D&D SHOULD NOT have a defined atmosphere/style *Semi Rant*

[Qlippoth]

The problem isn't that the volunteer poll isn't random. The problem is that we don't know how random it is. We can guess at reasons why it might not be random, but if we actually knew, we could use that information to correct the results.

Exactly! Many tipsy returns from north of the Charles.

 

[William Ronald]

Yeek! I remember trying to Decipher the way Psionics were handled in 1st ed. Both the DMG Psionic charts, and what was in the players handbook was a nightmare to try figger out.

I was wondering when someone was going to bring up 1E psionics up.

Those were even more horrific than the grappling, pummeling and overbearing charts. Of course, this is kind of like comparing a five inch whole in the bottom of a row boat to an eight inch hole in the bottom of a row boat.

As someone who has played D&D since 1980, I think the current addition is the best in terms of options for players and DMs to modify a game. There was active discouragement in the rules to do this in previous editions, as well as a lack of transparency in the rules. While not everyone will agree on the virtue of all the rules of 3.5, it is much easier to see the reasoning that went into design choices.

So, if a person wants a lower magic game, remove certain creatures or abilities, like damage resistance. This will make the fighter more viable in a world where PC spellcasters are rare or non-existent. I think that the presence of magic items is meant to help the characters overcome creatures. However, a large amount of magic items was a subject talked about in Dragon magazine and the old Polyhedron. (One article had pictures of two characters, one overburdented with single purpose magic items and one less burdened with items that had more than just one use. I think the pictures were labelled Sir Kay Mart and Sir Marshall Field. ) With the introduction of feats and skills, I believe it is easier to customize characters than in the past. The upcoming Magic of Inacarnum seems to be about how to give characters special abilities as an alternative to magic items. The Tome of Magic, with its Pact Magic, True Name Magic, and Shadow Magic, may have a similar approach. I would argue that the core rules, as well as 3rd party games like Arcana Unearthed/Arcana Evolved as well as Iron Heroes , are putting more power into the inherent abilities of characters. (I sort of did this with an old character of mine, who wanting to be a more effective ability, made a goal of improving his ability scores. Also, some old adventures could give a character unusual powers -- I think Myth Drannor was one -- not unlike some current trends in game products.)

I did not particularly care for much of the 3.0 anime style artwork. However, I thought that if it brought a few people to the game, it was something I could tolerate. (One could argue that there could easily be many different styles of armors and weapons across one or more campaign worlds. Consider the variety of arms and armors across the world prior to the year 1600.)

I have had games full of great roleplaying, action, intrigue, and diplomacy in 1st, 2nd, 3.0, and the current 3.5 edition of D&D. I have played in games where there was never a weapon drawn, and a battle of wits and cunnign words won the day for the party. I have also played in games that were unbalanced. In the end, I think the quality of the players and the DMs is more important than the rules in whether people at the gaming table are having fun. Once a game stops being fun, it's time to either find a new gaming group, a new game, or a new hobby.

Everyone, we may disagree with each other, let's try to be respectful. I think there are many interesting points in this thread, and I would not want to see it closed.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

I did not particularly care for much of the 3.0 anime style artwork.

Mate, your avatar is actually more anime-style than anything in the Third Edition books.

All of them.

I know, because I hate anime-style art. I am more sensitive to its presence than are the biggest fans I know.

 

[charlesatan]

I remember that in the days of 1e and then 2e D&D didn't really have a FEEL. D&D was a rules set that more or less was supposed to allow the DM to create the king of homebrew setting/adventures he or she wanted to. You could hack apart the rules as you wished without causing some precious yet nebulous "game balance" to collapse all around you.

There was Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Spelljammer, Dragonlance, Planescape, Birthright, Ravenloft, etc. All of these settings where in 1e and 2e respectively and all used the same rule set with necessary modifications to suit the setting.

One could run around in senseless dungeons, could have coherent settings, etc. without difficulty. The setting was supposed to provide the flavor while D&D post Gygax had no particular flavor. The system was a generic, mathematical, dice rolling system that was the hum in the background but didn't need to be carefully balanced.....good, experienced DMs balanced their own games.

