Jerry Wright's page

I was in college when I first started playing, so I went through a very short munchkin phase. My first character was a chaotic evil fighter who was killed by the party because he went berserk when a satyr tried to seduce a party member. After that I was a litle more circumspect about the way things went.

As far as my gaming experiences in more recent years go, the system itself has long ceased to matter. I can have as much fun roleplaying in R. Talsorian's Teenagers From Outer Space as I can playing the Hero System.

When it comes to D&D, though, I guess I just hearken back to the old and familiar.

Out of curiosity, why do you enjoy complexity?

I think it's because my first exposure to RPGs of any kind was AD&D 1st ed, back in '78. The MM and PHB were out, and at the beginning of '79, I got the DMG. To this day, I love leafing through it, re-reading the old rules. I guess it's a nostalgia sort of thing. It seems to me that 4e leaves a lot of things out.

Again, this is an emotional thing, so it's hard to describe.

I've never really understood the "its just not D&D" feeling that seems so prevalant. What is D&D? Can someone quantify it? Is it quantifiable?

Unfortunately, the "feel" of D&D is and always will be subjective. So I suppose I'd have to say it isn't quantifiable.

From my own point of view, I prefer to hearken back to the more complex rules of the older editions, and the simplicity of 4e changes that feel for me. However, I have to say it still seems to me to be D&D, however much I prefer more complexity.

On the other hand, one of the gamers in my group had a very disagreeable reaction to 4e, and called it "Playschool D&D". His opinion was that it wasn't designed for "real" gamers, but is a "kindergarten starter set".

There's no real objective way to describe an emotional response to something.

My world includes a history that is related to the gods and their struggle to find wisdom (a task the overgods set them to).

The gods are divided along the traditional evil/good axis. Both sides are trying to gain control over the world so they can get their hands on the legendary book of knowledge. Various creatures have come out of this conflict, some being created directly, others arising as a response to this.

And as for the various weird monsters that otherwise have no origin... the apprentice to my "smith" god was given free rein by the leader of the evil gods to do what ever he pleased in a certain deep, dark forest that eventually became the cradle of all monsters. The monsters remained there until they were driven out into the wastelands and secured behind a massive wall. Now the forest is just a "typical" dark forest.

Humanity (and the other "civilized" races) are just trying to deal with all of the deific bickering. Even my nasty humanoids sometimes wonder at the petty nature of the gods.

If (no assumptions here), if, you are referring to 3e (in any incarnation), then I would have to disagree with the "too many stifling rules" comment...

I wasn't referring to any particular system. 3E and 3.5 are rules-heavy, but so were 1E and 2E. And for what it's worth, 4E isn't an improvement. I hesitate to voice a real opinion about it for fear of fire, but I have to say that I GM the same way regardless of the system, and I don't feel stifled by any incarnation of D&D.

YES. I agree this was an excellent post. Prime Evil did a marvelous job building on the OP topic. Also, what still amazes me was Gary's ability to straddle the use of consistency and random surprise, his ability to make use of rules and abandon them wontonly as desired - all the while presenting the "appearance" of both consistency and coherency. If anyone has played in these types of games - the vision of the DM becomes the rules and written book rules are a secondary reference for the DM, not the players. In these games the DM focuses the players on the pseudo-realistic items at hand, giving a verisimilitude to many other fantastic things which would otherwise be a stretch to believe. Gygax's game play and story ruled at the table as an art! After 25 years, still not a bad thing to aspire to, eh?

I, too, prefer seat-of-the-pants DMing. A system bogged down with too many rigid rules stifles me. But I like to have the rules there as a framework, a way of maintaining a consistent flow in the course of the game. When people sit down at my table, they know what to expect, or at least I hope they do.

I try to create a living game world a la Gygaxian Natrualism. My world has a history and an ecology and I strive to keep things within the boundaries of the "flavor" I've created. Players have corrected me when I've slipped in describing parts of the world or mentioning the history. That tells me I've succeeded. I can't say the rules have helped or hindered that.

I don't see that it's a gamist/simulationist question. Even a gamist can appreciate the idea of a logical ecology, though he might never bother with it.

A growing, living world is the basis for a solid campaign. After all, if the DM knows his gameworld and its denizens well, he can expand it and bring about changes based on the actions of the PCs.

