Rebutting a fallacy: why I await 5e (without holding my breath)

[Krensky]

That's not actually correct. Older versions of D&D were more fun for people who don't have personality disorders, this is true. But the actual mechanics were a .

What I want is a modern version, that is accessible, user-friendly, fast playing, and rewards in-character decisions more than it rewards locking oneself in their basement and fapping over a 4ft. stack of source books until they spurt out their latest character build masterpiece.

I want modern D&D that requires more player interaction than just skill rolls ("I don't give a turd what your thievery skill is...tell me HOW you are disarming the trap), rewards experience for ALL in-game accomplishments rather than just slaughtering things uglier than the PC's, and something that pushes the mechanics back behind the screen where they belong...behind the screen.

3.x characters were pretty much magic decks with names written on them, and 4th edition games are like playing spreadsheet wars. All I want is a return to the basics. My opinion might not be popular...but it IS right.

I'm sure I'm tilting at a windmill here...

Your two paragraphs are so mind numbingly offensive and wrong they don't deserve comment.

As for the first part of the third, that's a play style issue. My take on it is that I'm not a thieve or adventurer. I have no clue how to disarm ancient traps in forgotten tombs. That's why my character has skills. Just like he has a target number ot hit things with the pointy metal thing he carries. You may detest this playstyle, but it doesn't make it wrong. Just like how I can't stand GM-may-I and pixel bitching. That doesn't make you wrong.

Where you are wrong is from the middle of the third paragraph to the end. D&D 3.X and 4e (if memory serves) explicitly give XP for overcoming challenges and doing things with NPCs other then killing them.

As for the rest, that's your opinion. Your inflammatory, nonsensical opinion. It;'s not right, it';s just an opinion. One without any apparent support other then "I hate D&D".

 

[Lanefan]

Huggy or Swatty?

Yes.

Lan-"and Smokey and Yogi too"-efan

 

[Connallmac]

What I want is a modern version, that is accessible, user-friendly, fast playing, and rewards in-character decisions........

I want modern D&D that requires more player interaction than just skill rolls ("I don't give a turd what your thievery skill is...tell me HOW you are disarming the trap), rewards experience for ALL in-game accomplishments rather than just slaughtering things uglier than the PC's, and something that pushes the mechanics back behind the screen where they belong...behind the screen.

3.x characters were pretty much magic decks with names written on them, and 4th edition games are like playing spreadsheet wars. All I want is a return to the basics. My opinion might not be popular...but it IS right.

This WAS what I wanted about two or so years ago, before I came to the Promised Land that is Savage Worlds. Now from a personal standpoint I really couldn't care less about what WotC does with 4.5 or 5e, I've got the game I want to play and run for my friends. It worries me that they may come out with a version that is even more complex and less user friendly to new players than 3.5 or 4e. I want to see this hobby continue to live and grow and be healthy, and I think that is more likely to happen with a healthy WotC and a simpler, easier, and in my opinion better version of D&D.

 

[ExploderWizard]

That's not actually correct. Older versions of D&D were more fun for people who don't have personality disorders, this is true. But the actual mechanics were a .

What I want is a modern version, that is accessible, user-friendly, fast playing, and rewards in-character decisions more than it rewards locking oneself in their basement and fapping over a 4ft. stack of source books until they spurt out their latest character build masterpiece.

I want modern D&D that requires more player interaction than just skill rolls ("I don't give a turd what your thievery skill is...tell me HOW you are disarming the trap), rewards experience for ALL in-game accomplishments rather than just slaughtering things uglier than the PC's, and something that pushes the mechanics back behind the screen where they belong...behind the screen.

3.x characters were pretty much magic decks with names written on them, and 4th edition games are like playing spreadsheet wars. All I want is a return to the basics. My opinion might not be popular...but it IS right.

I'm confused. The old rules as they were still serve perfectly well for the playstyle you describe.

What could 'modern D&D' offer in the way of actual mechanics to give you what you want? Whare are your actual hang ups with the older mechanics?

Do you have any examples of rules or procedures that would be more modern yet still require player interaction?

Please give a glimpse of what a return to the basics should look like if you are going to insist that it is the only correct way.

 

[Gizmoduck5000]

I'm sure I'm tilting at a windmill here...
Your two paragraphs are so mind numbingly offensive and wrong they don't deserve comment.

Then why did you comment on them?

As for the first part of the third, that's a play style issue. My take on it is that I'm not a thieve or adventurer. I have no clue how to disarm ancient traps in forgotten tombs. That's why my character has skills. Just like he has a target number ot hit things with the pointy metal thing he carries. You may detest this playstyle, but it doesn't make it wrong. Just like how I can't stand GM-may-I and pixel bitching. That doesn't make you wrong.

Sure...it's a playstyle issue. One playstyle is lazy and unimaginative, requiring nearly no thought put into the part of the game that is actually played around the table...and the other is actually fun and rewarding.

