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

Basic Information

About BryonD
Introduction:
Location:
Atlanta
Age Group:
Over 40

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
7,731
Posts Per Day
1.25
Last Post
Mike Mearls on how 4E could have looked Thursday, 22nd November, 2018 03:30 AM

Currency

Gold Pieces
5
General Information
Last Activity
Friday, 30th November, 2018 02:36 AM
Join Date
Sunday, 20th January, 2002
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0

3 Friends

  1. Mark CMG Mark CMG is offline

    Member

    Mark CMG
  2. Psion Psion is offline

    Member

    Psion
  3. Wulf Ratbane Wulf Ratbane is offline

    Member

    Wulf Ratbane
Showing Friends 1 to 3 of 3

Thursday, 22nd November, 2018


Wednesday, 21st November, 2018


Tuesday, 20th November, 2018


Monday, 19th November, 2018


Sunday, 18th November, 2018


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thursday, 22nd November, 2018

  • 08:01 AM - Hussar mentioned BryonD in post Mike Mearls on how 4E could have looked
    The bigger issue here, and the reason I think that posters like Imaro and BryonD come to such different conclusions when talking about 4e is that there are two very fundamentally different approaches to how to look at mechanics. The reason that, say (and I'm just using you as an example here, not intended at all as any sort of attack on you) BryonD comes to such different conclusions about Page 42 is that he is looking at the rules as discrete elements in the game. Which is fine when talking about 3e and AD&D. The rules were meant as discrete elements. Healing was largely divorced from anything else - you either healed naturally in down time or you healed magically. 3e had some in combat healing, true, but, again, that was 100% magical. Healing is a discrete element. But, 4e doesn't work that way. 4e is very much holistic. You can't just look at Page 42 and come to conclusions. You also have to look at the entire game and then come to conclusions, which is why posters like pemerton and others have such different reactions. They don't see Page 42 as a...

Wednesday, 21st November, 2018

  • 05:39 AM - Manbearcat mentioned BryonD in post Mike Mearls on how 4E could have looked
    BryonD I've said it a dozen times in a dozen different threads that 4e's initial texts clearly suffered from a "too man cooks in the kitchen", "lack of editorial control/single voice", and an instance of needlessly provocative language (why say "skip the gate guards and get to the fun" when the indie axiom of "go to the action", which is what they clearly meant, was well-established at that point...the former is less clear and more provocative). It could have been written clearer/better without a shadow of a doubt. With respect, I'm done with this thread and moving on to a different sort of analysis.

Monday, 19th November, 2018

  • 10:41 PM - Manbearcat mentioned BryonD in post Mike Mearls on how 4E could have looked
    @Imaro and @BryonD 1) Terrain Stunting and Skill Challenges both reference DCs being set with respect the encounter level. The RC text I quoted above is directly cribbed from the DMGs. 2) The Terrain Stunting text is below. If you're looking for me to say "apparently it would have been better if DMG1 (perhaps in the p42 section) had the Terrain Stunting section rather than DMG2 because there is some confusion around DC setting, then sure." Here is the section on Terrain Stunting (which swinging on a chandelier would have to fall under At-WIll terrain): DMG2 p62 ..."or an ogre pushes against a wall attempting to topple it over onto nearby enemies. First, the ogre has to make a successful check to push the wall over. ...Use DC and Damage by level table (page 65) to determine the exact DC based on the level of the encounter." Ruined Wall, Chandelier Attack, and many others are broken down in this. This is authoritative. In 4e, there are the below types of resolution via Skill Checks: 1) Free...
  • 05:10 AM - Hussar mentioned BryonD in post Mike Mearls on how 4E could have looked
    ...reference the "character level". Both you and Pem have claimed that the ogre is understood, thus it is the monster that sets the DC. But the monster has a CR!!!! Why not simply have table 42 reference the monster and not the character? If they meant it the way you are spinning it (spoiler: they didn't) then they would say it in a much more direct way. There is a simple option of directly referring to one number which will always be right. And yet you claim it references one number which is understood as a means to imply another number which is right and readily available, but isn't actually used. Plus, the 8th level character might not fight a L28 creature. But clearly it could be fighting a CR6 goblin wizard, or a CR11 hill giant boss of the ogre. And yet the book, in plain English, makes it abundantly clear that NONE OF THIS MATTERS. The DC to "get a hold and swing" is expressly a function of the character. Just for the novelty of it, I'm going to completely agree with BryonD here. 4e's major malfunction was in the writing. Totally, 100% agree.

