D&D 5E (2014) "But Wizards Can Fly, Teleport and Turn People Into Frogs!"

[Obryn]

I've you seen you say it about 20 times in other threads though. Balesir is worse about it, and neonchameleon is pretty much a shrieking zealot on the topic.

So yes, that is absolutey the very regular attitude presented by 4e fans to anyone who doesnt like it. Especially since WoTC killed it in favor of a new edition.

Let me repeat myself - I don't care if random people on the internet don't like it. Last I checked, though, this was a discussion board. If you don't want to see opinions you disagree with, it's a bad place to be. If you disagree with something, I know you post about it, as you've just shown. I do the same. That's discussion.

And this isn't the first time you've tried to assign me some sinister motives. I'd appreciate it if you stopped, because you haven't been right yet and aren't very good at it.

-O

 

[Obryn]

When it comes to something I've essentially tried before (chocolate), why would my opinion mean less? I mean, taste is all subjective anyways. Just like Fun is with RPG mechanics. As always, play what you like

Subjective opinions can still be educated or uneducated; informed or ill-informed. Since I have no stake in what you personally care for, my main interest is whether or not your opinion has any interesting insights I could share. If it's not an informed opinion, it has lower weight.

I've never played Vampire, but want to know if I should give it a shot. The positive and negative opinions from people who have played it are a lot more meaningful than the ones from people who've just read the book or who are going off crazy forum discussions. So if I'm deciding whether or not to play, the first group - positive and negative both - have weight. The last group's opinions are not just meaningless but much more likely to be misleading or wrong.

-O

 

[timASW]

Let me repeat myself - I don't care if random people on the internet don't like it. Last I checked, though, this was a discussion board. If you don't want to see opinions you disagree with, it's a bad place to be. If you disagree with something, I know you post about it, as you've just shown. I do the same. That's discussion.

And this isn't the first time you've tried to assign me some sinister motives. I'd appreciate it if you stopped, because you haven't been right yet and aren't very good at it.

-O

Actually I've been spot on the money so far. But thats neither here nor there.

Whats annoying as hell is when 4ers have double standards of behavior like this. Things like "how can you judge something you havent tried, people who have tried it say its great (even when most of them actually dont) " juxtaposed with admitting in many other places people with those problems being discussed are absolutely NOT served simply by playing the base rules with a different understanding and have to actually go to extreme expense in money, time, and labor to fix them.

Or saying things like "i know meta mechanics bother you in 4e but you can just house-rule them so its awesome" juxtaposed against " house-ruling fixes in 3e proves its a crappy game"

4ers like to have their cake and eat it too rhetorically. And its very irritating. Even to someone who doesnt even like 3e that much either like myself.
f

 

[timASW]

I've never played Vampire, but want to know if I should give it a shot. The positive and negative opinions from people who have played it are a lot more meaningful than the ones from people who've just read the book or who are going off crazy forum discussions. So if I'm deciding whether or not to play, the first group - positive and negative both - have weight. The last group's opinions are not just meaningless but much more likely to be misleading or wrong.

-O

As a happy but periodic vampire player and ST this is also wrong. Those books do in fact give an excellent representation of how the games play in most cases. So reading them and reading forum discussions actually give one a pretty clear and accurate idea of how the game goes.

 

[Obryn]

Actually I've been spot on the money so far. But thats neither here nor there.

Whats annoying as hell is when 4ers have double standards of behavior like this. Things like "how can you judge something you havent tried, people who have tried it say its great (even when most of them actually dont) " juxtaposed with admitting in many other places people with those problems being discussed are absolutely NOT served simply by playing the base rules with a different understanding and have to actually go to extreme expense in money, time, and labor to fix them.

Or saying things like "i know meta mechanics bother you in 4e but you can just house-rule them so its awesome" juxtaposed against " house-ruling fixes in 3e proves its a crappy game"

4ers like to have their cake and eat it too rhetorically. And its very irritating. Even to someone who doesnt even like 3e that much either like myself.
f

I have no idea what a "4er" is. I play 4e, and like it. I've played 3e, and liked it. Was I a 3er? I've played AD&D and like it. Am I a 1er? I like Savage Worlds a lot. Am I a SWer?

The double-standard I see is that if I post about something specific I don't care for in 3e - like in that Fighter thread - it's good discussion when current fans of the game come in to tell me what I'm missing. But if I answer a criticism of a specific part of 4e that I disagree with... well, we get posts like this. Where you're reading some really crazy motives into it.

I'm fairly sure that people who posted in the Fighter thread weren't mad because I didn't like their favorite game. I'm pretty sure I didn't hurt their feelings by saying negative things about 3e fighters. And it's silly the same courtesy about second-guessing motivations isn't always extended the other way.

