Welcome to the Playpen, our space for ferrety banter and whimsical snippets of things that aren't quite long enough for articles (although they might be) but that caught your eye anyway.

at 00:31 on 11-01-2012, Andy G
I guess what sometimes frustrates me with 2nd ed (and sometimes charms me, because it feels more like a believably counterintuitive messy real world) is just how little *sense* some of it makes. First level fighters are no better at combat than anybody else; Intelligence is basically useless for mages but Wisdom is AWESOME for clerics; there are 5 saving throws (only 1 or 2 of which ever get used) divided across four classes that progress in ways that make no sense whatsoever; really important rules are hidden deep within dense paragraphs while pointless topics cover pages and pages; there are almost no good 2nd level Wizard spells; Druids suddenly stop levelling up normally at some arbitrary level; gnomes can be cleric/thieves but nobody else can ... [ad infinitum]

I only play about once a year so 2nd ed works fine for me, but I think for regular play I would go for rationalised 2nd ed (which is more or less what the Baldur's Gate games seem to run off).
at 23:44 on 10-01-2012, Shimmin
I've twice had to pick a D&D ruleset to introduce new players, but otherwise have no P&P experience (CRPGs only). The first time I picked 4E; this time I went for Pathfinder.

I initially picked 4E because it was new, appeared more accessible to wary newbies, and it's more forgiving than older rulesets. Over the course of play, I found the combat tedious, the power system narratively unconvincing, and the high-powered nature of the gameworld not to my taste. Also, I felt like I wasn't giving a fair introduction to RPGs: my group were great, but the game emphasised "have you got X?" and its combat-heaviness distracted from RPing. I'd also started running Call of Cthulhu, with its sparse and flexible rules and complete lack of boards or tactics. So for my new game, I introduced people to 3.5E, with its straightforward combat and more narrative approach to situations. After one scenario, I'm in the process of switching them to Pathfinder, because I've come to believe that it'll streamline some clunky aspects of 3.5E, somewhat rebalances the classes, and better defines their differences. However, the sheer complexity of the character sheets (in both versions) is daunting for some players.

I think one way of looking at things is as a progression of options. 2E has quite specific class and race options, built in particular ways and with no mechanical way to adapt them. Splatbooks offer a load of alternative specific builds, but little individual customisation. On the other hand, this approach leaves a lot to the imagination because there aren't specific mechanical representations of things. 3E builds in lots more explicit customisation rules and a looser approach to archetypes, particularly in multiclassing. The rulesets here let you build almost any character you want, but there's a constant supply of new and more specific classes, feats and races to get exactly the right feel, and of course it can't all be balanced, so some builds end up much stronger or weaker than the game expects. 4E pushes this a different way: powers turn "I attack" into an array of different attack powers, technically giving you more options. However, this itself tends to subtly lock down your options because without a suitable power, how do you do something?

Incidentally: Use Rope as a skill isn't that excessive, given that climbing, tying up, untying and balancing are fairly important to adventurers (what about Track and Forgery?). A glance at my 2E rulebook displays a vast range of Nonweapon Proficiencies ranging from Direction Sense, Rope Use (!), Astrology and Tightrope Walking to Ancient Languages and Running, with individual class-related modifiers.
at 19:47 on 10-01-2012, Alasdair Czyrnyj
Spiders in real life aren't that bad.

Perhaps, but they don't win many points in my book with that whole "inject their prey with paralyzing venom that can also digest them from the inside out" thing. But, yes, it's a phobia on my part. (Curiously, I don't have any problems with scorpions or crustaceans, aside from coconut crabs, which I still think look like they should be tearing their way out of someone's chest cavity. Snails freak me out, but that's Junji Ito's fault.)

Still, I know they're valuable to the ecosystem and all that, so I don't actively hunt them down or bother them if they're small and/or are going to scurry out of my sight immediately.
at 18:56 on 10-01-2012, Fin permalink
at 17:00 on 10-01-2012, Arthur B
I hear a lot of people complain that 3rd Ed. saw the beginning of optimisation creep in character construction. Having a skill system and feats and all that was great for customising your character - but it also meant that there were very optimal builds and very, very suboptimal builds. This was in fact built into the game - the designers have said they wanted to reward rules mastery - but that led to people quite legitimately being concerned about wild differences in optimisation within groups. Which of course leads us to the very prescriptive character gen process in 4E.

On top of that, having an explicit skill system is seen by some as a step along the way to 4E's "pick an option from a list" playing style - the argument is that when everything you can do is codified by a skill (with a level of granularity scaling down to "Use Rope", for crying out loud) people start thinking in terms of the list rather than thinking outside of the box.

This isn't a problem which is necessarily new to 3E; magic, in particular, has always suffered from it, as this blog post points out: when you've got a prescribed list of a bunch of things that work, people are going to be reluctant to branch out into headachey and deliberately difficult stuff which is less structured even if it does have rulebook support, and many won't even consider the possibility of exploring territory which is completely off the map. The difference is that what used to just be the case for magic ended up becoming the case for everyone to a certain extent in 3E, with skills and feat lists standing in for spell lists, and of course in 4E there is literally no difference between a spell and a martial feat except the person who's doing it. A lot of the stuff the Wizards people have been saying after this announcement (and leading up to it) seems to suggest they really do want the next edition to encourage more thinking outside of the box, so I'm feeling hopeful on that score.

To be fair, it does seem to be 4E which attracts the most bile - there's enough disaffected 3E fans who never made the transition for Paizo to viably market Pathfinder to them, and by all accounts Pathfinder's very commercially successful. The 2E-and-earlier crowd have their various retro-clones to play with but that's a cottage industry compared to Pathfinder. But if you go looking in 3E you'll find a lot of the new ideas kicked off trends which were taken to an extreme in 4E.
at 16:43 on 10-01-2012, Andy G
I use 2nd ed because I have all the rulebooks (and more!) for it, but I did run a campaign using 3rd ed a while back and I remember finding it refreshingly streamlined and rational compared with 2nd ed (though of course, the complete arbitrariness and barminess of 2nd ed is part of the quaint charm). Other than attacks of opportunity, what is the objection to 3rd ed?
at 16:26 on 10-01-2012, Arthur B
I guess one way they could do it is to make the new system highly, highly modular - make the core mechanics extremely simple and incredibly sparse, and provide heaps of optional add-ons.

Oh hey, turns out that's precisely what they're doing.
at 08:17 on 10-01-2012, Arthur B
There's one which replaces them with bears.

I'm a bear oh yeeeeeeeeeah.
at 06:07 on 10-01-2012, valse de la lune
Spiders in real life aren't that bad.
at 03:56 on 10-01-2012, Alasdair Czyrnyj
No, the best Skyrim mod would be one that replaces the spiders with something that isn't spiders because holy fuck Bethesda what were you thinking spiders arent even real animals theyre godless killing machines who dont even look like they belong on the earth so many legs always fast and eyes and hair and fangs but not as bad as legs always creeping creeping their minds are empty their souls are alive with cruelty of nature incarnate my god my god he cannot save us now they are crawling crawling crawling towards us no no no nonononononononononno they wake theywait they wake wait arise

I don't like spiders.
at 02:09 on 10-01-2012, Arthur B permalink
at 23:58 on 09-01-2012, Arthur B
Link to announcements on WotC website, for those that missed the article before it got paywalled.

I think that WotC have very correctly identified that a fractured fanbase is D&D's biggest problem at the moment - its big strength was never that it was particularly good at any one aspect of the tabletop RPG experience, but that before 4E it was a broad enough game to accommodate a bunch of people's preference, so whilst 4E was clearly a much better game for people really into miniatures and strategy it was also clearly going to put off people who weren't into either of those things.

The big difficulty's going to be trying to incorporate enough people's ideas that there's a general feeling the consultation process made a difference, whilst at the same time avoiding becoming a massive, contradictory mess. Ultimately there's going to be some issues people feel really strongly about which Wizards will have to make a call on one way or another, and whatever they decide there'll be neckbeards screaming and crying and kicking game tables over; the trick's going to be making choices which ensure that it's just a few big babies who get stroppy and stomp off and not significant sections of the fanbase, because then you have the fractured base problem all over again.

It's going to be a tall order. I guess one way they could do it is to make the new system highly, highly modular - make the core mechanics extremely simple and incredibly sparse, and provide heaps of optional add-ons. My group wants a game where we spend a lot of time tweaking and optimising our characters but where combat flows quickly, so we use the Advanced Character Gen and the Streamlined Combat optional rules; your group likes to roll up characters quickly and then spend ages over the fighting, so you use the Quickstart Character Gen and the Tactical Combat modules. Essentially each group would take the core mechanic and bolt on different flavours of subsystem to suit their tastes.

That would risk losing some of the cohesiveness, but then again it'd also acknowledge the fact that no two D&D groups have ever really played the game the same way in the first place. The real difficulty of such an approach would be making the game accessible to n00bs, but then you could flag up some of the modular system components as being particularly learner-friendly and design accordingly.