No wonder you like newer D&D so much, you don't actually have to be good at anything. Just write numbers down on a sheet and the thing runs on auto-pilot. No need to engage the gameworld at all. Must be gratifying to succeed without actually having to put any effort in. Congratulations.

Personally, I prefer to make decisions relevant to the actual game when I'm sitting at the table, not when I'm locked in my little basement dungeons with a bunch of splatbooks and a half empty bottle of Zyprexa. This si why I support bringing puzzle problems back to the forefront...something players can't just roll their way out of. You can't imagine how to disarm a trap without getting killed? Too bad. Learn....or lose your character. Simple as that.

The problem with modern D&D is that the game focuses on crap that other media does much better: sweaty-palmed, giggling, solitary, obsessive, competitive number-crunching. Videogames do this much better than TTRPG's. D&D needs to focus on fast, simple, imaginative, interactive play. The playstyle you describe, wherein everyone simply plugs their game sprite into the sourcecode and watched passively while the system automates all of their roleplaying, is really just masturbation. And hey, there's nothing wrong with masturbation...I just prefer not to do it in front of a table full of my friends.

Where you are wrong is from the middle of the third paragraph to the end. D&D 3.X and 4e (if memory serves) explicitly give XP for overcoming challenges and doing things with NPCs other then killing them.

Actually, no. No they don't. See, YOU aren't actually overcoming any challenges. YOU are just watching while the numbers on your sheet overcome these challenges. These challenges were pretty much predetermined when you leveled your character up, and the only real variable was the die roll. So really what those games are rewarding is the numbers on your sheet. So give your numbers a pat on the back for me.

As for the rest, that's your opinion. Your inflammatory, nonsensical opinion. It;'s not right, it';s just an opinion. One without any apparent support other then "I hate D&D".

Of course it's an opinion. That's the wankiest, most pussified defense that I hear on gaming boards. Just because it's technically subjective doesn't mean that it doesn't curb stomp your weaker and less defensible opinion before impregnating it's mother AND it's girlfriend.

Your opinion comes from laziness, uncertainty and fear of failure. Skill ranks? Pfft. Do 90 lb. wheezing, asthmatics really have any grounds at all to whine about not being on an NFL team? Certain people are good at certain types of games. The key component to playing D&D is imagination...if you don't have any imagination, then why are you playing? Did it ever occur to you that D&D might not be your bag? Why not find a hobby that doesn't require imagination but DOES reward pedantry. Like stamp collecting.

So yes...that's all my opinion. But it's BETTER than yours. It's better than everyones. And any opinion that doesn't agree with mine is flat-out wrong AT BEST. At worst, it's a dangerous and virulent aberration of logic that needs to be quarantined and destroyed before it reaches the general public.

And any arguments that refute mine are just disingenuous, weasel-mouthed verbal trickery, designed to lead people on the path to ruin.

 

[Gizmoduck5000]

Sorry, but I am afraid that I have disagreed with several of your posts, and this is another such.

First off - in what way are Paizo weasels? They produce good solid games with good solid support. They have built upon a system that WotC abandoned, with a license that allowed exactly that, a license that I believe was intended to allow exactly that, going by several of the authors of said license.

They did not create the rules in their original form, but did improve them - and have claimed nothing more than exactly that. In what way does this make them weasels?

Also, the Beginner's Box is levels 1-5, which may have been what you meant, not 1-15, which is what you wrote.

Feats do have a place in the 3.X architecture, and while I do not play, nor have any desire to play, 4e, I have no trouble believing that they serve their purpose in that architecture as well.

I will take three saves as opposed to the overly narrow focus of saves in AD&D 1 & 2. I will keep the feats, and the systems that hold together in a coherent hole over the mixed systems of the TSR days - I will take an attack bonus over a THAC0 any day of the week.

I also don't think that 3.X or Pathfinder is overly complicated, nor do I think that non-casters are as gimped as you seem to think. If the games are such that you need medication, perhaps you should see a doctor?

More seriously, it sounds like you should avoid D&D from AD&D on - there are other games out there that might suit your tastes better. Have you tried True20? True20 has become my default for when I want a generic system that I can tailor to fit a setting.

Perhaps you should focus more on what you want in a game rather than rant about games that are not to your personal tastes. C&C is not to my personal taste, but there are folks who like it. Osric is much the same in regards to my preferences, but perhaps it would be more in line with your own tastes?

Find a game and shout its praises rather than rail against an uncaring sky. Do not call a company 'weasels' because they do exactly what they claimed to be doing - keeping the edition they enjoyed alive. Why rant at either Paizo or WotC because they do not cater to your own niche? Find something that you do like and play it, leave the medication in its jar.

The Auld Grump

First of all, Paizo are not a gaming company, they're a marketing firm.

