2296
Off-Topic / Re:Coisas que você não veria sem a internet
« Online: Março 27, 2012, 07:27:10 pm »
Eu até fico feliz em ver isso - melhor ver membros do executivo não fazendo coisa alguma ou brigando do que tentando salvar o mundo. 
Exibir posts
Esta seção lhe permite ver todos os posts deste membro. Note que você só pode ver os posts de seções às quais você tem acesso.
2297
Sistemas & Cenários / Re:[D&D] Essas não são as regras que procura
« Online: Março 27, 2012, 07:24:28 pm »Citar
E quantos não falaram a famosa frase "vc está podando minha criatividade?"
Para isso existe a clássica resposta: E você está ferrando com a coerência do jogo planejado.
2298
Sistemas & Cenários / Re:[D&D] Regra de Três e Blog
« Online: Março 27, 2012, 05:34:32 pm »
Pessoalmente, não me incomodo em exigir ou não o uso de tabuleiro. Eu acabo usando tabuleiros e mini até mesmo em sistemas que abominam isso (Houses of the Blooded e Storytelling) só para facilitar a localização.
Saga pode ser resumido em: Bonitinho e Ordinário. É um RPG bastante interessante, cujo multiclasse não só é altamente interessante como parece que o sistema prevê isso e que tenta retratar tudo que importa em Star Wars e tem o mérito de não colocar o Jedi como "classe quebrada". O problema é que Usar a Força ali é facílima de quebrar o jogo, especialmente em níveis baixos.
Tem um exemplo melhor, o Slayer da linha Essentials. Não chega a efetividade do Ranger (mas vamos lá, quem chega?), mas é um dos Top 5 no ramo.
Citar
Preciso ler Star Wars SAGA ^^
Saga pode ser resumido em: Bonitinho e Ordinário. É um RPG bastante interessante, cujo multiclasse não só é altamente interessante como parece que o sistema prevê isso e que tenta retratar tudo que importa em Star Wars e tem o mérito de não colocar o Jedi como "classe quebrada". O problema é que Usar a Força ali é facílima de quebrar o jogo, especialmente em níveis baixos.
Citar
E ser mais simples não quer dizer ser mais fraco (taí o ranger liquidificador da 4e pra provar).
Tem um exemplo melhor, o Slayer da linha Essentials. Não chega a efetividade do Ranger (mas vamos lá, quem chega?), mas é um dos Top 5 no ramo.
2300
Sistemas & Cenários / Re:[D&D] Essas não são as regras que procura
« Online: Março 27, 2012, 03:40:53 pm »
Se esse tópico e os usuários são uma amostra significativa dos fãs de D&D, é impossível tentar agradar a todos sem criar um RPG Poltergeist que não vai agradar ninguém. 
2301
Off-Topic / Re:[Old] Leis Bizarras
« Online: Março 27, 2012, 03:22:16 pm »
Para algo um pouco mais confiável (mas só um pouco mais) tem o Big Government. Small Brains. Dumb Laws.
2302
Sistemas & Cenários / Re:[D&D] Essas não são as regras que procura
« Online: Março 27, 2012, 08:33:56 am »Citar
Eu não sei de onde que as pessoas acham tão legal que a classe defina TUDO que você vá ser, da sua capacidade de combate à forma como você interpreta a mesma. E lá se vamos nós voltar à edição antiga. Paladinos eram OBRIGADOS a ser "leal e trouxa" sob pena de PERDER a classe se mudasse de tendência. Ora porra, se eu quiser interpretar um guerreiro que foi obrigado pela família a entrar num templo como uma espécie de "noviço" e teve que aguentar a formação de Paladino a vida toda antes de ser "livre" para sair por aí e pregar? Sério que ele vai ter que ser "leal e trouxa", se ele tá mais para um personagem caótico, potencialmente revoltado pelos pais terem meio que "estragado" a vida dele?
