| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Eilserus |
Posted - 07 Jan 2012 : 21:20:14
I don't frequent the boards at WotC much, but occasionally poke around to see if anything new or interesting is there. At any rate, I found this interesting and long read of an article:
It talks about history of TSR and Wizards on up to current. Sounds like many of the products from our 2nd edition days we were really getting at steep discounts verse what we should have been paying. The article also discusses how MMO games, like Warcraft have eaten into the gaming market, coupled with the failures of brick and mortar bookstores, which have been the primary seller of products.
I understand the costs of making these products is most likely expensive, but can't wizards just ask ED to mail them half this house worth of content? Then again I use most my old 2nd edition boxes to contain a good 2 or 3 foot stack of unorganized handwritten notes and various other things and I thought I read once where Ed has a good hodgepodge of stuff in maybe a similar format too. So maybe it does need to be formatted, but man I drool at the thought of turning Ed loose as head of R&D.
At any rate, I thought this was a good read.
There also seems to be some hinting at big news coming this Monday, at least via EN's boards. This article is only a few days old, so I wonder if that factors into it. Here's the link: http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/28815367/The_Future_of_DD.... |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 12 Jan 2012 : 15:28:24
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Like the earlier person noted, I see a lot of scrolls actually being created by mages, but not with combat spells. Essentially to me, a scroll is a prepped version of a ritual in 4E. Both cost some cash to use (scroll in cost of scroll creation, ritual in ritual components and ritual research). There can be some arguments that the scroll costs needed to be lessened some for the upper level effects.... and there can be some arguments that maybe the ritual idea should be introduced into 3E and some of the spells themselves removed (for instance, possibly a lot of the scrying type effects or door locking effects or laying down wards, etc....).
Personally, I enjoy the ritual-aspect of 4E and I hope they do that with the new edition. I think it makes sense that some wizards spells are more complex, time consuming, and need more costly spell components to use each time. Where Rituals failed in 4E is in pricing vs. level. Rituals were too costly at low level to be used more than say....two dozen times during the whole Heroic Tier but by Epic tier, they were a dime a dozen and most classes had powers or abilities that just simply made them obsolete. Or a low level Ritual is spammed for some it's ability which wasn't the intent.
They also didn't have the rules for "Scrolls" for the rituals to be used during exploration or with much ease. Had they ironed out the pricing vs. level, scroll-able rituals with possibly the pricing being paid prior to writing the scroll and maybe a cut-down on the time it takes to use one, it would've had more success.
I think the biggest gripe I heard about them was that they were intened to be use outside of combat. I actually thought that was clever and a great balance point to wizards not hving to memorize these rituals. No wizard wants to go dungeon delving with Clairvoyance/Clairaudience, Knock, Darkway as a prepared spells when it's a good possibility that they'll be met with resistance or monsters.
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
However, the piece of 4E that just made me leave was that wizards basically are pre-defined as to what they can do. The whole idea of a spell duel just comes down to "and what spells does he know"... and he's not going to know many.
In all my games and years, I've not once saw a spell duel between mages. For one, I think its because the rules were really bad and for another, it was far easier to just pave the way for the figher or melee guy to beat up on him. Of course YMMV and I'm sure there are people who get into that sort of thing. I just don't think it's a big aspect of the game as a whole.
I see we both agree on the ritual and scroll thing. Exactly, some things like detect invisibility should be akin to a "scroll storable" ritual or perhaps another named would be "pre-prepared ritual". We know the people need them and we don't want to make them at will abilities on items because then it just gets used incessantly. I didn't play 4E, so I can't speak to pricing on the rituals, but I'll accept your explanation that they mispriced upper level ones. Meanwhile, there should be some "rituals" that shouldn't be pre-preparable or castable as spells... raise dead, scrying, planar gateway building, etc....
Bear in mind, that when I say spell duels, I don't usually mean some formalized... lets go into this room and count to 3 and then FIGHT! (though I have actually done that). What I mean is the NPC who is warned beforehand by an alarm, who then throws on 7 warding spells of some mix he has on hand, then pops in and assaults the PC's. Another option is the PC who wants to invade castle X, so in preparation he put on 6 different spells to invade that castle. |
| Apex |
Posted - 11 Jan 2012 : 22:25:46
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
That's a strange and seriously warped conclusion, given what I said. But, given that you're having difficulty interacting with other scribes as well, I'm not sure there's much point in continuing this.
