billd91
Pathfinder subscriber
COPPER SUBSCRIBER

...cine, maybe Nature. Conversely, :):):):)ing PERCEPTION is rolled like every 5 minutes. Skills like Athletics and Arcana and Persuasion fall somewhere in the middle. Then there are oddballs like Stealth, which can be tremendously useful for certain characters and seldom used by others. Obviously, this varies somewhat by table and DMing style. Some DMs put a lot of effort into finding uses for all skills. But I don't think it's a stretch to say that in general the current skills are not really balanced. I'm not saying that this is a problem -- I personally find the skill list "balanced enough" that it's not worth house-ruling. But, twofalls, if you are going to expand the skill list in some way, this is something you should keep in mind. Splitting up a skill like Acrobatics into Climbing, Swimming, Running and Jumping sounds good, but now each of those skills is much less attractive than the consolidated Athletics. And even though I rag on Perception as overpowered, I agree with billd91 that you shouldn't split it up, because it becomes too confusing which one to use. (The fact that it is rolled frequently makes simplicity really important.) One potential solution here is to have skills cost different amount of "points." So maybe you have Nature proficiency cost 1 point, Climbing costs 2 points, Acrobatics costs 4 points, and Perception costs 8 points, or something like that. Give everybody 4 points per skill they used to have -- so 8 points for backgrounds, 8 points for most classes but 12 for bards/rangers and 16 for rogues, 8 bonus points for half-elves, etc. This way players who pick a really great skill like Perception have to pay for it, while the low cost would allow players to pick up tons of "flavorful" but minor skills like Nature, Animal Handling, Planar Lore, Riding, Ancient History, Modern History, etc. A related idea is to have skills and fractional skills. So maybe you can buy Athletics for 6 points, or you can buy Athletics/Climbing for 2 points, At...

That reading, billd91, does not seem fair to any of the parties involved, whether in their favor or against them.

To me that just suggests bad mechanics! I don't see how. Ah yes. The Mother-May-I One-True Wayist manifesto. I'm not the one ascribing another style with a pejorative but hey we all see what we want to. Can a player use any skill check/ability to get the shard back? If not, why not? I have bolded the bits which, to me, suggest that the player's success in persuading the giant to return the shard was conditional on the GM's opinion about what makes for good or bad fiction (here expressed in terms of reasonable cause of action for the frost giant). You're suggesting it is better that the GM cannot roleplay the NPCs he/she introduces into the game world, and when I mean roleplay, I mean free of any mechanics (i.e. die rolls). I admit I find that odd. Could the FG in your game talk the PC out of wanting the shard returned i.e. the FG makes a diplomacy/persuade roll? Also like @billd91 mentioned in the other thread, isn't the DM ascribing a lower or higher DC to a roll reflecting his/her opinion on what makes good or bad fiction? EDIT: MMI kicks in if there is 0% or less chance of success on the player's action declaration, but 1% possible success or higher is ok? I think that is the sort of thing the OP is trying to avoid when using the phrase "without forcing players to play the "Mother may I" game". Ah, you mean without forcing players to provide further details for their action declarations so as DMs we can adjudicate the likely chance of success. Such Bad DMs. :) Eric: I try get my shard back from the Frost Giant without starting a fight. DM: How do you go about that, she has already placed it back in her hair? Eric: I use diplomacy, I'm proficient. DM: Cool, what do you say to her? Eric: Well, I ask nicely, smile a lot and bow often? DM: Is there something specific that you say? Eric: Nah, I have a +7 on my Diplomacy roll. My character is rea...

