View Profile: Fallstorm - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
No Recent Activity
About Fallstorm

Basic Information

Date of Birth
February 22

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
39
Posts Per Day
0.01
Last Post
Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals Thursday, 27th September, 2018 02:24 AM

Currency

Gold Pieces
0
General Information
Last Activity
Tuesday, 9th October, 2018 03:27 AM
Join Date
Thursday, 20th September, 2007
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0
No results to show...

Wednesday, 26th September, 2018

  • 05:12 PM - Sadras mentioned Fallstorm in post Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
    1E and 2E both are considered OSR. I did not start in 1E never said that. I do have 1e books though and have been retro games of 1E. So I have familiarity (and respect) for 1E. I also did have other RPGs at the time but feel free to address made up conclusions. I mean, you like narrative play so that makes sense (narrative being the keyword). Since, you know about this thriving market which is so popular a full 2.9% of people are playing. D&D Beyond has probably increased this and more celebs are talking D&D. I hope we hit 5%. @Fallstorm I wasn't playing in the 70's and much of the 80's but even I know the RPG market had exploded well before the d20 boom and there were plenty, plenty of RPG games out there and I'm not living in the States, Canada or Europe. For one, during my time VtM arrived on the scene and it was YUGE within the Cape Town roleplaying community, nevermind all the other classic TTRPGs (from Amber, to Shadow Run to RM...etc)

No results to display...