(please note I am not saying that the rules themselves for 1e and 2e were better, IMO they weren't save for the ability to hack them literally to pieces without destroying the system)

D&D 3.X is a good game in my opinion but does anyone else sense a the creeping influence of a pervasive style...a kind of power up, magic toy, EXTREME/KEWL/IN YOUR FACE/RADICAL fantasy that is what D&D is now supposed to be?

Look at the art, the style of dress, the poses of characters and monsters who seem more about how "kick ass" they are with their cool feat trees, dragonblooded/fiend/god touched/knight/monk multiclasses, and a general idea that combat effectiveness and kewl/extreme powers is the defining quality of value in the context of a role playing game.

God, and look at level advancement.....one year, if played as expected, to reach 20th level. Gimme a break. A character of that level in D&D 1e or 2e could regale listeners for hours and hours, probably days, about the adventures they've had. Compared to those characters, modern PCs haven't done squat to get where they are.

Now I am not denigrating combat effectiveness or maximizing a character, I am instead talking about the style, presentation and feel of the core books and the supposition that D&D is supposed to be this or that.

Just my thoughts and a semi rant.

Any thoughts of your own?


Chris

For D&D not having a defined atmosphere/style, I think that's impossible. I mean it is fantasy after all. As pointed out by someone, d20 is more or less generic (with your skill set probably being the only indicators of the period/motif of your game, and the fact that d20 is more or less geared towards combat-oriented games). Dungeons & Dragons, however, already has a certain predisposition. The fact that it's Dungeons and Dragons and not, say, spaceships, spacecrafts, etc. is already saying something. However, there is such a thing as being more defined than others, which I'll explain in the next paragraph.

So 3.0 and 3.5 has a "default setting". It can easily be removed. That's essentially what the SRD is, removing the "Greyhawk" elements. From a business standpoint, it's also a great idea. I mean "customized" or home-brew settings are usually for GM's who have the time and the skills to do so. But what if I'm a newbie, or simply too busy to built a setting from scratch? That's also the same reason why there are game modules and why, at the very least, Dungeon Magazine is selling. In my opinion (and not based on any statistics), I think most games will fall somewhere in between; that is, partially deriving their setting from existing material, and another part is the GM simply winging it.

You can still create your homebrew setting in 3.0/3.5. Sure, it might need more work, but then again, 3.0/3.5 gives you more options than the basic 1st Ed/2nd Ed (and when I mean "basic", that's minus all those toolkits and the like... 1st Ed/2nd Ed can be as rules-boggling as 3.0/3.5 with all the supplements both are coming out with).

As for the various settings using the same rules, what are you talking about? Sure, it uses the basic elements of 1st ed/2nd ed, but that's the way with 3.0/3.5 as well. And some of those settings will have rules modifications, such as Birthright, Dark Sun, etc. They may not be major, but they're there nonetheless. And the same goes with the 3.0/3.5 settings, be it Dragonlance, Eberron, or FR.

You mentioned "good, experienced DM's balanced their own games". You know what's wrong with that? What if you're not a good, experienced DM? I mean if you're already that (a good, experienced DM), then you probably won't have much problems tweaking D&D into the direction you want it to go. But if you're not that? D&D 3.5 has a relatively stable, uniform, and relatively balanced (I say relatively because I've broken 3.0 and 3.5 myself, but 3.5 is better on the player's side for example, compared to the AD&D Fighter hoping to roll a 18/00 for their Strength). And you know what, in a way, that's the strength of D&D 3.5: it has mass market appeal. Of course it won't be everybody's cup of tea. But you have a baseline from which to navigate. If you don't like D&D 3.5, there are other Open Gaming License games out there (or even non-d20 games). It's nonetheless a good entry point though.

And perhaps you're forgetting that the reason why TSR had so many settings is aside from establishing flavor, they were trying to churn out a profit. They were hoping to find the next Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms, which have proved to be the most commercially viable setting. The rest simply died until 3.0 came around and other publishers picked them up (or was adopted by fan communities with a strong following).

As for the KEWL/INYOURFACE style, well, it's certainly one style of playing. We may agree or disagree that 1st Ed/2nd Ed has that particular style or not, but my point is that it did have a style rather than the absence (your so called "no defined style") of one. If you favor that particular style, good. If not, there are other games (or your GM can set up one) that will espouse another. Or maybe you're whining that this particular style is how beginning players will see D&D. Well, it also happens to be the most commercially viable. The reason why some minority game companies eventually wither and die is because they don't generate enough income. I hate it too but that's life. And who knows, gamers who prefer one gaming style doesn't usually stick to that one particular type of play their entire life. They eventually move on to other gaming styles (and might return to the original...).

