|
5 months ago ::
Dec 28, 2012 - 12:13PM
#41
|
|
|
Aren't you belittling your friend by artificially deciding for her what her own due time is?
No, I'm respecting her by letting her decide for herself when it is rather than trying to force it on her before I have any idea whether she's ready. Painting that as belittling is absurd.
Not telling your friend about rules options isn't letting her decide anything. You are actively hiding parts of the game from her. How is that not belittling?
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 28, 2012 - 12:17PM
#42
|
|
|
I'm fine if specialties aren't mathematically optimal, and that they don't get used by people looking to min-max. That's who the op is talking about when he says "some specialties will be avoided". As for chaks argument, add me to one of the people who disagree. Bundling feats to take up less design space makes sense. For one shotS, I definitely think I'd use specialties - it's easier to figure that my character is a woodsman than figure out 4 different feats. For longer term campaigns, I could see chafing at a specialty. Of course, I'm the reason we're dumbing down d&d. We're selling the fanbase short because mecorva can't hack it. FYI.
I've gotten into the habit of treating one-shots like longer term campaigns because I've had many one-shots turn into longer campaigns by overwhelming player demand.
I'd also argue that having both individual Feats and Specialties in the same book takes up more design space, not less.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 28, 2012 - 12:50PM
#43
|
|
|
Prepackaged specialties don't offer me anything if I am just going to read through all of the feats and decide which ones I want anyway. I need a reason why a prepackaged specialty can give me some added enjoyment. It doesn't need to be a min-max advantage but it does need to offer something over the more customizable model.
I will never use specialties as such if I can pick and choose my individual feats. I may like one specialty but not want the order that the specialty states and I would likely substitute at least one instead.
Better not to waste the space by offering specialties. It is adding another layer of complexity with very little added value. While novices might like it initially, most people I know would want to know what choices they missed.
It does nothing for you. It will help new players, and players that want a simpler game.
I'd take it a step farther and say that Specialties are a terrible idea. Streamlining or dumbing down the D&D experience is not going to lure new players to the game at all. The thought that it would is short selling the potential player base. Everyone who has come to D&D has done so despite or because of the level of difficulty it presents. The current player base isn't special, and the new player base isn't dumb.
More charitable reasons why people might want to use specialties instead of picking their own feats:
a) They're inexperienced (not even remotely the same thing as "dumb")
b) They simply don't enjoy dealing with the mechanical complexity that feats provide and prefer to choose a straightforward preset kit if it will put them at about the same power level.
People who will play D&D will do so for an authentic D&D experience. Lessening that authentic D&D experience is only going to prevent them from adopting the game.
There are all sorts of reasons that people want to play D and D. Saying that everyone who chooses to play wants an "authentic experience" (even ignoring the fact that that phrase doesn't have a good definition) seems rather sweeping, to me.
One doesn't gain experience by not experiencing. A lack of experience is a reason not to use Specialties. Those with a lack of desire for mechanical complexity should be trying a form of roleplaying that doesn't have mechanical complexity. An RPG needs to play to its strengths. Mechanical complexity is IMO a strength of D&D.
Getting rid of quick and easy ways to build and level characters and avoid much of the game's potential complexity does not, in any way, benefit the game. Too many players consider complexity a bad thing. That doesn't make them less valid DnD players than you or me.
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.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 28, 2012 - 12:52PM
#44
|
Date Joined:
Aug 28, 2005
|
Not telling your friend about rules options isn't letting her decide anything. You are actively hiding parts of the game from her.
I am doing no such thing. I am giving her exactly what she needs to have fun playing, and as soon as she's interested in learning more, I can and will answer all of her question and point her exactly to where she should look. She's even totally free to do her own self-directed research, and I will love to hear about it later, answer question, clear up confusion, and so on. In fact, that's exactly what's happened.
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!
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 28, 2012 - 12:56PM
#45
|
|
|
Prepackaged specialties don't offer me anything if I am just going to read through all of the feats and decide which ones I want anyway. I need a reason why a prepackaged specialty can give me some added enjoyment. It doesn't need to be a min-max advantage but it does need to offer something over the more customizable model.
I will never use specialties as such if I can pick and choose my individual feats. I may like one specialty but not want the order that the specialty states and I would likely substitute at least one instead.
Better not to waste the space by offering specialties. It is adding another layer of complexity with very little added value. While novices might like it initially, most people I know would want to know what choices they missed.
It does nothing for you. It will help new players, and players that want a simpler game.
I'd take it a step farther and say that Specialties are a terrible idea. Streamlining or dumbing down the D&D experience is not going to lure new players to the game at all. The thought that it would is short selling the potential player base. Everyone who has come to D&D has done so despite or because of the level of difficulty it presents. The current player base isn't special, and the new player base isn't dumb.
More charitable reasons why people might want to use specialties instead of picking their own feats:
a) They're inexperienced (not even remotely the same thing as "dumb")
b) They simply don't enjoy dealing with the mechanical complexity that feats provide and prefer to choose a straightforward preset kit if it will put them at about the same power level.
People who will play D&D will do so for an authentic D&D experience. Lessening that authentic D&D experience is only going to prevent them from adopting the game.
There are all sorts of reasons that people want to play D and D. Saying that everyone who chooses to play wants an "authentic experience" (even ignoring the fact that that phrase doesn't have a good definition) seems rather sweeping, to me.
One doesn't gain experience by not experiencing. A lack of experience is a reason not to use Specialties. Those with a lack of desire for mechanical complexity should be trying a form of roleplaying that doesn't have mechanical complexity. An RPG needs to play to its strengths. Mechanical complexity is IMO a strength of D&D.