This kind of motivation-digging is just another part of edition-war "othering." "I posted because I have a good point I want to share. HE posted because he's mad and taking it personally." It's pretty damn sad.

-O

 

[Obryn]

As a happy but periodic vampire player and ST this is also wrong. Those books do in fact give an excellent representation of how the games play in most cases. So reading them and reading forum discussions actually give one a pretty clear and accurate idea of how the game goes.

So because I've read forum discussions about it, I'm now an expert and my opinion about Vampire carries as much weight as yours - a person who's played it?

Interesting. I will now go forth and share my Vampire knowledge with the world.

-O

 

[timASW]

So because I've read forum discussions about it, I'm now an expert and my opinion about Vampire carries as much weight as yours - a person who's played it?

Interesting. I will now go forth and share my Vampire knowledge with the world.

-O

Depeds on what aspect of it.

If you were for instance to read the parts about how vampires fight or flight reflex kicks up when they meet new vampires, with its mechanical effects on ensuing social interaction and say that that means that it would be very difficult to run exploration chronicles based on traveling America and uncovering ancient vampire secrets from native american vampires. Well then yes, your opinion would be perfectly valid, and correct.

Because yes, the straight up mechanics DO have that mechanical effect on that aspect of roleplaying that game.

If however you were to read the book and say that the vampires resistance to bullets and ability to use blood to heal wounds makes them nigh invincible...

well then no. You would be wrong. Other limitations built into many other places in the game mean that they arent actuallly that much tougher on average then a human soldier. They can be optimized to be pretty tough but not at all nigh invulnerable, even though some mechanics in the book make them seem tougher then they are when taken bit by hit.

So much like with 4e (and i played and ran that one too) what part you criticize just from reading the books is absolutely relevant to whether its a statement with merit or not. A very large chunk of that game is, by design, exactly how it appears in the books.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I think the power level debate is an odd one. I have no idea what kind of game you're playing with a music student, football player, and air marshall, but if that system contains 200 pages of rules for how to simulate football, including subspecialties for every different position and coaching style and an entire core book of stat blocks for opposing players and teams, and the quest line involves winning the Super Bowl, then yeah, I'd say the musician and air marshall are probably suboptimal.

"Combat" is not a tiny subset of D&D; nor does it only apply to certain classes. There isn't a PC class out there (except maybe for 3e splatbooks) that isn't designed to do SOMETHING useful and iconic in combat, even if the designers do a crappy job of achieving that goal (3e monk).

 

[pemerton]

What if I have one character who has ranks in Perform and is a musician by trade. And another character who is a physician and has ranks in Heal.

<snip>

are ranks in Perform comparable to ranks in Heal? Is someone with +10 Perform as good a musician as someone with +10 Heal is a healer? Does that comparison even make sense? My case is that it doesn't. And in most games, even though they cost the same amount of skill points and such to get, a +10 Perform is not equal in usefulness or commonality to +10 Heal. Healing is better (or maybe music is better in some games). Does that mean that the two skills are not balanced with each other?

I have no idea what kind of game you're playing with a music student, football player, and air marshall, but if that system contains 200 pages of rules for how to simulate football, including subspecialties for every different position and coaching style and an entire core book of stat blocks for opposing players and teams, and the quest line involves winning the Super Bowl, then yeah, I'd say the musician and air marshall are probably suboptimal.

My response to Ahnehnois is a variant on ZombieRoboNinja's: if players are using build resources to build a musician and a doctor, then it is the GM's job to set up the ingame situations to make both those PCs relevant.

Conversely, if the game rules presuppose a certain sort of situation (eg football, per ZombieRoboNinja's example) then it should be directing players to build PCs that are capable in that situation. Eg in the football game, building musicianship or air marshallship into your PC should be comparatively cheap in the PC build rules, because it's primarily going to be just a bit of background and colour.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I think the power level debate is an odd one. I have no idea what kind of game you're playing with a music student, football player, and air marshall,

Call of Cthulhu. Try it sometime. It's a good (and balanced) game.

but if that system contains 200 pages of rules for how to simulate football, including subspecialties for every different position and coaching style and an entire core book of stat blocks for opposing players and teams, and the quest line involves winning the Super Bowl, then yeah, I'd say the musician and air marshall are probably suboptimal.

Well, you're not wrong about that.

"Combat" is not a tiny subset of D&D; nor does it only apply to certain classes. There isn't a PC class out there (except maybe for 3e splatbooks) that isn't designed to do SOMETHING useful and iconic in combat, even if the designers do a crappy job of achieving that goal (3e monk).

I'm inclined to agree that the D&D classes should all be useful in combat. Just not equally useful in all situations.

They can't all, for example, turn the stone floor beneath the combatants into mud and then turn it into rock again, nor do anything remotely equivalent to that. So the question in my mind is how to make everyone feel useful. Not necessarily equal, but useful enough.