What is the essence of 4E? - Page 7
Page 7 of 18 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314151617 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 172
  1. #61
    Member
    Orcus on an Off-Day (Lvl 22)

    AbdulAlhazred's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Vermont, USA
    Posts
    9,243
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews
    EN World EN5iderWotC Evacuee

    ø Block AbdulAlhazred


    ø Friend+
    Quote Originally Posted by Jester David View Post
    It's very much about memorizing rules.
    Looking at Pathfinder 2 here, rather than keeping this about 4e (because discussing that in terms even remotely non-positive will automatically induce an edition war)


    CLOAK OF ELVENKIND ITEM 10+
    Illusion, Invested, Magical
    Method of Use worn, cloak; Bulk L
    Activation [[A]] Focus Activation, [[A]] Operate Activation

    This cloak is deep green with a voluminous hood, and is embroidered with gold trim and symbols of significance to the elves. The cloak allows you to cast the ghost sound cantrip as an innate arcane spell. When you draw the hood up over your head (an Interact action), the cloak transforms to match the environment around you and muffles your sounds, giving you an item bonus to Stealth checks. If you activate the cloak, you pull the hood up and are affected by invisibility for 1 minute or until you pull the hood back down, whichever comes first.
    Type standard; Level 10; Price 1,000 gp
    The cloak grants a +3 bonus.
    Type greater; Level 18; Price 24,000 gp
    The cloak grants a +5 bonus, and invisibility is 4th level. If you're also wearing greater boots of elvenkind, the greater cloak of elvenkind allows you to Sneak in forest environments even when creatures are currently observing you.

    Looking at it, the activation uses two keywords and a couple symbol, plus Bulk and the various tags (illusion, invested, magical). There's references to the "Interact" action in the text as well. There's a lot of stuff that is just gobbledygook to new players.
    But my favourite bit is at the end where the cloak says it allows you to "Sneak in forest environments". It reads like a plain sentence but the capitalization denotes it's actually some special term. What does it mean? I'm uncertain. It's basically hidden rules.

    Or another example, 13th Age.
    I was working on making a 5e warlord type class for a while. And looked at the Commande for inspiration. And found its powers awkward to parse.
    Buck Up!
    Quick action Recharge 16+ after battle
    Targets: You and 1d4 nearby allies
    Effect: Each target gains temporary hit points equal to the average number of hit points it gains when it heals using a recovery.
    Champion Feat Add twice your Charisma modifier to the temporary hit points each target gains.
    Epic Feat One of the targets can also heal using a recovery.

    I can guess at some of the purposes but so much of how the power works or what it does is hidden in other rules.
    That's a barrier to entry and requires system mastery to know what powers do, let alone if they're good or bad.
    To me these just read like any game rules. If you expect people to 'just know' exactly how the mechanics of the game they're playing work without actually making even a rudimentary effort to know the most basic terminology, then of course they won't figure anything out! How does 5e 'fix' this? It doesn't!

    Assassin's Blood (Ingested). A creature subjected
    to this poison must make a DC 10 Constitution saving
    throw. On a failed save, it takes 6 (1d12) poison damage
    and is poisoned for 24 hours. On a successful save, the
    creature takes half damage and isn't poisoned.
    OK, so this is a simple poison description from 5e, just a random thing I picked from the DMG. Lets skip over the obvious question of how you would get 'subjected' to a poison, that clearly ties back to who knows which rules about using them in combat, or out of combat, etc. It just as well might be a defined game term, even if it technically isn't. Then we get the reference to a save vs poison, so you need to know how that works, and any rules tied to that, like how dwarves get a bonus, etc. and then finally it references something, a condition I guess, called 'poisoned'.

    I'm not saying its complex, its not even a 'power' or 'spell' or a complicated item or something, but it still ties into several different rules systems. This is fine, its how it should be. I don't even have a beef with this particular example, the 4e equivalent is pretty similar.

    You SAY you've done the math and then don't provide it… Proof doesn't work like that.
    I think this is unfair. I did outline the math in my post. It isn't even so much 'math' as just if you sample the monsters from an AD&D product you'll see what everyone knows, that higher level monsters have progressively lower ACs! How is this controversial? Do you dispute the accuracy of my claims or not? I'm pretty sure there's about 500 guys reading this thread who know AD&D like the back of their hands, I'm happy to hear from them if they think I misstated in the least!

