View Profile: BryonD - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
  • Mark CMG's Avatar
    Saturday, 29th June, 2019, 05:04 PM
    Gamer and designer Lee Garvin passed away.
    203 replies | 16290 view(s)
    0 XP
No More Results
About BryonD

Basic Information

About BryonD
Age Group:
Over 40


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


Gold Pieces
General Information
Last Activity
Saturday, 29th December, 2018 08:21 PM
Join Date
Sunday, 20th January, 2002
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written

3 Friends

  1. Mark CMG Mark CMG is offline


    Mark CMG
  2. Psion Psion is offline


  3. Wulf Ratbane Wulf Ratbane is offline


    Wulf Ratbane
Showing Friends 1 to 3 of 3
No results to show...
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

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

Wednesday, 25th February, 2015

  • 03:33 PM - Imaro mentioned BryonD in post What are the Roles now?
    How? In AD&D melee is sticky: you can't move and attack unless you charge; if you come within 10' of a melee combatant you are locked into melee and can't withdraw at full speed without suffering a free rear attack sequence. 3E radically changed this, making freedom of movement in melee the default. 5e, like 4e, follows 3E in this respect. It is not like AD&D at all. I can't answer for @BryonD but I think he is speaking to a wider picture of "roles" as opposed to a singular detail of one class...which honestly still isn't very sticky in the bigger picture unless the terrain or luck is helping the fighter out... the fighter's opposition if already engaged with another target is free to continue attacking said target in AD&D witgh no immediate reprecussions (no way to mitigate him continuing to attack the squishy)... the fighter's opposition can just move around him and attack someone else (unless terrain, luck or some other mitigating factor helps the fighter)... and so on. So yeah if the fighter can engage him first, before his opponent gets near another enemy then I guess he can sorta kinda hold him there... Edit: Also when it comes to stickiness in AD&D how do you view the "Falling Back" and "Parry" maneuver... it seems like a prototype disengage action which while definitely harder to pull off gives the opponent an option to disengage without possibly taking that m...

Monday, 16th February, 2015

  • 12:28 AM - pemerton mentioned BryonD in post What are the Roles now?
    I agree entirely with Manbearcat's post 1029 upthread. BryonD, I have never used the term "h4ter" in this thread, nor - to the best of my recollection - in any thread ever. You want examples, if 4E fans accepted that roles felt different to a lot of people in 4E than they do in other editionsThis is not in dispute. But it is not relevant to the question of whether or not other editions had roles. Manifestly, no fighter in AD&D could be a healer or a buffer on a par with a cleric. (And this is one respect in which AD&D and 4e resemble one another pretty closely.) That is the sort of distinction in areas of competence that roles are made of. Fighters in AD&D and in 4e are both very sticky. But the mechanical devices whereby these are achieved are very different - I've outlined them earlier upthread, and again just above. I've got not doubt that some people don't care about generically sticky melee but dislike stickiness achieved by deploying a class ability (imposing the marked condition, or forced movement, or the slowed condition, et...

Friday, 6th February, 2015

  • 12:27 AM - Imaro mentioned BryonD in post What are the Roles now?
    This is just my perception, but I believe you are mistaken when you equate "Flow" with BryonD's concept of "character immersion." I believe he is talking about associated mechanics, which are distinct from flow. So when you try to disprove his statement by pointing out that you've felt flow while playing chess, to you this seems like a clincher while to Bryon it is irrelevant--he's not talking about flow in the first place. Yeah I know this "flow" he's talking about isn't what I was thinking @BryonD meant when he said "character immersion". but then I don't think @Neonchameleon is really looking to understand other views and/or playstyles only to disparage and insult them on the sly... the one style is treating players like adults comment earlier (of course it's his style :erm:)... the claim that the form of immersion he's arguing against can be experienced in chess (but let someone make a comparison between chess and 4e and it's edition war time) and so on...

