Last GURPs player I saw in real life was in 1990 - In Guru's cafe at Waikato University in New Zealand. Of course they may have gone extinct over the last 23-4 years. I perhaps should have taken a photo?
In all seriousness I hope they do both, PDF's/Software and dead-trees. Like I hope they have an optional extra of battle-mat play. I don't like battle-mats one bit but others grew up on them. I like 5e because it is allowing me to play in a way I haven't since 1e/2e.
Glad I could make you feel young again!
Why not use a lappy or tablet and save the tree and extra work?
Burn the witch! D&D is a Pen & paper game. Modern technology should play no part in D&D. The only tablets available of use in the 80's were caffeine and aspirin and these were taken along with sugary (not diet) Coke-Cola while playing week long, no sleep D&D sessions!
We even rebelled against the introduction of the 'white board' and 'erasable marker pens'. We mapped on large bits of paper with felt-tipped pens that when they marked the mark stayed marked!
Youth of today - or perhaps an old fart like me pretending to like new technology, really...
Not sure this is the best approach in my opinion. In Warhammer normal people are normal people not D&D like combat gods from day one. By adding +10-20% you effectively make the character 2-4 advances above starting. If you are willing to do that why not just hand out 2-4 free advances and let the players decide where the +5%'s go? What if I would rather be better at Hiding than Fighting?
Even without doing this +10% for aim, +10% for 2 on 1, etc. - there is +20% without giving new characters free advances. Warhammer isn't about a fair one on one fights, it is about stacking the odds in the your favour. And if they aren't then running might be a better option. Trying a D&D-like approach to Warhammer is a sure fire way to end up rolling a new character.
Depends if you want a High Fantasy or Grim Fantasy feel I guess.
chris venturini wrote:
But overall, it is a stale system. The game world is amazing, I'm only saying the system is boring.
I don't think there is such a thing as a boring or stale system in any roleplaying game, just dull GMs and unimaginative players...
R-Chance in another thread gives a link to Mike Mearls comments. He basically says exactly that. Combat like 3e and 4e will be available in an optional extra. Seem to me to be the same idea they had with the 2e Black books. I'm all on board for this approach.
Sounds good - if it turned out like the 2e Black Books I would be pleased.
wicked cool wrote:
Any major changes on spells/classes from the previous packet?
Not really, just they put back some of the things they removed. They added some classes and races. Quite a complete little game at the moment. Very usable. I am hoping they give us a couple of months to play-test before asking for feedback.
As I home brew for setting I am only concerned withe the 'core only' working the way I like to tell tales with. 5e is getting A+ from me so far, for me the current 5e is what 3e should have been.
I know it has been there for a while but Potion Misc. Table being but back in brought a huge smile to my face. Making multi-classing special in the latest again caters to my ideals very well.
This edition will make me shelve 2e - and that from me is HIGH praise!
Well worth another thread. A VERY good read. Still the D&D I hoped it would be. Perfect, no, but a darn sight more in line with what I historically was use to when I played D&D. A modern take on an old game, nice. Very keen to roll out my 'go to' adventure Ravenloft (I6 not the awful 3.5e remake) and get a group together.
Really made my day glancing over the new & final packet. Will tide me over until the final product hits the stores. Of course I am hoping they don't decided on too much deviation from the philosophy we have seen to date. I don't want to have to go back to playing with dolls, sorry, miniatures in my D&D games ;)
Post more on MC restrictions please.
Not sure if I can give details (anyone?). But generally speaking you need a certain level of stat to multi-class. Think of the old restrictions on being dual-class in 1e AD&D. Very similar idea. This will mean that where you place your stats initially will determine any later multi-class path and will curtail the dreaded 'class dip' that is seen in 3.5e & PF (lesser extent).
Multi-classing restrictions, lets say that word again, restrictions. They actually included RESTRICTIONS. Awesome. Seriously I was sick of the hippy hug a tree permissive rubbish that 3e era introduced.
I can hear it now; "But I want to be a Wizard, Druid, Fighter, Ranger, Battle Gimp, Panzer Tank. D&DN Sux, none of the Kidz will play!"