Tuesday, 23rd October, 2018

  • 03:04 AM - Hussar mentioned BryonD in post What DM flaw has caused you to actually leave a game?
    A thousand times: THIS XP are the default mechanic for establishing a reasonable time to quantum up. They work fine as a meta-mechanic. But get really awkward when viewed as a simulation of anything and even worse when applied off-screen Sorry BryonD, laughed at this because the typo was really funny. :D Time to quantum up really needs to be a battlecry for my next superhero character. lol

Wednesday, 4th April, 2018

  • 06:37 AM - Hussar mentioned BryonD in post Do We Still Need "Race" in D&D?
    I'm not offended by worthless ideas. I'm also not in the minority here. Race is of absolutely no issue in the game as it stands. At least not to any appreciable number of people. Then how do you explain the change in Pathfinder? If it is of absolutely no issue, then, why is the #2 game changing it and why have a number of other RPG's changed it as well? And, frankly Maxperson, how is it possible to have a conversation with you when you absolutely refuse to acknowledge the other side's point? Whether you agree or not, fair enough. But, you're starting the conversation with "anyone who complains about this is such a tiny minority who shouldn't even be acknowledged". That makes it pretty hard to have any sort of conversation. And, as another point, I'd like to thank BryonD for illustrating my point. Having internalized his own interpretations to such a degree that he cannot even consider that those interpretations aren't actually part of the game. Compare that to Celebrim's elf example, that at least isn't counter-factual some of the time. In AD&D, since the rules were silent on the issue, any interpretation is equally valid. Of course, that means that the "nurture" interpretation is just as valid as the "nature" one. Now, after AD&D, the "nature" interpretation is flat out false since it actually contradicts what's written in the game. Like I said, I'm not terribly fussed abou this. Just bemused that people who spend this much time thinking about the game are so blind to their own internalizations.
  • 12:29 AM - Hussar mentioned BryonD in post Do We Still Need "Race" in D&D?
    ...me' we are talking about is now more than 30 years old and there never was a single set of house rules or single RAW during all that time. Are you confusing "the game" with 5e D&D? As for what the game actually states, the game states that regardless of the elves background, the elf gets this advantage. What does that suggest to you? No, the game states ELVEN WEAPON TRAINING. Plus, Drow, who are also elves, don't get it. Look, I get that you spend a lot of time on your game. But, we don't play your game. We play D&D. Please stop trying to project your game onto what the game actually states. It has NEVER been stated that elves gain this simply by being an elf. It HAS been stated that it is gained because of training. In every edition of the game, it's either silent on the issue, or states that it's a trained trait. In no edition of the game is it a natural trait. Good grief, this is the whole Medusa argument all over again. ((For reference, a poster here BryonD stated that seeing a medusa in D&D automatically turns you to stone and that the saving throw is reflecting being able to close your eyes. This is not true and has never been true in any edition of the game. I know this, because I had to quote every single Medusa writeup from every edition of the game before I could adequately prove my point)) Please stop projecting your game onto what the game actually states.

Tuesday, 18th April, 2017

  • 03:18 PM - pemerton mentioned BryonD in post Judgement calls vs "railroading"
    ...a fictional positioning of the DM/GM, and, as such, can have motivations and agendas assigned to them that can be narrated in game independently of PC actions, intents, and even knowledge.What is the force of the can here? Do you mean "in accordance with the rules and procedures of play"? Then what you say is not true for the particular episode of play being discussed, where the players' victory precludes the GM simply going on to narrate the advisor improving his standing vis-a-vis the baron. If the point is that, in Maxperson's game, the same is not true - because Maxperson plays with different rules and procedures - well, yes, that is self-evident (or nearly so). But as I posted upthread, this does not tell us about any difference in the role played by NPCs in these games. In both approaches, NPCs provide opposition/antagonism. Rather, it tells us something about differences in who enjoys what sort of power to change the content of the shared fiction. I believe that BryonD and Maxperson disagree with the previous paragraph (or, at least, with its first and second sentences). But they haven't stated the details of that disagreement. I also take it that you agree with them in disagreeing, but that is an inference - although I raised the issue at least once in reply to you (as a disagreement with something I took you to have said), you haven't responded to it.

Sunday, 21st February, 2016


Friday, 15th January, 2016

  • 05:38 PM - Imaro mentioned BryonD in post Failing Forward
    I'm getting a little confused by this side tangent... is the claim that scaling DC's have always been in D&D (which are not the same thing as EL or CR)?? Because that seems to be what @BryonD is talking about... I might be mis-remembering and I certainly haven't played every edition of D&D but for the ones I have played (outside of 4th) I don't remember this being the case... Now advice along the lines of matching challenge to your PC's (which could vary vastly depending upon the skill level of players, rules used, etc ) was definitely a thing but a system set up with hard and fast numbers for actual scaling of non-combat challenges is not something I remember. But @Umbran and @Neonchameleon I admit I could be mistaken... were these present in other editions? And if so why was pg. 42 lauded as so innovative and great by 4e fans if that type of system has always been a part of D&D?

