|
1 year ago ::
Jan 21, 2012 - 10:59PM
#81
|
Date Joined:
Jul 13, 2011
|
WOW! all this from a gorgnards post. Well I am one too, but look to the future of the game with anticipation and trepidation. Even waiting for the first pod cast to come after DDXP is causing me distress. I have loved and hated all of the editions of the game. Love because they created communities like the one we have here. Old and new players are passionate about the game no matter what edition they play. I hated it because with every new edition the sands shifted in some editions as to make older ones less transferable to the new mode of play. Now we as a community have come to the inevitable fork in the road. Only this time two groups meet at the fork with one path to travel on. As a business WotC has had to contend with the MMO as a competitor and I can see the marketing in the system. War games have taken up a place in many gamers hearts so I see the marketing there as well. Funny as D&D started from a TTG strategy point of origin. I hope the new edition does much to solve many of the issues we all have had about the game. Mainly broken mechanics. As for the issues many people keep posting about for the RP aspect of the game I have found that in all the editions. It is not the fault of the system that you are not RPing, it is the fault of the group. We have been given an opportunity to influence the future of the game. One which many people are just shouting out the “I want” attitude. Until the admins get official sections for the next game that is in design I fear this same attitude will continue. The edition war will smolder and set itself alight once again. With this statement I am not trying to be pessimistic, just honest. It is not a bad game being produced that I fear the most. Instead it is what can happen when a product line makes a change, tries to correct it and fails to deliver. D&D is a small part of WotC, of which Magic the Gathering is as well. That part is the money maker, D&D as a brand has caused itself damage and is trying to rebuild itself. Which I hope they do successfully. This is however a business and while not a huge sector of the hobby line it is a competitive one. No fellow gamers, a bad game is not what I fear. It is Hasbro shelving the IP due to poor market share and dropping sales. That for me is the worst thing that can come from all of this. Hasbro has done it with other IPs they own. Do not assume they might not do it with this one. As a grognard the only thing I ask of our community is to push aside those who instigate infighting. Continue to insult members who are trying to express an opinion with out making demands for what “THEY” want. Support members who are making examples available for discussion. Promote a drive towards consensus on good mechanics through constructive dialogue. Well I guess that’s it. I try to stay away from the boards mostly because I have yet to find any one conversation that has not deteriorated into a squabble. Leaving behind what might have been constructive work by us all, simply broken. Good luck WotC, because if you have as much trouble with this iteration....well......it was fun.
MY DM COMMITMENT
To insure that those who participate in any game that I adjudicate are having fun, staying engaged, maintaining focus, contributing to the story and becoming legendary.
"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules."
Gary Gygax
Thanks for that Gary, so now stop playing RAW games.
Member of the Progressive Front of Grognardia Suicide Squad
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 21, 2012 - 11:43PM
#82
|
Date Joined:
Jul 13, 2011
|
There are lots of people who would prefer to explore a giant world than ride the DMs roller coaster (it's my new word for railroad because trains are boring and roller coasters are fun once in a while). Creating a game that better suits naturalist play does not in any way preclude a DM creating a roller coaster for a party.
Roller coasters are all about placement. Place level and plot appropriate monsters along the path and scale them up with a mathematically defined frequency. Plot keeps them on the path. You can do that in any edition. Naturalist play needs a broad level range of viable enemies and rules to support creating the world.
All of this is equally true for all editions that have been or will be, and can be just as easily done in any.
If I want to run a good naturalist world, without extensive experience with the system, I am going to need support from the game texts. Yeah things can be a little over or under, standard deviations and whatever. I might have to improv half a session from time to time as things don't turn out the way I expect them to, but I'm willing to do that.
Well thought out tables from people with a high degree of Encounter Design mastery are what I'm going to need when I need to scrounge up things for my party to do after my monsters turned up a little short and the party killed them all three times faster than I had anticipated. Or the party got wiped and they're rolling up some new guys in town and need something level-appropriate again.
I want such a game to be fun and for that, I need to be able to use a large level range of monsters to have a fun encounter against a party. If a given cave has an Ogre, because that is where an Ogre lives, and an Ogre is a level 7 monster, then I can't have that cave only be worth finding when the party is precisely level 7. It needs to be worthwhile to play from levels like, 5 to 10, and as an incredibly dangerous but potentially rewarding (and entertaining because I am cruel) encounter for like, level 3s or 4s.
If a valley to the west has a goblin village, I'd like the party to be able to decide to ransack the goblin village at a variety of levels and it still result in rewarding gameplay. At the same time, I don't want to change the world to suit the party. The goblins that are there are the goblins that are there because this is a naturalist world and that's what's fun for me. Artificially increasing the difficulty of the same monster to match the party is transparent and insulting to anyone that played Oblivion, and all my gaming friends are Elder Scrolls fans.
I'd very, very much enjoy for this to be a consideration. I know plenty of people who just want to explore stuff and make their own fun with the things they find. A naturalist kind of world, directed by rolling dice and my own fancy is the easiest way for me to provide this kind of experience and the only one I look forward to creating.