Art for me is irrelevant if you're just looking at rules. Art, after all, is either something you like or not. Art, however, adds to flavor/setting in the same way why some films go black and white for a "noir" feel. It just feels ironic that you're espousing a "D&D as a rules-set", while clamoring for non-"in your face" art.

Character advancement, as pointed out in the earlier posts, is modifiable by the GM. And with the current system, it's less arbritrary than say, the Spider Monkeys you fought in the earlier editions. Personally, at least you finally do get to 20th level rather than it being a mere myth. One of my GM's prefers low-level games though, so we never really reach 20th level. The farthest we've gone is 17th, and that was pushing it. He tends to end the game before that. The current XP system also allows character levels among party members to be more even, that is lower level players can catch up more easily to their higher level counterparts. Failing that, there's always Unearthed Arcana and its fixed XP system.

 

[Akrasia]

Akrasia and Storm Raven, I hope you don't mind this - I suggest you both stop and breathe for a little while. After that, if you choose to continue, out of respect for others who wish to continue civil discussion, you should both probably do two things -

1) Refrain from attributing mental or psychologcial states (like arrogance) to other posters.

2) Make sure that you can find direct quotes to back you up whenever possible.

Well I regret, and apologize for, contributing to the derailment of this thread by getting into that argument (though, for the record, I did not attribute any mental or psychological states to Storm Raven; I simply called his tendency to do so with respect to me 'arrogant', which, admittedly, probably did not help matters).

Leaving that unfortunate episode aside, let me sum up the overall point I was trying to make:

(1.) The current version of D&D, as produced by WotC, has certain features that may turn-off players who like 'old school' style D&D (the kind inspired, I think, by the works of Howard, Leiber, Vance et al., and epitomized in terms of 'feel' by illustrations like 'Emirikol the Chaotic' and 'A Paladin in Hell', and in terms of 'campaign style' by old settings like the original Greyhawk, Blackmoor, and the Wilderlands, and so forth). This is because of a combination of 'flavour' (e.g. the art style used in WotC books) and 'mechanics' (e.g. the rapid level advancement 'default'). Since this is a subjective response that some players have to the current material, I don't really see how it could be 'incorrect'.

(2.) Most of the aspects of the current version of D&D, however, can be changed by groups in ordeer to achieve the kind of campaign that they want -- including an 'old school' flavour. E.g. level advancement could be slowed down (or an alternative, slower progression rate can be used, such as the one found in the Wilderlands Players' Guide), classical archetypes can be emphasized, and so forth. There are many products available for 3e that encourage this kind of campaign style (e.g. from Goodman games, JG, Necromancer, etc.). Moreover, there are alternative game systems currently in print that explicitly aim at giving players an 'old school' game (e.g. Castles and Crusades, Hackmaster).


I don't see any reason, based on what has been said against my views in this thread, to reconsider the correctness of either point.

 

[Akrasia]

Akrasia and Storm Raven, time to give it a rest, please. This thread isn't about your disagreement, so I'd appreciate it if you agree to disagree and quit sniping at one another...

My apologies. My participation in the sniping was, well, rather immature. It shan't be resumed.

 

[nothing to see here]

So, you only trust polls in which one hundred percent of a population participate in?



So do I and many people, but we perfer 3e and that's all the poll asked.

I first want to apologize for the thread highjack on the polling issue.

If you sample RANDOMLY (and not message board polls which sample VOLUNTARILY are absolutely and utterly not random) you can at a certain level confidence extrapoloate the responses as representing the entire population (if there is a stat's guy on the board they could go through the actual formulae). All a message board poll does tell you with 100% confidence what the people who answered the poll believe but, you have to believe me when I tell you it has ZERO ability to predict or determine what the wider population of ENworld believe.

And please don't find my tone confrontational on this. That's certainly not the intent. Actually based on reading your previous posts, we're actually in agreement on this substance of this issue (we're both big fans of the adaptability of d20).

