Apples and oranges. RPGs are not boardgames. Unless you are playing some hyperfocused indie game, rpgs are more open-ended than boardgames. Maybe, my hockey game campaign is about a rag-tag bunch of inner city kids that like hockey and a former amateur sensation serving community service as their coach. Suddenly, the overweight non-athletic character fits the game and I, as GM, can cut to various characters so the player of the out of shape player can have the character involved rather than sitting or to speed the passage of in game time.
D&D 5E Final playtest packet due in mid September.
- Thread starter Blackwarder
- Start date
Ahnehnois
First Post
I was invited into a group some time around 1998-1999. In the time period ranging from roughly 1999-2002 or so, we went through several iterations of that group, running parallel games with different DMs and getting people together from throughout the area through references from friends. The total number of people I played with in those early days was on the order of a few dozen. Then, around 2002 or 2003, we created on firm group of around ten people, which went through a couple of changes in membership, but stayed mostly the same through 2004. Then, we disbanded. Then, around 2007 or 2008, a group of four of us from the old group reconvened. Then, one left and was replaced with a new member I hadn't played with before. That has been my group for four or five years.
As to DMs, I started somewhere between ten or twelve years ago, having played with only two DMs before that IIRC. I then pretty much took over, but tried to encourage a rotating DM policy; so probably have played under around ten DMs total.
Bottom line: variety, then consistency, with ten years ago being roughly the time when we settled down. Clear?
To be a bias, something has to actually be not true. I'm not saying that bards are uniformly silly, only that the concept does not lend itself to adventuring as well as the concepts behind most of the other classes.
I am also biased, for example, in the sense that I think Craft (Basketweaving) is a less useful skill for adventuring than Hide or Use Magic Device. If you want to call that a bias. Feel free to provide a counterpoint example illustrating how basketweaving is just as useful.
You're basically just accusing me of incompetence, which you don't have any basis for and still wouldn't if I gave you the full statblock and a rundown of what happened (which I'm not all that inclined to spend time on). Believe me, this was a pretty well designed opponent. There were some minor things here and there, but the bottom line outcome is what it is.
This incidentally follows a battle against a druid that I did have the same conversation about on these boards, to which several intrepid posters suggested various can't-lose tactics, some of which were decent, all of which would have failed. Do we really need to repeat that?
I never said that. I'm pretty ambivalent about the work I've done. Just a path to something better...
I do, however, have a graduate degree in my field, which as far as I know game designers do not. And the publications I work on are subjected to peer review, which D&D is not. So I think a description of "paid amateur" is pretty apt. It's not a bad thing per se; many of us wish we could make any money by working on our hobbies as amateurs. And most of them are probably relatively good amateurs. It just means that the pedestal that some people put game designers on isn't warranted.
Yes, but that work is spread out over time. Also, it's free, whereas game books are getting spendy.
Then again, the other style of DMing I see a lot is simply playing fast and loose with the rules, which takes no time at all.
Not any players I've ever met.
Not any that I have met either--at least with any version of D&D.
am181d
Adventurer
People house rule the challenge rule in Scrabble all the time. Same thing with Monopoly and Free Parking. Checkers and mandatory jumps. Most games, if they've been around long enough, develop a ton of house rules. Heck, Poker is almost all house rules. And in none of those cases, is the goal of the house rule to make a particular player auto-win.
(And even if it were, how would that be relevant to RPGs, where winning isn't even a thing?)
I tend to find that trying a new system is quite straightforward for players, provided the GM has some familiarity and can guide them through it. For instance, a few weeks ago I GMed my 4e group through a session of Marvel Heroic RP - they chose PCs, I ran through the character sheets and rules, and then we played a session with two action scenes separated by a transition scene (writeup here).
It took me time to read the rulebook, sure, but that's time I'm happy to spend. It also costs money, too, but spending $50 a month on gaming books generally fits comfortably within my budget.
