|
12 months ago ::
Jun 19, 2012 - 12:06PM
#151
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2009
|
Now there are things that are not simulated by the rules. And there are things that are abstracted greatly. Still people of my persuasion, and you can see I'm not unique in this feeling, want the players playing by the same rules as the rest of the universe.
So to be successful I think 5e needs to address these concerns. 4e went too far the other way. Since some of you don't care about this stuff why do you care if we are thrown a bone for our way.
But the very idea that the rules cover anything but some utterly trivial amount of the world EVEN IF THEY DO EXACTLY AS YOU SAY is ludicrous. 99.9999% of it is still just pulled out of the DM's backside. I mean really, I've spent 30-something years making up worlds and running campaigns. I know all about it. The rules are at most an incredibly insignificant factor in anything, and to think that the entire game has to be structured in a highly rigid way to satisfy that .00001% is mind-bogglingly daft IMHO! 
If a DM pulls 99.9999% of stuff out of that valley in Slice where the sun dont shine, then what does it matter if there are actually rules to simulate anything?
It just seems counter productive to limit world creation to please those DMs that just do not use the rules anyway.
I would say I totally agree. The issue is it is the people insisting on flat scaling that are limiting world creation, not me.
How does that limit world creation?
At the risk of perpetuating this whole side discussion, isn't it clear? Your flat scaled version of the game, we can have a dragon that the town guards can fight, but not one they can't. With a standard AD&D-esque power curve we can have both. That's why it is more limited. You can do less with that system. Anyway, it is all basically a massive digression that deserves a whole other thread (and actually has been beat to death in the thread on the L&L where Mike talked about it). I'd suggest we leave it where it is. There's plenty of other things to discuss about monsters 
Or the dragon that can be defeated by 500 soldiers attacks a town that has a total population of 500 people (commoners aren't soldiers) and he does it from surprise because he is an intelligent and cunning creature capable of noticing the best time to strike. The cadre of powerful dragons attacks the city while the guard is switching and they do it from the most advantageous side of the city. Yeah your story may require you to be able to explain how the enemies pull off what they pull off instead of just being able to say wing bang boom it happens without explanation now you go defeat them. Enhancing and improving critical thinking skills and writing techniques is a desireable side effect. Now you actually have to make stories that make some kind of sense. Although if you don't care about the details of how they pulled off what they pulled off then none of this matters for you because you can just say it happened anyways and that is fine. Those of us that do like to think on the micro of how the dragons pulled off what they pulled off and want the mechanics to back up why they did it these things make more sense. These rules don't effect your world building at all. You can still make a super powerful dragon that can destroy entire cities but is able to be killed by the party in a balanced encounter. You don't care if the mechanics backup the "offscreen" action so these things don't matter to you. The monster will still be a valid threat to your 20th level party. It just so happens 500 soldiers aren't 100% useless all the time just because they aren't adventurers
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 19, 2012 - 12:09PM
#152
|
Date Joined:
Jan 27, 2010
|
Did anyone get the impression that Merals is trying to bring back some sort of mass combat rules? It just seems odd that he would talk about hordes of humanoids and then refer to unit formations. I wonder if he has been reviewing any of the AD&D battlesystem modules.
i love battlesystem but im not feeling the whole mix of mass combat vs an average sized adventuring party. it just seems like an oafish fix to the absurd amounts of die rolls. thats just my opinion; im def all for mass combat systems
You know, I have a copy of AD&D battlesystem (and a copy of Chainmail, and a copy of Swords and Spells too for that matter). I LIKE wargames, but basically what I discovered ages ago was that most people that want to play an RPG could care less about wargames, don't have a lot of interest in learning those sorts of tactics, and lack the time, space, and resources (IE loads of minis, hills, trees, etc) to really play a good minis TT battle.
I mean, yeah, D&D grew out of that, and the people that were playing in those first Arneson games must have all been into exactly that. It is a great concept, but I think it long ago stopped being interesting enough to the mainstream D&D player to be something that was worth spending any real thought on. Even 1e barely touched on the subject, and both attempts to make mass combat systems for D&D pretty much died quick hard deaths.
It certainly won't hurt my feelings if some day WotC publishes another tactical mass combat TT minis game that is designed to work with 5e. I think they'd be better off just leaving mass combat rules for that and instead republishing good guidelines for using battles as a backdrop for encounters and skill challenges in the core rules.
Well there wouldn't be anything wrong with it, I have a few modules in in which a huge war is raging on around the PC H1-4 and X10 etc. I also recal that the armies of kingdoms in some campaign settings were detailed in that way as well. And then there is the Birthright campaign setting.
I've also run a campaign in which the PC had to run from place to place building an army. The end was a huge battle that we all played out using various styles of combat. I even had the PC's play good dragons for one conflict.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 19, 2012 - 1:22PM
#153
|
Date Joined:
Feb 13, 2012
|
I came back to D&D because I went around to some hobby shops looking for other wargamers to get back into the hobby. All I found was this new D&D thing called "Encounters" starting up. I tried it, got the new PH, found the warlord and I was hooked.
But I still miss wargaming. It sounds like the "tactical module" is going to include units and large-scale combats with special 1:1 'commander' units. Cool, sounds a bit like Chainmail. I look forward to it. I doubt I'll be able to find anyone else interested in playing it, but it'll be nice to have a look at.