Thursday, 22nd January, 2015

  • 12:48 AM - Neonchameleon mentioned BryonD in post What are the Roles now?
    ...aracters (indeed the only one that's any good in other peoples' roles in 2e is the Cleric - or the wizard into rogue). I have demonstrated how this is the case. Either your statements about 2e have nothing at all to do with 4e or I am not producing a strawman. As for your claim that the monk was a good class, apparently only intent means anything - execution is meaningless. Blue, 2e has a vastly more limited range of classes than 4e. Occupation is both your role and how you fill it. Yes, clerics can drift. But the fighter occupation says you are good at killing things with weapons and can take a lot of damage. The occupation role says you are good at sneaking and with skills. The cleric occupation is a jack of all trades with healing. And the wizard occupation gives you almost no hit points, no armour proficiency, no ability to take a hit, but a whole lot of arcane magic. Of course later 2e loosened the shackles especially for the cleric (specialty clerics were ... interesting). BryonD, I think we're roughly on the same page. Our tastes differ, but our analysis doesn't. And for the record I'm a big fan of RC D&D (or BECMI) as well as 4e. Very different games however.

Saturday, 3rd January, 2015

  • 02:28 AM - Hussar mentioned BryonD in post Waibel's Rule of Interpretation (aka "How to Interpret the Rules")
    BryonD - I am participating because I think there are other gamers, like me, who prefer consensus style games and I'm providing an example of how consensus games work. You, instead, are trying to tell me that consensus games actually don't work (they are milquetoast) and that the "proper" way to play is your style. Celebrim[/url] Aren't you the one who spent a considerable amount of time detailing slaad? I believe you are. Are you also not the one who spent considerable time criticising WOTC for their 4e changes to Salad? Yup, I'm pretty sure you were the one in that conversation. So, I would say that if I dropped Slaad in my game and did them in a completely different way, completely ignoring all prior canon regarding slaad, maybe my slaad are from the Abyss, you would have no problems whatsoever? You'd never so much as questi...

Thursday, 16th October, 2014

  • 12:38 AM - Hussar mentioned BryonD in post Supplemental books: Why the compulsion to buy and use, but complain about it?
    ... the players so they don't get advantage over the game"? My entire problem with this whole thing is that it's presented as, "Players must always compromise with the DM but the DM only has to compromise if he or she feels like it. If compromising would bring something into the game that the DM doesn't like, then, well, tough noogies, don't compromise". I think that's very toxic advice to many gaming tables. I believe that unless the DM can convince the players with well reasoned arguments, then what the player wants is probably fine for the game. And no, I don't believe that "Well, I don't like it" is a valid argument for a DM. If the player really wants a tiefling and the only issue is an aesthetic one? Suck it up and let the player play what he wants. It's not your character, it's his. He's the one who has to fill that roll for dozens if not hundreds of hours. I dislike strongly any advice that says that the DM is entitled to enforce his personal tastes on the group. .... BryonD, sorry, no, I don't see the issues as separate. A DM who is that laser beam focused on his campaign that he cannot adjust it before the campaign starts to accommodate fairly minor changes - adding in a one shot race character isn't that hard after all, we do have Plane Shift spells in the game - IME will not suddenly become completely free and easy after the campaign starts. If he won't allow you to take something he doesn't like, not because it will break his game or invalidate the campaign in some way, but solely because of his own personal tastes, what makes you think he's suddenly let you do something that doesn't fit with his personal tastes once the game starts. I'm sorry, but, I've seen it far, far too many times to believe that it's an isolated thing. Granted, it's entirely a taste thing. The second I sit down at a table and the DM starts getting very controlling about exactly what gets created at chargen, alarm bells start going off in my head. And, again, IME, after the...

