|
13 months ago ::
Jun 01, 2012 - 7:59AM
#51
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
And why is forced co-operation important exactly?
"Forced" nyeh it rewards cooperation because reality rewards cooperation and operating as a team is greater than as a bunch of individualists without any experience being part of a team.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 01, 2012 - 8:00AM
#52
|
Date Joined:
Oct 24, 2001
|
my "assumption" allows EVERYBODY to play the game they like
yours does not, kindly rethink that argument.
Defend this claim.
In what way does my statement of what I want in 5e not allow everyone to play the style of game that they want?
In what way does your statement of what you want in 5e allow everyone to play the style of game that they want?
Here are the PHB essentia, in my opinion: - Three Basic Rules (p 11)
- Power Types and Usage (p 54)
- Skills (p178-179)
- Feats (p 192)
- Rest and Recovery (p 263)
- All of Chapter 9 [Combat] (p 264-295)
A player needs to read the sections for building his or her character -- race, class, powers, feats, equipment, etc. But those are PC-specific. The above list is for everyone, regardless of the race or class or build or concept they are playing.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 01, 2012 - 8:05AM
#53
|
Date Joined:
Apr 21, 2011
|
my "assumption" allows EVERYBODY to play the game they like
yours does not, kindly rethink that argument.
Defend this claim.
In what way does my statement of what I want in 5e not allow everyone to play the style of game that they want?
In what way does your statement of what you want in 5e allow everyone to play the style of game that they want?
i have allready stated it. in an earlier post.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 01, 2012 - 9:14AM
#54
|
|
|
It's one of the design goals, so it's a perfectly valid thing to speak out against, this early on. In fact, this is the best time to speak out against design goals, since it will just get harder and harder to change them as time goes on.
nope, i'm sorry, but an incomplete rules set is not "part of the design goals". that is to say it's not even finished (not even CLOSE) and yet you are acting like it's allready in stone, i find it.... funny actually, but thats just me.
but let us talk about the design goals, because you brought them up, lets muse over that, pay attention, because i will ask you a question at the end.
as i understand it. the design goals of this edition are simple. create a solid base of the very core rules to which you can apply a modular rules set on top. these rules modules should only ever add rules, never subtract, to keep things as simple as possible in terms of modifying the tables rules to their playing needs. this rules set's goal is to include EVERYONE.
so how does baking cooperation into classes include the people that don't want it? how does adding on more and more rules include the people that don't want them, how does the system you envision in your head include EVERYONE?
this is not just your game, understand that. understand the version of DDN that you want will most likely be a module, understand that this will be the case for most people.
so the final and important question.
why is your imagined style of game more important than anybody elses?
Wow. Way to intentionally misunderstand my post, guy.
Their design goal is to have a "rules light" approach that "empowers DMs" by putting less of the adjutication in the rules text, and more of it in the hands of the DM.
That's the design goal we're discussing here.
The opposite of that will probably not be supported in any meaningful way, if the core of the game is built upon a "DM may I?" design model. No clear description of what happens if you fail a climb check is a great example, because it's one Mearls used recently, as if it's a good thing. It's not. It means that players have no idea what their chance of success is, or what happens if they fail, even though a character trained in climbing would know those things, to some extent.
It has nothing to do with my playstyle being more important. It's about the designers needing to find a better balance between freeform and actually having a ruleset.
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.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 01, 2012 - 9:19AM
#55
|
|
|
my "assumption" allows EVERYBODY to play the game they like
yours does not, kindly rethink that argument.
Defend this claim.
In what way does my statement of what I want in 5e not allow everyone to play the style of game that they want?
In what way does your statement of what you want in 5e allow everyone to play the style of game that they want?
i have allready stated it. in an earlier post.
No you haven't.
You're completely full of it.
Not to mention, you're wrong. Flat out wrong.
You want to know what actually supports both playstyles? I'll tell you, in simple terms. A core system that is well codified and mechanically solid, and that works out of the box, with detailed guidelines for playing more "fast and loose", and leaving more in the hands of the DM.
Trying to do it the other way will not work. The whole system relies on DM fiat.
And seriously, stop trying to shout down people that are giving their feedback. It's rude, and just makes you look like an incredibly arrogant ass.
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.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 01, 2012 - 9:23AM
#56
|
Date Joined:
Apr 21, 2011
|
i love how everybody assumes that a system that relies on DM fiat can't be ruled over by a module.
why can't we have our DM fiat rule core and.... i dunno... add rules? isn't that the nature of rules modules? to add rules? which would then overight the DM fiat?
i'll tell you waht supports both playstyles...
HAVING both playstyles. (both DM fiat and Rule Heavy rules).
if we make the rules "mechanically solid" as you stated, the people who don't WANT that are out of luck, so why not make DM fiat the base, and then ADD mechanics? why is this SO HARD to understand?
-edit-
and so you aren't shouting me down for adding my feedback? hello pot, this is the kettle.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 01, 2012 - 9:32AM
#57
|
|
|
I really enjoy how the same people who argue that 5e should not be about cooperation are the same people who say "but D&D is a team game" when people discussed super wizards and iWin button spells that made the fighter the wizard's caddie. You guys can't have it both ways.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 01, 2012 - 9:35AM
#58
|
|
|
No one is shouting you down for giving feedback. You are attacking people, and we're not putting up with it.
Rules modules need to avoid changing core rules foundations, which is what they'd have to do in order to go from DM may I, to solid functioning rules. It is much more efficient to make the foundation solid, and well thought out, and then include, in the core books, guidelines for playing a looser game. "Instead of these dc tables and skill descriptions, the DM can come up with those elements on the fly, blah blah blah. " is a much easier transition than "This rules module essentially represents an entirely different core game, so basically don't bother reading the phb or dmg at all."
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.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 01, 2012 - 9:36AM
#59
|
Date Joined:
Apr 21, 2011
|
I really enjoy how the same people who argue that 5e should not be about cooperation are the same people who say "but D&D is a team game" when people discussed super wizards and iWin button spells that made the fighter the wizard's caddie. You guys can't have it both ways.
out of curiosity, who is this directed towards?
nobody here has said 5th should not be about co-operation, the closest to that argument was the question of "is mechanical cooperation better than improvised cooperation"
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 01, 2012 - 9:40AM
#60
|
Date Joined:
Apr 21, 2011
|
No one is shouting you down for giving feedback. You are attacking people, and we're not putting up with it.
Rules modules need to avoid changing core rules foundations, which is what they'd have to do in order to go from DM may I, to solid functioning rules. It is much more efficient to make the foundation solid, and well thought out, and then include, in the core books, guidelines for playing a looser game. "Instead of these dc tables and skill descriptions, the DM can come up with those elements on the fly, blah blah blah. " is a much easier transition than "This rules module essentially represents an entirely different core game, so basically don't bother reading the phb or dmg at all."
are you actually suggesting that it is easier to go from complex to simple than it is to go from simple to complex?
|
|
|
