EPT[Tabletop] Enter Iris - Page 3
| Forum Index > Closed |
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
| ||
|
jcarlsoniv
United States27922 Posts
| ||
|
Goumindong
United States3529 Posts
On December 04 2014 09:16 jcarlsoniv wrote: His explanation of lesser gods seems 100% fine with me. What about your suggestion makes it "easier to suggest"? Why would you ever want to encourage metagaming? There's no way to win D&D, so trying to outplay/break everything seems completely out of the spirit of the game to me. You're developing a story, not trying to achieve some nonexistant victory. There are a number of reasons, mostly coming down to DM agreement about what the game is like. If you get a group of people together who like to do that kind of thing it can be a lot of fun. More importantly if you have some characters who are min-maxed and some characters who are not, the characters who are min-maxed will end up overshadowing the rest, which makes the game less fun for everyone*. Agreeing on a "level of aptitude" essentially means that everyone is on the game page everyone feels useful, and everyone has fun. Additionally it takes a lot of the strain off the DM in determining encounter power, since they don't have to account for outsized power in some aspect. *This is actually one of the reasons why 3/3.5 was so imbalanced while 4e was a lot better (minus Dwarves and Fighters, who were OP as shit right out the box). Each character in 3/3.5 was essentially a master of their own domain and its really hard to make it not so due to how the system was designed. Wizards ruled combat, Rogues ruled skill challenges, fighters ruled taking damage so that wizards didn't get 1 shot on the first round. So combat ends and then the DM and rogue go do the skill aspect while everyone waits around. Which is kind of boring. Can we get a quick rundown of the unmentioned races? Hard to create a character for Iris without knowing where we are or what Humans, Gnomes, Dragonborn (though I assume like the dragons) are like | ||
|
PrinceXizor
United States17713 Posts
| ||
AsmodeusXI
United States15536 Posts
On December 04 2014 14:05 PrinceXizor wrote: Asmo you scum: you compile links to your blogs a day after i read everything by clicking back a bunch on your site. xD Maybe you should've read it when it came out. Then you wouldn't have this "catching up" problem.  | ||
|
PrinceXizor
United States17713 Posts
On December 04 2014 14:07 AsmodeusXI wrote: Maybe you should've read it when it came out. Then you wouldn't have this "catching up" problem. dont you use your logic and common sense with me. | ||
|
TheHumanSensation
Canada1210 Posts
On December 04 2014 12:51 Goumindong wrote: There are a number of reasons, mostly coming down to DM agreement about what the game is like. If you get a group of people together who like to do that kind of thing it can be a lot of fun. More importantly if you have some characters who are min-maxed and some characters who are not, the characters who are min-maxed will end up overshadowing the rest, which makes the game less fun for everyone*. Agreeing on a "level of aptitude" essentially means that everyone is on the game page everyone feels useful, and everyone has fun. Additionally it takes a lot of the strain off the DM in determining encounter power, since they don't have to account for outsized power in some aspect. *This is actually one of the reasons why 3/3.5 was so imbalanced while 4e was a lot better (minus Dwarves and Fighters, who were OP as shit right out the box). Each character in 3/3.5 was essentially a master of their own domain and its really hard to make it not so due to how the system was designed. Wizards ruled combat, Rogues ruled skill challenges, fighters ruled taking damage so that wizards didn't get 1 shot on the first round. So combat ends and then the DM and rogue go do the skill aspect while everyone waits around. Which is kind of boring. I wouldn't agree that having a party with large power disparities necessarily creates stale or boring gameplay, unless every player is concerned primarily with having min/maxed powerhouses. Many players are fine with or prefer trading power for flavour, as evidenced by low power games, and I don't think that all of these players need to feel like they're on even ground power-wise to derive the same amount of fun. I do agree with that having characters on roughly the same power level makes it easier to balance things as a DM though, and DM overload is super important to the health of campaigns in the long run. EDIT: I might also suggest that what Goumindong says is far preferable for first timers and players of less experience and should probs be applied to this campaign. | ||
|
Goumindong
United States3529 Posts
| ||
|
ComaDose
Canada10357 Posts
On December 04 2014 10:38 TheYango wrote: dinosaurs5E is still breakable solely from the fact that Polymorph still exists. but +5 init is way too stonk for a feat on ur other point (i know u mentioned about feat strength) | ||
|
Goumindong
United States3529 Posts
| ||
|
739
Bearded Elder29905 Posts
| ||
|
Dandel Ion
Austria17960 Posts
| ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On December 04 2014 12:51 Goumindong wrote: More importantly if you have some characters who are min-maxed and some characters who are not, the characters who are min-maxed will end up overshadowing the rest, which makes the game less fun for everyone*. Agreeing on a "level of aptitude" essentially means that everyone is on the game page everyone feels useful, and everyone has fun. Additionally it takes a lot of the strain off the DM in determining encounter power, since they don't have to account for outsized power in some aspect. Common sense still applies--as a DM I would never risk a high-power game in a system that I had never played before, nor would I impose one on a gaming group where I explicitly allowed new players to join (it would just make them feel left out while they're still figuring out how to play the game). So again, it should be readily apparent that this is a low-power game from the outset. On December 04 2014 12:51 Goumindong wrote: Wizards ruled combat, Wizards ruled skill challenges, Clerics/Druids ruled taking damage so that wizards didn't get 1 shot on the first round. Fixed. Past about level 5/7 Rogues cease being better than Wizards/Clerics at "skill challenges" because spells start getting stupid (well technically past level 3, but the Cleric can only cast Divine Insight like twice at that point and the Lorecalls don't do everything yet). | ||
|
AsmodeusXI
United States15536 Posts
On December 04 2014 20:19 Dandel Ion wrote: am i reading right that a webcam is required? Pretty much. Sorry to technology-gate this, but it really helps me as a GM to see faces, and it'll help this as a show. As far as the style of game, what it comes down to is the players determining the kind of game they want. For the most part, people I've spoken with seem to be more excited about the story and world than numbers and min/maxing, and those players (in my experience) tend to be relatively self-policing about their overpowered-ness and having all of the party be equally effective in some way. Again, I'll say that those are the games I've enjoyed in the past, but it doesn't mean I wouldn't be interested in something different. I think that 5E is a little new to be breaking TOO much because of general unfamiliarity, but we'll see what the players want, in the end. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35174 Posts
| ||
|
AsmodeusXI
United States15536 Posts
| ||
|
WaveofShadow
Canada31495 Posts
 Can't you get a cheap webcam for like $20? I don't want anybody to be counted out | ||
|
Dandel Ion
Austria17960 Posts
meh | ||
|
WaveofShadow
Canada31495 Posts
On December 05 2014 00:08 Dandel Ion wrote: well I'm sure you can easily find 5 people with webcam too meh I know you're all shy and stuff you cutie but how you gonna RP and talk in silly accents and stuff in front of millions of twitch viewers even without a webcam in that case? Nows your chance to overcome that fear. DO EET | ||
|
jcarlsoniv
United States27922 Posts
the webcam I have was like $15 | ||
| ||