Either way, it'll be interesting to see how they do it.
at 19:46 on 09-01-2012, Shimmin
Interesting. The point about fractured fanbase (which also tends to lead to weaker sales of products for the new editions) is good, though the comparison with basketball misses a point: RPGs are especially vulnerable because (for the most part) they don't involve competition between groups, let alone have national representative bodies that lay down the law. That gives groups the flexibility to bend the game to their own inclinations and preferences, which is a great bonus for the players, except for the few occasions when they have to get used to different houserules. Similarly they can happily stick with an older ruleset and whatever expansions they want, rather than expensive upgrades that would help the company. Whereas in sport you tend to be bound to whatever rules are agreed nationally, but it doesn't usually cost anything to change.

So I'd be interested to hear what the other Ferretneurons think. A slightly glib starting point would be "work out what sort of game you want it to be". At the moment 2nd edition seems to have the classic lowish fantasy market with strong archetypes and social structure, Pathfinder is probably on top of loose flexible fantasy, and 4E is there for fans of tactical combat and cinematic fantasy who don't want too much realism. What do they actually think they can offer?

NB: okay, that's weird... I managed to read the article, just went back to recheck it, and now it's behind a paywall. Good timing there.
at 16:37 on 09-01-2012, Arthur B
So apparently Wizards of the Coast are going to ask the roleplaying community exactly how they should go about putting together D&D 5th Edition.

The flamewars over this are going to be legendary.
at 05:21 on 09-01-2012, valse de la lune
I applaud you, sir.

It was my supply of facepalm, but that'll work just as well.
at 01:40 on 09-01-2012, Alasdair Czyrnyj
I'm sorry, your supply of what?

Bile, presumably. It's like regenerating health; you have an infinite supply, but it runs low, so you need to hide behind a wall and wait for it to recharge.

'Course, in my day, we had bile packs, and we had to ration our outrage accordingly. It made arguments more challenging, knowing you had to make your points while never being certain when the next dose of anger would keep you going to the next point. Honestly, the day regenerative bile when mainstream is the day rhetoric went to hell. "Faster and more immersive arguing", my ass. All it does is turn arguments into white-hot jets of rage which eliminates the highs and lows of traditional debate and eliminates all sense of personal risk from the arguer.
at 19:49 on 08-01-2012, Ash

I just depleted my supply

I'm sorry, your supply of what?
at 06:43 on 07-01-2012, valse de la lune
I'm sorry, I just depleted my supply reading this old thing with Brandon Sanderson defending Jordan's sexism and calling him progressive, and that anyone who disagrees with him--Sanderson--clearly doesn't understand feminist theory.

I really like how "he was so progressive for his time!" nicely and conveniently erases the writing of women in specfic. Hey, when did Ursula le Guin start publishing again?
at 04:36 on 07-01-2012, Dan H

“He’s not; the fact is one of the lovely threads of the original Sherlock Holmes is whatever he says, he cannot abide anyone being cruel to women – he actually becomes incensed and full of rage.”

Can I borrow a cup of facepalm, because I used all mine.
at 21:38 on 06-01-2012, valse de la lune
I must say, Cumberbatch's is not exactly the face that would launch a thousand lesbians.

Except in the direction of "away," anyway.
at 20:57 on 06-01-2012, Sister Magpie

“It’s not true and in terms of the character Sherlock Holmes, it is interesting. He has been referred to as being a bit misogynist.

“He’s not; the fact is one of the lovely threads of the original Sherlock Holmes is whatever he says, he cannot abide anyone being cruel to women – he actually becomes incensed and full of rage.”

Yes, that's just lovely, Steven.
at 19:27 on 06-01-2012, Ash
Steven Moffat has responded to criticism of his/BBC Sherlock's sexism.

It goes about as well as you'd expect.
at 11:07 on 06-01-2012, valse de la lune
It amuses me that he changed the "It" in the last line to "he" after the wank exploded. Too late, goatfucker.
at 08:38 on 06-01-2012, Arthur B
That story is terrible on so many levels. I like how he even manages to get in whining about how use of mobiles on planes is a matter of democracy or something idiotic like that. I also like how his defenders keep trying to make out that the story's meant to be a snapshot of a homophobic character's point of view which doesn't condone it when more or less every line of the story is constructed from the assumption we're going to sympathise with the homophobe and his viewpoint is never seriously challenged.