But didn't the one minute round consist of 10 turns? I let you do the math how long that is for each round.
The opposite, actually. One turn consisted of ten one-minute rounds, so a turn was ten minutes long.
I'd like to see a system that discourages the crap I've seen a lot of late: player's TELLING the GM 'that's not how it works' or 'No, you give me a DC, I grab a d20 and roll'I've played in games with otherwise great DMs which would have been largely intolerable were it not for the fact that enough of the players knew enough of the rules to be able to pull stuff like the above.
Chipping away at the traditional narrative monopoly of the DM is one of the great accomplishments of 4e, and the rules structure you're decrying is one of the support systems that allowed that to happen.
I remember the first time I read through the Deadly Trickster epic destiny and came across its capstone ability to tell the DM to treat the result of a roll as a 1. The idea of a player being granted just that slightest bit of power over the DM was sort of breathtaking. And I'm speaking as a DM here - I thought, "Man, I can't wait to see what sort of situation the players will decide is worth using that ability on!"
I am of the opposite camp. I loathe players having any sort of power over the GM. I've had nothing but bad experiences, such as players flat out telling me that I do not have the authority to disallow actions that flagrantly violate RAW (such as a Monk/Sorcerer/Arcane Archer using flurry of blows to cast multiple spells through a bow in one round AND only spending one spell slot that round). Even without that sort of player in the group, giving the players power is massive rules argument fuel.
I definitely did.And you would have lost that bet.On a potentially related note, there are rumors circulating that a major D&D announcement will take place tomorrow - major enough to receive both CNN and NY Times article coverage.
I'm betting against an announcement of 5e. I don't see the telltale signs yet.
Scott,
You and I don't agree on a lot of things, but I will applaud your admitting you're wrong. There's not enough of that on the internet. (people admitting they're wrong, not Scott admitting he's wrong)
Frankly, I don't feel like there's really anything praiseworthy about admitting that one's educated guess was wrong. When someone discards a long-held and firmly-ingrained belief in favor of a more supportable position, that deserves a thorough showering of praise.
(Now we just need someone to chime in with a, "So we should hold our applause until you've admitted that Pathfinder is better than 4e, huh?")
Actually, it's a 1 minute turn that consisted of 10 rounds. Each round was 6 seconds long. :)
I am of the opposite camp. I loathe players having any sort of power over the GM.
I am immediately wary of any GM who is unwilling to share even the smallest bit of power.
In my view, the DM should have control over everything that isn't the PCs. The players should have control over the PCs. These boundaries should be firm, and neither group should feel that they have the authority to "take over" the other's domain. But it is certain that, from time to time, the DM does exercise a small level of narrative or mechanical control over the PCs. I feel it's only appropriate that the PCs occasionally be allowed the same over the rest of the game world.
Actually, it's a 1 minute turn that consisted of 10 rounds. Each round was 6 seconds long. :)
In 2e? Are you sure about that?
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I liked Age of Aquarius...
Oh wait, that was the 5th Dimension.
Seriously, open playtests (and open source) seem to be 'the' way forward. Glad to see WotC catch back up, and curious to see what they'll do.
No interest in playing a new system though, just hope it's good. Competition is good.
Not everybody likes miniatures....True, but they DO have some advantages. Namely, it prevents a lazy GM from making a combat that starts with a melee combatant for everybody, including the squishy people who do everything possible to avoid being in melee in any event.
It also normalizes the collective understanding of the game. It prevents conflicts between how the DM sees the action taking place and how the players see the action taking place. You could do without them in a less tactical system, where the details of a combat are not particularly important to how it is resolved, but then you'd have a much shallower experience. I really like tactical play, especially in D&D where the players are sort of the assumed victor. It turns each encounter into a puzzle - a scenario where there are expected paths to victory, and the real challenge is in figuring out what those paths are.
other stuff
(Now we just need someone to chime in with a, "So we should hold our applause until you've admitted that Pathfinder is better than 4e, huh?")
