+ Log in or register to post
Results 111 to 120 of 1497
Thursday, 26th July, 2012, 01:36 PM #111
Grandfather of Assassins (Lvl 19)
"There's a fine line between a superpower and a chronic medical condition."
- Doctor Impossible
- EN World
- has no influence
- on advertisings
- that are displayed by
- Google Adsense
Thursday, 26th July, 2012, 02:13 PM #112
Spellbinder (Lvl 16)
Well, this seems a good place for the use of that "tl;dr" thing. So apologies if any of this has been said before...
But to the original title of the thread, my feeling is the "REAL reason 5e can't unite the base" (which I will maintain hope that it can/will, to a degree!) has nothing to do with which edition one prefers or generalist mages, specialist fighters, skills or feats, or lions and tigers and bears.
It is a (or the) core perception each individual one has of Dungeons & Dragons. It goes to how one approaches the game. The "crunch v. fluff". The character "build v. create". Is the game a "mathematical one viewed as a series of numbers and equations and feat choices that makes me duh bestest to win!" or is it a game that's "creative and imaginative that makes me what I envisioned to exist in this world and grow the story?"
There's no right or wrong here. There's only preference and perception. Yes, generational considerations may apply. Which edition you were introduced to D&D with may apply. Whether you are a more "left-brained" or "right-brained" person may apply. Whether you were a computer programmer or literature major may apply. But all of those considerations boil down to how you perceive/approach the game and what you expect out of the game experience...the why you want to play?
The fluffernutters will never want the crunch to impede on their imaginations, disrupt their immersion or limit their options. The crunchybits will never want the fluff to interfere with their numbers or displace their immersion or limit their options. And BOTH sides will always aver that their preference(s) gives them MORE options, more versatility and an overall "better/kewler/bestest" experience...the problem there is that very few ever take into consideration that "better" is completely subjective...more appropriately stated as "more enjoyable for me."
Compromise is certainly the way to go. It's a diplomatic nightmare, of course. lol. And as at least a few have noted, that means that not everyone gets everything they want. Again, this is a perceptional concern...an approach/view to the game. Some people (of any age/edition/preferences!) simply believe they are entitled to have everything the way they want...RIGHT NOW! Others believe they are entitled to everything the way they want...like/cuz it was always like that.
People want D&D to be Burger King, I need to have it MY way, right away...and no one should tell me otherwise or take away my bacon double cheeseburger. (mmmm...bacon double cheeseburger...)
In the end, however, D&D is McDonalds (or if you prefer, a Wendy's or KFC or whatever your fast food of choice is). They do what they do, whether you think it good or ill, and they are enjoyed by those looking for a McDonalds!
It will give you their menu...not yours or mine or someone else's. 1) You can choose to eat there, or not, in the first place. 2) Pick something that you think you will like and 3) enjoy it for what it is (all the greasy saltiness of a McDonalds. mmmm. So good when that McDonalds craving hits).
OR you can do 1 and 2 and then sit around saying "I wish we'd gone to KFC or I wanted Popeye's [Long John Silvers, Roy Rogers, whatever]. McDonald's sucks!" In which case, then I'd say, DON'T go to McDonalds in the first place!
The arguments over this 3e mechanic or that 4e mechanic are completely justifiable preferences to have...but they are just that. A preference. A perceived "better" for your game. (all proclamations that Xor Y mechanic, playstyle, game system, design "evolution", etc. etc. is objectively "better" aside. Because saying it a million times STILL does not make it Truth..simply "True for me/from my perspective")
The real reason we won't be united is because not everyone comes at the game from a mechanical perspective (or desire for certain mechanics at all!). Not everyone comes at it from an imaginative perspective. Not everyone wants to use pencil and paper in today's day and age. Not everyone wants to have to use a computer, either. Not everyone wants hairy-footed halflings or half-orcs. Not everyone wants dragonborn or eladrin (gods ANYthing but the eladrin! )...Etc. etc. ad infinitum.
The real reason is how people approach (what they want out of) the table before they're ever even there or pulling out their dice (hells, some people don't even want to be bothered with dice!).
And that is regrettable...but I feel, something of D&D's own making and all too accurate.
STILL, I'll hold out hope for compromise and maturity and mutual enjoyment for all. But to get there, we have to let go of [at least some of] our personal perceptions of "Xe or Y mechanic [or class or race or skill or whatever] is the bestest!"...be able to recognize that [everything about] MY D&D is not the twue way.
Cheers...now where's my bloody bacon double?...
Steel Dragons' "All Things Orea" Blog right here on EN world!
Steel Dragons' "All Things Orea" Blog right here on EN world!
Thursday, 26th July, 2012, 02:21 PM #113
Lama (Lvl 13)
I just think the result delta of a d20 roll is too broad to actually model the possible range of results a single person skilled at a task can accomplish. People who know how to jump don't broad jump 6 ft., then 10 ft., then 4 ft.
