The Gaming Den Forum Index The Gaming Den
Welcome to the Gaming Den.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Google
 Search WWW   Search tgdmb.com 
D&D 5e has failed
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 65, 66, 67
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Gaming Den Forum Index -> In My Humble Opinion...
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Korwin
Duke


Joined: 13 Feb 2009
Posts: 1907
Location: Linz / Austria

PostPosted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Should'nt D&D 5 get the same or more hits than D&D 5e...?
The letters of "D&D 5" are part of "D&D 5e"...?
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=D%26D%205e,D%26D%205
Why does D&D 5 get less hits?
_________________
Red_Rob wrote:

I mean, I'm pretty sure the Mayans had a prophecy about what would happen if Frank and PL ever agreed on something. PL will argue with Frank that the sky is blue or grass is green, so when they both separately piss on your idea that is definitely something to think about.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
...You Lost Me
Duke


Joined: 10 Jan 2011
Posts: 1723

PostPosted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 1:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Korwin wrote:
Should'nt D&D 5 get the same or more hits than D&D 5e...?
The letters of "D&D 5" are part of "D&D 5e"...?
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=D%26D%205e,D%26D%205
Why does D&D 5 get less hits?


The results for "D&D 5" don't include any results that happen to have "D&D 5" in them, they only count if someone explicitly searched for "D&D 5" without the e.
_________________
DSMatticus wrote:
Again, look at this fucking map you moron. Take your finger and trace each country's coast, then trace its claim line. Even you - and I say that as someone who could not think less of your intelligence - should be able to tell that one of these things is not like the other.
Kaelik wrote:
I invented saying mean things about Tussock.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Voss
Prince


Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 3883

PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 10:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

So, D&D 5e has another book coming out, only seven months after the last one! They're really ripping into a new production schedule.

Aside from the bullshit nostalgia name, it's another monster book like Volo's guide sort of was. But higher CR and Greyhawk themed name dropping(for the first time in two and a half editions).

http://dnd.wizards.com/products/tabletop-games/rpg-products/mordenkainens-tome-foes

As usual these days, they're all about the interview videos. This is worth watching at about 2:15 for the mindboggling stupid that is Mike Mearls.
'We know most campaigns don't go past level 10, so all the high level monsters in this book are mostly for story background purposes, and not for actually using in game.' Basically use MTP to banish or defeat them, but don't have fights.


Bonus stupid for dragging up Mordenkainen and assigning to him the stupid fucking idea (about 5:00) that neutral demands balance because good winning is equally as bad as evil winning.


And as a bonus, dwarves vs duergar as well as elves vs drow for the eleventy-fifth time (which makes the drow thread seem oddly topical).


Last edited by Voss on Tue Feb 13, 2018 10:48 pm; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CapnTthePirateG
Duke


Joined: 17 Jul 2009
Posts: 1463

PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 2:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Wasn't that Mordenkainen's actual stupid philosophy, where he had a whole ethical calculus of neutrality?

Really 5e is the desperate nostalgia edition, of course they will cram as many references in as possible.
_________________
OgreBattle wrote:
"And thus the denizens learned that hating Shadzar was the only thing they had in common, and with him gone they turned their venom upon each other"
-Sarpadian Empires, vol. I


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Voss
Prince


Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 3883

PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 2:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

CapnTthePirateG wrote:
Wasn't that Mordenkainen's actual stupid philosophy, where he had a whole ethical calculus of neutrality?


Truthfully, I don't remember. My experience with Greyhawk was the boxed set and early tournament and set-piece modules (Elemental Evil and GDQ) and not much else. He was just a name attached to some spells, that in theory one of the TSR or pre-TSR people played (or he was one of the filler NPCs, since that doesn't sound like the kind of shit an actual player would care about).

Edit: turns out he was one of Gygax's original Big Dick NPC wizards (along with Bigby and Riggby), and turned up in a 1984 module (Mordenkainen's Fantastic Adventure, which sounds asstastic). I suspect any ethical calculus bullshit arrived with From the Ashes, Rary the Traitor and other shit in the early 90s revamp, like a lot of the shovelware stuff that happened post Fate of Istus (the 1e->2e transition adventure) I have no idea and give no fucks about.