Getting rid of quick and easy ways to build and level characters and avoid much of the game's potential complexity does not, in any way, benefit the game. Too many players consider complexity a bad thing. That doesn't make them less valid DnD players than you or me.
Where is the objective evidence that new players want a simpler game? I've heard this line before, but I've never seen it actually supported with evidence. Similarly, I don't feel 3rd or 4th Edition is any more complex than 2nd Edition. When did D&D magically get more complex to the degree that it needs to be simplified?
I'm still of the opinion that this movement towards simplification is born from the ego of the current player subconsciously suggesting that "New players can't handle what I've handled.".
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 28, 2012 - 12:59PM
#46
|
|
|
Not telling your friend about rules options isn't letting her decide anything. You are actively hiding parts of the game from her.
I am doing no such thing. I am giving her exactly what she needs to have fun playing, and as soon as she's interested in learning more, I can and will answer all of her question and point her exactly to where she should look. She's even totally free to do her own self-directed research, and I will love to hear about it later, answer question, clear up confusion, and so on. In fact, that's exactly what's happened.
You're giving her what you've determined she needs to have fun playing. Shouldn't she be able to make that determination on her own? Nowhere in your statement did you suggest you actively investigated if she was interested in learning more at the initial point of informing her of the rules. Self directed research isn't as effective after someone has already been given a pre-conceived notion.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 28, 2012 - 1:04PM
#47
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2008
|
As others have said, the purpose of specialties is the same as premade backgrounds, fighting styles, and rogue schemes: they provide new players (and experienced players who don't want to spend tons of time reading through all the options) with a structured framework.
Rather than simply saying, "Ok, pick any 4 skills", you say, "Think about what your character did before becoming an adventurer. Look through this list of backgrounds for some examples. If none seem to fit, we can come up with our own." It tells players that your skills shouldn't just be 4 random skills that you like; they should fit within the story of who your character is. And a little side note: even if you pick your own skills without using a premade background, you still get a trait. The trait isn't a special bonus that you only get from picking a premade background. It says this on page 2 of the Background file, under "Creating Your Own Background".
The same goes for fighting styles, rogue schemes, and even specialties (all three of which say you can customize to make your own). Not all players will need or even want the premade options. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be there (or should give an extra bonus).
Personally, I find the premade stuff very helpful. Of the characters I have made, none of them have stuck 100% to the premade options, but nearly all of them have used premade stuff as inspiration. For example, say I am making a fighter. Rather than read through all the maneuvers and start to think about how they could be used, I just looked through the example fighting styles. Duelist seemed really interesting (I have always loved that style of fighter), so I looked up those specific maneuvers. Not all of them fit with my idea of what I wanted, so I swapped a few out, changed the order of others, etc. Same with my background and specialty: I started with a premade option, and then customized it to make it perfect for me.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 28, 2012 - 1:12PM
#48
|
|
|
As others have said, the purpose of specialties is the same as premade backgrounds, fighting styles, and rogue schemes: they provide new players (and experienced players who don't want to spend tons of time reading through all the options) with a structured framework.
Rather than simply saying, "Ok, pick any 4 skills", you say, "Think about what your character did before becoming an adventurer. Look through this list of backgrounds for some examples. If none seem to fit, we can come up with our own." It tells players that your skills shouldn't just be 4 random skills that you like; they should fit within the story of who your character is. And a little side note: even if you pick your own skills without using a premade background, you still get a trait. The trait isn't a special bonus that you only get from picking a premade background. It says this on page 2 of the Background file, under "Creating Your Own Background".
The same goes for fighting styles, rogue schemes, and even specialties (all three of which say you can customize to make your own). Not all players will need or even want the premade options. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be there (or should give an extra bonus).
Personally, I find the premade stuff very helpful. Of the characters I have made, none of them have stuck 100% to the premade options, but nearly all of them have used premade stuff as inspiration. For example, say I am making a fighter. Rather than read through all the maneuvers and start to think about how they could be used, I just looked through the example fighting styles. Duelist seemed really interesting (I have always loved that style of fighter), so I looked up those specific maneuvers. Not all of them fit with my idea of what I wanted, so I swapped a few out, changed the order of others, etc. Same with my background and specialty: I started with a premade option, and then customized it to make it perfect for me.
I can't deny that a distinct part of the present player base enjoys streamlined options without entering the realm of hypocrisy. I will again ask for evidence that new players want the same, however. It is not fair to new players to project our thoughts of them upon them. I am trying to base my analysis of new players on what I've known of past "new players", or what I've seen of people entering the system. This leads me to believe that there is little issue with system complexity for the new player, any more than there was for me or perhaps you (I wasn't there when you first played D&D). If we didn't need streamlined rules, why do new players need what we didn't? To me that smells like the ego marginlizing others, claiming they are incapable of what I presume we were capable of.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 28, 2012 - 1:17PM
#49
|
Date Joined:
Aug 28, 2005
|
You're giving her what you've determined she needs to have fun playing. Shouldn't she be able to make that determination on her own?
She does, in her own time.
Nowhere in your statement did you suggest you actively investigated if she was interested in learning more at the initial point of informing her of the rules.
I didn't think I needed to. That's a given to me. I told her what she was interested in knowing. She later became interested in things that she wasn't initially interested in, and then we talked about that too.
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!
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 28, 2012 - 1:18PM
#50
|
|
|
You're giving her what you've determined she needs to have fun playing. Shouldn't she be able to make that determination on her own?
She does, in her own time.
You couldn't have made my point for me better if you had tried.
|
|
|