You were the one that was equating a low level magic user to a fighter and saying that the fighter could swing his sword all day (your words), but the poor mage could only cast one magic missile and was done. I merely pointed out that most games have many facets that are not combat related and that mages can shine way above fighters and other characters in those settings. Based on your response, I could only assume that your games were 90%+ combat, since you kept complaining about low level mages and their limited impact on such encounters. |
| sfdragon |
Posted - 11 Jan 2012 : 21:23:53
in gaming there is no such thing as balance either in a didgital form like TES or in pnp form like dnd or pathfinder.
|
| Varl |
Posted - 11 Jan 2012 : 20:11:35
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
There's no "come on!" about it. By easing restrictions on scroll/item creation, or by giving mages extra scrolls/items that wouldn't be allowed under core rules, you're actually proving my point. You're recognizing that there was, in fact, a problem with that aspect of AD&D. Otherwise there wouldn't be a need for the DM to modify the core rules or specifically make sure mages get bonus treasure.
Okay, so there's a problem. I admit AD&D has its warts. So, what do you do when you run into a problem like this? Move on to a new edition, live with it or fix it? I prefer the latter.
quote:
And yet, if classes were balanced in the first place, there wouldn't be any need to give one player more magic/treasure than another.
Balance is a gaming myth, as so eloquently worded by our good friend, Man in the Funny Hat, over on DF in this thread, 5th post down or so. Check it out: http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=53564&start=180
All I'm saying is there are much better alternatives for low level mages than a stupid crossbow, and the system supports those alternatives, whether you like the idea of giving them out or not.
|
| Therise |
Posted - 11 Jan 2012 : 19:26:06
quote:
Originally posted by Apex
First, I never played "2E+", just basic 2ED player's handbook or 1st edition. Second, you are basically saying that the game is combat only (and maybe that's all you've ever played), but for those of us that have actually played in games where combat isn't the end all of the adventure, then mages can be extremely valuable at low levels (as a matter of fact, my mages rarely ever took direct combat spells at those levels). The problem it seems is that many gamers boil D&D down into a combat only game and thus have skewed their thinking by not involving the many other facets that are available and utilized by quality DM's.
That's a strange and seriously warped conclusion, given what I said. But, given that you're having difficulty interacting with other scribes as well, I'm not sure there's much point in continuing this.
|
| Ayrik |
Posted - 11 Jan 2012 : 16:02:25
I've staged a few, but the spell duelling rules always seemed more of a formalized "sport" like jousting and fencing than an actual face-to-face combat system. |
| Matt James |
Posted - 11 Jan 2012 : 14:53:59
I've never see a spell duel other than thematically. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 11 Jan 2012 : 14:50:43
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Like the earlier person noted, I see a lot of scrolls actually being created by mages, but not with combat spells. Essentially to me, a scroll is a prepped version of a ritual in 4E. Both cost some cash to use (scroll in cost of scroll creation, ritual in ritual components and ritual research). There can be some arguments that the scroll costs needed to be lessened some for the upper level effects.... and there can be some arguments that maybe the ritual idea should be introduced into 3E and some of the spells themselves removed (for instance, possibly a lot of the scrying type effects or door locking effects or laying down wards, etc....).
Personally, I enjoy the ritual-aspect of 4E and I hope they do that with the new edition. I think it makes sense that some wizards spells are more complex, time consuming, and need more costly spell components to use each time. Where Rituals failed in 4E is in pricing vs. level. Rituals were too costly at low level to be used more than say....two dozen times during the whole Heroic Tier but by Epic tier, they were a dime a dozen and most classes had powers or abilities that just simply made them obsolete. Or a low level Ritual is spammed for some it's ability which wasn't the intent.
They also didn't have the rules for "Scrolls" for the rituals to be used during exploration or with much ease. Had they ironed out the pricing vs. level, scroll-able rituals with possibly the pricing being paid prior to writing the scroll and maybe a cut-down on the time it takes to use one, it would've had more success.
I think the biggest gripe I heard about them was that they were intened to be use outside of combat. I actually thought that was clever and a great balance point to wizards not hving to memorize these rituals. No wizard wants to go dungeon delving with Clairvoyance/Clairaudience, Knock, Darkway as a prepared spells when it's a good possibility that they'll be met with resistance or monsters.
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
However, the piece of 4E that just made me leave was that wizards basically are pre-defined as to what they can do. The whole idea of a spell duel just comes down to "and what spells does he know"... and he's not going to know many.
In all my games and years, I've not once saw a spell duel between mages. For one, I think its because the rules were really bad and for another, it was far easier to just pave the way for the figher or melee guy to beat up on him. Of course YMMV and I'm sure there are people who get into that sort of thing. I just don't think it's a big aspect of the game as a whole. |
| Apex |
Posted - 11 Jan 2012 : 14:22:14
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
No offense, but I think it's likely you're remembering 2E+ rather than AD&D, or you're thinking of higher levels when mages essentially went the other direction into overpoweredness.
It's an incredibly well known and agreed upon fact that AD&D was not known for it's balance. At low levels, melee ruled. At high levels, arcane magic ruled. Sure, DMs can offset this (somewhat) by having wands of healing, wands of magic missile, scrolls and potions, what have you, but if you played in a low magic campaign rather than a high magic campaign, the discrepancies were pretty clear.