So I think trying new systems is a different sort of prospect for different groups.
Where is that implication found? The only version of D&D that is expressly focused on the encounter is 4e, and both the DMG and the PHB make it clear than an encounter may or may not involve combat; for instance, PHB p 9:
Encounters come in two types.
*Combat encounters are battles against nefarious foes. In a combat encounter, characters and monsters take turns attacking until one side or the other is defeated.
*Noncombat encounters include deadly traps, difficult puzzles, and other obstacles to overcome. Sometimes you overcome noncombat encounters by using your character’s skills, sometimes you can defeat them with clever uses of magic, and sometimes you have to puzzle them out with nothing but your wits. Noncombat encounters also include social interactions, such as attempts to persuade, bargain with, or obtain information from a nonplayer character (NPC) controlled by the DM. Whenever you decide that your character wants to talk to a person or monster, it’s a noncombat encounter.
*Combat encounters are battles against nefarious foes. In a combat encounter, characters and monsters take turns attacking until one side or the other is defeated.
*Noncombat encounters include deadly traps, difficult puzzles, and other obstacles to overcome. Sometimes you overcome noncombat encounters by using your character’s skills, sometimes you can defeat them with clever uses of magic, and sometimes you have to puzzle them out with nothing but your wits. Noncombat encounters also include social interactions, such as attempts to persuade, bargain with, or obtain information from a nonplayer character (NPC) controlled by the DM. Whenever you decide that your character wants to talk to a person or monster, it’s a noncombat encounter.
AD&D had a more narrow definition of "encounter" (eg traps and tricks don't count) and is not as focused on the encounter as the locus of play, but it also defines an encounter as including more than just combat; eg Gygax'x PHB pp 103-4:
During the course of an adventure, you will undoubtedly come across various forms of traps and tricks, as well as encounter monsters [which on p 40 have been defined to include "any creature encountered during the curse of adventuring", including NPCs] of one sort or another. While your DM will spend considerable time and effort to make all such occurrences effective, you and your fellow players must do everything within your collective power to make them harmless, unsuccessful or profitable. . .
A "monster" can be a kindy wizard or a crazed dwarf, a friendly brass dragon or a malicious manticore. Such are the possibilities of encounters . . . All encounters have the elements of movement and surprise . . . as well as initaitve, communicaiton, negotiation and/or combat.
A "monster" can be a kindy wizard or a crazed dwarf, a friendly brass dragon or a malicious manticore. Such are the possibilities of encounters . . . All encounters have the elements of movement and surprise . . . as well as initaitve, communicaiton, negotiation and/or combat.
There is no radical difference between the 4e and the AD&D characterisations here, except that 4e labels traps and tricks as forms of non-combat encounter.
And obviously the encounter/scene/situation-based games that influence 4e - like HeroWars/Quest, or Burning Wheel - don't define all encounters, either explicitly or implicitly, as combat encounters. Which is to say, the implication that you are imputing is a spurious one.
Is your objection to 4e that it lacks a non-combat resolution system, or that some particular build elements are too strong?
They are very different criticisms - eg whether or not one thinks that the longsword is an overpowered weapon in AD&D, one could hardly object that AD&D lacks a workable combat resolution system.
(I also don't really agree with the particular example - how is a wizard using Arcana 1x/enc going to do better in a social challenge than a bard using Words of Friendship 1x/enc, or a CHA-warlock using Beguiling Tongue 1x/enc?)
Ahnehnois
First Post
From whence does said familiarity come?
For me, spending $50 on a gaming product that I may only get one use out of and which may not fit my needs is not in my monthly budget.
Fair enough. For me, the equation of time and money clearly favors the kitbashing approach. Given different parameters, I might try more games. I wouldn't stop changing them though. If anything, the more systems I try, the more inclined I am to take the things I like from each and combine them.
