Decline Sword Coast Legends Pre-Release Thread

[Infinitron]

 

[LeStryfe79]

It's just overkill.

 

[Zorba the Hutt]

That "sweet female shield dwarf" is going to rustle some jimmies

Dorateen

 

[Modron]

That "sweet female shield dwarf" is going to rustle some jimmies

She does have a boob plate so will see how that goes as well.

 

[Sykar]

That "sweet female shield dwarf" is going to rustle some jimmies

Dorateen

Depends on how strong the midget fetish is.

 

[Roguey]

A patriarchy smasher with an undercut.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

A patriarchy smasher with an undercut.

Dwarfs are too short for any other cut.

 

[Xenich]

On the subject of alignments, Tudge mentions that chosing the alignment at the beginning of the game in a videogame can be weird, because a player could potentially choose an alignment and then take choices throughout the rest of the game that won't fit it. He stresses the important of providing choices in the game, but from the answer it wasn't completely clear whether alignments will be in the game in some capacity.

Ok, this is just stupid. Do they understand that this is the point of alignments in a game? You pick an alignment and you play your character according to that role. If you do not, there are consequences (for instance, picking a paladin, and then playing anything but lawful good can get you ousted from the church resulting in the loss of your spells and favor, ie... you become a fighter). That is, you now have another layer of "struggle" in the concept of "game play". /smacks head

Maybe they should spend time actually making a D&D game and put in such "game play" elements that will have consequences if a player makes choices outside of their alignment? What's that? It will get in way of all the boring action arcade shit this game is about? It will destroy that "fun" they are magically creating for idiots who want to sit in front of a screen drooling and bragging to their friends how they are elite "D&D" gamers?

I swear, the idiocy of today's developers. They have no clue what "game play" is. Look up the definition of game, that's right, now skip past the useless one that says "entertainment" and go down to the the real one that defines what it actually is. Now, actually make a game, one that has choices and consequences in the solution of obstacles. That is right, instead of lamenting over a player making a choice that is counter to their selected alignment, frigging put in mechanics that will result in consequences if they do so!!! /gasp I mean, actually have "game play" than being some sesame street entertainment sim with a D&D label on it. Imagine what it might bring to the game if the player has to struggle with difficult choices as it concerns the moral center of their characters alignment. I mean... I wonder why D&D had alignments? hmm...

/boggle

 

[ERYFKRAD]

On the subject of alignments, Tudge mentions that chosing the alignment at the beginning of the game in a videogame can be weird, because a player could potentially choose an alignment and then take choices throughout the rest of the game that won't fit it. He stresses the important of providing choices in the game, but from the answer it wasn't completely clear whether alignments will be in the game in some capacity.

Ok, this is just stupid. Do they understand that this is the point of alignments in a game? You pick an alignment and you play your character according to that role. If you do not, there are consequences (for instance, picking a paladin, and then playing anything but lawful good can get you ousted from the church resulting in the loss of your spells and favor, ie... you become a fighter). That is, you now have another layer of "struggle" in the concept of "game play". /smacks head

Maybe they should spend time actually making a D&D game and put in such "game play" elements that will have consequences if a player makes choices outside of their alignment? What's that? It will get in way of all the boring action arcade shit this game is about? It will destroy that "fun" they are magically creating for idiots who want to sit in front of a screen drooling and bragging to their friends how they are elite "D&D" gamers?

I swear, the idiocy of today's developers. They have no clue what "game play" is. Look up the definition of game, that's right, now skip past the useless one that says "entertainment" and go down to the the real one that defines what it actually is. Now, actually make a game, one that has choices and consequences in the solution of obstacles. That is right, instead of lamenting over a player making a choice that is counter to their selected alignment, frigging put in mechanics that will result in consequences if they do so!!! /gasp I mean, actually have "game play" than being some sesame street entertainment sim with a D&D label on it. Imagine what it might bring to the game if the player has to struggle with difficult choices as it concerns the moral center of their characters alignment. I mean... I wonder why D&D had alignments? hmm...

/boggle

Eh, if choices do have meaningful consequences, it's bretty easy to do away with alignment and karma altogether I think.

As interesting as alignment-based choices can be, it'd just introduce a whole new level of headaches where butthurt players will start arguing about the perceived morality of a choice, no matter how trivial or clear cut that choice is. Who needs that kinda grief dude?

 

[Xenich]

Eh, if choices do have meaningful consequences, it's bretty easy to do away with alignment and karma altogether I think.

As interesting as alignment-based choices can be, it'd just introduce a whole new level of headaches where butthurt players will start arguing about the perceived morality of a choice, no matter how trivial or clear cut that choice is. Who needs that kinda grief dude?

If the reason to not have such is because stupid players will whine? Well... what that says is.. the game is mainstream garbage made for idiots. They then are not making a game, they are making a fad and if that is the case, the game is shit, and they are fucking worthless sell outs. /shrug

 

[Havoc]

Gold dwarf, you rarely see one of those.

