D&D rules don't do books?

[buzzard]

You know how the argument goes that D&D rules don't simulate anything but D&D? How fantasy novels are nothing like what we experience when in a game of D&D? Well I've been reading the John Carter of Mars books, and while they don't have any magic in them (though the science is silly enough to verge on it), the battles read just like D&D combat. The protagonist fights huge hordes of bad guys, suffers wound after wound, and keeps fighting. He usually ends up with a pile of corpses at his feet. Even the concept of high level vs. low level is present since he can usually find opponents which are almost a match and make a fight of it.

It almost makes me wonder why nobody has offered such a setting.

buzzard

 

[Thimble the Squit]

There's one such setting as a Polyhedron Mini-Game -- but I'm afraid I can't be bothered to hunt through my Dungeon mags to find the exact info. It was recent, anyway.

 

[Saeviomagy]

There's one such setting as a Polyhedron Mini-Game -- but I'm afraid I can't be bothered to hunt through my Dungeon mags to find the exact info. It was recent, anyway.

Iron lords of jupiter.

Basically - under the storms of jupiter, there's habitable planet. Of course noone can get in or out because of the storms.
Metal is rare, so rare that the only posessors run the place - they're the iron lords.
Funky crystals power everything from rayguns to flying machines, while still retaining an overall low level of technology.

 

[NiTessine]

Iron lords of jupiter.

Basically - under the storms of jupiter, there's habitable planet. Of course noone can get in or out because of the storms.
Metal is rare, so rare that the only posessors run the place - they're the iron lords.
Funky crystals power everything from rayguns to flying machines, while still retaining an overall low level of technology.

Found in issues 101 and 102.

 

[Psion]

You know how the argument goes that D&D rules don't simulate anything but D&D? How fantasy novels are nothing like what we experience when in a game of D&D?

I know you point was to point out an example of D&D like flow in a book, but can we talk about this for a minute?

1) Games are not books. Games are not movies. Some things that work well for those mediums work well for games.

Many do not.

2) Has anyone used this argument against a new SF/F book not being like any old SF/F book or a new SF/F movie being like any old SF/F movie? Has anyone, for example, decried Darkover because the events of Lord of the Rings could not happen in it?

I should hope not.

Games are just as entitled to innovate and extrapolate as books and movies.


In short, this argument is a hoary old chestnut only trotted out by bashers desperate to validate their choice in games they play.

 

[Humanophile]

...Psion, you're part right, but largely wrong there too.

I'll grant that what works in one medium fails utterly in others. Just the idea of a single protagonist, as well as any predictive abilities, falls very flat in a multiplayer interactive setting. But once you account for those, you have to remember player tastes too.

One thing that I will grant that older forms of D&D have that 3.* lacks is that... rules can't make or break roleplaying skill, but they can make or break genre. And the rules for earlier additions (and many games in general) decided to fit into a genre, balance be damned. As many D&D players like the style, flow, and tropes of epic fantasy and myth, earlier D&D told better stories, even as 3.* is a better game. (And since I know that someone'll argue that 3.* can make just as good stories, I do agree about that. But it's like a sci-fi fan reading a historical romance; as technically well-done as it might be, it's not the style they go for.)

So D&D has every right to innovate and create its own genre. I'd even love to see a proper D&D movie or book; one that focuses on real D&D tropes and embraces table-play style instead of one that shoehorns a couple of D&D "cameos" into more standard tropes. But other forms of fiction in a D&D style -- or rule-tinkering to shift D&D into other genres -- isn't a bad thing. And D&D should be quite open about what it is... and isn't.

 

[buzzard]

There's one such setting as a Polyhedron Mini-Game -- but I'm afraid I can't be bothered to hunt through my Dungeon mags to find the exact info. It was recent, anyway.

Yeah I have the setting someswhere, but I wasn't that impressed. Of course I'm no big fan of D20 Modern so that might have something to do with it.

buzzard

 

[buzzard]

I know you point was to point out an example of D&D like flow in a book, but can we talk about this for a minute?
(large chunk deleted)
In short, this argument is a hoary old chestnut only trotted out by bashers desperate to validate their choice in games they play.

Umm, what did that have to do with my example? You may have a beef with people who make that arguement, and that's fine, but that argument wasn't really my point. I was merely pointing out that D&D does really simulate some books. Honestly it really made me think of D&D combats when I was reading the book.

Of course the other thing that comes to mind when reading the book is that John Carter is a munchkin, but that's a par for plenty of books.

buzzard

 

[Psion]

...Psion, you're part right, but largely wrong there too.

How so?

One thing that I will grant that older forms of D&D have that 3.* lacks is that... rules can't make or break roleplaying skill, but they can make or break genre. And the rules for earlier additions (and many games in general) decided to fit into a genre, balance be damned. As many D&D players like the style, flow, and tropes of epic fantasy and myth, earlier D&D told better stories, even as 3.* is a better game. (And since I know that someone'll argue that 3.* can make just as good stories, I do agree about that. But it's like a sci-fi fan reading a historical romance; as technically well-done as it might be, it's not the style they go for.)

Like a person might like LotR but not Darkover. That doesn't make either one "not fantasy."

But I'm not seeing what this has to do with the discussion.

Or how I'm supposedly wrong.

 

[hong]

One thing that I will grant that older forms of D&D have that 3.* lacks is that... rules can't make or break roleplaying skill, but they can make or break genre. And the rules for earlier additions (and many games in general) decided to fit into a genre, balance be damned. As many D&D players like the style, flow, and tropes of epic fantasy and myth, earlier D&D told better stories, even as 3.* is a better game.

This is absolute nonsense. I am really, really hard-pressed to think of any epic fantasy or myth where wizards fly, teleport, and shoot fireballs with gusto. (A)D&D has _always_ defined its own genre; 3E just makes it more obvious.