Friday, 13th November, 2015

  • 09:10 PM - pukunui mentioned BryonD in post Escapist article on SCAG is Brutal.
    BryonD: Let's not forget that these guys are gamers too. I'm not sure that saying they don't want to make more books is accurate. I'm sure that they personally would love to make more books. It's just that they're unable to do so, for the reasons you stated. And so they try to put a positive spin on it. Wouldn't you do that too, though? Do we really want to hear them say, "We can't afford to release more books per year than this because it's not profitable"? Corpsetaker: Perhaps he does have a clue, and it's just that your experience is not as common as you seem to think it is. Maybe he's got market research that would put you in the minority. You always seem so eager to see the worst in WotC employees. Try putting yourself in their shoes. Chris and Mike et al are people too. What would you do if you were in their position, in charge of a great game with much gravitas but in a vastly reduced position, forced to rely on ex-colleagues to help you out? Wouldn't you try to put as positive a ...
  • 01:47 AM - Hussar mentioned BryonD in post I just don't see why they even bothered with the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide.
    BryonD. Did they release a new phb/DMG/mm for each iteration? Was there not a strong expectation that players would rebuy those books for each iteration? Then how is that not edition churn? Look, I know you feel the sun rises and sets on all things 3e but come on here. If you rerelease the core three (now core two for Pathfinder) in what way is that not a new edition? Do you not think each iteration has been smaller than the last? Do you think there are as many Pathfinder players today as DND players in 2001? Note 4e is just as bad. Bad start and then even worse rerelease. Terrible for business. .... The next ICv2 report will be interesting. If DND stays on top that means they can release three books per calendar year and still outsell any other rpg company. That's HUGE. That would mean their profit margins would be far far greater than anyone else's. It would also be a pretty strong indicator that they business model is the way to go forward. Why produce ten books if all you do ...
  • 01:38 AM - Hussar mentioned BryonD in post I just don't see why they even bothered with the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide.
    Oops quoted myself.

Friday, 30th October, 2015

  • 09:13 PM - El Mahdi mentioned BryonD in post Warlord Name Poll
    ...ain and too authoritative) Proconsul (the Pro- makes it too authoritative) Shepherd (too religious, too bucolic, too Firefly) Synergist (too boring, and sounds like some kind of psychic) Armiger (exclusively military and noble) Sherriff (too noble, too law enforcement) Impetro/Impetrus (too authoritative – Imperial) Adjunct (too subordinate, too Star Trek Borg - Seven of Nine, Tertiary Adjunct of Unimatrix Zero-One) Prolucutor (the Pro- makes it too authoritative, sounds like the person is a professional talker, and is just too hard to say) Warden (too Ranger) Leader(zzzzzzzzzz…) @3e4ever ; @77IM @Aaron Of Barbaria; @AbdulAlhazred ; @admcewen ; @Aenghus ; @Ahrimon ; @Ainulindalion ; @airwalkrr; @Aldarc ; @akr71 ; @AmerginLiath ; @Andor ; @AntiStateQuixote ; @aramis erak; @Aribar ; @Arnwolf ; @Ashkelon ; @Ashrym ; @Athinar ; @AtomicPope ; @Azurewraith; @Azzy ; @Bawylie ; @bedir than ; @Bedrockgames ; @bert1000 ; @billd91 ; @Blackbrrd; @Blackwarder ; @Blue ; @Bluenose ; @brehobit ; @BryonD ; @Bupp ; @Campbell ; @CapnZapp; @CaptainConundrum ; @CaptainGemini ; @Carlsen Chris ; @casterblaster ; @CasvalRemDeikun; @cbwjm ; @ccooke ; @Celebrim ; @Celondon @ChameleonX ; @Charles Wright ; ChrisCarlson; @CM ; @cmad1977 ; @costermonger ; @Creamsteak ; @Crothian ; @Cybit ; @Dausuul; @Dayte ; @dd.stevenson ; @DEFCON 1 ; @Delazar ; @DersitePhantom ; @Diffan ; @discosoc; @D'karr ; @Doc Klueless ; @doctorbadwolf ; @DonAdam ; @Dragoslav ; @Duganson; @EdL ; @EditorBFG ; @Edwin Suijkerbuijk ; @Eejit ; @ehren37 ; @Elfcrusher ; @El Mahdi ; @epithet; @erf_beto ; @Eric V ; @eryndel ; @Evenglare ; @ExploderWizard ; @EzekielRaiden; @Fedge123 ; @fendak ; @FireLance ; @Fishing_Minigame ; @Flamestrike ; @FLexor the Mighty! ; @Forged Fury ; @Fragsie ; @Fralex ; @FreeTheSlaves ; @froth ; @Gadget; @Galendril ; @GameOgre ; @Garthanos ; @Ghost Matter ; @Giltonio_Santos ; @Gimul; @GMforPowergamers ; @Gnashtooth ; @Green1 ; @GreenKarl ; @Greg K ; @GreyLord; @Grimmjow ; @Grydan ; @GX.Sigma ; @Halivar ; @...

