5e D&D is Vaporware

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sat Feb 11, 2012 4:42 am

tussock wrote:
Kaelik wrote:And any time the Rogue gets killed because Billy isn't persuasive, and is new to the group, that's not a fucking good thing.
People do that with mechanics too. Like Billy tries to use his maximised Hide and Move Silently skills past some Orcs, only those don't work in 3e so the Orcs surround him and he dies. If only the DM had used a little MTP on the poor newbie. 8]

You are being an idiot.

It's not that Billy is a newbie. It's Billy's fault for not knowing the rules. It's not Billy's fault for not being able to read the mannerisms of someone he's never met before in his life.

The rules create a real predictable world that people can learn from reading the book, and then playing the game. MTP forces you to read someone else's mind in order to understand how the world works. That's fucking terrible. And no, the existence of bad rules does not make unpredictability better than predictability.

If you think the rules are bad, that's an argument for making better rules, not for screwing the rules so that people live in an actual version of Limbo where nothing makes sense to them.

ModelCitizen wrote:How well MTP works depends on how predictable the world is to the players. Say you're playing Tomb of Horrors and you need to get the key out of the acid cauldron, so you bend a long piece of wire into a hook and fish it out. That's MTP

That could be MTP, if you ignore the rules. But it could also just be the rules, because objects have a hardness and hp in 3e, and acid does a certain amount of damage, and interacts with hardness and objects in a specific way, and hey, look at that, I can point to the rules that allow me to scoop out a key with a piece of wire.

ModelCitizen · Post by **ModelCitizen** » Sat Feb 11, 2012 4:52 am

Kaelik wrote: That could be MTP, if you ignore the rules. But it could also just be the rules, because objects have a hardness and hp in 3e, and acid does a certain amount of damage, and interacts with hardness and objects in a specific way, and hey, look at that, I can point to the rules that allow me to scoop out a key with a piece of wire.

If there are rules for catching objects on improvised hooks I don't know about them. I'm not sure what it has to do with HP or hardness though, unless we're trying to figure out whether the acid dissolves the wire.

Btw, I don't have 3e Tomb of Horrors in front of me, but a metal object is Hardness 10, acid deals full damage to objects, and that vat of acid has a damage expression designed to matter to characters in the teen levels. I'm pretty sure the module is already ignoring the rules by not having the acid vat dissolve the key.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sat Feb 11, 2012 5:24 am

ModelCitizen wrote:Btw, I don't have 3e Tomb of Horrors in front of me, but a metal object is Hardness 10, acid deals full damage to objects, and that vat of acid has a damage expression designed to matter to characters in the teen levels. I'm pretty sure the module is already ignoring the rules by not having the acid vat dissolve the key.

Oh wow, then I guess the rules would say you fail at your task... It almost sounds like there are rules that cover that action that are not MTP.

Also, You are kind of wrong about Acid. It does serious damage in total submersion, but does negligible damage in all other cases, and since a bowl with acid inside it could not possibly be considered totally submerged, seeing as the majority of it's surface area is not touching any acid, it would take 1d6 acid damage per round, or, when taking into account hardness, zero.

ModelCitizen · Post by **ModelCitizen** » Sat Feb 11, 2012 7:13 am

Kaelik wrote:Oh wow, then I guess the rules would say you fail at your task... It almost sounds like there are rules that cover that action that are not MTP.

This is stupid and you are stupid for saying it. I know you get a little chub at the prospect of someone being wrong on the internet, but try to contain yourself.

For anyone else reading, the rules as Kaelik presents them don't say you fail at your task, the rules say the key couldn't be at the bottom of the vat of acid in the first place. (And presumably a key at the bottom of a vat of acid is "totally submerged," by the way, so you can shut the fuck up about that). If we posit that there is a key, as Tomb of Horrors does, then clearly we are not applying the rules for damaging objects. Maybe because we never read them, or maybe because we consider the acid an "Ineffective Weapon" against metal keys (using the explicit allowance for MTP in the rules Kaelik is citing).

Even if the acid is too weak to deal 10 damage in a round (which it might be, I don't feel like looking it up), the fact that there are no rules to cover how one would actually hook the key with the wire and lift it means this is MTP anyway.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sat Feb 11, 2012 8:37 am

ModelCitizen wrote:This is stupid and you are stupid for saying it. I know you get a little chub at the prospect of someone being wrong on the internet, but try to contain yourself.

I'm sure your epeen is much larger than mine, but try learning to read before you start insulting people. I just admitted I was wrong. I looked up the rules, and realized that the wire melts in Acid, and then admitted I was wrong, the rules clearly don't allow that action. It just so happens that even being wrong, there are still rules that cover how that action works out.

ModelCitizen wrote:For anyone else reading, the rules as Kaelik presents them don't say you fail at your task, the rules say the key couldn't be at the bottom of the vat of acid in the first place. (And presumably a key at the bottom of a vat of acid is "totally submerged," by the way, so you can shut the fuck up about that). If we posit that there is a key, as Tomb of Horrors does, then clearly we are not applying the rules for damaging objects.