And again, I'm not saying that it was a "wrong" way to play, it was just different in terms of the core game.
It's even imbedded in old games like Baldur's Gate, where if you followed the "core rules" and played a mage from lvl 1, you had to -very- quickly find companions (meat shields). Playing a paladin or fighter was cake by comparison, often soloable.
First, I never played "2E+", just basic 2ED player's handbook or 1st edition. Second, you are basically saying that the game is combat only (and maybe that's all you've ever played), but for those of us that have actually played in games where combat isn't the end all of the adventure, then mages can be extremely valuable at low levels (as a matter of fact, my mages rarely ever took direct combat spells at those levels). The problem it seems is that many gamers boil D&D down into a combat only game and thus have skewed their thinking by not involving the many other facets that are available and utilized by quality DM's.
As for the Baldur's Gate comment, D&D was never designed to be a solo game and thus I simply do not see why we should compare a 1st level mage directly to a first level fighter (who likely also wouldn't survive without the 1st level cleric). |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 11 Jan 2012 : 14:21:34
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
quote:
Originally posted by Varl
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
Hey, I wouldn't go back to THAC0 either, and actually I never did go that route. And vancian magic again, with "oops, you're out of your two spells, break out the crossbow for the rest of the day" no thanks. I wouldn't be happy with that at all.
Wow. I'm shocked this is how some people see the AD&D editions, that a mage once out of spells, must be relegated to a freakin crossbow for the rest of the day. What that says most to me is not that AD&D got it wrong, but that DMs that ran it that way couldn't think of anything else for a mage to survive with, such as scrolls and a myriad of other magical trinkets (with charges to limit excess) beyond their spells per day. Whatever.
Well, it's not quite that simple. I played AD&D, probably more than I've played 3.5E. But magical trinkets and scrolls do not come cheaply or quickly, and never really have unless you happen to have a Monty Haul DM. Spells, my primary class feature, were not the same as a warrior's sword. That warrior can keep using his sword the whole day if necessary, but my spells were one-shot. So I had to be very judicious as to when I'd use a precious spell or magic item.
Is a warrior in AD&D ever accused of "using his sword to excess"? Never. But because spells became more unbalanced at higher levels, "excess" was often a common complaint against wizards.
Was it fair that mages had to spend XP and massive gold to create magical items of limited power, just to adventure? That warrior could use his gold for a castle, retainers, entertainment, etc.
Was it fair that the warrior got a +1 sword (useful 24/7) and I got a couple scrolls that could each only be used once? The warrior can sell his sword when he gets a better one down the line, but my scroll was used up in that one combat against a kobold...
Of course, the higher the level, the more that warrior depended on me for overpowered spells.
You can't say that all of that was "bad DMing", it was just the way the game was. And it's why -other- games went in different directions, like Rolemaster.
They provided a clear cut option to all this with the spell reserve feats. You like take the reserve feat for force spells and you just keep some force spells in memory. So long as you have such, you can release a minor force effect. They had similar for cold, fire, electricity, etc.... and thereby didn't have to resort to the crossbow. There can be some arguments that the reserve feat system could have used a little tweaking, but it was a viable step in the direction being complained about
That being said you COULD resort to the crossbow if there were a reason for it, and truthfully I don't see a problem with a mage knowing how to fire a crossbow. Sure cranking one is a pain, but its much more believable to me that a mage learns to fire a crossbow than a quarterstaff or a dagger. I have no problem with a mage who uses a crossbow, such that it exhibits that maybe not all mages rely as heavily on magic alone.
Like the earlier person noted, I see a lot of scrolls actually being created by mages, but not with combat spells. Essentially to me, a scroll is a prepped version of a ritual in 4E. Both cost some cash to use (scroll in cost of scroll creation, ritual in ritual components and ritual research). There can be some arguments that the scroll costs needed to be lessened some for the upper level effects.... and there can be some arguments that maybe the ritual idea should be introduced into 3E and some of the spells themselves removed (for instance, possibly a lot of the scrying type effects or door locking effects or laying down wards, etc....).
However, the piece of 4E that just made me leave was that wizards basically are pre-defined as to what they can do. The whole idea of a spell duel just comes down to "and what spells does he know"... and he's not going to know many. |
| Therise |
Posted - 11 Jan 2012 : 06:43:28
quote:
Originally posted by Varl
Oh come on. If you toe the official rules for scrolls and minor magical item creation, then sure you could say that they don't come cheaply, but I happen to feel that minor magical trinkets with very low charges do not upset the precious balance. In fact, they help alleviate the issue we're talking about. A lot. You don't have to be so concerned over how an item is manufactured, by whom, and how much it costs if you're truly interested in helping out low level mages with more than a crossbow.