I’ve learned the hard way that good friends don’t always make for good people to game with. I put up with a lot of nonsense from friends at the gaming table, until I didn’t. But I suppose it depends on how much you’re willing to manage the potential difficulties. A lot of what you described could in theory be easily resolved. Stuff like, if he tries to steal from other PCS, “I’m sorry, but PCs aren’t allowed to steal from the party and other PCs in my games;” and, for the spotlight hogging “Okay, we’ll get to you when your turn comes around, but PC#2 is currently doing something.” It is a gamble, but as billd91 said, we all had to start somewhere as players, probably somewhere near the bottom. (and good friend)

I have found the opposite to be true, actually. Rerolling initiative every round has generally been to the party's benefit, despite some "exciting" moments. It creates unpredictability, which the player characters (being more versatile) can take advantage of better than typical NPCs. This has been true of a party level 5 - 7, and a party 11 - 13. I might be the case that rerolling init made the lowest levels more difficult, I haven't tried that. As billd91 said, anything that increases randomness benefits the DM's side of the equation. The players have to get lucky every time. The monsters only have to get lucky once. Sure, it might benefit the PC's and it likely will. But, when it helps the other side, which should also happen fairly frequently, it can radically up the difficulty of an encounter. As far as realism goes, well, that's not a consideration for me. I accept that D&D combat is largely abstract, so, trying to make it more realistic is, to me, just not something I really want to deal with. If I did, I'd wind up rewriting the entire combat section to the point where I might as well play a game that actually has realistic combat. :D

...than a +1. If you need a 2 you have a 95% to succeed normally, and 95% + 5% * 95% = 99.75%, agains slightly less than +1. This is the minimum. If you need an 11, you have a 50% normally, and a 50% + 50% * 50% = 75% with advantage. That's the equivalent of +5. This is the maximum. Your +/-6 to +/-7 is outside the range of what is possible. That mean it is likely not the average. You may want to double check you math. One common mistake I've seen is working out to roll 2d20 and subtract the higher fromt he lower. That's really comparing advantage (best for 2d20) with disadvantage (worst of 2d20). It's clear if you work it out as percentages what it can be for every target. Man, these arguments hurt me because there's this weird thing where everyone tries to map a normal distribution onto a flat distribution via +/-. It's wrong in a technical way. But, I'm an engineer, so that's probably just my bag. That said, the above is the right wrong way to do it Retreater, billd91. The "bonus" that advantage applies differs depending on what the target number on the d20 is for success. It's greatest in the middle, where it increases the chance of success by 25%, and weaker on the ends where it's bit less than a 5% bump. If you need to roll a 20, advantage helps by almost doubling your chances from 1/20 to 19/400, but if you need an 11, advantage increases your chances from 10/20 to 15/20. If you need a 2, advantage bumps you from a 19/20 to 399/400.

...is is insistent on the point doesn't answer the point. The idea of the DL-style game is that at least the players provide a bit of colour and a few minor decision points. But if the GM is also establishing the most important bits of PC colour, telling me what decisions are and are not appropriate for a worshipper of XYZ, etc - well, what's left for the player to do? ut no one's offered a reason why a player playing a cleric or warlock whose god/patron is happy with what s/he does, or playing a motorcycle-riding vampire, would wreck the game.I was under the impression the god/patron was not happy (being played by the DM).But that's exactly my point. If the player's preference that the whole god/patron thing be "backgrounded" was respected then the god/patron would be happy. But for whatever reason the GM is inserting his/her own preference to decide that the god/patron is not happy. For what reason? If the GM thinks the player is just a wrecker - which eg was the implication of billd91's reference upthread to "murder-hoboing" - then as Aldarc has said, that's a social problem that can be resolved by a sensible conversation among participants. It's not an aspect of game play at all. But if the issue is not that the PC is wrecking things - eg if the PC was playing a wizard or a fighter or whatever no one would have any issues - then why is the GM needing to insert his/her conception of what the patron/god wants in favour of the player's conception of the same? How is that improving the experience? Telling me that we're not talking about story-now play doesn't help - even within the follow-the-GM's-trail paradigm, I dont understand what this is supposed to be adding to the play experience. In fact when the PC played a warlock in my game and chose a darker patron, I asked him what he wanted me to explore, how much had he developed the patron and how much input he wanted from me.That seems to imply that you are interested in identifying and respecting the player's ...

But, who's forcing the DM to do anything here? If anything, I'm giving less work for the DM. The DM no longer has to worry about what to do, if anything, with this patron. The player is not interested in playing that out. Why would you, as a DM, knowing that the player isn't interested, bring it into the game? Again, who is it for? It's not for the player. It's not for the other players. So, the only person it's for is you, the DM. You want to bring it into the game purely for your own enjoyment, knowing that the player doesn't want it. Are you deliberately misunderstanding billd91, or do you genuinely not understand that if the DM wants a game where he controls the NPCs, he's forced to play a game he doesn't want to play if players can force him not to play the patron? We're talking about one small change to one character that isn't going to affect ANYTHING. If it's not going to affect anything, the player shouldn't have a problem with the DM playing the patron.

