[Anti-Edition-War]Common Ground

[Vorput]

Another area of common ground: Dice.

We all like dice.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Another area of common ground: Dice.

We all like dice.

My hate of d0x no limit.

 

[TerraDave]

You are never to young for...what was this about?

Common ground:

Charecters defined by:
-Six abilities
-Level
-Class
-Race
-spells/powers
-equipment
-Alingment
-many specifics of the above

Monsters
-many specific monsters (at least by name and general charecteristics)

Treasure
-coins, gems...
-magic items
---'+' system, name, some general charecteristics

Funny shaped dice
-d20 to hit, others for damage
Armor as damage avoidance
HP
XP (for defeating monsters)

Hybrid medieval/rennasaince, high, sword & sorcery, gygaxian fantasy
Dungeons
Traps and tricks (general concept, some specifics)
Most interesting things you encounter, you fight
XP, treasure, do gooding, butt-kicking, usually all together, as motives

I am sure there are more.

 

[Reynard]

Dungeons

This one is an interesting one, because if one goes by the core books, it is not in fact common to all editions. 2nd Edition didn't even have a chapter on dungeons in the DMG and much of the "how to play" fluff focused on epic fantasy storytelling as opposed to dungeon exploration and adventure (even though, for the most part, the rules were still focused there).

However, I'd say it is a commonality, and a very important one. I never ran modules during my 2E days, so I am not sure what the published line was on dungeons, but even in my grand sweeping epic of a campaign that lasted 4 years of 2E (and 3 more years of 3E afterwords) there was still the Evermines -- probably 60 hours of gameplay sunk into a multilevel dungeons full of hook horrors, scrags, a black dragon that might as well have been an Alien queen and a chasm into the underworld.

 

[LostSoul]

I gotta say, for a few years there I was pretty skeptical of the traditional DM-Player relationship. These days, I've changed my mind. I think it works well. Chalk it up to not really understanding the traditional playstyle. (Yeah, strange since I've been playing D&D for over 20 years, but I never really got it until a few years ago.)

 

[The Shaman]

You are never too young for...what was this about?

 

[howandwhy99]

I gotta say, for a few years there I was pretty skeptical of the traditional DM-Player relationship. These days, I've changed my mind. I think it works well. Chalk it up to not really understanding the traditional playstyle. (Yeah, strange since I've been playing D&D for over 20 years, but I never really got it until a few years ago.)

I agree with you that the DM-Player relationship is key to a good game. Care to enlighten us on the specifics you discovered?

I for one have this nagging feeling that Alignment wasn't a descriptor on how to play the character at all. But instead used the definition as wargamers did, as to what alliance an army fought under. The 3LBs list races under Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic, (sometimes under more than one) and it seems to me these are more racial army alliances than moral dispositions by race. But I could be wrong.

 

[LostSoul]

I agree with you that the DM-Player relationship is key to a good game. Care to enlighten us on the specifics you discovered?

Yeah, no sweat. It will have to wait until the weekend is over, probably, but I'll go through all the RPG experience I've had.

 

[tenkar]

and cutting back on the number of players. 20 is no longer optimal.

which means you don't need a caller for the group. players can act as callers for their own PC.

but it also means that combat gets a bit more hectic. if the group isn't on the same page with tactics.

Now maybe I missed something only getting into gaming in 1982, but was 20 EVER an optimal number of players? It was probably doable with the original box set but who would want to play in such a game?

The largest group I ever ran was 10... that was a beast.

Played in a session with 13 and two DMs... think I rolled dice once, and it wasn't because of heavy roleplay.

Again, I'm not saying 20 in a group wasn't plausible, but optimal?

 

[Wik]

I once ran a game for 20 players. In middle school, using 2e rules. It was hectic, but it worked out alright. Magical item division sucked, though... I would only give out 2 or 3 magic items, so who got that Ring of Regeneration was a big argument, each and every time.