Tuesday, 2nd September, 2014

  • 12:55 AM - pemerton mentioned BryonD in post I for one hope we don't get "clarification" on many things.
    here are some more words and phrases you commonly use which have no clear meaning to I suspect a lot of people here, and certainly to me: mechanical vectors, fiction first, and most references to agency. I have never used the phrase "mechanical vector". I am guessing, though, that it would refer to the mechanical contribution to action resolution (and its use would generate an implication that there are other relevant factors, so that the mechanical vector is not the only vector). "Fiction first" is a phrase I first encountered being used by Raven Crowking (who no longer posts on these boards), BryonD and LostSoul. Like many terms in RPGing (eg railroading) it's use is somewhat contested, but it is meant to emphasise the priority of the shared fiction in adjudicating action declarations. "Agency" is an ordinary word of English. I would have thought you'd be familiar with it, given that you are a lawyrer. The exercise of agency contrasts with passivity, leaving things to others, etc. In the context of RPGing, "player agency" and "player entitlement" are two competing descriptions for the same (or similar) phenomena.

Monday, 11th August, 2014

  • 02:55 PM - Hussar mentioned BryonD in post Why use D&D for a Simulationist style Game?
    Yes, wizards are magical creatures, more resistant to injury than mere muggles. This is traditional lore. It need not be the case within every fictional reality, but it covers this one obvious gap within the D&D ruleset. What traditional lore would that be? I'm drawing a blank here where wizards are more resistant to injury than anyone else. Can you point me somewhere? Or, more reasonably, the wizard has Mage Armor going, like the vast majority of wizards who expect combat at some point. Seriously, unarmored characters are pretty rare. It's not worth adding substantial complexity to the ruleset in order to cover that. I get taken to task pretty hard for even beginning to claim any sort of universality to my experience. I have to wonder why Imaro and bill91 and BryonD aren't taking you to task for the same thing. Unarmored characters are not rare at all IME. The wizard for one almost never has any armour on. The question was the type of wound suffered by a PC, which I posit would be blunt force, since the PC was wearing armor. Natural Armor doesn't necessarily work the same way as worn armor, even if we can model it in a similar way. In any simulation that is less complex than the underlying reality, you're going to get similar mechanics that represents multiple things within the game world. Note that your idea is actually directly in contradiction to what the rules say. THere's absolutely nothing in the rules to support this. The idea that if I put on a suit of armour, all damage becomes bludgeoning is not found anywhere in the mechanics and this is 100% on you. Bears are super tough, and it's unlikely to even feel an axe hit that isn't well placed. The bear's thick hide protects it in much the same way as chainmail, but the...

Monday, 7th July, 2014

  • 12:39 PM - The Hitcher mentioned BryonD in post Weak Saving Throws
    If you're completely unwilling to offer examples of any kind, why the heck invoke "archetypes" and "fantasy literature"? Seems senseless. Thousands of movies? Surely you can name some? I was just responding to someone else's unsupported claim about genre norms, but now I'm referring to lower-level Hero's Journey archetypes. The Hero overcomes Challenges with help from Allies, that kind of thing? Yes, he traditionally has to face Death alone, but that's in a story where he's the primary protagonist. D&D has to meld the journeys of several heroes into one. E.g. Return of the Jedi ends with Luke being dominated by the Emperor, before finally overcoming him. But plenty of preceding scenes in the trilogy involve teamwork between various characters to overcome the opposition. Doesn't seem much of a stretch to combine the two ideas given the specific context of tabletop role-playing. It feels appropriate to me, at any rate. EDIT: And @BryonD says it better above^ No, I haven't. I have no idea who you are thinking of. I'm not necessarily going to run it (in reality, I probably will at least a bit), but I'll almost undoubtedly end up playing it (either that or my bro will stick with PF, and frankly, better 5E than PF!). I guess these were the statements that gave me that impression: Indeed. Right now it looks I'd be basically paying to get a game where I'd have to re-write a significant minority of the mechanics. That's a dumb thing to pay for. PHB and DMG may change that opinion, but it's desperately "MEH" rules-wise. Elements of fluff are nice, some rules ideas are nice, but there's so much "MEH". The entire spell chapter is one giant "MEH". Perhaps it was just wishful thinking.