Unless... you know the key is not made of metal, or had acid resistance conveyed on it somehow, in which case you would be completely wrong.

The submerging that you insist I should shut the fuck up about was in relation to your claim that the vat itself should melt. The vat itself, not being submerged, would be fine, which is what I said, but sure, you still can't read, so this shouldn't be surprising.

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Sat Feb 11, 2012 11:33 am

PhoneLobster wrote:
tussock wrote: Rules do not save you from bad DMs.
1) Not true. Rules DO save you from some sub set of bad DMing,

Just as MTP saves you from some sub set of bad DMing (like when you convince the DM to not be a dick about something). Seriously, people are arguing MTP is bad because some DMs are bad, but that's a really shitty argument. For reals.

There are also better arguments against MTP appearing, which I will try to stick to. TY.

2) So then if you believe that I guess we just shouldn't have any rules now should we? They don't DO anything after all...

This is why I have you on ignore. Please to be trying logic. /me puts PL back on ignore.

Kaelik wrote:The rules create a real predictable world that people can learn from reading the book, and then playing the game.

On what planet? There was people in 2006 turning up online and asking why their 3e stealth-based character just got ganked by the first monster they tried to stealth near. Because six years in most experienced players had figured out not to bother, but no one had really come out and proved that stealth just did not fucking work.

It's the same damn mechanic in PF and 4e, and the local Tomes, because no one really understood just how fucking bad it was for a long, long, time. It was just something the experienced players learned not to touch.

Then there was the post about how you couldn't even steal a fucking chicken and everyone just got it. Why did newbies keep trying it? Because the rulebook says it works!

Shit man, there's still people playing Monks in high level Pathfinder games. There's a huge amount of fudging going on by players and DMs everywhere to make the Monk feel useful, despite the rules making them completely useless. I certainly threw a lot of bones to the Monk players in my games over the years.

There is no fucking way you can tell how a game's going to go based on the rules. People play in 16th level games with Bards and Fighters and Rangers and shit, and do just fine, because everyone just lets it work. Despite the rules.

If you think the rules are bad, that's an argument for making better rules, not for screwing the rules so that people live in an actual version of Limbo where nothing makes sense to them.

Like I said, I can only assume some of you are really bad at Magic Tea Party. Because it's not like that here. Not at all. Fuck you for saying it is, BTW.

Korwin · Post by **Korwin** » Sat Feb 11, 2012 12:09 pm

If 5e will be mostly MTP, what will they put into their books?

Optional rules nobody will use and there for nobody will buy?
Fluff, background, settings? - migth actually work, DSA has horrible rules, but their Setting Books dont have rules.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sat Feb 11, 2012 4:03 pm

tussock wrote:On what planet? There was people in 2006 turning up online and asking why their 3e stealth-based character just got ganked by the first monster they tried to stealth near. Because six years in most experienced players had figured out not to bother, but no one had really come out and proved that stealth just did not fucking work.

Just because some people don't read and understand the rules does not mean the rules don't create a predictable world. It's Billy's fault for not reading and understanding the rules.

tussock wrote:It's the same damn mechanic in PF and 4e, and the local Tomes, because no one really understood just how fucking bad it was for a long, long, time. It was just something the experienced players learned not to touch.

We understand how "bad" stealth rules are, we just don't have a perfect answer that solves all the problems. Personally, I have a problem with any version of stealth rules that allows everyone to move around with an appreciable chance of never being detected, so I don't want to "fix" 3e stealth so that the Rogue has always on invisibility that can't be pierced by see invis (or... fucking Darkstalker, blindsight/blindsense/ect.)

tussock wrote:There is no fucking way you can tell how a game's going to go based on the rules. People play in 16th level games with Bards and Fighters and Rangers and shit, and do just fine, because everyone just lets it work. Despite the rules.

The argument that people don't follow the rules is not an argument that the rules don't create a predictable world. That some people choose to live in a different Limbo world says nothing about the predictability of the world the rules creates.

tussock wrote:Like I said, I can only assume some of you are really bad at Magic Tea Party. Because it's not like that here. Not at all. Fuck you for saying it is, BTW.

I note you say here. Sounds like you play in a single group with people you've been around for a long time. Or you know, people you've gotten used to, and therefore can read pretty well.

Having played at conventions a great deal, and moved around a lot joining and creating new groups, I know that people who are perfectly fine individuals who have extremely different conceptions of what is common sense, and how the game world should work. I have lots of experience first hand giving people hints that I think mean one thing, and them responding completely different.

MTP really is just reading the people at the table, or just being lucky enough to have people who have similar conceptions as you. I don't care if you are offended by the mean internet man telling you that MTP is not some kind of godsend of perfect RP that makes everything better. It's still not, and you don't get to pretend that everyone else just must be bad at it because you enjoy it in the one group you've been in, so it's impossible for anyone else who doesn't like MTP to not like it for any reason other than sucking at it.

fectin · Post by **fectin** » Sat Feb 11, 2012 4:45 pm

MTP is like a spice.
Spices add exciting flavor to meals, and can make them much better. There are even a few rare meals that are mostly spices (pesto). Unless you're explicitly going for that though, more is not better, and adding more oregano will never cover for your lack of meat.

nockermensch · Post by **nockermensch** » Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:48 pm

Korwin wrote:If 5e will be mostly MTP, what will they put into their books?

