|
Week 10 Ep. 2
+ Show Spoiler +Bregor went beast-mode, lettin that Beargor hang out slaying goblins left and right with that bow.
|
On April 17 2013 01:16 MaestroSC wrote:Week 10 Ep. 2 + Show Spoiler +Bregor went beast-mode, lettin that Beargor hang out slaying goblins left and right with that bow.
+ Show Spoiler +well, he DOES have a legendary goblin slaying bow.
|
week10
+ Show Spoiler +So I've only been listening to this show for a few weeks now, and I'm wondering if most of their battles are this long and boring? That 2 hour + goblin battle was just painful to listen to. Normally I don't mind that combat that much.. when its relatively short. I think in the future the DM should stick smaller battles but with harder opponents, rather than tons of weak enemies.
Personally, what I enjoy the most about the show are the dilemmas and interactions with the characters. I thought some good opportunities were missed in the ruined town for the party to make some tough decisions. For example, there could have been hysterical townsfolk that may have tried to interfere, hinder, or blame the party in some way.
|
On April 17 2013 07:23 Strut wrote:week10 + Show Spoiler +So I've only been listening to this show for a few weeks now, and I'm wondering if most of their battles are this long and boring? That 2 hour + goblin battle was just painful to listen to. Normally I don't mind that combat that much.. when its relatively short. I think in the future the DM should stick smaller battles but with harder opponents, rather than tons of weak enemies.
Personally, what I enjoy the most about the show are the dilemmas and interactions with the characters. I thought some good opportunities were missed in the ruined town for the party to make some tough decisions. For example, there could have been hysterical townsfolk that may have tried to interfere, hinder, or blame the party in some way.
+ Show Spoiler +Given 10 weeks of playing, they've had a relatively little amount of actual combat I'd say. This is the longest fighting session they've ever had, by far. Especially when you consider that they're fighting much more efficiently when compared with how much more slowly combat went earlier in the season when they were all less familiar with how it worked.
|
On April 19 2013 11:35 I_Love_Bacon wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2013 07:23 Strut wrote:week10 + Show Spoiler +So I've only been listening to this show for a few weeks now, and I'm wondering if most of their battles are this long and boring? That 2 hour + goblin battle was just painful to listen to. Normally I don't mind that combat that much.. when its relatively short. I think in the future the DM should stick smaller battles but with harder opponents, rather than tons of weak enemies.
Personally, what I enjoy the most about the show are the dilemmas and interactions with the characters. I thought some good opportunities were missed in the ruined town for the party to make some tough decisions. For example, there could have been hysterical townsfolk that may have tried to interfere, hinder, or blame the party in some way. + Show Spoiler +Given 10 weeks of playing, they've had a relatively little amount of actual combat I'd say. This is the longest fighting session they've ever had, by far. Especially when you consider that they're fighting much more efficiently when compared with how much more slowly combat went earlier in the season when they were all less familiar with how it worked.
newer additions really changed a lot of the combat, and made it a LOT more interesting at least IMO because they added a lot of abilities for other classes, so you arent just "i attack" 50+ times u actually have some choices and ofcourse they can still do funny shenanigans
Idk combat is more boring when spectating... but getting sick crits when playing is very fun and memorable.
IDK i liked the combat episodes, and dont have any real issues with them, its fun to hear some tactical stuff going on too
|
On April 19 2013 13:54 MaestroSC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 11:35 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On April 17 2013 07:23 Strut wrote:week10 + Show Spoiler +So I've only been listening to this show for a few weeks now, and I'm wondering if most of their battles are this long and boring? That 2 hour + goblin battle was just painful to listen to. Normally I don't mind that combat that much.. when its relatively short. I think in the future the DM should stick smaller battles but with harder opponents, rather than tons of weak enemies.
Personally, what I enjoy the most about the show are the dilemmas and interactions with the characters. I thought some good opportunities were missed in the ruined town for the party to make some tough decisions. For example, there could have been hysterical townsfolk that may have tried to interfere, hinder, or blame the party in some way. + Show Spoiler +Given 10 weeks of playing, they've had a relatively little amount of actual combat I'd say. This is the longest fighting session they've ever had, by far. Especially when you consider that they're fighting much more efficiently when compared with how much more slowly combat went earlier in the season when they were all less familiar with how it worked. newer additions really changed a lot of the combat, and made it a LOT more interesting at least IMO because they added a lot of abilities for other classes, so you arent just "i attack" 50+ times u actually have some choices and ofcourse they can still do funny shenanigans Idk combat is more boring when spectating... but getting sick crits when playing is very fun and memorable. IDK i liked the combat episodes, and dont have any real issues with them, its fun to hear some tactical stuff going on too
I've found that past 2nd edition is where the fun ended for combat. beyond that everything becomes checks and rules and stops being narrative.
|
On April 19 2013 14:05 PrinceXizor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 13:54 MaestroSC wrote:On April 19 2013 11:35 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On April 17 2013 07:23 Strut wrote:week10 + Show Spoiler +So I've only been listening to this show for a few weeks now, and I'm wondering if most of their battles are this long and boring? That 2 hour + goblin battle was just painful to listen to. Normally I don't mind that combat that much.. when its relatively short. I think in the future the DM should stick smaller battles but with harder opponents, rather than tons of weak enemies.
