|
13 months ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 1:00PM
#311
|
|
|
There are two things I don't like that Ithink the grid makes the designers suspetable to. The first is writing powers that have no in character meaning or description, or those descriptions have nothing to do with the rules, or are counter to the rules. 4e was a mess with that kind of crap.
I bolded the part requiring citation for you.
Holy crap kid. There is no citation because it is something I think. It is the impression I have from playing the games and reading their blogs. There isn't a study on it. I'm not going threw it. If you have a different impression, post it or don't.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 1:06PM
#312
|
|
|
I'm all for player entitlement: players are entitled to know what the hell the rules of the game are.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 1:22PM
#313
|
|
|
I'm all for player entitlement: players are entitled to know what the hell the rules of the game are.
Not in my opinion.
Players are entitled to show up, eat snacks, and state their characters' actions. The end.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 1:31PM
#314
|
Date Joined:
Mar 18, 2009
|
There are two things I don't like that Ithink the grid makes the designers suspetable to. The first is writing powers that have no in character meaning or description, or those descriptions have nothing to do with the rules, or are counter to the rules. 4e was a mess with that kind of crap.
I bolded the part requiring citation for you.
Holy crap kid. There is no citation because it is something I think. It is the impression I have from playing the games and reading their blogs. There isn't a study on it. I'm not going threw it. If you have a different impression, post it or don't.
Well, no offense, but out of the thousands of powers written for 4E, I think even a generous estimate would be that only a handful would meet your definition. If anything, the situation is the exact opposite of what you describe.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 1:38PM
#315
|
Date Joined:
May 26, 2012
|
Modern roleplaying games are each built for various purposes to emphasize different narrative themes, behaviors, and play-styles. This specialization is a more recent step forward in the evolution of RPG design, in my opinion. If you want a "Theater of the Mind" game where each participant is an equal in shaping the setting and narrative through vague abstractions and meta-resources, there are already many wonderful game systems created specifically for that. With its shaped spells, frequent tables, and diagetic resource management, narrative abstractions have never been D&D's previous specialty or goal.
What I'm advocating is for fans like myself to be able to play our D&D with this iteration of the game. I do hope we find a way to make it work for everyone. I don't think that just forgetting about our differences and attempting to use the same yard-stick, one size fits all approach is going to do anything good for WotC at this point, so I'm quite happy when I see the Rule of Three of today clearly starting they are considering different ways for us to be able to take control of the game and state what we want to play with and what we don't want to play with in this or that campaign.
I don't particularly care for 'modern' role playing games, and if anything, I think that any attempt to see the history of tabletop RPGs as some sort of march towards progress or Darwinian evolution is doomed to fail. There are still people like myself who enjoy games that have been designed in the 70s. Some people, like myself still, enjoy some games that have been created at the dawn of our hobby (like OD&D, Tunnels and Trolls, RuneQuest and others) while also playing modern games they appreciate too (like World of Darkness games, Servants of Gaius, Deathwatch, whatever the case may be). One game doesn't stop being fun to play just because a new one comes onto the scene. That's a fallacy, as far as I'm concerned. So the notion that people like me ought to "get on with the times" and forget what we actually like to play, regardless of the copyright date on the cover, is out of the question, as far as I'm concerned.
To me, part of what makes a role playing game such is the human interaction going on around the table. People having fun together in a shared world of their imaginations. This is really what this is about. And that is why you have a referee at the game table who is also a human being, since only a human being may react in real time not only to the specificities of the campaign, when and how the rules ought to be used to maximize the fun of all the participants in the game, but because you need empathy, and heart, to be able to feel what the other players are feeling and adjust the game to their needs.
The rules are just a tool, an aid designed to achieve that end, and just one of many tools in the toolbox that is available for the players (including the DM) to use to create this greater game than the sum of its parts I was alluding to earlier. The rules are not the centerpiece that make role playing games function. Human beings, their imaginations, and willingness to collaborate together to have fun, are. This the game must recognize, once and for all, so that the responsibility of getting a great game going may be embraced by those who truly and solely can realize that promise: the players themselves, including the DM.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 1:39PM
#316
|
|
|
I'm all for player entitlement: players are entitled to know what the hell the rules of the game are.
Not in my opinion.
Players are entitled to show up, eat snacks, and state their characters' actions. The end.
Ah, so, when was the last time you ran a game with actual fellow human beings?
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 1:43PM
#317
|
Date Joined:
May 16, 2004
|
Nope, what I do is play a board game. If we are doing a naration of events and I say, "Two orcs run at you." and you say, "I cast sleep on them."
That's fine.
