|
13 months ago ::
Jun 05, 2012 - 2:36AM
#11
|
Date Joined:
May 30, 2010
|
Children ages 9-11 are much better and more willing to try new games and pick things up then children ages 13-17
But much fewer children ages 9-11 are in an environment to be exposed to these things since they have to have grandmothers or parents which want to expose them to it. It's not such a cut and dry thing.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 05, 2012 - 4:09AM
#12
|
|
|
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" class="mceContentBody " contenteditable="true" />
I keep seeing this. Is this a link?
Its proof that the forum system that WotC is using is horribly broken... There are better free ones out there that do everything they want with no problems because they've been tested by thousands of websites.
"You can lead a company to a good website suite, but you can't force them to choose it over a kickback giving salesman..."
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 05, 2012 - 4:14AM
#13
|
|
|
I agree completely. There is just too much missing for this to be considered a 'core' game. Then on top of that they threw in vancian casting as 'core' which makes no sense as vancian casting is complex and precludes other casting styles...
You know, when you post things like this it becomes ever harder to take you seriously. Especially the part I've bolded.
Why? Because way back during Christmas break of 1980, a group of normal children (ages 9-11), found THIS*:
under the tree.
And without any adult help - or prior gaming xp - they figured out how to play it.
*This is always listed as the 1981 set. I don't know where/how Grandma got ahold of it in Dec. of 1980. And I never thought to ask her while I could. I suspect she ordered it through Sears or JCPenny's Christmas catologue.
(in no particular order);
It had weird shaped dice.
It had Vancian casting (though we didn't know that term back then).
There were NO skills.
ACs went down for some unknown (and unquestioned by us) reason.
There were charts for hitting & saving that varied by class & lv. (THAC:0 was still a few years away)
Clerics didn't cast ANY spells until 2nd lv.! 
It had NO GAME BOARD! Or playing pieces! (wich is a pretty big change for a kid!)
It's rules are very comprable to this playtest in terms of movements, actions, etc.
The adventure that came packed with it? The exact same one we're using here in 2012 as a playtest. With a map drawn at 1 sq= 10', WAY too many monsters to fight all at once, & practically zero "plot".
One player was to be the DM & pretty much had ALL the power.
One class (the ELF) was 100% better than all the others (being both fighter & Magic-User combined!)
But the #1 thing? Right in the introduction pages we were told to feel free to change any rule we saw fit as this was OUR game now. (once again, a pretty big change for kids)
So 4 normal children, 32 years ago, figured out how to play this stuff pretty easily. Including Vancian casting, how to tell stories, how to DM/RP, how to improv a rule/work together to make an answer we liked for our games, etc. etc etc.
We were hardly alone.
But yet somehow people today can't manage it?
Really?
Oh, and simply including one option does not preclude including another way of doing something.
You missed my point. The point is that vancian casting is a complex subsystem. There are no other complex subsystems in the playtest. The idea for the 'core' was the simple most basic parts that make the game D&D. Vancian casting does not make the game D&D, it is an alternative to sorcerer style casting and AEDU. It should be a module, not in core.
As to people learning it, sure, but how many casters did you have die before you got a handle on it? Nowadays people aren't that patient, on their 2nd or 3rd character they are going to rage quit and go play a video game...
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 05, 2012 - 7:24PM
#14
|
Date Joined:
May 31, 2012
|
Most of your criticisms stem from not reading the packet well enough, it seems. I'd recommend giving it another shot and using your head instead of a calculator to play your next session. There are lots of other posts about how simple the rules are compared to previous iterations, and you had your players using trigonometry... Maybe that's a sign something deeper than the materials needs to be looked at.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 05, 2012 - 7:53PM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Sep 28, 2004
|
I think a lot of the misgivings are more misunderstanding. Not saying you don't get it but this module appears to be far more open for the DM and players to try different options of play. When I first read the rules my thought was 3 maybe 3.5 but playing I found myself DM'ing like my old 1st and 2nd edition days and the players loved it. It is not a "module" set for publication and not all of the supplemental rules are out or even needed. The idea is simply to have a base set of rules to interpret game play and allow for as much custimization and options as the group would want. You may have noticed on the player sheets the note of old game feel don't use backgrounds or themes. It was not easy to run having to flip back and forth and I am not sure it is intended to be story based, but easily could be depending on what you do with the "module" and the rules and descriptions make a strong push toward creativity not seen in many editions. Not to harp on 4e but very few tables I ran or played with had anything creative or imaginative not because it was not there but because the players saw it as more mechanical and structured and did not think differntly. I was easily possible to do it if you worked at it. I would be interested to hear your view of that opinion Elauria just to get an idea of how you look at the game. Storytelling can mean many different things to many different people. I can't say that it will improve as the playtest or the edition evolves because I believe the flexiility the edition is attempting to offer will a less polished feel to some people that want every option described versus allowing people to pull in what they want, that being said, I would definitely think you will see more fluff such as plot hooks, backgroud, box text [I saw no boxes  ], etc.. I will say the one thing I do enjoy is the fact I feel I much more player involvement using mini's and a map and not. I love that there is an option to play with or without a mat and for my games I would say I have done about 50/50 inside the same session.
Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate.
"Abandon all hope ye who enter here."