Saturday, 5th July, 2014

  • 03:56 AM - pemerton mentioned BryonD in post Weak Saving Throws
    ... job in combat to protect my allies from harm, then a Hold Person on me does a pretty good job of removing the wizard from combat. He's certainly not dropping orbital nukes on me and my party with his 9th level slot. Instead he's concentrating on me.Page 80 of Basic says that concentrating on a spell precludes casting another spell that requires concentration. But it doesn't stop other spell-casting, does it? So you use Hold or Dominate or Otto's to take out the fighter, then a damaging spell with a DEX or CON save to apply pressure to the rest of the party. I'm kinda stuck scratching my head here. I don't see how this is a problem. It's called a flaw within a character. Why should a 20th level fighter be more vulnerable to SoS from a 20th level mage than a 1st level fighter is from a 1st level mage? Ie why should the "flaw" get worse? This idea that high level fighters must be weak against MUs is purely a function of 3E. It's not true in B/X, nor in AD&D, nor in 4e. And BryonD, the relevant narrative concept is Aragorn. Or Faramir. Or Conan. Or Arren in The Farthest Shore. Or Captain America. There is a lot of narrative space in which powerful warriors are not easily made pawns to wizards. (Also, gaining 14 levels does make you better at getting out of the way of fireballs - that's what hp represent, remember, namely skill at dodging and turning aside fireballs and other blows. The worry is about SoS, not damage.)

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
No results to display...

Sunday, 5th July, 2015

  • 06:49 PM - AbdulAlhazred quoted BryonD in post Why does 5E SUCK?
    I think the market results speak louder than your anecdote. What makes you the spokesman for the people you claim were turned off? Well, which market results are those? Nobody really knows the story there. I've heard reams of speculation by 4e detractors, and that's about it. Nobody, except possibly WotC, fully understands the factors, but I see that since 2000 a new edition has arisen ever 3-6 years (3.0 in 2000, 3.5 in 2003, 4th in 2008, 5th in 2014). There are a lot of ways to spin all this, a lot of bits and pieces of information that can be gathered up and pored over. I think its better to stick to what we actually saw for ourselves. My conclusion is that all the screaming and chest-thumping had very little impact on D&D as a business. WotC continues to do what they have done for 15 years now, release substantial revisions of the game every time the previous edition's sales have begun to slow substantially. Meanwhile with each such iteration they've experimented in some fashion with...
  • 06:02 PM - AbdulAlhazred quoted BryonD in post Why does 5E SUCK?
    "Objectively examining what the real-world difficulty of climbing a mountain in a blizzard is" will have some non-zero element of consideration (as it would in 4E). But establishing a consistent difficulty where commoners would assuredly die and then letting the party see where they match up works quite nicely. And putting more emphasis on how difficult it would be for Aragorn or Conan would also weigh more in the analysis than "real-world". But either way, the idea that you are saying "well, these are paragon PCs, so..." is a major non-starter. I think my point is that you're saying the same thing. 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 ...
  • 05:52 PM - AbdulAlhazred quoted BryonD in post Why does 5E SUCK?
    Whatever. I think you are embracing some heavy double standards. 4E alienated a very large number of people from day 1 and it was not going to be fixed with tweaks. So you need to either accept that either "productive" means big changes that may not all be things you like, or accept that WotC and the 4E fanbase CHOOSE to turn their backs on a lot of people and the bad will and the sooner than later end of 4E resulted. I offered my table to whomever wanted to try playing at it. I never turned my back on anyone. Again with the double standards, my statement here was in response to you saying ". OTOH you have to ask yourself with whom you sided in those debates." Why do I need to ask myself this while you are free to ignore who you sided with? I 'sided with'? What makes you think I 'sided with' anyone? You moan about being a victim and being painted with a wide brush along with others, and then you whip out the very same brush and do it right back. Stop bitching. I never sided with a...
  • 12:29 PM - pemerton quoted BryonD in post Why does 5E SUCK?
    I also maintained that it was the obligation of WotC and the 4E fanbase to try to understand WHY people felt that way.What is the source and nature of this obligation?
  • 10:07 AM - pemerton quoted BryonD in post Why does 5E SUCK?
    OMG, you just said a game I love isn't an RPG. I'm deeply offended. Because you play chess as an RPG? Tell me more.
  • 04:50 AM - AbdulAlhazred quoted BryonD in post Why does 5E SUCK?
    I would have preferred some things be different as well. In the end, the 4E fanbase had more to lose. I have, on multiple occasions stated that I disagree with the "videogame" claim and other claims. But I also maintained that it was the obligation of WotC and the 4E fanbase to try to understand WHY people felt that way. I think blowing off simplistic arguments as pure "'I hate your game' putdowns" is simply closed minded and short sighted. Obviously it lacks elegance. But if you make zero effort to try to understand why someone would feel that way in the first place, then you are never going to get anywhere. And, again, the 4e fanbase had more to lose. And you did. Well, I don't know. I'm not sure FANS had any huge obligation to go in and analyze anything. WotC might have had some INTEREST in doing so, and in fact I would argue they did exactly that. I'm not the greatest fan of their response, but clearly they did respond. First they incorporated elements that were requested into 4e...
  • 03:46 AM - AbdulAlhazred quoted BryonD in post Why does 5E SUCK?
    I call complete BS on that. Obviously the over and over theme of just pure ranting is true. But there were NUMEROUS times when many different people, myself included, suggested ways to make the game better and we were attacked and spewed upon by 4E fans with just as much vitriol as any "h4ter" ever offered. The fundamental premise of 4E was unappealing to a very large number of people. And proposing changes to bring those people into the tent was decried as "backwards" and "fear of change", and we were told that if that was what we wanted then D&D didn't need us anyway because 10 new players would join the ranks for every one that that left. I think there's plenty of room for many different experiences to have been had, and undoubtedly the same events can be seen in many different lights. I'd prefer it if the response was more along the lines of "I didn't see my suggestions being greeted with any enthusiasm by others." Part of the problem was the whole divisiveness. I don't know exactly w...