Personally, what I enjoy the most about the show are the dilemmas and interactions with the characters. I thought some good opportunities were missed in the ruined town for the party to make some tough decisions. For example, there could have been hysterical townsfolk that may have tried to interfere, hinder, or blame the party in some way. + Show Spoiler +Given 10 weeks of playing, they've had a relatively little amount of actual combat I'd say. This is the longest fighting session they've ever had, by far. Especially when you consider that they're fighting much more efficiently when compared with how much more slowly combat went earlier in the season when they were all less familiar with how it worked. newer additions really changed a lot of the combat, and made it a LOT more interesting at least IMO because they added a lot of abilities for other classes, so you arent just "i attack" 50+ times u actually have some choices and ofcourse they can still do funny shenanigans Idk combat is more boring when spectating... but getting sick crits when playing is very fun and memorable. IDK i liked the combat episodes, and dont have any real issues with them, its fun to hear some tactical stuff going on too I've found that past 2nd edition is where the fun ended for combat. beyond that everything becomes checks and rules and stops being narrative.
meh once uve spent a couple weeks... saying "ill take a swipe" fails in comparison to the caster classes that have actual fun choices
|
On April 19 2013 15:08 MaestroSC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 14:05 PrinceXizor wrote:On April 19 2013 13:54 MaestroSC wrote:On April 19 2013 11:35 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On April 17 2013 07:23 Strut wrote:week10 + Show Spoiler +So I've only been listening to this show for a few weeks now, and I'm wondering if most of their battles are this long and boring? That 2 hour + goblin battle was just painful to listen to. Normally I don't mind that combat that much.. when its relatively short. I think in the future the DM should stick smaller battles but with harder opponents, rather than tons of weak enemies.
Personally, what I enjoy the most about the show are the dilemmas and interactions with the characters. I thought some good opportunities were missed in the ruined town for the party to make some tough decisions. For example, there could have been hysterical townsfolk that may have tried to interfere, hinder, or blame the party in some way. + Show Spoiler +Given 10 weeks of playing, they've had a relatively little amount of actual combat I'd say. This is the longest fighting session they've ever had, by far. Especially when you consider that they're fighting much more efficiently when compared with how much more slowly combat went earlier in the season when they were all less familiar with how it worked. newer additions really changed a lot of the combat, and made it a LOT more interesting at least IMO because they added a lot of abilities for other classes, so you arent just "i attack" 50+ times u actually have some choices and ofcourse they can still do funny shenanigans Idk combat is more boring when spectating... but getting sick crits when playing is very fun and memorable. IDK i liked the combat episodes, and dont have any real issues with them, its fun to hear some tactical stuff going on too I've found that past 2nd edition is where the fun ended for combat. beyond that everything becomes checks and rules and stops being narrative. meh once uve spent a couple weeks... saying "ill take a swipe" fails in comparison to the caster classes that have actual fun choices
I'm talking about fighters. Obvious a caster is going to invoke more description and involvement. the rules for casting have hardly changed. fighters and non casters became entirely about rules and checks though. Less wiggle room for maneuvers. Geoff is at the point where he can start making decisions to take finesse attacks of his choosing and accepting penalties.
|
On April 19 2013 15:32 PrinceXizor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 15:08 MaestroSC wrote:On April 19 2013 14:05 PrinceXizor wrote:On April 19 2013 13:54 MaestroSC wrote:On April 19 2013 11:35 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On April 17 2013 07:23 Strut wrote:week10 + Show Spoiler +So I've only been listening to this show for a few weeks now, and I'm wondering if most of their battles are this long and boring? That 2 hour + goblin battle was just painful to listen to. Normally I don't mind that combat that much.. when its relatively short. I think in the future the DM should stick smaller battles but with harder opponents, rather than tons of weak enemies.
Personally, what I enjoy the most about the show are the dilemmas and interactions with the characters. I thought some good opportunities were missed in the ruined town for the party to make some tough decisions. For example, there could have been hysterical townsfolk that may have tried to interfere, hinder, or blame the party in some way. + Show Spoiler +Given 10 weeks of playing, they've had a relatively little amount of actual combat I'd say. This is the longest fighting session they've ever had, by far. Especially when you consider that they're fighting much more efficiently when compared with how much more slowly combat went earlier in the season when they were all less familiar with how it worked. newer additions really changed a lot of the combat, and made it a LOT more interesting at least IMO because they added a lot of abilities for other classes, so you arent just "i attack" 50+ times u actually have some choices and ofcourse they can still do funny shenanigans Idk combat is more boring when spectating... but getting sick crits when playing is very fun and memorable. IDK i liked the combat episodes, and dont have any real issues with them, its fun to hear some tactical stuff going on too I've found that past 2nd edition is where the fun ended for combat. beyond that everything becomes checks and rules and stops being narrative. meh once uve spent a couple weeks... saying "ill take a swipe" fails in comparison to the caster classes that have actual fun choices I'm talking about fighters. Obvious a caster is going to invoke more description and involvement. the rules for casting have hardly changed. fighters and non casters became entirely about rules and checks though. Less wiggle room for maneuvers. Geoff is at the point where he can start making decisions to take finesse attacks of his choosing and accepting penalties.
but its all flavor text/words at that point just comes down to having a flexible mod letting you do silly attacks.