Gaming companies write games. Marketing companies sell things to the gullible masses.

What Paizo did was repackaged a game that they didn't write, and sold it from a marketing platform based around spite, essentially duping all of the frothing-at-the-mouth 3.x basement cases into re-buying a game that they already own. And yes...I'm aware that the SRD can be found for free online, to whatever sniveling ass muppet out there is thinking of THAT objection...but if you had actually bought the core books with any of your own money, then you are not allowed to make that defense, you gullible boob.

Paizo is full of politicians....cooing reassuring in the ear their fans while they sneak money out of their pocket with another. I don't even really intend to be mean here, mostly. I feel the same kind of pity and vicarious shame for paizils that I do for old folks that came across an email from a "nigerian prince" one day while writing to their grandkids, and pumped their life savings into that scam.

Or I would feel that way, if paizo fans weren't s. Now, before you jump on my case...I'm not saying that people are s JUST because they play Pathfinder...I'm saying that people play Pathfinder BECAUSE they are s. That is seriously the games core demographic. gamers. In fact, I'll bet that you could probably take care of most of the hobby's problem elements by simply locking the doors of paizocon and gassing the place. I really hope that WotC just buys that company and completely dismantles it. Their staff would be better served working on campaigns for republicans, since they don't actually write games.

 

[Gizmoduck5000]

I'm confused. The old rules as they were still serve perfectly well for the playstyle you describe.

What could 'modern D&D' offer in the way of actual mechanics to give you what you want? Whare are your actual hang ups with the older mechanics?

Do you have any examples of rules or procedures that would be more modern yet still require player interaction?

Please give a glimpse of what a return to the basics should look like if you are going to insist that it is the only correct way.

I'm not here to listen to you wank at the shrine of gygax, grandpa.

Early D&D mechanics were a turdparty, and you know it.

Just because modern games are about tables full of people reciting a litany of numbers at eachother instead of roleplaying, doesn't mean that the actual game functions can't be improved over time.
Turns out you're not going to be here for at least two weeks, Plane Sailing

 

[Krensky]

Well... so much for this thread.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Well... so much for this thread.

I get the feeling it won't be a problem for too much longer.

 

[Ranes]

Sure...it's a playstyle issue. One playstyle is lazy and unimaginative, requiring nearly no thought put into the part of the game that is actually played around the table...and the other is actually fun and rewarding.

So kind of you to enlighten us. And so politely, too. I can see why you play games that require social contracting skills. Perhaps you should learn to apply those skills elsewhere?

No wonder you like newer D&D so much, you don't actually have to be good at anything. Just write numbers down on a sheet and the thing runs on auto-pilot. No need to engage the gameworld at all. Must be gratifying to succeed without actually having to put any effort in. Congratulations.

Of course! Numbers will tell you which NPC to question and which question to ask, for instance.

Personally, I prefer to make decisions relevant to the actual game when I'm sitting at the table, not when I'm locked in my little basement dungeons...

You've little basement dungeons, eh? Okay.

This si why I support bringing puzzle problems back to the forefront...something players can't just roll their way out of. You can't imagine how to disarm a trap without getting killed? Too bad. Learn....or lose your character. Simple as that.

So, you play the player, not the character. That isn't big or clever. You cannot imagine being a genius. Trust me.

And hey, there's nothing wrong with masturbation...I just prefer not to do it in front of a table full of my friends.

Oh, methinks thou dost protest too much!

Actually, no. No they don't. See, YOU aren't actually overcoming any challenges. YOU are just watching while the numbers on your sheet overcome these challenges. These challenges were pretty much predetermined when you leveled your character up, and the only real variable was the die roll. So really what those games are rewarding is the numbers on your sheet. So give your numbers a pat on the back for me.

The die roll for what? Yes, the die roll to determine the outcome of the decision you took with the imagination you applied.

Of course it's an opinion. That's the wankiest, most pussified defense that I hear on gaming boards. Just because it's technically subjective doesn't mean that it doesn't curb stomp your weaker and less defensible opinion before impregnating it's mother AND it's girlfriend.

When bringing the written word to bear in an attempt to convince someone of your cleverness and wit it behooves you to be literate. Your failure to apply even basic syntax correctly simply undermines your efforts to appear superior.

So yes...that's all my opinion. But it's BETTER than yours. It's better than everyones. And any opinion that doesn't agree with mine is flat-out wrong AT BEST. At worst, it's a dangerous and virulent aberration of logic that needs to be quarantined and destroyed before it reaches the general public.

It seems that WotC forgot to mention insecurity in the troll's MM entry.

And any arguments that refute mine are just disingenuous, weasel-mouthed verbal trickery, designed to lead people on the path to ruin.

Hilarious. Do you realise that, in order to refute something, you have to have proof? Therefore, if someone does refute your argument, they are by definition not guilty of that which you claim they would be.