Monday, 6th July, 2015

  • 12:18 PM - pemerton mentioned BryonD in post Why does 5E SUCK?
    And again, a lot of the grousing in that thread seemed to me to be basically a cloaked example of caster entitlement. "Hey, why is your Diplomat bored, just because the wizard snapped his fingers and solved the major challenge of the day, you'll still get to convince the shop keeper to give us more bread." That's basically how I read a lot of that (IE if the difficulty doesn't resolve around what the means are of solving the challenge, then it implies that the 'superior means', which is ALWAYS casting a spell in these debates, isn't automatically extra-special).I hadn't looked at it that way. (Which is not to say you're wrong.) To me, it seems more like your discussion with BryonD: he wants to frame DCs by reference to Conan and Aragorn, you want to frame them by reference to paragon-tier PCs, and BryonD sees some radical contrast whereas - like you - I don't see the issue at all. What are Conan and Aragorn, after all, but (in 4e terms) paradigms of the paragon tier? You are saying "well, Aragorn or Conan" could do this, and my PCs are like them, so I'll set the DC such that they can do it too. Isn't that exactly the same thing? IMHO its really one or the other, either the DC reflects some game world physical considerations that can be determined entirely without reference to the PCs or else its a story-centered DC that exists because it will further the action in the desired way. Nope, not at all. Because I didn't say "well, Aragorn or Conan" could do this" and I didn't say "my PCs are like them". I said I'd use what they could do to judge where the DCs should be. It may be that I say it is too hard for Conan, so the DC is higher. Or it might be that...

Tuesday, 30th June, 2015

  • 08:37 PM - MoutonRustique mentioned BryonD in post Why does 5E SUCK?
    From what I'm seeing, you guys are working with different meanings of "hard". BryonD "Hard" means it will be difficult for a peasant. AbdulAlhazred "Hard" means it will be difficult for a PC of that level. One is a brick in worldbuilding, the other is a tool to help DMs. Of course, both can be "reverse-engineered" into the other - but those are their starting points. The question then becomes where do you want your workload - and this is a question of preference.

Saturday, 28th March, 2015

  • 02:56 PM - Sadras mentioned BryonD in post The Best Thing from 4E
    ...are simple in 5e and well most DMs I know tinker with monsters anyway. We all had to given the terribly unbalanced, untested 4e MM1. Didn’t they revise Orcus like 3 times? All I can say is thank god for SlyFlourish’s monster-damage table. Save Ends was brought across from 4e to 5e. A decent balance exists between the classes. Mechanical alignment is optional as are non-good paladins. 5e has rituals, conditions and you can use grid-play. Replace Hit Dice with Surges. Death saves, yup, they are there too. The 4 Combat Roles. Well we had @GMforPowergamers and @pemerton and a great deal many inform everyone on another thread that those roles have always existed within D&D so I guess, 4e players would identify those roles within 5e. Funny how the OP lists the 4 Combat Roles as if they are exclusive to 4e. @Imaro, @SirAntoine and @BryonD would would certainly find this amusing. If it is a tombstone edition because so much of 4e is in 5e, then I guess you're right, but then that would make 4e a tombstone edition given how much of it exists in 3.5e

Tuesday, 24th March, 2015

  • 02:02 AM - pemerton mentioned BryonD in post 7 Years of D&D Stories? And a "Big Reveal" Coming?
    The similarity is when comparing same-level characters & challenges.Yes. But BryonD is trying to draw the contrast by comparing different-level characters to the same challenge. Seem like mechanical differences to me. But, yes, I can see the 'story' difference, too.The ability to auto-kill an enemy is a mechanical difference, but a fairly minor one. (Eg the house rule to permit auto-killing of minions in 4e - either across the board, or if they're at least a tier below the attacker - is pretty easy.) Who said that? I never said that. But either way, I disagree with you. If both the L1 and the L10 wizard attack the same target, then the L10 wizard has a better chance to hit. "Same target" is a story notion, not a mechanical/mathematical one. I've quoted Tony Vargas saying that "the similarity is when comparing same-level characters and challenges". In 4e, if the L10 wizard re-encounters the "same target" as s/he met when L1, then the target will have been-restatted. If the re-statting is from standard to minion, then the chance to hit with a sword wo...

