Rules like fear shouldn't be nerfed in such a way so that it becomes a tactical choice for a character to make any more than gravity should be a tactical choice on whether the character should fall. Certain creatures rely on fear as a weapon (dragons) as a means to thin the opposition into manageable, bite-sized pieces, and to help avoid the full barrage that would come if characters could mitigate their fear.
Fear is an autonomic response by the mind to something terrifying. It's something that should be completely out of the character's (and player's) control, insofar as being able to consciously make a decision to try and resist the fear. If a mechanic is needed to determine if and when a character gets over their initial shock (which I think is needed, lest they run and keep on running until the DM says they can stop), it should be done through a character stat imo, such as wisdom, on a round by round basis. The more terrifying the creature or effect, the greater the penalty to their checks. That's how I run fear.
This is a question to those DMs used to using combat maneuvers alongside the hundreds, if not thousands, of feats available online and officially.
How do you keep it all straight? I'm a 2nd edition DM, but I've recently been considering implementing some kind of maneuver type system to my game, and using the d20 system as a very primal prototype on which to base things off of, but I look at a document I have acquired online of approximately 100-200 feats and maneuvers, and I'm intimidated. Big time. How much is too much, and how many is to many where they all start to blur together, or worse, duplicate?
I've considered narrowing them down greatly to like 10 per category or less, but then it feels like a lot of potential character options are denied. What do DMs here feel is a good number of feats/maneuvers to have in your game where you can manage them, keep them all straight, and find that sweet spot where all are useful (and used by the players)? Thanks.
They're a third form of "magic" without being magical. They're a fundamental part of the game to me. I've never been able to accept some alternative ideas of an Illithid casting magic spells as some kind of replacement psionics therapy.
Erik Mona wrote:
How can I get you to buy a psionics book and use it in your campaign?
First, I rarely buy anything anymore except minis and modules (Paizo primarily) because I prefer my 1e/2e/.003e hybrid and have to do enough content gymnastics as it is to make most d20 products I do buy hybrid-friendly. Second, even if I were to buy some new d20 psionics book, it'd have to be far superior to the system I've created for myself. Third, point 2 would be considerably tempered, and might cause reconsideration for purchasing, by the inclusion of lots of new powers, psionic items, and creatures that I could augment and/or add to my system.
"It would add three extra weeks to the season," Obama said in a "60 Minutes" interview just after his election. "You could trim back on the regular season. I don't know any serious fan of college football who has disagreed with me on this. So, I'm going to throw my weight around a little bit. I think it's the right thing to do."
Actually, Mr. President, they could trim back on the rust-inducing lethargy the 4 week layoff they all get from the end of November to the end of December, and have their national champion around the same time 1-AA determines theirs. Imagine that. The "concerns" by those "in the know" of an extended season and lost class time are completely unfounded and blinded by green.
Receiving the 2008 Paizo products was one of the few highlights of a rather bleak 2008. I won't miss it. Good riddance 2008, and welcome to 2009. Here's to a better year and even better 2009 Paizo products!
Utah will not get a chance at the National Championship for two reasons.
1) Their conference is not part of the BCS, and
2) They don't get the television coverage that the BCS teams do.
...and that's why the Biggest Crock of S*** is a stupid system. Since when should television, opinions, computers, and voting determine a national championship? Imagine if CBB had no March Madness, and people and computers voted for the champion. Every year, it'd either be Dooook or North Carolina because of their overexposure.
BTW, huzzah to the Richmond Spiders for not being the best team in 1-AA and yet still winning it all. That's the way championships should be determined imo.
Utah, just like Boise State two years ago, deserves a chance to win it all, but under this idiotic system, won't get one.
I don't get it. Seeing how they clearly state that it's a WIP as a 3rd or 4th edition product, why would anyone contribute 1e/2e material only to be rejected and get a refund? o-O
I actually feel bad for Bryan Fuller. He's going to waste the next 1-2 years of his life trying to save a show that is well beyond saving. Unless, of course, they're willing to dump season 3 entirely and retcon it completely out of continuity.
