donnald johnson's page

the beauty of cannon is that it is like any other rule, it can be ignored. my 4e greyhawk campain is set as of what was published in 1983.

In my head: most wizards would have a certain amount of spell slots.

player 1: could fill those slots with level appropriate spells, which are memorized in the morning, and cast based on description during the day, ie past editions.

player 2: fills those slots with at wills, econunters, and daylies, ie current edition

player 3: has attack spell, movement spell, utility spell etc. the player casts a spell, describes it in as much detail as the player wants to use, rolls damage based on level (which is on par with player 1's attack spells) of the spell and picks an effect, and casts until all the slots have been used.

player 4: has a point pool, and casts based upon that pool, either from the whole list ala wizard/cleric, or from a truncated, chosen list, ala sorcerer.

if all the damage theresholds are the on par, and each has some sort of effect attached. these players can all play at the same table, and none of them are having badwrongfun.

player 1 gets to scrutenize lists, follows descriptions, make selections etc.

player 2 makes fewer choices, and gets to use some as often as she wants, use some a few times a day, and a few only once per day. not as much customization, fewer things to decide from etc.

player 3 can have as much or as little investment as he wants. the lurker can just roll dice as appropriate, the thespian can have wild, descriptive fun without anything minimizing his imagination.

player 4 gets to do some serious accounting.

if we are talking wizards (magic-users), clerics (priests), warriors (fighters), and theives (rogues) (i personnaly prefer the magic-users, clerics, fights, and theives) each could in those blanks how they want. fighter has a sword, or at wills, or moves, or points to spend etc.

thats in my head.

all at the same table.

I subscribe, have since the very beggining. I plan on continuing my subscription for ever and ever.

Also, they post all the art from all the books, and all the maps from dungeon articles. can never have too much art.

DJ

i figured that this was as good a place as any for my 300th post.

I started my Greyhawk campaign at first level, with cannon as of 1983. not to much published by then.

I started out with the blue cover basic (the 1978 booklet, didnt get the box set, wish I did, since I didnt have dice until about 1981). Went into Ad&D, then in 2005, started playing 3.5 after skipping 2nd Ed. In 2006, I wasn't playing at all until 2008. Now, I play 4th edition.

Rule #1 was missing from 3.5, and that is its biggest downfall.

Rule #1 is once again rule #1, which gives the edition a very AD&D feeling to it. The rule arguments at the table dont exist any more, the interaction is much more real. The imagination is very real.

I disagree that 4e doesnt handle roleplaying well. Unless your idea of roleplaying is rolling a d20.

in combat, there is very real cooperation between the party, because things that one player does, often affects one or more of the other players. The buffing that went on prior to combat in 3.5 seemed very stilted, and programed. In 4e, their is buffing, but it isnt encounter breaking, and it is fluid, a part of the encounter, and evolves, and doesnt usually last forever. Most positive effects last until the end of the buffing characters turn, and negative effects until a saving throw is made.

3.5 is a very antogonistic approach to gaming. 3.5 deffinatly has a I win you Lose feeling, pitting player vs DM (which the deck is stacked in the player's advantage) and player vs player (arcane casters trump, after a few levels of being protected by the fighter).

The end of the adventuring "day" when the caster is out of spells, or really out of their highest level spells. that wizard can cast magic missile all day long. and those encounter powers, although gone right now, after a short study period, are back in mind. There is also a mechanical advantage to continue the march, instead of finding a hidey-hole for 8 hours.

As far as the dayly martial power, the above description works well, it can also be explainded that the perfect oportunity to use this power at this time is the opponent has to be in the right place, the pc has to be in the right place, etc.

The adventures that WoTC produces are designed to be light on story, becasue the story is supposed to come from the table, not the booklet. Which is where the story is supposed to come from. There is a little plot, there is a little hooking, and then great encounters. the plot, the story, the hooks, are supposed to come from the coopertive story telling at the table, instead of being railroaded from this hook, through this plot, and these encounters.

