3e players=consumers not creators

[The Serge]

I am suitably chastised.

Agreed, and of course. I just found it fascinating that you and Psion were using totally different opinions on the standard of publications to explain the exact same phenomenon. I don't have enough information to decide who's opinion is better (my collection of supplements is small compared to some, but I use it well), so I'm really just watching from the bleachers.

While I don't know if Psion and I usually agree or disagree (although we clearly disagree about certain elements of archfiends), this is not surprsing... although it is fascinating. Great minds don't always think alike.

Like I say, I don't know enough about it. I still like Deities and Demigods, though.

I happen to like it too, although there are things I would change. But, overall, I think that supplement largely compromised most positions about how gods can be handled officially. I don't think BoVD -- from what we've heard thus far -- does this.... But that's a discussion for another thread.

 

[Pielorinho]

Were Donkey Ranger Deepwood Sniper characters

I've heard of half-ass character concepts, but this is ridiculous.

Daniel

 

[diaglo]

Re: Re: 3e players=consumers not creators

I've heard of half-ass character concepts, but this is ridiculous.

Daniel

well at least it wasn't a Half- Celestial Half-Rooster Ranger Deepwood Sniper

Holy Half-Cocked idea is just as bad.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

i saw ads in The Dragon all the time for other publishers of materials for 1ed.

at the time i bought Mayfair's Role Aids stuff. and Judges' Guild. and Harn. and a few others i forget.

i relished the fact that they released Dungeon Magazine.

i never used a single: supplement, hardback, accessory, module, boxed set, magazine, whatever as is. it all had to be adjusted to fit my group's style of play.

my comment is that 1ed, 2ed, and now 3ed that hasn't changed.

each group has to decide what they will or won't use.

so the original comment about 1ed and 2ed (and excluding 3ed )as supplement fests doesn't hold water. you can exclude supplements or include them however you see fit for all editions.

What you're talking about is stuff that used what would now be called the OGL. They were few and far between, and worked with TSR's legal sword hanging above their necks. The companies were few in number, and their output was miniscule. It was tough to get that stuff, no matter what spin you put on it. I mean, I've heard stories from sources I trust about TSR buying up Judges Guild material just to destroy it, and given TSR's practices of the time, I wouldn't doubt it.

The situation is now far different. The d20 publishers far outstrip WotC in total combined output, where TSR was the main, and often only, source for material. I don't see how anyone can dispute that, unless they're purposely trolling.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Well, I'm not going to say you're wrong, but I must disagree in that you are missing a few possible elements. To begin with, you indicate that the spell mechanics are there to keep the magic system consistant. But sometimes it is this very consistancy that is the problem. Spells levels, for instance, are categorized by Levels based on their power and effect, usually in regards to combative situation, but often with little regard on effect on story. Example: In a game where mystery of ages past and solving these mysteries are more important than combat, than comprehend languages becomes far more impacting than 1st Level would seem to indicate, and such themes are downplayed since the translation of such cryptic writings is little more than a cheap parlor trick.

Another example is one of commonolity and ease of use. 3E makes an assumption that magic is just lying about and any one can simply become a spell caster. There's little difficulty in learning or using magic. These elements, if desired in a setting, aren't easily described over the game mechanics as written, but require actual changes to the rules in order to make it true (my personal take was a Mage Born Feat and Casting Fatigue). It is indeed better to have rules where such things are true as opposed to trying to "simply justify" someone else's arbitrary decision that magic is easy to learn, use and obtain.

I wouldn't consider any such thought or effort to be "metagame" thinking simply because metagaming can only occur while the game is being played. Outside of the game, such line of thought becomes more akin to "I wonder what would happen if..?", which may easily evolve into "How would I make this work..?" That's not metagaming; That's game design.

First, changing the level of a spell, or changing spell lists to make spells less or more available, is far different from chucking the whole system, which I often see mentioned as the "only" way to come up with a magic system for any given setting.