There are some game systems that could benefit from this phenomenon. ;-)
I like to think of the producers of Heroes as DMs that have lost all control over the PCs in their games. They're not quite sure how it happened, how they could allow these characters to gain a ridiculous amount of power in such a short period of time when everything was clicking along fine at 1st level. They know they can't deux ex machina the storyline back, so their only outlet is to nuke the entire site from orbit just so they can be sure.
In a strange way, Heroes mirrors gaming. All the little perks and powerups without any leashes, and then a failed surprise roll when things get out of control.
The past 4 episodes I haven't been able to make it to the end without falling asleep. The characters are all fine, but the storyline is a wreck. They've moved so far from the original coolness of Season 1 that it's become farfetched. The last thing I remember was Hiro hugging his mom as she died. Zzz.
Ahh, those people were a bunch of old schoolers anyway....
Spoiler:
....and we know what happens to old school games and gamers.....they shrug it off and keep playing what they enjoy anyway. Still, the timing by Wotcee is impeccable as always.
There was (still is? I don't know) a regional myth going around where I grew up that the entire eastern half of Washington state was going to shoot for statehood and consider taking the northern half of North Idaho with it, and reform into a new state with SpokAlene or Coeur d' Kane being the capitol. I always thought that wasn't a bad idea myself, seeing how Spokane is so isolated from the west side of the state and how Boise feels like it might as well be in Florida to most North Idahoans.
That's about as radical a state restructuring plan as I've heard, much less, having the USA break up into regional countries.
I don't care who they have in it as long as they hire writers capable of creating character names better than "Snails" for a rogue...talk about a dichotomy.
You don't need to explain to me that magic of Obad-Hai is divine, blah, blah - just make me care about the people in the movie, the way I cared about what happened to Frodo and Sam.
Precisely. Characters first, and the story will reveal itself and make for a decent movie, if not great. LotR set the fantasy bar so high that it's not required to try and top them. Just tell a good story. That's D&D. We'll go see them and buy them on DVD if they're good.
Not to argue, but I think part of the point (and WotC's big problem here) is that they can't maintain both the previous quality and economic viability.
It sounds like subpar miniatures are the way of the future then. Cheap miniatures at a higher price. Gee, why does that sound like the way a LOT of things are going these days?
Tatterdemalion wrote:
I'll take inferior minis over none any day -- especially when they are no longer randomized.
I wouldn't. I'm as avid a collector as anyone, but I won't lower my own personal bar just so I can buy inferior minis because that's all they're able to manufacture. That's, well, stupid and a waste of money. I'd much rather see the line die a deserving death so I could move on to something else worthy of my money. I'm not that brand loyal.
In the end, the line failed for a simple reason: There simply wasn't enough of an audience for the D&D Minis game. There seems to be enough interest in D&D Minis in general - and specifically, fans were mostly interested in higher quality, less randomized minis, with the ability to choose whether they wanted player packs or monster packs. So, that is what they plan to offer, at a higher price per mini.
I've never played the game, so it's failure doesn't impact me at all, and yet my support for DDMs has always carried the same criteria you mention (highest quality possible and less randomization). The failure of the game itself doesn't seem to have had an impact on their decision to continue selling DDMs, though.
Matthew Koelbl wrote:
That seems to be about the best plan they can offer - and yet people are still complaining.
I could care less about the loss of the game. I'm more concerned about the loss of quality, and if they raise prices like you suggest without bringing the minis back up to the quality standards they had from the WotDQ to DoD eras or so, they'll lose more than just a game.
Granted, some of the minis in the latest sets aren't bad, but to me, the overall quality of the latest sets leaves something to be desired.
Matthew Koelbl wrote:
Yes, it would be nice to get all these things for free. But that simply isn't viable for the company, and expecting that WotC should be losing money to benefit the fans is downright absurd.
