| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Pandora
Learned Scribe
Germany
305 Posts |
 Posted - 31 Jul 2008 : 18:02:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Talwyn
Some one find me a longhair white cat to stroke!
Here you go ... |
If you cant say what youre meaning,
you can never mean what youre saying.
- Centauri Minister of Intelligence, Babylon 5 |
 |
|
|
Hawkins
Great Reader
USA
2131 Posts |
Posted - 31 Jul 2008 : 19:58:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pandora
Here you go ...
Lol. You are just a font of funny D&D-related images! |
Errant d20 Designer - My Blog (last updated January 06, 2016)
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back. --Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass
"Mmm, not the darkness," Myrin murmured. "Don't cast it there." --Erik Scott de Bie, Shadowbane
* My character sheets (PFRPG, 3.5, and AE versions; not viewable in Internet Explorer)
* Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document (PFRPG OGL Rules)
* The Hypertext d20 SRD (3.5 OGL Rules)
* 3.5 D&D Archives
My game design work:
* Heroes of the Jade Oath (PFRPG, conversion; Rite Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 1: Cantrips & Orisons (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 2: 1st-Level Spells (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Martial Arts Guidebook (forthcoming) (PFRPG, designer; Rite Publishing)
|
|
|
|
Pandora
Learned Scribe
Germany
305 Posts |
Posted - 31 Jul 2008 : 20:24:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM
quote:
Originally posted by Pandora
Here you go ...
Lol. You are just a font of funny D&D-related images!
They arent made by me, but rather come from the D&D board:
- general motivational posters
- psionics motivational posters
I would suggest you should neither eat nor drink while checking the threads!!!
Personal favorites are of course:
- Cha and
- Int ... |
If you cant say what youre meaning,
you can never mean what youre saying.
- Centauri Minister of Intelligence, Babylon 5 |
Edited by - Pandora on 31 Jul 2008 20:28:13 |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3243 Posts |
Posted - 20 Aug 2008 : 17:24:18
|
My friend recently ran into this interesting mindbender when his wizard was knocked prone while playing 4E. Needless to say, it was the last straw for him and the group...
quote:
Monsters and Fallen Characters
Don’t hit people when they’re down. When a character falls unconscious, monsters turn their attention to enemies who are still up and fighting. Monsters don’t usually intentionally deal damage to fallen foes. Some monsters are interested only in eating, and might drag a fallen character away from the combat to enjoy a peaceful meal. Usually these creatures are lurker monsters that are attached to other encounters, such as a lone cavern choker. Dragging a character away is slow going (unless the monster is very strong), so the other characters should always have a chance to rescue their fallen allies.
|
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
monknwildcat
Learned Scribe
USA
285 Posts |
Posted - 20 Aug 2008 : 19:05:10
|
Useful info for the DM who's addicted to TPK! 
Do monsters never geek the mage, either? |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3243 Posts |
Posted - 20 Aug 2008 : 19:32:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by monknwildcat
Useful info for the DM who's addicted to TPK!
Do monsters never geek the mage, either?
Of course not! Why would they do that? |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Skeptic
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1273 Posts |
Posted - 20 Aug 2008 : 19:57:24
|
What's the difference between "Don't hit people when they're down." which can be a good idea to include in the default contract between DM and players and the "Don't hit the controller first" suggested above ?
Even if many D&D players enjoy creating characters, I think I can say that for the majority of players, a PC death is what define "losing". I really do believe that some very badly handled fights should lead to the death of some or all of the PCs; losing may be needed to learn how to win the next time.
Some particuliar tactical situation also require finishing off a fallen PC and I don't think the DMG aims to write them off completly.
What the DMG aims to do is to reduce the number of death that woudln't have changed the basic result of the combat anyway (result here being : >= one PC up and all ennemies down / all PCs down and >= one ennemy up).
I don't think this is one of the flaw of 4E. |
Edited by - Skeptic on 20 Aug 2008 20:59:25 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 20 Aug 2008 : 20:00:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pandora
Personal favorites are of course:
- Cha and
- Int ...
You just made my day.  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3243 Posts |
Posted - 20 Aug 2008 : 20:15:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic... I think I can say that for the majority of players, a PC death is what define "losing".
And there is where you distinguish the difference between a 'gamer' and a 'roleplayer'. Gamers look to 'win', while roleplayers are looking to tell the story. |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Skeptic
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1273 Posts |
Posted - 20 Aug 2008 : 20:57:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
And there is where you distinguish the difference between a 'gamer' and a 'roleplayer'. Gamers look to 'win', while roleplayers are looking to tell the story.
A RPG is a game (that's what the G stands for), but there are different RPG designs that aim at different exprience in play.
I very much enjoy a RPG where, as a player/gamer, I can choose "thematically" of having my character killed to move the story in a particuliar direction.
When I play D&D (using the Realms or not), that's not the kind of experience I'm looking for and that's not what I except of the other players. Why ? Two things..
1) The designers have done huge efforts to give me tools to make tactical decisions instead of thematic ones, I try to honor their hard work.
2) D&D has a strong built-in theme of heroic fantasy. Going against it require too much work when alternatives already exist. |
Edited by - Skeptic on 20 Aug 2008 21:07:06 |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3243 Posts |
Posted - 20 Aug 2008 : 21:06:24
|
I appreciate that and I'm sorry if I came off a little brusque in my first response.
Unfortunately, the original designers of the game were trying to make the game more thematic rather than tactical. I appreciate a great tactical game, one of my favorites is BattleTech. But just because the latest release is a tactical game doesn't mean that that's the way it should be. And if I don't like it, I will be more than willing to go another route. Which I am.  |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Skeptic
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1273 Posts |
Posted - 20 Aug 2008 : 21:14:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
I appreciate that and I'm sorry if I came off a little brusque in my first response.
Don't worry about being brusque with me
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
Unfortunately, the original designers of the game were trying to make the game more thematic rather than tactical. I appreciate a great tactical game, one of my favorites is BattleTech. But just because the latest release is a tactical game doesn't mean that that's the way it should be. And if I don't like it, I will be more than willing to go another route. Which I am.
AD&D 2E more than any other tried very hard to hide under the carpet its core tactical elements (classes, levels, XP, HP).
D&D 3.x was in a way doing it too with its "monsters as PCs" and others "rules as the physics of the gameworld".
IMHO, D&D should fill the "tactical" RPG niche, and 4E is a good move toward it even if some fluff text in the DMG says otherwise.
The biggest failure is of course the fact that they were unable to deliver a functional framework for non-combat encounters (partially because of a lack of mathematical skills). |
Edited by - Skeptic on 20 Aug 2008 21:17:44 |
|
|
|
Pandora
Learned Scribe
Germany
305 Posts |
Posted - 21 Aug 2008 : 12:22:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
IMHO, D&D should fill the "tactical" RPG niche, and 4E is a good move toward it even if some fluff text in the DMG says otherwise.
May I ask why D&D *should* change from the role-playing game it has been for decades to a tabletop game?
That change of style is a major reason for the irritation which many of us feel, so some good justification would be appreciated and maybe you have a good reason why it should change.
EDIT:
If you compare 4e with 3.X you see that in 3.X there are two different "systems": D&D and "D&D minis", both with a different focus and style of play. In 4e this difference has been eliminated, the only surviving style-focus is "tactical miniatures gameplay" and there is just one set of rules for everything. IMO this wasnt really necessary and there could have been separate rules again for a new edition. I guess that since the main moneymaker seems to be the plastic miniatures for 4e the distinction had to go, because D&D - as a widely recognized brand name - sells more than "D&D minis". So an added question: Was it necessary to merge the two different genres into one? |
If you cant say what youre meaning,
you can never mean what youre saying.
- Centauri Minister of Intelligence, Babylon 5 |
Edited by - Pandora on 21 Aug 2008 13:29:49 |
|
|
|
Skeptic
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1273 Posts |
Posted - 21 Aug 2008 : 16:26:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pandora
May I ask why D&D *should* change from the role-playing game it has been for decades to a tabletop game?
That change of style is a major reason for the irritation which many of us feel, so some good justification would be appreciated and maybe you have a good reason why it should change.
Because D&D was built atop a wargame and kept from it many fundamental elements that drive it in the "tactical" camp : classes, levels, XP, HP for example.
4E embrace the basic nature of D&D instead of being ashamed of it.
BTW, I'm not saying that because 4E is a "tactical" RPG there is less "roleplaying" in a 4E game than any previous D&D edition.
|
Edited by - Skeptic on 21 Aug 2008 16:35:42 |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3243 Posts |
Posted - 21 Aug 2008 : 17:03:21
|
D&D was "derived" from a wargame, not "built atop". There is a big difference in the two. Gary Gygax created the fantasy setting ideal to move away from the typical wargame. Dave Arneson added the classes/levels/hp to track how an individual operates since wargames were based off each miniature representing many individuals (hits would kill a portion of the total).
After they moved away from the wargames, miniatures were no longer required and story telling was enthusiastically encouraged. Sure there were maps of dungeons and such, but that was so the characters wouldn't get lost, not for tactical reasons.
In fact, it wasn't until 3rd Edition brought in some tactical abilities that battlefield tactics took on a new life in the game. But even these abilties didn't REQUIRE miniatures and a mat, they could still be described by a DM. The idea was still about telling a story.
Now, 4th Edition still has a strong storytelling aspect (can't get away from that), but the rules are such that you are at a strong disadvantage if you don't play with a mat and miniatures (heck, movement and distances are in SQUARES). But the game is FAR from a tactical game. The objective of the game isn't "Take that hill", "Conquer the castle", or something similar. Yes, that occurs a lot, but the overall objective is still to tell the story. Ideally, if you are playing D&D correctly, more than half (and I'm being conservative) of the time spent in a session should be the characters talking and doing thing other than poking monsters with sticks.
If you spend most of your session doing that, then, yes, you would be playing a tactical game. But in my opinion, you wouldn't be playing D&D. |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 21 Aug 2008 : 17:21:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
quote:
Originally posted by Pandora
May I ask why D&D *should* change from the role-playing game it has been for decades to a tabletop game?
That change of style is a major reason for the irritation which many of us feel, so some good justification would be appreciated and maybe you have a good reason why it should change.
Because D&D was built atop a wargame and kept from it many fundamental elements that drive it in the "tactical" camp : classes, levels, XP, HP for example.
4E embrace the basic nature of D&D instead of being ashamed of it.
BTW, I'm not saying that because 4E is a "tactical" RPG there is less "roleplaying" in a 4E game than any previous D&D edition.
But the original D&D game distanced itself from that same wargame. Adding them now isn't the same as going back to the original form of the game. The only thing lacking from WotC is the announcement of a ground breaking new form of game where no miniatures are needed and you decide freely what to do! |
|
|
|
Christopher_Rowe
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
879 Posts |
Posted - 21 Aug 2008 : 17:54:39
|
| I like the miniature use. I can't speak with any authority about design intentions circa 1974, but my perception of those intentions 2008 is that their use was elevated because the designers think they've figured out a way to make using them hella fun. I know me and my group are digging 'em, even though I personally never played with 'em back in the day, half of the group are new players, and half are 3.0/3.5 converts who used miniatures heavily under that system anyway. |
My Realms novel, Sandstorm, is now available for ordering. |
|
|
|
Skeptic
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1273 Posts |
Posted - 21 Aug 2008 : 18:14:55
|
It's not the miniatures and battlemap from the wargame era that is the main factor in D&D being a "tactical" RPG, but the fact that XP are "victory points".
To Ashe : I saw your last post, but I don't think this thread is the proper place to answer it. |
Edited by - Skeptic on 22 Aug 2008 05:07:47 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36798 Posts |
Posted - 21 Aug 2008 : 18:58:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christopher_Rowe
I like the miniature use. I can't speak with any authority about design intentions circa 1974, but my perception of those intentions 2008 is that their use was elevated because the designers think they've figured out a way to make using them hella fun.
Others are more inclined to think that the push towards integration of minis is nothing more than making sure the minis sell, especially since it's said that you need D&D minis to play -- not minis in general, but specifically D&D minis. Since you feel mini use is fun, what is your opinion on that more cynical line of thought?
|
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 21 Aug 2008 : 19:29:18
|
I've come to the opinion that there is room for both now.
D&D, sadly, has become the more tactical version of the game it was originally, by going back and '"embracing its roots" (a direct quote from designers), the game has, sadly, adopted a more 'retro' feel. While I loved appearing in front of the dungeon and killing monsters all night as much as the next guy, I also grew with the game, and enjoyed it when it evolved into something more then just a combat simulation.
However, thats really great for a night of fun. If I can now re-produce those nights of old, when I was 16 and me and my friends did 'silly things' just to make the DM pull out his hair, then thats just another gaming option I now have. I don't begrudge the 4e rules their existance - I think there is a place for them at my table.
However, I still like to run deep, Intrigue-ridden campaigns, and the new rules really don't lend themselves to that. Sure, you can do it, but they weren't designed with that in mind. Pathfinder as being touted (by its fans, mind you, not Paizo) as the TRUE successor of D&D, and I would have to agree. Whereas 4e has 'moved backwards' in design and concept, 3PF has extended the rules set, and given us more options.
People who wanted to just have fun and 'hack & slash' their way to power have the 4e rules, and they are great and perfectly suited (but NOT limited) to that style of fun/play.
For us, the unfortunate side effect of having this wonderful choice before us is that FR became a casualty of the split. They took a setting perfectly suited for the RPG style of play and 'downsized it' for the 'Hack & Slash' crowd. Someday FR will be just a footnote in gaming history, and we can all look back on it with wistful and fond memories. Thats okay, because it has a place reserved in the back of my heart right alongside Greyhawk.
So play the system YOU want, and enjoy the game YOU and your friends want to play. Different Strokes for different folks, and all that. Saying one system is 'superior' to another is just opinion, and meaningless at the end of the day. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 21 Aug 2008 19:33:36 |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3243 Posts |
Posted - 21 Aug 2008 : 19:35:19
|
And that's why Markus is a Master and I'm just a seeker. Being able to say what I've been trying to say, but with nicer words.
 |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Christopher_Rowe
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
879 Posts |
Posted - 21 Aug 2008 : 22:57:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Others are more inclined to think that the push towards integration of minis is nothing more than making sure the minis sell, especially since it's said that you need D&D minis to play -- not minis in general, but specifically D&D minis. Since you feel mini use is fun, what is your opinion on that more cynical line of thought?
Well, I think it's cynical.
First of all, I don't think anybody who doesn't have fun with them is going to go out and sink a bunch of money into miniatures from any manufacturer. Also, I think you might be beggaring the question a little bit--whether or not there was a profit motive in rolling out a design that encourages purchasing other products from WotC (of course that was part of it! I hate it too, but Adam Smith won that fight in the entertainment industry even before he won it everywhere else!), that doesn't address whether or not the designers tried to make use of miniatures with the system fun. In fact, even if the motive was absolutely nothing but the EEEVIL amassing of filthy lucre, then it seems like they'd try even harder to make it fun.
So, my opinion of that line of thought is, I guess, gently dismissive.
As to whether or not liking to play with the little men means that I'm also knocking two-liters of da Dew over into the Papa John's box as I jump up to shout "Natural twenty!" as I high five my friends, well, see next rock.  |
My Realms novel, Sandstorm, is now available for ordering. |
|
|
|
Christopher_Rowe
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
879 Posts |
Posted - 21 Aug 2008 : 23:12:31
|
quote:
Markustay saying lots of smart stuff.
Yay! Yes, there's room for both (heck, there's room for all four! 'n' more!)
But if D&D was ever a "tactical simulation game," even now, well it's been a pretty crappy one. I don't think the folks who like the small unit tactics have ever rested comfortably at the D&D table, no matter the edition.
The miniatures role in combat is a great tool, but, like you said, there's nothing in the rules--and I'll go farther and say there's nothing in the design philosophy of 4E--that elevates "table combat" above any other component of the game. Players and DMs make the game as hackety schmakity as they want, or they run off the guy who supposedly wants to play a bard but didn't bring a museum replica lute, or they work out the family trees of their characters horses to eight generations, or whatever jollifies 'em, just the way they always have.
I'm the WotC marketing department's dream. Since I first ordered the 4E books a couple of months back I've bought a bajillion miniatures, novels, supplements, and supplies. I even started posting to message boards!
But at the game I run, I start every session by giving each character a hand-folded note sealed with wax that tells them a little bit more about their character's history (based on their own outlines). We've got intrigue and mystery and dark threats going back two generations, and they're really excited to sit down every time because they hope to learn more about the big picture.
Plus, I bought all these Mardis Gras plastic coins so when I hand out treasure, baby, I hand out treasure!
So, I agree with almost everything you say there, except that I don't believe FR was "downsized" for hack 'n' slash play in 4E any more than it was "bloated" for some other style of play in 3E. Different strokes, yeah. Have fun! |
My Realms novel, Sandstorm, is now available for ordering. |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3243 Posts |
|
|
Christopher_Rowe
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
879 Posts |
Posted - 22 Aug 2008 : 01:17:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
I agree totally except on one point.
Is it possible to play 4th edition without miniatures?
I guess. The combat's pretty much set up along these "battlegrid" and square lines, but combat's just part of the game. You could run a combat with some graph paper and a pencil, or raid the boardgames closet for figures or something. I thought that the use of miniatures was strongly foregrounded in 3E, wasn't it? |
My Realms novel, Sandstorm, is now available for ordering. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36798 Posts |
Posted - 22 Aug 2008 : 01:55:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christopher_Rowe
I thought that the use of miniatures was strongly foregrounded in 3E, wasn't it?
It was, especially after the minis really took off. Before that, it was often suggested, but after the minis proved successful, they put greater emphasis on using them. However, they did not make them an integral part of the game, and they only suggested the appropriate minis. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3243 Posts |
Posted - 22 Aug 2008 : 04:23:39
|
I know that I can still run 3.x games with nothing but dice rolls and my own DM judgement calls on how the players describe where they are. The only time I really break out any minis is because I want to really impress the dire situation into the mind of the characters.
It's like in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves,
[talking about how many men that are about to be ambushed]
Robin Hood: How many?
Azeem: 20.
Robin Hood: 20?
Bull: [further away] How many?
Robin Hood: 5.
Robin Hood: [to Azeem] He can't count anyway.
I break out the minis when their severely outnumbered, on in those special cases, to scare the crap out of them by putting their minis up against that gargantuan black or colossal red dragon. |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Skeptic
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1273 Posts |
Posted - 22 Aug 2008 : 05:03:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christopher_Rowe
I guess. The combat's pretty much set up along these "battlegrid" and square lines, but combat's just part of the game. You could run a combat with some graph paper and a pencil, or raid the boardgames closet for figures or something. I thought that the use of miniatures was strongly foregrounded in 3E, wasn't it?
Like in 3.x, in 4E I run my game using a home-made battlemap (where I can draw with a dry marker) and cardboard pieces bearing numbers or PC names.
I don't want my options limited by painted tiles, miniatures and other decorative pieces. |
Edited by - Skeptic on 22 Aug 2008 05:04:09 |
|
|
|
Skeptic
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1273 Posts |
Posted - 22 Aug 2008 : 05:07:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
However, I still like to run deep, Intrigue-ridden campaigns, and the new rules really don't lend themselves to that. Sure, you can do it, but they weren't designed with that in mind. Pathfinder as being touted (by its fans, mind you, not Paizo) as the TRUE successor of D&D, and I would have to agree. Whereas 4e has 'moved backwards' in design and concept, 3PF has extended the rules set, and given us more options.
Sorry, but I really don't see how any previous version of D&D or Pathfinder ( ) can be better at running "Intrigue-ridden" campaign than 4E.
|
|
|
|
Pandora
Learned Scribe
Germany
305 Posts |
Posted - 25 Aug 2008 : 08:27:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christopher_Rowe
I like the miniature use. I can't speak with any authority about design intentions circa 1974, but my perception of those intentions 2008 is that their use was elevated because the designers think they've figured out a way to make using them hella fun. I know me and my group are digging 'em, even though I personally never played with 'em back in the day, half of the group are new players, and half are 3.0/3.5 converts who used miniatures heavily under that system anyway.
Miniatures are fine - I like them too and have a lot of those which I painted myself - but they are just a playing aid and not the main goal of the game. With 4e pushing around your minis really is the main focus. |
If you cant say what youre meaning,
you can never mean what youre saying.
- Centauri Minister of Intelligence, Babylon 5 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Recent Developments in 4e