(...)
That's why I highly recommend augmenting low level mages with more than missile weaponry as an auxiliary combat ability and use magic, even in infinitesimal measure. It is possible to give low level mages something extra without it affecting game play whatsoever.
There's no "come on!" about it. By easing restrictions on scroll/item creation, or by giving mages extra scrolls/items that wouldn't be allowed under core rules, you're actually proving my point. You're recognizing that there was, in fact, a problem with that aspect of AD&D. Otherwise there wouldn't be a need for the DM to modify the core rules or specifically make sure mages get bonus treasure.
quote:
I think this kind of excess is often caused because DMs give away too many permanent magic items, and then find that they've overshot the mark and feel they gave away too much too soon, and then feel obligated to take some of it back to maintain balance. There is a happy place one can find in 2e regarding low level mages, and it doesn't involve crossbows. Heh. 
And yet, if classes were balanced in the first place, there wouldn't be any need to give one player more magic/treasure than another.
Don't get me wrong, AD&D was a great game, I had fun with it for years and years. But it had some issues with player/class balance, and that's why tons of people came up with house rules, giving lowbie parties wands of healing and magic missile, etc.
|
| Varl |
Posted - 11 Jan 2012 : 06:07:46
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
Well, it's not quite that simple. I played AD&D, probably more than I've played 3.5E. But magical trinkets and scrolls do not come cheaply or quickly, and never really have unless you happen to have a Monty Haul DM.
Oh come on. If you toe the official rules for scrolls and minor magical item creation, then sure you could say that they don't come cheaply, but I happen to feel that minor magical trinkets with very low charges do not upset the precious balance. In fact, they help alleviate the issue we're talking about. A lot. You don't have to be so concerned over how an item is manufactured, by whom, and how much it costs if you're truly interested in helping out low level mages with more than a crossbow.
quote:
Spells, my primary class feature, were not the same as a warrior's sword. That warrior can keep using his sword the whole day if necessary, but my spells were one-shot. So I had to be very judicious as to when I'd use a precious spell or magic item.
That's why I highly recommend augmenting low level mages with more than missile weaponry as an auxiliary combat ability and use magic, even in infinitesimal measure. It is possible to give low level mages something extra without it affecting game play whatsoever.
quote:
Is a warrior in AD&D ever accused of "using his sword to excess"? Never. But because spells became more unbalanced at higher levels, "excess" was often a common complaint against wizards.
I think this kind of excess is often caused because DMs give away too many permanent magic items, and then find that they've overshot the mark and feel they gave away too much too soon, and then feel obligated to take some of it back to maintain balance. There is a happy place one can find in 2e regarding low level mages, and it doesn't involve crossbows. Heh. |
| crazedventurers |
Posted - 10 Jan 2012 : 21:37:00
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Upon further thought, I have to wonder if it is possible to design a ruleset along the lines of OD&D, that could possibly make everyone happy.
That would be Swords and Wizardry written by Matt Finch and published by Frog God Games (Bill Webb - from Necromancer Games) which is available to buy in softcover (which I have and is ace!)
or you can get it free here if you don't mind not having the artwork and need to print it out yourself
http://www.swordsandwizardry.com/?page_id=4
Cheers
Damian
|
| Diffan |
Posted - 10 Jan 2012 : 20:54:32
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
But I achieved precisely what you like by having all players start-off at 3rd level. They were already better then the lev-1 commoners, and could take level-adjusted races as well.
I did this because I also assume that the players are 'heroes' and should be better, but the system HAS TO allow for those who are not, and I don't think 4e can do that (unless there is such a thing as 'negative levels', but that would be really weird).
How can you feel heroic when there is no base-level for normal folk? If they are just giving monster-style stat blocks then fine, but then you are using two different systems for one racial group, which to me seems very odd (although it does harken back to OD&D).
I have to say, you have given me an idea for a new way to do NPCs - I will have to tinker with it and see if its workable.
A Hero's First Steps
Rules for Level 0 Characters
"A clear divide exists among the denizens of the D&D worlds. On one side, you have innumerable hordes of monsters and scheming villains. On the other, you have a few isolated pockets of ill-defended city-states, baronies, farmsteads, and other islands of civilization. Then there are those that invariably get caught in between: adventurers and heroes.
The existence of such stalwarts of heroism raises some questions. How does one rise toward power, fame and riches through adventuring? Are heroes handpicked by destiny, or forged through trials and resilience? What if adventurers are gifted individuals who scrambled to grab the right opportunity when it passed? What if becoming a hero was all about learning the lessons of making those first steps into danger and the unknown?"
