Legends & Lore: What Worked, What Didn't

[DEFCON 1]

And this concept is in 5e. Are you commenting on that fact, or did you not know it was already in the game?

He was giving more examples of what we could have in the game for making weapon damage type meaningful, building off of my post.

 

[Connorsrpg]

Weapon 'Powers'

I too am of the crowd that prefers weapon powers, though I do not like that word power. 4E's keywords were good, A Song of Ice & Fire RPG's weapon qualities are better.

If there are no qualities to make them different, just go with damage die for size. (A little simpler than 13th Age though )

I also don't think these 'qualities' have to be straight modifiers. I do like the removal of many small mods to the rules. Advantage on trip attacks for a flail is no big deal, if falling prone is not a big deal. You have given up an attack to knock someone over rather than damage (and potentially kill) them. That is okay. Problems arise if 'removing' the prone condition are hard. In Savage Worlds, getting up is only 2 points of movement and no AoO for doing so. If there is some benefit for other allies to attack the prone guy, then that is good tactical combat isn't it?

These qualities do not have to modify the attack roll at all if only D&DN had a 'raise' or 'degrees of success' mechanic like Savage Worlds and SIFRPG do. That way weapon qualities simply occur on these. So instead of actually modifying the attack roll in any way, a flail simply knocks target prone on a 'raise'.

Anyway, if you get a chance, read the Weapon Qualities from SIFRPG. They even simplify a lot of things b/c of them. See Bulk as an eg.

Some weapons are going to have qualities no matter what anyway. Some will have reach, some can be wielded in the off-hand, others can be used in 1 or 2 hands. Why not just give this circumstance a name and apply it to all weapons that fit?

The mixed, unique and one-off style weapon notes for Savage Worlds for eg can be a little confusing. The simple name of a quality is actually easier to remember what it does.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I dunno, it looks to me like that would mean the Return of the Golf Bag.

To me, that's kind of rudimentary differentiation. Just enough to be annoying, but not enough to add additional interest or options to Bob Fighter.

I think you're going to find that if there is any meaningful difference between weapon types, there's going to be situations where one is better than the other. If weapons are different and you want to be optimized for every encounter type, you'll need a Golf Bag, and the more different they are, the more the Golf Bag is necessary rather than just something that optimizers will do.

That is to say, "Skeletons are immune to piercing damage" encourages the golf bag more than "Skeletons take extra damage from bludgeoning," which encourages the golf bag more than "all weapons deal full damage to all creatures," which encourages the golf bag more than "all weapons deal 1d6 damage to any creature."

I think, as a default for D&D, I'd appreciate some significant distinctions that fall at that place on the spectrum where the guy who brought his bow to a skeleton-tomb feels kind of like the wizard who prepared fire spells to fight the fire elementals, and where both of them need to "return to civilization" to fix the problem (study new spells/get a hammer/whatever) if they didn't come prepared (with a Golf Bag....or a library shelf on wheels...) or aren't flexible/inventive.

So for me, more on the harsh end of the spectrum -- I don't want spears to be reliable weapons for killing skeletons. But that might be a harsher place than most would like.

 

[Derren]

The argument is primarily about speed of play.

And yet every time a supporter of this theory posts an actual example from his game it shows that not the complexity slows down the game but players who pay absolutely no attention.

 

[Connorsrpg]

Given I don't post a lot in the forums - I found it odd that I could not XP [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION]. So, just like some time in the past, on some distant thread, I agree with you again KM

Well said. I definitely felt 4E went to far in the 'everyone can deal lots of damage to everyone all the time'. I did not find that fun. I do like when your equipment and weapons can have an effect on some encounters - just like spells.

This never led to a 'golf-bag' situation in our games, but it did encourage having a backup and investing in some different fighting styles/choices, rather than supreme optimization in one weapon. 9though that was still possible - you just weren't at your best ALL the time).

 

[vagabundo]

I'd prefer if they got rid of the weapons table, it's far too bloated.

Replace it with one handed/two handed/two weapons, and maybe include damage types; slashing, bludgeoning and piercing.

But that's just me and maybe have shields break but you take now damage from an attack as well as their AC bonus.

 

[Mistwell]

And yet every time a supporter of this theory posts an actual example from his game it shows that not the complexity slows down the game but players who pay absolutely no attention.

It's the complexity that slowed down my games. The choice between which ability to use, how it interacts with the abilities of the other players and the order of operations, the adding and subtracting of minor modifiers and conditions, it all added up to slow our games waaaaay down.

And now in 5e our encounters are going very fast, with the same players who for many years took a long time per encounter. They are not paying any more or less attention, it really is the level of complexity.

 

[Lokiare]

I don't have to remember anything of the sort. I'm not a developer for D&D.

I don't play semantec games, sorry.