I agree. They don't have to lose money. They simply have to keep DDMs at an acceptable level of detail and quality, and they'll have my money. If they don't, they won't.
Of course it's a business. The typical response to product criticism is that it's a business, and that it's in business to make money, as if that were some kind of epiphany. When all is said and done, the last few lines have been significantly below the standard they established themselves, so it really shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that collectors notice subtle things like declining quality over time and question a company's commitment to staff or procedures that have clearly changed somewhere down the line.
In hindsight, these decisions can seem profoundly stupid. What WotC did was replace an ailing product line with crappier products. How, exactly, did they think that would increase customer demand?
I have no idea, but one has to wonder about the motives of any company that replaces someone who has proven to be a valuable asset to the company in favor of someone they *hope* improves the company for less money. Isn't that a bit like spending less on the lottery but expecting your odds of winning to go up?
As with many, many things in life, you truly do get what you pay for.
I think I know what happened: The guy in charge was replaced. That happened between Underdark and Wardrums. Underdark was the best set they did, but after that, Schubert was put in control of the line, and the line went downhill, starting in the very next set when the quality of the paint jobs was reduced trastically - but not in the figures they showed us: Those still were nice enough. But the stuff you actually got was almost monochrome. Seriously: some promo pics had minis with 6 colours or so, and the actual product had 2 or 3.
Only after a general outrage did they admit that something went wrong there - and started showing the crappier pics, because they said they couldn't deliver the better quality in the final products any more.
Wow. Talk about deceptive marketing. Carrot dangling at its finest, only the carrot is plastic.
I've always wondered what makes a company replace a guy that's proven to deliver quality for the guy that doesn't when you know it will have to have an effect on the line, which hurts the entire company. Shortsightedness.
So sales dropped? Figures. They followed the quality of the product line.
I stopped buying a year ago or so, and I was a heavy buyer. I'm sure they chased off other customers, too. You reap what you sow and all that.
I also stopped buying when it was clear the quality of the miniatures had declined from previous sets. I'm two sets behind. I'm an avid miniature collector of both plastics and metals, but there's a certain standard of quality I will not lower myself to. With some of the better earlier sets, I had thought plastics were approaching the LOD that metals achieve, but then something happened and they went back to being blobs. Someone in QA needs to have a larger voice and pull with the company.
I'm still thinking of buying into the newer sets, but only for the monsters. Most of the character models are crap, and don't hold a candle to the LOD that metals provide character minis other than you can throw them at people and they won't hurt as much.
I loved how Cameron turned the other T into a pretzel. Special effects, or was that the superlimber contortionist on the internet they got for a cameo?
That scene where the little girl is talking to the psychiatrist, and she shows him the afraid card, and gives him that look.....creepy! I got chills from that one. LOL! This show is awesome!!
That article nailed a LOT of issues I've been having with Heroes lately, particularly the enough with the time hopping and new heroes every week trends. Whether NBC actually listens to its fans over those issues or not remains to be seen. The show is still good, but I think it's teetering on breaking my suspension of disbelief window.
In a strange way, it's starting to feel like a bad game of D&D where there's no risk to any main characters because everyone at the table knows the DM will always find a way for them to come back.
QUests created in an MMORPG by high-level players for lower level players. I'm not even sure how mechanically that would work, but I think it's an idea that could breathe new life into MMORPGs - at least for me.
That's the thing with today's MMOGs is they're still linear. One doesn't have to hardcode in predetermined outcomes for quests that are preconstructed. Players can make their own quests given the game itself allows for enough versatility and diversity in choices that can be made.
The sad part is that game already exists. Problem is, it's a game on paper and in development, and without the required financial stimulus it needs to be created (you know, so people can actually get paid for the work they do....), it never will be. We even have a prototype we've all ran around in and flew around in.