Well, in that it's a matter of preference and there's no way to quantify which of the two games is "better" objectively... that'll never happen.
Let's all just agree that our games of preference are all better than F.A.T.A.L. and move on. :D
In 2e? Are you sure about that?Actually, it's a 1 minute turn that consisted of 10 rounds. Each round was 6 seconds long. :)
In 2nd edition, turns were 10 minutes, rounds 1 minute, segments 6 seconds. Just like 1st edition. Elton must be thinking in 3e terms.
I am of the opposite camp. I loathe players having any sort of power over the GM.I am immediately wary of any GM who is unwilling to share even the smallest bit of power.
In my view, the DM should have control over everything that isn't the PCs. The players should have control over the PCs. These boundaries should be firm, and neither group should feel that they have the authority to "take over" the other's domain. But it is certain that, from time to time, the DM does exercise a small level of narrative or mechanical control over the PCs. I feel it's only appropriate that the PCs occasionally be allowed the same over the rest of the game world.
I agree, but I feel that should be done outside of the gaming session. Collaborative world-building is what it's all about for me.
In 2e? Are you sure about that?Actually, it's a 1 minute turn that consisted of 10 rounds. Each round was 6 seconds long. :)
Actually actually, IIRC it was 10 minute turns, 1 minute rounds and 6 second segments; but don't quote me on that, it's been decades since I've even read the books.
In 2e? Are you sure about that?Actually, it's a 1 minute turn that consisted of 10 rounds. Each round was 6 seconds long. :)
I am pretty sure your right Scott. I was just reading a section of the 1st edition DMG last night and it said a turn was broken into 10 1 minute rounds.
Than you had that annoying Segment. Which was supposed to be 6 seconds and really only manifested with spell casting.
In hindsight, I am amazed I figured out AD&D as a kid even with help. One thing I think 3rd edition did well was make a core rule and have everything follow suit. Segment was practically a footnote yet it was listed in casting times. I was at a complete loss.
Also monster speeds were given in inches to translate on the table, but really meant yards. As a 5th grader this was a nightmare for me.
I remember when 3rd edition was released, the day I read it, I thought Alternity was the development stage of 3rd edition.
Still I WISH Wizards would give that game another go.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
other stuff
(Now we just need someone to chime in with a, "So we should hold our applause until you've admitted that Pathfinder is better than 4e, huh?")
Well, in that it's a matter of preference and there's no way to quantify which of the two games is "better" objectively... that'll never happen.
Let's all just agree that our games of preference are all better than F.A.T.A.L. and move on. :D
A position that we can all get behind.
At this point I want to add, that having 1 round, 1 minute, 10 minutes, 1 hour is really a nice system. ^^
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Than you had that annoying Segment. Which was supposed to be 6 seconds and really only manifested with spell casting.
And weapon speeds and iterative attacks, iirc. I still kind of miss the way attacks and such were spread out over the round instead of all happening at once, but then I like complication. :)
In hindsight, I am amazed I figured out AD&D as a kid even with help. One thing I think 3rd edition did well was make a core rule and have everything follow suit. Segment was practically a footnote yet it was listed in casting times. I was at a complete loss.
Also monster speeds were given in inches to translate on the table, but really meant yards. As a 5th grader this was a nightmare for me.
Agreed; well, to be completely honest I'm not sure I did figure out AD&D as a kid, but whatever, it was fun. I certainly remember picking up the 3E books and thinking "Good lord, it's comprehensible!" I can't deny being 15 years older din't help with that, though.
As for 5E: I've got no quibble with WotC; those guys are going to build the most workable system they can. I just really, really! hope Hasbro treats it as something other than a weird little IP adored by nerds who won't hand over their money quickly enough. (no insult to 4e fans, talking business plan or whatever rather than specific system)
|
But didn't the one minute round consist of 10 turns? I let you do the math how long that is for each round.
