...
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 12, 2012 - 5:34PM
#133
|
|
|
Assuming the DM will keep it in line is not a valid response. Escpecially if they are marketing to new players and new DMs...
It is if you put a label that says "These spells require the DM to keep things in line. Use caution if you're new. You have them to look forward to as you gain familiarity with the game and, perhaps, want a more varied experience, but they require special handling. The game is complete without them, they're provided for the group of DMs who want them." Which is all I'm advocating, actually.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 12, 2012 - 7:24PM
#134
|
|
|
Assuming the DM will keep it in line is not a valid response. Escpecially if they are marketing to new players and new DMs...
It is if you put a label that says "These spells require the DM to keep things in line. Use caution if you're new. You have them to look forward to as you gain familiarity with the game and, perhaps, want a more varied experience, but they require special handling. The game is complete without them, they're provided for the group of DMs who want them." Which is all I'm advocating, actually.
Yeah, if you separate them out and mark them. Other people are saying not to do that and using the excuse that the DM will fix it...which is not a valid options...
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 12, 2012 - 8:10PM
#135
|
|
|
Just thought of something great. Have a separate section for DM approved martial maneuvers. They can be things like this:
Steel Wind Strike: make an attack against up to 4 enemies. On a 5+ you kill them. You can do this only once per fight.
Gruff looks: You look awesome. Roll a d20, on a 5+ you make an opponent cower in submission or automatically seduce anyone. The affected target has to do what you say, but anything that puts them in direct threat of death gives them another save. This power lasts 1 hour per level and can be used 4 times per day.
Clever plot device: you find just what you need to solve the problem at hand. You can use this only once per day.
These maneuvers should be limited to martial characters and are in no way unrealistic. They may not seem balanced to some, but I have never had a problem with them in my games so it is perfectly fine. This gives some of that old school martial feel to martial characters. Right?
P.S. this post was only partially sarcastic, but upon reading it, if wizards can have sleep, charm person, and the rest of their bag of tricks why not.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 12, 2012 - 9:42PM
#136
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
Assuming the DM will keep it in line is not a valid response. Escpecially if they are marketing to new players and new DMs...
It is a valid response. You just don't like it. Further, even a new DM can keep it in line. He'll just make more mistakes that need to be corrected is all.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 12, 2012 - 9:54PM
#137
|
Date Joined:
Mar 19, 2004
|
@Lawolf
So basically, you want ToB maneuvers on steroids? Sounds totally realistic.
But awesome.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 12, 2012 - 10:16PM
#138
|
|
|
Assuming the DM will keep it in line is not a valid response. Escpecially if they are marketing to new players and new DMs...
It is a valid response. You just don't like it. Further, even a new DM can keep it in line. He'll just make more mistakes that need to be corrected is all.
No, DM fiat in any form is not a valid response to a rules question...
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 13, 2012 - 12:16AM
#139
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2009
|
Assuming the DM will keep it in line is not a valid response. Escpecially if they are marketing to new players and new DMs...
It is a valid response. You just don't like it. Further, even a new DM can keep it in line. He'll just make more mistakes that need to be corrected is all.
No, DM fiat in any form is not a valid response to a rules question...
How have you ever played D&D? No seriously it's DM fiat that lets the game work. Even 4e was partially based in DM fiat. They in fact give guidlines on how to make stuff up using DM fiat. Please give me a TTRPG where DM Fiat isn't a part of the system. Almost every single game I have ever seen that has a dm will give them some area where they are allowed to arbitrarily make rulings based on their personal preferance or interpretation of the other rules they know.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 13, 2012 - 12:23AM
#140
|
|
|
Assuming the DM will keep it in line is not a valid response. Escpecially if they are marketing to new players and new DMs...
It is a valid response. You just don't like it. Further, even a new DM can keep it in line. He'll just make more mistakes that need to be corrected is all.
No, DM fiat in any form is not a valid response to a rules question...
Dude, whoa. Dude.
Seriously, we're DMs, not chess judges. I don't want the players' ability to understand game mechanics to constantly force me to rewrite adventures or to reevaluate my campaign. I don't want to face a "killer combo" that rips through the combat I was hoping would be a climactic end to an adventure. That doesn't mean we, as DMs, can't make SOME stuff up and cover up SOME rules deficiencies.
I disagree (strongly) with the premise that developers should go out of their way to leave rules vague or incomplete. But game rules will always be vague and incomplete, at least until someone can literally write a model for a complete world of *my* imagination AND can do so before I even imagine said world. In simpler terms, game rules will always be vague and incomplete.
Ed_Warlord, on what it takes to make a thread work: I think for it to be really constructive, everyone would have to be honest with each other, and with themselves. Quotation of the moment
Show
Areleth: How does this help the problems we have with Fighters? Do you think that every time I thought I was playing D&D what I was actually doing was slamming my head in a car door and that if you just explain how to play without doing that then I'll finally enjoy the game?
Quotation of ALL moments
Show
TD: That's why they put me on the front of every book. This is the dungeon, and I am the dragon.
A word of warning though: I'm totally not a level appropriate encounter.
|
|
|