Last edited by Voss on Wed Feb 14, 2018 2:30 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cervantes
Apprentice


Joined: 28 Jul 2014
Posts: 89

PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 2:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Cargo Cult D&D
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Emerald
Knight


Joined: 26 Jul 2009
Posts: 357

PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 6:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Voss wrote:
Bonus stupid for dragging up Mordenkainen and assigning to him the stupid fucking idea (about 5:00) that neutral demands balance because good winning is equally as bad as evil winning.


CapnTthePirateG wrote:
Wasn't that Mordenkainen's actual stupid philosophy, where he had a whole ethical calculus of neutrality?


He did, but it was lowercase-n pragmatic neutrality, not capital-N cosmic Neutrality. Less "Good and Evil are both equally valid life choices, so I'll choose Balance and counter every good act with an evil one" and more "There are a bunch of different empires and cults and crazy wizards and stuff around here and it would suck if any one of them took over Oerth, so I'll work to prevent the cold war between all the factions from turning hot."

From the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer:

Quote:
Mordenkainen the archmage (N male human Wiz20+) formed the Circle of Eight as a tool to manipulate political factions of the Flanaess, preserving the delicate balance of power in hopes of maintaining stability and sanity in the region.
[...]
He has fought ardently for the forces of Good, most recently during the Greyhawk Wars, but just as often has worked on darker plots to achieve his ends. In all things, the Circle of Eight prefers to work behind the scenes, subtly manipulating events to ensure that no one faction gains the upper hand.
[...]
Mordenkainen remains the ninth member, a "shadow leader" dictating his agenda to others and influencing the Flanaess network of agents and servitors.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RobbyPants
Prince


Joined: 06 Aug 2008
Posts: 4572

PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 2:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Cervantes wrote:
Cargo Cult D&D
This is probably the most apt description of this edition I've read.

I'm picturing Merals wearing coconuts on his head, waving a pair of sticks around, and it all makes sense, now.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nockermensch
Duke


Joined: 06 Jan 2012
Posts: 1667
Location: Rio: the Janeiro

PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 4:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

RobbyPants wrote:
Cervantes wrote:
Cargo Cult D&D
This is probably the most apt description of this edition I've read.

I'm picturing Merals wearing coconuts on his head, waving a pair of sticks around, and it all makes sense, now.


It is. Say what you want about 4E, but it's an indisputable fact that they were bold. WotC ate Mearl's bullshit game design theories and then put forward a radically different game, with novel mechanics backed by an aggressive marketing campaign and a full product release schedule.

That 4E proceeded to crash and burn spetacularly is a testament to how bad mechanics that produce a boring game will in the end overcome any amounts of aggressive marketing and groupthink by a segment of the fanbase. If the game objectively sucks, people will stop playing it, period.

But what happened next was puzzling and sad: Not only WotC failed to fire the one responsible for that horrible mess, but they learned all the wrong lessons about the 4E catastrofuck. They came out of their self-inflicted failure with the lesson "the playerbase hates change and new things". It takes a lot of hubris to not conclude that the playerbase just hates stupid new things, but that's Mearls we're talking about.

The result is D&D Previous Next: the edition that's as different from 4E as possible. Having decided that the player base don't like rules for challenges, tight advancement schedules or complexity, they went for MTP, skeleton armies ruling the world (also: Pit Fiends struggling to open stuck doors) and vapor instead.

This takes us to 2018 and a book with Mordenkainen in the cover.
_________________
@ @ Nockermensch

Koumei wrote:
After all, in Firefox you keep tabs in your browser, but in SovietPutin's Russia, browser keeps tabs on you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mlangsdorf
Master


Joined: 06 Jun 2008
Posts: 244

PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 2:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

nockermensch wrote:
Say what you want about 4E, but it's an indisputable fact that they were bold. WotC ate Mearl's bullshit game design theories and then put forward a radically different game, with novel mechanics backed by an aggressive marketing campaign and a full product release schedule.

That 4E proceeded to crash and burn spetacularly is a testament to how bad mechanics that produce a boring game will in the end overcome any amounts of aggressive marketing....

But what happened next was puzzling and sad: Not only WotC failed to fire the one responsible for that horrible mess, but they learned all the wrong lessons about the 4E catastrofuck. They came out of their self-inflicted failure with the lesson "the playerbase hates change and new things".


