|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Sept 24, 2012 23:02:17 GMT -8
It seems that by "Kill skills" you mean "kill social skills", right? Because you're saying player dialogue should reign? I completely agree with you, and that is why I rarely ask for social rolls in my home games. Still, there are groups of people out there that hate role playing and just want to get together and kill shit. Those people need those social skills (see what I did there?). In terms of the use of skills, they just provided bonuses to certain actions you do because you're character has training in that action. It's not like you cannot do that action at all if you don't have the right skill. I don't know why you would kill feats. I have never played a D&D game where I felt that my imagination was being impeded by feats. It's just a way for D&D to give another form of progression to characters. Some of those feats are handed to you in your class, some are available to choose freely once you've leveled. It still matters what addition you're playing, but we're talking about D&D Next and they haven't provided that info yet. Hi jfever, Thank you for the compliment. Having lived in a foreign land for so long where the process of thought is backwards (it’s not just the dials) and the language to express it is constructed very differently from the one in my head, I often wonder if this environment has infected my writing. And I worry about that. So thanks for the compliment. I enjoy being “here.” Keeping in mind that the GM makes the system (caveat: in a GM game), feats can be beautiful or horrific. The designer takes no credit for GM skill no matter what the back of the rulebook implies. I like the cleave feat myself. It’s epic Robert Howard stuff. But what are the majority of feats: +2 to skill; limited penalty; avoid Attacks of Opportunity; and power progressions, like tech trees in video games. I mean who really needs that? And in my game, if you’re suited up in medium armour helm and you choose to take an attack of opportunity (provided you SPOT it in the first place) you suffer an attack of opportunity from the foe directly in front of you – the one you’re not paying attention to who has you flat-footed because of your lack of attention - your PC’s ADHD. But like I said, I do like a handful of those feats. I suppose I could rule that a Natural 20 that kills with damage, double the amount required to kill, can have the remainder of the damage applied to another opponent adjacent to it either from the slice or the thrust…. Have to give that some thought. But it does not require a feat. I have to admit, without the feat in the book, I would have to rely on a player to give me the inspiration and my ruling would be on the fly with further thought later. Pertaining to your second paragraph, I'm very confused. If you think skills are useless, why would you then encourage it to be given to only two classes in the entire game? Also, I know I pointed out that certain classes do better with certain races (sans human), but I would not go as far as to say that D&D Next has "race as class". Not even close. Also, we haven't seen how the spell schools work yet, so none of us can comment on that. Pertaining to the rest of your second paragraph, that all looks like house rule stuff to me. I can't think of a single game system that has an initiative mechanic that you can't house rule to say, "Instead of individual initiative, lets just do a party initiative." I am doing something very similar to the 3 minute time limit in my 4th Ed game I'm running. I run a minute timer, and if they haven't rolled the dice for their action by the end of the minute, then they lose their turn. That is not in the 4th Ed rule book. I made that up myself. Also, what rule book says "Douchey players exist in our game. Get rid of them. Rules won't help you". If that statement is required for you to consider playing it, then how do you play any table top RPGs at all? Ultimately, it sounds like you're putting way to much on the shoulders of the system. I can't think of a game I've played where I haven't house ruled something in it to fit the dynamic of our group. If you don't like D&D at all, then don't sweat D&D Next. I can completely understand someone skipping it. Hell, I almost did myself out of rage for what they have done with 4th Ed. Creative Cowboy, I usually like you're posts and all, so please don't take this as an attack. Just a fellow HappyJackoff throwing in (as JiB would say)my krupplenicks on the subject. Now, there is a chance that I am not picking up on sarcasm or something. In that case, fuck my ass and call me Shirley. Essentially the remaining points I make, including race as class & the Blue Bolts of Heaven to get rid of douche bag players, are written in the AD&D 1e DMG. Gary Gygax actually