Manbearcat
Legend
I saw this as well. I've seen tons of staggeringly incorrect assertions as of late. They go unparried because I think most of us have fatigue, or practiced apathy, at continuously correcting the record on things such as this and are now blunted toward (mal) contentedness with letting erroneous cultural memes proliferate ad infinitum.
Beyond this I've read multiple times of late how all of the 4e classes are the same because of the AEDU framework...neglecting the nature of how stock HPs/surges/proficiencies, the synergy of class features, the nuance of powers, and the backing/force multiplication of feats work in concert to make (for example):
- the Fighter manifest as a sturdy, damage-dealing, melee dominator who puts multiple foes where he wants them, keeps them there, imposes his will on enemy target acquisition and punishes enemies if they dare to do something outside of the Fighter's designs. Uniqueness of powers lies in the synergizing of them with the melee control features of the Fighter class; attack actions to control/multi-mark/augment damage, minor actions toward deploying stances/combat maneuvers/skirmishing/battlefield control, immediate actions to interpose himself between enemy and ally or to engage a new foe. Out of combat he can be your typical athletic, street-smart, tough, veteran of a martial existence that contributes to social and exploration encounters as the Fighter always has...and can go far, far further than ever before with feats, utility powers and theme dedicated to other areas.
- the Wizard manifest as a squishy, with extreme active defenses and control auras, but mobile opponent who utterly dictates the dynamics of the battlefield from well beyond the reach of the enemy. Uniqueness of powers lies in the deployment of game-changer Dailies and the art of the minor (and standard) action in sustaining battle-changing zones and summons. Out of combat he comes standard as your master of the transition scene and can affect the resolution of social, exploration and investigation challenges all extremely effectively (without dominating the game).
These two classes aren't even close (certainly not in play but not even on the tin). Its hard to imagine a vested player of the edition contending as much...an edition warrior, sure...and that happens all too often and it passes without protest these days. Too many people have written far too many effective, and patently obvious, rejoinders to these non-sequiturs but they continue unabated as if they are plainly true while being observably untrue (as in the "implicitly" example above...which leads inevitably toward traction with the "tactical skirmish game linked by freeform roleplay" dogpile crowd). It makes it difficult to even care to engage what otherwise is decent enough discussion in a great many threads.
I don't agree either and I wonder the same. How about any collection of the large number of stock Bard features, Utility powers, Bard only rituals and feats that make them social encounter monsters...at Heroic Tier alone?
Stock Bard Class Features for Social Encounters:
Arcana + 4 trained skills (including all the Cha skills, leveraging a maxed score, and Insight)
Bardic Training
Skill Versatility (+ 1 all untrained skills)
or
Words of Friendship (+ 5 Diplomacy which will pretty much always become a lock)
Bard Utility Powers for Social Encounters:
Bardic Lore
Inspire Competence
Clockwork Precision
Glimpse the Future
Veil
Bard Feats for Social Encounters:
Friendly Deception
Bard of All Trades
Envoy to the Fey
Bardic Knowledge
Bard Rituals for Social Encounters:
Glib Limerick
Lullaby
Call of Friendship
Anthem of Unity
Tune of Merriment
Chrous of Truth
The Wizard isn't better at solving Social challenges or resolving Social encounters than a stock Bard with no investment beyond their standard features. Customize the Bard with a Feat and a Utility power and you have a Social challenge behemoth.
Last edited:
Majoru Oakheart
Adventurer
I agree that sometimes things need to be modified for individual groups. I think the key thing for me is that I don't really HAVE a playstyle. I didn't develop one except what the rules generated for me.
It's perhaps that I really had no idea what D&D was when I first started playing. I was 15 and it was all completely new to me. How powerful were Wizards supposed to be? I had no idea. I didn't read fantasy books. I still didn't watch that much fantasy movies or tv shows. I was playing a game where it TOLD me how powerful Wizards were supposed to be. It told me how fast people were supposed to heal. It told me that certain moves in combat were more likely to work than others.