Optional rules nobody will use and there for nobody will buy?
Fluff, background, settings? - migth actually work, DSA has horrible rules, but their Setting Books dont have rules.

I, for one, would buy artbooks that were nothing but fluff, background and settings. But then again, I'm a sucker for fantasy art.

crasskris · Post by **crasskris** » Mon Feb 13, 2012 2:16 pm

Korwin wrote:If 5e will be mostly MTP, what will they put into their books?

Oh, you can fill whole books with half-hearted definitions, fluffy quasi-rules and countless pretty words that get you out of actually defining sufficiently hard mechanics or, gods beware, actually have to do some math.

Several FATE systems, as much as I love the core game, are great examples for this. Describe a race/class/location/magic variant/your mom with a page of text, then some example aspects that you of course don't explain or explore beyond that one-liner, and voila: another rulebook filled. You might need some layout optimization skills to pad your work, and some pretty pictures inserted into the text with generous boundaries.

My only solace is that D&D-nerds loves them their +1s and measurable optimization, and won't let WOTC get away with that little work.

JigokuBosatsu · Post by **JigokuBosatsu** » Mon Feb 13, 2012 5:36 pm

Maybe the 5E rulebooks will just be blank pages with the heading "CAMPAIGN NOTES" on each page.

Seerow · Post by **Seerow** » Mon Feb 13, 2012 5:38 pm

JigokuBosatsu wrote:Maybe the 5E rulebooks will just be blank pages with the heading "CAMPAIGN NOTES" on each page.

This would be the most amazing troll I've seen. I kind of hope it happens.

Whatever · Post by **Whatever** » Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:25 pm

ModelCitizen wrote:If there are rules for catching objects on improvised hooks I don't know about them.

Sure there are. The rule is called "take 20" and it says that if there's a task the party can succeed on, then given an uninterrupted space of time long enough to try 20 times, they do succeed. So, as long as it is possible for the party to extract the key, they will, given time (and if it's not possible at all, the DM is being an asshole).

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:29 pm

It's like a DC 5 or 10 Use Rope check, and you can attempt untrained.

-Username17

crasskris · Post by **crasskris** » Mon Feb 13, 2012 9:22 pm

JigokuBosatsu wrote:Maybe the 5E rulebooks will just be blank pages with the heading "CAMPAIGN NOTES" on each page.

Still better than a rulebook fathered by Mike Mearls.

(Assuming Monte is the woman in this intellectual parenthood - he surely seems to be the one who was hit over the head, dragged into a cave and then messily fertilized).

CapnTthePirateG · Post by **CapnTthePirateG** » Mon Feb 13, 2012 10:13 pm

More Uniting the Editions

Are they seriously considering bringing back THAC0? Why?

ishy · Post by **ishy** » Mon Feb 13, 2012 10:28 pm

No, he's saying thac0 is shit, but that he doesn't trust his own judgement anymore.

Previn · Post by **Previn** » Mon Feb 13, 2012 11:34 pm

You know part of being a lead designer is probably knowing when to say 'no we're not using this, there is nothing good about it.'

Thac0 you can excuse as just a bad idea. Gender based stat limits is crossing way over that into blatant sexist territory and shouldn't even be mentioned except as an explicitly bad thing to avoid.

Mask_De_H · Post by **Mask_De_H** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:02 am

ishy wrote:No, he's saying thac0 is shit, but that he doesn't trust his own judgement anymore.

It's funny that he says that, because we never did. :V

But it's a step in the right direction that he realizes that there are some totally unworkable ideas and that's he's probably too dumb to figure out what's workable. Kicking that to playtesters could work (if they listen and filter out good ideas from the rabble), or it could be an unmitigated disaster (if they do it like every other tabletop game playtest).

nockermensch · Post by **nockermensch** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:56 am

I can't help but to read that L&L as a big "give us some ideas to steal" claim. At very least, it does look like they'll try to recreate PF's open playtest success. (marketing success, I mean)

OgreBattle · Post by **OgreBattle** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:30 am

CapnTthePirateG wrote:More Uniting the Editions

Are they seriously considering bringing back THAC0? Why?

THAC0 can be used to show gender differences between men and women, because the female brain works very differently.
In return, men suffer from critical fumble:my balllls

this keeps the game balanced

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:03 am

Heh, they updated the polls in a new version before I even got there.

Uniting 3: addendum. because 20 Str women are awesome and girls totally want to play females with big cocks. Or something. I didn't see the original, you know.

ishy · Post by **ishy** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:11 pm

Do you think the option: "critical fumbles" is still just so they can ignore every vote of people who voted for that one?

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:21 pm

The very fact that they put in the idea that healing surges could appear in a module means that they are fucking with us or grossly incompetent. Healing surges are a limit to daily healing, you can't put them in as an optional module. If they aren't an overall limit, they don't exist. It would be like choosing to not have hit points or something.

-Username17