|
9 months ago ::
Sep 23, 2012 - 7:03PM
#41
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
Waah! Waaaaaaah! I quit!
Bye
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 23, 2012 - 7:21PM
#42
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
This topic confuses me so I will just say this.
Diffrent levels. Different classes. Diffrent races. Different monsters. Different traps. Different towns. Different NPCs. Different subsystems.
It is not a matter of better but different.
Doing the same thing over and over is boring. But everyone has their preferred constants. The various moduls also the groups to keep some constants while applying aspects that can be variable.
Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds.
Constitution Based Class for Next!
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 23, 2012 - 8:21PM
#43
|
Date Joined:
Jan 28, 2008
|
This very serious business is all a matter of perspective.
I played - and understood - Rolemaster. I - and anyone who's done so - should get a medal for being able to navigate and enjoy Rolemaster (if you're thinking that this is "cred" of any sort - there's a jumbo jet whizzing over your head with "The Point")
So hardly anything D&D ever will make - is "too complex" as far as rules go - at least for me.
Can I, have I, played a game with no levels? I'm sure tons of people on these boards have.
But when you come to D&D - you come for a familiar experience. That familiarity would likely be something akin to previous additions - whether it be Red Box... or 4th.
OP... you care, it's evident because you've posted and you stayed. You think you've got something to contribute - by all means, contribute away - but save us the melodrama of slamming the door.
Rant and rave and use those stupid Latin fallacy things.... like a normal forum-goer.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 23, 2012 - 8:30PM
#44
|
Date Joined:
Apr 12, 2008
|
I played - and understood - Rolemaster. I - and anyone who's done so - should get a medal for being able to navigate and enjoy Rolemaster (if you're thinking that this is "cred" of any sort - there's a jumbo jet whizzing over your head with "The Point")
I never found the rules of Rolemaster to be complex. Over-burdensome and a pain in the butt to bookkeep, but not really complex. I actually quite liked Rolemaster's rules. What I didn't like was the amount of time it took to bookkeep them all throughout the game.
So hardly anything D&D ever will make - is "too complex" as far as rules go - at least for me.
Agreed. I haven't played an edition of D&D yet that I would consider complex. I think that's a good thing, too. I play it for good storytelling adventures that sometimes require a bit of bookkeeping, not for rampant bookkeeping with occasional storytelling thrown in. That is the main reason I don't play Rolemaster anymore. The ratio of referencing tables, charts, and graphs didn't equal or fall below the amount of time spent enjoying the storytelling.
In fond memory of Mark "Wrecan" Monack.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 24, 2012 - 9:46AM
#45
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
Here is my advice on addressing the issue of a game playtest you see going in a direction you very much dislike.
1. The point of a playtest is to get feedback by which the game may be improved before implementation. "X is bad" is useless to game designers. Hyperbole, sarcasm, overgeneralization, and ultimatums ("Change X or I'm leaving you for another game!") are similarly unhelpful when it comes to said point of playtesting. Okay, you've gotten your point across about how serious an issue this is with you. We get it, and I'm sure everyone has such a spot on which to take a stand. I, for one, would have very deep concerns if they went to a fully-3.w skill mechanic. (For the record, I'd still play, but houserule the [...] out of that part of it.) But there are helpful ways of addressing issues, and there are temper tantrums.
2. If you post on the forums, e-mail them detailed explanations, fill out every question on every survey, wait for a playtest or two for them to have a chance on working out kinks in new dynamics & mechanics, and they still do not address the issue or issues you have, then you need to ask yourself a few questions. "Is this a dealbreaker for me? Can I be satisfied just playing an earlier edition? Are they ignoring everyone, or does my issue seem to affect hardly anybody?" I'm sure there are plenty of issues, polarized ones, on these forums, where the loud polar opposites are grossly overrepresented. But they do use feedback. The fixed-HP/rolled-HP option, and the idea of adding the ConMod to heals and HPs, were suggested by me (and I should think many others) in the first survey, and there it is. So maybe the last question is, "Do I actually have a better suggestion that will fix the problem, or am I just presenting a problem and expecting them to fix it no matter what?"