If a tribe of kobolds has to pay tribute to the hobgoblins over the next ridge to survive, and the hobgoblins are wiped out by the PCs, the little lizards are going to not only have extra space to move into, but extra resources, as well (because they no longer pay tribute). The PCs could go away and come back to find a strong, well-fortified kobold encampment where the hobgoblins used to be, and the resulting battle could be worse than the first one.

That's an example of the application of Gygaxian Naturalism that even a gamist could appreciate. :)

Jerry Wright wrote:

Good stuff.

That's pretty close. I think the older rules were a lot more open-ended, almost inviting the players to see what they could come up with. Adventures seemed to be designed to challenge the players' creativity and problem-solving ability.

It may be that the intent of 4E is to encourage DMs to concentrate on that creativity, and that is facilitated through letting the rules take care of themselves. Not a bad approach, really, if you want that.

Wikipedia's definition seems appropriate, but I always thought a munchkin was a power-gamer who was also very young, as in childish (thus the use of a diminutive word). Spoiled rotten and willing to throw a fit because the game doesn't give him what he wants, which is xp and treasure.

I notice that a lot of people who disagree with the point Sebastrd makes are using examples of actions to talk about what a character can or cannot do. Sure, Caroll did mention actions in his description, but I think what he means is rules interpretation.

In the old days, the rules were less available to the players, and that let the DM arbitrate his game as he saw fit. The players were discouraged from even reading the DMG or Monster Manual. With the advent of 2nd edition, more combat rules and options were put before the players, and they had a lot more say in the way things worked. This was exacerbated by 3.0, 3.5 and now 4E.

I think the point is that because of this availability of rules to players, Sebastrd feels the game has been taken from the DM, and in many ways, he's right. Arbitration is much less an art and much more automatic. It's as if the DM doesn't even need to make any decisions about anything except the more creative aspects of the game.

Many people would see this as a positive thing, and they should, if that's the direction they want the game to go.

Those of us nostalgic for 1E and the mystery behind the DM's shield have a different interpretation. I remember when using PCs from another DM's campaign was not just a faux pas, it was almost an insult. And in many cases, you just couldn't, because the rules were so different from campaign to campaign.

That galled Gygax something fierce, and his rantings about it - "You're not playing D&D!" - remind me of the rantings today about 4E. I'm sad to say that he may well be responsible for originating the trend that we're talking about.

There are not many Dutch RPG's. I think there are none on the market at the moment.

That's a crime. Too bad there aren't more translation projects going on. Gaming is a hobby that teaches people a lot about how to get along with each other, and children are the greatest role-players of all.

Given the Lizardfolk's experience with the Cultists, they might assume the PC is much more powerful than she is, and avoid a direct confrontation. They'd likely attack from ambush, using missile weapons and traps to try to whittle her force down as she moves toward the village.

From their point of view, even if the PC is more powerful, her party is more vulnerable than the cult, and so is easier to attack. The problem you have is how to get the Lizardfolk to see that she is not on the side of the cultists.

One way to do this is to have a scout from the cultist group discover the PC, and see how the PC deals with that. The Lizardfolk would maintain a watch over the PC at all times, spying from the forest around her. If the scout is dealt with harshly, the Lizardfolk have a chance to see that the PC might be friendly. It shouldn't be too hard to arrange for the scout to be hostile.

Another way might be for one of the PC's goblins to recognize the tribe of Lizardfolk, and to offer to mediate to avoid hostilities. After all, a goblin might be willing to cooperate with even a hated foe to avoid getting killed. If the PC doesn't speak the language, the goblin could be a translator. The role-play involved could be a lot of fun.

Jerry Wright wrote:

A bunch of stuff...

That is an awesome story. I'm often surprised by how often this happens to both me and others, where a spur of the moment idea or villain ends up recurring and gaining meaning.

Fair warning: I'm stealing the butler named Davis.

Feel free. He has a taste for fine wines and beautiful women.

My first real recurring villain came about by accident. The PCs were trekking through some rough hill country, taking the shorter, more dangerous route to a ruined castle. I had no overland encounters prepared, so I randomly rolled up an encounter with a pair of hill giants. The party had them completely by surprise.

The thief crept up on them to see how strong they were, and found them resting by a campfire. I described them, noting their weapons and armor, and expected that to be that. But the thief surprised me.

"What are they doing?"

"Resting."

"I know that. But what are they doing? They have to be doing something."

"They're having tea."

