TTRPGs & D&D

[altcunningham]

I keep forgetting Nyssa even has a summon option because I'm so engrossed with all the antics that come up with our group. I prepped it in the tome like two sessions ago and I've never really even wanted to because of the solutions we come up with.

 

[Damien]

I had a theory I was talking about the other day about how I feel like the two main player types are I'm just a [adjective] guy" vs. "I have planned every detail of my costume and am a hyper-stylized peacock" and both are valid but I swear I've spent 48 years just looking for a looooooong game to play some guy with a sword.

And see, I've gotten shit in the past because my favorite archetype to play is 'guy with a sword.' It gets such a bad wrap as the 'basic' option, even sometimes having people go so far as to say it takes no skill or creativity to play basic fighters. But I -enjoy- those characters usually more than any other.
Although if I ever get to play another game, I'm seriously thinking about dashing pirate barbarian.

Even MCDM is releasing a summoner class for Draw Steel and openly labeling it FOR ADVANCED PLAYERS.

I always wondered why D&D, in an effort to onboard new/young players, didn't find a way to divvy up the classes between those that are generally easier to play and those generally harder to play. I've definitely seen people come into the game back in 3E like 'I want to be a druid' and then crashing out within 4 sessions because there's just so much to keep track of for that class. Is Wizard literally harder to play than Sorcerer? Yes. Fuck off, yes. And I don't see why it would be a bad thing to label them that way in some manner.

I keep forgetting Nyssa even has a summon option because I'm so engrossed with all the antics that come up with our group. I prepped it in the tome like two sessions ago and I've never really even wanted to because of the solutions we come up with.

Unfortunately, once you summon we can't name it Little Nyssa because that, a-fucking-pparently, is already taken.

 

[docsilence]

And see, I've gotten shit in the past because my favorite archetype to play is 'guy with a sword.' It gets such a bad wrap as the 'basic' option, even sometimes having people go so far as to say it takes no skill or creativity to play basic fighters. But I -enjoy- those characters usually more than any other.

My favorite defense of the "just a guy archetype" is that stories need those guys, because what is more human in storytelling than being a person who just happened to step up at the right time to be the hero? I love a flamboyant hot mess of a character as much as anyone else, but I'll always have a soft spot for "there ain't nothing special about me except that I'm here, man."

(The thing that inspired my comparison was catching the players describing their PCs for an Actual Pay for that new Sanderson/Cosmere TTRPG and as each player described their character I'm like Jesus Christ are we on someone's Pinterest page? So much over the top detail. I mean, probably a blast to draw or paint, but they were all peacocks.

I always wondered why D&D, in an effort to onboard new/young players, didn't find a way to divvy up the classes between those that are generally easier to play and those generally harder to play. I've definitely seen people come into the game back in 3E like 'I want to be a druid' and then crashing out within 4 sessions because there's just so much to keep track of for that class. Is Wizard literally harder to play than Sorcerer? Yes. Fuck off, yes. And I don't see why it would be a bad thing to label them that way in some manner.

I really think they should do something like this. All games that have wide ranges of classes, not just D&D. Though I'll argue that depending on the player, a wizard might actually be less complicated than a sorcerer (I've seen so many aspiring players get absolutely baffled by stuff like sorcery points when they can't even count spell slots yet).

Druids. New players always want to play druids, and I get it, changing into an animal is an ENTIRE REASON to play a game. But druids are your second or third character. Play a ranger first! (Even they're more fiddly than a fighter but you can get into a pattern with them easier.)

But any full caster is more stress for a new player than a melee character. It's just more cognitive load. Or stuff like "I want to be a bard!" and then not understanding that a bard is not a barbarian with a guitar. Advanced class.

Unfortunately, once you summon we can't name it Little Nyssa because that, a-fucking-pparently, is already taken.

I am STILL laughing, OUT LOUD, two weeks later, that Nyssa has a rapper name.

 

[altcunningham]

 

[Damien]

My favorite defense of the "just a guy archetype" is that stories need those guys, because what is more human in storytelling than being a person who just happened to step up at the right time to be the hero? I love a flamboyant hot mess of a character as much as anyone else, but I'll always have a soft spot for "there ain't nothing special about me except that I'm here, man."

