The1True
My my my, we just loooove to hear ourselves don't we?
Don't knock it til you try it with the very finest of solvents!
The state of Post-OSR content
- Thread starter Yora
- Start date
The Heretic
Should be playing D&D instead
Perhaps there's a bit of the reverse of the 'candy class' going on here? The Dandy DM? Nah. The Demented DM? Maybe. We'll go with that. So maybe this is a sign of Demented DM syndrome, "Players, you must FEAR me. I am GOD. I CONTROL the world. It's all mine! I simply deign to let you each control one pitiful character! You are at my mercy!".
Okay that's taking it to extremes, but that's some of what I'm seeing here. There's also a bit of the nostalgia trap. Playing D&D for the first time is a thrill because you don't really know what's going on. You don't know how in danger you character might or might not be. What you discuss as point #2 (and which gets renumbered as #1 when I snip stuff out) looks like an attempt to keep the players in this low knowledge, high excitement state.
D&D has two sets of players, when you think of it. There are the players and then there is the DM. The 'referee'. Problems over the years have arisen because of the conflicting goals and points of view of these two player groups. What you describe seems to be fulfilling the wishes of the DM at the expense of the players. Most players aren't going to go for that.
The Heretic
Should be playing D&D instead
Also, calling the Paladin a 'candy class' misses the point.
The 1e Paladin was a carefully laid trap for the players. You get all this cool stuff if you can roll one up BUT you lose a significant amount of your own agency in the process. The paladin is perfectly balanced, I would wager, by the fact that the presence of one prevents murder hobo'ing by the players.
Henchman as cannon fodder? Would the paladin really go for that? No. Smash and grab to get XP? If the Paladin is being played correctly, they shouldn't go for that either. They are going to have moral Precepts that they need to follow. Good and Law to champion!
Think of all the major drawbacks you have. You have to be lawful good. Your associates have to be good or lawful good (no thieves!). You have a strict limit on magic items and wealth. You have to be Lawful Good. Did I mention you have to be Lawful Good?
1e Bards are certainly not candy classes either. They are the first type of prestige class, in a way. You start with a 'normal' class, and if you are able to fill the requirements and get accepted, you start gaining levels in the 'prestige' class. This in itself is a big drawback. By the time you get the first level or two of the bard class the rest of the party is probably at that point where they're ready to retire and start a new campaign. Doh! There goes all your hard work and all those levels of thief and fighter you had to accrue to get to level one.
The 1e Paladin was a carefully laid trap for the players. You get all this cool stuff if you can roll one up BUT you lose a significant amount of your own agency in the process. The paladin is perfectly balanced, I would wager, by the fact that the presence of one prevents murder hobo'ing by the players.
Henchman as cannon fodder? Would the paladin really go for that? No. Smash and grab to get XP? If the Paladin is being played correctly, they shouldn't go for that either. They are going to have moral Precepts that they need to follow. Good and Law to champion!
Think of all the major drawbacks you have. You have to be lawful good. Your associates have to be good or lawful good (no thieves!). You have a strict limit on magic items and wealth. You have to be Lawful Good. Did I mention you have to be Lawful Good?
1e Bards are certainly not candy classes either. They are the first type of prestige class, in a way. You start with a 'normal' class, and if you are able to fill the requirements and get accepted, you start gaining levels in the 'prestige' class. This in itself is a big drawback. By the time you get the first level or two of the bard class the rest of the party is probably at that point where they're ready to retire and start a new campaign. Doh! There goes all your hard work and all those levels of thief and fighter you had to accrue to get to level one.
squeen
8, 8, I forget what is for
Picard was sometimes enjoyable, the pacing was slow but also weirdly rushed by episodic compartmentalization---and definitely veered left in message a bit IMO. The Romulans in particular were another victim of cinema's long tradition of ruining wonderfully competent and menacing bad guys by making them sympathetic and mundane.
I totally agree with your take on the first two movies, but to me, Rogue One was a hot mess of a plot with bland unmemorable characters. Run here. Run there. Why? No reason. To me, not even a good scifi movie of any genre. I thought I was totally done with Star Wars after that---even as a mildly interested viewer...but then, long after it had left the theaters, I saw Ron Howard's Solo and remembered Star Wars can be fun. Too bad the male lead lacked the nessesary charisma for the part.
@The Heretic : The Megalomaniac DM (MDM? how's that?) is another pitfall to be avoided. I think that's a stereotype that has suffered much public condemnation, and I agree. That's not a good thing either. Because it's been denounced for decades now, I don't think there's any need to bring it up. The players are in the driver's seat---not the DM, he just manages the props. No railroads, etc.