I expected the sarcastic remark to move things along, as it should have, but the conversation went on longer, and eventually, the giants got a servant, a smartly dressed, stiff-upper-lip butler who was attending them at their high tea. The giants gained aristocratic English accents and held their pinkies out while sipping.

That started a whole series of inane things through the ensuing combat, including having one of the giants wearing a monocle (it turned out to be a gem of seeing), and the other giant calling out the name of the first as he fell: "Chauncey!"

The whole thing was played for laughs, and the party defeated the giants. They hesitated over killing the butler, and finally let him go, but not before they got his name. I looked around the room randomly, searching for a name, and settled on "Davis" from the spine of a book on the shelf nearby. Our note-taker diligently wrote it down, they let him go and that was that. Or so I thought.

Much, much later in the campaign, a whole other group of characters ran into some bandits in the same patch of hills, on an entirely unrelated quest. The bandit leader was supposed to have a reputation for violence, and was trying to intimidate the party. One of the players asked his name.

My head gyrated as before, and my eyes found the same book. "Davis."

The note-taker rustled his papers, and a knowing look came over his face. He hissed something I didn't hear to the others, and they all began to nod to each other. To my surprise, they backed down from the fight, paid the toll Davis was demanding, and went their way.

After the session, the note-taker congratulated me on my foresight. He added that the fact that the players knew who Davis was helped the bandit chief's reputation.

"No way were we going to tangle with the giants' butler."

I realized at that point what he meant, and started to explain that it was just a guy with the same name, but it occurred to me that I could use that. After that session, Davis popped up along roads, in the wilderness, even in towns, always seeking ways to relieve the PCs of their money, and never demanding enough to make a fight worthwhile. Most of the time, because of his out-of-game "reputation", he got the money.

Has anyone checked out the Agyris Game Table?

The link is:

here

Too much for my budget, not to mention the lack of space in my living room.

But I did build a 2' x 4' formica-topped table about 8 in. high, with lights underneath so players can see their character sheets when we game in a darkened room. It sits on a 4' x 7' dining table with six chairs around it.

Because of the elevated gaming surface, there's a lot more room for player's character sheets, game books and dice, without sacrificing room for minis and maps. The clearance underneath is about 6 inches, which doesn't seem like a lot, but the angle of view combined with the lights makes character sheets and books easy to see.

The 2' x 4' space is ideal for a vinyl battle-mat, or we can roll that up an draw on the formica surface with dry-erase pens. The elevated surface brings the players closer to the action, and a few three-dimensional terrain features made of model magic and papier mache greatly add to the illusion.

The overhead light hangs like a swag lamp from the ceiling. The table lights are white Christmas lights behind a 1" x 2" skirt. Both sets of lights operate on dimmer switches built into the small table.

The small size of the gaming surface makes it easy to store in the hall closet when we need to use the dining table for, well, dining.

I love 2ed and it is my system of choice right now and has been for years.

Although I've played characters in several 3ED campaigns, I'll never Dungeon Master D&D using 3rd or 4th Edition rules myself.

What 2ED means to me (and this may sting a little, in fact I'll probably be hated after this...!)

...

I agree with you on every point. But I come from an older school where the GM is responsible for all of that, regardless of the system involved. (We had to be, in the old days...)

I'm very lucky to be a member of a gaming group that has three gamers from the old days along with a new generation of players who learned from us. None of us uses pre-published adventures except on very rare occasions, and we all emphasize role-playing over roll-playing.

I'm spoiled and I know it. As far as 2E is concerned, I prefer 1E with some 2E thrown in, but I have to admit, looking at anything from the pre-WotC days is nostalgic and wonderful.

Not that I'm knocking WotC. I love what 3.5 can add to a 2E game (especially in feats and skills...).

As sort of a side note, does anyone know of any 2e-3e conversion guides, or if possible the other way around? I have some adventures all written up but i don't know the notation for monsters and stuff.

If you're still interested in the conversion manual, you can download it from WotC in their archives section, under Game Rules/Official D&D Game Rule FAQ Update.

It's at the bottom of the page.

One of my players reminded me of another event that happened in my campaign, and I'm not sure if it isn't stupider than the duel with the boulder. I'll let others be the judge:

To understand this story, you have to know that the party was high-level, averaging fifteenth, and practically dripping with magic. The thief especially had several magical tattoos as well as a number of unique items she'd had made over the levels.