No, a round, in 1st and 2nd Edition was always officially one minute.
A 'turn' was ten rounds, and was used for long-term actions, such as exploring and mapping.A 1st Edition round was subdivided into ten 'segments' of six seconds each, but no-one acted on every segment. Combatants acted at some point within those ten segments.
The initiative system in 2nd Edition used a d10, minus your Dex bonus, to show when your action started. Different actions had different speeds (weapon speed or casting time). The action took from the moment your initiative came up, to (initiative+action speed) to complete, during which you could be interrupted, mid-swing, or mid-casting.
So, wizard rolls 6, minus 1 for 15 Dex, starts casting on segment 5.
Enemy warrior rolls 5, minus nothing for 14 Dex, starts swinging on segment 5.
Whoever's action is fastest will interrupt the other. If the warrior is swinging a longsword (speed 5), the wizard could get off most spells of level 4 or less first.
If the warrior is using a shortsword (speed 3), the wizard daren't risk most spells over level 2.
Wizard spells were generally fastest, taking 1 segment per spell level, clerical spells were slower, generally starting at 5 segments for level 1 spells.
Different tables had different house rules for declaring actions; some would have you declare your action before initiative was rolled for the round (so the wizard above would usually hedge his bets with a quick and easy spell). Other tables allowed you to see the base rolls, or the rolls modified for Dex, before you decided. Some had combatants declare their actions in reverse initiative order; those slower to act telegraphed their intent to those faster to act on.
In those latter examples, you would more often see casters risk their higher-level spells ("I know I rolled good, and he rolled bad, so take this Finger of Death, sucker.").
Different houserules existed for interrupting actions; damage automatically disrupted casting, but some ruled that the casting didn't start till the modified initiative roll, other tables ruled that any damage at any point in the round prior to casting still disrupted the spellformer camp usually allowed attacks to be delayed to ensure attacking the caster at the right time.
1st Edition initiative rules were....err..who knows, since they were so unclear and badly written. All weapons had the same speed factors, but nowhere in the PHB or DMG did it ever give a use for these. Initiative was rolled on d6. Party initiative was the norm, so all one side acted, then all the other side...bleurgh.
We very soon set up our own house rules, until 1985(?), when an article in Imagine magazine printed a system very close to what later became the 2nd Edition canon.
I am of the opposite camp. I loathe players having any sort of power over the GM.I am immediately wary of any GM who is unwilling to share even the smallest bit of power.
In my view, the DM should have control over everything that isn't the PCs. The players should have control over the PCs. These boundaries should be firm, and neither group should feel that they have the authority to "take over" the other's domain. But it is certain that, from time to time, the DM does exercise a small level of narrative or mechanical control over the PCs. I feel it's only appropriate that the PCs occasionally be allowed the same over the rest of the game world.
I don't stick my head into what the PCs are doing. I'm fine with players having full control so long as they abide by the setting (such as not using advanced guns). I'm fine with my players expressing disagreement with how I rule on something or discussing house rules with me before the game. I've changed rulings and house rules based off of player input before. I LOVE collaborative worldbuilding. What I don't like is when players overrule my rule rulings or scream in my face, which I have had happen a LOT. I'm willing to talk with the PCs over rulings, and I'm willing to back down when it would be best for everyone's fun, but I am not willing to give the players power over the GM any more than I am willing to give myself power over PCs. I feel a GM needs to have the final say, and that's how it works in my games. I'm willing to work with the players, but I'm not willing to be dominated by them. I agree with your statement that there need to be boundaries.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, it's a 1 minute turn that consisted of 10 rounds. Each round was 6 seconds long. :)
In 2e? Are you sure about that?
In 2nd edition, turns were 10 minutes, rounds 1 minute, segments 6 seconds. Just like 1st edition. Elton must be thinking in 3e terms.
Given that every table houseruled the hell out of 1st and 2nd Edition, it's not uncommon for players to assume the way they learnt the game was the official RAW.