Now I can say as DM (NOT GM)... "Bite me." :)
WotC is right on track to have me buy their product. They really are making a game I like.
Why use a clone when you can use 4e itself? Likely WotC will release as a PDF at some stage. Simply as time goes on unless there is a draw card point of difference clones for all previous editions of D&D won't really be needed. OSRIC is a good example, the clarifications/modifications to 1e are rather good and don't change the experience but do speed up play. Then again 2e does a good job of doing that also. Another example of Pathfinder, a clone of 3.5e that has enough material to make it a good option instead of playing actual 3.5e.
So I predict that the clone market will die unless the clones are different enough to not be true clones. Hope that makes sense?
Also just for reference here is a recent winner with unrestricted conversation Elbot. Give it a try and see how human it is.
Again I disagree. All the examples you gave are limited to an instruction set or specific environment. Sure they 'learn' but true human imagination isn't something they can complete with.
The tests you give links to are a very, very, very small sandbox - and RPG is a VERY large sandbox. The human brain is still the most complex structure in the universe we know of. CPU/GPU's don't even come close.
Again currently a computer purchased for home with store brought RPG software can not provide the depth and interest of a person based RPG.
Not sure why physics engines are important?
As for Elbot.
Not exactly the opening for a good evenings roleplaying ;)
Wow, you must not have heard about recent advancements in computer games. They have real physics engines and simulate magic and how it affects the environment (basically variables in the physics engine). So computers can now handle improvisation. They have computer programs that can heuristically learn from past experiences and can write stories and poetry (although they are very simple right now). I wouldn't expect witty conversations or best selling story lines from scratch, but if someone put their mind to it, they could make a pretty good run of a D&D style computer game with modern technology...
The best neural network computer I am aware of has a number of connections equal to a cat brain. Yet this computer can't carryout any functions that even come close to a cats sentience.
So I disagree that ANY current computer can carry out even the smallest fraction of running an RPG that a human can.
Physics engines aren't even vaguely useful for an RPG, they only allow visualizations of a set number of pre-programmed outcomes.
A computer can not handle even something simple like, after describing the players see a town with a wall with a gate and 2 guards, what do you do? The only responses, no matter how pretty looking on the screen, are limited to the person who coded the software and inherit hardware limitations.
Perhaps when SkyNet achieves AI status computers will be good at RPGs, but until then the human mind is a vital component.
I don't think WotC is trying to compete at all with Paizo. Trying to appease the 3.5e crowd is a ship that has long sailed and it is called the S.S. Pathfinder. I like that WotC are trying to appeal crowd who think that the 3.5e base system is a behemoth that causes headaches rather than generates fun.
I currently refuse to GM any Pathfinder (or 3.5e) games, but will play in a heartbeat. D&DN is allowing me to get back into DMing without me feeling like beating a couple of my players to death with the rulebook each session.
If Paizo & WotC can drag some more people away from the idea that computer games actually can provide a true RPG then it is a HUGE win for the hobby. Using a computer game for RPGing is like playing tennis with your foot handcuffed to your wrist. Possible but not really the best way to play.
There is room enough for both games and more besides!
Can I ask what was the problems with the monsters?
Next actually made me want to DM again - 3e/PF had killed that in me.
highest levels with wizards and they were still glass cannons.
Being a glass cannon was what kept Magic Users in check AND the rules supported this. I played H4 Throne of Bloodstone (for Levels 18-100) and after setting out my Archmage never had a full complement of spells. At 15 mins per spell per level a single 9th level spell took 2 hours 15 min to learn AFTER an 8 hour rest. This was shortened to 10 mins per spell per spell level. But serious resource management was required. The 3e, wow its morning, poof I know all my spells - seriously I'm just shaking my head. Then everybody wonders why magic out of hand in 3e?
The Wizards in Dragonlance would have never lost against the rabble and Knights under 3e...