enshrined it into the game system, along with the constant reminders of “if you don’t like it get rid of it.” This designer’s attitude made the game more accessible and far less intimidating, frankly. The simple D20 could handle the Thief and Assassin skill progressions without deferring to D%. The overt use of skills tends to make things play like a pinball machine. My re-introduction to this game had me asking nonsensical questions like: “so I just give an arbitrary DC number and players dice for it?” And conversations developed when the response was: “no, not arbitrary because there are rules ( the DM must follow) how to create the DCs.” Which is juvenile because a DC basically scales to keep the tension of rolling dice and abstract reasoning says the increasing skill difficulty was more difficult for that player increasing in skill. The bell curve moves sideways with higher numbers in a kind of insidious smoke and mirrors of player character agency. “You walk down a corridor.” Roll. Find a trap. Roll. Disarm the trap. And continue down the hallway. This is a rather sad in-game GM-player dialogue that quite rightly does not practice anyone’s language skill. I am not arguing that it does not have to be this way. I am saying that every Polish player I have ever met, from my private attempts to use RPGs for language training to my giving public talks on the subject at conventions around Poland, has had their game hardwired by it. It is what they read in the English rules books, do in Polish games and expect to do in every game. And that is a barrier for a GM wanting to inject another paradigm. And that, the mechanization of the game as if it were some board game, is an insurmountable barrier to really experiencing the hobby and role-playing with a GM. This deus ex machina mechanization has put far too much weight on the system and away from the players at the table. And Aaron, tipping my hat to your points on the obvious player gestalt at the table, a DM that rejects or blocks player gestalt “because he can” is a douche. Not to mention that Thief skill to detect traps were not meant for detecting pit traps but for the player skill of listening, whereas the thief could declare himself looking for traps on locks and doors…. Tentagil, I play AD&D 1e “rules as written” from preface to the back cover so, naturally, no player can read my GM rulebook Only one of those exist. And in that vein of thought - that core philosophy - there can be no edition wars argument because we are all first among equals. D&D Next and its design hubris is a long way from that equilibrium which it seeks to restore.
|
|
|
Post by rickno7 on Sept 25, 2012 5:09:11 GMT -8
Skills and Feats are going nowhere. As much as the marketing team is throwing around allusions to the 1970's, the 5th Edition is happening because 3.5 is the most popular version of D&D, and Pathfinder is outselling the flagship of the industry.
I find the skill and feat hatred to be a sort of doctrine the OSR movement clings to and goes to first when criticizing modern gaming. Its an easy talking point with a clear divide that can be used to separate players. Even if they truly went back to that time period for creating a new edition, it would end up being "1st Edition, now with feats and skills". The anti-feats and anti-skills thing is exclusively an OSR thing because that is the most obvious difference between old D&D and new D&D. You do not see a "get skills out of Traveller, GURPs, HERO, Savage Worlds" movements.
That being said, I agree with Hyve a bit about the "feels already done" aspect. I love the character creation of 5th so far, its the reason I'm interested in the playtests this early. As a GM it excites me in the way Traveller's character creation does. But that just proves Hyve's point. It feels that 5th is a full on reactionary move by WOTC to other games. Everything I am liking about 5th, I like because it is reminding me of other games I like.
I feel 3rd was a great streamlining and a good point in history to say "this is where modern gaming started" for the most part. People are still copying their layout design and common sense approach to writing. 4th, as much as I disliked it, did a lot of innovative stuff, and while they took much of it from wargaming, they put it in a D&D context.
The point I'm getting to is... 5th feels like a lot of catch up. Advantage/Disadvantage does feel like a wild die system of sorts. The character creation does feel like some other games I've played. They throw in Bennies and a Hindrance/Edge, and they will have successfully aped all the cool rules from GURPs to Savage Worlds.
Reminds me a lot of what is happening to the JRPG side of things in videogames. Final Fantasy playing catch up to Mass Effect instead of being the innovator in the industry it has been for the past 20+ years.