Most people sat down with a group, and learnt by playing, picking up cues from the older members. Very few people ever actualy read the books, in any edition, the general practice for most people is to dip into them as a reference.In a 2nd Ed game, I once witnessed two players come to blows over which one was using the critical hit system correctly.
(Answer, neither, since the system didn't even have a crit system...).
|
Let's all just agree that our games of preference are all better than F.A.T.A.L. and move on. :DA position that we can all get behind.You certainly don't want anyone behind you, in a game of F.A.T.A.L..
That would of course depend on the diameter of one thing and circumference of another. As luck would have the designers of F.A.T.A.L. saw fit to supply us with this information.
Worse game ever would be a F.A.T.A.L. LARP game... <shudder>
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, the speed factor rules were there in 1E all right (and in the index in the DMG). It was used to break initiative ties, among other things. A portion of those rules:
When weapon speed factor is the determinant of which opponent strikes first in a melee round, there is a chance that one opponent will be entitled to multiple attacks. Compare the score of the lower-factored weapon with that of the higher. If the difference is at least twice the factor of the lower, or 5 or more factors in any case, the opponent with the lower factor weapon is entitled to 2 attacks before the opponent with the higher weapon factor is entitled to any attack whatsoever. If the difference is 10 or greater, the opponent with the lower-factored weapon is entitled to 2 attacks before the opponent is allowed to attack, and 1 further attack at the same time the opponent with the higher-speed-factored weapon finally is allowed to attack. Note that such speed factor considerations are not applicable when either closing or charging to melee, but after an initial round of combat, or in cases where closing/charging was not necessary, the speed factor considerations are applicable.
There's also a section on using speed factors to determine if you interrupted spell casting successfully. Not gonna type in all that :)
I don't get why folks called 1E complicated. Don't get it at all.
In the games I run, I usually am the only person at the table who ever read the books. The other players usually only know the Feat list and the spell-list for their classes.
Worse game ever would be a F.A.T.A.L. LARP game... <shudder>
OH GOD, nooooo!!! Where is the brain bleach?!?! Quick!!!!
When weapon speed factor is the determinant of which opponent strikes first in a melee round, there is a chance that one opponent will be entitled to multiple attacks. Compare the score of the lower-factored weapon with that of the higher. If the difference is at least twice the factor of the lower, or 5 or more factors in any case, the opponent with the lower factor weapon is entitled to 2 attacks before the opponent with the higher weapon factor is entitled to any attack whatsoever. If the difference is 10 or greater, the opponent with the lower-factored weapon is entitled to 2 attacks before the opponent is allowed to attack, and 1 further attack at the same time the opponent with the higher-speed-factored weapon finally is allowed to attack. Note that such speed factor considerations are not applicable when either closing or charging to melee, but after an initial round of combat, or in cases where closing/charging was not necessary, the speed factor considerations are applicable.
I just started laughing about halfway through reading that, and kept going all the way to the end. Right around "or 5 or more factors in any case."
People who say that D&D design has merely changed, not gotten better don't need to do much more than read that.
Some elements have improved, some wonderful elements are discarded, yada-yada-yada.
I liked Age of Aquarius...
Oh wait, that was the 5th Dimension.
And I liked "Ruby, Don't Take Your Love to Town".
Oh wait, that was the First Edition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am of the opposite camp. I loathe players having any sort of power over the GM. I've had nothing but bad experiences, such as players flat out telling me that I do not have the authority to disallow actions that flagrantly violate RAW (such as a Monk/Sorcerer/Arcane Archer using flurry of blows to cast multiple spells through a bow in one round AND only spending one spell slot that round). Even without that sort of player in the group, giving the players power is massive rules argument fuel.
Kelsey,
You've just had jerk players who want to abuse you. Tell them no and don't be afraid to do so. You can do it!
maybe...
-Tundra
|
Just saw this:
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120109
My apologies if it has already been posted.