However, if the fighter and warlord (if the warlord even makes it) don't come into their own without the tactical module, and the D&D I actually get to play is just "ToteM" with every monster in the fight cycling through and attacking whomever they want, it's going to be pretty disapointing. A class shouldn't be worthwhile only if a particular module is in use.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 19, 2012 - 1:34PM
#154
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2009
|
I came back to D&D because I went around to some hobby shops looking for other wargamers to get back into the hobby. All I found was this new D&D thing called "Encounters" starting up. I tried it, got the new PH, found the warlord and I was hooked.
But I still miss wargaming. It sounds like the "tactical module" is going to include units and large-scale combats with special 1:1 'commander' units. Cool, sounds a bit like Chainmail. I look forward to it. I doubt I'll be able to find anyone else interested in playing it, but it'll be nice to have a look at.
However, if the fighter and warlord (if the warlord even makes it) don't come into their own without the tactical module, and the D&D I actually get to play is just "ToteM" with every monster in the fight cycling through and attacking whomever they want, it's going to be pretty disapointing. A class shouldn't be worthwhile only if a particular module is in use.
I already know my group will be down for the some of the wargaming like modes. The idea of being able to run unit style combat within the D&D world without having to hamfist the rules on my own is very appealing. If that is a cpability I will likely be running with a full on mix of combat modes. Sometimes with just ToTM sometimes on grid sometimes with measuring if we are feeling it (an inch = five feet), and sometimes full on battles where the players take up the role of the truly elite members of their side of the many unit battle, and then I run some elite monsters and some big units on the DM's side. Or if I want to be really fun let the players actually have the problem of being on differing sides of a war. So I am kinda hopeful that this style of play is supported. If it is it expands my story telling to a degree I have only ever wished for. I mean I have always been able to tell the stories but I would like the players to be able to actually affect the battles and really change the story instead of me just scripting the events that happen in the grand battles.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 19, 2012 - 1:53PM
#155
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
Unless the town is pretty big and has a large military force, it's toast anyway. But when an entire army is defenseless thats too much.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 19, 2012 - 7:51PM
#156
|
Date Joined:
Mar 19, 2004
|
Only true so long as the absurdity that are Damage Resistance/Reduction stay back in the 90's where they belong...
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 20, 2012 - 4:44AM
#157
|
|
|
A lot of people don't play D&D to be super-heroes...that's what Marvel is for etc.
I agree, in fact when the game got to that level of play you were encouraged to start over at 1st level again. Most campaigns would never reach the levels of the NPCs like Elminster in the game.
Yeah...AD&D had a big section on "retiring" your high-level character to become an Elminster-esqe NPC. Afterall what fun is it to play anymore when you've in essence "won" the game?
Just because Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms had to protect their plot device -sues, does not mean that is all there is.
In addition to the Crazy_Monkey's list, I'll offer up Dragon Kings for Dark Sun.
Explicitely stating in the forward that it it exists to allow PCs to shake up their world, act upon it, rather than simply be acted upon.
Fundamentally, and this is very on topic, is the idea of PC exceptionalism?
How exceptional are the PCs in their world? This was not constant between editions or settings.
My personal preference is not "Super" Hero PCs (not at first level anyway), however, Heroic with near limitless potential (as levels acrue).
Some players/dms prefer completely mundane PCs, and for that, this article was perfect. Some prefer exceptional PCs (Knights of the round, pulp era protagonists, street level heroes, Conan). Yet others do want their nascent demi-gods from birth. Those of the latter have expressed their displeasure.
No one is wrong.
I can no more tell you that your PCs must be a cut above the rest than you can tell me discard the idea of lev-0 as the default (but not exclusive capacity) for the NPCs.
Crafting a ruleset that allows flexibility in this regard will not be easy.
I have an answer for you, it may even be the truth.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 20, 2012 - 5:00AM
#158
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
In my campaign worlds, the PCs can become powerful enough to be major forces. They never become powerful enough to ignore everyone else in the world if they decide to start trouble. They may be 20th level but there are a good number of other 20th level npcs in the world as well. The PCs are exceptional. They are on the top 50 list of chess grandmasters etc... They are not unique though.
Here is a common progression....
At 1st level, they are commonplace. They have exceptional ability scores though so the potential is there. There are a slew of npcs weaker than them but there are hundreds of thousands in the world stronger.
At 10th level, they are uncommon. They are powerful enough to influence Kingdoms. They are well respected. There are still thousands stronger.
At 20th level, they are epic. They are counted among the few. They are respected as ultimate practictioners of their profession. While not unique, they are forces to be reckoned with and even a King might tremble if an entire party were arrayed against him.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 20, 2012 - 1:27PM
#159
|
Date Joined:
Jan 27, 2010
|
Only true so long as the absurdity that are Damage Resistance/Reduction stay back in the 90's where they belong...
I agree, I prefer non-magical weapon immunity.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 20, 2012 - 2:32PM
#160
|
Date Joined:
Mar 19, 2004
|
That's not any better. The thought that every existing 2 lb Imp can go unharmed from the direct fire and collateral damage of trebuchets is ludicrous. But this would be much more forgivable if it didn't lead to the much maligned "golf bag of weapons" syndrome.
|
|
|