3. Do what your answers tell you. If it's a dealbreaker, break the deal. If you can't be satisfied with another edition, don't spend your money on or play them. If they're ignoring everyone, don't feel too bad about going. If your issue seems to be in the minority, the game may not be for you anyway. If you have a better suggestion, tell them and wait to see. If you don't, shall we give the experienced professionals the benefit of the doubt?
4. If you must go, bow out gracefully. If you want to tell the designers the deal is broken, don't stand on a soapbox in the middle of the forum. An e-mail will get to them even more certainly, especially if maturely- and well-written. Grandstanding will only invite ire from those of us still enjoying D&DN thus far. If you decide to announce your departure in such a manner, it's not about D&D, D&DNext, the mechanics, the designers, how much better any other games may or may not be, modularity, progression, stats, or anything else. It's about you, and if you want to believe you're doing it for any other reason, you just failed an Insight check against yourself.
5. If you say you're going to go, go. Don't hang around the thread to see who agrees with you and argue with those who don't. It helps no one, gets nowhere, and wastes everyone's time.
I feel if you are not happy with the way 3ed/4th/5th ed is, go back and play 1st or 2nd ed. Or better yet take the part you like for each of them and work out a personal edition that you and your players like. Its not that hard to do.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 24, 2012 - 10:50AM
#46
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
The DM is what keeps the D&D game fresh. Not powers, magial items, monsters, levels, and splat books.
With that said, if the game system fails to empower the DM or the system has overreaching rules that restrict DM freedom then it will become stale.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 24, 2012 - 1:47PM
#47
|
Date Joined:
Nov 18, 2010
|
If WOTC want to make an impact with Next, eliminate levels altoghether. Good dungeon masters, like professional screen-writers can adapt and make endlessly incredible adventures using simple level one characters. That's where everybody starts, and that's what everybody loves.
I disagree!
The DM isn't the only person playing at the table. Everybody is! Creating your character, imagining his background or how he looks is all part of the fun. Having your character go from zero to hero is loads of fun. All these things make a better story.
I've played other games that don't use levels (GURPS, d100 games). They're not nearly as fun than D&D. Whenever I play these games, I always get the feeling that my character is stagnating. The only exception is Cthulhu because in our games, combat pretty much means we're going to die.
Even for a DM, levels are fun. You have a lot more to take into account against high level characters: divinations, bad ass exploration spells. Incorporating these new spells in the story just makes it better.
Chess players never tire of the format. It is the same for any successfull game. Get a clue.
Developpement is an integral part of many other games. Why do people play FarmVille, Railroad Tycoon, Sim City, the Sims? What's the point in having a Tamagotchi?
All these games have one thing in common: you're building something. Character building is fun! Well for some of us anyways.
If level 5 is more fun than level 1, why bother with level 1 at all? I don't believe that level 1 is level 5 with training wheels attached. Adding modifiers and more hit points is not in any way "character building". I'm just saying that moving your character up another level shouldn't be the be all and end all of the game. Level 10 characters are not "more fun". They are more complicated. You have to carry around lots of paperwork to keep track of all the additions. If that is the goal, why not just start with those rules and powers anyway?
You have this underlying assumption that Complexity equates to less fun. That may be true for you. But I assure that it is not true for the vast majority of players.
But for me, Complexity = Fun. I like tracking modifiers, status conditions, calculating optimal situations, and figuring out the best approach. That's fun to me. It's engaging. It rewards me to make informed decisions about the game's engine.
I'd definitely be on the opposite end of the spectrum from you. And curiously, I'm not that thrilled to play DnD Next because it is too simplistic for me. There isn't enough to manage, track, and decide uponr for me. I feel like I'm not provided that many options as a DM or as a player from the game engine.
I know that I'm not the majority when it comes to Next. A lot of people like it, and that's fine. They are welcome to enjoy roleplaying as a hobby, because more compatriots are never a bad thing. I'm very happy to introduce people to the hobby even if they go off and play another system entirely. And I'm happy that DnD Next is appealing to enough people to maintain them in the hobby.