I ran a game years ago in a homebrew setting based very loosely on Birthright. The characters were all from different noble houses and, generally speaking, disliked each other (players were great and were best buds, so the in-character sniping and arguing worked). One guy chose a cavalier-type class. No magic. No real special abilities. Just basically Fighter/Mounted Combat feats and bonuses. Everyone else were magic-users. Also, he was doing the 'second son of a second son' thing where he's nobody special in the family. Everyone else went with being basically the scion of the family and only hope for their noble bloodline.
There was a point where an NPC, during a difficult bit of negotiation, asked him what made him so special. The player improv'd an amazing speech about how not being special is what makes him special, because he is just a man with a horse and an axe, that can't shoot lightning out of his eyes, and he is still choosing to be here fighting hydras and shit with these assholes that all have vested interests in being seen as heroes. He is going to be a hero for the sole reason that it's right.
I don't remember the exact speech, of course, as this was like first year of 3.5E, but it was amazing.

ut any full caster is more stress for a new player than a melee character. It's just more cognitive load. Or stuff like "I want to be a bard!" and then not understanding that a bard is not a barbarian with a guitar. Advanced class.

I have been playing D&D since 2nd Edition was -current-. I still fucking hate trying to figure out Bards.

I am STILL laughing, OUT LOUD, two weeks later, that Nyssa has a rapper name.

100% serious; like a week ago I was driving between jobsites and the name 'Little Nyssa' popped into my head and I legitimately started giggling like a fool.

 

[docsilence]

Lil Nyssa made me immediately think of this clip from Bards of New York. "Lil WHAT?"

I have been playing D&D since 2nd Edition was -current-. I still fucking hate trying to figure out Bards.

I like bards in theory, but I'm happier playing a paladin something with the entertainer background. I do want to be a singer, but I'd rather be a singer who beats people up than a singer who uses spells. Truly, a Highwayman character.

 

[JakeEkiss]

Meanwhile I have not one but two necromancers who name every one of their skeletons.

Pfft, if you've got time to name them all you aren't summoning nearly enough skeletons. Tell them to do better. Summon so many skeletons that they have to name them variants of 'Bob'. Bob. Tall Bob. Bobbin. Bob the Dolphin Skeleton. And so on...

"there ain't nothing special about me except that I'm here, man."

Otherwise known as the "John McClane". Except folks always think of John McClane as a super badass because they forget he spends half the movie trying to call the local cops to save him from all these fucking terrorists!

I game as a player so infrequently that the closest I can say I have to an archetype is I "often" play healer/doctor characters. Often here meaning twice. Once in a college game and now in a cyberpunk game ran by the same guy who ran the college game. I think it would be fun to play a character who was either much more of a paragon or much more of a bastard, but I tend to feel like I'm robbing someone else of the fun if I go either of those directions.

 

[Damien]

I don't think either one of those things is necessarily hard to play against as long as you don't have more than one person trying to do it. Like.. a party dynamic can get weird with two ultra-paragon paladins or clerics, or example. Or a bunch of dickheads. They can work, but they're tougher to pull off.

But I think EVERY game should have a paragon and a bastard. Even if it's just a 'yeah, he's a bastard, but he's OUR bastard!'

 

[docsilence]

I think there's a reason why there's a running gag of "oh, you're a forever DM? What's your favorite class to play when you do get to be a player and why is it a paladin?"

Look just because I want to be able to take hits for my firends, give beneficial effects to them, heal them, and protect them while they do stupid things to get themselves killed is ... dammit this is why I always play a paladin even though I want to be a rogue...

 

[TheSameIdiot]

Is Wizard literally harder to play than Sorcerer? Yes. Fuck off, yes. And I don't see why it would be a bad thing to label them that way in some manner.

I was going to argue that Sorc is hader than Wizard (saying this confidently as someone who's played neither), but doc did it for me. Instead, I'll give a rough tier list of how difficult I think each class is to play:

Idiot-Proof -
Fighter
Ranger
Rogue

More than Meets the Eye -
Warlock
Barbarian
Monk

Challenging -
Cleric
Wizard
Paladin

Difficult -
Bard
Druid
Sorcerer

I struggled with where to put Paladin. There's a lot going on there, but that class is also laughably overpowered. In my last long-term game, our Paladin would regularly hit for double the party's damage.

Unfortunately, once you summon we can't name it Little Nyssa because that, a-fucking-pparently, is already taken.

Hey, what do you want me to do? He picked it himself.

My favorite defense of the "just a guy archetype" is that stories need those guys, because what is more human in storytelling than being a person who just happened to step up at the right time to be the hero? I love a flamboyant hot mess of a character as much as anyone else, but I'll always have a soft spot for "there ain't nothing special about me except that I'm here, man."

I love that for you. I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but it's befitting of you.

My favorite archetype is "unexpected heroes" or "heroes you might underestimate." Your introspection allowed me to see that I play it every fucking time.

Even if it's just a 'yeah, he's a bastard, but he's OUR bastard!'

*cough* Orso *cough*

 

[Damien]

I was going to argue that Sorc is hader than Wizard (saying this confidently as someone who's played neither), but doc did it for me. Instead, I'll give a rough tier list of how difficult I think each class is to play:

I'm surprised by how high-tier some people put Sorcerer on the difficulty scale. In my experience, it seems like new players struggle more with Wizard than Sorcerer. But I also think there's a worthwhile subdivision of difficulty between 'magic' and 'no magic.' A 'difficult' class is MORE difficult if it uses a lot of magic. So to use your example, I'd agree Warlock and Barb are about the same, but I'd also argue almost any new player would struggle less with Barb than Warlock. But that might be partly because of the below point:

To your point about Paladins being overpowered, you can also make the argument that some classes are complicated to play -well-, but also kind of hard to play -badly-. Or otherwise have built-in safeguards that make playing less well less painful. You can definitely play a Barb badly, but you will basically always hit hard and have lots of hit points, so it's not as crippling as 'I picked only the worst spells and I have no hit points.'

*cough* Orso *cough*

Oh good, it's coming across.
My near-obsession with knights, particularly the fantasy of knights, means I've spent a significant amount of time playing the paladin-morality archetype even with fighters, rogues, and barbs. Despite my cantankerous real life personality, I actually have only rarely played a character whose morality was closer to grey or who was a good person but kind of a dick. I'm still trying to find a good balance of 'being a dick but still a good person.'

 

[docsilence]

Solid assessment on those tiers, TSI. Paladin is tough because it can be complicated but simultaneously idiot-proof, too. And warlocks SOUND simple but once the player gets into resource management they can get frustrated.

To your point about Paladins being overpowered, you can also make the argument that some classes are complicated to play -well-, but also kind of hard to play -badly-.

This is a huge factor, yeah. Like I think someone could play a barbarian, or even a paladin, badly, but "hit things with big sword yarrrrr" they could still very easily have fun playing. Managing sorcerer points or the insane number of spell options a wizard or cleric has can lead to new player burnout fast. (Poor druids, man. I truly feel bad for someone who loves the concept but tries to run one too early.)

Speaking of easy to run, hard to run well - looks like D&D has a single-player video game coming out just called WARLOCK and honestly, I think micro-focusing on what's cool about a single glass in a single player game is kinda fucking brilliant. You don't always have to have a video game that gives you infinite options, and warlocks are probably the most video-game-y of classes.

I love that for you. I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but it's befitting of you.

A beta reader on the new book I'm working on gave me shit because "clearly the guy you most relate to in this is the one who's actively pisssed off nothing has killed him yet and he's tired." Yeah, just a guy characters suit me pretty good.

And I fucking love Orso and his "outwardly crusty, clearly would die for these people he just met" vibes.

 

[TheSameIdiot]

Solid assessment on those tiers, TSI. Paladin is tough because it can be complicated but simultaneously idiot-proof, too. And warlocks SOUND simple but once the player gets into resource management they can get frustrated.

There are so many ways to rank them. I went with "how hard is it to play this class correctly?"

Damien made a great point about Barb/Paladin being so strong that you don't need to play them correctly to add a ton of utility to the party. I think Wizard is much the same. Sure, spam all of your spell slots in the first three rounds of combat, you can still Ray of Frost or Firebolt everything to death.

 

[docsilence]

Yeah, wizard can be wild battlefield control and high-level tactician, or "I cast fireball and then pick off the survivors with my 2d10 damage cantrip."

I think sorcerer's complexity also depends on how well you read up on sorcery points. There are 2-3 that just make the class easy mode, but if you actually want to customize and get fancy is can get very complex very fast.

 

[altcunningham]

I guess my archetype is usually hooker with a heart of gold.

I like the rule breakers and the cheaters but they're doing it because the world already cheats and they're trying to rebalance it for the people that they care about.