Equinox wrote:
For clarity's sake here's an example of one way I think it would play out: a player - at the highest level attainable, or close to it would have access to some task & reward mechanic that would permit her to offer a quest to a player below a certain level.
Why have a mechanic to do that? For example, one quest could be the high level character telling a lower level character in game that he needs 5 sprigs of Andulusian honeycomb, and it only grows up in the Andulusian mountains 15 miles to the south, and I'm too busy to go get it myself. Would you mind going to get it for me? I'll pay you X, or I have X trinket I'm willing to part with if you go and get it for me. Simple. It's simple task, errand, and mission objective assignment by the players. Those are quests. The journey to the location and everything that happens going there, the acquisition of the honeycomb and anything that occurs while doing so, and the return trip.
Do you think you're not strong enough to survive a trip to the Andulusian mountains? Hire guides or hirelings to help you get it done, be they players or NPCs. Instant adventure. No code was written by the dev team, no prompting by the game, and no carrot-dangling going on by the game or the dev team going on. All this is very simple to implement, and requires very little to no overhead on part of the dev team.
Players today are so brainwashed into being told their character's options that they've forgotten that they can have their own options, tons of options available to them that doesn't require a single line of code. Someday, we hope to provide proof.
Well, at least they didn't lose me any further than they already have by not having 6 or more more new heroes show up. Now, if they can continue that trend and stick to the people and the stories they have right now, I'll continue to tune in.
Spoiler:
The future jumps are starting to annoy me. It'd be one thing if they showed us 1 or 2 future events that could transpire, such as the Sylar explosion, and led us to hope they could prevent that through the present timeline, but they keep jumping around time and it's starting to be ridiculous to try and keep things straight. Just give us the cause for the explosion like they did last night (which was very cool btw that Sylar's son's death was the cause of the disaster), and then stick to the current time and all the events that lead up to that day. Now THAT would be worth tuning in for because we'd know the end result, but not any of the potential changes in the current timeline that might stop Sylar's son from being killed, and the subsequent explosion.
Also, so much for 'Save the Cheerleader, Save the World' premise from season one. An evil Claire? I'm not into that at all. Her character is so much better when she can confront people and know she can't be hurt than being a villain. She should be one of the primary catalysts in somehow stopping Sylar's explosion, not running around trying to kill both Peter Petrelli's.
I do like Nicki's new "Iceman" abilities. She's become a much more interesting character now than in season one.
Parkman's African safari/vision quest seems rather redundant to me. I mean, they're already showing us all we need to see in the future via all the 4 year future jumps. This is different than when Isaac was painting the future because we didn't have 4 year time jumps in season one.
All in all, I still tune in because the show still has be intrigued, but the more future jumping they do, the less interested I become. I think what they've shown us thus far in the future is MORE than enough. Now let's get back to the current timeline and tell all the stories that lead up to what we and they saw. I think that would make for a far more enjoyable Heroes than their current Time Machine version, but that's me. *shrug*
No doubt. Combine the Speedster Blonde with all the time travel paradox-ing going on, and I'm starting to get doubly dizzy. The blonde is a total distraction, and so many heroes are being discovered, it's quickly losing its allure. Heck, even D&D knows not to give every street sweeper in town a +3 sword.... :-/
Get back to the core 6-8 heroes and tell the story of saving the world. Enough with the hero munchkinism overpopulation.
As an example, someone upthread mentioned Dr. Zimmerman. Who's that? LOL.
Last night's episode just added a new layer of complexity onto Cameron.
Spoiler:
Real emotion from a Terminator, not the mocking emotion used to get what they want. Very nice! If the writers remember that and use it, there's the possibility way down the road that Cameron could be the catalyst to some level of empathy towards humanity, and as long as episode disconnects don't become widespread.
Hopefully, the next edition of D&D will take the training wheels off and encourage players to think for themselves. Hopefully, 5E will combine the openness of 1E with the streamlined mathematics of 4E, and what a system that would be!