...t of play) and those orc children escaped. And, after the third, fourth, tenth time, most groups are just going to take it as read anyway. This is the point I keep coming back to. We already Background tons of stuff in play because it's not terribly interesting. How many groups actually, consistently, track spell components? How many groups worry about paying the monthly living expenses? So on and so forth. Sure, you might do it from time to time, but, realistically, it just fades back and becomes a non-issue. Do you seriously destroy a wizard's spell book every time he falls in water? Or gets fireballed or whatnot? Naw, you just take it as read and move on because it's too much of a PITA. Here, we have examples that only really affect one player and the DM. The rest of the group couldn't likely give a toss about it. Do you seriously care how we hide the Druid's animal companion every single time? The funny thing about this conversation is that some posters, like billd91 and 5ekyu are framing it as a powergaming thing. But, look at that warlock's patron. There's two sides to that. Sure, if you have an active patron, then the patron might ask the PC to do something. But, it also works the other way. There's times when the PC can and should be able to call upon his or her patron for help - be it information, or contacting other NPC's or whatnot. By backgrounding, the player loses that side of things as well. Sure, the DM can't force behavior from the player, but, by the same token, the player cannot expect to get anything as well.

At this point its pretty obvious you just want to keep inventing things to claim others have said... as i have never said anything that the GM can "force" your character to take certain actions. this was explained in great detail one or more times since you keep mixing and mashing the Gm and the patron. Nor have i said anything about forcing the paladin to take certain actions. That you choose to keep trying to portray it that way is very highly illustrative - so, thanks. wow, you agree with billd91 in the post before this, but, tell me I'm inventing things. :erm: What exactly, then, do you mean that I must accept the consequences of choosing a class if you aren't going to force anything?

It's much more than 10 outcomes! Say there are 5 people, we need a contest between each, first, and then... the pain begins... Say this is what happens A beats B A beats C A loses to D A loses to E Seems like A is in the middle of the pack, but... D loses to C E loses to B No idea where this is going, but now we need to resolve... everyone against everyone...I think the assumption that billd91 has made is probably the same as the one that Hriston has made explicit: each participant makes only one check, which is compared vs the check of all the other participants. So if A beats B but loses to E, that means that E beats B, which precludes the contradictory situation you are concerned about. The thing I don't get in this discussion is: how do you and Maxperson handle an attempt by three people to be the first to grab the ring? You couldn't do it the way you've described (independent binary checks) because of the risk of contradiction. So presumably you'd do it . . . just the same as initiative is done! (Except for having some differerent approach to handlling ties.)

Lanefan, billd91 - Tony Vargas's reply makes the point that needs to be made aboout "realism" in a hit point paradigm. As far as narration of hp loss and zero hp is concerned - if you're narrating hp loss, and dropping to zero hp, in surgical detail, and then having your suspension of disbelief disrupted by the recovery that the game rules provide for, well, I would suggest changing your narration! As I posted upthread, as a former RM player/GM, and someone who was pretty familiar with the drfit from AD&D to RM, RQ etc in the 80s/early 90s, it remains very strange to see posters arguing for AC-&-hp combat on "realism" grounds, and to be distinguishing AD&D or 3E from 4e on that basis. Also, someone upthread (maybe Sadras) mentioned tinkering - the most trivial tinkering possible to a RPG is to change the short and extended rest durations in 4e or 5e. (I don't know how common it is with 5e; based on dicsussions on teese boards it was extremely common with 4e.)