    Do higher level monsters have a lower AC. Okay. Probably. That's going to happen. But the key phrase of my claim was that "the AC of enemies goes up at a matching rate".

    Let's actually go to a book. I have the 2e Monstrous Manual handy on my PC so I'll use that.
    (Man, I had forgotten how low monster hit points were in 2e. There's some high level critters here that might only have 40hp...)

    For low level monsters Goblin is AC 6; kobold is AC 7; orc is AC 6; ogre is AC 5
    The hill giant is AC 3. Stone is AC 0. Storm is AC -6. A pit fiend is -5 while the balor is -8. Will o'wisps are -8 for some reason. And the tarrasque is only -3.
    But dragon is the big one, with it's AC having a base number that varies by it's age, from -6 for a hatchling to +8 for a great old wyrm. 11
    So the difference between a kobold you fight at level 1 and the great wyrm red dragon you fight at level 20 is…. 17.
    And that's the most extreme example I can find, with most high level dangerous foes typically only having an AC in the -5 range. If even that.
    But that is enough! A change of 17 in AC over the course of 20 levels, and of course these are only 'typical' examples. In any case your level something fighter, lets call him level 15 since things basically top out past that point, is going to have SOMETHING like a 25 better chance to hit than at level 1 (say 7 from STR 15 from level and 3 from a weapon). As I said, it usually gets a bit easier. Even so, my recollection is that hitting the really 'name' creatures, even when you're 20th level, is not that easy! Demon Lords and such tend to have ACs south of -8.

    The fighter's bonus to attack rolls from just THAC0 exceeds the increases to AC. Their accuracy increases.
    Yes, by a fairly modest amount. You are still going to think you're in good shape if you hit on an 8 at those levels. I stated you're chances might improve by 30%.

    Emphasis added. "It's not against the rules to…."
    Yeah… no. That's a theoretical argument. We're not discussing hypotheticals or corner case situations where you throw a great wyrm blue dragon against a level 5 party.
    In the overwhelming majority of cases, groups are going to regularly and continually encounter threats and challenges at their level. That's the assumption, and in that case the increased bonuses you have match the increasing DC.
    That's how it works in 3e, 4e, Pathfinder, and very likely Pathfinder 2. Where you go from a +5 on a check and a DC 15 to a +25 on a check and a DC 35.
    The point is, the world doesn't change. YOU change and you engage in different activities, which engage different mechanics (slightly). What seems WEIRD to me is how nothing seems to get harder in 5e! Its bizarre, and sometimes problematical. Most of all it doesn't fit with the paradigm of play that 4e uses, which is tuned to its rules structure, so the two work in concert. That's the best test of things, does it work in the way intended? It does!

    So do the encounter building rules in the DMG work?
    Are five level 25 monsters an moderate challenge for five level 25 PCs?
    Is Orcus in the Monster Manual a decent challenge?
    Yes and no. Orcus is a decent challenge, yes, when thematically treated LIKE ORCUS. If you put the Orcus stat block in sphere world and play a theorycrafted combat then nope, it won't work. If you even follow the advice in the DMG on building encounters, and logically extrapolate it to epic encounters, which aren't really the focus of DMG1's advice, then it does work.

    In the case of Orcus, that means you are NASTY! Go take a look at the descriptions of 4e battles @pemerton has posted, nothing sounds like it was problematic there! So, can I make a nasty Orcus encounter that follows the 'rules' of DMG1? Yup! It will be a level 35 encounter, with level 35 terrain of the nastiest sort.

    I have 235,000 XP for my encounter budget, and Orcus (level 33 Solo Brute) takes 155,000. So I have 80,000 XP left in my budget. Lets suppose I choose to utilize 3 level 30 standard monsters, that's 57,000, so I have 23,000 left, which will get me 5 level 30 minions give or take 1000 XP.

    Now, I can have WHATEVER terrain and terrain powers and etc. I wish, there's no XP budget for those (yeah, you can maybe overdo it, but this is a CAPSTONE encounter of a whole campaign, so not really). I can fill the place with necrotic energy. Lets be nice and use an inverted Pillar of Life, at epic tier this will suck 15 hit points out of any character within say 3 squares (and we can put a bunch of them around). Then we can position the main combat area such that there are places where PCs can easily be forced out of the fight for a while, like slopes and drops. We're nasty so these lead to areas which trap and inhibit PCs (grasping slime and such). Note that all this stuff is actually FRIENDLY to our nice Demon Prince, and his boys.