Wednesday, 26th September, 2018

  • 11:18 PM - Lanefan quoted Fallstorm in post Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
    Well, in 2E due to the various conditions at TSR when the person who did not really like D&D took over there was actually very little playtesting in general. You also correct that the Players Option series was not play-tested in fact the Combat & Tactics and Skills & Powers books were evidently worked in by two different teams with not much cross collaboration. All that being said because their was a mistake in implementation on a past product does not mean a future direction should not be taken but the mistakes of the past learned from. D&D 5E seems to be well playtested internally with external playtesting involved as well. Also, while I don't work at WOTC and while I may not like all their decisions it seems from the D&D Brand standpoint the designers/writers are in fact very collaborative and keeping each other in the loop on directions of various projects, which makes sense given the small number of actual designers and writers left at WOTC. Additionally D&D 5E is much more streamlined...
  • 07:39 PM - doctorbadwolf quoted Fallstorm in post Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
    The more of Mearl's postings I read, the more I'm convinced that the success of 5E as a system is a happy accident rather than deliberate. Either that or it's really Jeremy Crawford who's sitting at the steering wheel. Ridiculous. The design goals and concepts that Mearls is talking about are a big part of why 5e is successful. @TwoSix, @Maxperson, Two observations. First, I agree that not all build combinations would make sense. But just taking sub classes times races, we get 2,960 (assuming I counted right) alternatives. Even if 90% of those don't make sense for some reason, that leaves close to 300 options. Heck, make it 99% and throw in a smidgeon of feat/build/multi-class choices (i.e. champion fighter with dex vs strength, sword and board vs great weapon) and I think there are more builds than I could ever personally play. Ultimately you're going to have a few builds that do approximately the same thing. Blaster caster, control, hit things with melee, or hit things with ranged (I ...
  • 06:33 PM - DM Dave1 quoted Fallstorm in post Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
    MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! And there you have it. I'm so sorry- you were around in the 1980s. Clearly, you know what you are talking about. All the rest of us should just know our place, and bow before our better. I'm so sorry, and I will endeavor to learn words better so that I can fully comprehend how well you understand all those things I clearly do not. Okay. Let's put this in perspective: 1. Someone ask me a question about 1E 2. I respond to that person 3. You jump in doing personal attacks claiming I was not around in the 80's, do not know OSR and bunch of other nonsense 4. I state (factually) I was around in the 80's and did play OSR games. 5. You again attack and claim I am lecturing whatever when I just responded to you You make up statements or at the very least intentionally misinterpret and misrepresent statements and attack items never said. You sir are a troll. I don't feed trolls. I am done arguing with you. I will respond to Lanfan if he responds. Nevermind him, man. @l...
  • 05:32 PM - Sacrosanct quoted Fallstorm in post Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
    Okay. Let's put this in perspective: 1. Someone ask me a question about 1E 2. I respond to that person 3. You jump in doing personal attacks claiming I was not around in the 80's, do not know OSR and bunch of other nonsense 4. I state (factually) I was around in the 80's and did play OSR games. 5. You again attack and claim I am lecturing whatever when I just responded to you You make up statements or at the very least intentionally misinterpret and misrepresent statements and attack items never said. You sir are a troll. I don't feed trolls. I am done arguing with you. I will respond to Lanfan if he responds. Saying you must not have played any games in the early 80s isn't a personal attack. Especially since it was true. Holy moly... No one has misinterpreted anything. We're only going by the words you actually used. You made several claims. None of which are factually true. Just own up to it man, and move on.
  • 05:21 PM - Sacrosanct quoted Fallstorm in post Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
    Never said the D&D cartoon created the boom but believe what you will. You certainly implied it: D&D went through a brief boom with the cartoon from the 80's Why else mention the cartoon in that context. And you're wrong. The boom was before the cartoon. Not during. Is a 5 year period brief? I suppose that's a matter of opinion. But either way, I don't think anything you've argued so far has been true. That takes determination to keep going and doubling down like you are.
  • 05:19 PM - Sacrosanct quoted Fallstorm in post Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
    What people are calling an "explosion" is still on obscure niche. D&D and RPGs have never been a popular hobby for the masses. That may change but anyone who says it is now or has been is living in a false reality. Options in a niche in which one main provider occupies most of the niche is not an explosion. Any product that goes from 1000 sales to a hundreds of thousands of sales in a 3 year period would be classified as an explosion. Mentzer basic itself sold over a million copies. There certainly was an explosion between the late 70s to the early 80s.
  • 05:17 PM - lowkey13 quoted Fallstorm in post Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