Its not an uncommon problem even in the mind of the writers of DnD, they know that players who arent wizards, generally get bored of combat WAY earlier, and thats why they added so many new combat things in later editions.
but i know we arent going to agree =)
|
On April 19 2013 15:55 MaestroSC wrote:
but its all flavor text/words at that point just comes down to having a flexible mod letting you do silly attacks.
Its not an uncommon problem even in the mind of the writers of DnD, they know that players who arent wizards, generally get bored of combat WAY earlier, and thats why they added so many new combat things in later editions.
but i know we arent going to agree =)
Later editions just end up like stuff like "I want to use knockdown on the orc" "okay roll to hit and then i'll roll discipline" "i rolled X" "Knockdown failed". Where second edition is " i want to shove him with my shield and then stab him "okay roll" "i Rolled X" "you throw your shield into the orc (roll 1d4 for damage) and he falls to the ground and as you raise your sword to impale him he rolls out of the way barely"
same DM, same PLayers. the strictness of the rules made the game all about dicerolls and skill checks.
|
On April 19 2013 16:03 PrinceXizor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 15:55 MaestroSC wrote:
but its all flavor text/words at that point just comes down to having a flexible mod letting you do silly attacks.
Its not an uncommon problem even in the mind of the writers of DnD, they know that players who arent wizards, generally get bored of combat WAY earlier, and thats why they added so many new combat things in later editions.
but i know we arent going to agree =) Later editions just end up like stuff like "I want to use knockdown on the orc" "okay roll to hit and then i'll roll discipline" "i rolled X" "Knockdown failed". Where second edition is " i want to shove him with my shield and then stab him "okay roll" "i Rolled X" "you throw your shield into the orc (roll 1d4 for damage) and he falls to the ground and as you raise your sword to impale him he rolls out of the way barely" same DM, same PLayers. the strictness of the rules made the game all about dicerolls and skill checks.
The rules are only as strict as the DM says they should be. Further, as Maestro pointed out, you're criticizing a lack of narration more than the abilities. I don't know what to tell you if you simply think modern DM's read the numbers off the dice and leave it at that.
|
On April 19 2013 18:46 I_Love_Bacon wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 16:03 PrinceXizor wrote:On April 19 2013 15:55 MaestroSC wrote:
but its all flavor text/words at that point just comes down to having a flexible mod letting you do silly attacks.
Its not an uncommon problem even in the mind of the writers of DnD, they know that players who arent wizards, generally get bored of combat WAY earlier, and thats why they added so many new combat things in later editions.
but i know we arent going to agree =) Later editions just end up like stuff like "I want to use knockdown on the orc" "okay roll to hit and then i'll roll discipline" "i rolled X" "Knockdown failed". Where second edition is " i want to shove him with my shield and then stab him "okay roll" "i Rolled X" "you throw your shield into the orc (roll 1d4 for damage) and he falls to the ground and as you raise your sword to impale him he rolls out of the way barely" same DM, same PLayers. the strictness of the rules made the game all about dicerolls and skill checks. The rules are only as strict as the DM says they should be. Further, as Maestro pointed out, you're criticizing a lack of narration more than the abilities. I don't know what to tell you if you simply think modern DM's read the numbers off the dice and leave it at that.
The point he is making is that if you have rules in place for everything, people tend to concentrate on those rules instead of what they want to actually do. So, they play the rules, not the role.
After rollplay i listened/watched a lot more of those podcasts in the last few weeks, and that is a recurring theme. The more exact the roles are for any situation, the less creativity is involved. I stumbled upon this podcast where people try out different systems, and whenever it is something like DnD4th, it usually ends up with "i use xyz on the guy", even if the DM tries to make them narrate more, while in more open systems they go more creative with their actions.
However, the other point made is also valid. Higher level Mages can do more stuff to make things interesting. I just don't think that the best approach to this is to make everyone a wizard, with other characters just having sword spells instead of magic spells, which is what happened with DnD 4th.
|
On April 20 2013 00:19 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 18:46 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On April 19 2013 16:03 PrinceXizor wrote:On April 19 2013 15:55 MaestroSC wrote:
but its all flavor text/words at that point just comes down to having a flexible mod letting you do silly attacks.
Its not an uncommon problem even in the mind of the writers of DnD, they know that players who arent wizards, generally get bored of combat WAY earlier, and thats why they added so many new combat things in later editions.
but i know we arent going to agree =) Later editions just end up like stuff like "I want to use knockdown on the orc" "okay roll to hit and then i'll roll discipline" "i rolled X" "Knockdown failed". Where second edition is " i want to shove him with my shield and then stab him "okay roll" "i Rolled X" "you throw your shield into the orc (roll 1d4 for damage) and he falls to the ground and as you raise your sword to impale him he rolls out of the way barely" same DM, same PLayers. the strictness of the rules made the game all about dicerolls and skill checks. The rules are only as strict as the DM says they should be. Further, as Maestro pointed out, you're criticizing a lack of narration more than the abilities. I don't know what to tell you if you simply think modern DM's read the numbers off the dice and leave it at that. The point he is making is that if you have rules in place for everything, people tend to concentrate on those rules instead of what they want to actually do. So, they play the rules, not the role. After rollplay i listened/watched a lot more of those podcasts in the last few weeks, and that is a recurring theme. The more exact the roles are for any situation, the less creativity is involved. I stumbled upon this podcast where people try out different systems, and whenever it is something like DnD4th, it usually ends up with "i use xyz on the guy", even if the DM tries to make them narrate more, while in more open systems they go more creative with their actions. However, the other point made is also valid. Higher level Mages can do more stuff to make things interesting. I just don't think that the best approach to this is to make everyone a wizard, with other characters just having sword spells instead of magic spells, which is what happened with DnD 4th.