I love that WoTC isnt trying to tell OUR story, just assisting the telling, by giving me great encounters.

I am sure this is a ramble, which most of my posts are. OP: if your friends arent willing to try it out, give WoTC's encounters program at your FLGS a go. My fiends embraced it, even the hard core 3.5 optimizer who would only play 6th level and higher arcane spell casters is enjoying it.

Just a quick note.

The game truly boils down to the social contract of the table, and each table is going to be different. I personally would not last long at a table of players who clearly do not like each other, nor would I last long at a table of players who do like each other but do not play well with others (and I mean this in a strictly kindergarten way).

Fun should be the centerpiece of the table's social contract. Fun is why we get together, drink beer and roll dice. The goal of each player should be to support the others in a mutually beneficial goal within the lives of the characters.

I agree with the article, and many of the posters interpretation. A player taking an action of which that action is not beneficial to all, either by being adversarial, or deceitful, with the excuse of "because this is what my character would do," at a table which is conceived under the contract that all work together toward a common goal, truly adds nothing positive to the experience. If the table chooses a social contract where backstabbing, infighting, treachery and deceit between players is acceptable behavior, then please, enjoy your game. I do not wish to play that way. If I wanted an experience like that, I would just go to real life, instead of my fantasy realm with my friends.

I agree with WotC's right to point this out. The Neverwinter campaign setting is ripe with factions of opposing viewpoints and different mechanical aspects tied into their themes. During character creation, it would be very easy to pick a theme which is contrary to themes chosen by other players. Unlike other campaign settings with opposing factions, Neverwinter is very small geographically, and these factions will interact with each other, much like gangs in any city. A slight “push” from the Dungeon Master should be enough to prevent such issues at the beginning of the campaign.

In conclusion, WotC is not trying to tell anyone how to play the game. What they are saying is be cognizant of the choices you as a player make, to fulfill your duties of the social contract in effect at your table.

This was neither quick nor just a note.

Anyone remember this thing?

I must admit I picked one up back in the 80's. Used it for a couple months and went back to using actual dice.

I do remember it. never had one but i do remember it.

i will use the cards as a role playing award.

example: player 1 does something really cool, funny, great idea, great use of powers, skills, criticle hits, etc. player 2 says: player 1 deserves a card. and i issue a card, the player gets to use it whenever he/she wants to.

so, they are an award for fun.

im playing greyhawk, 4th ed.

i reset the setting to the folio from 1983. and restriced class/races to 1st ed phb. starting with series u, moving on to series a, then g, d, q

where as wotc has said that esentials products will always be in print, they have not said that the phb 1 or others will be allowed to go out of print, or be phased out. the phbs have the base builds of all not ddi only classes, and all the character races. they have also not said that essentials is going to grow at a rate comparable with the game as a whole.

as i have stated, essentials is not a seperate rule system. it is a basic, simplified version of the whole. you can play 4e either with or without essentials. or you can play dnd based on the options in esentials with or without the core options.

the online cb will support all products of dnd. according to what i have read, there will be filters available to supress the source material the user wants to.

i dont feel that wotc should have to make and support different products for the same game, especially when one product will do. i also feel that once the monster builder and what ever other tools are moved to the online tool, there will be even more incentive to be ddi member.

even playing straight essentials builds (which is terribly limiting) a dm should like the flexibility of a monster builder.

i also argree with what trevor had said that one of the reasons going with an online tool set is to cut down on piracy. i personnaly hate pirates. it doesnt matter if they are stealing music, books, software or hockey seats. (i pay for good hockey seats, and i hate it when people with cheap seat tickets come into the area where i spent 120 bucks. thieves. all of them are nothing but thieves.

wow...rant.

but essentials isnt a seperate game. its all wrapped into one set of core rules. making character builder for just essentials would be going aganist the all one game concept. just becase power a isnt in an essentials book doesnt mean that an essetials build cant use it. i would think that people would want access to all available powers etc.

once these 10 essentials products are out, there will only be further support in dragon magazines.