(1) It's not "more reallistic". It's different, but it's not realistic. billd91 already covered this one, so...what he said. (2) What makes you think a 4e PC who swoons in combat, and then recovers to fight on, has "had the livin' tar beaten out of him/her"? Maybe you're into nonsense narration, but I'm not. Even in the most gamist and-or disconnected versions of what hit points represent in any edition that I've seen posted in those arguments, a common theme is that going to (or below, pre-4e) 0 h.p. means you've taken enough of a beating that if left untended you're quite possibly going to die. The rules of all editions also have it that going to or below 0 is auto-death (0e), is auto-death* if not treated or cured quite soon (1e-2e-3e), or presents a significant risk of death if not treated or cured quite soon (4e-5e). These deaths aren't being caused by fainting. So to suggest someone repeatedly going to or below 0 within a short time "has had the livin' tar beaten out of him/her" is "nonsense narration" falls well below your usual standard, sir; and...

I don't think its the minis themselves so much as a heavy rule dependence on the spatial reality of the game. The early edition rules about space and positioning were easily handwaved. Not so much with 3e or 4e.That's what I said! But the biggest thing requiring almost pinpoint positioning of melee combatants was weapon reach - could you reach your intended foe or not? Not everyone cared too much about this, but in 1e RAW it's a thing.Rounds in AD&D are 1 minute, movement rates as 10s of feet per minute, and there are no rules for actually positioning in melee - only for getting cut down when you try to disengage from it! So while weapon reach can matter (eg in establishing first strike in a charging situation; for establishing how many soldiers can work together or fight one another in a confined space; etc) I don't actually see how you need minis/tokesn to track the ways in which it matters. (And I see that billd91 has made much the same point.)

If we are also using the dice to make the decisions, then why are we bothering to include players?Casting lots to resolve a disagreement among a group is not a thing that I or my group (or Luke Crane) invented. And using dice to establish parameters for choice, as part of playing a game, is not a new thing either. And in the context of RPGing, it's actually pretty standard. I know you're not talking only about this particular aspect of social mechanics, but that was the context in which Hussar made his post that you responded to. it looks like windmills and not real positions you're tilting againstYou must have missed billd91's 5-point reiteration of his reasons for agreeing with Lanefan that the technique I described is "worse than awful". And Lanefan's reiteration of his contention about the technique I described, although on different grounds from billd91's.

I think you're arguing against something no one is claiming, though. Is there a specific post or poster you had in mind? I may have missed it.Yes there is. I posted some examples - reported by others (Luke Crane) and reported by me, from the play of my own campaigns - where social resolution mechanics were used to settle disputes between players (and thus PCs) about what to do next. Lanefan and billd91 posted saying that what I described was awful - Lanefan doesn't like using mechanics to settle an argument at the table; and billd91 claimed it was a signficant abridgement of player agency. My view is that players agreeing to toss a coin doesn't abridge their agency; and that - by pretty strict analogy - players agreeing to be bound by the outcome of a resolution process doesn't either. The difference is that one requires specific roleplaying, the other does not. I can react to an in-game coin flip however I choose. (Anger, reneging on the agreement, relief, etc.) But apparently there are restrictions on how I am supposed to react to somebody else's Persuade roll. "You can react however you want, as long as you are persuaded."I'm not 100% sure what you have in mind here. I was replying to a post by billd91, which was in turn a response to a particular post of mine, about using a mechanical system to resolve an argument between players about what to do next. Here is a re...

...at bias, they just should be do so judiciously or rarely.) On both sides, this really is irrelevant as to who's rolling - the player or the NPC. However, for Camp 1, NPCs rolling checks against PCs tends to be viewed as irrelevant or unwanted. This is because the player can still do whatever they want, so the die roll is largely meaningless in regards to player decisions. Therefore, Camp 1 tends to adopt playstyles where NPCs don't initiate rolls against players but instead use their skills as challenge difficult benchmarks against player declared actions. Camp 2, however, seeing the information imparted by the rolls as binding, sees NPC initiated rolls as just another method for rolls to bind players and so doesn't draw a distinction between NPC initiated or player initiated rolls. But, the real core difference here isn't if NPCs checks can bind PCs, but how the results of a check are viewed -- is the result of a check informational or binding? Clearly, myself and iserith, billd91, and other are in Camp 1 -- checks are informational. Tony's and others are Camp 2. One camp or the other aren't better, but this explains the core philosophical issue that divides this discussion (I believe, at least). So, looking to other areas of the game beside social checks, does this continue to play out? Well, we'll have to divide checks into two categories: informational checks (which I'm discussing above) and those checks used to accomplish a task (like lockpicking). As for what constitutes the difference between a task resolution and an informational check, I going with whether or not you'd describe the result as something the PC knows or thinks is informational, if you instead describe a change to something outside of the PC that's task resolution. Firstly, for task resolution checks, I think both Camps engage the game the same way -- a success means the task is accomplished. There are other considerations for failed checks that I'm not going to go into in this po...