Monday, 23rd March, 2015

  • 03:40 AM - Mercurius mentioned BryonD in post 7 Years of D&D Stories? And a "Big Reveal" Coming?
    All that follows from the market record of 4e is that not enough people wanted to keep purchasing 4e books to make it worth WotC's while writing and printing more of them. Hence they wrote and printed some different books - the 5e ones. In due course they might write even more new ones, using the same or different ruleset. Good luck to them! Hmm...I don't think it is all so random and arbitrary as you imply. As BryonD said, there was a whole host of people who stopped playing 4E because they burned out on it for reasons specific to 4E, not out of vitriolic nerdrage (like the Camp Two people). 5E came along for three reasons: Camp One wasn't large enough, Camp Two hated 4E, and Camp Three lost interest. In designing 5E, I think Mearls & Co tried to account for why Camp Three lost interest and why Camp Two hated it, while still trying to create a product good enough to appeal to a large chunk of Camp One. Remarkably I think they accomplished the first two, not sure about the third. And, had those in Camp Two simply moved on and never looked back, the history of 4e would have been very different. But, they didn't move on and never look back. They constantly attacked 4e in every single place they could find. You could see edition wars starting in the comments sections of Time Magazine articles about D&D. "Don't play 4e, 4e is teh suxxorz!" was a pretty common thing to see, even if the articl...

Saturday, 14th March, 2015

  • 11:10 AM - pemerton mentioned BryonD in post So what exactly is Wizards working on?
    Sure, but then why bother with D&D at all then?Because they believe that (i) they can make money by authoring and releasing a new set of core books, and (ii) that this 'restoration' of D&D will underpin a broader D&D-brand strategy. Achieving (i) does not require publishing a large number of supplements. Obviously WotC thinks the same about (ii); BryonD, I think in one of the other threads on this issue, has expressed doubts about this. Of D&D or MtG?I was thinking of D&D licensing. Does MtG have the brand recognition to support a licensing strategy like D&D? I assume not, but I may not be in touch with the relevant demograph


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
No results to display...
Page 1 of 37 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Thursday, 22nd November, 2018

  • 05:27 AM - pemerton quoted BryonD in post Mike Mearls on how 4E could have looked
    I specifically said "it can quickly get silly to have a "particularly well built door" in every burnt out shack because the party level calls for it." Right. That's you saying that the door of the burned out shack has to be level appropriate. I also assume you're fastening on burned out shacks because you think they should form a significant element of events for a high level party. If in fact you think they would be trivial for a high level party, then you would agree with me that they don't have "level appropriate" DCs for "particularly well built doors". to which you replied " There have been on "burned out shacks" in my 4e game since mid-heroic, because I follow the advice on the tiers of play that the default fiction of the game (eg power descriptions, allocation of monsters to levels, etc). " That is *you* insisting that the door must be level appropriate.No. That's me saying that I haven't used any burned out shacks, because I don't think they are well-suited to paragon and...
  • 03:17 AM - pemerton quoted BryonD in post Mike Mearls on how 4E could have looked
    it is perfectly ok to be fighting a serious challenge in the vicinity of a door which remains trivial. As in 4e, i you're like. At early paragon tier, the PCs defended a village against hobgoblin attackers. At one point a building was on fire with people trapped inside it - one of the PCs (the paladin?) succeeded on a check to charge through the wall of the building to rescue them. At 1st level that wouldn't have been an acceptable action declaration. At epic tier, if it game up, the wall would probably just be adjudicated as difficult terrain. You're the one who was insisitng - for reasons that I don't understand - that the DC to open the door the burned-out shack must be level-appropiate; which is to say that you are the one who was taking it as a premise that the door would be meaningful rather than trivial. OK, so 4E is now funneling my options. I choose to play a game that doesn't do this.Every RPG funnels options. As far as I know 3E (or variant) is your preferred system, and...
  • 02:24 AM - pemerton quoted BryonD in post Mike Mearls on how 4E could have looked
    the idea that a book is going to tell me that burned out shacks should have excellent doors because of the level of the characters is both boggling and repulsive to me. Luckily no RPG book ever published has said that. The 4e books says that (1) epic tier PCs should be interacting with stuff of great cosmological significance, and (2) that if that stuff invovles doors (eg the gate to Carceri, in my own 4e game) then those doors will be some of the hardest to get through that exist in the cosmos. It doesn't say much about burned out shacks, but it does imply that (1) for epic tier PCs, burned out shacks typically won't loom large on the list of challenges, and (2) if an epic tier PC has to get through the door of a burned out shack, that won't be very hard and probably won't require a check. It will be mere colour. If, in fact, you play a 4e game in which epic tier PCs come to burned out shacks and you (i) want that the door of said shack to matter in play and yet (ii) don't want to b...