To my mind, it's more simulative to assume the roll also accounts for factors external to the character. Maybe the character slips on loose dirt he didn't see. When he's attempt to win over a mayor, the roll can model the mayor's receptiveness to a particular argument as much as it models the character's ability to make that argument.
Thursday, 26th July, 2012, 03:41 PM #114
Guide (Lvl 11)
And finally, I'm glad to entertain you Libramarian. I was hoping for some serious engagement but if you can derive some measure of entertainment from my posts, of the "American Comedy" genre of entertainment, then good on ya. I suppose one could be worse things than a clown.
Thursday, 26th July, 2012, 03:50 PM #115
Your statement seems to be addressing the cause though... not consequence. Now I could be wrong, but I don't think billd91 is speaking to what caused the Dwarf to fail the diplomacy check... instead he's speaking to the consequences that arose when the check is failed. He is saying the consequences of that failed check should in some way be connected to the action that failed. In other words, if I fail a diplomacy check to convince the king... the consequences should involve the king saying no, or perhaps he becomes less receptive, or orders the particular character out of his sight, etc. as opposed to the castle collapsing around me or a monster appearing to disrupt the proceedings or numerous other unrelated consequences.
Thursday, 26th July, 2012, 03:51 PM #116
Lama (Lvl 13)
Original DUNGEONS & DRAGONS = Led Zeppelin
ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS = Black Sabbath
ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS 2nd EDITION = Hair Metal
DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, 3rd EDITION = nu-Metal
DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, 4th EDITION = lmfao
Seriously? And you didn't get the faintest idea this is edition warring?
Just don't. - Lwaxy
Last edited by Lwaxy; Thursday, 26th July, 2012 at 08:01 PM.
BIG COLLABORATIVE DUNGEON PROJECT! SIGN UP AND ADD A ROOM!
Parenthetically, photostat copies of the manuscript rules were made, and when the commercial game was published, fans not willing or financially unable to expend the princely sum of $10 for the product did likewise, copying the material on school (mainly college/university) machines. We were well aware of this, and many gamers who had spent their hard-earned money to buy the game were more irate than we were. In all, though, the 'pirate' material was more helpful that not. Many new fans were made by DMs who were using such copies to run their games. - Gary Gygax
Thursday, 26th July, 2012, 04:13 PM #117
This argument would be so much more convincing if it was in fact supported by the examples, advice or almost anything else in the actual DMG... but it's not. Even posters such as pemerton, who seem to argue for a similar interpretation of SC's as yours above, readily admit the DMG does not really support their claims and that most of their style of running SC's is drawn from a library of other games such as HQ and BW. So what we have here are a group of players claiming SC's are and do a certain thing and then the very people who developed, designed and wrote examples seeming to, if not contradict them, not actively support their interpretation of what a SC is and how it should be run. That is the biggest problem I have with this argument, it's based on other roleplaying games as well as a ton of advice, assumptions, etc. that just aren't in the 4e DMG.
Thursday, 26th July, 2012, 04:50 PM #118
Spellbinder (Lvl 16)
To pick an example, imagine a skill challenge for a jail break that requires six successes before three failures. Your first success or two will take you all out of your cells before they sound the alarm. Your fifth will probably take you to the main gates - six and you can get out without fighting (the XP value will be about the same either way). Depends how it unfolds.
Fail the skill challenge with two successes and you're downstairs in the prison and out of your cells - but for weapons have the one truncheon you grabbed off the guard who sounded the alarm. Fail at five and you're probably in the main courtyard having collected your own weapons and can either fight the guards head on - or try forcing the gate open under fire and running like buggery.
Now both cases are failures. But I'm pretty sure you'd agree that in the two success case the party is up a creek, but in the five success case the party is in a relatively nice position. Because that's where they got to in the fluff before all hell broke loose.
Thursday, 26th July, 2012, 05:04 PM #119
Guide (Lvl 11)
Yes, I absolutely agree on your second paragraph. 100 %. And have said as such. 4e editorializing and editing was bad in many, many ways. The system works despite it....not because of it.
Thursday, 26th July, 2012, 05:04 PM #120
Magsman (Lvl 14)
OD&D = Jefferson Airplane/Moody Blues
AD&D = Yes/King Crimson
AD&D Second Edition = Rush/Iron Maiden
AD&D Third Edition = Queensryche/Savatage
AD&D Fourth Edition = Primus/System of a Down
By WarlockLord in forum D&D and Pathfinder Rules & DiscussionReplies: 575Last Post: Monday, 30th July, 2012, 09:26 AM
By Bedrockgames in forum D&D and Pathfinder Rules & DiscussionReplies: 67Last Post: Tuesday, 31st January, 2012, 01:52 AM
By Roman in forum RPGs & Tabletop Gaming DiscussionReplies: 50Last Post: Sunday, 12th April, 2009, 08:56 PM
By Velira Evangeline in forum ISRP General Chit ChatReplies: 37Last Post: Sunday, 9th September, 2007, 02:37 PM
By Gargauth in forum D&D and Pathfinder Rules & DiscussionReplies: 201Last Post: Saturday, 25th August, 2007, 04:13 AM