A little surprised we saw a 5E announcement this soon but from what I'm reading they seem to be taking a good approach with its development and how they'll involve the fans in the creation of the game.
I'm also reading that 4E will continue to get support. How far that really goes when the 5E rubber hits the road is yet to be seen but I think the perfect solution for them is to nail down the final version of the 4E rules sometime in the last six months of 4E and fix the content of the character generator, monster builder, etc. DDI subscribers can continue to use those 4E versions of the apps perpetually if they want and keep playing the game or they can convert their 4E material to 5E and move on with the new edition.
Time will tell.
L
|
I never played 4th Ed., it was released as I was between gaming groups and then Pathfinder showed up with its FREE sexy Playtest. They unlockEd the secret to my wallet. Make the rules cheap, so people will buy content. Awesome adventure paths, setting books with gorgeous art and creative writing.
Wizards produces a system trapped behind a pay wall. Paizo has shown loyalty and good faith to its fanbase, and I will happily remain a loyal Pathfinder player in the face of 5e D&D.
Besides the only thing I could suggest in this new open playtest is:
Be more like Pathfinder. But that isn't fair, Paizo is the best at that already.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
See, that's what I fear will happen with 5e: WotC will try to be Paizo, and fail and then we have another edition change. I want WotC to make a really good game that doesn't have anything to do with 3e or 4e or 1e, but is its own beast. I don't want to have anything to do with it, mind you, but I want it to rise or fall on its own merits.
Will 5th edition be Pathfinder compatible? ;)
Notwithstanding your smiley face, I think the intent is to make a game that's vaguely compatible with EVERY version of D&D, including 3.5E. So if 5E is vaguely compatible with 3.5E and 3.5E is vaguely compatible with PFRPG, then by the transitive property of vague compatibility...
I'm nervous and excited about the announcement. I love every version of D&D, and have found each evolution to be an improvement on the last. I'm worried though that the game will devolve (like essentials did) to try and backpedal for those that stayed with the previous edition. I don't want 4E to be a lot more like 3.5/PF. It should be just new material that is playable with any version, by having all the available versions of the new stuff in one place.
I hope their compatibility comes in the form of laying a fairly basic framework, and all things being modified by which variation you chose to use. DOn't make it a point-buy system, but more of a "if you prefer this method here's what you add" book of options. That way, any method can add more options "Oh, this is a powers based sourcebook, I was looking for the static ability variance sourcebook"
"This spell has an area effect of 1 unit radius"
[1 unit is 5' (3.5), or 1 square (4E), or 1 hex (other) based on which measurement variation you use.]
"These are the core skills used in the game...."
[Get them with either full skill points (3.5), trained/untrained (4E), or less skill points with a trained bonus (PF)]
"These are what a Fighter gets at each level..."
[Based on which style classes use which power choices (4E), or which static ability (3.5)]
I mean, isn't Monte the king of the optional rule? Why not make a base skeleton, and create a list of how each variation applies to the game? This way I can play 4E compatible with one group, and turn around and play a 3.5 compatible all with the same core books, just using the other optional rules.
|
Seriously, open playtests (and open source) seem to be 'the' way forward. Glad to see WotC catch back up, and curious to see what they'll do.
I'm not sure how I feel about the playtest being released as "D&D Encounters" Modules, and them not gathering suggestions first.
Many of us aren't terribly interested in Organized Play, and Organized Play tends to have a very different playstyle than a home-game.
We shall see how it goes, I suppose.
I wouldn't mind seeing them drop D&D and giving us a Magic: The Gathering RPG - assuming I thought the RPG they came up with was any good that is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What? WOTC is reseting the rules on D&D again! I'm so glad I didn't buy any of that 4E crap! WOTC should just let it go. Discontinue D&D as a product line. There are more than enough fantasy RPG systems out there, including the old versions of D&D that one can find one and stick with it. I've made my choice. I'm sticking with Pathfinder!
