|
6 months ago ::
Dec 06, 2012 - 3:23AM
#231
|
|
|
I hope we get more interesting races like Dragonborn and fewer Tolkien-porn races like Halflings.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 06, 2012 - 9:37AM
#232
|
Date Joined:
Jan 23, 2012
|
Then what were you talking about?
The attitude that it's only DMs that should be empowered to make decisions about the campaign world. Do we really need to have another debate about DM "empowerment"? Because that's why I said "DM empowerment B.S. aside..."
Given that that wasn't what Mike was talking about, and further given that you apparently don't want to debate DM empowerment, why in the world would you bring it up in the first place?
And quite frankly, each group will decide for themselves who all is empowered to make decisions about the campaign world. That's all that needs to be said, so end of discussion.
For those confused on how DDN's modular rules might work, this may provide some insight: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/11/the-world-of-darkness-shines-when-it-abandons-canon
@mikemearls: Uhhh... do you really not see all the 3e/4e that's basically the entire core system?
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 06, 2012 - 10:08AM
#233
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2007
|
1) Experience. I have a lot of experiencing examining, creating, and critiquing racial design, at this point I'm certain more than the actual developers do (see my sig). As at least a couple of people on the forums may tell you, home-brewing races is what I do. Anybody who thinks it's simple is somebody who just doesn't know better. There are many more considerations to be made than are obvious. This should be evident by the fact that nine out of ten homebrew races ever posted miss at least some basic ideas if not being outright awful. And these aren't even completely edition-dependant ideas either. Just simple things like avoiding pigeon-holing or avoiding mandatory cultural features are things that most people including the developers tend to let slip through the cracks.
2) Well I wasn't, and I don't care.
1) Well, so do I (not in a cowboy way...), I guess we approach design differently, you think complicated = good, I think quite the opposite, and most good actual designers do, so I really have no time or interest in your little homebrew experiments, but keep trucking.
2) Ooh, well, Jimmy cracked corn.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 06, 2012 - 11:29AM
#234
|
Date Joined:
Aug 28, 2005
|
you think complicated = good
That is a misunderstanding. I think that complexity is necessary, but even that's only talking about the design standards themselves and not their outcome. It's not hard to make some very simple trait blocks that are based on some more advanced standards.
Moderated by
ORC_Aria
on Dec 06, 2012 - 12:12PM
Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TMSpeaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 06, 2012 - 11:32AM
#235
|
|
|
I hope we get more interesting races like Dragonborn and fewer Tolkien-porn races like Halflings.
Amen to that. I mean, the Tolkien races need to be there for people who prefer that ype of thing, but I'd rather see merfolk as a race than just get an aquatic version of elves.
Why Mechanics-Alignment Integration is Bad
Show
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin."
NPC: "Really?"
Fighter: "Yes."
NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?"
Fighter: "I do."
NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?"
Fighter: "What?"
NPC: "I don't know what it means either."
Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do."
NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics."
Fighter: "These what?"
NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
D20 Modern Toon PC Race.
Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 06, 2012 - 11:43AM
#236
|
|
|
I hope we get more interesting races like Dragonborn and fewer Tolkien-porn races like Halflings.
Amen to that. I mean, the Tolkien races need to be there for people who prefer that ype of thing, but I'd rather see merfolk as a race than just get an aquatic version of elves.
Different strokes, I guess. None of the above is my personal preference, but I'm playing the wrong game for a humans only game.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 06, 2012 - 11:52AM
#237
|
|
|
I hope we get more interesting races like Dragonborn and fewer Tolkien-porn races like Halflings.
Amen to that. I mean, the Tolkien races need to be there for people who prefer that ype of thing, but I'd rather see merfolk as a race than just get an aquatic version of elves.
Different strokes, I guess. None of the above is my personal preference, but I'm playing the wrong game for a humans only game.
Not really. Humans only is entirely possible. You may find fewer people interested in a humans only game, or such a game might be seen as a fun diversion from a more racially diverse campagin, but there's no reason why it can't be done if the DM wants to and can find the players.
Why Mechanics-Alignment Integration is Bad
Show
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin."
NPC: "Really?"
Fighter: "Yes."
NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?"
Fighter: "I do."
NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?"
Fighter: "What?"
NPC: "I don't know what it means either."
Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do."
NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics."
Fighter: "These what?"
NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
D20 Modern Toon PC Race.
Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 06, 2012 - 11:57AM
#238
|
|
|
I hope we get more interesting races like Dragonborn and fewer Tolkien-porn races like Halflings.
Amen to that. I mean, the Tolkien races need to be there for people who prefer that ype of thing, but I'd rather see merfolk as a race than just get an aquatic version of elves.
Different strokes, I guess. None of the above is my personal preference, but I'm playing the wrong game for a humans only game.
Not really. Humans only is entirely possible. You may find fewer people interested in a humans only game, or such a game might be seen as a fun diversion from a more racially diverse campagin, but there's no reason why it can't be done if the DM wants to and can find the players.
I've personally yet to find a low fantasy-centric group. Games like D&D tend to attract people who are into elves, tieflings, dragonborn, and the like. It doesn't help that D&D has been high fantasy since 3rd edition. Anyway, gaming groups around here will exclusively play D&D and World of Darkness only. But, yes, you are correct. It is totally possible to do humans only with D&D.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 06, 2012 - 12:05PM
#239
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
I've personally yet to find a low fantasy-centric group. Games like D&D tend to attract people who are into elves, tieflings, dragonborn, and the like. It doesn't help that D&D has been high fantasy since 3rd edition. Anyway, gaming groups around here will exclusively play D&D and World of Darkness only. But, yes, you are correct. It is totally possible to do humans only with D&D.
Try Kingdoms of Kalamar as a setting, it is really human centric (it has some non-human races) and very low fantasy. It is compatible with 3.x
I really like all the detail that has gone into making that setting
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 06, 2012 - 12:14PM
#240
|
Date Joined:
Mar 14, 2004
|
Not really. Humans only is entirely possible. You may find fewer people interested in a humans only game, or such a game might be seen as a fun diversion from a more racially diverse campagin, but there's no reason why it can't be done if the DM wants to and can find the players.
One idea is to simply give different types of humans certain advantages/disadvantages based on their background. For example, barbarians my get advantage on rolls involving certain physical rolls or wilderness survival stuff, people from an island kingdom might be good with sailing or predicting weather, folks from a mountainous land might be at dealing with difficult terrain, etc.
You might consider looking at some of the Game of Thrones RPG material (both the older d20 stuff and the newer system); they go into some detail about the different races of men in that setting.
|
|
|