And yes, it's pretty much what your talking about. You start off by choosing a "Power Source" or whatever. So you wanna be a magic-user you choose Arcane Missile, be a warrior and take Sparring Thrust, feel kinda sneaky then take Shadow's Sting. You then choose your race and starting ability scores (they recommend a stat array, but I don't see the problem in rolling but keeing in mind your just level 0 noobs). Then on to skills, feats, and equipment plus some rules on leveling up to 1st level.
They also produced a quick little adventure for them called:
Temple of the Weeping Goddess
An adventure for level 0 characters
"In “Temple of the Weeping Goddess,” a group of gifted orphans are sent by their mad caretaker to a ruined temple in the Elemental Chaos. They are tasked with rescuing the long-lost aspect of the goddess Avandra, who decades ago destroyed the temple. Freeing her from her self-made prison is going to be the fledging adventurers’ first test as heroes.
To complicate matters, the temple is being ransacked by a crew of recently marooned goblin pirates led by an unseen being called the Storm Prince. The goblins are scouring the ruins for a treasure and a way out."
Rules for creating and playing level 0 characters can be found in “A Hero’s First Steps” (Dragon 403). After completing this adventure, the characters advance to level 1.
|
| Markustay |
Posted - 10 Jan 2012 : 20:53:39
Man... you guys are reminding me about the downside of being in a very good guild - most of the folks in my WoW guild were Japanese, and I had to stay up until after 1AM to start a RAID, and I'd sometimes be up 'till 5 in the morning.
And I had the only mid-high level healers, so I was always asked... it sucked. It was like a nightly thing helping lower-lev guildies through tough areas.
A generic virtual tabletop would be great, but it would need some graphic capabilities. Nothing as involved as what you see in MORPGs, just so you can see the marching order. Maybe some limited tools for the DM to simulate a dungeon environment (they may want to team-up with ProFantasy for that). HELL, they should just buy Profantasy - then maybe we'd get a new version of the FRIA. 
"If you build it, they will come"
It could turn-out to be as great as the 1st-person craze, when unknowns were making names for themselves creating amazing mods. DMs would be the new 'modders' (or is it already the other way around?)  |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 10 Jan 2012 : 20:47:18
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
I think the Pathfinder example disproves (rather than supports) your argument. Whether the world is good or bad (and I happen to think it's good), you can't honestly deny that it owes a lot of its success to marketing factors: how many of its current players are there because 4e (whether the game itself, the marketing thereof, etc) pushed them straight into its welcoming arms?
"Talent" is a difficult, amorphous concept--what I might think is talented, another writer/designer/gamer might not. But sales figures and testimonials don't lie.
4E definitely pushed me into the arms of Pathfinder. I personally wanted to vomit reading the 4E ruleset. The concepts they had for their worlds that they were advertising leading into it sounded very interesting, but then they let the rules just ruin it. Then they tore apart the realms into something I didn't recognize.
I've got the pathfinder campaign setting. Its pretty good and I'm still reading it, but so far I'm not seeing the cohesiveness that I found in the realms. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 10 Jan 2012 : 20:42:12
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
I don't accept subscription gaming, or paying to have my personal data held hostage on somebody's cloud, I never have and never will. I want to own a copy, something which I can run anywhere, anytime, any way I like - just like a real book - without having to dial up the mothership.
Maybe I'm just refusing to let go of "old" thinking in today's (and tomorrow's) world. But I know I'm not alone. I cannot say whether people with my mindset are a significant component of the market or just a grumble of grognards who form an unprofitable niche.
My personal vision of the ideal virtual tabletop doesn't have personal data held anywhere... In my mind, the virtual tabletop is nothing more than a medium for communication. Yes, it would be subscription based, but that's just to use the service -- you would be able to use it any time, with any group, playing any edition of any game.
MMOs are dominating the gaming market not because of snazzy graphics or nifty game play -- it's because they're on a computer, and a large number of people have computers. It's a device that can serve many, many functions, and gaming is just one of them. Unless you're a hardcore gamer doing four raids a week, you can play whenever you want, for however long you want, with whatever group you want. Most people don't have time to gather with their friends in real life, not as oft or as long as they'd like -- but with MMOs, that's not a factor, because there's always someone else on you can group with.
I say WotC should roll out a simple but highly functional virtual table, and tap into that. People don't have time to come to the table -- so bring the table to them.
You hit the nail on the head there with th epart about play when and where they want. I'm in bed by 9 PM, so I'm not staying up all night to join a raid like I did at one point. However, when I'm bored I'll log into Everquest2 and putz around doing some quests to level my toon(s). I wish I could stand WoW, but the graphics irritate me (yeah, its sad that graphics are driving me to a specific game). When I'm bored with EQ2, I recently got the new Star Wars ToR game and I'm giving it a try, though I'm sure it doesn't have the content as yet. |
| Therise |
Posted - 10 Jan 2012 : 20:33:03
quote:
Originally posted by Apex
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
Well, it's not quite that simple. I played AD&D, probably more than I've played 3.5E. But magical trinkets and scrolls do not come cheaply or quickly, and never really have unless you happen to have a Monty Haul DM. Spells, my primary class feature, were not the same as a warrior's sword. That warrior can keep using his sword the whole day if necessary, but my spells were one-shot. So I had to be very judicious as to when I'd use a precious spell or magic item.