That's not what I'm suggesting. What's more, the D&D I played is the kind D&D I'm trying to emulate now as a DM. Both sides of the screen, so to speak. I know what the player-dominated D&D looks like all too well. That's precisely what I'm trying to avoid. ~ AND ~The DM gets zero wishes. Nothing is occurring at the player's expense. Try it! Let loose that death-grip on player game-control.
(Good lord. You people love your paladins. You'd think I was attacking Mother Teresa....irony noted. Whatever EGG's point was with paladins and bards...early on at least, folks managed to side-step the traps and go right for the candy.)
There. Have I hit all the hot-button topics in one post?
Last edited:
Beoric
8, 8, I forget what is for
Nah, I don't need to argue with you about Rogue One, its enough that I know you're wrong.
Beoric
8, 8, I forget what is for
I spoke too quickly. Trek always veered left for whatever time period it was being produced in. For starters, TOS had a bridge crew that included racially diverse characters and women in the chain of command.
The Heretic
Should be playing D&D instead
Hey! If you can have your alliteration with 'candy class' I can have my alliteration with 'demented DM'!
That's not quite what I mean. This is independent of railroads. This is the DM that is so afraid of player agency messing up the campaign that they castrate the players. "I'm a 4th level Fighter now, I go shopping for plate mail!" "Oh, uh, sorry, plate mail has been outlawed now. Sorry, you're stuck with your scale mail."
There's a lot of finesse that goes into this. Obviously it is a good idea to be wary of giving the PCs too much.
And really, do you really lose much as the DM if the player is striving for something like the 1e bard. By the time they get those first few bard levels the campaign is probably going to be wrapping up.
Didn't you say that your group is too scared to venture to the dungeons in your sandbox, and that their levelling has plateau'd because of it?
Also, didn't you take a 20 year break in there somewhere? Leveling your OD&D fighter to level 10 is exciting the first time. The 4th or 5th time, eh not so much There's a reason why people seek out new and interesting classes and races to play.
Lol. Mother Teresa was a fraud. But anyway, if folks are sidestepping the traps that was a problem with their DM being squeeny.
The Heretic
Should be playing D&D instead
FYI 'nards' is slang for testicles. Not sure if you were aware of that.
Carry on.
Malrex
So ... slow work day? Every day?
I know you are all tired of this discussion, as am I, but I fucking "J'accuse!"
@Prince--thanks for 'getting me'. I enjoy 'hard mode'. Doesn't mean I'm bored of the game. If I was, I wouldn't publish shit.
@The Heretic---Couldn't have said it better myself about paladins...but it's not worth arguing about with people who play "Playing Games" and not "Role-Playing Games"--they will continue to beat down their opinion into your soul and passively besmirch the way you enjoy playing. They don't acknowledge 'Lawful Good' or alignment in general even though it's in the book they worship, as that leads to 'roleplay'. But let's get to the J'accuse....
@squeen:
"Interesting NPCs and fantastic places are cool dressing --- but there is only so much pretend cultural assimilation I want. As I'll get to in a second, the crux of it may be that I'm just not that much into the ROLE playing."
Well...holy fucking shit...no wonder you don't like paladins. Yeah---I completely agree 100% (hooray, we agree)--when you IGNORE alignment/roleplaying/'shenanigans'/whatever you want to call it, a paladin becomes a total candy class...There is no question on that. A total monster murder hobo with special powers. No wonder one would hate them, because there is a REFUSAL to identify the RESTRICTIONS that make the class incredibly HARD to play correctly--instead its just easier to bitch about 'candy classes' I guess? That's on you, Mr./Mrs. DM---not the rules...or guidelines or 'candy classes'.
Your argument is complete bullshit if you don't incorporate roleplay and utilize the tools to provide balance. Plain and simple. D&D is a roleplaying game. Do you require mages to have spellbooks and thieves to have thieves' tools to perform their skills or do you handwave/ignore that shit too? That is essentially what you are doing with your paladin class and giving them free reign. You are the candy dealer and frankly whining about something you could control, but instead choose the lazy DM route and bitching about 'candy classes'.
You are only playing half the game when you dismiss/ignore restrictions/powers you can have as a DM to combat the "candy" classes that you hate so much. Perhaps learn to adapt...or maybe be a player once in awhile. Finally glad to hear the crux of the problem/discussion and move on as its pointless to continue.
This discussion of 'candy' classes is like trying to order pizza at McDonalds. I don't think we are dining at the same place because you refuse/ignore to look at the same menu. You ignore the left pedal to push on the brakes of a car because you 'don't like it' and just repeatedly use the right pedal for speed and expect control. Use both pedals bro!
For some reason, some believe roleplay is all about funny voices or wearing costumes or something---No....just no. Roleplay is intertwined with the DM's world and is ALL ABOUT consequences and taking responsibility for your character and your character's actions. PERIOD. Some of you should embrace that--it gives the DM power like you crave. If you don't include that shit, then sorry, in my opinion--you are only playing half the game and more power to you if you are having fun, but no thanks--that is not D&D to me. I'd rather read a book--same entertainment value. The only difference is I have the power to turn the page of a book. Roleplay doesn't have to be the #1 component of the game, but it should be part of the game in my humble opinion, especially when it can create solutions to 'candy classes'.
But we can disagree. I don't really give a shit about how you play your game nor do I pretend to 'know' what's going on at your table. Everyone plays differently and really, the important factor is that people are having fun. BUT....After months and months and MONTHS of hearing about 'candy' classes, I've grown warm to the newly labeled 'brick' playstyle that was introduced just this week by myself as a form of rebuttal (finally)---I've stooped to your level of labeling things (congrats for making me go there)--but hey!!!--don't take it personally-- it's not really directed at you...just players/DMs who prefer to ignore roleplay and play only with 'bricks' because they choose to ignore tools that can be used to combat things they feel is a threat to their DM power and/or give players any type of power at all---a stifler of imagination and creativity. The game is ONLY for the DM and its fun damn it and a total 'thrill ride'. If you think otherwise, you are just 'bored of the game' and 'trying to hard'. A classic OSR divider! yay. But it's just like candy class label--don't take it personally.
Some helpful advice @TheHeretic since you nailed some of my arguments better than myself...CAREFUL!! they may analyze you and let you know how you feel about the game and give you insights about how your group plays the game when you try to have a discussion with them. They will inform you that you are 'playing wrong'. Don't ask for their opinion on something, because instead they take that as a invitation to evaluate you that has nothing to do with the question asked and tell you 'be careful what you ask for'. Don't 'try too hard'.
They have really put effort into making people feel comfortable about sharing their ideas/experiences as it would never be used against them later!...
And for the fucking record....Beoric and I did add comments to Bryce's book awhile back--didn't realize we had to chirp about it. Waiting for a round 2 callout from Bryce. Your point?
Beoric
8, 8, I forget what is for
Wait, you don't remember when you could get pizza at McDonalds? It was on par with the donuts they are selling now.
squeen
8, 8, I forget what is for
@Malrex: OK. I play "brick" style. I will learn to embrace the term. There's nothing awful about it. No offense taken. You have however used up all your wishes for me to explain myself on this topic---due entirely to an exaggerated emotional response. Outrage away...sulk, whatever...I'll have no further part of it. This is not good discourse, and I won't facilitate it.
@The Heretic: Yes, I know all about the class restrictions for paladins and bards. This is not news. As long as it's as you said: "...players striving to play..." it's good. Striving = struggle != candy. You are also correct, it's a fine line a DM must walk.
Also BtB, here's my compromise: folks should only be playing paladins (properly) when they get the stats...straight-up, 3d6, in order.
I am more than happy to consider this topic closed. PM me if you want to chat further about it.
Also, in the Midwest, we always said "nads", not "nards" --- @The Heretic, you sure that's the root of that word in this case?
(The symbol != in many programming languages is "not equal"...in case that wasn't clear.)
@The Heretic: Yes, I know all about the class restrictions for paladins and bards. This is not news. As long as it's as you said: "...players striving to play..." it's good. Striving = struggle != candy. You are also correct, it's a fine line a DM must walk.
Also BtB, here's my compromise: folks should only be playing paladins (properly) when they get the stats...straight-up, 3d6, in order.
I am more than happy to consider this topic closed. PM me if you want to chat further about it.
Also, in the Midwest, we always said "nads", not "nards" --- @The Heretic, you sure that's the root of that word in this case?
(The symbol != in many programming languages is "not equal"...in case that wasn't clear.)
Last edited:
The Heretic
Should be playing D&D instead
Yes, I am sure. You can google it if you want (though probably not on a work computer).
I distinctly remember one boy scout campout where it was the word du jour. So it was probably more of an eighties thing.
I have no idea if Patrick was aware of this slang use of nards when he coined the term frognards. It simply hit me last night (oh! frog nards! hahaha) that that's one way to look at the term.
And yes, nads is probably a better derived slang term. You should spell is 'nads to be even more correct.
The Heretic
Should be playing D&D instead
I'm good, thanks. I have an innate defense against this Squeennishness. Squeen's logorrhea tends to cause me to skim over most of what he writes. I thought you were overreacting at first until I went back and read (not skimmed) the post in question. I think my eyes had glazed over by the time he got to the bit of advice for you.Some helpful advice @TheHeretic since you nailed some of my arguments better than myself...CAREFUL!! they may analyze you and let you know how you feel about the game and give you insights about how your group plays the game when you try to have a discussion with them. They will inform you that you are 'playing wrong'. Don't ask for their opinion on something, because instead they take that as a invitation to evaluate you that has nothing to do with the question asked and tell you 'be careful what you ask for'. Don't 'try too hard'.
They have really put effort into making people feel comfortable about sharing their ideas/experiences as it would never be used against them later!...
The Heretic
Should be playing D&D instead
Perhaps it's a thinly veiled insult that is referencing Frog God Games?
Or maybe just because it seems funny even if it's a nonsequitar. Frognards. Hahahah. That's something you don't hear about every day (particularly since IIRC they are internal organs)
The Heretic
Should be playing D&D instead
*ahem* Well, you can't control how people react to what you write, and you are kind of pushy when it comes to candy classes so I think Malrex's reaction is perfectly understandable.
You remind me of a pot smoker I knew in my youth. "You need to try it! It's the best thing ever! It changed my life!" "No thank you, the second hand high you were trying to give me while driving made me have a paranoid hallucination of that truck that is coming towards us. It's not my thing."
The Heretic
Should be playing D&D instead
Obviously it must not have lived up to the sterling reputation of their burgers.
squeen
8, 8, I forget what is for
Fair enough. Community judgement is that I've advocated an unpopular position in an abrasive manner.
I won't mention it again. Apologies for any and all rudeness on my part.
Last edited:
The Heretic
Should be playing D&D instead
The minotaur example brings back interesting flashbacks to me.
At the end of my time in college I became a player in a group with a very inexperienced DM. This was also the time that the abomination known as Players Options: Skills and Powers was the BIG new thing.
We started at 3rd level. I had a gnomish cleric/thief, and my first act was to sneak under the table and tie the shoelaces of one of the fighters together. I don't know why that guy never liked me.
Anyway, one of the players decided to play a Minotaur using the rules in that book. "Sweet, his minotaur has 25 strength."
Say what? Even with the rules in that book that shouldn't be possible. But here he was, playing his buffed up minotaur fighter with 25 strength. Even though that was supposed to be the highest strength possible. Thor and other select gods only. +7 to hit +14 damage. That's intense. You can't even find magic items that give you that high of strength (unless they are artifacts, maybe).
The DM was wonderfully inexperienced. We were supposed to assassinate a magic-user. "Well there's seven of you and you are third level, so the magic user is level 21". *blink* The DM decided that he had used up all his spells during the pursuit (!!!) and we were able to get in there and slay him.
Yeah. So in this case this is clearly a 'candy class' issue.
On the other hand, even though Malrex's minotaur idea brings back flashbacks of this, I like his idea and I'd certainly allow it in my game. It has a lot of fun potential. He doesn't seem to be trying to break the game. There are players that do that you know. I've had to DM them before.
At the end of my time in college I became a player in a group with a very inexperienced DM. This was also the time that the abomination known as Players Options: Skills and Powers was the BIG new thing.
We started at 3rd level. I had a gnomish cleric/thief, and my first act was to sneak under the table and tie the shoelaces of one of the fighters together. I don't know why that guy never liked me.
Anyway, one of the players decided to play a Minotaur using the rules in that book. "Sweet, his minotaur has 25 strength."
Say what? Even with the rules in that book that shouldn't be possible. But here he was, playing his buffed up minotaur fighter with 25 strength. Even though that was supposed to be the highest strength possible. Thor and other select gods only. +7 to hit +14 damage. That's intense. You can't even find magic items that give you that high of strength (unless they are artifacts, maybe).
The DM was wonderfully inexperienced. We were supposed to assassinate a magic-user. "Well there's seven of you and you are third level, so the magic user is level 21". *blink* The DM decided that he had used up all his spells during the pursuit (!!!) and we were able to get in there and slay him.
Yeah. So in this case this is clearly a 'candy class' issue.
On the other hand, even though Malrex's minotaur idea brings back flashbacks of this, I like his idea and I'd certainly allow it in my game. It has a lot of fun potential. He doesn't seem to be trying to break the game. There are players that do that you know. I've had to DM them before.