Wondering how many podcasts you listened to because I have almost never listened to ones (besides RollPlay) where the fighter doesn't just say "ill attack this one" all the time. Vincent Longborn used to get a lot more creative with this attacks but even time wore him down where it's just another attack each round. I do agree that, theoretically, you may be right about the certain "abilities" having less creative potential but I don't think we have anything close to proof.
|
On April 20 2013 00:40 willoc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2013 00:19 Simberto wrote:On April 19 2013 18:46 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On April 19 2013 16:03 PrinceXizor wrote:On April 19 2013 15:55 MaestroSC wrote:
but its all flavor text/words at that point just comes down to having a flexible mod letting you do silly attacks.
Its not an uncommon problem even in the mind of the writers of DnD, they know that players who arent wizards, generally get bored of combat WAY earlier, and thats why they added so many new combat things in later editions.
but i know we arent going to agree =) Later editions just end up like stuff like "I want to use knockdown on the orc" "okay roll to hit and then i'll roll discipline" "i rolled X" "Knockdown failed". Where second edition is " i want to shove him with my shield and then stab him "okay roll" "i Rolled X" "you throw your shield into the orc (roll 1d4 for damage) and he falls to the ground and as you raise your sword to impale him he rolls out of the way barely" same DM, same PLayers. the strictness of the rules made the game all about dicerolls and skill checks. The rules are only as strict as the DM says they should be. Further, as Maestro pointed out, you're criticizing a lack of narration more than the abilities. I don't know what to tell you if you simply think modern DM's read the numbers off the dice and leave it at that. The point he is making is that if you have rules in place for everything, people tend to concentrate on those rules instead of what they want to actually do. So, they play the rules, not the role. After rollplay i listened/watched a lot more of those podcasts in the last few weeks, and that is a recurring theme. The more exact the roles are for any situation, the less creativity is involved. I stumbled upon this podcast where people try out different systems, and whenever it is something like DnD4th, it usually ends up with "i use xyz on the guy", even if the DM tries to make them narrate more, while in more open systems they go more creative with their actions. However, the other point made is also valid. Higher level Mages can do more stuff to make things interesting. I just don't think that the best approach to this is to make everyone a wizard, with other characters just having sword spells instead of magic spells, which is what happened with DnD 4th. Wondering how many podcasts you listened to because I have almost never listened to ones (besides RollPlay) where the fighter doesn't just say "ill attack this one" all the time. Vincent Longborn used to get a lot more creative with this attacks but even time wore him down where it's just another attack each round. I do agree that, theoretically, you may be right about the certain "abilities" having less creative potential but I don't think we have anything close to proof.
The players rollplay in 2e, with the rules being a framework, in 4e, the players play to the rules and there is little room for doing anything else. Not to mention combat in 4e takes a fucking age to complete.
EDIT: Not to mention, how is it any better or more fun saying "I use X ability on this one" rather than attacking? It's just a different dice roll essentially.
|
On April 20 2013 02:10 Zealos wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2013 00:40 willoc wrote:On April 20 2013 00:19 Simberto wrote:On April 19 2013 18:46 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On April 19 2013 16:03 PrinceXizor wrote:On April 19 2013 15:55 MaestroSC wrote:
but its all flavor text/words at that point just comes down to having a flexible mod letting you do silly attacks.
Its not an uncommon problem even in the mind of the writers of DnD, they know that players who arent wizards, generally get bored of combat WAY earlier, and thats why they added so many new combat things in later editions.