i feel that this online move to cb and other tools is a first step towards makeing the vtt a reality. (not that i really want or need one, i know that many do want a vtt)

the cb is online, so the vtt can access all the players charecter sheets, and make updates as play goes on without having to find the sheet on your hard drive. the mb is online, so the dm can add monsters and npcs the the encounter, the data is available to the vtt so it can make updates to it as play goes on.

treasure created by the dm is in its own encounter data base, so the vtt can add parcelled out treasure into the character sheet.

this is what i see. sharing data between tools is not a bad thing. i just hope that there are more than 20 encounts stored in the dm's data storage.

making homebrew entry possible is important to me, since i run a grayhawk campain, and would like to enter the grayhawk dieties as selections, but at the same time, i couldnt imagine how many house rules you can add without affecting your 20 character limit.

100% accuracy is not important to me. (its like infinity: infinity isnt important, its the approach to infinity). good enough is good enough. gaming is about fellowship, and friendship, and having a good time. not numerical accuracy.

get together, drink beer, role dice

i have a "lets have fun" reward. it can be for a great idea, a great move in combat, saying something funny, etc. anything that adds to the fun of the game. it can even be for bringing great beer. having good food on hand, or anything.

what the reward is, is that i have made up about 300 mechanics cards. a player does one of the above actions, and the other players can nominate him her for a card, then i issue the card.

the mechanics cards have a small bonus, or an action point, or a collect x amount of this card to do something mechanical. such as collecting 3 encounter power recharges cards allows you to recharge an encounter power that day.

players are only allowed to have 5 of these cards at anygiven time. so there is incentive there to use them. they have an indirct influence on xp rewards by giving that last needed +1 to hit, or damage, or a + to a skill, or a + to will or whatever to help win a combat.

but thats what i do. i also use paizo's plot twist cards. costs an action point.

it sounds like they are in the process of developing a world. i dont really care what they do for campaign settings. i use grayhawk with 4e. i never really cared much for moduals that gave you every detail, i always felt like they were an impediment. i never used all of it anyway. alls i ever wanted were monsters and treasure and a map. kind of like what wotc is putting in dungeon magazines.

I havent bought any GSL product. during 3.5, i bought a few (non-paizo, of course, paizo was official at the time) 3pp stuff, and for the most part it was all very disapointing. at the time i had more money then sense, so it really didnt matter. but im retired now, and have to be very careful who gets my gaming 10 dollars a month. and by the way, ddi gets it.

i thought it was supposed to be compatible? why do you need to convert from one game to the same game?

i was done with 3.5 when i was running age of worms and my powergamer group killed dragotha in one round.

so i have wanted something different for a long time. i was really glad when 4e came out.

my biggest beef with 3.5 was that the monsters had to be built exactly like characters. i am so glad that i dont have to go through that anymore.

its much easier to dm, and my players love their powers. it is very cinematic.

I was at dongducheon. 1985-1986. good times. good luck in your search.

i dont think the missing races are going to ever be in esentials books. there are only 10 esentials products being released: red box, rules compendium, the two heros books, a boxed dm kit, a boxed monster kit, three tiles sets, and a dungeon masters screen.

the same with all the classes. its not a seperate game, its a begginer's version of the full game. rituals have not been removed, and i cant think of any reason why you wouldn't want them in a game. the rituals represent all the magic that doesn't have a direct combat element. unless you dont want any role playing in your combat game.

i think its funny that the argument many used for not likeing 4e is the same argument that many are using to like essentials. ie: 4e characters are too simple, they dont do enough, dont like powers etc. now that essentials is out, people like essentials because the characters are simple, they dont have to many powers (or they are not refered to as powers, but actually, they are powers).

having played 1e without minis (we had a map, but it was a 1/4" to 10' scale, pretty worthless for combat), we ended up with alot of arguments, such as player 1 hits orc with sword, player 2 shoots firball at orc. dm adjudicates that player 1 was in blast of fireball (since he is standing right next to the orc)

player 1 and player 2 NO WAY, it doesnt hit me/player 1!!!

combat ends up being a series of dice rolls, no movement. i hit orc, orc hits me, i kill orc, i attack next orc.

with minis and a battle mat, you dont have the placement issues. there are lots of combat rules that cant really be played without them, Oportunity attacks are one of them. The combat is tactical.