But if you are demanding that we play a tactical board game because you think you can do better against me if I'm locked into showing exactly where the NPCs are, I'm just going to play the board game against you. You arn't going to be allowed to play at full mental capacity and expect me to play with kids gloves on. Either we are roll playing or we are playing some kind of children's chess.
A RPG becomes a "tactical board game" if a grid is used? People are not allowed "to play at full mental capacity" and you won't be playing "with kids gloves on" when playing with a grid? Playing with a grid is like playing "some kind of children's chess"?.....
....not allowed "to play at full mental capacity"? Really!?
Now english is not my first laguage. But still this must be the most annoying, condescending piece of Scheiss I have ever read on these boards. Hyperbole. Laughable.
It also is very insulting, not inclusive at all and against the spirit of DnDNext and what the designers want to achieve with it. Really, man, who do you think you are? Why the need to compensate?
Please, do grow up at last. After reading this, I really cannot take you seriously. Sorry, but I am going to just ignore you from now on.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 2:27PM
#318
|
|
|
I'm sorry lokiare, maybe you missed my post earlier. I blocked your account and cannot read your response.
I think you are a nuisance to this conversation and D&D Next in general. I think your efforts are divisive, not inclusive, nor constructive. I cannot stand your attitude, and since you don't seem to be willing to find common ground, or temper said attitude when you answer to me, I decided it would be best for me to just ignore your posts. That is what I intend to do in the future. Here's hoping this time you see this post.
I don't block anyone. I'm sorry that you can't be open minded enough to actually discuss things. Perhaps in the future someone will help you do that. As it is that kind of attitude is why 5E will never bring everyone back to the same game...
(Can someone quote this so they can see it)...
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 2:31PM
#319
|
Date Joined:
Feb 25, 2012
|
There are a thousand reasons why I think the grid is a sham and that it detracts from role playing, but to each their own. I don't mind if the grid is there or even if movement is done in squares. I'm pretty good at multiplying by scalars.
There are two things I don't like that I think the grid makes the designers suspetable to. The first is writing powers that have no in character meaning or description, or those descriptions have nothing to do with the rules, or are counter to the rules. 4e was a mess with that kind of crap. The second is the idea that the players get to tell the GM how to run the game and play by the rules. If your group has a social contract that says that the GM will play by the letter of the book, that's a boring and aggrivating way to play in my opinion, even as a player. What I don't want is the rule books to give the impression that rule zero isn't still king and that the GM can't tell the rules to take a hike whenever he wants.
The worst possible fail would be if the rules let the players pick how many monsters their are like the one poster above seems to be wanting.
a thousand reasons
sham
multiplying by scalars
no in character meaning or description
mess
crap
players get to tell the GM how to run the game
social contract
rule zero isn't still king
worst possible fail
let the players pick how many monsters their are
Your post as a lot of hyperbole in it. I don't think that's very good feedback.
By the way, Rule Zero sucks, and that's not hyperbole. That's a fact. I can only think of two games that Rule Zero works well in - HackMaster and Paranoia. You know, those two games where the GM wins when he kills everyone. 
It is fine feedback. I'm telling them the product I want. I'm sure they get it.
Also, I don't care if you don't like rule zero. I'm in the camp of people that won't buy their product if they take it out. I hope my camp outnumbers the others so I can buy it. If not, I'll just keep playing PF / Palladium / World of Darkness / Gurps / every other traditional RPG.
How do you take out rule zero?
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 2:50PM
#320
|
|
|
I don't particularly care for 'modern' role playing games, and if anything, I think that any attempt to see the history of tabletop RPGs as some sort of march towards progress or Darwinian evolution is doomed to fail. There are still people like myself who enjoy games that have been designed in the 70s. Some people, like myself still, enjoy some games that have been created at the dawn of our hobby (like OD&D, Tunnels and Trolls, RuneQuest and others) while also playing modern games they appreciate too (like World of Darkness games, Servants of Gaius, Deathwatch, whatever the case may be).
Yeah, and I still play 4th Edition Gamma World with modules from 1st Ed GW. I was quite happy that the game got a new take in a slightly more playable format. We didn't update our Gamma World campaign though or appreciate it less.
That said? Games have definitely evolved. This is very much like Darwinian adaptation because games "live" off of our time and imagination. Older games were far less successful at capturing and making efficient use of that time and energy. Most younger players are turned off when I pull out an old boxed set, and it's most often not the yellowing pages but the poor editting and tedious game mechanics that drive them away.
Frankly, years of retrospect and education have allowed us to revisit and analyze our old game designs and found them often to be clunky and haphazard. I have nastalgia for the past, but also enough sense to know where things are improving. Rolepaying games are a developing industry and a medium that's growing more sophisticated, despite itself.
|
|
|