but i know we arent going to agree =) Later editions just end up like stuff like "I want to use knockdown on the orc" "okay roll to hit and then i'll roll discipline" "i rolled X" "Knockdown failed". Where second edition is " i want to shove him with my shield and then stab him "okay roll" "i Rolled X" "you throw your shield into the orc (roll 1d4 for damage) and he falls to the ground and as you raise your sword to impale him he rolls out of the way barely" same DM, same PLayers. the strictness of the rules made the game all about dicerolls and skill checks. The rules are only as strict as the DM says they should be. Further, as Maestro pointed out, you're criticizing a lack of narration more than the abilities. I don't know what to tell you if you simply think modern DM's read the numbers off the dice and leave it at that. The point he is making is that if you have rules in place for everything, people tend to concentrate on those rules instead of what they want to actually do. So, they play the rules, not the role. After rollplay i listened/watched a lot more of those podcasts in the last few weeks, and that is a recurring theme. The more exact the roles are for any situation, the less creativity is involved. I stumbled upon this podcast where people try out different systems, and whenever it is something like DnD4th, it usually ends up with "i use xyz on the guy", even if the DM tries to make them narrate more, while in more open systems they go more creative with their actions. However, the other point made is also valid. Higher level Mages can do more stuff to make things interesting. I just don't think that the best approach to this is to make everyone a wizard, with other characters just having sword spells instead of magic spells, which is what happened with DnD 4th. Wondering how many podcasts you listened to because I have almost never listened to ones (besides RollPlay) where the fighter doesn't just say "ill attack this one" all the time. Vincent Longborn used to get a lot more creative with this attacks but even time wore him down where it's just another attack each round. I do agree that, theoretically, you may be right about the certain "abilities" having less creative potential but I don't think we have anything close to proof. The players rollplay in 2e, with the rules being a framework, in 4e, the players play to the rules and there is little room for doing anything else. Not to mention combat in 4e takes a fucking age to complete. EDIT: Not to mention, how is it any better or more fun saying "I use X ability on this one" rather than attacking? It's just a different dice roll essentially.
because you have choices. They give every class a variety of options, and it gives a lot more options, tactically.
Do i want to rush into a large group and AoE? But if I dot that my caster wont be able to AoE without hitting me... Also I will be open to a bunch of attacks from the mobs surrounding me... and leave myself open for flanking...
maybe I should go single out the lone enemy..and try to wear him down... but then my squishies are open and vulnerable with me so far away...
should I use my biggest spell/attack on this guy... what if there is a bigger guy going to join the fight in the future?
It just gives other classes besides casters, some options and choices. And even then you can still do all of the creative stuff you could in Earlier DnD... there are just MORE options available, doesnt take away your older options.
doesnt make sense to say "in 4E you cant do anything outside the rules" but "in 2e you could just play and bend the rules if your DM allowed"
he can do the same thing in 4E... its kinda silly to say "well in 2e I could just not follow the rules" but "in 4e u have to follow the rules"
|
On April 20 2013 03:07 MaestroSC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2013 02:10 Zealos wrote:On April 20 2013 00:40 willoc wrote:On April 20 2013 00:19 Simberto wrote:On April 19 2013 18:46 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On April 19 2013 16:03 PrinceXizor wrote:On April 19 2013 15:55 MaestroSC wrote:
but its all flavor text/words at that point just comes down to having a flexible mod letting you do silly attacks.
Its not an uncommon problem even in the mind of the writers of DnD, they know that players who arent wizards, generally get bored of combat WAY earlier, and thats why they added so many new combat things in later editions.
but i know we arent going to agree =) Later editions just end up like stuff like "I want to use knockdown on the orc" "okay roll to hit and then i'll roll discipline" "i rolled X" "Knockdown failed". Where second edition is " i want to shove him with my shield and then stab him "okay roll" "i Rolled X" "you throw your shield into the orc (roll 1d4 for damage) and he falls to the ground and as you raise your sword to impale him he rolls out of the way barely" same DM, same PLayers. the strictness of the rules made the game all about dicerolls and skill checks. The rules are only as strict as the DM says they should be. Further, as Maestro pointed out, you're criticizing a lack of narration more than the abilities. I don't know what to tell you if you simply think modern DM's read the numbers off the dice and leave it at that. The point he is making is that if you have rules in place for everything, people tend to concentrate on those rules instead of what they want to actually do. So, they play the rules, not the role. After rollplay i listened/watched a lot more of those podcasts in the last few weeks, and that is a recurring theme. The more exact the roles are for any situation, the less creativity is involved. I stumbled upon this podcast where people try out different systems, and whenever it is something like DnD4th, it usually ends up with "i use xyz on the guy", even if the DM tries to make them narrate more, while in more open systems they go more creative with their actions. However, the other point made is also valid. Higher level Mages can do more stuff to make things interesting. I just don't think that the best approach to this is to make everyone a wizard, with other characters just having sword spells instead of magic spells, which is what happened with DnD 4th. Wondering how many podcasts you listened to because I have almost never listened to ones (besides RollPlay) where the fighter doesn't just say "ill attack this one" all the time. Vincent Longborn used to get a lot more creative with this attacks but even time wore him down where it's just another attack each round. I do agree that, theoretically, you may be right about the certain "abilities" having less creative potential but I don't think we have anything close to proof. The players rollplay in 2e, with the rules being a framework, in 4e, the players play to the rules and there is little room for doing anything else. Not to mention combat in 4e takes a fucking age to complete. EDIT: Not to mention, how is it any better or more fun saying "I use X ability on this one" rather than attacking? It's just a different dice roll essentially. because you have choices. They give every class a variety of options, and it gives a lot more options, tactically. Do i want to rush into a large group and AoE? But if I dot that my caster wont be able to AoE without hitting me... Also I will be open to a bunch of attacks from the mobs surrounding me... and leave myself open for flanking... maybe I should go single out the lone enemy..and try to wear him down... but then my squishies are open and vulnerable with me so far away... should I use my biggest spell/attack on this guy... what if there is a bigger guy going to join the fight in the future? It just gives other classes besides casters, some options and choices. And even then you can still do all of the creative stuff you could in Earlier DnD... there are just MORE options available, doesnt take away your older options. doesnt make sense to say "in 4E you cant do anything outside the rules" but "in 2e you could just play and bend the rules if your DM allowed" he can do the same thing in 4E... its kinda silly to say "well in 2e I could just not follow the rules" but "in 4e u have to follow the rules"
Choices is a valid argument, hadn't really thought of it.