Excellent post! You've very accurately described precisely each edition and how they're perceived. You've effectively written what I've felt about 3e and 4e since they were released.
I think you miss the point - it's not about pity or comfort. Folks that choose to play 4e simply want to talk about their game of choice without the antagonistic 3e fans throwing rocks and flames.
This is the cyclical nature of editions. 1e fans let us 2e fans have it back in the day, we laid into 3e fans, and now they're firing both barrels at 4e fans. Don't worry. They'll get their chance too. ;-)
I think the show is teetering on the edge of losing people's suspension of disbelief. It's one thing to have dozens of story arcs all intertwining with one another, but it's entirely another thing when only their writers understand any of it. LOL.
As a co-worker of mine mentioned, I'm starting to lose sight of the plot of Heroes because of sheer number of people they show exhibiting special powers.
Spoiler:
The lightning quick girl, Ando in the future, Dr. Shuresh (sp?)...the list goes on. It's fast becoming a who's who list of who has which powers instead of focusing on a plot. I don't know. Perhaps I missed key sequences in the second show last night (fell asleep). The fact that I fell asleep keyed me in to something about the show. I never fall asleep no matter how tired I am for a show I want to see (like Sarah Connors), and I thought Heroes was that show for me too, but something's changed. It's feeling like a WotC production; throw enough super powerz at them, they'll forget all about the stories to be told....
This is often a matter of wait vs. hate. If you make them wait, they may hate you for a little while for pushing release schedules back, but fans forgive quickly once the product is released virtually bug free and fun to use.
Conversely, fans will hate you if you release a product on time, yet full of bugs and horrible to play, because not only have you wasted their time playtesting what YOU (the company) should have tested and got right in the first place (regardless of the complaints as to time), you wasted their money purchasing it too! How companies stay in business using the second SOP is beyond me.
I was wondering whether there will ever come a time in the series or movies where the past gets left behind. Skynet blows it all up, and the series or movies move on to the future battles with the terminators. Those would be a very intriguing and fun sci-fi series to watch too imo. A survivalist series.
I don't miss any of it because I still run it, minus a few of the weird tables. I do thank 3e for certain (limited) improvements I've chosen to use, so actually, it's more of a 1e/2e/3e hybrid than a true 2e game, rules-wise. I didn't see a need to move on to 3e the day it came out, and I still don't, but that doesn't stop me from having a Pathfinder subscription BABY! Yeah! Adventuring is all good; I just ignore all the 3echanics and get on with the story.
New players will need Monster Manuals, and just because the game is backwards compatible doesn't mean it shouldn't be able to stand on its own.
Dontcha just love it when your post is eaten in a monster thread!?! The irony is wonderful.
Take Two.
This is very true. Monster manuals are the one thing I can still buy to use in my 2e game. The only thing that will keep me from buying the Pathfinder MM would be creature repetitiousness. Besides, how many of us already have 5 versions of the same core 100 creatures created for D&D? I know I do. Who needs a 6th?
Not worded as well as Take One, but it'll have to do. Phooey.
Season Two is underway. The first episode rocked! Quite the risk John took reinserting the chip, but you knew he had to do it, for Summer and for his character's own chances. This show just keeps getting better. :-)
I feel that mechanically 4e is not the same D&D I grew up enjoying. I don't make that statement to irritate 4e fans or to be anarchistic. For me, 3e wasn't either. Yeah, yeah, improvements were made, blah, blah, blah, but they were mechanical improvements. I fully accept that the mechanical improvements made to the game since AD&D were a good decision for the people unable to do basic math. Fine. Whatever it takes.