I'd like to stress that when playing a 'grittier' RPG system, you have less freedom, in a way: Since combat is lethal, it's something that must be avoided at all cost. Players _must_ come up with ways to overcome their opposition by means other than open combat, otherwise your campaign is going to be short-lived.For me, this illustrates the point I've been making upthread, to Saelorn, Shasarak and billd91. In a genuinely grim & gritty RPG, ambushing someone with a sword, or a crossbow, should be (more-or-less) as dangerous as dropping a rock on them. It's purely an artefact of D&D's mechanics, which rates a sword at d8 or d10 but leaves the rating of a boulder to the GM, that results in a fighter being unable to kill someone in a weapon ambush but able- at least at the tables of those GMs mentioned - to kill someone with a boulder ambush. Which once again relates back to Aenghus's point, that the effectiveness of the boulder vs the sword turns primarily on end-running around the damage rules. It's entirely an artefact of mechanics, not of "narrative first". In a "narrative first" game involving people of "flesh and bone" (to quote Saelorn), an ambush with a sword or bow should be capable of lethality. (And in games like RuneQuest, Rolemaster, Burning Wheel, etc - ie with broadly simulationist action resolution mechanics - it is.) But D&D chooses to subordinate lethality and gri...

billd91 do not get me wrong, i do not want to downvalue Cha to the 1st/2nd ed uselessness. I like how 5e gives every stat a purpose, but otoh i would have sometimes prefered the 3 saving throws of 3e because these add much more to believabilty and causality and make powerbuilds more interesting (E.g. resilience feat to get a powerbuild which is strong in all saves). If you view it the way -- oh a very charismatic Person (political leader / beautiful Lady e.g.) and you want to charm them, you canthink that they are eventually very used to people trying to get their favor, so even with to magical attempt they are more resistant -- and all makes sense again.

I was going to write something pithy, but, there's not much point. Go back and reread what Majoru Oakheart and billd91 just wrote and you're golden.

Lobbing bombs at people not the game is the core of the edition war. More like the fallout, the collateral damage - and what made forums blaze in the flames of hell, and gave mods all over the internet ulcers, of course. Not to mention the undiagnosed tragedy of Post Traumatic Edition War Syndrome. This. But not so coincidentally, 5e Warlord threads are also what attract a lot of 4aters. Again pointing out how the Edition Wars have transitioned into the 5e era and the contrast between 4e fans and 4aters with 5e. Sure, you do see continuations of the edition war in those threads, it's inevitable when you think about it. The Warlord was introduced in 4e, and it's a valid enough poster boy for some of the stand-out abominations 4e perpetrated: classes balanced via Martial types having dailies (and casters at-wills, but that's OK, cf 5e cantrips), embracing Gygaxian hp rationalizations, formalizing roles, surge-based healing, 'dissociated mechanics,' etc. So, all those complaints get re-...

ENWorld has a pretty active group of 4e fans. How that compares with the broader D&D community is anybody's guess. Exactly how representative the boards are of the broader community is always a question due to selection bias, so don't assume any poll is indicative of the broader gaming community.A glance at the stats they publish here every so often as to what's being played in the online tabletops (e.g. Fantasy Ground, etc.) gives at least a bit of insight into what's actually being played; and though it's an open question as to how reflective these numbers are of the overall community, they're pretty much all we have to go by. If - and I know this is a big jump, but I'll try it anyway - one can assume people are more or less playing their favourite edition or system, then it would seem to generally go in order 3e, 4e, 1e, 0e, with 2e sometimes nowhere to be found. Lump PF in with 3e and its lead here becomes quite large. Lump some close-hewn OSR games (DCCRPG, Hackmaster, et al) in ...