And you can't do the same in 4e, it has far more rules.
Following the rules to the letter in 4e and 2e, the 2e game will have more room for fun idea's that aren't incorporated into the rules.
|
You have unlimited choices in 2nd edition. 4th edition limits your choices. just because you may be given more choices upfront doesn't actually give you more choices.in 2nd edition you can take a polearm and sweep a 10 foot arc with it and attempt to hit the goblins within you take a penalty for doing so, but the success is far more effective than otherwise. in 4th edition you just say "I want to use sweep attack" okay thats 1d6+Your damage bonus on everything in the area. k"
|
On April 20 2013 03:16 Zealos wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2013 03:07 MaestroSC wrote:On April 20 2013 02:10 Zealos wrote:On April 20 2013 00:40 willoc wrote:On April 20 2013 00:19 Simberto wrote:On April 19 2013 18:46 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On April 19 2013 16:03 PrinceXizor wrote:On April 19 2013 15:55 MaestroSC wrote:
but its all flavor text/words at that point just comes down to having a flexible mod letting you do silly attacks.
Its not an uncommon problem even in the mind of the writers of DnD, they know that players who arent wizards, generally get bored of combat WAY earlier, and thats why they added so many new combat things in later editions.
but i know we arent going to agree =) Later editions just end up like stuff like "I want to use knockdown on the orc" "okay roll to hit and then i'll roll discipline" "i rolled X" "Knockdown failed". Where second edition is " i want to shove him with my shield and then stab him "okay roll" "i Rolled X" "you throw your shield into the orc (roll 1d4 for damage) and he falls to the ground and as you raise your sword to impale him he rolls out of the way barely" same DM, same PLayers. the strictness of the rules made the game all about dicerolls and skill checks. The rules are only as strict as the DM says they should be. Further, as Maestro pointed out, you're criticizing a lack of narration more than the abilities. I don't know what to tell you if you simply think modern DM's read the numbers off the dice and leave it at that. The point he is making is that if you have rules in place for everything, people tend to concentrate on those rules instead of what they want to actually do. So, they play the rules, not the role. After rollplay i listened/watched a lot more of those podcasts in the last few weeks, and that is a recurring theme. The more exact the roles are for any situation, the less creativity is involved. I stumbled upon this podcast where people try out different systems, and whenever it is something like DnD4th, it usually ends up with "i use xyz on the guy", even if the DM tries to make them narrate more, while in more open systems they go more creative with their actions. However, the other point made is also valid. Higher level Mages can do more stuff to make things interesting. I just don't think that the best approach to this is to make everyone a wizard, with other characters just having sword spells instead of magic spells, which is what happened with DnD 4th. Wondering how many podcasts you listened to because I have almost never listened to ones (besides RollPlay) where the fighter doesn't just say "ill attack this one" all the time. Vincent Longborn used to get a lot more creative with this attacks but even time wore him down where it's just another attack each round. I do agree that, theoretically, you may be right about the certain "abilities" having less creative potential but I don't think we have anything close to proof. The players rollplay in 2e, with the rules being a framework, in 4e, the players play to the rules and there is little room for doing anything else. Not to mention combat in 4e takes a fucking age to complete. EDIT: Not to mention, how is it any better or more fun saying "I use X ability on this one" rather than attacking? It's just a different dice roll essentially. because you have choices. They give every class a variety of options, and it gives a lot more options, tactically. Do i want to rush into a large group and AoE? But if I dot that my caster wont be able to AoE without hitting me... Also I will be open to a bunch of attacks from the mobs surrounding me... and leave myself open for flanking... maybe I should go single out the lone enemy..and try to wear him down... but then my squishies are open and vulnerable with me so far away... should I use my biggest spell/attack on this guy... what if there is a bigger guy going to join the fight in the future? It just gives other classes besides casters, some options and choices. And even then you can still do all of the creative stuff you could in Earlier DnD... there are just MORE options available, doesnt take away your older options. doesnt make sense to say "in 4E you cant do anything outside the rules" but "in 2e you could just play and bend the rules if your DM allowed" he can do the same thing in 4E... its kinda silly to say "well in 2e I could just not follow the rules" but "in 4e u have to follow the rules" Choices is a valid argument, hadn't really thought of it. And you can't do the same in 4e, it has far more rules. Following the rules to the letter in 4e and 2e, the 2e game will have more room for fun idea's that aren't incorporated into the rules.
I've never met or heard of anybody doing everything by RAW. Everybody has some homebrew ideas and the more a group plays, generally the more it adds changes here and there. Saying you "can't" do something is only applicable if the GM of your group says so. The buck stops there, and any stifling of ideas in combat or elsewhere falls on his shoulders, not the systems.