I want to be a referee. I want to adjudicate the rules, tell the PCs how dumb or successful their ideas are, and tell them what's there. If there isn't a rule or I don't know it, I can make one up, whatever. I don't want to narrate a story or take them on a roller coaster I built just for them, I just want to facilitate their exploration of an imaginary sandbox and the toys I left in it.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 22, 2012 - 6:47AM
#83
|
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
Date Joined:
Jun 25, 2006
|
Hi, my name is Heros_Backpack. I'm a grognard and I didn't start with D&D... I was introduced to RPGs through 1e Runequest and played that and 1e AD&D alternately for about 5-6 years on borrowed books. Then I moved away and stopped playing for a while. By the time things settled enough for me to pick up my own books and find a game, 3.5 was just coming out. No one was playing RQ in my new area, but they were playing 3.5, so those were the books I bought. I liked what I saw - it was almost as if someone had taken the best of both systems and blended them so I played that for quite a while and ended up DMing a lot. I also look at things from my point of view as a writer, so I submitted things to the magazines from time to time and always got a reply from Paizo. Then the magazines were pulled and I shrugged and re-sent my latest submissions to Wotc. Might as well have tossed them down a black hole for all the response I got. (Black mark I) Then 4e was announced and the GSL. I looked at both, and the more I looked, the less I liked. It was a major step back towards the strict levels and classes of 1e, and the style was heavily in favour of a hero to god feel - while I prefered zero to hero. 4e felt like gaming in a straitjacket. (Black mark II) On top of that, I was on a tight budget and really didn't want to buy all the books again - the 3e SRD had been a major encouragement to buying the books because I could taste-test the system before I bought. The 4e SRD was - useless - for that, to put it mildly. Then came the farce of the DDI tools which sounded good, until they announced it would be PC supported only. (Black mark III) Faced with paying for something I wouldn't be able to use even if it came out, I said "  it, I'll play something else. Something more enjoyable where they treat me like a person rather than a walking money source." Now they've announced 5e. I'll look at it, but I'm not optimistic about whether I'll play. IF they have an SRD that's useable, and IF they ever improve customer service to match their closest rivals and IF I like the feel of it - then I might find the money for the core rules. IF. The edition slanging matches are amusing to read though.
Competition places
Show
Winner of Hero Craftsmen 3: Gladiator
Winner of Master Storyteller Competition 1: Ancient Ruins
Gold Medallist in MDMC 38: Populate a map
I placed first (that's right, FIRST!) in the second CowCon: "We All get Old" Contest!
Gold Medallist in MDMC 42: Create a Remote Location
Winner of Master Storyteller Competition 7: I am Legend
Best in Category: Rules Use - Hero Craftsman 17
Best in Category: Clarity - Hero Craftsman 17
Second place in Master Storyteller Competition 6: Fall from Grace
Silver Medallist in MDMC 32: Magic Item Spectacular
Joint Silver in Hero Craftsmen 6: The Frostfell
Silver medallist in Hero Craftsman 17: We're going Underground!
Silver Medalist in Hero Craftsman 18: We need a Hero!
Silver Medalist in Hero Craftsman 20: Back to School
Spoiler:
Show
http://drewbaker.com/warlord/images/group9/Durga.jpg
Now that's a half-orc!
Like Joe Wood? Meet Gwen.
http://tinyurl.com/ringofnine
If you think commoners can't do anything, you should meet Joe Wood! The pen is mightier than the sword - but only if the sword is very small and the pen is very sharp - Terry Pratchett Methinks (still) wizards bit off more than they can chew. 
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 22, 2012 - 7:21AM
#84
|
Date Joined:
Sep 16, 2005
|
[...]
The Old Guard
The Old Guard (French Vieille Garde) were the elite veteran elements of the Emperor Napoleon's Imperial Guard. As such it was the most prestigious formation in Napoleon's Grande Armée.
The Old Guard was formed of veteran soldiers who had served Napoleon since his earliest campaigns.
It is believed that Napoleon hand-selected members of his Old Guard based on physical traits, most notably above-average height. Their imposing stature was likely impressive to foes and allies alike. Serving in the army for several years as well as a citation for bravery were also taken into consideration when selecting troops into the Old Guard.
There were four regiments of Old Guard infantry: the 1st Grenadiers, 2nd Grenadiers, 1st Chasseurs, and 2nd Chasseurs and belonged the Imperial Guard under Emperor Napoleon. Members of The Guard benefitted from a number of different privileges. The wages of individual soldiers in The Guard was considerably higher than any other military unit in Napoleon's Imperial Guard. Another privilege reserved only for the members of the Old Guard was the freedom to express their discontent freely: the Old Guard Grenadiers were known as les Grognards ("the Grumblers") because they openly complained about the petty troubles of military life. Some of the officers even did so in the presence of the Emperor knowing that the Old Guard's reputation commanded enough respect with Napoleon to allow itself such openess. Such behaviour was unique to the Old Guard and would have been severely punished were it engaged in by a member of any other unit.
So there it was... I was a snarling, grunting, growling, grumbling old solder engaged in a complaining activity that if I were not an old hand at D&D would not be tolerated. A guy who refused to play the new version of the game as I believed the old versions were much better. Yeah, I guess that seemed pretty on the money about who and what I am and how I feel about Dungeons and Dragons.
As I read these posts about how many of the 4e gamers hope most of what they enjoy about their edition of the game is kept in 5e, I couldn’t feel more opposed. It is my deepest hope that D&D goes back to being what made it great in the first place, and returns to the mechanics that allowed a 2.0 character to be easily converted into a 3.5 character, so that this lost and nearly forgotten about 3.0 D&D player has a chance to be converted into wallet diving a 5.0 enthusiast.
I wish I could call myself a grognard but since I actually started with 4e then switched to 3.x/PF... yeahh!!
|
|
|