Scott Betts wrote:
Really? Come on, with the idea of a boss creature at the end of most adventures it is obvious that D&DN is basically a remake of Donkey Kong using the underpinning mechanics of Pong I grant you.
Cloudy, care to weigh in again with some insight?
Steve Geddes wrote:
How so? I think it did a good job at allowing a degree (not complete) of balancing - seems semantics. The other factor was that classes did quite specific things meaning that Thieves being a joke wasn't really the case in 1e/2e (I really liked the 2e way of thief ability pointing up) for example. Parties were much more paper, scissors, rock - of course many complain that it forced a certain combination of classes. This wasn't a mistake this WAS the games design.
I think he also missed the 80's & 90's...
Actually thinking about it. Class --> Sub-class was a cunning system. I guess they would have to go back to balancing with differing XP charts. But hey I wasn't the sharpest teenager in the draw and I managed to figure out differing XP charts and even (later in life) THAC0...
They did 3e --> 3.5e when they saw how broken the buff durations were relative to a combat, actually relative to a day!
In the terms that hp's are explained in the DMG the description of what a round entails and 'damage' represents is consistent. RuneQuest (still playing to this day) hp's are a very different thing - losing a limb happens in many combats.
Of course outside 60' = 60 yards (or 180') - except for spell distances.
Agree about the feats, drop feats and keep skills - aka 2e. Feats that are not too game wrecking should just be folded into Class abilities.
Never played 1e with Unearthed Arcana I see. Darn Gygax & Arneson and their sterility! The difference in any class under 1e was whatever imagination the player choose to inject. I gather you prefer the type of RPG where unless there is a mechanical rule advantage to something it shouldn't be in the game?
Riverwind of Dragonlance fame was a noble barbarian (Que-Shu tribe) - class = ranger. Tanis was a fighter who seemed be very ranger like. How does that work then?
The only thing I can agree with you is D&DN has too many options available to truly be old school. So D&DN is old school like but not old school.
Movement rates in pre 3.x was definitely an issue, but one that needed to be dealt with by fixing the movement rates, not the length of the round. Taking cues about movement rates from 3.x and applying them to the longer round is more effective than shortening the round, which throws everything else off while fixing the movement problem.
I am not saying that 1e/2e was the perfect system, but I agree with the above that sometimes 3e designers threw the baby out with the bath water - as they say.
The explanation of "many tries, one hit" was always extremely unsatisfactory.
But that wasn't how it is described in the 1e DMG. The 'to hit' roll just represented the outcome of the all the nicks and cuts and fatiguing you did to your opponent over the round. Over the 1 minute round the melee is swirling and non-static. No one is standing still toe to toe taking turns at bashing each other.
@bugleyman: I would say 60' while parrying, dodging, ducking, and generally not trying to get you head taken off by a dragon isn't too bad I would think. What is this flip-mat you speak of? A mat that flips - what use is that? ;)
The point being that with a 1 minute round, as previously stated, who cares about Vital Cobra Fist Mega-Strike as a distinct 'Feat' - this would just be something your character would be doing during the round which ultimately ends in (hopefully) some damage. But I accept that players keen on 3e+ like to state Mega-Strike and have mechanics to back it up. Me I'm happy with "I hit it with my sword".
I think the balance was a little more involved than that for 1e/2e, at high level a Fighter had excellent saves against magic, even without magical protection (such as a ring of protection). The chance of an instant kill wasn't that great - ok there was Power Kill. Magic Users under 1e/2e were rarely thought of as Gods, more magic wielding mortals. Even an Archmage required about 144 hours to recover all their spells once exhausted. Sure they could teleport out and then back in later, but consider the abilities of the other classes thinking about how deal with a power wizard was all that was required. Remembering under 1e if a fighter was in melee range then their attacks happened before rolling for initiative...
I contend that 1e & 2e to a lesser extent was more balanced than 3e ever was.
I'm not sure which versions I have downloaded and have become confused (more so than usual). I thouht that the 'full' versions had hyper-links in the PDF's the lite version did not. Then I fine both my full and lite version of 6th printing Core don't have links but both the full and lite versions of the 3rd printing Bestiary do?
