That Guy George
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2018
No. The most I've done is recommend songs to play during combat that might fit the situation. Having a soundtrack for a character feels a bit too animu for me
Tabletop Roleplaying Games (D&D, Pathfinder, CoC, ETC.)
- Thread starter Surtur
- Start date
-
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2019
So I'm now rethinking the direction I'm taking my little autism quest in, after looking a little bit at things like oWoD and (strangely enough) old Elder Scrolls games. I'm considering a system where instead of skill growth etc. being a function of gaining XP and leveling up, you exercise skills etc. to advance them to some extent and this gives you a gradual skill growth plus a kind of "general XP" when applied towards advancing both your character's story and the plot in which you're playing a role. This means that you could potentially have your character run about plying their trade or whatever in the world to advance a skill, but unless it's done for a reason that makes sense within the plot it won't result in more drastic and consequential growth in your role. In the end it's going to be the DM's job to keep whatever plot is going underway in some fashion to ensure this doesn't turn into the players playing a weird tabletop version of The Sims endlessly, but it will ultimately fall to the DM and players to decide what they want to do and where they want to go with anything.
I'm also (for now) going to dispose of the "alignment" conceit and for certain classes/roles kind of fall back on a kind of reputation/code of behavior system (again, ultimately up to DM and players to uphold however they see fit) that keeps classes/roles on a certain track that makes some kind of sense for them without being kludgey/arbitrary, as I kind of want to get away from any weirder dilemmas of "to be Lawful or Good" that honestly should be answered more by what the class/role's expected code of behavior is. If you're a "Paladin" type that's more concerned with upholding certain laws for the betterment of everyone the "Lawful or Good" dilemma shouldn't even be presenting itself as there are going to be matters where the two are nearly synonymous in your character's eyes, and laws that have no real connection to promoting goodly behavior aren't going to be in your expected purview anyhow. (Why would such a character uphold a legal code that results in things like, say, slavery or usury? At best this is something left to DM and player, at worst it shouldn't even be a question of a "lawful good" type deciding that those are terrible laws that need to be rooted out using whatever means appropriate)
I'm also (for now) going to dispose of the "alignment" conceit and for certain classes/roles kind of fall back on a kind of reputation/code of behavior system (again, ultimately up to DM and players to uphold however they see fit) that keeps classes/roles on a certain track that makes some kind of sense for them without being kludgey/arbitrary, as I kind of want to get away from any weirder dilemmas of "to be Lawful or Good" that honestly should be answered more by what the class/role's expected code of behavior is. If you're a "Paladin" type that's more concerned with upholding certain laws for the betterment of everyone the "Lawful or Good" dilemma shouldn't even be presenting itself as there are going to be matters where the two are nearly synonymous in your character's eyes, and laws that have no real connection to promoting goodly behavior aren't going to be in your expected purview anyhow. (Why would such a character uphold a legal code that results in things like, say, slavery or usury? At best this is something left to DM and player, at worst it shouldn't even be a question of a "lawful good" type deciding that those are terrible laws that need to be rooted out using whatever means appropriate)
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2017
If they were butthurt, they wouldn't be optional, and wouldn't amount to "now we aren't locking dwarves out of playing CHA-based classes or arbitrarily tying one hand behind Orc players' backs".
I think 5e is shit, but the optional race rules fall pretty much in line with 5e's actual, mechanical design philosophy thus far.
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2020
"Lets make race entirely meaningless, because its racist for Orcs to be strong but dumb and evil" isn't exactly falling in line with mechanical design philosophy.
There probably wouldn't be nearly as much sperging if they didn't make it sound like they're doing it "to be inclusive" or to remove "problematic elements".
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2017
Race isn't entirely meaningless. Races still have specific racial trait effects, they're just giving an alternate system for handling ability score adjustment. Have you actually read the alternate rules in question?
EDIT: And even if these rules made race purely fluff- oversimplifying things and making them as appealing to newbies as possible is 5e's mechanical design philosophy.
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2020
Have you actually read the alternative rules in question?
No, neither of us have because they explicitly arn't out yet. The briefs they sent journalists say that it changes that and also other things about race. Since race isn't exactly filled with things to change, its very likely that you'll be able to change your racial trait effects.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2016
You know, I don't wanna barge in on this, but you are aware, your argument kinda boils down to "They didn't make this sundae taste like rancid dogturds on purpose, they just so happened to decide for their sundaes to use only ingredients they find in San Francisco on the sidewalks."
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2019
To go with the Cyberpunk Red damage and healing stuff, people naturally heal rather slowly, so Speed Heal is the difference between being in bed for a while as your body slowly stitches itself back together or up on your feet going about your daily life after you took a 5.56 to the chest last night. You're not really supposed to do full medical work in-combat in that game, but fix them up afterwards. You will get injured, and having a skilled MedTech around will be the difference between your teammates dragging your half-dead body away from the scene, or you limping away under your own power.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2017
I'm saying that WOTC is making pastel-colored porridge because that's what the average entry-level RPG player eats up these days, and companies sell shit to the people who buy it instead of the ones who don't.
I think 5e is absolute cack because I prefer what other systems do instead, and so I don't expect WOTC to pander to me- likewise, I'm not jumping up and down yelling because Paizo decided to chase the market by publishing 2E instead of just grinding out more 3.75 content forever- they'd pretty much tapped the well dry on 1e anyways.