I also don't think its incumbant on the game to accomodate every single playstyle, especially those who (in my opinion) are very fringe, minority, low-numbers playstyles. In fact, in order to bit big tent, the game has to make compromises, which infringes on its ability to meet other design goals that are more likely to appeal to the majority of players. Accomodating unusual playstyles should actually not be a design goal of the system, unless it can be done without compromising more important design goals.

Of course no one knows what those numbers are or whose play styles are fringe. Since the surveys were self selecting, we can never know unless there is a third party survey that targets everyone that has ever played. Something that would be difficult or impossible to do.

Even worse trying to lower the game to the lowest common denominator will mean cutting people out that don't want the lowest common denominator.

I think you're going to find that if there is any meaningful difference between weapon types, there's going to be situations where one is better than the other. If weapons are different and you want to be optimized for every encounter type, you'll need a Golf Bag, and the more different they are, the more the Golf Bag is necessary rather than just something that optimizers will do.

That is to say, "Skeletons are immune to piercing damage" encourages the golf bag more than "Skeletons take extra damage from bludgeoning," which encourages the golf bag more than "all weapons deal full damage to all creatures," which encourages the golf bag more than "all weapons deal 1d6 damage to any creature."

I think, as a default for D&D, I'd appreciate some significant distinctions that fall at that place on the spectrum where the guy who brought his bow to a skeleton-tomb feels kind of like the wizard who prepared fire spells to fight the fire elementals, and where both of them need to "return to civilization" to fix the problem (study new spells/get a hammer/whatever) if they didn't come prepared (with a Golf Bag....or a library shelf on wheels...) or aren't flexible/inventive.

So for me, more on the harsh end of the spectrum -- I don't want spears to be reliable weapons for killing skeletons. But that might be a harsher place than most would like.

Except the Wizard just memorizes both Fireball and Lightning Bolt and gets to choose which one they cast during the fight. So that's not actually how the game works according to the last packet.

 

[Desdichado]

I don't play semantec games, sorry.

ORLY? So... you try to force me into a developer's stance with my comments, and then when I point out that my stance is as a player talking about what I like and what works for me, you assign me a vague, pejorative, dismissive label to avoid further discussion.

I'd say that absolutely qualifies as a semantic game.

Of course no one knows what those numbers are or whose play styles are fringe. Since the surveys were self selecting, we can never know unless there is a third party survey that targets everyone that has ever played. Something that would be difficult or impossible to do.

Indeed; I was (and always am) careful to caveat my opinions with the phrase "in my opinion" or something similar. Of course we don't know that, and therefore we can only make inferences based on our assumptions and experiences. Although I notice you don't make that point when advocating for your own preferences...

Even worse trying to lower the game to the lowest common denominator will mean cutting people out that don't want the lowest common denominator.

"Least common denominator" is a deliberately pejorative and in this case completely innacurate label, since I'm talking about what I believe the majority prefers, not what I think is the least objectionable to the least amount of people. There's a vast difference between those two concepts. Conflating them for purposes of making one sound worse than it is is... a semantic game.

 

[Lokiare]

ORLY? So... you try to force me into a developer's stance with my comments, and then when I point out that my stance is as a player talking about what I like and what works for me, you assign me a vague, pejorative, dismissive label to avoid further discussion.

I'd say that absolutely qualifies as a semantic game.

Uh no. I quoted your post, but was generally addressing the people that can make a difference, you know, the developers. Don't take me quoting you to mean that I am addressing you directly, especially if it seems like I'm addressing someone else.

Indeed; I was (and always am) careful to caveat my opinions with the phrase "in my opinion" or something similar. Of course we don't know that, and therefore we can only make inferences based on our assumptions and experiences. Although I notice you don't make that point when advocating for your own preferences...

That's because most of the time I'm not advocating for 'my own preferences' I'm advocating for what will work best to make everyone happy with the game. I have only the best interests of D&D in mind. As of right now I wouldn't play 5E if someone paid me to (well I might, but I wouldn't like it). They will have to make quite a few changes to even bring it into a game I'd touch.

"Least common denominator" is a deliberately pejorative and in this case completely innacurate label, since I'm talking about what I believe the majority prefers, not what I think is the least objectionable to the least amount of people. There's a vast difference between those two concepts. Conflating them for purposes of making one sound worse than it is is... a semantic game.

Least common denominator is what everyone refers to when WotC removes contentious things from the game in the hopes of getting enough people to like the game to make it profitable.

I happen to know that by removing things like tactics, powers, and choice (at level up, round to round, and during preparation) many people (anecdotal) have zero interest in the game.

I convinced one of my regular 4E players to take a look to see if they wanted to try a one shot, because I want them to reject it because of their own view and not something I tell them, after downloading the last packet and reading it they deleted off their computer and told me never to talk about 5E again. This player also loves playing 3.5E and several other games.

So its entirely possible to alienate a large chunk of your fans if you dumb the game down by removing anything contentious.