The PCs killed a bad nasty that was inexplicably guarding a pit. When they investigated, they discovered several bodies at the bottom, unlooted because of the monster.

So the intrepid thief rapelled down and began looting, using an item to detect magic for expedinecy.

All of the bodies were slain adventurers, so they had magic items of their own. The thief thought she'd found the motherlode. She happily looted them, stuffing her pockets and pouches. The last body had only one magic item on it, a circlet on its brow.

The circlet wouldn't fit in her pouch, so she popped it on her head so she could shimmy up the rope. (Are you seeing this coming?)

Mordenkainen's Disjunction are words no PC wants to hear. I swear I've never heard a player wail so loudly in a game before or since.

To compound matters, she stole the party treasure later on to replace the magical tattoos and unique items she lost. The other PCs put out a contract with the local assassin's guild, but the campaign was suspended before that could play out.

Jerry Wright wrote:

the purpose of the game is fulfilled by 4E, despite the difference in taste

It seems to me that the purpose of the game depends on who is playing, and what they want from it. So saying the purpose is fulfilled "despite the difference in taste" is just marginalizing anyone who doesn't want what you want.

For me, the purpose is not fulfilled. I respect that you have your own wants when you play, perhaps you might reconsider and reciprocate.

I'm sorry that a fellow 3.5-er doesn't understand my point. When I said that the "purpose was fulfilled", I meant that the players are intending to play D&D, and happen to be using the 4E engine to do it. Since 4E was intended to do that, I suggest it has fulfilled the purpose.

If I come across as a troll, it's because I am reacting to what feels to me like an attempt to exclude my point of view from discussions about 4E. It does not mean I do not recognize that it is a useful engine to game with. Personally, I would have liked to see 3.5 fixed rather than replaced, but that's just me. I have my opinions of the 4E engine, but I will not deny its validity to those who like it.

crosswiredmind wrote:

So you use an objective comparison as an analogy for an subjective opinion?

Sorry dude - you lost me.

3e is D&D AND 4e is D&D

At some point, based on its shape, a sauce pan becomes a saucier. The exact point where that occurs may not be objectively defined in some official cooking manufacturer code of standards. (Though for all I know, it actually might, particularly in hyperbureaucratic french cooking).

The same is true, I believe, with the pedigree of games starting with AD&D.

What an interesting way to make your point. I, for one, would speak of spices or herbs to make the point the same way (parsley, for instance, eventually becomes cilantro...). :)

I agree with you in principle. But I must support CWM in his contention that 4E is D&D. There are vast differences in the d20 arena, extending from OD&D all the way through Star Wars and God knows what else out there. But the intent, the purpose of the game is fulfilled by 4E, despite the difference in taste.

You could use d20 Modern to play a D&D-style game, but only certain incarnations of the game can be called D&D. Despite my problems with the system, 4E does fall into that category.

The PCs in my campaign were making their way up inside a hollow mountain, in a long, spiral tunnel that wound around just under the surface. One of the rogues went ahead to scout for traps and found a group of orcs preparing to roll a huge boulder, Indiana Jones-style, down the tunnel. He high-tailed it back down the tunnel to report.

The solution the party came up with was to use a passwall spell to open up a side tunnel so they could get out of the way. But the wizard had this "great idea" (I think she was just showing off, really).

She waited until the boulder was rolling down the tunnel and stepped out to intercept it with a disintegrate spell. The only way I could think of to adjudicate it was to have her roll for initiative.

She failed.

This would have been funny enough as it was, but the player pointed out to me the artifact she was carrying in her pack (an orb of might, as I recall).

I couldn't resist; the crushing impact of several hundred tons of boulder not only made paste of the wizard, but it final-struck the orb. The rest of the party was fired out of the side-tunnel like a shot from a cannon. Those who survived the blast found themselves outside the mountain, several thousand feet up, plummeting to the earth. As I remember, only the paladin survived the impact, sheerly by dint of hit points (and the 20d6 max on falling damage).

I take a certain amount of pride in the fact that I created the first "PC shotgun" in our gaming group.

This makes me feel kind of spoiled. I was just complaining to one of my buddies that we only game one night on the weekends anymore, instead of two.

I agree with those who say to give three-man gaming a try. Sometimes smaller groups can lead to really intense roleplay and combat. You can devote a lot more time to what makes an individual character tick. Character backgrounds and home life become real, and have a real effect on the campaign that way.