    We can add some more nastiness, like some terrain powers which Orcus can use from locations which are difficult to access so he can make attacks with relative impunity, allowing him to soften up and debuff his opponents before choosing to appear at close range.

    I would also add some sort of gimmick to the encounter. A static situation is silly for this sort of a crazy ultimate fight. The PCs have to defeat Orcus in short order, or they must abide by some sort of specific conditions, perform some kind of ritual, etc. all while ALSO taking on the rest of the encounter. Don't like it? Hey, its a CAPSTONE, that's how it is! Old Stinky don't fight fair, and the rules don't say nuttin' about it.

    So, now, lets put our nice monsters in place, they'll heavily favor a lurking tactic, with some sort of nice way to hide (IE there's bones everywhere, some of them are less dead than others).

    EDIT: Lest we forget, forget HS at this point, you just walked through something worse than HELL. Maybe some PCs still have an action point. We'll be nice and assume they all have a daily left. Getting here is NOT a calk walk.

    Well, that answers my above questions, and you admit I was right. That the rules broke down. You could no longer uses the assumed challenges in the book or the rules for encounter building that came with the game.
    I don't agree that the rules 'broke down'. I think that people failed to be reasonable about what the rules are intending this sort of epic battle to be like. They simply extrapolated a level 1 orc fight and thought that using the exact same techniques for a level 35 capstone encounter would produce perfect results, and it probably won't. But if you read the encounter design rules carefully, and build these encounters in the light of the experience of a couple years worth of running your campaign up to that level, then yeah, most DMs were able to take the elements given and make fun stuff from it.

    I think a lot of them went on to do more various stuff, partly because it gives you even more flexibility, and partly because players figured out how to beat the 'stock' baddies. Frankly they are SUPPOSED to be beatable, just not easily. It wasn't the intention that Orcus would be likely to TPK worthy opponents. He's just supposed to push them to the limit. It is possible to do, even with the designs provided in the MM. Honestly Orcus is not even the best example really. Demogorgon from MM2 is more fun!
    Last edited by AbdulAlhazred; Wednesday, 27th June, 2018 at 05:54 AM.
    XP Jacob Lewis, darkbard gave XP for this post

  2. #62
    Member
    Orcus on an Off-Day (Lvl 22)

    AbdulAlhazred's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Vermont, USA
    Posts
    9,243
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews
    EN World EN5iderWotC Evacuee

    ø Block AbdulAlhazred


    ø Friend+
    Quote Originally Posted by Jester David View Post
    Option creep = power creep.
    No it isn't.

    As you say, the math changed for the Monster Manual 3. Which means that all prior monsters were imperfectly designed.
    No, they aren't. First of all, a LOT of MM1 and 2 monsters are never recapitulated at all, even in MV, which does rewrite a number of monsters for Essentials play. This is because they are perfectly good monsters! A lot of monsters really don't change much even when they ARE rewritten. Most often its an attempt to make the monster work in a more dynamic fashion, not to make it tougher. Hobgoblins are a great example. Their shield wall powers are stupid good in MM1, but also stupid boring (stand in a big formation and don't move unless you must).

    Clearly you WANT to hate on 4e, but you're just wrong about this.

    Looking at the update from July 2010: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/UpdateJuly2010.pdf
    You'll notice the damage is increased dramatically at all levels. The defences for the brute, soldier, and artillery changed. So every single one was being hit 10% too often.
    Early monsters were significantly too weak to even match baseline PCs, let alone optimised ones after two years of regular crunch.
    ? Average defenses for monsters don't really change. The only differences there are to make soldiers less 'bricks' (IE by LOWERING their defenses a bit) and brutes slightly less soft, to make them a bit more interesting.

    Damage is only slightly higher. In fact most of the damage is in line with the expressions provided in MM1, which have never been changed. Honestly, the monsters that seemed to be anemic are some from upper paragon and epic where some standards clearly didn't follow guidelines. This is a flaw in certain individual monsters, perhaps. It hardly invalidates them, nor represents a systematic problem.

    I don't agree that PCs got more powerful, in any great degree. The way I see it is that players and GMs didn't devise encounters quite as they were really expected to. They often seemed to just expect to throw a monster at some PCs and have the XP budget make it work. Even in AD&D you can't really do that. Does that make things 'broken'? No, I don't think so. I was always able to challenge the party, at all levels, using monsters of all vintages of 4e.