All that being said, even with all the "reminds me of this other game", if the system ends up fun and working well with all the patched in stuff from other games, then I would still play it. So far it looks fun, and FEELS familiar to me, unlike 4th. Playing what little I have of 5th's playtests, I at least feel like I am playing D&D. A new version with new rules I have to get used to, but still D&D.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Sept 25, 2012 9:26:45 GMT -8
I like OSR and I like pathfinder and I like some skills and some feats 'used properly' and I'll point out non-weapon proficiencies from 1e (not 2e they first appear in the 1e Dungeoneers Survival Guide) are nothing if not proto-feats (blind fighting) and straight up skills (swimming). Not being nasty but criticism where criticism is due and put assumptions to one side . . . It's not a black or white position of all feats and skills or none at all. It is a recognition that what made 4e basically not very popular was the feat creep and requiring the harnessing of a cyberdyne systems super computer to crunch the math for character and monster gen (I'm trying to be descriptively ironic rather than critical before anyone takes me to task). Plus there IS an attitude growing amongst newer gamers that if you don't have the skill you cannot even attempt a task . . . I've just had a fellow player who started with 2e and loves pathfinder who was really upset because another group accused him of meta gaming because he was using a 10ft pole to check for put traps and he didn't have the detect trap skill. That's what is wrong . . . Not the skills and feats but how they are misused. That's what most grognards like me are actually saying . . .
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Sept 25, 2012 9:57:56 GMT -8
I like OSR and I like pathfinder and I like some skills and some feats 'used properly' and I'll point out non-weapon proficiencies from 1e (not 2e they first appear in the 1e Dungeoneers Survival Guide) are nothing if not proto-feats (blind fighting) and straight up skills (swimming). Not being nasty but criticism where criticism is due and put assumptions to one side . . . It's not a black or white position of all feats and skills or none at all. It is a recognition that what made 4e basically not very popular was the feat creep and requiring the harnessing of a cyberdyne systems super computer to crunch the math for character and monster gen (I'm trying to be descriptively ironic rather than critical before anyone takes me to task). Plus there IS an attitude growing amongst newer gamers that if you don't have the skill you cannot even attempt a task . . . I've just had a fellow player who started with 2e and loves pathfinder who was really upset because another group accused him of meta gaming because he was using a 10ft pole to check for put traps and he didn't have the detect trap skill. That's what is wrong . . . Not the skills and feats but how they are misused. That's what most grognards like me are actually saying . . . Then again, Aaron I can understand a player wired by rules who complains about taking a feat (costig a slot, I mean) that another character/player does without using a "feat." It is akin to requiring the archer to count arrows but not the crossbowman. And it is unfair. The more I think about that at a player level, and the loss of GM respect due to expectation creep, the more I am in favour of gutting the whole thing and levelling the playing field. The way I feel, the more the actual player is involved in the game mechanic, rather than a statistic, the more engrossment at the table occurs. When I refer to AD&D 1e, I am referring to the DMG and PHB exclusively.
|
|
|
Post by rickno7 on Sept 25, 2012 10:01:48 GMT -8
Don't get me wrong, I like the OSR. I like the Labyrinth Lord stuff particularly. Blaming skills and feats is just a pet peeve of mine. Its a red herring that steers people away from real solutions to helping GM's and Players become "better" role players. They did not destroy other RPG's, and I don't believe they destroyed D&D.