Does it matter if it was directed at Sacrosanct or not? Lobbing bombs at people not the game is the core of the edition war.I lobbed bombs at no one. It was not directed at anyone in particular. I only noted that the traces of the Edition War have taken on new forms in a lot of Warlord in 5E threads. You said "Warlord threads bring out a lot of 4e haters." There's no assuming done by me on that. Your words are there. So who are "a lot" of these people who are 4e haters in those threads? If there are "a lot", I'm sure you have a pretty decent sized list.I have not accused you of being one. I did not even name names. I don't even think that most of the debate, vitriol, or criticisms in the Warlord thread are from "4aters." I do think though that your response has been disproportionately aggressive and hostile to what was said.

Lots of selective memory in this post. No kidding. I'm not going to argue, because Tony was part of those conversations, so to take the position he's taken on this lets me know there's no point, because I won't have to spend days looking up old forum posts to show things everyone else here already knows, and since he knows it too but still is disagreeing, then what's the point? No amount of evidence would change a person's mind if they already know now but still argue a false position. Those of us around back in 2012/13 are more than aware of the number of 4e fans who were very upset and engaged in edition warring. One popular unnamed rpg forum that had their mod staff all be unapologetic 4e fans who encouraged edition warring against any other edition but banned you if you criticized 4e just about blew up in indignation and fury when WoTC announced another edition. Posts were all over the place by 4e fans who said WoTC betrayed them. Most warlord threads to this day turn into edition...

Lots of selective memory in this post. Selective memory of the present? There is no edition war being waged against 5e.

The terms of the poll don't allow you to infer that, even from the answers there. The poll is about favorite edition and says nothing about what an individual participant's second favorite is. Unless we assume that everybody's favorite edition is 5e (a rock solid assumption if ever there was one), in which case this poll is saying exactly what our second favorite is. :p (Protip: There is no such thing as a rock solid assumption.)

They’re moving to a new edition. I thought that was clear. :) Why would it violate your trust in Paizo? Is coming out with material to support the new edition something untrustworthy? But I don't want to :'( Not sure why though, I guess it's all the books I have, like I feel betrayed, it's weird I know.

The terms of the poll don't allow you to infer that, even from the answers there. The poll is about favorite edition and says nothing about what an individual participant's second favorite is. That said, given the polarizing nature of 4e on the boards, if someone ran a poll about least favorite edition, I think 4e would have a very strong showing. Yea, there aren't a lot of people who are "Meh" about 4e. You either really liked it or you really didn't.

Maybe you should re-read the initial pitch, because there is going to be at least some new material. Not exactly sure how much... I think what he's saying is that a collection of the PF1 AP as an alternate option would be nice. Wouldn't be super useful for selling PF2, though.

Neutral isn't just a little space between Good and Evil - there is an actual faction (the Circle of Eight as led by Mordenkainen) that actively tries to keep things in balance. Okay, that has my interest.

That assumes they were actually reprinted - but Paizo generally doesn't reprint their APs. They may have been out of stock by then, though. Does anybody know for sure whether Kingmaker actually got reprinted? By "reprint" I mean "hardcover collection & revision". No AP was simply reprinted.

So would I, but Paizo has no control over that - WotC does. The message I was replying to, though, was wishing for Paizo and Wiz to cooperate to get some old Dungeon stuff republished. AoW seems like an obvious first choice for that, though I have to admit I'd be leery of working directly with Wizards again if I were Paizo.

And risk being too closely tied to someone else's IP again. Being the #1 third party support for D&D burned them once before, of course they're going to be wary of basing their plans on WotC and whether or not they think WotC'll stick with 5e or swerve into another incompatible edition change with restrictive licensing as they did with the 4e project. Yep definitely a difficult business decision, but the size of 5e is huge and shows no sign of stopping.