Monday, 19th November, 2018

  • 10:03 PM - Imaro quoted BryonD in post Mike Mearls on how 4E could have looked
    Again, THREE ROLLS, two explicitly reference the character and one explicitly references the monster. The fact that they do consider the monster in one makes it abundantly clear that they did not have any intention to reference the monster in the others. I already pointed this out and you choose to edit it out. I don't wonder why. Wait but I was told it's supposed to be based on the DC of the skill challenge... not on the specific obstacle...
  • 06:35 PM - Manbearcat quoted BryonD in post Mike Mearls on how 4E could have looked
    Completely irrelevant. If the rogue had been trying to swing from the exact same chandelier at a L25 fighter half-demon ogre, the relevant portion of the example would not have changed. The example gives three parts: 1) Swinging from the chandelier. The character level all the matters. The example makes it completely clear that DM is to reference the character's level on the sacred chart. 2) Actually kicking and shoving the Ogre. The Ogre's fort is the DC here. Thumbs Up. 3) Dealing damage, which again is based completely on the level of the character and has nothing to do with (a) the ogre or (b) the brazier. I suppose the brazier provides the type "fire", but the exact same brazier would inflict substantially more damage had the creature been tougher than the ogre, despite it being the exact same brazier. (at least if with roll with your example that an 28th level character wouldn't be fighting an ogre). But, the only one of these three items relevant to wooden doors is p...
  • 05:15 AM - MwaO quoted BryonD in post Mike Mearls on how 4E could have looked
    It says "If she makes that check, she gets a hold on the chandelier and swings to the ogre." Then it says "Then comes the kicking.". You are not accurately describing the content as presented in the book. Sure I am. Because swinging up to the ogre might provoke an attack in fiction — it is her skill with swinging that makes everything work, not just the initial grab. And it is the danger of a CR8 Ogre vs say a CR1 Orc that requires that skill. A big failure on the acrobatics check might allow the Ogre to make an OA against her. Edit: And please clarify for me. If you are right why in the world does the book explicitly reference the "character level". The DC to "get a hold and swing" is expressly a function of the character. No, it isn't. 4e is in almost all cases about having the creature who is doing the action to be the one making the roll, then setting the DC based on the obstacles in the way. If the DM wants to reflect that the CR11 Hill Giant is more difficult to swing up t...
  • 05:10 AM - Hussar quoted BryonD in post Mike Mearls on how 4E could have looked
    ...reference the "character level". Both you and Pem have claimed that the ogre is understood, thus it is the monster that sets the DC. But the monster has a CR!!!! Why not simply have table 42 reference the monster and not the character? If they meant it the way you are spinning it (spoiler: they didn't) then they would say it in a much more direct way. There is a simple option of directly referring to one number which will always be right. And yet you claim it references one number which is understood as a means to imply another number which is right and readily available, but isn't actually used. Plus, the 8th level character might not fight a L28 creature. But clearly it could be fighting a CR6 goblin wizard, or a CR11 hill giant boss of the ogre. And yet the book, in plain English, makes it abundantly clear that NONE OF THIS MATTERS. The DC to "get a hold and swing" is expressly a function of the character. Just for the novelty of it, I'm going to completely agree with BryonD here. 4e's major malfunction was in the writing. Totally, 100% agree.
  • 03:15 AM - MwaO quoted BryonD in post Mike Mearls on how 4E could have looked
    Page 42 of the DMG gives an example involving swinging on a chandelier and clearly demonstrates that the DC of this task is a function of the character's level and has nothing to do with the chandelier. According to the DMG a higher level character would need a higher check to swing from that chandelier and a lower level character would need a lower number. You're not trying to make an acrobatics check against a stationary chandelier in that example. You're trying to make a combat move that happens to involve a chandelier while an at-level opponent could use that opportunity to bash your head in. The DC changing represents that the harder opponent you happen to be fighting is making it progressively more difficult to attempt the same task. This happens in sports all the time — they're essentially attempting acrobatics checks to gain freedom to be unopposed in their actions. A strong defender can make success inordinately difficult where a merely average defender is easy. Look at 3pt...
  • 12:09 AM - pemerton quoted BryonD in post Mike Mearls on how 4E could have looked
    as far as I can tell it is mechanics first: we don't have a prior, in-fiction conception of how tough a 15th level fighter is, and then set DCs and stat up creatures that respond to that. We don't know how tough a 15th level fighter is until we see what s/he can do, taking certain mechanics published in the MM as given. That's not fiction-first. It's mechanics first.That's not true unless you are purposefully ignoring the same descriptions of tiers in 5e that are present in 4e. This seems pretty much identical to 5E in that regard: the narrative comes first, and the DM deems an appropriate DC based on the narrative.So Imaro, Parmandur - tell me more about your fiction first 5e play. To be frank, this is why I say that I'm not getting a clear picture of how DCs are set in 5e. I'm told that it's bounded accuracy - that the AC of the hobgoblin is 18 whomever the combatant, that (as darkbard has said) the DC to break down the door is 15 whoever is trying. But I'm also told it's fiction-fi...