    First of all, I didn't lecture of gamesplain to anyone. I was asked a question. I responded to the question. Then you jumped in. If you did not like the answer then why don't you do as your moniker says and stay low-key. Secondly, I was around in the 80's. 3. D&D went through a brief boom with the cartoon from the 80's but D&D was a niche market. If D&D is the leader in a niche market then by default everything else is going to be obscure despite having other publishers. Right now if TTRPGS make up 2.9% of games (by last reckoning) and the bulk of that is D&D with PF gobbling up most of the rest then market shares for anything else is going to be pretty dismal i.e. obscure by definition. Learn what niche means. MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! And there you have it. I'm so sorry- you were around in the 1980s. Clearly, you know what you are talking about. All the rest of us should just know our place, and bow before our better. I'm so sorry, and I will endeavor to learn words better so that ...
  • 05:16 PM - Sacrosanct quoted Fallstorm in post Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
    First of all, I didn't lecture of gamesplain to anyone. I was asked a question. I responded to the question. Then you jumped in. If you did not like the answer then why don't you do as your moniker says and stay low-key. Secondly, I was around in the 80's. 3. D&D went through a brief boom with the cartoon from the 80's but D&D was a niche market. If D&D is the leader in a niche market then by default everything else is going to be obscure despite having other publishers. Right now if TTRPGS make up 2.9% of games (by last reckoning) and the bulk of that is D&D with PF gobbling up most of the rest then market shares for anything else is going to be pretty dismal i.e. obscure by definition. Learn what niche means. Dude! Stop! LOL. D&D didn't go through a boom with the cartoon. The D&D boom started in 79 and peaked in about 82-83--the cartoon came out at the end of the peak, it did NOT create the boom. You seriously need to stop digging your hole man.
  • 05:12 PM - Sadras quoted Fallstorm in post Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
    1E and 2E both are considered OSR. I did not start in 1E never said that. I do have 1e books though and have been retro games of 1E. So I have familiarity (and respect) for 1E. I also did have other RPGs at the time but feel free to address made up conclusions. I mean, you like narrative play so that makes sense (narrative being the keyword). Since, you know about this thriving market which is so popular a full 2.9% of people are playing. D&D Beyond has probably increased this and more celebs are talking D&D. I hope we hit 5%. @Fallstorm I wasn't playing in the 70's and much of the 80's but even I know the RPG market had exploded well before the d20 boom and there were plenty, plenty of RPG games out there and I'm not living in the States, Canada or Europe. For one, during my time VtM arrived on the scene and it was YUGE within the Cape Town roleplaying community, nevermind all the other classic TTRPGs (from Amber, to Shadow Run to RM...etc)
  • 05:11 PM - Sacrosanct quoted Fallstorm in post Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
    1E and 2E both are considered OSR. I did not start in 1E never said that. I do have 1e books though and have been retro games of 1E. So I have familiarity (and respect) for 1E. I also did have other RPGs at the time but feel free to address made up conclusions. I mean, you like narrative play so that makes sense (narrative being the keyword). Since, you know about this thriving market which is so popular a full 2.9% of people are playing. D&D Beyond has probably increased this and more celebs are talking D&D. I hope we hit 5%. OK, you are continuing to say things that aren't true. We were there. By your own admission, you weren't. Also, I suspect that also by your own admission from living in a small town, your experiences are quite skewed. With those two things, I'd highly suggest you stop presenting your argument as fact when it's nothing of the sort. You don't even have to take our words for it, go look up the history and timeline of RPGs. Heck, if you've never played 1e, in w...
  • 05:08 PM - lowkey13 quoted Fallstorm in post Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
    1E and 2E both are considered OSR. I did not start in 1E never said that. I do have 1e books though and have been retro games of 1E. So I have familiarity (and respect) for 1E. I also did have other RPGs at the time but feel free to address made up conclusions. Since, you know about this thriving market which is so popular a full 2.9% of people are playing. D&D Beyond has probably increased this and more celebs are talking D&D. I hope we hit 5%. Seriously, if you don't want to learn a little history, at least try your best not to lecture others, okay? There was a thriving TTRPG market in the 70s and 80s, with quite a few publishers. There are a number of people on this forum that played in the 70s and the 80s, so I would really recommend not GAMESPLAINING to us what we lived through, not to mention many of us enjoy talking and discussing TTRPG history as a hobby. I'm not trying to be mean, or to pick on you, but ... I mean, c'mon. It take a certain kind of chutzpah to state that you wer...
  • 04:53 PM - lowkey13 quoted Fallstorm in post Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
    Actually I started playing 1989 which was 2E. That being said. I am aware other RPGs were out BUT they were not "popular" some people knew about them but when The AD&D PHB was released in 1978 there was not an RPG "market". IN FACT, for a long time even into the 90's to say RPGs were a market was a misnomer. D&D for all intents and purposes WAS the market. To be super technical as a viable market RPGs didn't become that until the D20 boom. /facepalm ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ First rule of holes- when you're in one, stop digging. "Hey guys, I know that I have no first-hand knowledge of what I'm talking about, because I wasn't playing at the time or even aware of what was going on, but allow me to lecture you about it anyway!"