I enjoy that style of mechanic but to a limited degree. PF has a halfling feat called Well Prepared that goes about as far as I'd like with it. It's a nice little benefit that cannot be overused because, from a narrative sense, you can only use it once a day to have just the right item on hand. I build a lot of halfling adventurers with it because it's fun and gives you a very good reason to have a pack mule.There are a lot of games built with those sort of things in mind. I remember Stargate having expendable gear points for gizmo on demand". Often they are tied in with gimmick points like hero points, plot points, momentum, inspiration and even sometimes to the point of scene editing. "Plot point - I bet the backdoor is blocked by old crates and stuff." We have played a lot of those, each with their own takes on it and how far how fast they should play out "let the plot points flow like rain" to one per session or whatever. Maybe supporting the idea of a link between the styles, we never ...

I enjoy that style of mechanic but to a limited degree. PF has a halfling feat called Well Prepared that goes about as far as I'd like with it. It's a nice little benefit that cannot be overused because, from a narrative sense, you can only use it once a day to have just the right item on hand. I build a lot of halfling adventurers with it because it's fun and gives you a very good reason to have a pack mule. I agree. I don't like it as a generic way of handling things, but I very much do like it as a particular benefit you can buy for your character. For one thing, feats like that allow you to actually play a character with mental attributes you yourself don't have. I have one that goes even further than "Well Prepared" in my homebrew called "Mastermind" that lets you retroactively declare actions that you took in the past (including for example, buying a crowbar). So long as there are reasonable limits on that, and they are trading that advantage for some other potential advantage,...

This OTOH completely mystifies me. From the context, I think you're implying that what WotC has produced in 5e is in contrast to listening to their fans. I think the obvious success of 5e among returning players underscores that the 5e results aren't in contrast to listening to their fans at all.Well, that's the funky thing. At no point did WotC purposely stop listening to their fans. During the late days of 3e, WotC just fell into the habit of listening to the forums and believing that the loud people online and the staff at WotC were representative of the fanbase as a whole. That how they viewed and played the game was how everyone played. It was easy to find the voices that agreed with them and told them what they wanted to hear. It was only when people stopped buying 4e that they wondered if there was a disconnect. Which was further delved into via the surveys.

You keep trying to shut down my argument that rogues keep getting shafted edition after edition, but all you're effectively saying seems to be "they're getting there"? I didn't catch that was your argument, and wasn't responding to it, but to the idea of balancing/differentiating fighter & rogue by making the former a defense specialist and the latter an offense specialist. In terms of the evolution of D&D and it's derivatives, that started with 3.0, AFAICT, and was most strongly supported by 4e, prior to Essentials. Likewise with the magic balance. 5E has truly accomplished something that no d20 derivative ever came close to. What 4E did or did not do remains entirely inconsequential. How could an official version of D&D be irrelevant to that? My point is that the expectations of gamers have fundamentally shifted.I also missed that point, too, but it sounds interesting. Shifted in what way, and how is that shift apparent? You keep relativizing as if you don't want to give 5E...

Nope. I understand you perfectly, and I disagree with you. Star Wars is no more bound to Campbell than it is to Taoism, and likewise not bound to IRL cultural bounds. It’s speculative fiction. Evidently you don't understand me perfectly because I'm not saying SW is "bound" to Campbell, Taoism, or anything in particular - including whatever the latest ideological trends of Hollywood. I am saying that SW is richer for being connected to deeper ideas of myth (Campbell) and spiritual wisdom (Taoism).

Quote Originally Posted by Zardnaar View Post Compared to Disney Wars he was. It's more Michael Bey less Lucas. Bigger explosions, bigger ships, more force powers, less plot, less character development. You... did... watch the prequels, didn't you? I did. And then I watched Episodes VII & VIII. :(

Star Trek isn’t exactly a gold standard of hard sci fi either (particularly with JJ Abrams’s fanciful sense of time and space). They just set their style dials slightly differently. Both franchises put the needs of the plot, style, and cool visuals before science. I hear what you're saying, but it is a matter of degree. Relative to Star Wars, Trek is harder science fiction, and far more rationalized, especially Next Gen in which each episode seemed to be the fictionalization of some aspect of theoretical physics. The reason why so many were pissed at the whole midichlorian explanation is that it turned the Force from a mystical (and magical) energy to something physical and scientific. You don't need to rationalize or explain the fantastic - it just needs to make sense within the context of the world. But SF has to make sense sense within our own laws of physics. In that sense, Trek is far more "pure" scifi than SW.