The nastiest thing I ever did was set up a band of leprechauns in a clearing in the dark forest in my game world - it was the only real place to camp along the road.

The party woke up next day to find empty backpacks... :)

Why is a person a troll only when his opinion doesn't agree with yours?

I thought the evil empire got rid of her...

I stand corrected. It's just that I've seen different "editions" of various games, and they all seem to have some major revision justifying the name. 1st to 2nd Ed seems merely a gathering of ideas between two covers.

OTOH, I could compare this with the differences between 4th & 5th Ed Pendragon (there are almost none).

At any rate, as you say, the differences between the various incarnations of D&D are there, and can be tracked.

So were you being redundantly repetitive or repetitively redundant?

I've always been a little fuzzy on such things. :P

If it's any help, I was just responding to something Xithor said...

crosswiredmind wrote:

Dragnmoon wrote:

People thinking that 4e is like MMO's is their opinion and can be seen as making sense from their point of view..

So don't go to hard on their opinion. just say I disagree with that opinion and and maybe say why and leave it at that.. ;-)

Look, if you want to discuss the 4e=MMO thing then start a thread and put forth your points in a civil manner. But when you (not you specifically - the non specific you) bring out the 4e=MMO thing as a snipe in a thread that has no relation to your point then it is no longer an opinion but an attack - regardless of the little smiley.

Seriously though, CWM, is this what counts as an attack these days? A personal attack? An attack that gets people offended?

That's like being offended by a cartoon dragon pooping on its former customers.

It was still funny, tho. :)

Jerry Wright wrote:

When TSR came out with 2nd Ed, I thought it had been "dumbed down" and had developed a "plastic" taste. It seemed to have been slanted toward youunger, less sophisticated players. I preferred the more intellectual feel of 1st ed, which was nearly incomprehensible to anyone unversed in the wargaming hobby.

Not sure that I agree at all regarding 2nd edition. For one thing I often find it difficult to really draw significant contrasts between the editions in terms of rules themselves. There are so many similarities that it can be difficult to find the differences. I think comparing 1E and 2E is a lot like comparing 3.0 to 3.5, sure there are differences and one can argue that one version is better then the other but they really don't seem all that different. Its more that the 2nd incarnation is simply a more polished version of the 1st.

That said I think there were very significant differences between the stewardship of 1st and 2nd. 2nd Edition was much more heavily into stories. They released a horror setting, an avant-garde setting, a grim and hostile setting etc. The magazines went from being heavily based on combats, especially in dungeon like surroundings to being about everything that was not combat.

Now they took it all to far and their fan base just seemed to tire of whole thing, after all if you want to do non-combat role playing their are systems out there far better at it then D&D will ever be. WotC recognized that and they instituted a back to the dungeon, back to killing things and taking their stuff, policy.

Fortunately the fan base some good 3PPs came along and moved things more toward balance which is what had really been missing. Killing things without great plot is boring but never killing anything is equally boring, especially in D&D. A good mix is generally what most of the fan base wants - the real tricky part is that their is no consensus on what the ideal mix is... I doubt their will ever be such a consensus as I think its a moving...

When I said that 2nd Ed felt "dumbed down", I meant the way the core rule books were presented, with a larger font and explanations in the text simplified greatly. As far as the rules are concerned, I agree with you. TSR really should have called it a revision, and not an edition. There really wasn't enough of a difference between the two.

I agree about the ratio of combat to non-combat encounters. Too much of even a good thing is, well, too much. :)

Jerry Wright wrote:

...

My opinion still stands. 4E is a table-top video game.

I think the real issue 4e fans have Jerry is the rehashing of this term. Now you are entitled to your opinion of "4e=MMO" but does it have to be put on the threads over ...and over ... and over ...

cue the dead horse and the whip!

Don't get me wrong, there is plenty of blame on both sides. When I read "Oh you'll come over to 4e once you get over your little tantrum. You're just being a silly little grognard" in various guises I just want to rip my eyes from their sockets and scream.

The point is, no one is going to be swayed by this endless arguments. Some play Pathfinder. Some play 4e. Some stay with earlier editions. A few even play <cough> Hero. Do we need to snipe at each other? We are all getting supported gaming love, let's just let bygones be bygones.