 

[ArchAngel]

On the subject of alignments, Tudge mentions that chosing the alignment at the beginning of the game in a videogame can be weird, because a player could potentially choose an alignment and then take choices throughout the rest of the game that won't fit it. He stresses the important of providing choices in the game, but from the answer it wasn't completely clear whether alignments will be in the game in some capacity.

Ok, this is just stupid. Do they understand that this is the point of alignments in a game? You pick an alignment and you play your character according to that role. If you do not, there are consequences (for instance, picking a paladin, and then playing anything but lawful good can get you ousted from the church resulting in the loss of your spells and favor, ie... you become a fighter). That is, you now have another layer of "struggle" in the concept of "game play". /smacks head

Maybe they should spend time actually making a D&D game and put in such "game play" elements that will have consequences if a player makes choices outside of their alignment? What's that? It will get in way of all the boring action arcade shit this game is about? It will destroy that "fun" they are magically creating for idiots who want to sit in front of a screen drooling and bragging to their friends how they are elite "D&D" gamers?

I swear, the idiocy of today's developers. They have no clue what "game play" is. Look up the definition of game, that's right, now skip past the useless one that says "entertainment" and go down to the the real one that defines what it actually is. Now, actually make a game, one that has choices and consequences in the solution of obstacles. That is right, instead of lamenting over a player making a choice that is counter to their selected alignment, frigging put in mechanics that will result in consequences if they do so!!! /gasp I mean, actually have "game play" than being some sesame street entertainment sim with a D&D label on it. Imagine what it might bring to the game if the player has to struggle with difficult choices as it concerns the moral center of their characters alignment. I mean... I wonder why D&D had alignments? hmm...

/boggle

5E removed alignment restriction. Paladins no longer follow alignments but Oath restrictions. And one Oath even let them be evil bastards as long as they are fullfilling the oath requirements.
Paladins also no longer have detect evil but Divine Sense and it only works on undead, demons, and celestials. While Smite Evil (called Divine Smite) works vs anyone but does more damage vs undead and fiends.

 

[Xenich]

5E removed alignment restriction. Paladins no longer follow alignments but Oath restrictions. And one Oath even let them be evil bastards as long as they are fullfilling the oath.
Paladins also no longer have detect evil but it only works on undead, demons, and celestials. While Smite Evil (called Divine Smite) works vs anyone but does more damage vs undead and fiends.

That is unfortunate.

The more I see about 5E, the more I dislike it.

 

[Sykar]

Never liked the alignment system in D&D. Never made much sense.

 

[Xenich]

Never liked the alignment system in D&D. Never made much sense.

Never made much sense? How is that?

 

[Sykar]

Never liked the alignment system in D&D. Never made much sense.

Never made much sense? How is that?

I consider humans to be far more complex than simply categorizing them into such primitive categories "he is good and follows the law" or "he is ruthless and has little empathy, therefore evil".
I always liked the Paladin in Second World War hiding a Jew in his home and being questioned by the GESTAPO dilemma to illustrate just how terms like "Lawful Good" made little sense or at the very least are problematic. At best alignments can be viewed as rough tendencies, but too many people have such an absolute view on these alignments that they are not enhancing game play, they are outright restricting it in a let's say "chokingly" manner.

 

[Xenich]

Never liked the alignment system in D&D. Never made much sense.

Never made much sense? How is that?

I consider humans to be far more complex than simply categorizing them into such primitive categories "he is good and follows the law" or "he is ruthless and has little empathy, therefore evil".
I always liked the Paladin in Second World War hiding a Jew in his home and being questioned by the GESTAPO dilemma to illustrate just how terms like "Lawful Good" made little sense or at the very least are problematic. At best alignments can be viewed as rough tendencies, but too many people have such an absolute view on these alignments that they are not enhancing game play, they are outright restricting it in a let's say "chokingly" manner.

There is some legitimate arguments to be made, though I would argue them to be honest. In fact, it was commonly an interesting debate in various sessions. That said, am not opposed to a more complex system to attend to varying aspects of situations you mention (maybe sub alignment element systems could be interesting, or similar), but I think we can agree that the removing of alignments as 5ED did and simplifying it as was explained, isn't an improvement.

 

[DeepOcean]

Never liked the alignment system in D&D. Never made much sense.

Never made much sense? How is that?

I consider humans to be far more complex than simply categorizing them into such primitive categories "he is good and follows the law" or "he is ruthless and has little empathy, therefore evil".
I always liked the Paladin in Second World War hiding a Jew in his home and being questioned by the GESTAPO dilemma to illustrate just how terms like "Lawful Good" made little sense or at the very least are problematic. At best alignments can be viewed as rough tendencies, but too many people have such an absolute view on these alignments that they are not enhancing game play, they are outright restricting it in a let's say "chokingly" manner.

Well, I don't see nothing wrong, the paladins would be part of GESTAPO. The jew being a thief would manage to hide in the shadows and stealth away.

 

[Xenich]

Never liked the alignment system in D&D. Never made much sense.

Never made much sense? How is that?

I consider humans to be far more complex than simply categorizing them into such primitive categories "he is good and follows the law" or "he is ruthless and has little empathy, therefore evil".
I always liked the Paladin in Second World War hiding a Jew in his home and being questioned by the GESTAPO dilemma to illustrate just how terms like "Lawful Good" made little sense or at the very least are problematic. At best alignments can be viewed as rough tendencies, but too many people have such an absolute view on these alignments that they are not enhancing game play, they are outright restricting it in a let's say "chokingly" manner.

Well, I don't see nothing wrong, the paladins would be part of GESTAPO. The jew being a thief would manage to hide in the shadows and stealth away.

I think the problem with their argument is that they assume that lawful is subject to the laws of evil. Lawful is a declaration of an adherence to law, but this assumes the law is good and good is constrained by the elements of their gods position. A Paladin will hold to the law in a society of what he believes to be a good lawful society, but will not advance the cause of evil because it is under lawful nature. If this were the case, then a paladin would have no issues with walking into a Drow town and being held to the constraints of their laws. We both know this would not happen as this would be a violation of the Paladins nature. A paladin must be lawful to good, not just lawful. A paladin who advances evil because it is lawful has violated their alignment.

 

[Sykar]

Never liked the alignment system in D&D. Never made much sense.

Never made much sense? How is that?

I consider humans to be far more complex than simply categorizing them into such primitive categories "he is good and follows the law" or "he is ruthless and has little empathy, therefore evil".
I always liked the Paladin in Second World War hiding a Jew in his home and being questioned by the GESTAPO dilemma to illustrate just how terms like "Lawful Good" made little sense or at the very least are problematic. At best alignments can be viewed as rough tendencies, but too many people have such an absolute view on these alignments that they are not enhancing game play, they are outright restricting it in a let's say "chokingly" manner.

There is some legitimate arguments to be made, though I would argue them to be honest. In fact, it was commonly an interesting debate in various sessions. That said, am not opposed to a more complex system to attend to varying aspects of situations you mention (maybe sub alignment element systems could be interesting, or similar), but I think we can agree that the removing of alignments as 5ED did and simplifying it as was explained, isn't an improvement.

Well in my old group we tried to use as little rules as possible and more or less played D&D adventures like amateur theater, often not even using a single dice rolls and to be honest, those were the most enjoyable sessions. I can see where you are coming from and surely a significant refinement might have been a better solution, depending how they would have expanded on it. What was needed though were guidelines that a Paladin doesn't lose his status just because he had to make a tough decision between good vs law. While I think it is important to hold monastic orders like the Paladin represents in these games to higher standards than the average adventurer it always bugged me that many tried to hold him to outright absurd standards which no sane human can fulfill.
Of course it should be possible to fall from grace, but a fallen Paladin should be allowed to find a way to redeem himself as well, albeit of course not necessarily being successful while trying. Often I'd see that this was like a fall once and you are condemned for the rest of your life. Never liked that concept in the slightest.

 

[Xenich]

Well in my old group we tried to use as little rules as possible and more or less played D&D adventures like amateur theater, often not even using a single dice rolls and to be honest, those were the most enjoyable sessions. I can see where you are coming from and surely a significant refinement might have been a better solution, depending how they would have expanded on it. What was needed though were guidelines that a Paladin doesn't lose his status just because he had to make a tough decision between good vs law. While I think it is important to hold monastic orders like the Paladin represents in these games to higher standards than the average adventurer it always bugged me that many tried to hold him to outright absurd standards which no sane human can fullfill.

I know some who play as such, though that is not what I enjoy, nor did my friends. We played D&D as Gygax and Arneson deisgned it, as a statistical board game placed into a story environment. Rules were extremely important and we were held to them. Most of those in our groups were physics, chemist, computer science, mathematics, etc.. majors. Detail and exactness were required. The arguments got pretty deep, but it was a blast. My point is, we played it as a game more than an entertainment event.

By your description, it is more along the lines of how we played Paranoia. It was a game where the rules were loose and could be adapted quite easily in motion. Was more of a game we played drinking though.

 

[Sykar]

Different people enjoy different types of games. We didn't drink and in fact none of us drank alcohol or liked alcohol much, also didn't smoke. We loved super hot pizza though.

 

[Xenich]

Different people enjoy different types of games. We didn't drink and in fact none of us drank alcohol or liked alcohol much, also didn't smoke. We loved super hot pizza though.

That is true. The rule lite system of play is not wrong, in fact I had friends who loved to play the White Wolf games in the parks, dressing up and role playing it to the hilt. White Wolf games were perfect for this type of play due to their very basic rule systems. So I agree, different strokes for different folks and all that, but my disappointment with D&D was that they took a system specifically designed around complex "board game" rule play and then turned it into a mainstream game for the RPG lite crowd. Kind of felt like.. theft and destruction of property? If you know what I mean?

 

[Zorba the Hutt]

Well in my old group we tried to use as little rules as possible and more or less played D&D adventures like amateur theater, often not even using a single dice rolls and to be honest, those were the most enjoyable sessions.

Dear Mr Sykar

Your custom tag is now ready for collection. DU will install it when he's finished fucking around with the fonts.

Thank you for your business and do call again.

 

[Spectacle]

White Wolf games were perfect for this type of play due to their very basic rule systems.

lol