Second, there are prereqs for becoming a spellcaster, after a fashion. 9-10 is the average ability score of the average person. An Int, Wis, or Chr of 9-10 for a spellcaster means he or she won't be able to cast a spell. Despite all the claims of various posters to threads about their real life stats, the vast bulk of the population will not be able to cast spells even if they train as a spellcaster, and a big chunk of the remainder won't be able to cast powerful spells. Just because it's easy for a player to roll up a spellcaster doesn't mean it's easy for a character to becomem one. That's an example of metagame thinking.

 

[Psion]

I think I should clarify: when I spoke of material being more trustworthy now, I was referring primarily to the core D&D material, not third party publishers. I am saying 3e core stuff is more worth trusting than 1e or 2e core stuff. In the 2e days, most of the titles came from freelancers, and there was little quality control, and the system they were based was less internally consistant. That being the case, I think tweaking things came more naturally.

I won't debate that there is a good amount of crap out in the d20 field right; there certainly is. Of course, now that wizards R&D has been gutted and wizards is using more freelancers, we could see the standards drop. And at the same time, though 3rd party companies aren't subject to the same standards, some are getting a reputation for their own high standards.

 

[Sir Osis of Liver]

That's what I mean when I say that a good deal of secondary source material is of questionable balance.

I would agree with that for the most part. I would also say it's on avarage closer to the mark then some of the stuff people i know have come up with, myself included. It's damn hard to look past what you want your character/monster/npc to be able to do and what he should be able to do.

I think buying pre-existing material makes it a lot easier, even if you still need to exercise some self control, or make minor alterations. I think a lot of people are of the mind set that so long it is published matterial then it's appropriate for thier game.

In the end i don't feal that buying products is an excuse to not be creative, unless you, yourself let it be.

 

[F5]

Re: Re: Re: 3e players=consumers not creators

well at least it wasn't a Half- Celestial Half-Rooster Ranger Deepwood Sniper

Holy Half-Cocked idea is just as bad.

I've heard of half-ass character concepts, but this is ridiculous.

Bad posters! Bad posters for making my brain hurt with your nefarious punning!

 

[Sulimo]

After reading the whinning about Demon power levels I was left with the burning question: Do people not understand the ease and realtive simplicity of powering up monsters in 3E?

Of course, although that is not specific to 3e. I dont think I've EVER come across a system where it was not easy to power up monster stats if/when needed.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

That's an example of metagame thinking.

Well, to quote what you've said yourself...

*sigh*

First, yes, anyone can pick up magic. Yes, they have minimum stat requirements, but anyone with a 10 in any of those 3 Ability Scores can pick up a level of a casting class and gain various useful spells, and 11 just makes it sweet. Oh, hey... Got a 13? Might as well get 5 levels, than you can cast fireball and lightning bolt. Despite your claims to the contrary, even an abundance of trivial spells is still an abundance of spells.

And, no, changing spell levels isn't the "only" way to develop a different system. Mongoose's Elementalism has a variant within it. Sovereign Stone has another variant. Another can be found in Dragonlords of Melnibon'e. In a sense, Wheel of Time is different from the Core system. Even Call of Cthulu uses a variant magic system. Any one of these could be used instead of the Core System for spells and magic.

I myself use two variant systems (Elemental Sorcerers and fatigue-hindered Channelers) and have the groundwork for a variant psionics system developed. I've even considered an Arcane System based entirely on Spell Seeds that would cost Experience Points to use, thus mimicing the magical flavor of certain literature like in The Belgariad.

Is this metagame thinking? Only if you consider making the game different from the Default to be metagame thinking. But that's an interesting term, isn't it? Default, which basically means unchanged. The very use of that word indicates change can and will occur. Rule 0 indicates that the person that chooses such change is the DM. So how can this be metagame thinking? I'm not in a game right now. We're discussing rules. We're discussing the alteration of rules.

When rules are applied, be they Core, 3rd Party or homebrewed, you aren't metagaming. What you are doing is establishing a world environment in which the characters live and adventure. Whatever these rules are, the outlook and behavior of the characters will be effected. High Magic world? Magic and monsters shouldn't surprise the characters too much. Low Magic world? Magic and monsters should be terrifying and worrisome.

This isn't metagame thinking. Rather, it is the nature of the game.