For a second I thought this might be a troll post, but then I realized you're probably not the Brian James. Now I'm just sort of sad that anyone actually thinks like this.
Seriously, open playtests (and open source) seem to be 'the' way forward. Glad to see WotC catch back up, and curious to see what they'll do.I'm not sure how I feel about the playtest being released as "D&D Encounters" Modules, and them not gathering suggestions first.
Many of us aren't terribly interested in Organized Play, and Organized Play tends to have a very different playstyle than a home-game.
We shall see how it goes, I suppose.
I wouldn't mind seeing them drop D&D and giving us a Magic: The Gathering RPG - assuming I thought the RPG they came up with was any good that is.
Pretty much this.
|
|
Oh, the speed factor rules were there in 1E all right (and in the index in the DMG). It was used to break initiative ties, among other things. A portion of those rules:
When weapon speed factor is the determinant of which opponent strikes first in a melee round, there is a chance that one opponent will be entitled to multiple attacks. Compare the score of the lower-factored weapon with that of the higher. If the difference is at least twice the factor of the lower, or 5 or more factors in any case, the opponent with the lower factor weapon is entitled to 2 attacks before the opponent with the higher weapon factor is entitled to any attack whatsoever. If the difference is 10 or greater, the opponent with the lower-factored weapon is entitled to 2 attacks before the opponent is allowed to attack, and 1 further attack at the same time the opponent with the higher-speed-factored weapon finally is allowed to attack. Note that such speed factor considerations are not applicable when either closing or charging to melee, but after an initial round of combat, or in cases where closing/charging was not necessary, the speed factor considerations are applicable.
There's also a section on using speed factors to determine if you interrupted spell casting successfully. Not gonna type in all that :)
I don't get why folks called 1E complicated. Don't get it at all.
Thanks for posting that; it must have taken some digging up.
However, you've just proved my point.
"When weapon speed factor is the determinant of which opponent strikes first in a melee round..."...in other words, if it does, the following paragraph applies, if it doesn't, ignore the following paragraph.
So, how do we know if the weapon speed factor is the determinant?
The rules are silent.
Unless you refer to the hinted 'tie-breaker' ability?
In which case, replace the first sentence in the quoted text, to now read "When weapon speed factor is the tiebreaker in the initiative, there is a chance that one opponent will be entitled to multiple attacks".
In which case, you have the farcical situation, in which, if I am using a dagger vs a polearm, and clearly win the initiative, I get one and only one attack. Yet, if I roll worse, and only tie initiative, I get three attacks?
However you try to read it, it remains an atrociously-written piece of drivel.
When weapon speed factor is the determinant of which opponent strikes first in a melee round, there is a chance that one opponent will be entitled to multiple attacks. Compare the score of the lower-factored weapon with that of the higher. If the difference is at least twice the factor of the lower, or 5 or more factors in any case, the opponent with the lower factor weapon is entitled to 2 attacks before the opponent with the higher weapon factor is entitled to any attack whatsoever. If the difference is 10 or greater, the opponent with the lower-factored weapon is entitled to 2 attacks before the opponent is allowed to attack, and 1 further attack at the same time the opponent with the higher-speed-factored weapon finally is allowed to attack. Note that such speed factor considerations are not applicable when either closing or charging to melee, but after an initial round of combat, or in cases where closing/charging was not necessary, the speed factor considerations are applicable.I just started laughing about halfway through reading that, and kept going all the way to the end. Right around "or 5 or more factors in any case."
People who say that D&D design has merely changed, not gotten better don't need to do much more than read that.
That's because it's clearly all gone down hill after the Rules Cyclopedia was produced.
|
|
For a second I thought this might be a troll post, but then I realized you're probably not the Brian James.
You mean THIS Brian James?
If it is, we need Dave, Rat and The Captain, to give their balanced opinion. And Patricia Morrison should drop by; I always thought she was hawt.