What's on your mind?
+ Log in or register to post
Results 121 to 130 of 929
Monday, 2nd July, 2012, 02:33 PM #121
The Great Druid (Lvl 17)
Improv only really works under the principle 'Always say yes' - when someone says something about the person you are being you accept it. If you start saying 'no, I don't think I'd do that' the entire scene grinds to a halt.
This means that the space you can explore using Improv is limited in a way D&D isn't. You're going to spiral out of control fast; with no DM and no conflict resolution the world's going to be gone. There's no possibility of D&D style 'step on up' play or even bright ideas not working other than in the Fiasco sense (Fiasco to me blurs the lines between improv and tabletop). And you shouldn't be trying to plan anyway in Improv.
Not to say there's no 'Step on up' at all in Improv - I know groups who can improvise a 30 minute musical off a location, an event, and 5 song titles. But you do that by accepting every idea someone else on the stage throws at you and expanding on it rather than whittling it down to work out what will work with some sort of limitations. And I don't believe that an ongoing improv would be at all possible in the way you can have multi-year D&D campaigns.
So although there are a lot of similarities, the fun you have with the two is very different.
- EN World
- has no influence
- on advertisings
- that are displayed by
- Google Adsense
Monday, 2nd July, 2012, 02:44 PM #122
Thaumaturgist (Lvl 9)
- Join Date
- Jan 2002
- Belfast, Northern Ireland, U.K.
- Read 0 Reviews
° Ignore Upper_Krust
Hey there Lord Mhoram!
Best of luck with it amigo.Originally Posted by Lord Mhoram
4E FTW!I've had a character concept that works much better in 4th than other systems, and I may give that a go.
Sounds like a cool idea, hope you have a great time with it.-Tiefling Paladin, MC into Warlock - but the Warlock powers are not chosen by the charactet (by the player) and they represent his Teifling nature coming to fore, which the character thinks of as evil, but still has to use them. Great emotional dynamic to hang RPing on.
I like the multiclassing in 4E, its just so simple and removes the annoying metagaming conceit of 'characters' taking one level in this class and one level in that class just to gain some incremental bonus. Its Conan the Barbarian, not Conan the Barbarian-Fighter-Gladiator-Rogue-Weaponmaster.
Monday, 2nd July, 2012, 02:47 PM #123
Magsman (Lvl 14)
I actually think a better approach would have been multiple edition lines. These would still be new editions (because new is still important) but they would go in different direction. You would have a 4e style line, 3e and Ad&D style line. I personally believe this is a stronger approach than modules (and not that different from what they did with basic and AD&D before). They are already kind of doing this by having three module lines. So why anchor the mechanics to to each other when that clearly makes it harder for them to attract the different fanbases? I mean if three different groups want three different games do they really need to use the same core system?
Monday, 2nd July, 2012, 03:04 PM #124
Waghalter (Lvl 7)
If we take magic versus mundane as the example to balance.
Introduce add-on modules for
- spell cast failure
- casting times based on level of spell
- spell interruption
- attack rolls for spell missiles
- higher level progression
- ingredients for spells
- no at-will pew pew magic
- negative physical effects for overcasting (fatigue, aging...etc)
on the otherhand for mundanes
- additional combat manuevers
- additional skills. themes, backgrounds, feats
- additional attacks...etc
I'm not saying these are the options we need to take, but they are some options. It all starts from an imbalanced system anyways. The Wheel exists, why do you want to recreate it?
Last edited by Sadras; Monday, 2nd July, 2012 at 03:13 PM.
Monday, 2nd July, 2012, 03:07 PM #125
Magsman (Lvl 14)
Monday, 2nd July, 2012, 03:09 PM #126
Scout (Lvl 6)
In fact, let me look at the figure here...
Over the entire course of 3E (.0 and .5) I bought 9 books. Make it 10 if you count Pathfinder (which I don't because we're talking about WotC).
Over the course of 4e thus far, I've bought 6 books and I'm a subscriber. Additionally I'm extremely tempted to purchase a 7th and 8th book (Dungeon Delve and MM3 respectively), even though I have no plans to run a 4E game.
Regarding the terrain layout and use of pushes, I was commenting more on the needless complexity of combat than on the reality of open spaces. I recognize the folly of the way I wrote it. However, to clarify; I have no problem with there being 'dungeon furniture'. I just don't think there needs to be quite so many hazardous things. NC was talking about every encounter needing a feature that 'provides combat interest'. I disagree with him.
I'll add that tactics are only available if you've got sufficient room to use them in. I can't make use of my 50 squares of greatbow range because all battles occur within a roughly 10x10 space.