    Whataboutism.
    3e and 5e having similar issues does not excuse 4e of having encounter design problems.
    No, my assertion is that 4e has the best encounter design system of any edition, BY FAR. So, why are trashing on it? Why exactly are you even having this discussion? Is it somehow even related to the topic of the thread anymore, or is it just peen?
    XP Saelorn, Manbearcat, TwoSix gave XP for this post

  3. #63
    Member
    Orcus on an Off-Day (Lvl 22)



    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    5,750
    Reviews
    Read 5 Reviews

    ø Block Saelorn


    ø Friend+
    Quote Originally Posted by AbdulAlhazred View Post
    Sure, but you have to spend HS to do that, so even a weak encounter, if it costs you HS, is significant attrition. Every HS in a hard 4e workday is precious!
    That's what I was getting at, though. Because numbers scaled so quickly with level, a high-Paragon party against a low-Paragon encounter could very possibly get through it without spending any healing surges at all. Instead of spending 3-4 rounds, where you make attacks with 50% accuracy, against enemies who hit back with 50% accuracy; you spend 2-3 rounds, where you make attacks with 80% accuracy, against enemies who hit back with 20% accuracy. And it will still take at least half an hour to run through the combat, because you still have to make decisions that are tactically sound, because a hit against you could cost you a healing surge.

    It just doesn't seem like a reasonable use of time at the table, given how long it would take, and how little attrition it would cause. You could cause more attrition in less time by using at-level encounters, which would also probably be more dramatically satisfying.
    Quote Originally Posted by AbdulAlhazred View Post
    It is far beyond me to guess what was in the minds of the 3.x designers when they wrote those rules. I will say this much. 3/3.5e are poorly thought out. There are VAST numbers of things in them which clearly don't work in a way which fosters a better play experience. A lot of it I just can't even fathom why anyone would have designed a D&D that way, its obvious from just an initial reading that a lot of stuff is borked.
    To contrast, I will say that just about every single rule in third edition makes sense to me. For every design decision that they made, I can understand why they did it. Most of it's just because they were trying to bring order to the patchwork kludge which was AD&D, and they didn't have enough design experience to see where it might break down. (To be fair, at the time, nobody had that experience. Third edition was revolutionary in many ways.)
    Quote Originally Posted by AbdulAlhazred View Post
    I don't think it matters what the intent was, the RESULT is what matters. 4e is a reaction to the actual in the world pitfalls of 3.x design.
    Of course, just because certain pitfalls were real in any given edition, that doesn't mean everyone encountered them (or found them problematic, if they did). To me, healing surges were a solution to a problem that I never experienced in the first place; which also means that, to me, the solution was worse than the problem it was trying to fix. Likewise, with the segregated rules for monster creation, it was a solution to a problem that I never experienced.

    I guess that's just one of the inherent difficulties in creating a new edition, is that everyone had a different experience with the previous edition. They kind of just had to play the numbers, and try to fix the biggest problems that affected the most people.

  4. #64
    Member
    Magsman (Lvl 14)



    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chester County, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,767
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews

    ø Block MichaelSomething


    ø Friend+
    Quote Originally Posted by Saelorn View Post
    Of course, just because certain pitfalls were real in any given edition, that doesn't mean everyone encountered them (or found them problematic, if they did). To me, healing surges were a solution to a problem that I never experienced in the first place; which also means that, to me, the solution was worse than the problem it was trying to fix. Likewise, with the segregated rules for monster creation, it was a solution to a problem that I never experienced.

    I guess that's just one of the inherent difficulties in creating a new edition, is that everyone had a different experience with the previous edition. They kind of just had to play the numbers, and try to fix the biggest problems that affected the most people.
    How can you make/maintain an RPG when any one element can be terrible for a portion of its audience?

    Is it truly a zero-sum game?

  5. #65
    Member
    Superhero (Lvl 15)



    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Cape Town
    Posts
    1,883
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews

    ø Block Sadras


    ø Friend+
    Quote Originally Posted by AbdulAlhazred View Post
    No, my assertion is that 4e has the best encounter design system of any edition, BY FAR.
    This I agree with 100%. There are a lot of things I disliked about 4e, but NOT their encounter design.