Personally, when I DM I will allow the plays to tell me their desire in combat and if it sounds plausible I'll add in some appropriate modifiers (if needed) and have them roll away. If they specifically want to use a feat while they attack, obviously they'll have to say in some way or another that they use it, just as a caster would in any addition as well. Newer versions, in many ways, simply have more names and specific situations accounted for in combat that are deemed fair rather than requiring every dm to make it up on the fly.
|
On April 20 2013 04:19 I_Love_Bacon wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2013 03:16 Zealos wrote:On April 20 2013 03:07 MaestroSC wrote:On April 20 2013 02:10 Zealos wrote:On April 20 2013 00:40 willoc wrote:On April 20 2013 00:19 Simberto wrote:On April 19 2013 18:46 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On April 19 2013 16:03 PrinceXizor wrote:On April 19 2013 15:55 MaestroSC wrote:
but its all flavor text/words at that point just comes down to having a flexible mod letting you do silly attacks.
Its not an uncommon problem even in the mind of the writers of DnD, they know that players who arent wizards, generally get bored of combat WAY earlier, and thats why they added so many new combat things in later editions.
but i know we arent going to agree =) Later editions just end up like stuff like "I want to use knockdown on the orc" "okay roll to hit and then i'll roll discipline" "i rolled X" "Knockdown failed". Where second edition is " i want to shove him with my shield and then stab him "okay roll" "i Rolled X" "you throw your shield into the orc (roll 1d4 for damage) and he falls to the ground and as you raise your sword to impale him he rolls out of the way barely" same DM, same PLayers. the strictness of the rules made the game all about dicerolls and skill checks. The rules are only as strict as the DM says they should be. Further, as Maestro pointed out, you're criticizing a lack of narration more than the abilities. I don't know what to tell you if you simply think modern DM's read the numbers off the dice and leave it at that. The point he is making is that if you have rules in place for everything, people tend to concentrate on those rules instead of what they want to actually do. So, they play the rules, not the role. After rollplay i listened/watched a lot more of those podcasts in the last few weeks, and that is a recurring theme. The more exact the roles are for any situation, the less creativity is involved. I stumbled upon this podcast where people try out different systems, and whenever it is something like DnD4th, it usually ends up with "i use xyz on the guy", even if the DM tries to make them narrate more, while in more open systems they go more creative with their actions. However, the other point made is also valid. Higher level Mages can do more stuff to make things interesting. I just don't think that the best approach to this is to make everyone a wizard, with other characters just having sword spells instead of magic spells, which is what happened with DnD 4th. Wondering how many podcasts you listened to because I have almost never listened to ones (besides RollPlay) where the fighter doesn't just say "ill attack this one" all the time. Vincent Longborn used to get a lot more creative with this attacks but even time wore him down where it's just another attack each round. I do agree that, theoretically, you may be right about the certain "abilities" having less creative potential but I don't think we have anything close to proof. The players rollplay in 2e, with the rules being a framework, in 4e, the players play to the rules and there is little room for doing anything else. Not to mention combat in 4e takes a fucking age to complete. EDIT: Not to mention, how is it any better or more fun saying "I use X ability on this one" rather than attacking? It's just a different dice roll essentially. because you have choices. They give every class a variety of options, and it gives a lot more options, tactically. Do i want to rush into a large group and AoE? But if I dot that my caster wont be able to AoE without hitting me... Also I will be open to a bunch of attacks from the mobs surrounding me... and leave myself open for flanking... maybe I should go single out the lone enemy..and try to wear him down... but then my squishies are open and vulnerable with me so far away... should I use my biggest spell/attack on this guy... what if there is a bigger guy going to join the fight in the future? It just gives other classes besides casters, some options and choices. And even then you can still do all of the creative stuff you could in Earlier DnD... there are just MORE options available, doesnt take away your older options. doesnt make sense to say "in 4E you cant do anything outside the rules" but "in 2e you could just play and bend the rules if your DM allowed" he can do the same thing in 4E... its kinda silly to say "well in 2e I could just not follow the rules" but "in 4e u have to follow the rules" Choices is a valid argument, hadn't really thought of it. And you can't do the same in 4e, it has far more rules. Following the rules to the letter in 4e and 2e, the 2e game will have more room for fun idea's that aren't incorporated into the rules. I've never met or heard of anybody doing everything by RAW. Everybody has some homebrew ideas and the more a group plays, generally the more it adds changes here and there. Saying you "can't" do something is only applicable if the GM of your group says so. The buck stops there, and any stifling of ideas in combat or elsewhere falls on his shoulders, not the systems. Personally, when I DM I will allow the plays to tell me their desire in combat and if it sounds plausible I'll add in some appropriate modifiers (if needed) and have them roll away. If they specifically want to use a feat while they attack, obviously they'll have to say in some way or another that they use it, just as a caster would in any addition as well. Newer versions, in many ways, simply have more names and specific situations accounted for in combat that are deemed fair rather than requiring every dm to make it up on the fly.
