D&D 3e & 3.5e Is Not Really An RPG

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tsyr

Explorer
Blockader7 said:
Personally I'd say it's primary focus is that of a board/strategy game. 3.5 seemed to enhance that feel because of the things like spell rang templates it added.

An expansive board/strategy game, but nonetheless.

It's really the setting books, such as Forgotten Realms, that concentrate mostly on the role-playing elements. Not the three core books, PHB, MM, DMG.


So, by that logic:

Hero
GURPS
Tri-Stat
Fudge
Savage Worlds
And any other universal system

is not a roleplaying game, because they lack a specific setting?

Riiiiiiight... :rolleyes:
 

log in or register to remove this ad



Norfleet

First Post
Well, I'm definitely seeing a return to ruleism and the tradition from which it all started, that of wargaming, including the now almost-expected use of miniatures and grids. It seems like a great deal of the game is now split between the use of square grids and figures, and not.

In some ways, I approve.
 

Nightfall said:
Josh,

I say we bag us a troll! :) I need a few more heads on my walls at home. ;)
I'm ready -- let's rock and roll!
 

Attachments

  • doa24.gif
    doa24.gif
    11.1 KB · Views: 509

Ranger REG

Explorer
S'mon said:
One strange thing is the lack of any morale rules in 3e. I use the Basic D&D 2d6 roll.
You're kidding me, right? You, the DM, who is roleplaying a bunch of monsters or villains does not know when it is the right time to retreat or even flee from a fight they cannot win? Barring some that don't even know the meaning of surrender, like animated undead, if you see you are being slaughtered down to less than the number of PCs in the battle, you must consider self-preservation. It's an inherent nature of all living creatures. Tap into YOUR OWN instinct.
 

LightPhoenix

First Post
Tonguez said:
When 2e came out I switched to GURPS and would rave to friends about how much better it was than DnD.

Then one friend poined out that DnD provided detailed rules for combat but was otherwise quite freeform. Its only in combat that you need rules (my friend pointed out) the rest of the time players should be using imagination:D.

Your friend is very wise. Listen to him more often. :)

And if the definition of a roleplaying game is that you play a role, then all the movies stars are roleplayers, as are all the theater people. Psychologists happen to be highly paid DMs in some cases, and even kiddies who play video games are assuming a role to play (for instance, a racer or fighter).
 

s/LaSH

First Post
I wonder if it would be facetious to point out that D&D alows me to role-play a troll-hunter with very little effort?

Ahem.

There's a game I know which has no rules for combat, a very simple way to move around the world, and promotes a very specific player mindset often completely at odds to the player's normal personality. To fulfil their goals, the players must really start to think in a different way.

It's Monopoly.

And in half a dozen pages of rules, it nevertheless manages to convince players that being a cruel landlord or miserly industrial baron is much better than their normal self, although it never so much as mentions the subject of role-playing.

In D&D, things are much more open and there's so much more to consider when fleshing out your alter ego.

I rest my case. (And it's full of acid.)
 

S'mon said:
I agree it does feel like that sometimes!

One strange thing is the lack of any morale rules in 3e. I use the Basic D&D 2d6 roll.
How do Morale Rules ADD to roleplaying? Don't they just take AWAY roleplaying? I think we should only have rules for combat(and maybe a few situations here and there, like craft etc). Rules for roleplaying is baaaaad.
 


Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top