On a related point I often find myself using my push power (Thundertusk Boar Strike) for the simple reason of the extra damage, rather than from any benefit from pushing. Maybe that's poor tactics, and maybe it's just me seeing the game from a different point of view.
As for the rest of your points, I think we'd just end up arguing and derailing the thread, so I'll drop it.
*shudder* I agree with your 5 points but you'd need another 20 or 30 things on that list before I'd consider it even remotely close to perfect. Starting with:Originally Posted by Upper_Krust
6. Remove the math and start again from scratch
7. Provide more alternatives to AEDU
While I agree with you in principle, I suspect this comes back to an economic issue. Producing three separate products would take a great deal of effort and money. Producing one product which has three uses may not need as much money. Selling 1 product to 90 people, is more cost effective than selling 3 products to 100 people.Originally Posted by Bedrockgames
Then there's a bigger issue. What version should a new player buy into? How on earth would he know the difference between the three and be able to make the right choice? How would her non-gamer parents know which books to buy her so that she can join in her friends game? Which product would the parents buy their kid for Christmas?
No. One core system with 3 (or more!) branches is the far better option in my eyes.
Monday, 2nd July, 2012, 03:10 PM #127
Waghalter (Lvl 7)
Last edited by Sadras; Monday, 2nd July, 2012 at 03:22 PM.
Monday, 2nd July, 2012, 03:19 PM #128
The Great Druid (Lvl 17)
As for your options, you need to polish all of those ideas and even then you're unlikely to reach balance. To add unbalance to a system you just need to do something big. Add in the 3.5 Polymorph spells - that will unbalance things in a hurry. Throw in Divine Metamagic and Persistent Spell. Again unbalance in a hurry.
Monday, 2nd July, 2012, 03:27 PM #129
Magsman (Lvl 14)
old school products (the osr is evidence of this). 3e is less certain because of pathfinder. This certainly has risks. But lots of companies much smaller than wotc manage multiple lines at a time.
]I think clearly labeling each edition is the way to go here. It certainly creates a bit of confusion for new players, but when i first started we had similar hurdles (d&d or ad&d for example) and managed just fine. They can always release an introductory book that offers the first few levels of each edition so people can try out the different options. D&D is usually a game people get introduced to by others, so I think in most situations kids will buy whichever one they hear about first and possibly experiment with other editions from there.Then there's a bigger issue. What version should a new player buy into? How on earth would he know the difference between the three and be able to make the right choice? How would her non-gamer parents know which books to buy her so that she can join in her friends game? Which product would the parents buy their kid for Christmas?
well, i am just thinking out loud here. Personally i like much of what I saw in the playtest doc. But the reaction from 4e fans is severe and it is clear to me that giving them what they want means I wont enjoy the end product (and vice versa i imagine). Maybe this is a bad sampling of 4e payes though. Dont know. If it isnt and this divide really is that wide, i think three seperate editions is a better approach. The more i participate in these debates the clearer it is to me that people really want three different games at this stage. Tying them together through a core system will mean compromises have to be made that could be dealbreakers for folks.No. One core system with 3 (or more!) branches is the far better option in my eyes.
Monday, 2nd July, 2012, 03:38 PM #130
The Grand Druid (Lvl 20)
Now, from a believability perspective, it makes perfect sense that your rogue can't sneak certain creatures. Fair enough. But, that means that there will be significant periods of time when your rogue character's effectiveness is hugely reduced - to the point where you aren't really doing much of anything - sorry, d6+2 points of damage once per round vs a CR 8 creature isn't really doing a whole lot.
Now, you didn't choose this. You had absolutely no say in this, other than the fact that you chose to play this class. The DM decided what creatures to use and the game designers decided that you're not tall enough for this ride.
To me, that's a poster child for mechanics that are not as good as they could be. If the rogue player chose to be less effective against certain opponents in exchange for something else, then fair enough. That's on him. But, he didn't have that choice. It was baked right into the class.
Now, it might not come up for several sessions. No worries. But, then you have a four hour session where you have five encounters in a row with undead (for example - maybe a zombie horde is attacking). The rogue player just got benched for virtually the entire session through no choice of his own.
How much is that "verisimitude" worth? Is it worth having someone ride the pines for four hours? To me, the answer is a resounding NO. Not being able to do a lot in a given encounter? Ok, that happens. Not a big deal. I have a character that just doesn't have the skill set to really contribute to this particular scenario. Cool, no worries. But the mechanics should never sideline players for hours on end.
And that's what unbalanced mechanics do.
The rules don't give the DM their authority. The consent of the players does. - Mallus