Can someone kindly clear this up for me.
What do you mean by balance against around?
Adventuring isn't for everyone ;)
Another thing, in 1e/2e a 'normal' person had a maximum of 8 hp, so a lucky Magic User by level 3 was better, survival-wise, than the toughest NPC Blacksmith! Heroic was level 1 by level 2 or 3 characters were FAR superior to the common person. By name level, heroic doesn't even begin to cover it!!! In 3e the local 10th Baker could take out several Orcs and still be back in time so his bread didn't over cook.
Not only the Super-Hero scope of 3e for PC's but also NPCs that made 3e never sit with me well.
Hope they keep the idea that from level 1 PC's are unique and powerful compared to common people. But once you step out into the wilds, well, we all know what happens to Hobbits.
I remember my first Magic User. And his 2 hit points. It did make things exciting :D
And 1 spell (full stop) per day at 1st level! I played Magic Users more than any other class and never complained about the low number of spells under 1e/2e. Just the way it was - like gravity. I would have thought I would have been happy about having MANY more spells per day and casting in combat that 3e+ brought, but it actually killed the fun of playing a Wizard for me. They became Fighters in a dress...
Different game for a different century (literally) I guess?
Yep. How is it restrictive? The only thing will be that hp's don't get out of control for players or by default monster. I think it stopped the game falling apart at higher levels. As I said, my 1e AD&D 16th level Magic User wasn't keen on wading into the middle of a fight even though I was casting 8th level magic. I still needed my friends unless I was wiping out much lower level foes.
Stems from me liking the idea of being a Hero and not a Super-Hero. 1e/2e maintained a level of mortality that was lost in 3e. I still have no issues with Wish aging the caster 5 years and every time you are brought back from the dead you have -1 CON (permanent).
I wish they would limit full hp + con bonus to the first 9-10 levels. This alone helps curb hp-bloat in damage and monster hps. Under 1/2e above 'name level' was epic. I seem to recall my 16th level Magic User under 1e having 34 hp. Sure I could do reality tearing magic, but all I had to do was look ar my hps and it gave my character a healthy dose of reality.
Having 200 hp and then making monsters/effects that can do 200 hp damage is no different than having 34 hp and having effects that can dish out 34 hp.
But I firmly believe that no PC class should more powerful than logically the setting could contain. That means for me heroes but NOT superheroes should be supported ny the rules.
I guess this comes from learning to play in the older editions. For me personally lots of micro-management in the combat rules does nothing to improve an RPG. For me combat is nothing more than a high stakes series of skill resolution tests. I simple 'roll d20 to hit' can be described in many ways at the table without needing pages of rules detailing effects. Now I understand fully that some see the purpose of combat to test your personal tactical skills out in a chess-like competition against the DM. Just not my cup of tea (as they say).
1e AD&D was a game of 'mother may I', just look at what rules were where. The fun (for me) of being a DM was you were like a judge. Players indicated what they would like to do and then you parsed that with what you understood of the rules (sometimes thanks to Gygaxese not easy) and away play went. I believe I am an excellent 1/2e DM but I think I suck at 3e/PF as they DM very differently from 1/2e. 4e I enjoyed DMing again but because of my dislike of miniature based combats I couldn't really get into 4e. 5e for me currently has lots of promise and is perhaps where I would have seen the natural progression from 2e going - the anger people had going 3e --> 4e was me when I saw 2e --> 3e. I could tell that a board game company had purchased TSR and that they wanted to sell me plastic toys (ala Transformers etc). 5e plays like 2e with more consistent mechanics.
So summing up I think that:
- 1e/2e/4e/5e has a DM
- 3e/PF has an extra player that happens to have more than one character (called a monster - but really a character mechanically)
I guess I am in the camp of a casters being having a limited resource of spells (but their spells should put a sword to shame) and once they are gone they better like not hitting things very often with a stick... Some would argue, but that leads to the 15 minute adventuring day - I say that DM's lead to the 15 minute adventuring day NOT players.