Saturday, 4th July, 2015

  • 01:20 PM - Celtavian quoted BryonD in post Why does 5E SUCK?
    Did I say "failed"? I probably did somewhere along the way, but context is important. It failed at being competitive with other options for my play style. It failed at being something WotC elected to stick with. It failed to revolutionize the number of people playing TTRPGs through bringing waves of fans from other media. It failed at avoiding a meaningful degree of fanbase burnout. The biggest fail was not maintaining the D&D market share. That is what motivated the change to 5E. 4E coupled with the OGL allowed Pathfinder to succeed at taking a huge chunk of the D&D market share. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall in those meetings. If I were Hasbro and I had purchased this dominant TTRPG that had no real competition for a decade, and suddenly my customer based is splintered and a competitor just stole half my market, I would have been pissed beyond recognition.
  • 04:18 AM - pemerton quoted BryonD in post Why does 5E SUCK?
    I can roleplay chess.I don't see how. Chess has no rules for generating fiction out of players' moves, and no rules for any fiction constraining action declaration or affecting its adjudication.

Friday, 3rd July, 2015

  • 10:02 PM - tyrlaan quoted BryonD in post Why does 5E SUCK?
    Being called h4ter for not liking it got old about a day after 4E came out. Tony is still throwing that around non-stop and still preaching the delusion of conspiracy. If you want to be critical of blind undending criticism, you might want to start on your own side of the fence. I'm not saying that this is your obligations by any means. But if you want you indignation to seem fair, you might want to start there. Blind uneding criticism is bad. Refusing to acknowledge, accept and adapt to considered and thoughtful criticism is also bad. There was a moment in time when the 4E fan, just maybe, could have embraced input and bettered the longevity of 4E. They did quite the opposite. As a 4e fan, I can definitely tell you I perceived a lot of the same on the other side of the fence as well. All I'm really saying is the whole load of it was terrible. Terrible for fans of any edition of D&D. And what you say is so completely on point, but people tend to have trouble with criticism, whic...
  • 06:42 PM - AbdulAlhazred quoted BryonD in post Why does 5E SUCK?
    I recognize you are responding to others, and I do not embrace everything being stated from any quarter here. But do you find this highly ironic? When 4E first rolled out it was vastly praised as the game for newbie GMs and everything was made foolproof for a brand new player to jump in as DM. This was hailed as the cornerstone of the soon to be vastly expanded player base. What happened to that? I don't note that pemerton validated those opinions of 4e. One COULD respond with "fans of earlier editions uncharitably met any change in their game with hatred and derision, poisoning the community atmosphere and driving players away." I would note that a lot of new incoming D&Ders have had very positive experiences with 4e. It is quite an easy game to pick up, the rules are quite simple and orthogonal, its presentation of game elements is clear and straightforward, etc. There clearly were some issues of presentation that didn't help. In some respects the game might have given more of a nod...
  • 05:32 PM - tyrlaan quoted BryonD in post Why does 5E SUCK?
    Google me. You will find long detailed explanations on these forums. I'm not going to rehash now pointless minutia regarding 4E. But it is worth responding when the same old arguments of "but you just don't understand 4E" are pulled out. I do understand. A lot of people understand. Posting a longwinded lecture on the finer points with the conceit that others are simply failing to appreciate 4E through their own ignorance is worth disputing now as much as it was then. Getting into the details of every issue, not at all worth as much now as it was then. Hmm. Finer points. Lecture. Telling word choices. Honestly, this in no way seems to explain why you would post at all then. If you don't want to talk about it then why hint at talking about it? Just seems passive aggressive to me. But if you consider a more robust reply to be best described as a lecture, by all means feel free to keep your thoughts to yourself in that case. I'm good; I can live comfortably not understanding yo...