The silliness Kainguru described with the 10 foot pole IS a problem that we face in our hobby today. But the answer is not to do away with skills. Its the abuse of skills that is the problem, not the skills themselves. The abuse of GM's not implementing them in a fun and non-constrictive manner, and the abuse by players trying to min-max every situation.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Sept 25, 2012 10:13:05 GMT -8
I like OSR and I like pathfinder and I like some skills and some feats 'used properly' and I'll point out non-weapon proficiencies from 1e (not 2e they first appear in the 1e Dungeoneers Survival Guide) are nothing if not proto-feats (blind fighting) and straight up skills (swimming). Not being nasty but criticism where criticism is due and put assumptions to one side . . . It's not a black or white position of all feats and skills or none at all. It is a recognition that what made 4e basically not very popular was the feat creep and requiring the harnessing of a cyberdyne systems super computer to crunch the math for character and monster gen (I'm trying to be descriptively ironic rather than critical before anyone takes me to task). Plus there IS an attitude growing amongst newer gamers that if you don't have the skill you cannot even attempt a task . . . I've just had a fellow player who started with 2e and loves pathfinder who was really upset because another group accused him of meta gaming because he was using a 10ft pole to check for put traps and he didn't have the detect trap skill. That's what is wrong . . . Not the skills and feats but how they are misused. That's what most grognards like me are actually saying . . . Then again, Aaron I can understand a player wired by rules who complains about taking a feat (costig a slot, I mean) that another character/player does without using a "feat." It is akin to requiring the archer to count arrows but not the crossbowman. And it is unfair. The more I think about that at a player level, and the loss of GM respect due to expectation creep, the more I am in favour of gutting the whole thing and levelling the playing field. The way I feel, the more the actual player is involved in the game mechanic, rather than a statistic, the more engrossment at the table occurs. When I refer to AD&D 1e, I am referring to the DMG and PHB exclusively. Hmmm . . . But is it meta gaming? That's the accusation that hurts him the most as a player. He helped me get my 1e game rolling . . . Character gen was done yesterday for 3 players . . . and he is really excited to be able to do the things he used to do - like a 10ft pole: actually he specifically ordered an 11ft pole 'just in case'. What I will say is if you're feeling nostalgic just give the old rules a bash instead of waiting for a new set or relying on an incomplete product. I nearly fell for this then I realised!!! I've got the game I want play sitting on my bookshelf gathering dust . . . And I'm going to houserule it to buggery to reflect the lessons of game design learnt today. Lesson 1 of AD&D 1e . . . Carry a copy of the 2e PBH because you will probably find that elusive table (the same one as in 1e more often than not) quicker because of its better indexing. Lesson 2 admit that the binding on your original print copy of Unearthed Arcana is worth dick shit as the book now better resembles a hard backed loose leaf binder.
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Sept 27, 2012 2:46:39 GMT -8
I've got the game I want play sitting on my bookshelf gathering dust . . . You've just identified WotC's biggest competitors, kainguru - themselves. Sure Pathfinder has taken a huge chunk of their market, but as rickno7 points out, WotC is pretty much just going through past editions of D&D and ganking the rules they thought were coolest. Way back when D&D Next was first announced and I heard that they were doing a "best of" style game the first thing I though was that they'd end up with a Frankenstein's monster. And that seems to be exactly the path they're heading down. Why would you play a game that maybe has a few rules from the edition you liked when you could just play that edition as a whole? If you liked the AEUD power system of 4e you're going to play 4e instead of the power-ish feel of the D&D Next Wizard cantrips. If you liked the skills and feat trees of 3e/3.5 then you're going to play 3e/3.5 and not the quasi-skills and Specialties you have in D&D Next. And if you like the free-form nature of earlier editions, you're going to play those editions and not D&D Next with it's "for an old school feel, don't use these" optional rules. And this is why I'm not really encouraged by what I've seen so far with D&D Next. It doesn't feel like Mike Mearls and the rest of the WotC team are designing a game from the ground up, nor does it feel like they're revising/updating an existing rule set. What they're doing is playing connect the dots with mechanical components. There doesn't seem to be any coherent principle or goal to D&D Next other than "don't fuck this one up" and "give the fans what they want". Call me a snob, but I want my game to have more to it than that.
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Sept 27, 2012 4:00:31 GMT -8
I agree with you hyvemynd, and I see a connection between what you are saying and Monte Cook's departure. But that is my drumbeat, isn't it?