Is a warrior in AD&D ever accused of "using his sword to excess"? Never. But because spells became more unbalanced at higher levels, "excess" was often a common complaint against wizards.
Was it fair that mages had to spend XP and massive gold to create magical items of limited power, just to adventure? That warrior could use his gold for a castle, retainers, entertainment, etc.
Was it fair that the warrior got a +1 sword (useful 24/7) and I got a couple scrolls that could each only be used once? The warrior can sell his sword when he gets a better one down the line, but my scroll was used up in that one combat against a kobold...
Of course, the higher the level, the more that warrior depended on me for overpowered spells.
You can't say that all of that was "bad DMing", it was just the way the game was. And it's why -other- games went in different directions, like Rolemaster.
That wasn't how any of my games were in 1st/2nd edition. Mages were kept plenty busy during the gaming session and as for magic/treasure I would say it was all about equal (so the warrior got a +3 longsword, the mage might get a wand of fire which was far cooler). Mages were the thinking man's class with very powerful (even at low levels) spells, but with limited use. It made the timing of the spells very important, but I never once as primarily a mage player felt like I needed more spells to be better involved. I guess if all you ran were gladiator campaigns then taht could come up though.
Oh, and how useful exactly is that +1 sword when you need to get over/across an obstacle (fly/levitate/jump/spider climb/etc), or charm a NPC (charm/suggestion/etc), or trick someone (illusions/etc), or spy on someone (invisibility), etc. Mages are far more useful in every other part of the game (other than combat) than a warrior.
No offense, but I think it's likely you're remembering 2E+ rather than AD&D, or you're thinking of higher levels when mages essentially went the other direction into overpoweredness.
It's an incredibly well known and agreed upon fact that AD&D was not known for it's balance. At low levels, melee ruled. At high levels, arcane magic ruled. Sure, DMs can offset this (somewhat) by having wands of healing, wands of magic missile, scrolls and potions, what have you, but if you played in a low magic campaign rather than a high magic campaign, the discrepancies were pretty clear.
And again, I'm not saying that it was a "wrong" way to play, it was just different in terms of the core game.
It's even imbedded in old games like Baldur's Gate, where if you followed the "core rules" and played a mage from lvl 1, you had to -very- quickly find companions (meat shields). Playing a paladin or fighter was cake by comparison, often soloable.
|
| Markustay |
Posted - 10 Jan 2012 : 20:04:13
But I achieved precisely what you like by having all players start-off at 3rd level. They were already better then the lev-1 commoners, and could take level-adjusted races as well.
I did this because I also assume that the players are 'heroes' and should be better, but the system HAS TO allow for those who are not, and I don't think 4e can do that (unless there is such a thing as 'negative levels', but that would be really weird).
How can you feel heroic when there is no base-level for normal folk? If they are just giving monster-style stat blocks then fine, but then you are using two different systems for one racial group, which to me seems very odd (although it does harken back to OD&D).
I have to say, you have given me an idea for a new way to do NPCs - I will have to tinker with it and see if its workable. |
| Apex |
Posted - 10 Jan 2012 : 19:46:19
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
But it's responses like Markus that I saw in the Legends and Lore articles that seems to be heralding 5E. Going back to the mentality of the 4th level adventuring group being fascinted with the +1 magical dagger they found because its the only magical item amongst them up to that point. Honestly, there is this game called E6 which uses these types of rules run exactly on the d20SRD game that would be wondrous for this style.
There was also this other game that was extremely popular (much more so than 4th edition today) called Dungeons and Dragons (sometimes preceded by Advanced) that also played just like that. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 10 Jan 2012 : 19:41:48
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Can I ask a question? (without setting off another barrage)
What are normal people considered? they can't possibly level 1, because then everyone can be a beserker werewolf.
Thats the problem in a nutshell - 1st level characters are supposed to be the farmboy-turned-hero, not Hercules unchained.
The reward without all the work, basically. I used to use this quote in reference to the 4e design team, but I'm starting to see it implies in some ways to 4e fans as well -
Sorry if you feel that's wrongbadfun but not everyone aspires to startout a become a level 2 commoner, level 1 warrior, level 3 squire, level 1 fighter that can, at some point in his career, won't crap his pants at the sight of an angry orc. Certain people enjoy that super-realisic attempt at simulationism. I don't play D&D to simulate to the 3rd degree a real-world environment which is spelled out in the rules. I leave that to the setting and the DM narrative and the way in which we (the players) interact with said world. I just don't care what "Normal" people are considered because I'm not playing a "normal" person. I don't want a game wehre I spend actual gaming hours on the farm. D&D is, in my opinion anyways designed for dungeons exploration, for heroic adventures, and for having fun with your buddies.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
First level werewolf beserkers..... 
Part of D&D has always been the feelings of accomplishment. Is that even still there? I understand it was designed for the 'casual gamer', who doesn't have all the time to invest, but then why do they complain when an 'old school' D&D gamer wants no part of it? I don't think its possible to have it both ways. Part of it was an investment in time; it wasn't just a game, it was a socializing experience.
I'd just like to clarify that "Berserker" was a class designed from 1st level through 30th. I'd also like to mention that the Theme is specifically designed to be chosen at character creation and advance as one gains experience, topping out at around 10th level. It's no more shocking than a Fighter that "dabbles" a bit in magic, taking the Wizard's Apprentice theme and knowing his way around wands and other wizard implements.
But it seems people don't like "cool" things early on. But I'd like to know how one aspires to become a natural lycanthrope through adventuring? I'm curious because it seems that would be an innate ability given to someone at birth. Guess those types of characters aren't welcome to be playable.
As for accomplishment, sure I get that feeling when we finish an adventure. When the DM has a really interesting plot that, either through sheer determination and perserverence or dumb luck finish the quest or save the town. I like the options of being something "more" than a dude with hodge-podge armor scrapped from the Blacksmith waste-bin with a rusted sword I found in an alley and having that be my growing-heroic commoner 2/warrior 1/squire 3/fighter 1 by 7th level and hope I dont' die because the rules say so via the math of the game.
But it's responses like Markus that I saw in the Legends and Lore articles that seems to be heralding 5E. Going back to the mentality of the 4th level adventuring group being fascinted with the +1 magical dagger they found because its the only magical item amongst them up to that point. Honestly, there is this game called E6 which uses these types of rules run exactly on the d20SRD game that would be wondrous for this style. |
| Apex |
Posted - 10 Jan 2012 : 19:37:45
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
Well, it's not quite that simple. I played AD&D, probably more than I've played 3.5E. But magical trinkets and scrolls do not come cheaply or quickly, and never really have unless you happen to have a Monty Haul DM. Spells, my primary class feature, were not the same as a warrior's sword. That warrior can keep using his sword the whole day if necessary, but my spells were one-shot. So I had to be very judicious as to when I'd use a precious spell or magic item.
Is a warrior in AD&D ever accused of "using his sword to excess"? Never. But because spells became more unbalanced at higher levels, "excess" was often a common complaint against wizards.
Was it fair that mages had to spend XP and massive gold to create magical items of limited power, just to adventure? That warrior could use his gold for a castle, retainers, entertainment, etc.
Was it fair that the warrior got a +1 sword (useful 24/7) and I got a couple scrolls that could each only be used once? The warrior can sell his sword when he gets a better one down the line, but my scroll was used up in that one combat against a kobold...
Of course, the higher the level, the more that warrior depended on me for overpowered spells.
You can't say that all of that was "bad DMing", it was just the way the game was. And it's why -other- games went in different directions, like Rolemaster.
That wasn't how any of my games were in 1st/2nd edition. Mages were kept plenty busy during the gaming session and as for magic/treasure I would say it was all about equal (so the warrior got a +3 longsword, the mage might get a wand of fire which was far cooler). Mages were the thinking man's class with very powerful (even at low levels) spells, but with limited use. It made the timing of the spells very important, but I never once as primarily a mage player felt like I needed more spells to be better involved. I guess if all you ran were gladiator campaigns then taht could come up though.
Oh, and how useful exactly is that +1 sword when you need to get over/across an obstacle (fly/levitate/jump/spider climb/etc), or charm a NPC (charm/suggestion/etc), or trick someone (illusions/etc), or spy on someone (invisibility), etc. Mages are far more useful in every other part of the game (other than combat) than a warrior. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 10 Jan 2012 : 19:28:24
Upon further thought, I have to wonder if it is possible to design a ruleset along the lines of OD&D, that could possibly make everyone happy. I know they tried the modular approach again in 2e with the 'Options' books - all editions had something along these lines, actually (we just called them 'splats' in 3e).
Would it be so hard to come up with a set of 'Basic Rules' a person could learn in a few minutes, and generate a quickie-character in that same time, for the 'weekend gamers', and then add options on top of that to add the depth old-schoolers so desperately crave?
I have to say I am envious of the apparent ease-of-use of 4e, and if I could have a fully scalable game system that would really be something. The sad part is, 4e may be exactly what I want, but I can't find anyone near me running a game. |
| Therise |
Posted - 10 Jan 2012 : 19:24:37
quote:
Originally posted by Varl
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
Hey, I wouldn't go back to THAC0 either, and actually I never did go that route. And vancian magic again, with "oops, you're out of your two spells, break out the crossbow for the rest of the day" no thanks. I wouldn't be happy with that at all.
Wow. I'm shocked this is how some people see the AD&D editions, that a mage once out of spells, must be relegated to a freakin crossbow for the rest of the day. What that says most to me is not that AD&D got it wrong, but that DMs that ran it that way couldn't think of anything else for a mage to survive with, such as scrolls and a myriad of other magical trinkets (with charges to limit excess) beyond their spells per day. Whatever.
Well, it's not quite that simple. I played AD&D, probably more than I've played 3.5E. But magical trinkets and scrolls do not come cheaply or quickly, and never really have unless you happen to have a Monty Haul DM. Spells, my primary class feature, were not the same as a warrior's sword. That warrior can keep using his sword the whole day if necessary, but my spells were one-shot. So I had to be very judicious as to when I'd use a precious spell or magic item.
Is a warrior in AD&D ever accused of "using his sword to excess"? Never. But because spells became more unbalanced at higher levels, "excess" was often a common complaint against wizards.
Was it fair that mages had to spend XP and massive gold to create magical items of limited power, just to adventure? That warrior could use his gold for a castle, retainers, entertainment, etc.
Was it fair that the warrior got a +1 sword (useful 24/7) and I got a couple scrolls that could each only be used once? The warrior can sell his sword when he gets a better one down the line, but my scroll was used up in that one combat against a kobold...
Of course, the higher the level, the more that warrior depended on me for overpowered spells.
You can't say that all of that was "bad DMing", it was just the way the game was. And it's why -other- games went in different directions, like Rolemaster.
|
| Therise |
Posted - 10 Jan 2012 : 19:13:02
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Pshaw, Therise. Such scandalous behaviour after chastising me so often for linking to tropes. 
Rules for others do not apply to the Empress.
I roll with gangs and do what I want!
|
| Markustay |
Posted - 10 Jan 2012 : 19:02:55
Can I ask a question? (without setting off another barrage)
What are normal people considered? They can't possibly be level 1, because then everyone can be a berserker werewolf.
Thats the problem in a nutshell - 1st level characters are supposed to be the farmboy-turned-hero, not Hercules unchained.
The reward without all the work, basically. 
Part of D&D has always been the feelings of accomplishment. Is that even still there? I understand it was designed for the 'casual gamer', who doesn't have all the time to invest, but then why do they complain when an 'old school' D&D gamer wants no part of it? I don't think its possible to have it both ways. Part of it was an investment in time; it wasn't just a game, it was a socializing experience.
I think it all fell apart when people stopped bringing Doritos.
I don't begrudge anyone for liking it. Hell, I'm still trying to figure out why people watch NASCAR. But they (the WotC people) seem extremely upset by our refusal to buy into a product we never wanted. If I want Italian, I don't go to a Chinese buffet - I go to an Italian restaurant. |
| Varl |
Posted - 10 Jan 2012 : 18:59:40
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
Hey, I wouldn't go back to THAC0 either, and actually I never did go that route. And vancian magic again, with "oops, you're out of your two spells, break out the crossbow for the rest of the day" no thanks. I wouldn't be happy with that at all.
Wow. I'm shocked this is how some people see the AD&D editions, that a mage once out of spells, must be relegated to a freakin crossbow for the rest of the day. What that says most to me is not that AD&D got it wrong, but that DMs that ran it that way couldn't think of anything else for a mage to survive with, such as scrolls and a myriad of other magical trinkets (with charges to limit excess) beyond their spells per day. Whatever. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 10 Jan 2012 : 18:42:32
Pshaw, Therise. Such scandalous behaviour after chastising me so often for linking to tropes. |
| crazedventurers |
Posted - 10 Jan 2012 : 18:33:10
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
Having cool glowy eyes for no mechanical benefit, other than it just looks cool (to that person), or allowing the flight spell to spew out a rainbow effect behind you if you're playing a pixie PC, stuff like that.
Oh role playing 
Thanks
Damian
who is sure that his child is doing the eye rolling at him  right now for being so stupid  |
| Therise |
Posted - 10 Jan 2012 : 18:23:04
quote:
Originally posted by crazedventurers
ps as I am old - Rule of Cool?
It's a "trope" in fiction/fantasy, Rule of Cool
We "oldsters" might refer to it as letting the author/designer or player/DM get away with artistic license in service of the story.
Having cool glowy eyes for no mechanical benefit, other than it just looks cool (to that person), or allowing the flight spell to spew out a rainbow effect behind you if you're playing a pixie PC, stuff like that.
|
|
|