Tuesday, 23rd October, 2018

  • 03:04 AM - Hussar quoted BryonD in post What DM flaw has caused you to actually leave a game?
    A thousand times: THIS XP are the default mechanic for establishing a reasonable time to quantum up. They work fine as a meta-mechanic. But get really awkward when viewed as a simulation of anything and even worse when applied off-screen Sorry BryonD, laughed at this because the typo was really funny. :D Time to quantum up really needs to be a battlecry for my next superhero character. lol

Monday, 27th August, 2018

  • 09:10 PM - Henry quoted BryonD in post biggest issue with PF2 playtest
    How about yes / yes / no If you have multiple pages of house rules, to me that's kind of the opposite to "I Like PF1 as-is." :) It also sounds like for your personal journey you did try at least one other system before coming back, and as you note below it feels like time for a change. I really do believe there is a large space between opposed to leaving 1E and opposed to leaving *the spirit of 1E". I'm way onboard with moving on. It really isn't 6 or 7 years, overall it is truly going on 18 years. (SNIP) ...I guess the TL;DR version of this is: You can be completely open and ready to change, but still not find the current draft of 2E to be a better alternative. 5E would be higher in my case...... Absolutely understandable - however, what you've described definitely fits in the category of someone who would move on from PF1 in a heartbeat if you found an alternative that scratched the same itches. Not knowing evilbob's group either (so I'm willing to admit I could be ...

Thursday, 5th April, 2018

  • 02:35 AM - Hussar quoted BryonD in post Do We Still Need "Race" in D&D?
    Heh, I'm not going to get dragged back into your age old battle-lost delusions. I've been doing Medusa correct to the myth for decades. You are the one with the longstanding record of putting words in other people's mouths. Hell, I haven't engaged with you for what, a year? And you bring me up here with the specific point of telling other people what *I* said, when it isn't what I said. So I think any rational person who just registered today could read nothing but this brief exchange and readily see who is doing the revisions. Enjoy Yup, absolutely. Totally agree that you've been doing the Medusa correct to myth for decades. What you haven't done for decades though, is use the D&D Medusa the way it was and is written. Like I said, thank you for providing such a perfect illustration of my point.

Wednesday, 4th April, 2018

  • 04:14 AM - Hussar quoted BryonD in post Do We Still Need "Race" in D&D?
    Yeah, not following the thread, so I can't comment on context here. But point of clarification. I know first hand that BryonD never said that. What was said is that the Medusa of myth turned you into stone if you looked at her, period. It was said that if you did a "person on the street" poll rather than a show of hands on a 4de message board, that this would be seen as stupidly obvious to anyone who knew who Medusa was. It was also said that pre-4E edition of D&D were completely compatible with modeling this. The claim that you presented a cogent counter-point, much less "proved" said point would be a pretty screwed revision. As you were. LOL. The fact that not a single version of D&D is actually "completely compatible with modeling this" was the point that was disproved since your other point couldn't actually be proven at all. Not one single version of the Medusa actually supported your claims. Not one. Yet, you still claim victory in the discussion? Wow. Now that's some serious revision there.

Wednesday, 14th March, 2018

  • 02:59 PM - Aldarc quoted BryonD in post Leveling Up
    Exactly. This is what I immediately thought. Of course, I was also a fan of Grim Tales, which took the class construction idea of D20 Modern and ran with it.I think that d20 Modern's level design, in many respects, influenced both Grim Tales and True20. (I would love to see an updated True20, but I now wonder if the new PF2 system will be the better chassis than 5E to build off from.) I'm afraid two of the most positive features of 5e * simplified math (very few niggling +1s and -1s) * a real attempt at fixing LFQW (Concentration obvs, but also fundamentally rejiggered spells) remain unlikely.LFQW will likely not be quite as pronounced in PF2. There are a number of new features that already suggest that this will be curtailed somewhat: upcasting, stat caps, spellcasting and the action economy, etc.