One of the criticisms of WotC is their utter lack of marketing know-how helming the RPG flagship. As a high school drop out having to make my way harder without school ties, the level of incompetence so prominently on display irks me to no end. It is as if the clueless marketing department is Googling its job. They have extended the Dungeons and Dragons brand as far as its equity will stretch and cannibalized its product sales, not unlike the lessons of AD&D under TSR before its bankruptcy.
Basic and Expert D&D were phased out to concentrate on AD&D, a move designed to consolidate brand equity. Since 1985, we have seen the diametrically opposite of brand building happen from a management drunk on hubris. It's been brand un-building.
It would have been nice to see AD&D 1e improved. I am not talking about re-editing Gygaxian but introducing actual mechanic improvements. Ascending AC protection, linking Saving Throws conceptually to abilities, etc., innovations 3e got right* would be improving the brand. Instead, we get a whole new flood of product that are different games with the same branding.
We now have AD&D back on the market, D&D Next in a long build up to launch, a Pathfinder clone, a pen and paper MMO, and a D&D that, as hyvemynd points out, is no longer a cohesive brand. It hurts my eyes and pains my heart, and just imagining WotC asking me for money (to buy yet another game with the misnomer D&D) brings my simmer to a boil.
*I define "right" as simplification. A simple game means more people can play it.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Sept 27, 2012 7:59:59 GMT -8
I agree with you hyvemynd, and I see a connection between what you are saying and Monte Cook's departure. But that is my drumbeat, isn't it? One of the criticisms of WotC is their utter lack of marketing know-how helming the RPG flagship. As a high school drop out having to make my way harder without school ties, the level of incompetence so prominently on display irks me to no end. It is as if the clueless marketing department is Googling its job. They have extended the Dungeons and Dragons brand as far as its equity will stretch and cannibalized its product sales, not unlike the lessons of AD&D under TSR before its bankruptcy. Basic and Expert D&D were phased out to concentrate on AD&D, a move designed to consolidate brand equity. Since 1985, we have seen the diametrically opposite of brand building happen from a management drunk on hubris. It's been brand un-building. It would have been nice to see AD&D 1e improved. I am not talking about re-editing Gygaxian but introducing actual mechanic improvements. Ascending AC protection, linking Saving Throws conceptually to abilities, etc., innovations 3e got right * would be improving the brand. Instead, we get a whole new flood of product that are different games with the same branding. We now have AD&D back on the market, D&D Next in a long build up to launch, a Pathfinder clone, a pen and paper MMO, and a D&D that, as hyvemynd points out, is no longer a cohesive brand. It hurts my eyes and pains my heart, and just imagining WotC asking me for money (to buy yet another game with the misnomer D&D) brings my simmer to a boil. *I define "right" as simplification. A simple game means more people can play it.Having recently dusted off my old AD&D 1e books I'd really appreciate a cohesive/properly edited reprint. Bring Unearthed Arcana, the 2 survival guides and BattleSystem into one easily referenced book. The DMG just needs a better index and putting some things into more relevant sections. (Now if the good folk at OSRIC are reading??)
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Sept 27, 2012 8:09:06 GMT -8
Aaron, I love the whole notation of ( ' ) indoor/outdoor, ( '' ) indoor, and ( '' ) outdoor confusion. It's like having to be initiated into a club to understand feet, 10's and yards...
Still WotC MBAs are smart enough to hold good paying jobs, drive nice cars and own houses. You would think they would be smart enough to correct that bit of obfuscation.