  • 04:55 PM - pemerton quoted BryonD in post Why does 5E SUCK?
    Ok, you don't understand it.Feel free to tell me whether or not my conjectured interpretation was accurate! Just be aware that there are people who fully appreciate the point you are making and still find it woefully inadequate compared to other options.You might have misunderstood what I am doing. I'm not trying to persuade anyone to enjoy anything or find anything "adequate". I'm trying to explain how 4e actually works. In respect of this, I refer you to Hemlock's posts 1025 and 811 - that exactly what I was trying to achieve with my posts. More generally, I'm finding the discussion with Hemlock, Celtavian and others interesting to get a sense of how 5e resembles 4e (in some respects) and differs from it (in other respects) - all of which was provoked by AbdulAlhazred's own interesting posts comparing the level-appropriate guidelines for DC-setting that 4e has and 5e lacks (for better or worse - obviously a matter on which tastes differ).
  • 02:41 PM - tyrlaan quoted BryonD in post Why does 5E SUCK?
    Ok, you don't understand it. We discussed it at length many time before back when 4E was relevant. Just be aware that there are people who fully appreciate the point you are making and still find it woefully inadequate compared to other options. Gonna be honest with you, I'm not really understanding why you are responding to this thread, and here's why: You have made a few comments now which have raised questions of curiosity or requests for clarity. However, your respond to these can be summed up as "not going to explain". If you are going to say something other people don't understand, and they politely inquire about, but then you don't contribute anything in response, what's the point of posting? Fifth Edition doesn't have rules taking into account that you're trying to tell a story, and in my opinion, it is stronger for it. Since 5E isn't trying to tell a story - and rather, just lets the story happen however it unfolds, without regard to its dramatic or narrative weig...
  • 04:29 AM - AbdulAlhazred quoted BryonD in post Why does 5E SUCK?
    We had a lot of conversations in the past about the system dictating the world to me. It seems to me that it is really just the D&D concept of character progression in general that is doing the dictating here, isn't it? I mean you can't just fight orcs all day every day for your whole career in AD&D, but nobody would call this a problem with the game 'dictating the fiction' (IE telling the DM to put in Ogres at some point). So it hardly seems like a criticism of any specific version of the game. Nor is something like Cave Slime so critical an element of the game that saying it is being dictated really makes that much sense. You can leave out Cave Slime, nobody will miss it. You can use it once at one level and decree that in your world all Cave Slime is level 10, nobody will even raise an eyebrow. Frankly I doubt in all my time of DMing 4e I ever used one of these terrain types more than once anyway, so the whole thing is one of those mountainous molehills.
  • 02:46 AM - pemerton quoted BryonD in post Why does 5E SUCK?
    Every example you provide adds narrative presumptions that are not wanted or otherwise mandatory. Once you start to perceive that difference, the issues are glaring.I don't think I understand this. What is a "narrative presumption"? Do you mean the assumption that the area the demigods are exploring is more inherently magical than the area the 1st level PCs are exploring? If that is the "presumption" that you mean, and if it is not wanted, then as AbdulAlhazred has said you don't have to do it. Though as he has also said, you probably wouldn't bother wasting table time making players roll checks that can't fail to see if their demigods can keep their footing in cave slime of the sort found at the mouth of a typical kobold lair.