But, Somewhere along the development path of D&D, something changed. The game switched from mechanics being the subtle operators in the background as a device used to determine outcomes to the story to the mechanics having at least on par importance to the story, or at worst, the primary devices best suited to tell the story through. Game mechanics will always be a part of D&D. No one can deny that. The degree in which they intrude upon the DM's ability to tell and weave a good adventure story is the key, and right or wrong, I think it's undeniable that the latest editions have intentionally or uintentionally moved further away from the story and towards the mechanics. Obviously, superior and experienced DMs can and will make that statement irrelevant. They'll be able to weave magical stories and interesting adventures despite whatever mechanics drive the game, but it's the inexperienced DMs that these system changes will affect over the long term.
But then, what do I know? I've only been DMing since before most DMs today were even born, so it's not like I haven't seen the trends in gamers and D&D over the decades. Hey, if people can run fun games using whatever system they prefer, more power to them. Call it D&D if you want. Call it an abomination. Who cares as long as everyone around the table is having fun playing it.
Now, please excuse me. My warlord has to help our party's striker recover some hit points with Inspiring Word (hope I roll high on my d6 to add to his healing surge!). Then, I am gonna move into a flank to give our fighter combat advantage against the goblin hexer. Last, I'll use Commander's Strike to give the same paladin two chances to hit this round. Maybe I can also talk to the paladin into using an Action Point so he can add 5 to his THIRD attack this round from my Tactical Presence. Gonna be a busy round for me. Should be fun, I still have my encounter powers and my dailies. Good times to be a warlord.
Can I get a translation into D&Dinglish? I'm so tempted to go 'pewpewpew' right now. Ooops.
I believe some people would suggest that is par for the course for FR ...
Cheers! :P
Yeah, except this course change changed more than just a river or planet, it actually went metagame and changed buying habits. Now that's a Realms Shattering Event! ;-)
The first thing I get when I tell people I play RPGs, is they think Sexual...
That says a lot about gaming today. Tell them you play TTRPGS; they'll probably get the wrong idea and instantly want to take their clothes off and ERP with you. ;-p
I am still having fun, but I am not sure it is the game I want to run in the long term. Which is disappointing because I was having a hell of a time with it until I hit these roadblocks. One is quite major (powers) and sort of determines the future of the game with my group.
I don't understand. I haven't even seen a 4e product yet, but I'm confused on why you can't add spells or anything else you want to the 4e system? Is it so rigidly defined that deciding to add in a homebrew spell throws the whole system out of whack? That's one of the core, defining (and great) things about past editions of the game. You want to include a Ray of Unyielding Damnation spell to your DM arsenal, you can! You make it sound like if something like that is done in 4e, you have to give up something else in order to gain access to that new spell. If that's the case, I can certainly appreciate your disappointment. I'd hate that myself. Creating or discovering new spells, without having to sacrifice a thing, is paramount to the fun of playing a mage imo.
I hate to say it, but this game is sounding more shoot em up, "pew, pew, pew!" to me as time goes on. LOL.
That's assuming that the PCs recognize the creature as such.
Whether they do or don't recognize the creature for what it is doesn't concern me. What I like is that your DM is open to the possibilities of encounters beyond or beneath the character's station. That, to me, is one of the defining traits of a good DM.
Kradlo wrote:
The GM honestly didn't expect the PCs to attack the boneclaw, but we didn't know until after the game that it was a level 14 creature. We were going on character knowledge, not metagame.
That's good. Tell me; when the miniature came out, did you instantly know what it was? If you did, that's why keeping it to yourself was a good thing.
Kradlo wrote:
My main problem with the game wasn't the GM. It was that most of the players spent the majority of the time complaining about 4E. Honestly, if they didn't want to play the game, they should have skipped it altogether. I told the GM that I'd be willing to give it another shot, but only if we're there to play. If they don't want to play 4E, then play 3.5 and stop griping. I'm less concerned about which edition I play than I am as to whether the players are there to play.
Was this a playtest session to better gauge what you all think of 4e, or was it a real session? The reason I ask is if it was a playtest session, griping about how new rules play out is how you determine whether you like something or not. If it's a game you've all come to accept using, the griping is a indicator of unhappy players playing an system they hate.