"What were you thinking?" is the question I would like to ask Gary about this complicated occult notation revealed only in the glossary of the PHB. I mean, it is far from intuitive but juxtaposed annoying.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Sept 28, 2012 16:21:16 GMT -8
Aaron, I love the whole notation of ( ' ) indoor/outdoor, ( '' ) indoor, and ( '' ) outdoor confusion. It's like having to be initiated into a club to understand feet, 10's and yards... Still WotC MBAs are smart enough to hold good paying jobs, drive nice cars and own houses. You would think they would be smart enough to correct that bit of obfuscation. "What were you thinking?" is the question I would like to ask Gary about this complicated occult notation revealed only in the glossary of the PHB. I mean, it is far from intuitive but juxtaposed annoying. Hidden away in the tomes of the past there is an explanation. It goes back to D&D and it's origins in Chainmail and Chainmail's origins in war gaming with miniatures and the limitations of hobbyist printing at the time. Given miniature rules were mainly typed and copied rather than printed with typesetting etc they were limited as to the characters available . . . So some rather arcane notations became conventions and, as they were The Conventions of the time, these notations were carried over into D&D.
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Sept 28, 2012 21:42:57 GMT -8
Aaron, I love the whole notation of ( ' ) indoor/outdoor, ( '' ) indoor, and ( '' ) outdoor confusion. It's like having to be initiated into a club to understand feet, 10's and yards... Still WotC MBAs are smart enough to hold good paying jobs, drive nice cars and own houses. You would think they would be smart enough to correct that bit of obfuscation. "What were you thinking?" is the question I would like to ask Gary about this complicated occult notation revealed only in the glossary of the PHB. I mean, it is far from intuitive but juxtaposed annoying. Hidden away in the tomes of the past there is an explanation. It goes back to D&D and it's origins in Chainmail and Chainmail's origins in war gaming with miniatures and the limitations of hobbyist printing at the time. Given miniature rules were mainly typed and copied rather than printed with typesetting etc they were limited as to the characters available . . . So some rather arcane notations became conventions and, as they were The Conventions of the time, these notations were carried over into D&D. True, it is hard to spell without vowels on a Remington. I guess (') is better than typing "ft", and ('') is infinitely better than either "yrds" and "o" Still, Gary should have invested in a better typewriter when this sold to non-war gamers. I mean, feet, yards and 10, 100, 1000 ft etc., would be so much better notation for products of your imagination than hunting for an explanation across three books tucked into the back of one book in its glossary. What was he thinking!
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Sept 28, 2012 21:47:52 GMT -8
Hidden away in the tomes of the past there is an explanation. It goes back to D&D and it's origins in Chainmail and Chainmail's origins in war gaming with miniatures and the limitations of hobbyist printing at the time. Given miniature rules were mainly typed and copied rather than printed with typesetting etc they were limited as to the characters available . . . So some rather arcane notations became conventions and, as they were The Conventions of the time, these notations were carried over into D&D. True, it is hard to spell without vowels on a Remington. I guess (') is better than typing "ft", and ('') is infinitely better than either "yrds" and "o" Still, Gary should have invested in a better typewriter when this sold to non-war gamers. I mean, feet, yards and 10, 100, 1000 ft etc., would be so much better notation for products of your imagination than hunting for an explanation across three books tucked into the back of one book in its glossary. What was he thinking! That most readers were already war gamers. The hobby took off unexpectedly and in an unexpected direction
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Sept 28, 2012 21:55:15 GMT -8
True, it is hard to spell without vowels on a Remington. I guess (') is better than typing "ft", and ('') is infinitely better than either "yrds" and "o" Still, Gary should have invested in a better typewriter when this sold to non-war gamers. I mean, feet, yards and 10, 100, 1000 ft etc., would be so much better notation for products of your imagination than hunting for an explanation across three books tucked into the back of one book in its glossary. What was he thinking! That most readers were already war gamers. The hobby took off unexpectedly and in an unexpected direction fttp! D8 for random direction but how far?!
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Sept 29, 2012 3:28:02 GMT -8
That most readers were already war gamers. The hobby took off unexpectedly and in an unexpected direction fttp! D8 for random direction but how far?! Page 64 DMG 1e "d6 for distance in feet"
|
|