I'm not trying to snipe. I agree with you that both sides are at fault. But one of the primary things we "anti-4E people" object to about 4E is the very thing the "pro-4E people" don't even acknowledge.

I am willing to admit that the game not only has merit, but that it plays much more smoothly than 3.5, and is much more internally balanced than the majority of the game systems I have played over the years. I like it. But that plastic feel I mentioned is the primary problem. For me.

I do not deny others their right to their opinions. I think the passion so many people feel about the hobby is wonderful. Scott Betts with his dogged, determined defense of 4E is quite refreshing when I remember the way so many of us were so sick and tired of TSR that we hardly made a sound when WotC bought them, even though we all pretty much "knew" that WotC was going to "turn D&D into a CCG". :P

Heck, I've trotted out my 1st Ed books to start working up my own version of AD&D 3E, and my MUD-obsessed roommate is talking about table-topping for the first time in years, all because of this furor over a "silly little hobby". :)

All I really want from those who love 4E is an acknowledgement that I have the right to think whatever I want about it. And that the opinion I express is not "invalid" or "wrong".

And that is the very thing I acknowledge about everyone else on this board. :)

Look, after carefully examining, playtesting and dissecting the game, I have come to the conclusion that 4E is a well-though-out, very internally balanced game system, with considerable strengths. As a SYSTEM, it ranks up there with the best.

But I have also been playing D&D long enough to have developed a preference for the "D&D taste".

When TSR came out with 2nd Ed, I thought it had been "dumbed down" and had developed a "plastic" taste. It seemed to have been slanted toward younger, less sophisticated players. I preferred the more intellectual feel of 1st ed, which was nearly incomprehensible to anyone unversed in the wargaming hobby.

When 3rd ed came out, I recognized immediately that it was a re-hashing of concepts that had come out in 2nd Ed and in the Rules Cyclopedia, but was presented in a more sophisticated manner. It wasn't really a 3rd edition of AD&D, but I liked it.

Now, in the tradition of TSR, 4E is presented in a style that seems to me to be plastic and less appealing. I don't dislike the system. But my gut reaction is that it is not D&D. It is World of Warcraft on the tabletop.

My primary objection on this and on other boards is not that there are people who disagree with me. My objection is with people who insist that a very valid and well-thought-out observation concerning the feel of 4E be continually pooh-poohed as being "invalid" and "wrong".

My opinion still stands. 4E is a table-top video game.

That doesn't mean you can't play it, or that WotC shouldn't print it.

*Smurf, smurf, smurf, blort!*

At last! An HONEST opinion of 4E!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Something vexes thee? :)

I don't suppose pointing out that there is no such thing as table top video gaming would change your opinion.

Yes, there is. It's called 4E D&D. ;)

The video game criticism IS valid. The monster manual reads like a list of stats you'd see in a video game guide: next to no flavor, with just a wall of numbers.

I agree with this whole-heartedly. It's going to take more than a series of "no it isn't" statements to make me drop the hypothesis that 4E is nothing more than table-top video-gaming.

The fact that it was funny doesn't change the propaganda aspect of comparing complaining customers to internet trolls.:)

We shouldn't really expect much respect from a corporation, but that bordered on insult...

I've been away from the D&D forums. Anybody know if they've announced the GSL changes yet?

Of course, this still doesn't address the defense/offense problem of escalating BAB's.

Since D&D uses hit points to represent a character's increasing ability to defend himself, and armor becomes useless, what is the purpose of increasing damage done by hit die?

Other games, those based on skill, use an increasing ability to hit and to avoid being hit to represent this mechanic. Creatures of massive power are fearsome not because they can hit you more often, but because they can harm you.

I've always felt that D&D represents fantasy as presented by the books of Tolkien, Brooks, Martin, Jordan, etc. Heroes in those books do well by avoiding damage, and when they get hurt, they get seriously hurt.

Of course, they have writers to control the action, so this is easier than in a game. But I always wanted my game to reflect this kind of thing. Not to kill off parties, but to make the players feel they are in such a world.

Any ideas on alterations to the d20 mechanic to reflect this?

Table 12-6 (Monster Statistics by CR) in the Pathfinder RPG rules is similar to what you're describing, at least for coming up with monsters on the fly.

Very useful. Thank you.

Should have looked in Pathfinder in the first place... :P

Sorry it's so hard to read. I can't seem to get the thing to translate right. Probably because the editor uses courier and the display uses a different font.