Eu não vou entra nessa discussão que está acontecendo, mas se há algo que toda e qualquer edição de D&D colocou que ser um Paladino não é algo que se pode "forçar". É um misto de vocação, treinamento e escolha divina (você precisava ser escolhido por uma divindade). Alguém que foi forçado a entrar no templo e ser treinado como um Paladino, sem desejar isso, sairia como um Guerreiro ou Combatente com Conhecimento (Religioso) (D&D 3e) ou algum kit de Guerreiro (AD&D), mas nunca um Paladino.
2303
Sistemas & Cenários / [D&D] Regra de Três e Blog
« Online: Março 27, 2012, 07:09:16 am »
Bom, como manda a tradição recente de criar tópicos para cada notícia relativamente relevante sobre a Ainda-Não-Nascida-Edição de D&D e ver duelos entre gostos e porque D&D nunca vai agradar todo mundo, dois novos assuntos aqui.
1. Complexidade vs Facilidade de Jogo do Bruce Cordell.
2. Regra de Três do Rodney Thompsom.
Para os preguiçosos, os trechos que mais me interessam (e dane-se se interessa a você ou não).
Sobre Solos
As far as "improving solo monsters" goes, there are some things we have learned over the course of the last few years that are vulnerabilities that can plague solo monsters; being taken out of the fight by conditions like daze/stun/dominate, or lasting too long so the fight starts to drag, running out of tricks to pull, being challenging for the DM to run, etc. However, not all of these are exclusively monster issues, and some can be solved by changing things elsewhere in the game. For example, if we used something like the "hit points as a threshold for affecting monsters" mechanic that Mike described for "save or die" spells in a recent Legends & Lore column, we can cut down on some of the challenges solos face because of conditions. We're looking at generally increasing the speed of combat overall and finding ways to streamline monsters while still making the experience of fighting them exciting, both of which will impact solo monsters, not to mention all other kinds of monsters, too.
Sobre Multiclasse (Achei essa idéia tosquinha, mas muito promissora)
While there are certainly challenges with this system, a few other changes in the game make it more viable in the next iteration. As I mentioned last week, we're looking at a bounded accuracy system where accuracy (of everything, from attacks to spells) does not automatically go up with level. The discrepancies in base attack bonus between classes in 3E made some multiclassing combinations more difficult to pull off; absent those discrepancies, with the right ability score mix, the fighter and wizard classes mix together without that difficulty. Another thing we're looking at is the way we word certain abilities, making sure that disparate classes work well together. For example, instead of the fighter having to spend a single action to make multiple attacks, we might say that the extra attacks that the fighter gains as he gains levels are effectively free actions that the fighter takes on his turn. Thus, if my fighter/wizard picked up an extra attack through his levels of fighter, he might be able to cast a spell as his main action and then still get his extra attack, giving him the benefit of all of his class levels.
Sobre "Como vamos fazer Classes Marciais serem uma Droga", digo, Complexidade vs Facilidade de Jogo: ()
For example, a 1st Edition fighter essentially chose a weapon and armor, and then was good to go. Compare that to a 1st Edition paladin, who could detect evil, had bonuses to saving throws, could lay on hands, cure disease, and so on. Then we have a 1st Edition rogue, who could draw upon a specific set of abilities described on a table to pick pockets, open locks, find/remove traps, and so on. Wizards and clerics could choose daily spells to prepare, while most other classes had only a few, if any, daily resources.
Ultimately, the philosophy on character complexity between older editions and 4E is starkly different—earlier editions gave some classes far fewer options than other classes. Such classes are generally regarded as easier to play, or from another point of view, more open to improvisation. On the other hand, 4th Edition classes are superbly and obviously balanced against each other, and though no class is easier to play than any other by a large margin, each class does provide every player with a robust list of choices for engaging with the game.
Espera aí... Menos Opções = Mais improvisação? Vou jogar de Plebeu agora. Yay.
1. Complexidade vs Facilidade de Jogo do Bruce Cordell.
2. Regra de Três do Rodney Thompsom.
Para os preguiçosos, os trechos que mais me interessam (e dane-se se interessa a você ou não
).Sobre Solos
As far as "improving solo monsters" goes, there are some things we have learned over the course of the last few years that are vulnerabilities that can plague solo monsters; being taken out of the fight by conditions like daze/stun/dominate, or lasting too long so the fight starts to drag, running out of tricks to pull, being challenging for the DM to run, etc. However, not all of these are exclusively monster issues, and some can be solved by changing things elsewhere in the game. For example, if we used something like the "hit points as a threshold for affecting monsters" mechanic that Mike described for "save or die" spells in a recent Legends & Lore column, we can cut down on some of the challenges solos face because of conditions. We're looking at generally increasing the speed of combat overall and finding ways to streamline monsters while still making the experience of fighting them exciting, both of which will impact solo monsters, not to mention all other kinds of monsters, too.
Sobre Multiclasse (Achei essa idéia tosquinha, mas muito promissora)
While there are certainly challenges with this system, a few other changes in the game make it more viable in the next iteration. As I mentioned last week, we're looking at a bounded accuracy system where accuracy (of everything, from attacks to spells) does not automatically go up with level. The discrepancies in base attack bonus between classes in 3E made some multiclassing combinations more difficult to pull off; absent those discrepancies, with the right ability score mix, the fighter and wizard classes mix together without that difficulty. Another thing we're looking at is the way we word certain abilities, making sure that disparate classes work well together. For example, instead of the fighter having to spend a single action to make multiple attacks, we might say that the extra attacks that the fighter gains as he gains levels are effectively free actions that the fighter takes on his turn. Thus, if my fighter/wizard picked up an extra attack through his levels of fighter, he might be able to cast a spell as his main action and then still get his extra attack, giving him the benefit of all of his class levels.
Sobre "Como vamos fazer Classes Marciais serem uma Droga", digo, Complexidade vs Facilidade de Jogo: (
)For example, a 1st Edition fighter essentially chose a weapon and armor, and then was good to go. Compare that to a 1st Edition paladin, who could detect evil, had bonuses to saving throws, could lay on hands, cure disease, and so on. Then we have a 1st Edition rogue, who could draw upon a specific set of abilities described on a table to pick pockets, open locks, find/remove traps, and so on. Wizards and clerics could choose daily spells to prepare, while most other classes had only a few, if any, daily resources.
Ultimately, the philosophy on character complexity between older editions and 4E is starkly different—earlier editions gave some classes far fewer options than other classes. Such classes are generally regarded as easier to play, or from another point of view, more open to improvisation. On the other hand, 4th Edition classes are superbly and obviously balanced against each other, and though no class is easier to play than any other by a large margin, each class does provide every player with a robust list of choices for engaging with the game.
Espera aí... Menos Opções = Mais improvisação? Vou jogar de Plebeu agora. Yay.
2304
Vídeo Game / Re:Uma nova "Era Dourada" ?
« Online: Março 26, 2012, 09:50:51 pm »Citar
Elfo se vc tirar um cara que escuto Jay Z para metalica eu considero algor próximoa uma conversão, tu quer que ele saia e vá ouvir de primeira o que ???Venon
É o problema de usar analogias, eu pensei no aspecto "é popular" de ambos. De qualquer forma, milagre seria fazer um fã tr00 de Metallica (da época que Metallica é tr00. Hoje eles são poser) escutar Mahalia Jackson ou James Brown.
Citar
Mas ao mesmo tempo, o próprio lançamento deles (e o consequente sucesso/popularização) é um sinal, a meu ver, de que o mercado está aberto a gêneros além dos "corredores de tiro-ao-alvo", coisa que entre 2007-10 não estava. Nesse sentido eles não seriam inovadores, mas sim "renovadores".
Eu devo ter perdido algo, porque não vejo nada diferente de 2007 para 2011, ao menos no mercado de RPG. Afinal, só nosso período surgiram Dragon Age, Fallout 3 e Mass Effect, para citar grandões da Bioware/Bethesda.
Citar
Deus Sol (pelo amor de deus, não vai falar que é o Elven )
Não, é o Lederon. Totalmente artsy, não notou?
2305
Vídeo Game / Re:Uma nova "Era Dourada" ?
« Online: Março 26, 2012, 07:18:25 pm »
Espera aí Silva, desde quando Deus EX e Skyrym são jogos inovadores? Só Skyrym já descende de uma franquia que rivaliza com Final Fantasy em número de títulos, pelo Clemente e Misericordioso. E a julgar pelas vendas, ambos jogos são tão massificados quanto Winning Eleven. 
Pular de Call of Duty para Skyrym é como deixar de escutar Jay Z e passar a escutar Metallica.
Pular de Call of Duty para Skyrym é como deixar de escutar Jay Z e passar a escutar Metallica.
2306
Sistemas & Cenários / Re:[D&D] Essas não são as regras que procura
« Online: Março 26, 2012, 05:18:19 pm »Citar
Então, Elfo, meu irmão também é do tipo caladão, quando joga. E, incrivelmente, quem é do tipo "tapa-buracos" como vocês dois, acaba por jogar nunca ou quase nunca de strikers e passa a jogar muito com leaders.
O que é engraçado é que como DM eu sou o oposto disso. Mas no momento, eu estou com um personagem não-líder. Um ChaLadino focado em Multi-Marking e Cura, oops, isso é imensamente similar ao que é um Líder.
2307
Sistemas & Cenários / Re:[D&D] Essas não são as regras que procura
« Online: Março 26, 2012, 04:38:40 pm »
Eu quando jogo, acabo entrando no mesmo perfil que seu irmão, Kasuya. Com a diferença que ao contrário do que geralmente sou como mestre, eu prefiro ficar relativamente quieto, evito rolar dados (não me pergunte o motivo - nem eu sei) e adoro o papel de suporte e classe carregada de poderes desse tipo. Por isso acabei me dando muito bem com o LazyLord da 4e e só não repeti como um Líder porque outro jogador quis jogar antes com um Artificer. Mas na 3,5, ou jogava com Bardo ou Clérigo.
2308
Off-Topic / Re:Sobre as mudanças de Nicknames
« Online: Março 26, 2012, 12:34:58 pm »Citar
Tem algum motivo específico para esse nome, ó infinitamente nomeado, ou é só aquela época do mês de novo?
Eu tenho tanto apreço pela cultura romana quanto tenho pela história judaica. Também porque eu me cansei de nomes incompreensíveis e com uma sonoridade não tão legal.
2309
Sistemas & Cenários / [D&D] Essas não são as regras que procura
« Online: Março 26, 2012, 08:33:53 am »
Bom, novo artigo do Mearls no site da Wizards. Pessoalmente, adorei ele. Veja aqui e alguns trechos que gostei:
I am going to 100% promise you that, especially if you are a veteran player or DM, we will include stuff in the next iteration of the game that you will ignore. In fact, I'm going to come out and say that we want you to ignore parts of the game.
...
I think a similar situation exists in D&D. Some players and DMs want to figure stuff out on their own or break down the game and make it suit their style. Other players, either for lack of experience, time, or inclination, want a more direct path to the game. There are a lot of pieces of D&D that a veteran gamer doesn't need, but a newcomer, casual gamer, or DM short on time finds critical. Here are two specific examples.
Adventure Design Guidelines: Stuff such as XP budgets, treasure tables, encounter charts, and so on are there to make it easier to create adventures and build your campaign. If you are a veteran DM, it's quite likely you won't use any of this stuff.
I'll let you in on a secret. I DM'ed a year-long Eberron campaign in 3E and I never once used the rules for treasure or wealth by level. I gave out stuff that seemed cool and appropriate, and the game worked fine. I used the challenge rating system as a starting point, but modified stuff to fit my group.
I did make closer use of the 4E rules when they came out, but even then I used lots of custom magic items. If you've been running D&D for more than 10 years, adventure design is a solved art for you.
On the other hand, new DMs, people who don't have a lot of free time, or DMs who like more structure can and should find our rules useful and easy to use. I really want to build some specific, procedural approaches for the game that lay out five or six easy, step-by-step instructions for building adventures, encounters, and so on. You could argue that these rules are doing their job if veteran DMs don't want or need to use them.
Character Roles: This one is bound to be controversial, but I don't think roles belong in D&D as specific, mechanical elements that we design toward. Instead, I think roles are a great tool to help players focus on how they want to play a character. Veteran players should be free to create the character they want, however they want, instead of feeling that they must take on a job to "help" the party.
I'd much rather see roles cast as advice that highlights some basic strategies that players can follow. For instance, the advice for the cleric might explain how the class excels at healing. If you're playing a cleric and want some guidance on what to do, that advice can suggest some spells and abilities, along with tactics for use during the game.
In a game as open as D&D, this sort of advice can be tremendously helpful to a new player. More importantly, it helps show a player the sort of interactions that exist between characters. A new player doesn't have to worry about doing the "wrong" thing or letting the group down.
I'll admit that I have no use for roles. I like creating a character based on an image in my head, not a to-do list. I want roles to take the form of advice to help players learn the game, not a straitjacket that works against the freedom and flexibility offered by RPGs.
As far as designing the classes based on roles goes, I'd rather make sure that we're living up to the advice we give on how to play a class. We should be able to quickly and easily explain why a class is a useful member of an adventuring party. The mechanics should support that. Classes that are significantly weaker than the other classes—defined as easily overshadowed in all the aspects of the game—need a redesign.
I am going to 100% promise you that, especially if you are a veteran player or DM, we will include stuff in the next iteration of the game that you will ignore. In fact, I'm going to come out and say that we want you to ignore parts of the game.
...
I think a similar situation exists in D&D. Some players and DMs want to figure stuff out on their own or break down the game and make it suit their style. Other players, either for lack of experience, time, or inclination, want a more direct path to the game. There are a lot of pieces of D&D that a veteran gamer doesn't need, but a newcomer, casual gamer, or DM short on time finds critical. Here are two specific examples.
Adventure Design Guidelines: Stuff such as XP budgets, treasure tables, encounter charts, and so on are there to make it easier to create adventures and build your campaign. If you are a veteran DM, it's quite likely you won't use any of this stuff.
I'll let you in on a secret. I DM'ed a year-long Eberron campaign in 3E and I never once used the rules for treasure or wealth by level. I gave out stuff that seemed cool and appropriate, and the game worked fine. I used the challenge rating system as a starting point, but modified stuff to fit my group.
I did make closer use of the 4E rules when they came out, but even then I used lots of custom magic items. If you've been running D&D for more than 10 years, adventure design is a solved art for you.
On the other hand, new DMs, people who don't have a lot of free time, or DMs who like more structure can and should find our rules useful and easy to use. I really want to build some specific, procedural approaches for the game that lay out five or six easy, step-by-step instructions for building adventures, encounters, and so on. You could argue that these rules are doing their job if veteran DMs don't want or need to use them.
Character Roles: This one is bound to be controversial, but I don't think roles belong in D&D as specific, mechanical elements that we design toward. Instead, I think roles are a great tool to help players focus on how they want to play a character. Veteran players should be free to create the character they want, however they want, instead of feeling that they must take on a job to "help" the party.
I'd much rather see roles cast as advice that highlights some basic strategies that players can follow. For instance, the advice for the cleric might explain how the class excels at healing. If you're playing a cleric and want some guidance on what to do, that advice can suggest some spells and abilities, along with tactics for use during the game.
In a game as open as D&D, this sort of advice can be tremendously helpful to a new player. More importantly, it helps show a player the sort of interactions that exist between characters. A new player doesn't have to worry about doing the "wrong" thing or letting the group down.
I'll admit that I have no use for roles. I like creating a character based on an image in my head, not a to-do list. I want roles to take the form of advice to help players learn the game, not a straitjacket that works against the freedom and flexibility offered by RPGs.
As far as designing the classes based on roles goes, I'd rather make sure that we're living up to the advice we give on how to play a class. We should be able to quickly and easily explain why a class is a useful member of an adventuring party. The mechanics should support that. Classes that are significantly weaker than the other classes—defined as easily overshadowed in all the aspects of the game—need a redesign.
2310
Sistemas & Cenários / Re:[D&D] A quinta edição desponta no horizonte...
« Online: Março 26, 2012, 08:28:44 am »
Bom, artigo novo sobre a 5e no site da Wizards. Tópico novo ou aqui? (Em qualquer caso, eu edito depois esse trecho pra colocar a notícia)