The Advantage of MtG over D&D

[Psion]

I guess what I've trying to say, ranting aside, is that people would have more fun with the game if they'd learn it BEFORE trying to change it. At least play a house rule free game ONCE in your life. It isn't that bad.

Hmmm... I can sort of understand that. When I first heard about static iniatiative in 3e, I was like "we aren't doing that." Now I would never go back.

But there are still plenty of things out there that I can tell you, on sight, are not going to be productive to what I want out of a game. For example, square bases totally futz with my sense of what minis are supposed to represent, and stretch my already strained sense that the maps are too big beyond the breaking point.

It comes down to that while the designers can do a fair job of creating rules that interract well, I have a much better sense of what my group and I like than some person in an office in Redmond ever could.

 

[Sammael]

I am just not getting this. OF COURSE you have to know the game in and out before you can design balanced house rules. However, if it adds to your and your players' fun, does it matter if it's balanced or not? Feel free to drop the favored classes concept without giving humans and half-elves any extras. Ban gnomes. Make halflings have hairy feet. Give druids the ability to cast all spells spontaneously. Give sorcerers access to cure spells.

Whatever works for you and your group is perfectly fine. Just don't make me play by your rules.

 

[Cergorach]

It must be the end of the year and people want to get 'things' off their chests.

I thing a tournament scene for D&D RPG is a very, very bad thing! While it might generate some interest, it wouldn't be the interest we would want to have in a RPG. While MtG is a very 'if => then' and 'yes => no' game, D&D isn't because there are other factors beyond the rules that make the game (roleplaying for one). It would be like having a tournament for playing cowboys and indians. A RPG isn't a competative game, but a cooperative game, your success is dependant on your fellow players and the DM, if one has a bad day that will influence your success.

I've played in a AD&D 2e 'tournament' once, but that wasn't really a competition, more an experiment. One that was a lot of fun and highly successful, but the only reason it was fun was because it was with fun people who weren't really there to win anything. And winning involved a very small price, and not $50,000 in cash. Your success was not only rated in how far along you came in reaching your goal, but it also involved fellow players (and DMs) 'grading' you on things like roleplaying and 'having fun'.

While i agree that a feat that gives you a +8 damage on all atacks is not even funny in my games, who's to say that it's wrong? You sound like the kid that cried "But that's impossible, real indians can't do that!", while i'm the kid that says "Who's saying that i'm a real indian? Your certainly not a real cowboy...".

Certain rules modifications might seem wrong in your eyes, but it really depends on in what kind of game your playing. We, for example, are currently playing as strictly multiclass (following two unrelated classes equally), no prestige classes, we're all half-elf, predifined hitpoints, predifined ability points, and very low grade magical items (we can't really buy or sell permanent magical items). We currently feature a fighter4/thief3, a cleric4/wizard3, a ranger4/sorcerror3, and a bard4/ranger3 (that's me), we're all 7th level and for the life of us we have trouble with monsters that have a CR that's equall to our own. We've even created a 'vocation' system gives you an ability (in strength equal to a decent feat) and gives you a penalty that also needs to be rules based, you can change your 'vocation' between levels but there has to be a good roleplaying reason.

Would these 'freeform' like rules work in a rpg product? No, but my fellow players seem to enjoy themselves (i haven't taken a 'vocation', i find it not neccessary)...

 

[Elephant]

What are you defining as house rules? With all the material out there people can pick and choose the rules they want without resorting to creating their own rules (what I would call house rules). I agree with Psion, as long as people are having fun it doesn't matter.

...besides, house rules are encouraged by the official rules (e.g. Rule 0).

 

[JoeGKushner]

I guess what I've trying to say, ranting aside, is that people would have more fun with the game if they'd learn it BEFORE trying to change it. At least play a house rule free game ONCE in your life. It isn't that bad.

This I agree with completely. I had one friend run Oathbound and let us be up to +7 ECL and be 7th level. There was no point in playing anythign that wasn't +7 ELC so we had crazy half-drow-half-dragons with weird templates on top of that. Dude keeps trying to do all these weird things without having just played it by the book.

 

[Zappo]

Michael Morris, I agree with you. People should know the rules before they modify them. Lots of people I've gamed with created house rules that ranged from "useless" to "OMG-are-you-drunk-or-what?".

I'm not talking about the house rules that good DMs introduce to emphasize flavorful aspects of their world, or to fine-tune the game by emphasizing this or that aspect. And I'm not talking about the house rules which actually fix problems in the game - hell, I've played Harm the 3.5 way much before 3.5.

I'm talking about corrections to problems that only exist because the DM hasn't bothered to read the feat carefully. Or house rules that make one aspect of the game slightly better and screwed half of everything else. Or house rules that replicate stuff that can easily be made with standard rules. An example - a guy I gamed with made a whole mess with the Bluff skill because his players were abusing it by making NPCs believe any incredible lie. Turns out that he wasn't applying the penalties for unbelievable bluffs. I'm talking about DMs that think they are so good that they don't need to read the rulebooks.

Yep, people don't try that with tournament games, because in a tournament game you've got to know the rules.

Though of course there are other issues there... D&D and RPGs in general are inherently less adapt to a tournament environment, because so many things depend on the DM rather than on binary yes/no rules. Even the best ruleset can't do much about this. The fix isn't in making D&D a tournament game - it is in dropping some hubris.

D&D is a very, very complex system, much more than what it looks like. One should know it before tinkering.

 

[Michael Morris]

@Crothian - For the purpose of this discussion I define house rules as anything personally written.

@Psi - True, but you also have several years of experience. My worry is not so much all the veterans out here that have been doing this awhile. My worry is that those new to the game may make adjustments that run counter to their desires. I know I've done it - made a rule that breaks something else. It can be a pain in the neck to correct and it can even ruin a game in some forms.

 

[random user]

I don't think I agree.

The point of MtG is to win.

The point (for most people) in D&D is to have fun.

Maybe you would be happier if these people called it an EANDND game (equally-attractive-non-dungeons-n-dragons) game?

 

[Michael Morris]

Objectives aside, Magic has a clearer set of rules that is easier to teach. Now I'll admit, part of that is the nature of the games themselves - RPG's can never be as clean cut as CCG's.

But part of that is also this willingness to tinker can horrendously backfire when you're starting out

For the same reason, I also feel no one should DM without having played before.

 

[ptolemy18]

Yes, but MtG has one big problem with it:

Its not a role-playing game.

Preach on, Brother Trepelano!

In my opinion, the biggest divide between role-playing games and CCGs is that in RPGs, no one WINS. It's not the kind of game where the point is to be competitive; it's the kind of game where the point is to enjoy yourself. (Well, and maybe not get your character killed immediately.)

So, people who want a game that they can be "good" at are always going to choose CCGs (or Warhammer or something) over pen-and-paper RPGs. All the player-killers and power-gamers who used to play D&D because there was nothing else are now either playing CCGs or online PvP games.

An even bigger threat to the viability of pen-and-paper RPGs is probably online RPGs, since they deliver something more like the same appeal: total escapism and the ability to develop an imaginary alter ego. (Although of course, most people who play online RPGs don't do any real "role-playing", and there's no room to be a DM unless you're playing some construction-kit game like NEVERWINTER NIGHTS, but still, this isn't something that most people miss.)

Oops, I got away from the subject (Magic)...

Jason

"I don't like games that have simple rules and complex strategies; I like games that have complex rules and no strategy." -- Me