The General D&D thread

TTRPGs have always been about cooperative storytelling, whose complexity/depth inevitably varies depending on the players and GM. A CRPG has the advantage of a pre-written script that you simply play through. Even if it allows for variant choices, you're still playing someone else's story, not your own. The experiences can't really be compared against each other.

I love CRP Gs. They're my second favourite type of video game. I still think Tabletop Games are better for making your own story, though.

What Fighteer said.

@Saya: I will, eventually.

edited 21st Aug '14 9:24:13 PM by Mukora

That's certainly one mode of play, but both as a DM and as a player, I prefer the CRP Gish style.

I mean, people talk about player autonomy and scripted stories like they're a bad thing, but you can be part of something much more epic by being part of something that's put together ahead of time. Otherwise, you run into plot holes if you try anything sprawling, so the tendency to run into "episodic" stories is pretty high with a more sandboxy design.

Again, I'm not making any call as to what's right or what's wrong, but if you're saying "well, tabletop games have always been X" well, that's changed, at least for some of us.

If all you wanted to do was tell a story, I think there would be a lot better mediums to do that then a table top RPG.

It depends on what your players want. In some cases, you'll have a group that's in it for the storytelling and are willing, even eager, to fit their characters into the world that the DM has designed. You know this is occurring when they follow the plot hooks, insist on remaining in-character so they don't spoil The Reveal due to excessive Genre Savviness, etc.

I've never been in a group like that, though. Most of the people I play with have been powergamers who want to be special snowflakes, min-max their way to large numbers on their character sheets, and take a special glee in derailing plots.

edited 22nd Aug '14 7:07:49 AM by Fighteer

No, there really aren't.

I mean, yeah, if I was a writer I could write my own story, but that's not the point. I want the story to, essentially, write itself. With, y'know, the help of a bunch of nerds.

That's not really what I go for, either. I never make a campaign with any "hard-set" rails to go by. Like, one time, I made a murder mystery. I set up a bunch of clues, and people to talk to to uncover the true killer. But after a while the players got frustrated, because the clues were kinda bullshit, and just convinced the prosecutor that he was the murderer. And that was great.

edited 22nd Aug '14 12:12:36 PM by Mukora

I am that special kind of abomination who wants to have big numbers on my sheet AND follow the story and roleplay!

There is no contradiction between being story driven and being a power gamer, but only if the most interesting story options aren't the least effective. That, and it requires a bit of gameplay/story segregation.

I think a lot of it is that I play exclusively online. Online play, it's much easier to remain in character (through text), whereas offline play is inherently more social.

Most of my players are both power gamers and story driven, as am I.

edited 22nd Aug '14 4:51:54 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

Role-playing games are playing pretend with rules, there doesn't have to be anyway to "win" or "optimize" unless everyone focuses on a strict goal.

I've never been a fan of powergaming.

I prefer trying different things that will probably end badly. Like Gnome Paladins, and Half-Orc Sorcerers.

I don't think anyone who does is wrong, though.

It is true that one thing I've hated about D&D-and this is edition neutral basically-is how hindered different race/class combinations are.

That being said, while Half-Orc sorcerers aren't GREAT in 4E (they don't get a charisma bonus), their Str/Dex IS useful for 4th edition sorcerers.

Likewise, I think gnomes DO get a bonus to charisma, so gnomish paladins are okay.

Personally, as a DM, I virtually always just ignore race entirely. Like, your race is relevant for your game stats as in "it's one thing you can choose when determining what your character is capable of" but that decision does not in any way tie into what your character is story wise. So you can be an elf with orc stats. Or a displacer beast (one of my players wants to play a displacer beast in a campaign sometime).

edited 22nd Aug '14 6:22:08 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

So, does anybody else find it amusing that 5e's spellcasting basically use a Magic Points system, but pretends to Vancian because it uses the term "spell slots" instead of "MP"?

Can't call it MP. Doesn't feel D&D enough.

Uh... 5th's casters mostly behave the same as they did in 3.5, that I've noticed. I think the Sorceror kind of uses points to alter spells as he casts them, ala 3.5's metamagic feats, but other than that everyone prepares spell slots just the same as they used to.

I think Psions kinda sorta use mana points, but I don't think they're even out in 5th yet.

edited 22nd Aug '14 11:19:17 PM by Knowlessman

They do behave differently, but I don't think it's really magic points. The slots are just more versatile.

So whats the general opinion on fifth edition and whats it like when compared to Pathfinder?

5E Wizards prepare spells, but they prepare spells per day NOT spell SLOTS.

It's definitely closer to psions. Really, I guess you could compare them to the Erudite psion from the Complete Psionics book.

@Spooky Mask: Pretty sure there isn't anything like a consensus. There're people who don't like it, mostly fans of 4e like Tomu, and there are people who think it is actually an improvement on previous editions like me, and I guess diehard 3.5 and before fans are just kinda suspicious of it.

No, it's definitely Magic Points. You expend Spell Slots in order to cast spells; you don't expend the spells themselves. You are essentially spending Spell Slots in order to cast, which is exactly how a Magic Points system works.

Granted, 5e uses a Tiered MP system, where some MP/Spell Slots are worth more than others, which isn't exactly the same as what most CRPG's use, but it's not unheard of. The early Final Fantasies had a very similar system.

edited 23rd Aug '14 8:01:57 AM by LizardBite

If you knew what psions were, you'd know that "base level, but you can flush extra power into them to make the power stronger" is what psions are, and also what 5E wizards are.

1) How does that contradict anything I said?

2) I know what psions are. Don't be a condescending ass.

The word "no" in context the premise "it's more like psions" is a pretty clear contradiction.

Or is this like Phoenix Wright, where I can present contradicting evidence, but if it doesn't fit EXACTLY what the game is trying to say, I still get a penalty from the judge?

Note to self: Run an Ace Attorney D&D campaign.

The "no" was rebutting your rebuttal of the magic points comparison, I thought?

EDIT: No, I just think it wasn't in response to you at all now?

edited 23rd Aug '14 8:42:19 AM by RaichuKFM

I was responding to these:

Psions have always used a form of Magic Points. Contradicting "it's like psions" with "no, it's magic points" would be like contradicting "it's the color of a polar bear" with "no, it's white."

Also:

5e Wizards prepare which spells they can cast in a given day, but they do not expend them when cast. They spend spell slots to cast them instead.

Ergo, MP.

edited 23rd Aug '14 8:42:52 AM by LizardBite

Saying "No, it's white" would likely be rebutted with "Clearly you don't know what polar bears are."

Certainly you can see that this is a result of the breakdown in communication, yes?

There was never any disagreement to begin with.

edited 23rd Aug '14 8:50:02 AM by TheyCallMeTomu