Here's the new Low damage column:

Low
1d4
1d4+2
1d6+3
1d6+4
1d8+2
1d8+5
1d10+6
1d10+7
2d6+7
2d6+8

Maybe something like this...

DIFFICULTY CLASS AND DAMAGE BY LEVEL
Difficulty Class (DC) Normal Damage Limited Damage
Level Easy Moderate Hard Low Medium High Low Medium High
1–3 10 15 20 1d4 1d6+3 1d10+3 3d6+3 2d10+3 3d8+3
4–6 13 17 21 1d4+2 1d6+4 1d10+4 3d6+4 3d8+4 3d10+4
7–9 15 19 23 1d6+3 1d8+5 2d6+5 3d8+5 3d10+5 4d8+5
10–12 17 21 25 1d6+4 1d8+5 2d6+5 3d8+5 4d8+5 4d10+5
13–15 18 22 26 1d8+2 1d10+6 2d8+6 3d10+6 4d8+6 4d10+6
16–18 20 24 28 1d8+5 1d10+7 2d8+7 3d10+6 4d10+7 4d12+7
19–21 22 26 30 1d10+6 2d6+7 3d6+8 4d8+7 4d10+7 4d12+7
22–24 23 27 31 1d10+7 2d6+8 3d6+8 4d8+8 4d12+8 5d10+8
25–27 24 28 32 2d6+7 2d8+9 3d8+9 4d10+9 5d10+9 5d12+9
28–30 25 29 33 2d6+8 2d8+10 3d8+10 4d10+9 5d10+9 5d12+9
For skill checks: Increase DCs by 5
For attacks with weapons or against AC: Increase DCs by 2

I think the DCs are useful, as far as the table goes.

The damage doesn't really seem that excessive, if you look at the low side of the table. Maybe if the low column and the moderate column were retained, a new low column could be made, with another set of ranges, and that might work for 3.5.

No matter how you do it, the higher column is going to be pretty nasty. But I suppose the monsters in that category should be nasty.

The limited damage section is for one-shot effects, after all, and I don't see there's much need to really change them, if it's something to represent a last-ditch effort by a big nasty when he's about to die.

"Will there ever be a boy born who can swim as fast as a shark?"

OMG! I was thinking, "Will a shark ever be in the olympics?"

I need to get away from this computer... :P

I've never run a game for younger players (I started gaming in college), but those of my group who have swear the sessions were great. Mr. Tad, you've reminded me what gaming is supposed to be about.

I humbly thank you.

Looking at the table, the progression of damage is obviously meant for the use of powers in the 4E engine, so it would have to be tweaked, because increase in level in 3.5 doesn't necessarily mean an increase in damage done.

On the other hand, damage in 3.5 is modified by the tendency for armor to become pretty much useless at about 15th level or so, unless there's some DR or fortification involved. Characters have more hit points, but they're hit almost every time, because defense doesn't keep pace with offense.

I've wondered how to address this. Such a table would have to take it into account.

Sounds like a great idea.

I guess 4E isn't so useless, after all... ;).

There used to be a player in our group who collected everything with the TSR logo (how dated am I?). He swore he never used player knowledge when we were playing published adventures, but he always seemed to have just the right equipment, or the right class, etc. to make his character come out on top. When we complained about it, he passed it off as being "always prepared".

The tables were turned when our GM of the time announced he would be running a specific module (I can't remember which one) but instead had an adventure of his own creation prepared when time came to actually play. Mr. "always prepared" was stuck with a druid with a very specific list of keyed spells in a an adventure set in a ruined city where most of the spells were useless.

It sort of hurt us as a party, because we needed all the oomph we could get, but it made a few of us chuckle at his embarassment.

Because of this and other experiences, I stopped running published adventures long ago.

To some this might seem blasphemy, but since we're talking about a fiend here...

Have you considered anything from the Book of Erotic Fantasy? There are a number of spells and skills such a creature would likely have, not to mention a character class or two...

Polaris wrote:

On the contrary, the 3.5 community is very much in a fight for it's life.

So, is there a death squad out to kill them? Are they being targeted by ICBMs? Are tanks rolling up on their lawns and flattening their houses?

No.

If 3.5 dies it will be the choice of the market and not the actions of WotC.

Here, here. And, anyway, the marketplace is the only real place that success for a product can be measured, no matter how we feel about them.