Which is sad and frustrating in a way.The playerbase was willing to try new things: I've never played D&D 3e except via a computer game, but my F2F group played a couple of campaigns of D&D4e and Gamma World 7e. We had to house rule them heavily, but by the end we'd almost gotten to a game that didn't suck despite all the burdens of poor 4e game design.

4e could have been decent. The design team consistently chose the worst option every time they had a choice, and seemed to hate player agency and choice, but it didn't have to be that way. It could have evolved to a better game. Though upon reflection, having to rewrite all the classes, all the monsters, and the non-combat challenge resolution engine means rewriting 95% of the game to save the combat engine.

Even so, the game was evolving: I understand the later Monster Manuals sucked less than the first one, and people had house rules for non-combat challenges that weren't broken within a few weeks of the game's release. A new edition should have built upon that kind of stuff, not thrown out everything learned in favor of MTP and vagueness.

One of the great things about GURPS 4e (in the context of GURPS, yes a lot of you hate it) was that SJ Games had been publishing optional rules for 3e for years, and a lot of those rules substantially changed how 3e worked. When 4e was getting written, the design team had a lot of feedback - in the form of commentary on those optional rules - on what changes people might want to see and how those changes could work in play. So 4e was an evolution of 3e, with a lot of similarities but with some of the bad design decisions changed to be more sensible or some confusing things reworded. GURPS 4e isn't a perfect game, but it's better than 3e.

In contrast, WotC's policy of throwing out the entire previous edition means there's been very little evolutionary change between editions. Simple house rules to improve 4e like "let everyone get a +2 heroic bonus to a stat which they don't have a racial bonus, which immensely widens the acceptable race-class combinations" can't be easily included in 5e, because the rules are so different that there's no easy way to evaluate it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CapnTthePirateG
Duke


Joined: 17 Jul 2009
Posts: 1463

PostPosted: Fri Feb 16, 2018 6:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

nockermensch wrote:
RobbyPants wrote:
Cervantes wrote:
Cargo Cult D&D
This is probably the most apt description of this edition I've read.

I'm picturing Merals wearing coconuts on his head, waving a pair of sticks around, and it all makes sense, now.


It is. Say what you want about 4E, but it's an indisputable fact that they were bold. WotC ate Mearl's bullshit game design theories and then put forward a radically different game, with novel mechanics backed by an aggressive marketing campaign and a full product release schedule.

That 4E proceeded to crash and burn spetacularly is a testament to how bad mechanics that produce a boring game will in the end overcome any amounts of aggressive marketing and groupthink by a segment of the fanbase. If the game objectively sucks, people will stop playing it, period.

But what happened next was puzzling and sad: Not only WotC failed to fire the one responsible for that horrible mess, but they learned all the wrong lessons about the 4E catastrofuck. They came out of their self-inflicted failure with the lesson "the playerbase hates change and new things". It takes a lot of hubris to not conclude that the playerbase just hates stupid new things, but that's Mearls we're talking about.

The result is D&D Previous Next: the edition that's as different from 4E as possible. Having decided that the player base don't like rules for challenges, tight advancement schedules or complexity, they went for MTP, skeleton armies ruling the world (also: Pit Fiends struggling to open stuck doors) and vapor instead.

This takes us to 2018 and a book with Mordenkainen in the cover.


As I recall Mearls is on record explaining how 4e failed because it was too balanced.

The other big takeaway is Pathfinder - this beat 4e despite having no new or good ideas at all. Pathfinder's changes are pretty much some spell spot nerfs, rolling some skills, and fiddly class feature additions you don't care about. There are no new design ideas in Pathfinder, just 3.5 with the fiddliness ramped up to 11. It's not hard to see why Mearls saw Pathfinder winning and drew the conclusion that people preferred nostalgia.

This of course completely breaks down as you're trying to introduce the game to a new generation of players, but it's not like 10 year olds are good at judging game mechanics anyway.
_________________
OgreBattle wrote:
"And thus the denizens learned that hating Shadzar was the only thing they had in common, and with him gone they turned their venom upon each other"
-Sarpadian Empires, vol. I


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
OgreBattle
King


Joined: 03 Sep 2011
Posts: 5168

PostPosted: Sat Feb 17, 2018 10:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

I've heard "4e was too balanced so balance is bad" parroted various times across the internet now because of that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Gaming Den Forum Index -> In My Humble Opinion... All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 65, 66, 67
Page 67 of 67

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group