  • 04:10 PM - lowkey13 quoted Fallstorm in post Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
    Yeah dude I don't know what the face palm is but D&D was the original RPG. Please, feel free to lecture me about the early days of RPGs. But, fwiw, you didn't say D&D. You started by saying 1e. 1e is not D&D (OD&D, supplements). While it is arguable as to whether or not D&D was the first TTRPG, assuming it was, by the time 1e was being fully played and had a complete ruleset (MM, PHB, DMG) in 1979, RPGs were already everywhere. The main period of 1e (1979 - 1989) happened to coincide with a massive explosion of RPGs. If 1e was the only thing you could play, you weren't even trying. So, pretty much everything you said was factually incorrect. I also happen to disagree with your opinions, but those are yours. Enjoy them.
  • 04:06 PM - Sacrosanct quoted Fallstorm in post Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
    Yeah dude I don't know what the face palm is but D&D was the original RPG. It did not have a lot of mechanical differences so you had to make stuff up to differentiate your character class from another player playing the exact same class. People were happy about that back then because the market was more limited so in terms of RPG the market was not as expansive offering as many options of games as available now. Now that RPGs are well established and it is you know some DECADES removed form 1E's inception taste of grown and varied to specified taste. This not phenomenal this is normal in a new product/genre is released it is called the EPS Cycle (Elite-Popular-Specialized). Meaning when something comes out it is generally like and/or available to very few select individuals. Then over time that product becomes popular and like by a mass of individuals. When a product becomes liked by a mass of individuals the product will fragment because people have varied tastes so the product will be ma...
  • 03:44 PM - lowkey13 quoted Fallstorm in post Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
    To answer your question. 1E D&D was the granddaddy of all RPGS. I would have played that system because there was nothing else around for me to compare it too at the time and no one knew any better until later on. So, in 1E there would be no way for my Thief X to be different from Thief Y other than background and story but again that is because D&D was the first and RPGs were limited and not with the nuanced and varied taste in playstyle gamers have no. /facepalm ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • 10:02 AM - pemerton quoted Fallstorm in post Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
    we really don’t fully know what Hasbro is counting as sales of D&D. Mike Mearls has said before that they don’t have to put out as many splat books because they can release games like Lords of Waterdeep, etcetera as income generators since the Hasbro merger. I am wondering if things like the numerous board games and additional niche products (Dice sets), etcetera are what is making a more significant portion D&D 5E sales now <snip> Where I think WOTC (Hasbro) maybe harming themselves is that they are losing money on not producing splat material.The general view seems to be that a low barrier to entry, which is achieved in part by a low supply of books, and a very low supply of rulebooks, increases uptake which generates sales (whether or books or other paraphernalia or both) which outstrip the potential sales of more splat. Plus you save on the costs of producing said splat.
  • 07:03 AM - Lanefan quoted Fallstorm in post Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
    TSR did this back in 2E. The rules of the core 2E game were fairly simple (although not always logical) and they kept the core game but but later came out with the Player's Option series (Combat & Tactics, Skills & Powers, etc.) to appeal to people wanting more technical elements to the game which many other RPG at that time had incorporated into their systems. And in so doing they a) overlaid those things on to a system that really wasn't set up to handle them and b) opened up a Pandora's Box of broken combinations and-or spell interactions through lack of foresight and-or full-stress playtesting. In short, they broke their own system. I fail to see why WOTC would not do the same thing now Maybe they realize they've got something right now that's more or less working pretty well and don't want to risk breaking it? and I don't think that tactical power gaming and narrative gaming are mutually exclusive traits. My group is composed of power gamers who love tactical combat. These sa...

Tuesday, 6th October, 2015

  • 06:12 AM - MerricB quoted Fallstorm in post Hoard of the Dragon Queen Errors
    Originally posted by MonsterEnvy:   [quote]Huscarl wrote:As noted somewhere on these boards, the encounter "No Room at the Inn" in episode 4 is way deadlier than it ought to be. I don't recommend playing it as it stands. Find my earlier response on that for advice on how to fix it.    Otherwise, I don't think there are any encounters that characters can't get through somehow. That doesn't mean they can overcome every encounter through violence -- but see my sig line for my feeling about that. Wizards has made it clear throughout the development of 5E that D&D stands on three legs -- combat, exploration, and interaction. If characters run into a situation they can't win through with combat, then they need to try something else. It really is that simple. Is a situation unfair because characters can't defeat it with their swords, when they haven't explored other options? In HotDQ, "hit it" is the wrong response to many situations, just as it is in real life.    Beyond that, there's the i...

Fallstorm's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites