The Gaming Den

Seerow wrote:Bruce: If the fighter is 100% damage for example, then maybe this other class is 80% damage/combat and 20% exploration, or some other mix of game elements.


And there goes the last shred of hope.

Okay, that's pretty dumb.

I don't know if that stun thing means they're going to have an effect of Stun that will be explained in the spell/power (like how Daze works) and have a glossary entry or if they're just going to say "Stun: refer to X" (like how Charm X works). Worst case scenario, they completely remove defined status effects.

FrankTrollman wrote:

MDH wrote:Second, what they actually said isn't irreconcilable at all, just poorly worded and marketing speak-y. Advancing through gaining options while curtailing numerical expansion, as well as having simple characters that can be advanced through modular abilities (which they're probably just bullshitting us and mean "feats") is not only reasonable, but something you talked about doing back in the Fantasy Kitchen Sink/Lago's Kickass D&D Marketing thread.

Staggering and alternating vertical and horizontal advancement can give people more instances of tangible advancement without hitting your project's wall of projected complexity limits or RNG divergence. It's a good idea.

But that's not what he's saying. Read it again: he specifically calls out the gaining of options as being optional for the simple character. But he also said that gaining options was something that was going to be done to keep the RNG from breaking. This quote:

Monte: Instead of the figher getting a better and better attack bonus, he instead gets more options to do stuff as he goes up in level, and his attack bonus goes up at a very modest rate.

Says that the intention is that character growth will be staggered and alternated between numeric bonuses and new options. That's a fine idea. I support that notion. But look at the next quote:

Monte: Running a few playtests, I had at one long term table a guy who hadn't played since 1st editon, a guy who was more 3rd edtion and a guy who was recently in to 4th. The guy who hadn't played in 1st edition didn't want a lot of options. This solidified in my mind, along with the other evidence we've seen, that there are a lot of players who want to have very few options on their character sheet. As a game goes on, that guy might see some of the cool things that other classes are doing and might want to add some of those modular abilities. This is something that is easy to do and change as the character progresses - he can pick up some of those more modular options if he wants after that point.

This is bullshit, and completely incompatible with the previous quote. If gaining options is the thing you're doing to keep the RNG from breaking, gaining options can't be fucking optional. It can't be something you "might" do as your character progresses, because that entails that gaining options is something you "might not" do instead.

Since we already committed to having the numeric bonuses going up slowly, if we make new options optional, we have empty levels.

-Username17

That's only the case if that's not rhetoric for "we have simple classes for simple people but if Basic McFirstEdition wants to, he can take some kit that gives him (meaningless) bonuses!". Having very few options does not necessarily mean you stay with very few options. Now if Monte said "there are lots of people who want very few options throughout their career", then you'd be absolutely right. Given the next sentence, it's a reasonable assumption to make that Basic McFirstEdition would be gaining abilities as well as the game progresses.

Optimistically, that means gaining cross-class abilities, new options, or possibly even completely remaking a character at points is simple and encouraged within the system.

If certain classes just have no ability to gain options ever because "simplicity", then you're right and it is incompatible bullshit.

If it's rhetoric, then they're probably rehashing the 4e/Essentials character paradigm where certain classes start with only a few abilities and others have a more robust amount, but everyone gains options.

Seerow wrote:Bruce: If the fighter is 100% damage for example, then maybe this other class is 80% damage/combat and 20% exploration, or some other mix of game elements.

...I have to ask. Does this make the Barbarian 120% damage, -20% literacy?

I only just realised fully what Monte actually meant. Just in case anyone else didn't immediately get it, it is basically this.

The complexity dial is this:

Get an extra option pay x in to hit or damage.

For example:
Your base attack is this:
+20 attack
1d8 + 50 dmg.

and your complexity options are smt like this: [/td][td]Costs [/td][td]Benefits [/td][/tr]

-5 attack	push enemies 5 ft on hit
-10 dmg	enemies must make fort save or be stunned.

I'm not too enthusiastic on the "an Orc will still be relevant at any level" thing. I mean sure, there are RPGs where the starting point is "fight one guy" and maximum power is "fight half a dozen guys, if they don't get the drop on you". But those RPGs:
* Are often skill/point based, because 10+ level-ups to change very little is a waste of time.
* Don't have you go mano-a-mano with a dragon and win.
* Already exist, and I can play them when I want that type of game.

There are a couple ways to actually have it work like that (not that I like, but they are consistent):
1) Very small power curve, level 20 is like 5th level in previous editions.
2) A RPS-type system where heroes > monsters > mobs > heroes.

But neither works with "you can fight a horde of orcs, but one of those orcs is still a challenge." In fact, nothing works with that because it's stupid.
Which makes me suspect they're going for some bullshit like "when they only face one orc, use totally different stats, but say it's still the same orc - it's ok because cinematic!"

Ishy, I think you're a little bit off, in that you're paying for options rather than bonuses. So it looks more like this:

Cost	Option	Effect
-2 Damage	Disarming Strike	Make an attack at -8 damage: if successful, opponent is disarmed.
-3 Damage	Stunning Strike	Make an attack at -6 damage vs. Fort Defense: if successful, opponent loses their Standard Action next turn and allies have combat advantage against the target until the beginning of your next turn and the target loses the benefits of any Concentration abilities.

So first off, the entire idea that there is a difference in character building options is a lie. Everyone is made out of a collection of feats, but the "default" is that you flush all your feats down the drain as weapon focus and weapon specialization and shit. You also have the ability to spend your feats on having things to do other than press the attack button. But everyone has exactly the same chargen options whether they end up opting for the bonuses or the combat options.

The second thing to note is that not using function calls for negative status effects is a fucking nightmare and I can't believe they are seriously suggesting that. I thought even Mike "Except Based Design" Mearls was smarter than to seriously try to write out how Stunning interacts with every single effect in the game every time anything stuns anyone (including the fact that now all the other effects that it interacts with are also standalone).

The third thing to notice is that paying for options you aren't using right now is a sucker's game. But then, so is standing there like a retard putting up damage numbers (especially if Orc troops do "relevant" damage at high levels, making any amount of raw damage output strictly inferior to even modest leadership abilities). The correct choices are to either go all in on one single ability or to go full Utility Belt as a crowd controller who doesn't bother to do damage at all.

Basically, without even having seen the product, hell without the product even being in a playtestable state, I can tell you that the two best characters are the battlefield control wizard and the one-trick-pony swordsman. Because it's a necessary result of their complexity dial bullshit.

-Username17

So...Like Power Attack/Improved Bull rush/Knockback/Improved Trip/Knockdown/Awesome Blow/Shock Trooper?

'Cause you can send people sprawling backwards with attack rolls via various abilities gained through advancement in other editions of the game. Without permenantly compromising total attack bonus.

Now if the option exchange had some flexibility to it, it might be interesting. Being unable to switch off Power Attack could be problematic, for a number of reasons, not least because these option exchanges will not just be the perview of Fighters. I would have to see more of the proposed system to make a more insightful comment.

Are we reaching the point where people's worship of the VAH and raw hatred for any sort of power system that doesn't give grognards/WoW-tards woodies is going to derail the edition?

It does not help that the only vague description provided of the 'option exchange system' was a fighter.

What will a wizard have to sacrifice in order to gain these additional options? Caster levels? Or will they sacrifice attack bonus as well?

You know, with a slight modification this could just be poorly balanced, instead of incredibly ass.

Imagine, for a second, that the trade-offs to use various moves are actually balanced - they won't be, but ignore that: let's assume that if you have stun attack, it's an actual decision whether to use it or a normal strike.

To be able to do these maneuvers, you spend a feat (or whatever they call it). People who want no options simply don't spend their feats. So yeah, they're objectively worse, but the individual actions they take aren't worse. They're pretty much like a Sorcerer who only uses one spell, but at least it's a level appropriate spell, so most of the time it will be contributing something.

Balanced? Not really. But on the plus side, the people who demanded less options aren't likely to complain about ... having less options. And if they notice an option they do like, they can just spend one of their unused feats to get it.

When are they releasing this horrorshow for playtesting again? I've heard March and I've heard in two days or so.

I don't think what Frank has up is what they're going to do, but I can see them doing it (and it being ass).

The first public playtests seem to have begun already. Some of the relevant links can be found here.

Winnah wrote:It does not help that the only vague description provided of the 'option exchange system' was a fighter.

What will a wizard have to sacrifice in order to gain these additional options? Caster levels? Or will they sacrifice attack bonus as well?

Probably hit points

angelfromanotherpin wrote:The first public playtests seem to have begun already. Some of the relevant links can be found here.

....

There was a LOT of talk at the table. In character at times! I’ve never been at a D&D table where players were more invested in figuring out their next move.

On that topic, your next move isn’t on your character sheet. You don’t go paging through all your stuff thinking, “Well, I could Bluff this guy.” Nope. We were doing what we thought our characters should do, even if that involved our very NOT charismatic half-orc fighter trying to be a charismatic leader of a band of skeptical savage orcs. Multiple times. In other games, it’s “Okay, who has the highest Charisma? You? Okay, you go talk to those orcs and get them to help us.”

So... they're doing something you can do in basically any game, even in 4e, and that's the big thing now? THe great evolution in RPGs? Thinking outside the box?

angelfromanotherpin wrote:The first public playtests seem to have begun already. Some of the relevant links can be found here.

So I looked through those links, and it looks like there is going to be a slider for the DM in modularity as well in terms of yes/no on minis, tactical movement, and grids.

I don't really see how this can work since it will make entire swaths of abilities not work. I mean, the 4e PC doesn't even make sense if you don't use a grid and minis.

Another comment (paraphrased) struck me as weird: "the PCs in the art won't look like superheroes."

How is that good?

When the hell have they looked like superheroes?

K wrote:So I looked through those links, and it looks like there is going to be a slider for the DM in modularity as well in terms of yes/no on minis, tactical movement, and grids.

I can actually seeing it work if they pull it off right. I used to run combats without maps, with lose maps and with grids as called for by the combat. I'm extremely not convinced about their ability to pull it off successfully.

I don't really see how this can work since it will make entire swaths of abilities not work. I mean, the 4e PC doesn't even make sense if you don't use a grid and minis.

Eh, multiply 4e squares by 5' and you're essentially to 3e, move from there to abstract zones, and you're basically good to go mechanically. I can't see them being able to do that quickly without adding a lot of complexity to the character sheet though.

Another comment (paraphrased) struck me as weird: "the PCs in the art won't look like superheroes."

How is that good?

I'm in favor of it. I'd like a little less of the bulging biceps and giant exposed ta-tas. I'm not sure I'd go all the way to fat food-stained halfling, but I think there's a reasonable market for a range of grittiness in the art as long as it's all good art.

Previn wrote:

K wrote:Another comment (paraphrased) struck me as weird: "the PCs in the art won't look like superheroes."

How is that good?

I'm in favor of it. I'd like a little less of the bulging biceps and giant exposed ta-tas. I'm not sure I'd go all the way to fat food-stained halfling, but I think there's a reasonable market for a range of grittiness in the art as long as it's all good art.

Myself, I've long missed the 2ndEd art.
This current trend of the whole Marvel+Loony Toons+Leisuresuit Larry combo just isn't workin' for me.

Previn wrote:

I don't really see how this can work since it will make entire swaths of abilities not work. I mean, the 4e PC doesn't even make sense if you don't use a grid and minis.

Eh, multiply 4e squares by 5' and you're essentially to 3e, move from there to abstract zones, and you're basically good to go mechanically. I can't see them being able to do that quickly without adding a lot of complexity to the character sheet though.

I think you missed it.

For example, if you have something like a 4e power that slides enemies 5', then that power can't be converted to an abstract location system. Moving 5' doesn't really mean anything in an abstract system, but it can be huge in a 5' grid system.

You can try to convert it, but I find that DMs are far more strict about allowing unexpected PC tactics like knocking people off bridges in a 5' grid system, but tend to fudge a lot in an abstract system (less or more, depending on DM). Your mileage may vary.

This means that there are going to be chunks of powers that only really work with one kind of movement system, or are wildly varying in power.

K wrote:

Previn wrote:

I don't really see how this can work since it will make entire swaths of abilities not work. I mean, the 4e PC doesn't even make sense if you don't use a grid and minis.

Eh, multiply 4e squares by 5' and you're essentially to 3e, move from there to abstract zones, and you're basically good to go mechanically. I can't see them being able to do that quickly without adding a lot of complexity to the character sheet though.

I think you missed it.

For example, if you have something like a 4e power that slides enemies 5', then that power can't be converted to an abstract location system. Moving 5' doesn't really mean anything in an abstract system, but it can be huge in a 5' grid system.

You can try to convert it, but I find that DMs are far more strict about allowing unexpected PC tactics like knocking people off bridges in a 5' grid system, but tend to fudge a lot in an abstract system (less or more, depending on DM). Your mileage may vary.

This means that there are going to be chunks of powers that only really work with one kind of movement system, or are wildly varying in power.

Yeah, that's grounds for hilariously divergent "Slide 1 equals 5' equals one square equals one zone" sort of thing.

K wrote:For example, if you have something like a 4e power that slides enemies 5', then that power can't be converted to an abstract location system. Moving 5' doesn't really mean anything in an abstract system, but it can be huge in a 5' grid system.

You can try to convert it, but I find that DMs are far more strict about allowing unexpected PC tactics like knocking people off bridges in a 5' grid system, but tend to fudge a lot in an abstract system (less or more, depending on DM). Your mileage may vary.

This means that there are going to be chunks of powers that only really work with one kind of movement system, or are wildly varying in power.

3.x has it's 5' steps and bullrushing among other things where 5' is very important, and I'd expect players to be able to try and knock people off bridges even in an abstract location system, but I understand your point.

I would expect wildly varying in power to be the result.

In abstract zones you would make a knockback power inflict a status effect or penalty.

I see it as being written something like this:
Mighty Blow You strike staggers the enemy and causes them to lose ground. They are forced back 5'*.

with

start of book wrote:Location, grids, and distances.
This edition was made blah blah blah...
5'=1 square. If using abstract zones, a character that would be knocked back 5' takes a -2 penalty on their next attack instead.

*I'd default to distances if I were writing.

K wrote:Another comment (paraphrased) struck me as weird: "the PCs in the art won't look like superheroes."

That one seemed especially odd to me too.

They seriously said "Previous editions took themselves too seriously"

Then went on to present as a solution the removal of exaggerated heroic figures and replacing them with gritty crusty unshaven guys.

No really, in one damn comment

Jeremy wrote:: the idea that this game is taking itself to seriously has crept into our art as well. I'll give an example - in the last two editions if you look at the art, I think you'll see a lot of characters that look like super heroes. They all look like they've been to the gym recently, they don't have backpacks for traveling through the dungeon - the guys are well shaven.

I'm afraid that if your solution to "Being less serious!" is being more "Gritty and realistic" and less "heroic and unrealistic"... you aren't doing it right.

But then they said their solution included heroic guys as well. It would just ALSO have fat food smeared halflings... oh great... whatever...

Prak_Anima wrote:When the hell have they looked like superheroes?

It's all relative; 2nd ed and earlier had a surprising number of every man types wandering around in the art as well as skinny and/or old wizards, particularly if you're talking about martial splat books-- those often featured bandits, pirates and battle scenes with Joe Dirt Farmer the Militia Man vs. Some Orc. By contrast 4e focuses the art squarely on big damn hero business. Everyone is built like a brick shit houses and the eladrin, dwarves and dragon born all apparently went to the Jack Kirby/WoW school of armor design--everyone gets a big ol' helmet, unless they're a wizard, in which case they get fuck-you-I-am-huge pauldrons instead. Maybe they don't look like Superman, but the general costume design wouldn't look particularly out of place in an issue of Thor. Personally, I'm not really bothered by it given that I'm not terribly enamored with the quasi-medieval Conan style campaigns anyway.

The 2nd edition art I'm familiar with comes primarily from the Complete Paladin's Handbook and The Psionic Handbook...thing. Both old style, Raphaelite realism style, but the latter had new agey bullshit art thrown in.
Pictures like this:

(minus tits.)

and this:


Given the choice, I'd much rather see art like this:


or at least this:


Probably the bare minimum I'm prepared to accept as D&D art is this:


D&D is heroic, high fantasy. This allows for more "super" knights. When you have characters regularly call upon the power of celestials to smite evil, lets face it, your knight is better reflected by this than this, your psion by this than this, your rogue by this than this and so on...

Reading the Geek Girl transcript made me more convinced this is going to be a cluster fuck.

In the core game, a fighter does more damage and takes more damage than any other class. (As a fighter tends to do!)
If you prefer the fighter of 4e, where you have different fighting powers that allow you to move monsters around, push them, etc, there will be a module that will allow you to build that kind of fighter and play him at the same table as the core fighter. And they’d be balanced.

Like hell they'd be balanced. But yes, they are literally and specifically saying that you start as hurp-derp character that can't do anything and then you buy abilities by spending down your hit points and damage output. That is awful.

Having acknowledged the lemma in which too much vertical advancement pushes things off the RNG and too much horizontal advancement leads to option paralysis, their "solution" is to allow people to choose between vertical and horizontal advancement. That is the worst thing you can do! That means that one player will go for the linear advancement and break the RNG with a boring character and another player will go for the horizontal advancement and bring the game to a stop with option paralysis and making an adventure becomes an impossible task for the DM because player 1 is off the RNG with player 2, but player 1 also can't even interact with 9 out of 10 challenges that player 2 is geared for. And these characters are supposedly the same fucking class.

Mike mentioned that they see the three pillars of D&D as Roleplay/Interaction, Combat, and Exploration. That covers about 90% of what goes on in D&D, minus the rules lawyering (that last one was pointed out by someone during Q&A at the end). They think a lot about how they can incorporate all the things that people want to do at the table, without making a rule for everything.
Monte recognized that some PCs will be good at exploration and not so good at combat, and vice versa. But it’s important to have a firm role for each class. If you have a player who just wants to kick ass, you can help that person create that PC.
Continuing on the classes discussion, Mike added that you can be a stabby rogue (more combat-heavy) or a sneaky rogue (more exploration heavy).

OK, now they are reinforcing the idea that not only can you trade bonuses for options, but that you can trade bonuses and options from one minigame for bonuses/options in another minigame. That sort of thing is fine if resolution of those minigames is fast, such that one character dominating in one is not creating an undo disparity in screen time (like 4e Shadowrun), but it's totally unacceptable if the minigames take a long time (like in 2e Shadowrun). And how are they trying to hack it up?

Monte said he’d use minis, but without the super tactical stuff, mostly just to visualize where things are when needed. There’d be lots of social interaction and exploration that relies on the ingenuity of the players, not die rolls. Players should think about where to search in a room, rather than just rolling a die for Search. He likes to reward his players for being smart.
Mike would start with the core game and then introduce modules later, adding them on a session by session basis. For example, if there was a large scale war, there’d be a module to help run that particular gaming session (or series of sessions). Mike doesn’t want a lot of rules, so he’d move modules in and out depending on what was happening for that particular game.
Jeremy agreed that he’d be the same as Mike. He doesn’t want to pick one game and stick with it. One night he’d do no minis, no die rolls, all talking. The next game might be the full on tactical game with the grid, minis, and tons of dice.

Oh fucking fuck sticks. The minigames are variable in resolution length. So you can literally put all your eggs in the combat minigame basket, and then have combat be rapid or non-existent in a session or even an entire campaign.

Basically, the game they are making is going to have all the problems of Champions (characters do not remotely play the same numbers game without MC intervention), and Vampire (it is entirely possible to come to the table with a warrior and find a game with no combat or with an unarmed seductress and get an evening of hack and slash), and early Shadowrun (you can have an intrusion minigame that lasts most or all of a session that only one player character can meaningfully interact with), and 2e D&D (you have to have a four hour planning and discussion session before you even start the campaign because you need to know what rules variants are even in use before you can even make a character).

After admitting they haven’t done much work yet on high level play...

This does not surprise me at all.

-Username17