In live combat, i make decisions based on what i see, i would be calculating ranges in my head, i would move to areas with the greatest amount of cover and concealment. i would shoot at targets that are the biggest threat to me, i would not throw grenades at my opponents if a friendly were too close to them. Hand to hand combat is exactly the same, its a game of positioning, power, and tricking your opponent, and reacting to the opponents next move. Live combat requires a battlemat, and minis.

if your combats end up being just two lines of antagonists, like 18th century warfare, just hitting each other, you dont need them. if your combats are fluid, moving from place to place, being executed at range, if cover and concealment are important aspects, if line of sight is important, then you need a mat and minis.

if the number of pages in the 3.5 phb are any indication of the amount of pages that are dedicated to combat in pathfinder, with the same style of combat then they are needed to stay within the parameters of the rules.

The nature of the rule set is that actions are adjudicated based upon the results of a d20 plus/minus modifiers. with the addition of the skills ruleset, then the d20 has invaded your roleplaying as well, if, in your game, a d20 is used at all, then i feel it is imperitive to use a battlemat and minis.

i dont think my game sounds any different. sure the rules are a little bit different, but the beer is still good, the company is still great, the laughter is still there, the clowning around, the making fun of each other, the dice are still rolling, the beer is still good.

i dont think it sounds any different at all.

been getting together with friends playing dnd since 1979 (the beer thing has only been part of it since 1988)

get together, drink beer, role dice.

i see, we dont have any priemeir stores here. :(

isnt the street date the 7th? how are people getting these?

ive learned that a whole lot of people here feel that they are owed something.

ive learned that a whole lot of people here feel that rules are what makes a game "fun" or "playable."

ive learned that its possible to complain about a rule/feat/spell/class/or an entire game without ever playing the rule/feat/spell/class/game.

ive learned that people will dislike simply by reading a press release.

ive learned that people will dislike simply by a press release being released.

ive learned that people have a huge capacity to feel superior, simply by existing.

ive learned that getting together with friends, drinking beer, and roleing dice are not enough.

+2

i am sad that i can't get to vance's fonts. :(

no doubt.

once again, a win. hopefully the card stock will be up to the chase.

rules cyclopidia. everything you need in one book. do we have paper, pencils and dice also?

how do you use the mike and headset?

i am starting a greyhawk using 4ed.

i reset the time line to 1983. before everything published besides the box set. (and throwing in the city of greyhawk box set.

other than the couple of informational posts, it is mostly anger.

wow....there is alot of anger on this thread. im sorry i read it.

house rule it.

On the subject of Narnia and it's christian content - this atheist, brought up by non-christian parents in the very secularised environment of working class Sweden read all seven books without noticing it until someone pointed it out to him.

i also have not seen any overtly christian message. of course, i usally just read for a good story, which narnia is.

as far as game mentors...i started playing in 1979, in central montana. there were no game mentors. me and my buddies started playing avalon hill war games, and just kept getting different games.

enjoy your game, what ever game you happen to be playing. there is no right way, there is no wrong way. there is only the fun way. only you can define the fun way.

same with books. read what you want to read, dont let others decide what is good, what is bad, and what is ugly.

get together, role dice, drink beer...i mean soda.

i agree with LazarX

i traded nearly all my 1st ed stuff, all my 2nd ed stuff, all my 3e stuff, and a bunch of other games (25 boxes worth) probablly worth 2500 to 2800 dollars to my flgs for a 4th edition players handbook 2.

the store owner dropped her chin, and imediatly agreed. there was some rare avalon hill war games in there too, including a 1st ed dieties and demigods with call of cuthulu gods.