Thursday, 2nd July, 2015

  • 11:35 PM - tyrlaan quoted BryonD in post Why does 5E SUCK?
    I have nothing against 4E. I just don't consider it to be an RPG, in the traditional sense. I struggle to consider the "I have nothing against 4e" part of your statement remotely genuine. For starters, you follow up with stating you don't consider it's an RPG. Guess what? It is. I realize you have some very specific definitions of what an RPG should be, but you are not the person who sets the world standard definition of what constitutes and RPG. In turn, this means your claim that it's not an RPG can't be used objectively at all. So if you want to consider it a non-RPG in your eyes, that's fantastic, but you don't have the authority to decide that for others. But that's exactly what you try to do here... Definitions are useful in as far as they allow meaningful discussion and inform decision-making. I consider the objective reality - the consistent-stat-representation-requirement - to be such a fundamental rule of RPGs that I would not consider games which violate that rule to s...
  • 08:39 PM - AbdulAlhazred quoted BryonD in post Why does 5E SUCK?
    OK I've been in numerous debates with 4E fans calling me "h4ter" for not liking this feature. So be it. You're of course perfectly welcome to hate that technique. I just don't think anyone can in all fairness call it a central feature of 4e. It MAY have been intended, I don't really know, but the game works perfectly well without it. In the MMs they sometimes stat up different variations of a certain monster at quite different levels. This clearly serves a sort of adjustment-like purpose. For example Orcus has a bunch of epic level minion ghouls he can summon. They're different from normal ghouls, and MUCH higher level, so I don't think they are exactly 'minionized ghouls', but they certain serve the purpose of "a type of ghoul that works in the context of being summoned by Orcus." I personally like the concept, and I have used it, though I don't think it is something that I need to lean on too heavily.
  • 05:22 AM - AbdulAlhazred quoted BryonD in post Why does 5E SUCK?
    Wow. No he doesn't. At two different points in his life he is modeled two different ways. The is completely and entirely unlike 4E where the EXACT same individual in the exact same second is modeled differently depending on who is standing next to him. I still want to know where people get this from. NOTHING in 4e ever suggests using different stat blocks for the same creature situationally. It has been accepted practice in the 4e community to do so, but it is entirely a step beyond what the rules suggest. In fact I don't know of any 4e text which suggests that the developers of 4e held a view clearly different from Saelorn's.

Tuesday, 30th June, 2015

BryonD's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites