Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
[ERROR] No.27537498 [DELETED]  [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

>DM wants to change edition/system
>"ok"
>Wants us to keep the same PCs because backstory, relationships, affection, etc
>"Cool"
>Want our PCs to have the same classes/multiclasses even if they're completely different from the source
>"Ok...wait wut? but my barbarian/monk (p.e.) doesn't work in this edition/system, like at all"
>DM "You do PCs only if they work? don't give me that"
Am I mistaken? I my opinion classes aren't what define the character, but the sum of all its abilities, if the new "class" doesn't resembles the old, why should I pick it?

>> No.27537560

>>27537498
No, you're pretty much spot on. Class names and what they describe can vary radically between editions, moreso than between systems. And if your DM wanted to be retarded and stick to the same classes, what is he going to do when the new system/edition doesn't have anything with that name? There is no Pathfinder Duskblade, no 3.5 Magus, and not a 4e version of either.

Tell your DM to quit being a tard.

>> No.27537578

>>27537560
*moreso between systems

That "than" shouldn't be there, completely changes the meaning of the sentence.

>> No.27537598

Your DM is brain-damaged and wrong in every possible way.

>> No.27537608

>>27537498

Your GM sounds like one of those people who thinks classes = in-universe professions

>> No.27537658

>>27537608
He also sounds like the sort who'd demand you took a level of rogue to represent your character having lived on the street for a few months.

What's that? The adventure hasn't let you spend time in a wizard's library for the last few months? Tough shit, wizard, you're taking a level in something else.

>> No.27537678

I sympathise with your GM a little because I resent people putting min-maxing ahead of creating a character, but he's pushing it way too far here, to the point where it's self-defeating. There's a big difference between people wanting to scour every splatbook to create a munchkin that will break the game and someone just wanting a character that won't be useless. On top of that he's possibly preventing people from maintaining the essence of their character since, as people have pointed out, classes mean different things in different systems.
Don't just yell at him, but he has clearly fucked up here and needs to be talked to.

>> No.27537790

>>27537678
>I resent people putting min-maxing ahead of creating a character

>13+400/.2
>Not minmaxing and making a character out of it

Get on my level scrub

>> No.27538460

>>27537790
>13+400/.4
>2065

Greetings, time traveler. What is the future like for people with our hobby?

>> No.27538501

>>27538460
>400/0.2 = 2000
>+13 = 2013

seriously m8

>> No.27538521

>>27538460

(13+400)/0.2 = 2065
13+400/0.2 = 2013

gee

>> No.27538532

>>27538460
Order of operations dude.

>> No.27538538

>>27538521
>Forgot order of operations
>Adding parenthesis to not look like a retard
>All this damage control

>> No.27538540

>>27538460
What's it like not knowing how to do math?

>> No.27538552

>>27538538
what the fuck are you even on about
I was showing him his error

what the fuck is wrong with you ?

>> No.27538564

>>27537790
I read that as 400/2, because a greentext period is fucking hard to see.
I was about to ask you to give the computer back to the sorcerer who conjured it and go back to your dung fields.

>> No.27538568

>>27538540
Not the guy, but as a high school drop out. Feels pretty chill man, until some shitlord gets all spergy about it.

>> No.27538592

>>27538568
I was looking for a picture of
>math is for gaylords, I prefer to smoke weed
but couldn't find any
that's it

>> No.27538641

>>27538568

>Unironically using the phrase "shitlord"
>Does not know basic highschool math

I just wish you'd admit you're under 18 so you could get banned already

>> No.27538674

>>27538641
>implying order of operations isn't 6th grade math

>> No.27538688

>>27538674

Thanks, Anon, where would we be without you?

>> No.27538718

>>27537658
do

do people actually fuckin do that

>> No.27538741

>>27538718

Who wants to tell him?

>> No.27538769

>>27538688
So it's fine for you to complain about someone else using math wrong, but if people point out that it was in fact YOU that was wrong, it's suddenly bad?

>>27538718
Yes. Yes they do.

>>27537498
So, how did you try to convince your GM? When will you try to explain this whole thing again?

>> No.27538788

>>27538718
Assholes do.
Also, I think ye old dnd woudn't let you level up except at a training center, so if you coudn't find the training center for your class...

>> No.27538857

>>27538788
Hey, it's an inherently bad playstyle. If it builds immersion and verisimilitude, and that makes the game more fun, then it was a legitimate decision.

That's a big "if", though. I don't really see the appeal myself.

>> No.27538871

>>27538857
*it's not

>> No.27538909

>>27538857
>If it builds immersion and verisimilitude

It doesn't because levels are an abstracted meta measurement of character strength by their very nature

>and that makes the game more fun

It doesn't because it means you can quite literally level up at the "wrong time"

>It's not an inherently bad playstyle

Except it is because it's needless nitpicking for the sake of needless nitpicking

>> No.27538926

>>27538788
That had some excuse - it dated from the days of gp=xp, so you had fucking tons of gold, and adventures being dungeon excursions followed by chillaxing in town.

There were some fuck-ups though, like a couple of classes being literally unable to gain enough gold to level up before hitting the xp cap (you could gain xp up to a cap of one point below what you'd need to gain a second level) but that was just typical shitty maths.

>> No.27538932

>>27538769
OP here.
I'm still trying to convice him, but no success so far, worse actually, seems like he's going for the "because someone, I wont tell, isn't satisfied with the change you guys have to roll new PCs..." approach. Basically he's blaming me that we all have to roll new characters because Im a crybaby (which may or may not be true but isnt the point right now).

>> No.27538939

>>27538926
This post relates solely to training to level up, which is still not a great idea but nowhere near as bad as the op's dm or >>27537658

>> No.27538953

>>27538932
OP, you may be a shitty DM. You may be one of the worst DMs in history. But right now, you owe it to your group to steal the viking hat from your current DM and show him how it's done.

(also burn the viking hat)

>> No.27538964

>>27538718
sweet child

>> No.27538993

>>27538909
>It doesn't...it doesn't...it is.
I share your opinion, but our idiosyncratic preferences are not objective values statements.

>> No.27539002

>>27538932
So make a new character. It just happens to be very similar to the old one. But you see, you are using other classes, so by his definition it is obviously a different character and not the same.

>> No.27539028

>>27539002
Don't. You'll only feed the DM's passive-aggressive shittiness and power tripping. No gaming is better than bad gaming, and I bet it wouldn't be no gaming if you quit his game anyway.

>> No.27539073

>>27539028
Before doing drastic measures like completely leaving the game I suggest talking with your party. Maybe you can convince your DM together.

>> No.27539121

>>27538993

Yes they fucking are

It does not build immersion or verisimilitude because a meta concept by fucking definition exists above and beyond the gameworld. Or are you telling me all the characters are aware of what level they are and what classes they've taken a level in?

It does not make the game more fun because it is quite literally interfering with a player's ability to level up as they choose, a mechanic which by RAW is assumed to be taken for fucking granted. Sole exceptions lay in setting inappropriate classes. Literally the only argument you could ever make for this bullshit is taking a level in Wizard and having to explain how your character learned to cast spells overnight or some equivalent, but that's more a problem with D&D's crunch-fluff meshability, and fixing it in this manner certainly does not result in fun or enjoyment, it results in frustration at worst and "well I guess I won't use my level up yet then" at best

>> No.27539127

Your DM sounds like a humongous faggot, and his reaction of passive-aggressively trying to get the rest of the group against you just shows he's spineless in addition to being a fag.

>> No.27539188

>>27539121
What system are you changing from and what system are you changing to?

>> No.27539234

>>27537498
I would say that you try to match the new mechanics as closely to how your group sees the character functioning, rather than a straight 'match the class names'.

>> No.27539253

>>27537608
Depending on the system, that is sometimes the case, though this sounds like D&D so not so much there.

>> No.27539322

>>27539253
D&D has its own brand of rules-as-physics idiots rivalled only by Exalted 2e. A lot of D&D players and DMs are obssessed with the idea that a word on their character sheet is vitally important even though it has no mechanical effect, and that they should be able to translate a character between two editions simply by keeping that word intact.

>> No.27539347

>>27539322
That does not even make any sense.

>> No.27539383

>>27539347
Rules as physics wankers don't make sense, yes. I had a DM who adamantly refused to let people level up unless they found a trainer and trained under them for months. This was the only way to level at all. You also had to pay the trainer.

Kicked me out of the group when I went on a "poke holes in his monumentally shitty idea" rant. Yeah, I was kind of an asshole, but this shit was always completely fucked as an idea in D&D.

>> No.27539415

>>27539347
In soviet bizarro timecube russia's grand unified theory of hybrid rpgs, it still does not even make any sense.

And yet, there they are.

>> No.27539416

Just build a new-edition/system character that matches the abilities of your old-edition/system character as closely as you can, regardless of what the classes are called.

>> No.27539422

>>27539383
Thats stupid, I've had games that the party has leveled 2 or 3 times yet only came out a few hundred gold richer for it. Binding levels to gold is a horrible idea.

>> No.27539439

>>27538718
No one is that stupid. To demand, in a game about adventuring................

That you do Not-Adventuring to level up in your class.

>> No.27539446

>not implementing a timeskip and letting players change alignments, classes and abilities
>not evolving the gameworld as you go
Sounds shitty

>> No.27539450

>>27539322
If we are talk about between two editions of the same game, then I would be inclined to agree that they should be roughly the same sort of class with the same name.
Most mistakes D&D edition changes have made could be said to center of failures in this respect. 3.x doing a poor job it (yes, casters being one example), and 4th purposefully dicking over the old because they thought it would make people switch (that they thought that was a winning strategy still boggles me).

inc idiotion war exs dee
sigh

>> No.27539474

>>27539450
4e didn't really dick anyone over except 3e players who were strongly tied to specific system mastery tricks and 3e's... peculiar stance on power levels.

>> No.27539492

OP give us your class and build and what system you were and now are using

>> No.27539569

>>27539439
>>27539383
Meh, as a general concept, trainers are not a terrible idea, depending on world and tone. But I will say I only like the idea for special skills, secrets, or techniques, rather then for mundane leveling up.

As for 'rules as physics', generally speaking, the rules are the physics of the game world. Though anytime those rules start getting meta there are issues, and that goes for any system.

>> No.27539617

>>27538932
He's not naming names because everyone's complaining and he wants all of you to think you're the only one and be guilted into giving in.

>> No.27539638

>>27539474
They purposely cockblocked ease of character transfer, as a design decision, because they thought that a hard break from the OGL mechanics would kill their 3rd party 3.x competitors.
1-3 you could conceivably transcribe a character from one edition to the next mostly by class name. Though 3.x did tend to make a mess of the old party make-up because usefulness changed a lot.

>> No.27539691

>>27539638
2e-3e compatibility is pretty much a lie.

"Ease of character transfer" in D&D is a trap. Remember the 2e-3e transition, where people started playing their fighter-mages, and some of them even stuck with their old level numbers? Far better to make it clear that there's no easy-looking-but-utterly-wrong path and instead ask them to remake their character in a new system.

>> No.27539722

>>27539638
Also, that hard break was because they'd seen what a horrible mess their system had turned into. It's not easy to fix 3e, and they wanted to make a good game. Whether they succeeded or not is arguable, but they actually tried to identify what they wanted out of a D&D game and build something that provided it.

>and then they brought in 3e-style feats, because they went temporarily insane

>> No.27539747

>>27537498
>2013
>Playing RPGs with classes, roles and other bullshit limitations that make no sense whatsoever
Pleb.

>> No.27539784

>>27539747
>2013
>Playing RPGs with skills where you can manipulate your PC to be good at everything that matters.

When will people learn that all systems have problems?

>> No.27539823

>>27539784
>2013
>Defending that a class that can do X makes more sense than not allowing anyone do X, because X is not a feature, but a simple technique/maneuveur any shcmuck could do

>> No.27539846

>>27539784
Wel, min-maxers wil be min-maxers, no matter what the fuck they play.

>> No.27539855

>>27539784

That's an issue with the ratio of character skill capability to useful skills, not with the fundamental benefits of a skill based system

You're fucking stupid, stop talking

>> No.27539866

>>27539691
>2e-3e compatibility is pretty much a lie
Well, yeah. But they at least seemed compatible at first glance. All the races and classes were available, in name at least.

>>27539722
Then they realized they'd irreversibly fractured the old fan base with the hard break and began trying to construct 5th Edition in some vain hope of bringing everyone back together under one banner.
Would have been better (for them) if they continued the faux compatibility.
I would be mightily surprised if they could actually repair the rift they've made with the new edition, more likely just further dilute things, but I applaud the attempt.

>> No.27539895

>>27539784

And strangely enough, class-based systems tend to be far more breakable than classless ones.

>> No.27539904

>>27539895
Tell that to my GURPS GM.

>> No.27539905

>>27539866
>Well, yeah. But they at least seemed compatible at first glance. All the races and classes were available, in name at least.
And that's exactly why they didn't do the same in 4e, because they didn't want to lie to their customers.

And then, Next. lol. Maybe this time Mearls will feel like a teenager again!

>> No.27539929

>>27539904

'Tend', is not 'are', brah.

>> No.27539930

>>27539895
Outside of pun-pun, haha, no. BESM mocks your puny classphobia, and GURPS giggles as it causes a point of damage to anyone anywhere in the universe with no way of defending against or preventing it, 30 times a second, and still has points for skills and making a rounded character.

>> No.27539959

>>27539930

Except for Cosmic DR, Poison immunity, etc.

>> No.27539974

>>27539855
No, its a fact of skill systems. Under nearly every given skill system, you can make a Gish far easier then under a class system. Just say "I want to be good a fighting AND magic", and tada, you are. You suck at stealth, perception, and cooking. Woopifuckin do.

>> No.27539976

>>27539895
Class based systems that try to pretend that the classes are equal are easily broken.

Classless systems tend to rely on points to equate equality between things to even more disastrous results.

>> No.27540015

>>27539974

>Playing with a GM who only knows how to use Fighting and Magic tests of skill in their game
>Not playing with a GM who occasionally makes you strongly regret every point you did not sink into being more well rounded

Found your problem, your GM sucks

>> No.27540026

>>27539959
>Cosmic DR
I-Is... Is that even a t-thing?

>> No.27540068

>>27539976

Not if you do the classless system right.

But the problem with class-based systems is in fact the lack of granularity and the fact that you're given a package deal for what you can and cannot do. This really fucks up balance because it's pretty damn hard to judge which combination of abilities is better as opposed to just looking at two abilities in themselves.

>> No.27540073

>>27540026

Pretty sure that's "b-but mah Pun-Pun" satire, but Cosmic can be applied to any power. Which means that you can, in fact, have Cosmic Hermaphramorph. >I can change genders, and there's nothing you can do to stop me! MUAHAHA

>> No.27540087

>>27540015
No, you suck. Because its simple economics.

Any given minmaxer or optimizer will seek to maximize returns while minimizing expenses.

To create the character with the most power with the least weaknesses, whose abilities cover either all skills, or the skills that matter the most. In a skill system, it is a matter of fact that not all skills are going to be equal. If you include a skill for Cooking, then by default it won't be as worthwhile, as the skill for Sword-Slicing, because Sword-Slicing gets used 200% more in a game. The fact that the DM occasionally throws a Cooking challenge your way means nothing.

And class systems offer a buffer to that, because I CAN'T cherrypick my abilities, I have to pick them from careful subsets of pre-packaged powers. I can still minmax, but its harder.

And your objection is retarded, because if the party is well rounded, I don't have to be. If the party is Wizard-Fighter, Wizard-Persuader, Healer-Thief, and Wizard-Thief-Barbarian, then fuck all if I don't know how to talk good.

>> No.27540126

>>27539691
I've been running a 2e module for a 3e party and no-one's noticed yet.
But multiclassers totaly get fucked, I'll give you that.

>> No.27540133

>>27540087

Nah, you're just playing with a DM of questionable talents in a shitty setting where "swing sword" is the solution to far too many problems.

>> No.27540164

>>27540133

This

>> No.27540166

>>27540087
You...wot, m8?

grait bait mait, I took it hook line and sinker.

>> No.27540169

>>27540133
No, its a fact. If we are playing a game about adventure, not about cooking, then that means the Magic and Fight skills WILL get used more frequently then the cook skill.

>> No.27540172

>>27540087
I think combat skills and RP skills should use different points to buy or whatever. So you can suck at swords to be good at magic, but you can't suck at cooking to be good at magic.

>> No.27540180

>>27538592
I've spent 5 years in university studying math in different forms and have now worked just shy of a year as research associate involving pretty much exclusively math and I still prefer smoking weed over it

>> No.27540201

>>27540133
It doesn't matter what the DM is doing.
The fact is, some things come up more than others.
Furthermore, some parties are interested in different things. If everyone wants to go adventuring, than it is kind of annoying that 50% of the game is devoted to cooking just so whoever put points in there can feel usefull.

>> No.27540202

>>27540172
See this would be a decent way of fixing skill systems. But in alot of skill systems, you can Gish alot, by just focusing on skills likely to come up in a game [like magic, stealth, perception, fighting, and talking], and dumping flavor skills like cooking, tent-making, or other useless/useful skills.
>>27540166

>> No.27540212

>>27540026
Yeah, though the only benefit is that it can resist armor-ignoring attacks.. like Cosmic ones.

>> No.27540214

>>27540087
>In a skill system, it is a matter of fact that not all skills are going to be equal. If you include a skill for Cooking,
So you're talking about D&D then?
Most of the time, in a skill-based point buy system that cooking skill will cost you signifcantly less than skills which are used way more often.
Even if cooking and fighting cost you the same, the game is probably made in such a rules-light way that you can freely your cooking skill to a lot of different situations.

Flat out saying that optimizing/min-maxing is easier in classless system is just wrong.

>> No.27540220

>>27540169

>Not solving your problems through stealth, legal arguments and improptu poetry slams

Son, I feel bad for you.

>> No.27540236

>>27540073
Yes he can. It's called Affliction. Most exploitable ability of the entire setting. Now add cosmis to it too. There it is. My affliciton power is cosmic. And my affliciton, is for a time, (maybe permanent if I motherfucking have points to pay the permanent modifier) to remove an advantage/skill/magic or inflict a disadvantage (Limited Amnesia "I can't hermaphramorph" and when you think about it, that shit would be a quirk. You are a cosmic gender changer. I looked to you and if I succeed, you now forgot you are a cosmic gender bender. Enjoy your current gender until you can roleplay that shit out.

>> No.27540260

>>27540202

There are perfectly decent skill-based systems that avoid those problems, you just have to be a bit innovative with how you handle the skills. Look at Heroquest 2 for a good example.

>> No.27540267

>>27540220
If you want to roleplay a game about that, then fine. Hell, do it in D&D.

But what I"m saying is, most RPGs have a general feel or playstyle to them [or set of feels playstyles], or at least, the group has a feel/playstyle.

And by choosing skills that come up often, and ignoring skills that don't, you become god for all intents and purposes.
>>27540214
Its *usually* easier then in class systems. My TomeMonk in D&D right now is good at fighting, running fast, and breaking shit. My MuscleWizard Monk in a homebrew skill system? God. He's bad at social skills and range weapons. He has great defense, hp, damage, and utility magic of all kinds, plus blasting.

So yeah. Its easier to GISH in skill systems.

>> No.27540283

>>27540260
Not saying they don't exist. Anymore then balanced class systems don't exist.

I'm saying that the argument "Skillsystems are better then class systems" is a load of horseshit, because, among other reasons, they are usually easier to break.

There is merits/demerits for both kinds of systems.

>> No.27540297

>>27540133
The guy have a valid point. RPGs had a incredible amount of chapters and rules and side rules and whatever the fuck it may have just for combat.
Maybe the RPG you play do not value combat as a whole (I would say storyteler, but that would be bogus, storyteller is 2/3 about combat, so I think the name is tricky) but the majority of RPGS give too much space and time just for combat.
See GURPs or Shadowrun and all the calculations and math to deal with one combat scene. That's why many people avoid those both games.

>> No.27540324

>>27540201
Well, technically it does come back on the GM and how the games play out.
For instance,let's say you would like to play a well rounded character, but the GM has your opponents on a constant increase in power, such that you would have to focus on increasing combat skills to stay on par with where the difficulty of encounters is. Which if you go down that road means your other skills are on a backslide, if you don't you are overall 'behind the curve' but your 'other' skills tend to be much better than the rest of the group when they come up.
And there you have the tale of why I'm the skill monkey, because I will still put points in those other things. Though it does wound me when I'd barely pulling my weight with enemy 'mooks'.

>> No.27540349

>>27540214
>Even if cooking and fighting cost you the same, the game is probably made in such a rules-light way that you can freely your cooking skill to a lot of different situations.
I can't say that I have ever met a point-based game that matches your descriptions.

>> No.27540378

>>27540324
And that's why I support
>>27540172
Because magic missile and herbalisim are kind of completely different.

>> No.27540393

>>27540349

Depends entirely on how you play it. Maybe your cooking skill also determines how likely you are to know which plants are edible or shit like that which would let you survive in the wilderness.

At least HeroQuest 2 would work that way, for a quick example.

>> No.27540401

>>27540267
I don't think you know what "god," means if you think "combat," is what makes you good.

>> No.27540407

>>27540349

That's probably because you have not actually had any interest in point-based systems and thus haven't looked

>> No.27540409

>>27540324
In my games, the Gm usually look at us and asks "So, if you're not out there killing shit, you're not very good at anything, are you?"
And god damn it, we can't answer that. Because he's right. If our characters would translate to our world, we would be hobbos or mercenaries in some god forsaken country killing insurgents all day everyday, and god forbide us if we win and are shipped home. We would starve to death.

>> No.27540460

>>27540409

You should give a less combat-based setting a whirl. My last character does fight a lot, sure, but at the end of the day it's much more important that the fields get plowed and the crops harvested because otherwise we'll starve to death over the winter.

>> No.27540526

>>27540409
>In my games, the Gm usually look at us and asks "So, if you're not out there killing shit, you're not very good at anything, are you?"
>And god damn it, we can't answer that. Because he's right. If our characters would translate to our world, we would be hobbos or mercenaries in some god forsaken country killing insurgents all day everyday, and god forbide us if we win and are shipped home. We would starve to death.
Well, it's 3.5e's fault for putting "useless flavor skill that is only useful when the GM specifically attempts to make it useful" alongside "actual important shit".

>> No.27540548

>>27540401
God in my case means "A very powerful being".

Now power is the ability to bring about change.

What lets you bring about more change, cooking, or killing your enemies? Ding ding ding, its killing your enemies.

Its why using a DPR argument to say Fighters and Wizards are balanced is retarded.

Because the net power is different. The Fighter, even at level 20, is really only good at 1 thing. Fighting.

The Wizard, is good at Fighting, and about 200 other things.

So in a game of D&D/Tabletop, you really only face a few common, serious challenges, and they are

1. Combat
2. Puzzles/Obstacles/Traps
3. Social Situations
4. Exploration

If you have a party that can fight things, get places, solve all the obstacles you come across, interact with NPCs, and get anywhere you need to go, congrats, your party is operating at maximum efficiency.

Even if the party lacks skills like Cooking or Fire-Making, or other flavorful or minor-puzzle skills, they will get by.

This is for two reasons. Firstly, because these things are not important to begin with. Secondly, because good DMs adjust their games to fit their parties. You will not see many enemies that take Wizards to defeat, if there is no party Wizard. Because that just frustrates the party and pisses off your players.

So no. It has nothing to do with DMs being combat-focused, or me being combat-focused, it comes down to the plain reality of the way the game is played. If you cover all likely in-game obstacles, you will succeed as a party. And in most skill systems, you can more easily create a character that covers the all four above roles, and the various minor roles of the game, then you can in a class system.

>> No.27540590

>>27540548
>And in most skill systems, you can more easily create a character that covers the all four above roles, and the various minor roles of the game, then you can in a class system.

Which is a good thing, as it allows the GM to have a greater variety of challenges than just the ones you listed.

>> No.27540613

>>27540590
There are very few challenges that don't fit into Combat, Puzzles/Obstacles, social situations, and exploration. Regardless of system.

And no, being able to create a Wizard-Knight-Healer-Thief-Face isn't a good thing. It means you don't need the party. Or, if everyone is Wizard-Knight-Healer-Thief-Faces, then everyone is the same, and you might as well give everyone all the powers.

>> No.27540646

>>27540407
GURPS, BESM, D6, to name a couple.

>> No.27540650

>>27539866
I really wished that 5e went in the direction of trying to refine 4e and fix its faults (the largest two by far being slow pace of combat and the terrible way the books were laid out) rather than chucking it out and saying "no really D&D can be the game absolutely everyone needs for everything again"

>> No.27540657

>>27540460
"If you can swing a sword and halberd all day wearing full plate you can plow the fields, right guys? Right?"
And then we're all fucked. To answer that NPCs. NPCs everywhere. When we find a favorable NPC, holy fucking shit, we'll leech that motherfucker dry. And god help you if you mess with our NPC provider, because we will find you and break your shit. Royally.

>> No.27540724

>>27540613
>There are very few challenges that don't fit into Combat, Puzzles/Obstacles, social situations, and exploration. Regardless of system.

I feel kinda sorry that you've pigeonholed yourself in this way. Maybe you should try something new?

>And no, being able to create a Wizard-Knight-Healer-Thief-Face isn't a good thing. It means you don't need the party. Or, if everyone is Wizard-Knight-Healer-Thief-Faces, then everyone is the same, and you might as well give everyone all the powers.

This is why good skill-based systems reward you somehow for specializing but still let you try.

>> No.27540730

>>27540613
Well there are very few challenges that don't fit into "obstacles" alone, because that's a vague fucking word that can mean anything.

Party based games tend to encourage specialization because there are multiple people to fill multiple roles. It's better to have four characters, each really good at one thing, than four characters okay at all four things. In the first situation the party as a whole is really good; in the second it's still just average.

>> No.27540772

>>27540730
Point is, in Skills systems its easier to make a PC whose as good as he needs to be, at everything [or at least, more things], then in a class system.
>>27540724
Obstacles is a vague word, its not pigeonwholing. You name me one thing that can happen to you in tabletop that can't be construed as Combat, Exploration, Social Situations, or a Puzzle/Obstacle.

>> No.27540864

>>27540772
>Obstacles is a vague word, its not pigeonwholing. You name me one thing that can happen to you in tabletop that can't be construed as Combat, Exploration, Social Situations, or a Puzzle/Obstacle.

In a recent game I played my character had to come up with a business plan for the startup that the players were running. That doesn't fall under any of the categories you've presented.

>> No.27540935

>>27540864
Why were you making the business plan?

Could it have been................to overcome an obstacle?

>> No.27540949

>>27540864
Actually that can fall under Social Situations and Puzzle/Obstacle. Maybe even Exploration.

>> No.27540959

>>27540935
I'd file it under Social Situation, along with the rest of the non-combat money gathering operations.

>> No.27541010

>>27540772
>Exploration

Since it seems we've been arguing in circles for the last couple of hours, /tg/, how do I into exploration?
I just can't think of a interesting "Exploration" themed game to run. I even tried to improvise some exploration in the last game I GM'd, but eh. It was so bloody stale.

How can I make engaging exploration?

>> No.27541021

>>27540935

So in other words now you're suddenly defining the concept so broadly and vaguely that you can claim that literally anything falls under it.

Congratulations for coming up with an useless definition, then.

>> No.27541039

>>27541021
Thats the point of those four things. I was saying "All things in gaming can be broadly defined as being one of four concepts".

And then going on to say "If you are good at those four concepts, it doesn't matter what else you're good at, because it doesn't matter from the game's perspective".
>>27541010
Interesting locales, good descriptions, and never, EVER make it just about the exploration. If we're talking D&D, make there dungeons and social situations and so on to break up the pace.

>> No.27541096

>>27541010
This guy in another thread >>27537859 had an interesting idea for a game focused on exploration.

As for making it interesting, maybe take some inspiration from natural stuff?

There are some really impressive places around in real life.

>>27541039
>If you are good at those four concepts, it doesn't matter what else you're good at, because it doesn't matter from the game's perspective
What skill is there that doesn't fit into those categories and can be safely dumped?

Cooking (and needing to get food) would fit under puzzle/obstacle, so you aren't fully good in all categories if you dump that.

>> No.27541108

>>27541039
>Thats the point of those four things. I was saying "All things in gaming can be broadly defined as being one of four concepts".
>And then going on to say "If you are good at those four concepts, it doesn't matter what else you're good at, because it doesn't matter from the game's perspective".

No, you were specifically saying Puzzles/Obstacles/Traps which is much more narrow than anything that might concievably be an obstacle. In fact, the skills necessary to bypass a trap could be entirely different from the skills necessary to deal with some other abstract obstacle. In fact, if we abstract it that far, all of the other categories you mentioned would also fall under the abstract "overcoming an obstacle".

So stop backpedaling, please. There's far more possibilities to roleplaying than the typical D&D adventure.

>> No.27541112

>>27541039
>If we're talking D&D.

Was running homebrew, now contemplating GURPS. Was Fallout-y, now still studying if alt-universe Modern.

>Interesting locales
How so? What do you normally find better to make a locale engaging to players?

>good descriptions
I've read once that vague descriptions tend to be better than detailed ones, because it leaves more space open to imagination and colorful detail-filling. Agree, or...?

>and never, EVER make it just about the exploration.
Yeah. Copy. That probably was the problem, I figure.

>>27541096
>This guy in another thread
Cheers. Reading.

>> No.27541206

>>27540220
>>Not solving your problems through stealth, legal arguments and improptu poetry slams
replace fighting with stealth and cooking with fighting. His argument is now applicable for your campaign.

>> No.27541218

>>27541096
Yes but in my first post I clarified there were common D&D style obstacles, and rare "Never gonna come up ever" obstacles.
>>27541108
I'm not backpedaling. He was saying that in the broad sense that what he was doing wasn't a puzzle/trap/obstacle/etc [it was]. But in the narrow sense in which I was using the term, it would be a minor obstacle. Anyhow. Pointless terminology.
>>27541112

Interesting as in details. Little details. For example, players walking through a church? They see lists of saints, or stained glass windows of [lore people], and so on.

An interesting location has something about it thats cool. The most common sources of cool are interesting histories/lore data, weird environments [antimagic, volcanic, weird, etc], and so on.

I said good descriptions, not long descriptions. Describe the place they are in. A few sights nearby, maybe some smells or sounds. Main thing to focus on is giving them a general concept of where they are, and making the description entertaining rather then "When will he shut up so I can tell him my action"

And yes. A game about JUST exploring a setting is hardly ever fun. Throw in some fighting, social situations, obstacles, etc.

>> No.27541293

>>27541218
Noted and planned. Mighty thanks.

>> No.27541301

>>27541218
>rare "Never gonna come up ever" obstacles.
So a DM decides to completely ignore large parts of the system and change nothing else to maintain balance, and this is the system's fault how?

>> No.27541340

>>27541301
Not my point. I'm saying that in any given system, not all skills and powers are equal. There is a categorization. And in a skills system, you can cherrypick powers easier, thus allowing you to take the good skills without taking any of the bad skills, thus maximizing power.

And while group to group this varies to a degree, some skills [Like magic], are infinitely better then some other skills [like cooking].

So my general complaint against skills systems [which I do like for the freedom of them btw, I'm just noting they aren't perfect], is that Gishing and minmaxing is far easier then in a class system, where you kinda have to occasionally take powers that aren't optimal, or aren't exactly what you want.
>>27541293
No problem.

>> No.27541370

>>27541340
>I'm saying that in any given system, not all skills and powers are equal.

This is, in fact, pretty much bull. There are skill-based systems built around the fact that all skills are mechanically equal by default, it's where you can apply them that makes the difference.

>> No.27541417

>>27541370
Not truly in practice. The "Combat vs cooking" example comes to mind. IN many skill-based systems, not all skills are equal, either in power or in practical uses.

>> No.27541486

>>27541370
GURPS and Shadowrun are good examples of that. If you wanna cook, ride, fight with a sword, have sex like a god, fire a minigun wile jerking off or cast magic; it costs the same. Same points. Same table. Both systems have limitations in the character creation IF the GM chooses to. Otherwise the guys that understand the system more, will create unstopable forces of nature.

>> No.27541489

>>27541340
>I'm saying that in any given system, not all skills and powers are equal
I still think this is more of a problem with DMs who decide to go
>alright, you walk to the dungeon
as if nothing outside the dungeon matters.

If your game is going to be about combat only, you will need to re-balance a system which assumes you will buy non-combat stuff.

>> No.27541508

>>27541489
Yeah, but the main over-riding point is, in a class system you can't cherrypick your powers like you can in a skill system, so its harder to be "Good at everything that matters".

>> No.27541519

>>27541417
>Not truly in practice. The "Combat vs cooking" example comes to mind. IN many skill-based systems, not all skills are equal, either in power or in practical uses.

Again, that depends on what kind of game you're playing. If you run a game centered around the players running a restaurant, you can bet that the cooking skill is more important than the swordswinging skill.

>> No.27541557

>>27541508

In a class-based system you totally can be good at everything that matters once you figure out which class is the best.

>> No.27541562

>>27541519
That just reverses the problem. In many campaigns, you can get a general feel for what skills you'll need most often, before the campaign starts.

Often the type of system you use, helps you guess that.

>> No.27541602

>>27541557
Name me one not-3.5/PF system that has a god-class? Hell, even 3.5/PF don't let one PC do *everything*. Just most everything.

>> No.27541625

>>27541557
And that's the problem. When everyone realizes that class is better. Everyone will be that class.

>> No.27545525

>>27538538
My dear Aunt Sally, come on, its time for your pills. Youre embarassing me.

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action