Back in the day...

[diaglo]

Another interesting statement.

yes it was. but some of us had the influence of the divine already. you had to if you played in an ongoing campaign.

the statement really reflects whether or not Gary and the crew wanted to form a set pantheon.

the cleric, the monk (Supplement II), the druid (Supplement III as a PC), and the paladin(if you used Supplement I) all needed something to explain how they got powers.

in tournament play it wasn't necessary.

 

[hong]

So I suppose my point is this: 3e has a different feel to it. It teaches new players to play a vastly different style of game to the old systems.

Yes, one where the rules are clearer and apply to a much wider range of situations, thus reducing the scope for DM inconsistency. Possibly inadvertent inconsistency, but inconsistency nonetheless.

Whilst those of us who learned to play in the previous systems have no problems picking up the system and making it feel and run like D&D always has, those who are new to our rarified hobby are getting a completely different feel for the game, especially when played without the benefit of experienced players from the older systems.

IOW: didn't learn bad habits like "the rules don't apply to the DM".

That feel seems much more towards the kill things / get stuff / grow tougher / not much else feel of CCGs and CRPGs than the story systems I grew up playing.

The fact that you conflate CRPGs with having no stories tells me that you most likely know nothing about CRPGs, and are just using the term as a synonym for "stuff I don't like". It's a popular habit.

Hong "next you'll be saying it's all munchkin" Ooi

 

[diaglo]

IOW: didn't learn bad habits like "the rules don't apply to the DM".

i'll pull an Umbran on you...

that sounds like a GM-Player issue..not a problem with the game system...

 

[hong]

i'll pull an Umbran on you...

that sounds like a GM-Player issue..not a problem with the game system...

Well, it's not like we haven't been having these "munchkin!"/"railroader!" wars for DECADES, now have we?

EDIT: changed years to decades. It's only an extra digit, what's the problem?

 

[Whisper72]

Hmmm.... I think Gothic-Demon definately has an issue, and I think the way you (hong) debunk his trying to express is views is uncalledly harsh.

As for the rules not applying to the DM being a 'bad habit' in your book, in my book this is not a bad habit. IMC the rules DONT apply to the DM. If I want the PC's to meet a firebreathing anti-paladin type with magic resistance, I do not feel the need to have to justify such a foe in terms of classes, templates, prestige classes, feats and other such stuff. It just is the way it is. Deal with it, and move on with the story.

I too get the feeling from reading 3.x rules that there is a tendency to capture everything in rules, sometimes leading to strange situations. I myself prefer to have more DM leeway and have DM's use more common sense and think about stuff themselves. As such I am not saying that 3.x is bad, just that it has a feel like a computer programming set of rules for miniatures/wargamin rather then a guide for DM'ming a story heavy game.

Again, I am not saying that the rules make the other type of play more difficult to do, but more that it IMHO discourages 'common sense'. Naturally in the 'old days' there was a large lack of common sense as well.. This though had also a lot to do with the players themselves being on average less mature as the hobby itself was less mature at the time.

Whether the 'new generations' of players are different, I do not know. Are they different to 'old style' players simply because they are younger? Because they had an upbringing in CRPGs? I don't know. What I DO know, is that the look/feel of the game has changed, and that the rules have tightened. Again, I am not saying that this is bad/worse, but the tightening of rules DOES have impact on the type of game one plays. The games themselves are more codified and more rulesheavy now then before.

As to topics coming back on the boards and 'being old', this is the nature of societal discussion and electronic boards. The wars will never end, deal with it.

 

[diaglo]

Well, it's not like we haven't been having these "munchkin!"/"railroader!" wars for DECADES, now have we?

EDIT: changed years to decades. It's only an extra digit, what's the problem?

that's better... we crawled to school 5 miles uphill in 3 ft of snow

 

[hong]

As for the rules not applying to the DM being a 'bad habit' in your book, in my book this is not a bad habit. IMC the rules DONT apply to the DM. If I want the PC's to meet a firebreathing anti-paladin type with magic resistance, I do not feel the need to have to justify such a foe in terms of classes, templates, prestige classes, feats and other such stuff. It just is the way it is. Deal with it, and move on with the story.

Oh pish tosh. Building new monsters is a trivial issue except if someone decides to be pigheaded about it. Now stuff like "you're GOING to be captured to serve as sacrifices to the dread storyline", or "that NPC is GOING to escape because he holds the fearsome plot device", that's something else.

I too get the feeling from reading 3.x rules that there is a tendency to capture everything in rules, sometimes leading to strange situations. I myself prefer to have more DM leeway and have DM's use more common sense and think about stuff themselves.

Unless you live in a world very different to mine, there isn't a lot that "common sense" can tell you about fire-breathing antipaladins with magic resistance. However, there is a lot that "common sense" can tell you about not disempowering players' choices, in particular the requirement for a conceptual framework that stands a good chance of being shared among all participants, and doesn't change on a whim.

 

[JoeGKushner]

I refer you to Steve McQueen in The Magnificent Seven to understand the irony of that statement.

But see, if we're going only with originals here, I'd have to go to the Seven Samurai.

 

[Whisper72]

Hmmm... hong.... what you refer to is railroading, this has nothing to do with the rules of the game, and is a bad-DM issue, regardless of the version of DnD one plays... I do not see how that has any tangeant to the discussion of the athmosphere of the (A)DnD game rules changing to be more CRPG like...

As for the use of common sense, maybe your interpretation of the term is different then mine, but I was referring to using common sense in making DM-rulings, rather then 'making up monsters' or somesuch.

I am talking about wonder and creating a magical world. In the old days, when I confronted players with an apparently human paladin NPC and I suddely let it breathe fire, there would not be questions like 'hey, what feat does he use for that? I he a dragon disciple??' all manner of rules-stuff that detracts from the verisimiltude and 'believability' of the fantasy world.

My feeling, and it is a feeling, I am not saying that I statisticaly checked and cross-researched it or anything, is that with the drive to have rules for everything and balance everything through strange rules everywhere, the game has become more a CRPG that happens to be played using pen and paper then a 'cooperative storybuilding exercise' which it was to many under the older rulesets.

As for railroading, disempowering player's choices etc. whether such things are at all fair or not I simply measure against Diaglo's number one rule. If the players and the DM are enjoying themselves, even the most railroaded adventure is fine, if that is not the way ppl want to play and people are not enjoying themselves, then it is nt fine. Very simple.

 

[Derulbaskul]

(snip) So I suppose my point is this: 3e has a different feel to it. It teaches new players to play a vastly different style of game to the old systems. Whilst those of us who learned to play in the previous systems have no problems picking up the system and making it feel and run like D&D always has, those who are new to our rarified hobby are getting a completely different feel for the game, especially when played without the benefit of experienced players from the older systems. That feel seems much more towards the kill things / get stuff / grow tougher / not much else feel of CCGs and CRPGs than the story systems I grew up playing.

It's interesting how our experiences differ. I found OE, 1E and 2e more like this because of the lack of choices available for developing your characters.

I have found 3E/3.5E groups are much more focussed, in general, on character background and motivations and then the character gets developed according to this. Of course, there will always be the young'ns who just want the toughest character that they can make but my post-OE/1E/2E experiences have definitely been the best parts of my RPGing times.