By that logic its a completely pointless conversation, because whatever ruleset you use you'll just change it. The argument is which ruleset is better, saying you'll just change x ruleset in whatever way you want makes it impossible to get anywhere.
|
On April 20 2013 04:27 Zealos wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2013 04:19 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On April 20 2013 03:16 Zealos wrote:On April 20 2013 03:07 MaestroSC wrote:On April 20 2013 02:10 Zealos wrote:On April 20 2013 00:40 willoc wrote:On April 20 2013 00:19 Simberto wrote:On April 19 2013 18:46 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On April 19 2013 16:03 PrinceXizor wrote:On April 19 2013 15:55 MaestroSC wrote:
but its all flavor text/words at that point just comes down to having a flexible mod letting you do silly attacks.
Its not an uncommon problem even in the mind of the writers of DnD, they know that players who arent wizards, generally get bored of combat WAY earlier, and thats why they added so many new combat things in later editions.
but i know we arent going to agree =) Later editions just end up like stuff like "I want to use knockdown on the orc" "okay roll to hit and then i'll roll discipline" "i rolled X" "Knockdown failed". Where second edition is " i want to shove him with my shield and then stab him "okay roll" "i Rolled X" "you throw your shield into the orc (roll 1d4 for damage) and he falls to the ground and as you raise your sword to impale him he rolls out of the way barely" same DM, same PLayers. the strictness of the rules made the game all about dicerolls and skill checks. The rules are only as strict as the DM says they should be. Further, as Maestro pointed out, you're criticizing a lack of narration more than the abilities. I don't know what to tell you if you simply think modern DM's read the numbers off the dice and leave it at that. The point he is making is that if you have rules in place for everything, people tend to concentrate on those rules instead of what they want to actually do. So, they play the rules, not the role. After rollplay i listened/watched a lot more of those podcasts in the last few weeks, and that is a recurring theme. The more exact the roles are for any situation, the less creativity is involved. I stumbled upon this podcast where people try out different systems, and whenever it is something like DnD4th, it usually ends up with "i use xyz on the guy", even if the DM tries to make them narrate more, while in more open systems they go more creative with their actions. However, the other point made is also valid. Higher level Mages can do more stuff to make things interesting. I just don't think that the best approach to this is to make everyone a wizard, with other characters just having sword spells instead of magic spells, which is what happened with DnD 4th. Wondering how many podcasts you listened to because I have almost never listened to ones (besides RollPlay) where the fighter doesn't just say "ill attack this one" all the time. Vincent Longborn used to get a lot more creative with this attacks but even time wore him down where it's just another attack each round. I do agree that, theoretically, you may be right about the certain "abilities" having less creative potential but I don't think we have anything close to proof. The players rollplay in 2e, with the rules being a framework, in 4e, the players play to the rules and there is little room for doing anything else. Not to mention combat in 4e takes a fucking age to complete. EDIT: Not to mention, how is it any better or more fun saying "I use X ability on this one" rather than attacking? It's just a different dice roll essentially. because you have choices. They give every class a variety of options, and it gives a lot more options, tactically. Do i want to rush into a large group and AoE? But if I dot that my caster wont be able to AoE without hitting me... Also I will be open to a bunch of attacks from the mobs surrounding me... and leave myself open for flanking... maybe I should go single out the lone enemy..and try to wear him down... but then my squishies are open and vulnerable with me so far away... should I use my biggest spell/attack on this guy... what if there is a bigger guy going to join the fight in the future? It just gives other classes besides casters, some options and choices. And even then you can still do all of the creative stuff you could in Earlier DnD... there are just MORE options available, doesnt take away your older options. doesnt make sense to say "in 4E you cant do anything outside the rules" but "in 2e you could just play and bend the rules if your DM allowed" he can do the same thing in 4E... its kinda silly to say "well in 2e I could just not follow the rules" but "in 4e u have to follow the rules" Choices is a valid argument, hadn't really thought of it. And you can't do the same in 4e, it has far more rules. Following the rules to the letter in 4e and 2e, the 2e game will have more room for fun idea's that aren't incorporated into the rules. I've never met or heard of anybody doing everything by RAW. Everybody has some homebrew ideas and the more a group plays, generally the more it adds changes here and there. Saying you "can't" do something is only applicable if the GM of your group says so. The buck stops there, and any stifling of ideas in combat or elsewhere falls on his shoulders, not the systems. Personally, when I DM I will allow the plays to tell me their desire in combat and if it sounds plausible I'll add in some appropriate modifiers (if needed) and have them roll away. If they specifically want to use a feat while they attack, obviously they'll have to say in some way or another that they use it, just as a caster would in any addition as well. Newer versions, in many ways, simply have more names and specific situations accounted for in combat that are deemed fair rather than requiring every dm to make it up on the fly. By that logic its a completely pointless conversation, because whatever ruleset you use you'll just change it. The argument is which ruleset is better, saying you'll just change x ruleset in whatever way you want makes it impossible to get anywhere.
If that was the argument you were having, I think you were having it by yourself. A couple of us have simply been pointing out that combat narration in later editions is only as boring as the DM makes it. Claiming one is "better" because it has fewer rules fleshed out and thus leaves more to interpretation is just silly. A DM that isn't a complete idiot should be able to understand if a player is using a feat or ability without explicitly stating so (under the assumption that both player + dm know they can do it this way) if he mentions his character is recklessly throwing his weight behind his warhammer to swing it as hard as he can I'd hope the DM could figure out it was pretty way of saying that he uses power attack.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