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2020
I would be fine with that argument if WOTC weren't, at the same time, telling me I'm their core audience and that they're designing the game with me in mind, but that I'm a bigot if I don't like one of the most basic easily identifiable elements of the game (the races) tampered with.
I'd love for them to pick a lane. Am I their core audience and they want my money, or am I a bigot and they want me to go away? As it is, I'm just assuming I'm their core audience but they don't want my money, so I'll just pirate everything like everybody else.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2016
As much as I understand that notion, I usually just look at other stuff to enjoy from people who don't look down on me or call me a bigot for not drinking the kool-aid.
I mean, at least you're not supporting them with your money, but if the things they produce aren't worth your money, are they really worth your time?
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2020
The problem in this case is that 5e has a monopoly on the groups I have played it ever since it was released. I genuinely couldn't give a shit about learning Pathfinder (if I wanted to play with a poorly designed, number- and rule-centric system I'd play GURPS), and most other systems aren't worth picking up because no one plays them (and I have a full-time job and no patience for reading through rulebooks anymore). 5e is currently the only system I can reliably find groups for campaigns and one-shots, it's effectively the lingua franca for online RPG.
Thankfully, the three groups I'm in are pretty uniformly happy with sticking with the old-school rules. I actually like 5e, too. It's a system that runs very smoothly, in my experience. That's why I don't want to see it messed with. The regular subclass releases in the Unearthed Arcana PDFs are bad enough already.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2017
Last I checked, WOTC hasn't been putting out pressers calling anyone who likes 3.5 Nazis, they've been saying that maybe describing Orcs with language that wouldn't be out of place in a Goebbels speech was a bad idea. You do realize these new race rules, whatever they might be, are explicitly optional, right? WOTC isn't sending out a hit squad to purge all the people who use the old rules.
Regardless of your complaints, the real solution you should find is playing something that isn't 5e. The number of games I've played using ANY variant of D&D or PF are much smaller than others- you just have to cast your net more broadly.
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2020
I'm pretty sure Goebbels also called certain groups of people "proud and noble", so that whole argument is fucking stupid. I like savage and evil races, I want to have the option to play them without them being slathered with a thick coating of "oh, but they're not actually bad!" because some racist asshole pointed at them and screamed "I think this is an insulting reference to X!" loud enough for WOTC to piss themselves over twitter backlash. FFS, we have the option to play the equivalent of half-demons, but God forbid mundane savagery is allowed.
As to the "these rules are optional, just ignore them" argument: I don't buy it. A lot of rules and concepts that ended up in 5e started out as optional content in previous editions. The Battle Master is an evolution and streamilining of concepts introduced in the 3.5e Tome of Battle (after they went at it way too hard in 4e). An "optional rule" today has a good chance of being a core rule later on. So I'll keep an eye out. If they decide to keep the Tasha's Cauldron rules for 5.5e or 6e, that'll be the time I bail out for good.
That Guy George
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2018
A good point and one that I agree with. It ain't about getting mad about new optional rules, its about how its marketed as the new 'standard'.
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2020
I probably didn't stress it enough, but that's actually my main point. I don't care about things being released in third-party books, supplemental material or articles. I'll take or leave whatever I want, and I'll make fun of stupid shit like the BattleChairs we had earlier in the thread to my heart's content. But when shit gets released in official books I pay attention because it has WOTC's approval and it's a good indication of the stuff their design team actually likes and wants to push further in the future. It's a reliable thing, too. For example, I'm one of those wretched souls who actually liked 4e, so very few things about 5e surprised me the way they did some of the people who refused 4e and stuck with 3.5e.
And it's not just the racial features that I'm not happy about with Tasha's Cauldron of Everything. More than a few of the subclasses being featured (among other content) are things I definitely didn't like back when they were released in Unearthed Arcana, and I have zero confidence that they will have made them better for TCE. At least they had the good sense to not republish the Revived Rogue there. What an abortion of a subclass.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2017
Out of curiosity, are there any places left to talk about tabletop games? 4chan’s been archiving and pruning every /tg/ thread I start after a couple posts and everywhere else has been pozzed to shit. It doesnt help that my D&D group might not be getting together because of the political virus.
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2020
All RPG rules are optional. You can explicitly use whatever rules you want and nobody can stop you. I guess that means you should shut up and stop complaining about 5E because all those rules are just optional and optional doesn't matter.
You're right that 5E sucks, but wrong in saying 3.5 doesn't suck.
From what I can tell you just agree with the "Actually the race rules are racist and you are a bigot for supporting them!" concept and are just making excuses to support lol.
Here, I guess?
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2017
You are now so upset you're just trying to argue against something I didn't say. If I was the kind to shrivel up and die whenever I saw something un-PC, I wouldn't be a Warhammer fan or use hard-R nigger on this site.
If 5e sucks, why get upset in the first place? I don't get upset when someone pisses on a pile of shit- I get upset when they piss on my food. The guy who likes 5e, he at least has a logical reason to be upset, even if I think it's kind of a silly one, but in your case it seems like you just want to gnash your teeth about WOTC acting like WOTC. You don't seem to be having fun mocking them, you just seem to be angry for no real reason.
And you'll notice that, even though I think 5e sucks, I'm not complaining about it in this thread.