Thursday, 8th March, 2018

  • 03:56 AM - quoted BryonD in post Paizo Announces Pathfinder 2nd Edition!
    I agree that a bad system is a bad system. But I don't agree that this example in the least. You have completely neglected to offer any information about what else is happening, thus your example creates a false idea that there is nothing to engage or entertain Billy. If THAT is true, the it IS the DM's fault. Being engaged in the game, entertained, having fun, whatever, should NEVER be constrained to just those things a single player's individual character is doing. If each player isn't enthralled by the larger story then the DM isn't living up to what could be. I'm not saying you can't be engaged in a movie, but there's a different type of engagement in a movie, than a game and a game can't rely on movie-style engagement (which is non-interactive), just as a movie can't rely on game-style engagement (which is interactive). It is important in game design to keep each player engaged, because fundamentally, players are unreliable actors. The game can't assume that Bob is going to do ...
  • 02:44 AM - quoted BryonD in post Paizo Announces Pathfinder 2nd Edition!
    I'm not on-board with "standard" spells requiring multiple rounds to cast. So maybe this isn't a great place to comment. But I will offer that if Billy is walking away from the table then the DM isn't doing a very good job. I completely believe that a well run game can, and should, be just as engaging as a great movie. And further enhanced by the fact the player has skin in the game, even when it is not actively their turn. The DM is only so mighty. If the Game disengages Billy from play, that's on the Game. A good DM can only do so much with a bad system. I mean lets look at it this way: lets say you have 5 people at the table, and you give them each 1 minute to take their turns (DM included). That means Billy's turn comes up once every 4 minutes. If all Billy does on his turn is say "I'm still casting Fireball" and then goes back to playing on his phone or getting a drink or whatever, then Bill isn't really playing the game. The DM can attempt to engage him by say, having his...

Monday, 12th February, 2018

  • 12:57 PM - pemerton quoted BryonD in post What is *worldbuilding* for?
    Heaven forbid that someone else have both the narrative "in character" joy AND also have a great game. To quote somebody: "Inconceivable!" I think the disconnect is that you take a reasonable position, differing player agency in differing systems and/or group dynamics, and then you make an flawed leap to how that is important to the merits of the game. People react to the second part as controversialThere is no "second part". This thread isn't about what is fun and what is not. It's about the analysis of RPGing techniques. Maybe most RPGers enjoy games with only modest or little player agency. That isn't relevant to analysising the nature and extent of agency in various approaches to RPGing. If the joy that players in your game get comes from finding mundane maps hidden in mundane places then I don't think I want to play in your game.Who said the map is mundane? Or the place mundane? I don't recall, now, who originated the example - it may have been Lanefan, it may have been me,...

Saturday, 10th February, 2018

  • 07:05 AM - pemerton quoted BryonD in post What is *worldbuilding* for?
    The entire idea of "player agency" vs. "player fun" when the player wants to be 100% in character remains a disconnect. <snip> It is the unending rejection of the idea that "shared fiction" remains awesome even where the sharing is highly asymmetrical because the player's agency is constrained to what their character can do and the DM has unlimited authority of authorship.The fiction may be awesome or not - that seems mostly a matter of taste. If players enjoy the GM presenting them with the products of his/her imagination, no doubt that's a reason for the GM to create and present such products. My claim is simly about agency. In that situation, the players do not seem to have a great deal of agency over the shared fiction. This was a point that was made upthread and treated as controversial. But now it seems that it is a point that attracts widespread agreement. And yet, even with that concurrence of the vague concept of player agency, the extrapolation to "right moves" and pres...
  • 05:28 AM - pemerton quoted BryonD in post What is *worldbuilding* for?
    To me, and I'd be comfortable saying to many others I've gamed with, being a player is tied to being an alternate person within a setting and context and having the experience as that person. <snip> "NO" is an important part of the joy of success.In the context of action declarations which concern the PC learning about the gameworld rather than the PC changing the gameworld - and perhaps even for some of the latter, if there are secret elements of the fiction that the GM will treat as part of the fictional positioning (eg the notorious chamberlain example from years ago) - then succes here means trigger the GM to narrate for you the relevant part of his/her pre-authored material. Eg success in finding the map means, as player, declaring the right move (eg "I search the such-and-such") that will lead to the GM narrating the location of the map from his/her notes. This may or may not be fun - that's obviously a matter of taste. But clearly it involves relatively little player agency...

Thursday, 8th February, 2018

  • 12:57 AM - AbdulAlhazred quoted BryonD in post What is *worldbuilding* for?
    I think there is another important distinction. And, consistent with what you have said, I don't make any claim of inherent superiority. It is all about what is fun to who. But there is a lot that can be said about "NO" in the tabletop RPG context that differs from simply improv acting. ... "NO" is an important part of the joy of success. I think the context of the conversation makes this sound harsh. I've discussed this specific idea with players. But ONLY subsequent to seeing it brought up on these boards in recent years. Previously, the idea of limitations was simply obvious and not a consideration. I'd even very much call myself a "yes and" GM in more typical circumstances. But it would be "yes and" within boundary condition which, to me, require no conversation. I think fictional positioning is basically the same sort of limiter in my process of running a game. You can't just do any old arbitrary thing as a player because your PC needs the fictional positioning to make that...


Page 1 of 37 1234567891011 ... LastLast

BryonD's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites