Why is realism "lame"?

I am very interested in Harn and will one day money allowing I will pick it up. Bedrockgames thanks for the warning about how it id packaged that won't bother me. I have things on PDF that I have printed out and put in notebooks.

The people in our group are not jerks it is just that it is hard to get to get together with everyone schedule to play and they are attached to their characters and the current campaigns. So most would be very unhappy for our limited gaming time to be something new different from the campaign we are in.

The best time would be at the start of a new one. I know my roommate is planning on switching to Pathfinder as soon as we finish her Age of Worms adventure path.

The other issue is that since we don't have a lot of time to play and so we make characters for games via email so we are ready to go on game day. Since I would be the only one with a copy of the game I would either have to make pre gens which might not be a bad idea to try a one shot or have a day just making characters.I would also have to deal with the power gamers of our group who are the most resistant of switching to a system they own or know.

I have noticed that the older some of us get the more set in our ways we become back in the hey days of my gaming life I was willing to try anything and so was my group. I also had way more money to spend. I went out and bought every Talislanta book and Lost worlds of Atlantis after making characters for a game that didn't go anywhere. Now a days I look very closely before I buy anything and it requires planning and saving.

CroBob said:

If nobody in your group wants to try a new game... well, what's wrong with them?

Click to expand...

My gaming group used to be significantly larger, so I was able to see a much wider array of reasons and excuses. These ran the gambit from perfectly acceptable to (in my opinion) tinfoil hat.

I don't want to buy any new books.
I don't want to learn a new game.
I only play D&D.
I don't play D&D.
Are we playing with miniatures? I don't like miniatures.
Can my character start with guns?
Can I start with an airship?
Why can't I be a vampire?
Why doesn't this game have Mega-Damage in it?
I will only play if I can use a pre-existing character from another game/movie/anime that doesn't fit into this game at all.

CroBob said:

It can also be a weakness, though. Yes, it gives many people what they want, but then if you move or otherwise have to find new people in order to game, you might meet people who play the same system, and thus you go to play with them, but then you discover that it's essentially a different game entirely because they use vastly different modules from the ones you like.

Click to expand...

Parsing out what you like and what you don't as a group happens pretty naturally for a new gaming group (or a new member), though. How did that first group arise? Through that very method! Yes, entering a new group is going to require some diplomacy and getting used to new dymanics, but that's happening anyway -- every group is already different in terms of social dynamics and inter-personal interactions and preferences and all sorts of other things.

It's also true that anyone who is deeply inflexible in terms of what they want out of an RPG is probably being redonk. Yeah, we all have our preferences, but if playing the game Your Perfect Way is more important than playing the game with cool folks in your new town so that you can't form a new group because your gaming style is too inflexible...I mean, what, you can't say you really like Rule X and maybe start a conversation about changing it? Then there are deeper issues at work than your game system here, man.

It's a problem of identity. If you make something that can be anything, it's nothing.

Click to expand...

It's already the flagship tabletop fantasy RPG. Does it really need a more narrow definition? Is there some subset of people interested in tabletop fantasy RPGs that are missing out on D&D because it's not sufficiently targeted?

Why would I invest in a game that I need to worry about choosing the proper selections to make it what I want, when I could spend less on a smaller book that contains more options I'm actually interested in, or even just make my own game? An very modular game would essentially be a list of rules you can mix together to make your own game as it is. I definitely see the appeal in that, but then why label it a specific game instead of a mechanic selection book or as a game building tool? I'd even favor that idea. I'm a huge fan of it. But that tool is not a specific game.

Click to expand...

This might play into the idea of releasing a "Basic" set. This basic set is like those LEGO instructions that come with the castle to show you how to make the castle. The identity of the thing is clearly, "a castle," and you know how to make it. It'll give someone their first experience putting this thing together.

But you can also make a T-Rex or a Giant Squirrel or a face out of it, because the parts are built to be interchangeable. They can make a castle, but they can also make lots of other things. And when you start including other sets and extra modules and even just a few raw parts (the bags of blocks without a specific set), you get a lot more possibility -- all because everything is made with the idea of using it in ways it wasn't originally intended to be used.

You start with the bricks that can build a castle...and make other stuff. You start with the D&D that lets you run a dungeon crawl...and then use it to make other stuff.

Mega Damage! That's the ticket...

These posts are growing too long, so here;

I agree that a modular system of rules would be a good thing. What I disagree with is that a system which is so modular that it can fit any form of fantasy RPG you can think of should be called a specific game instead of a game building tool. Yes, D&D has been historically flexible, and should be, but it can't be anything fantasy. At least, not without changing a whole lot, such that it barely resembles the original game, in some cases. And in a lot of cases, there are games that do that genre better, so you'd basically be making a clone of that other game anyway. Which I don't have a problem with necessarily, but then why are you relying on this modular tool instead of just playing that game and then using some ideas from the tool to fit it slightly better to your goal? There's like a stigma that D&D should be anything anybody wants, when it has historically not been. At least, not without modifying the game anyway. I think it would behoove the game more to figure out what has been historically iconic and functional about the game, and work on it doing that well. Modules can be plastered on afterwards.

CroBob said:

? There's like a stigma that D&D should be anything anybody wants, when it has historically not been. At least, not without modifying the game anyway. I think it would behoove the game more to figure out what has been historically iconic and functional about the game, and work on it doing that well. Modules can be plastered on afterwards.

Click to expand...

I do agree to the extent that this modular aproach seems to be taking it too far. The game probably shouldn't be 100% customizeable. But it should be suficiently broad to appeal to the rangeof playtsyles it has over the last thirty years. While it has historically been as open as a game like gurps, it hasalso never been as narrowly defined and focused as it was with 4E. That edition succeeded in its goal of bing focused, but D&D is the go to game for such a wide swath of gamers, making it a niche product backfired.

I do not agree they should identify what is iconic and functional bout d&dandmake agame that does that well: D&D has ever really done one thing well. It has always been a bit of a hodge podge and that is its strength. Its messy, it is not the sort of thing a deigner can step back and admire easily, but IMO that is what made it work for so many different groups.

What they ought to do is clean up and streamline the game, but chuck any notion of focused design. Focused design is what got them in trouble last time around.

Bedrockgames said:

I do agree to the extent that this modular aproach seems to be taking it too far. The game probably shouldn't be 100% customizeable. But it should be suficiently broad to appeal to the rangeof playtsyles it has over the last thirty years. While it has historically been as open as a game like gurps, it hasalso never been as narrowly defined and focused as it was with 4E. That edition succeeded in its goal of bing focused, but D&D is the go to game for such a wide swath of gamers, making it a niche product backfired.

I do not agree they should identify what is iconic and functional bout d&dandmake agame that does that well: D&D has ever really done one thing well. It has always been a bit of a hodge podge and that is its strength. Its messy, it is not the sort of thing a deigner can step back and admire easily, but IMO that is what made it work for so many different groups.

What they ought to do is clean up and streamline the game, but chuck any notion of focused design. Focused design is what got them in trouble last time around.

Click to expand...

That's essentially what I'm saying. Third edition did a good job of identifying iconic D&D mechanics. They took the d20, making it the standard resolution rolling mechanism. I don't want iconic flavor, I want iconic mechanics. HP, AC, Attack rolls, damage rolls, etc. A very basic mechanical foundation, upon which you can build specifics. How to handle classes would be the biggest problem, because they're traditionally imbalanced and some are, ultimately, mechanically boring. I think this issue is a big one, but changing the classes to much, as we've seen, can create a backlash of opposition to the change. How do you make every class fun and balanced without severely altering them, though?

CroBob said:

That's essentially what I'm saying. Third edition did a good job of identifying iconic D&D mechanics. They took the d20, making it the standard resolution rolling mechanism. I don't want iconic flavor, I want iconic mechanics. HP, AC, Attack rolls, damage rolls, etc. A very basic mechanical foundation, upon which you can build specifics. How to handle classes would be the biggest problem, because they're traditionally imbalanced and some are, ultimately, mechanically boring. I think this issue is a big one, but changing the classes to much, as we've seen, can create a backlash of opposition to the change. How do you make every class fun and balanced without severely altering them, though?

Click to expand...

I don't know the solution to this. It does seem to be one of the core problems keeping the base fragmented. Part of the problem, if we all put our biases aside for a moment, is each group seems to have very different ideas about what constitutes game balance and what maes the game fun. I agree that 3E did a goid job of unifying the system. Bringing everything around some core mechanics was a crucial step in making the game appearless clumbsy. But in terms of balance, for me AD&D felt right, 3E felt highly umbalanced (though in some ways that was a feature, not a bug) and 4E felt balanced but too uniform. I dont think you want to return to AD&D but I do think the classesneed to feel distinct. Feel is very important to a lot of players.

My solution would be to accept that pure balance is an imposibility. There are always going to be instances where one class outperforms another. But what you can do is make those variations in power come at a cost and make sure everyone has a strength. The problem in 3E for me isnt o much that ighters andthieves are boring, it is that other classes have too much access to their key abilities (thief skills and, in the case of fighters, multiple attacks).

I think we have see that making fighters a resource mnagement class wont work for a lot of people. Instead I think maneuvers they can always attempt, are the way to go. These shouldnot feel likebuttons but like real modes of attack you might see in an actual combat. The trick is setting it up so they are not over or under powered. Also making some conditional might work well too (allowing for ounter attack, etc). Allow other classes to attempt the maneuvers for believability but make the penalty to do so prohibitive (-6 provided the math istruly flatter and dont allowfeats to lower it). As a general rile as well, fighters ought to do a lot bette on crits. Not just a bit, but a lot (adding half their HP for exampe to damage).

For theives, i think they really need to dominate the exploration skillsonce again. I get that people have also begun to view them as commands as well. While i really dont like thisflavor or the theif, i would probably throw a bone to this expectation by making backstab work without being broken and explore moremechnics for poison use (this could be a great way to set part the thiefin combat).

Well, exactly what happens with classes, it's bound to alienate some players. Too many people simply want different things, and I don't want to derail this thread too far. Relevant to the thread, I don't think realism should be too big of a concern. It boils down to a decision to make "mundane" characters fun and equal in power to the magical ones, or to tone down magic until it's equal to the mundane. I don't think ignoring balance is really an option if we want the game to pick up new players and thus survive past ourselves. Which, it's also fine if you don't care about new gamers, but I'm sure the business does. Modern game design and product sales require no class invalidates any other class, if you're going to have classes. It's not about playing on "easy mode" or "hard mode" and getting rewarded for it, it's about experiencing the play differently with different characters, and not being penalized or awarded depending on which class you're trying.

The whole d&d multiverse is unreal. I can make a platoon killing fireball out of a few well placed words, hand signals, and bat droppings.

But no I do understand what you mean, but I think its my distaste for a certain style. I grew up reading lotr, dragon lance and forgotten realms. Extraordinary abilities don't bug me much, they are kinda cool, but I prefer Drizzt to Paul Bunyan or Neo any day.