So, my playstyle was based on what the rules told me my playstyle should be. It just grew naturally out of what seemed like the best idea given the rules in the book. It wasn't until much, much later that the idea that someone would change the rules to suit what they wanted instead of just doing what the rules said even occurred to me. It still seemed like too much work so I avoided it, however. After all, was it easier to play in the style that worked well for the game or spend the effort to change the game so in played in an entirely different style? I already had Rifts, Shadowrun, Star Wars d6, Paranoia, Ninjas and Superspies, Heroes Unlimited, Palladium Fantasy, GURPS, Buck Rogers, Marvel, Champions, Hero Fantasy, Rolemaster, and a bunch more. Each of which encouraged a different playstyle and feel already. I'd played them all, but the feeling and playstyle that came just by following the rules in the D&D book was always the one I preferred. That's why I kept playing D&D instead of switching to any of the other systems.
I'm lazy and the last thing I want to do it do rules design. So, I'll play the game that's closest to my playstyle and deal with any issues that arise due to bad rules as they come...while hoping the designers come out with a new edition that fixes the problems.
Yeah. This has always been the issue for us. Without specific rules for something, it's left up to the DM to decide what effects, if any, performing the action actually has. Which is fine, if you don't care if you succeed or fail. But we've always taken the game seriously enough that failure kind of hurts. It's not an option we take laying down. So, it causes bad feelings and arguments each time the DM says no to something that a player felt should have worked.
It's not that I don't believe people shouldn't shine slightly more in one area than another. Fighters SHOULD be better at fighting...that's what they do. They should be worse in social situations. But I believe better or worse should be about 10, maybe 20 percent difference in performance. Battle should never be a situation where the Rogue leaps under the nearest table and hides until people stop fighting. It's amusing once or twice. Then, you realize that each time combat happens, you are leaving the room and playing some SNES games until the DM tells you you can come back.
See above. I agree, to an extent. I want everyone to be able to contribute at all times. I never want there to be a situation where a player feels that they are better served playing SNES games in the next room than being at the table.
Majoru Oakheart
Adventurer
None of those games put one player in charge of coming up with new rules, mind you. So, there is no one person who has a vested interest in changing the rules to favor them.
And I wouldn't say winning isn't a thing in D&D. "Winning D&D" might not be a thing. But you can win battles, you can win social interactions, you can win prizes(like magic items for your character), you can win adventures by foiling the enemies plot. This is especially true of old school dungeon crawls where getting to the end of them is a form of winning since the odds are stacked against you. Some DMs really hate when you get to the end of these. They feel they've failed.
Plus, sometimes the DM just has an idea of what is "supposed" to happen in their head and are willing to change the rules to make sure it happens. Even if the players would prefer that not happen.
I like the idea of emergent story. Where the story comes out of what happens when you roll the dice and follow the rules. If the rules are changed on the fly, the story isn't emergent anymore.
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️⚧️
There's nothing wrong with a play style like that - as long as you recognize that other people play differently and just as legitimately.
I'm not sure that a 10% difference would even be obvious in a game with a lot of dice rolling. You'd probably have to actually track results over the long term to even see it with any consistency.
Ultimately, the SNES distraction (or even at the table distractions) really signal to me that players are not engaged with the action at the table and that's a shame. But I'm not sure making everyone as effective or off by only about 10% or so is a sure remedy. Most often, I've seen that behavior with the same players no matter what their level of power tends to be. They're just weakly engaged with the process, particularly during someone else's turn. One of the most engaged players at my regular Thursday night table has about the same level of engagement in a fight even when his wizard is out of spells and plinking away with his crossbow, missing more often than hitting. But then, he engages with games - period. Another player is usually starting to crash by halfway through the session (early morning person with a mentally draining job) so her engagement is a bit weak, again, no matter what her power or character type. So in my experience, this seems to be more of an individual characteristic than because a character isn't fit for the situation at hand.