A child of 5 could understand this, someone bring me a child of 5.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 06, 2012 - 8:44PM
#16
|
|
|
No, YOU, the DM, need to do some work with the adventure.
You always have with this module (it's a partial reprint of "B2: Keep on the Borderlands).
Heck this time they even tell you that right up front on the 1st page of it! And they give you some general idea hooks.
As for why they sent you a hack/slash fest? Because this playtest round is just taking some of the rough combat features for a spin. Maybe some skill check or whatever if they come up.
And you know what? They're copying something I've been doing for decades! A new edition of D&D comes out? We play through the Caves of Chaos again. Counting PF? This thing has served as my own playtest 8 different times. Soon it'll be 9.
No, that's just dumb. My job is the DM is to try and learn the rules and figure out how the game plays, not spend a bunch of time coming up with extraneous stuff for a game I haven't even been able to play.
They could have put out a fully packaged mini adventure that didn't require a bunch of DM rules learning PLUS world building to launch. It's too tedious to expect both at playtest time.
"If it's not a conjuration, how did the wizard
con·jure/ˈkänjər/Verb
1. Make (something) appear unexpectedly or seemingly from nowhere as if by magic.
it?" -anon
"Why don't you read fire·ball / fī(-ə)r-ˌbȯl/ and see if you can find the key word con.jure /'kən-ˈju̇r/ anywhere in it."
-Maxperson
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 06, 2012 - 9:43PM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2010
|
I signed up for the playtest today and plan on doing a one shot with it. I have been playing D&D since 1987 when I was 9 years old. I hope I have a good experience with this play test and reading this thread has helped me immencely. 
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 06, 2012 - 11:40PM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Aug 17, 2007
|
No, YOU, the DM, need to do some work with the adventure.
You always have with this module (it's a partial reprint of "B2: Keep on the Borderlands).
Heck this time they even tell you that right up front on the 1st page of it! And they give you some general idea hooks.
As for why they sent you a hack/slash fest? Because this playtest round is just taking some of the rough combat features for a spin. Maybe some skill check or whatever if they come up.
And you know what? They're copying something I've been doing for decades! A new edition of D&D comes out? We play through the Caves of Chaos again. Counting PF? This thing has served as my own playtest 8 different times. Soon it'll be 9.
No, that's just dumb. My job is the DM is to try and learn the rules and figure out how the game plays, not spend a bunch of time coming up with extraneous stuff for a game I haven't even been able to play.
They could have put out a fully packaged mini adventure that didn't require a bunch of DM rules learning PLUS world building to launch. It's too tedious to expect both at playtest time.
You're not building a campaign to last for the ages, you're testing the flow of a new game. If plot is so clutch for you, download the keep on the borderlands, and then it's the full adventure: just use the 5e stats and the w/e edition fluff. But if you don't want to do more than learn rules, you probably shouldn't be playtesting.
In a system this unpolished, snags will be hit, and if improvisation is so difficult for you it's probably best to avoid it.
'That's just, like, your opinion, man.'
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 07, 2012 - 5:10AM
#19
|
Date Joined:
Feb 10, 2007
|
looks like the op came into the playtest with a bias against the new system. All of the people who play 4e that have tried the play test have failed to enjoy it because they refuse to let go of their preconcieved notion of how the game is supposed to work.
D&D isn't any of the things that were core concepts of 4e, combat especially. Until people can learn to play without those extra maneuvers that bog down combat this game isn't going to be the game they want.
I sugest waiting a few months before trying to playtest this one since it's gonna be a while before the rules you want are added to the game.
Blaming the edventure for shoddy DMing is a symptom of shoddy dming. This is especially true if the DM doesn't even read the adventure before sitting down to play. They would know that they needed to add a little something to the setting before they ever got near the gaming table.
The first rule of using something someone else wrote: make it yours.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 07, 2012 - 5:33AM
#20
|
|
|
looks like the op came into the play test with a bias against the new system. All of the people who play 4e that have tried the play test have failed to enjoy it because they refuse to let go of their preconceived notion of how the game is supposed to work.
D&D isn't any of the things that were core concepts of 4e, combat especially. Until people can learn to play without those extra maneuvers that bog down combat this game isn't going to be the game they want.
I suggest waiting a few months before trying to play test this one since it's gonna be a while before the rules you want are added to the game.
Blaming the adventure for shoddy DMing is a symptom of shoddy dming. This is especially true if the DM doesn't even read the adventure before sitting down to play. They would know that they needed to add a little something to the setting before they ever got near the gaming table.
The first rule of using something someone else wrote: make it yours.
Yeah, sorry no. I've played the game since 2E, and this is worse than 2E ever was. I enjoyed 4E for the simple reason I didn't have to constantly figure out which ability to use for an attempt at improv in combat. There were improv moves in my 4E game, but they didn't happen every round because the fighter, rogue, and wizard all got tired of using the same attack over and over again.
Every round in 5E I have to figure out which rolls I want my players to make because they are tripping targets, swinging on chandeliers, throwing chairs, throwing dishes, throwing each other, grabbing targets, doing back flips because they are bored, etc...etc...
All of this because they are bored of just hitting it, or hiding then hitting it, or casting magic missile at it.
This isn't even as good as 2E...
|
|
|
