Search results

You either misunderstood what I said or repeated what I said, I'm not sure which.

Then, as 5e fans have long said to 4e fans, I guess The Market Has Spoken

But suspending the D&D part of the forums would stop you talking about D&D. Publishing a new edition doesn't do anything to stop you continuing to play or talk about the old edition. The equivalent situation would be if ENWorld kept all the D&D forums but added a new PbtA only forum in a...

I've never once gone out looking for players of a specific RPG. I've only ever played in an existing group, and chosen a game.

Well, except that all your old books still exist.

It took you 1.5 years of play to realise that 4e wasn't built around sim priorities? This is like trying sushi in the hope it will taste like a hotdog. The point of trying something new is to experience it on its own terms.

Don't McDonalds rotate things in and out of their menu all the time? Is that exclusionary of people who like those items?

Haven't you chosen to play with those different rules by engaging with the new edition? It's not like it's an online game where the rules change from under you. Your books still exist. This is like being outraged that Burger King won't sell you a Big Mac. Just keep going to McDonalds.

Nothing you like has changed even slightly. Your books still exist. What's happened is that something new has come out. You're not obliged to buy it. They're not obliged to cater to you. Engage with it and see if you like it, or don't.

Unless you were born with those preferences, yes.

are you sure you haven't already done it?

Isn't this exactly the kind of ex post facto thinking that gets criticised in other contexts? 'Oh you rolled a 20, uhhh a whole encounter you had last night with some previously unmentioned NPCs now pops into existence'. This is quantum ogres all the way down. As a player I don't know for sure...

I think 'roll to see if you know something' is itself poor design. 'Everyone has at least a 5% chance to know anything' is also bad design. Every player rolling just in hope of getting a 20 (but probably nothing happens) is bad design. Players not knowing what their characters have knowledge of...

Pineapple and marmite as well as clotted cream and jam (any order) - in Britain we call this Eggs Gorblimey

I liked the 4e ranger. Could it and the other 4e classes have used more out of combat flavour? Sure. But I greatly appreciated not having to be a spellcaster.

I don't think that making it like real life is possible. I think you can make it engaging by playing it out, and so you should do it for that reason, but that if you want to have a resolution method that isn't simply GM fiat then you should use some mechanics as well.

This is you looking for offence. I haven't said any of these things. When I said that 'I roll to attack' is a learned behaviour, I don't mean from some past abusive GM. I mean now, right now, in my game. So when they say 'I roll to do X' I say 'OK but what do you do?'. And thus they learn that...

I started with 2e and we used NWPs, but even then 'roll under X stat' was a common occurence (and it's essentially what NWPs are anyway)

Unfertilised! Oh sorry wrong thread. Generally medium or medium well. At home it's often very well done but that's not really by choice.

'Make an INT check' was surely a more common thing than in the post 3e world, and being a d20 roll under meant that having a few points more than someone else made a genuine difference to the odds.