I realize I'm more 'in' to this stuff than most, so I'll resist the urge to contine and end my highjack here. Just remember to never trust any poll survey or focus group that does not sample randomly from the population they are studying. It is the absolutely vital first step.

 

[nothing to see here]

I'm not doubting it, what I'm doubting is that unless you are forcing people to participate in a poll, aren't all polls voluntary? Even if as in a random sample you are asking a computer list of random people, they still have the choice of participating. So, if only opinionated people are going to answer an on line poll open to all, why does a random sample poll not have that same problem?

My highjack continues. Though I owe you a word of thanks Crotian...for asking all the right questions!

It's all about who initiates the contact between the 'pollster' and 'respondant'. If you rely on the 'respondant' to make contact with the poll (like a messageboard poll) than you automatically skewer your results towards the people who are predisposed to that particular activity (and under representing those ENworld users, for instance, who only come here for the news or to read the 'Rules' forums).

As another example -- whe conducting a phone research poll, it is customary upon having someone pick up the phone to ask another 'randomizing' element for the household (for instance 'can I please speak to the adult in the household with the nearest birthday') precisely because in many households it is the habit of one spouse or child to answer the phone, thereby skewering the poll in favour of those family members who enjoy using the phone more. It's that delicate.

With scientific polling, the 'pollster' pre-selects a random sample who, you are right can than choose not to participate (which is why all poll datasets include a 'did not respond/refused' coding category, even if they don't publish it). This is a far cry from having respondants seek the pollster out.

 

[Storm Raven]

Or 1e AD&D modules like U1-3, UK1-6, G1-3, D1-3, and B/X modules like B10, X1-5, and so forth. I don't see why one couldn't run those modules with 3e -- or GURPS for that matter. (Although in both cases a lot of translation work would be needed.)

I am always amused when people pining for the old school of less magic, lower level play, more roleplaying, and a "different feel" bring up these types of modules. All of them were overloaded with piles of magic items. Non-enemy NPCs when statted out were ridiculously powerful. G1-3 were hackfests of the highest order, as were most of the UK modules, and U3 was a death trap. For most of the adventures, the necessity for role playing was almost nonexistent (and in those cases where it was a big deal, like U2, it was highlighted as being "different from the norm" for adventures, in point of fact, U2 only really worked if you assumed the adventurers would start by hacking everything in sight, and figuring out their error later). The B/X modules shared these characteristics for the most part.

In other words, they all have most of the "flavor problems" that more recent editions are accused of introducing to the game. D&D has always had very a "hack-n-slash" bent to it, at least as far as published modules go (although in the 2e era, TSR drifted away from this somewhat, but then again, in the 2e era, TSR went bankrupt). Getting annoyed at the current edition because it displays these sorts of characteristics seems to me to be akin to blaming water for being wet.

 

[Remathilis]

I am always amused when people pining for the old school of less magic, lower level play, more roleplaying, and a "different feel" bring up these types of modules. All of them were overloaded with piles of magic items. Non-enemy NPCs when statted out were ridiculously powerful. G1-3 were hackfests of the highest order, as were most of the UK modules, and U3 was a death trap. For most of the adventures, the necessity for role playing was almost nonexistent (and in those cases where it was a big deal, like U2, it was highlighted as being "different from the norm" for adventures, in point of fact, U2 only really worked if you assumed the adventurers would start by hacking everything in sight, and figuring out their error later). The B/X modules shared these characteristics for the most part.

In other words, they all have most of the "flavor problems" that more recent editions are accused of introducing to the game. D&D has always had very a "hack-n-slash" bent to it, at least as far as published modules go (although in the 2e era, TSR drifted away from this somewhat, but then again, in the 2e era, TSR went bankrupt). Getting annoyed at the current edition because it displays these sorts of characteristics seems to me to be akin to blaming water for being wet.

Quoted for truth!

G1-G3 was nothing more than a meat-grinder on legs: kill giant, take booty, move on. Even the classic S series (Tomb of Horrors, White Plume Mtn, Exp at Barrier Peaks, Lost Caverns) only ONE doesn't feature outright hack-combat (Tomb) at every turn. Even the classic Ravenloft module was all about wandering Strahd's house to find (and kill) Strahd. Using classic modules to address the hack-fest/powerup idea is like putting out an greasefire with bacon.