    In the case of Orcus, that means you are NASTY! Go take a look at the descriptions of 4e battles @pemerton has posted, nothing sounds like it was problematic there! So, can I make a nasty Orcus encounter that follows the 'rules' of DMG1? Yup! It will be a level 35 encounter, with level 35 terrain of the nastiest sort.

    I have 235,000 XP for my encounter budget, and Orcus (level 33 Solo Brute) takes 155,000. So I have 80,000 XP left in my budget. Lets suppose I choose to utilize 3 level 30 standard monsters, that's 57,000, so I have 23,000 left, which will get me 5 level 30 minions give or take 1000 XP.

    Now, I can have WHATEVER terrain and terrain powers and etc. I wish, there's no XP budget for those (yeah, you can maybe overdo it, but this is a CAPSTONE encounter of a whole campaign, so not really). I can fill the place with necrotic energy. Lets be nice and use an inverted Pillar of Life, at epic tier this will suck 15 hit points out of any character within say 3 squares (and we can put a bunch of them around). Then we can position the main combat area such that there are places where PCs can easily be forced out of the fight for a while, like slopes and drops. We're nasty so these lead to areas which trap and inhibit PCs (grasping slime and such). Note that all this stuff is actually FRIENDLY to our nice Demon Prince, and his boys.

    We can add some more nastiness, like some terrain powers which Orcus can use from locations which are difficult to access so he can make attacks with relative impunity, allowing him to soften up and debuff his opponents before choosing to appear at close range.
    Just a question because it has been a while for me - did terrain powers and the like not feature into the encounter design for difficulty? From your example the XP budget is completely filled up by monsters.

    No, they aren't. First of all, a LOT of MM1 and 2 monsters are never recapitulated at all, even in MV, which does rewrite a number of monsters for Essentials play. This is because they are perfectly good monsters! A lot of monsters really don't change much even when they ARE rewritten. Most often its an attempt to make the monster work in a more dynamic fashion, not to make it tougher. Hobgoblins are a great example. Their shield wall powers are stupid good in MM1, but also stupid boring (stand in a big formation and don't move unless you must).
    This I very much don't agree with. There were quite a few 4e threads/posts here on Enworld stating that whatever you think your party can do, double it and then some. I'm specifically speaking from paragon upwards. The monsters were generally weaker in MM1 and MM2. I remember using SlyFlourish's table to increase monster baseline stats because our table found them too easy and presumably others - considering the comments on Enworld.

  6. #66
    Member
    Orcus on an Off-Day (Lvl 22)



    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    5,750
    Reviews
    Read 5 Reviews

    ø Block Saelorn


    ø Friend+
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelSomething View Post
    How can you make/maintain an RPG when any one element can be terrible for a portion of its audience?

    Is it truly a zero-sum game?
    I think you're supposed to pick and choose your audience. It doesn't have to be a zero-sum game, where you cater to one side at the expense of the other, but the alternative is that you find some sort of compromise solution that neither side will be very enthusiastic about. And then you keep finding compromise solutions, for every problem that either side experienced.

    Generally speaking, it's better for a game if it targets a smaller audience, so it doesn't have to make those kinds of compromises. I mean, it makes for a better game, for the remaining audience that chooses to play it. (I can't judge whether or not it's more profitable, to release a mediocre game that targets a larger audience.)
    XP AbdulAlhazred gave XP for this post

  7. #67
    "Don't reply. Replying to threads about 4e never ends well, as they always descend into an edition war."

    "Quiet brain. I know what I'm doing. This is a thread about the essence of 4e. I played two campaigns and ran it for pretty much two years. I have a good idea what it's essence is."

    "Don't do it! Any comment on 4e that isn't unequivocally positive causers am immediate fanboy response. And you can't help but respond back."

    "I can handle it. I'm not going to get baited this time...."


    Stupid brain... always has to be right.
    I'm out. Enjoy your recreation of the e-battle of 2010.
    Read my webcomic & blog at:
    http://www.5mwd.com
    XP Imaro gave XP for this post

  8. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by Jester David View Post
    Option creep = power creep.



    As you say, the math changed for the Monster Manual 3. Which means that all prior monsters were imperfectly designed.

    Looking at the update from July 2010: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/UpdateJuly2010.pdf
    You'll notice the damage is increased dramatically at all levels. The defences for the brute, soldier, and artillery changed. So every single one was being hit 10% too often.
    Early monsters were significantly too weak to even match baseline PCs, let alone optimised ones after two years of regular crunch.