i have no regrets. i had a house, but i sold it when i retired, i wanted to reduce my footprint to one pickup load. i still have all of my od&d books.

i say dont sell, give. or trade down. if i didnt look at it in the last 10 years, i prolly didnt need it.

i would like to see an elemental power sorce in the game. fiction has examples of characters being able to dip into fire water earth and air.

as far as monster races go, im not that excited about those. i think it would be more fun to outwit, outplay, and outlast a dragon than being one. the problem with having infinite cosmic power is that your challengers also have infinite cosmic powers.

i am ok with a feat tax. i think feats is what killed 3.5. (that and monsters had to follow the same creation rules as players)

the set that did get made sucked. so would it have sucked less? im pretty sure.

i think a disney version of the hobbit and lord of the rings would have been much better than those awful late 1970s cartoons

i am working on a conversion. but its more like a rewrite than a straight conversion. a lot of the fights do not lend themselves well to 4e. so i am using the building, some of the descriptions, etc. i am using it as a beginneing to the A1-4 series, then on to g, d, and q. im hopeing to get a wotc lolth before i have to make her.

so....yep, thats what i am working on.

me

you hear that? the silence? thats the sound of a hellfire being fired from a predator. if your gonna shoot, you have about 30 seconds from getting it done. but even so, hellfires dont often miss, and i am not that concerned about collateral damage. and the rest of my team is in the tree line.....its a pretty big group, we all play 4e.

well, its been fun, but i have homework to do.

you mean the truck that i planted c4 on last night?

!!!!!KAAAA BOOOOOMMMMMMmmmmm!!!!!

i have always hated chevys.

we called it a retro offensive: an enemy who couldnt for one reason or another be pinned down, send two small teams ahead, get their attention, once engaged, fall back in stages, enemey follows, thinking that they are doing well, the teams lead them right into a sizable ambush.

<pulls back the charging handle on his m249.>

4e 4e 4e

hehehe....superiority through higher sales margin.

all kidding aside:

get together, drink beer, role dice. (in whatever game strikes your fancy)

you can get dry erase boards that have lines drawn into it.

unless you are really steady, drawing straight, even lines like that, is going to be very difficult.

i wouldnt try it, but if you do, make sure that you clamp down your straight edge, and use a metal one.

you really have your hands full with this project.

the plywood would be good for dungeon tiles. they would not slide around, there is plenty of friction there.

there are quite a few of those sheets on the wotc site, they have maintained all the archives. they dont have them for the core books though.

there is a pathfinder sheet on drive through prg that is supposed to be pretty nice. its from lpj

(i dont know how to do the linky things):

http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=77894

rules for rpgs were never meant to be an end all be all of what is possible, and how things in the shared experience works.

to all things there are exceptions. i would not be to too concerned about what the written rules state. as long as there is an agreement around your particular table on how something should work. and if they cant come to an agreement, then you disregard the actions.

it may be much easier to say that this spell reduces this. and be done with it.

every rule ever written is meant to be disregarded.

i would not worry about it. i never liked ability damage anyway, it was way to much work. im glad that it doesnt exist im my rules anymore.

i was thinking about assigning every item a volume in an abstract measurment: squares. a rope takes 4 squares, 25 coins takes one square, potion takes one square.

backpack (using sebations number, which makes sense) 30 squares, in a 2 x 5 x 3 (dxwxh), no item can be longer then the d, h, w. so, if you had an alchemists kit, and it was 30 squares of 2x5x3, that would be the only thing you could carry. 750 coins is all you could carry (the coins may not fill the space, but it would sure be heavy).

a small pouch: 1 square.

etc.

it does seem like it would be a whole lot of record keeping, but if you played the realist style of game, and really, who doesnt, then it would be worth the trouble of going through the equipment lists, and working out the volume.

the final countdown by europe.

i love everything by abba. and kiss. i saw them in concert in the late 1970s. (kiss, not abba)

i also saw them in 2002.