So while Next may not be the option for you, that doesn't mean that it's a horrible game. Or that it's going to doom the DnD brand. From the feedback it's generated, its looking to be a pretty well rounded game that a lot of people will enjoy. Let them enjoy their game, and you and I can go and enjoy our respective games. Then we can all get together and talk about how awesome roleplaying is. =)
http://art.penny-arcade.com/photos/979299305_WsMkV-L.jpg
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 24, 2012 - 1:53PM
#48
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
We are testing the core. The last packet was a version of the core. This packet is a version of the core (with the possible exception of the Sorcerer and Warlock not being core four). The next packet will be a version of the core.
I think you are right mostly except for this part about healing. There will be a "default" healing system. I'm sure there will be other modules for other playstyles. But core will merely say that there are hit points and they are recoverable. If you want to call the default core thats fine, no arguments there. But it will be pluggable I'm sure. There is to much disagreement amongst the base for one solution to meet all needs.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 24, 2012 - 2:14PM
#49
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
You have this underlying assumption that Complexity equates to less fun. That may be true for you. But I assure that it is not true for the vast majority of players.
But for me, Complexity = Fun. I like tracking modifiers, status conditions, calculating optimal situations, and figuring out the best approach. That's fun to me. It's engaging. It rewards me to make informed decisions about the game's engine.
I'd definitely be on the opposite end of the spectrum from you. And curiously, I'm not that thrilled to play DnD Next because it is too simplistic for me. There isn't enough to manage, track, and decide uponr for me. I feel like I'm not provided that many options as a DM or as a player from the game engine.
Although I understand your point - and to a limited extent agree - I do think that it is true that Complexity serves as a barrier to new players.
I also think that there is (at least) two different axes of complexity: There is complexity in character building (3.x) and there is complexity in actual play (4E).
I think that 3.x went to far in the 'complexity of character building' direction - that was that point of the whole 'system mastery is require' idea. I have no desire to see a game return to this level of complexity.
I think that 4E went too far in the 'complexity of play at the table' direction - that is what makes combats drag for hours and hours.
But if you gave me a game with the character building complexity of 4E (complex but not too complex) and the play complexity of 3.x (likwise) -I'd settle for that.
I'd prefer to ramp down the complexity of play a bit - closer to the AD&D game. But 3.0 isn't so complex it couldn't serve as a decent model. Just so long as they deal with walking menageries and a few other issues.
And I want your complexity to be restricted to your character. Anything that slows down play should either be a valualbe use of time - or speeded up. Lot of small additive bonuses are an example of this - they slow down play, so I'd like to see a faster and simpler option. If your character is taking actions to give your character lots of small bonuses - OK. But as a DM I don't want to have to track small bonuses from several different sources and determine how they all interact - it's not a good use of time and it slows down combat.
Carl
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 24, 2012 - 3:35PM
#50
|
Date Joined:
Nov 17, 2003
|
If level 5 is more fun than level 1, why bother with level 1 at all?
I don't think Level 5 is more fun than Level 1, and I don't think Level 1 is more fun than Level 5. What I DO think is that watching my character progress, gain new skills and new abilities is fun. I like starting with something just out of the training hall, and watch her grow with her experiences, learn new spells or combat moves or skills or languages or ... And it's satisfying to see that we ARE gaining those things because we have, as a group, overcome the challenges that the DM has set us. If I want to play a game with static rules, where the challenge is to try to use the known set of rules to WIN, I'll choose Chess or Monopoly or Bridge, or something like that. But for us, D&D isn't a game we WIN. It's a game we play and really love that's been going on for nearly 30 years. What game of Chess can claim that? 
Personally, I've always felt the game plays best at around 5th or 6th level (pick your edition, they are all similar) with decreasing funnitude as the levels move further away from that sweet spot. Of course, the characters' growing experience overrides this as you and others have done such a good job explaining.
|
|
|