    Whataboutism.
    3e and 5e having similar issues does not excuse 4e of having encounter design problems.
    It does put those problems in perspective.

    Another perspective, you are harping on problems 4e had in its first year and had fixed before its second ended. Depending on the fix for proof of a problem.

    4e is a dead system, no amount of criticism, even if it were valid will help it improve.

    5e encounter guidelines are more complicated to use than 3e or 4e and produce less dependable results. It has had twice as long to fix them but no effort has been made.

    Perhaps you should get your own house in order before criticising the past state of another.

    It seems clear you are a very determined 5e booster and are trying to tar Pathfinder 2e with the same brush as 4e. That also looks like the objective of the thread starter.

    It's pointless 5e has clinched it's success, it has the D&D name and has returned to the D&D traditions, it didn't need to be as good as Pathfinder to beat Pathfinder in the market. It just needed to be half as bad as AD&D.
    Pathfinder 2e does need to be better than Pathfinder and it already looks to be on track.

    It will also be much better than 5e.
    Not by design or necessity just by default.

  9. #69
    Member
    The Grand Druid (Lvl 20)

    Ovinomancer's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Posts
    3,367
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews

    ø Block Ovinomancer


    ø Friend+
    Quote Originally Posted by Ted Serious View Post
    It does put those problems in perspective.

    Another perspective, you are harping on problems 4e had in its first year and had fixed before its second ended. Depending on the fix for proof of a problem.

    4e is a dead system, no amount of criticism, even if it were valid will help it improve.

    5e encounter guidelines are more complicated to use than 3e or 4e and produce less dependable results. It has had twice as long to fix them but no effort has been made.

    Perhaps you should get your own house in order before criticising the past state of another.

    It seems clear you are a very determined 5e booster and are trying to tar Pathfinder 2e with the same brush as 4e. That also looks like the objective of the thread starter.

    It's pointless 5e has clinched it's success, it has the D&D name and has returned to the D&D traditions, it didn't need to be as good as Pathfinder to beat Pathfinder in the market. It just needed to be half as bad as AD&D.
    Pathfinder 2e does need to be better than Pathfinder and it already looks to be on track.

    It will also be much better than 5e.
    Not by design or necessity just by default.
    Well. You've certainly proved @Jester David right.
    XP Imaro gave XP for this post
    Laugh Jhaelen laughed with this post

  10. #70
    Member
    Grandfather of Assassins (Lvl 19)



    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    3,387
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews

    ø Block Manbearcat


    ø Friend+
    This may not the thread for it, but I mentioned it in another thread.

    There is a very significant overlap in long term Star Wars fans/traditionalists and D&D (no surprise as these were two of the seminal zeitgeists of that era).

    I would think that one of the takeaways of 4e (essence) is:

    “Don’t piss off your traditionalist base.”

    4e was and has been relentlessly murdered for that.

    However, curiously, The Last Jedi was championed for just that (interestingly by some of the same crowd that has relentlessly attacked 4e) but put in pleasant terms such as “subverting expectations.”

    So I’m not sure that the “don’t alienate your base/piss off traditionalists” axiom is universal. It’s apparently not even universal among the significant D&D/Star Wars overlap!

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Similar Threads

  1. Eoris Essence RPG
    By invokethehojo in forum *General Roleplaying Games Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Wednesday, 16th September, 2015, 11:05 PM
  2. The Essence of D&D
    By The Hitcher in forum *D&D 5th Edition News, Rules, Homebrews, and House Rules
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: Monday, 28th July, 2014, 11:58 PM
  3. Essence of Necromancy
    By Byronic in forum *General Roleplaying Games Discussion
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: Saturday, 4th April, 2009, 10:07 AM
  4. What Is The Essence of D&D?
    By The Shadow in forum *Pathfinder, Starfinder, Older D&D Editions (4E, 3.x, 2E, 1E, OD&D), D&D Variants, OSR
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: Saturday, 1st September, 2007, 05:12 PM
  5. Essence of 3E DND
    By evildmguy in forum *Pathfinder, Starfinder, Older D&D Editions (4E, 3.x, 2E, 1E, OD&D), D&D Variants, OSR
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: Wednesday, 11th September, 2002, 08:06 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •