D&D SHOULD NOT have a defined atmosphere/style *Semi Rant*

[Sundragon2012]

I remember that in the days of 1e and then 2e D&D didn't really have a FEEL. D&D was a rules set that more or less was supposed to allow the DM to create the king of homebrew setting/adventures he or she wanted to. You could hack apart the rules as you wished without causing some precious yet nebulous "game balance" to collapse all around you.

There was Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Spelljammer, Dragonlance, Planescape, Birthright, Ravenloft, etc. All of these settings where in 1e and 2e respectively and all used the same rule set with necessary modifications to suit the setting.

One could run around in senseless dungeons, could have coherent settings, etc. without difficulty. The setting was supposed to provide the flavor while D&D post Gygax had no particular flavor. The system was a generic, mathematical, dice rolling system that was the hum in the background but didn't need to be carefully balanced.....good, experienced DMs balanced their own games.

(please note I am not saying that the rules themselves for 1e and 2e were better, IMO they weren't save for the ability to hack them literally to pieces without destroying the system)

D&D 3.X is a good game in my opinion but does anyone else sense a the creeping influence of a pervasive style...a kind of power up, magic toy, EXTREME/KEWL/IN YOUR FACE/RADICAL fantasy that is what D&D is now supposed to be?

Look at the art, the style of dress, the poses of characters and monsters who seem more about how "kick ass" they are with their cool feat trees, dragonblooded/fiend/god touched/knight/monk multiclasses, and a general idea that combat effectiveness and kewl/extreme powers is the defining quality of value in the context of a role playing game.

God, and look at level advancement.....one year, if played as expected, to reach 20th level. Gimme a break. A character of that level in D&D 1e or 2e could regale listeners for hours and hours, probably days, about the adventures they've had. Compared to those characters, modern PCs haven't done squat to get where they are.

Now I am not denigrating combat effectiveness or maximizing a character, I am instead talking about the style, presentation and feel of the core books and the supposition that D&D is supposed to be this or that.

Just my thoughts and a semi rant.

Any thoughts of your own?


Chris

 

[Crothian]

1e and 2e had a gaming style in them. The books are not written as generic rule books, they have bits of setting and assumptions to playing D&D in them since they are, in fact, the D&D books.

The trick is that you don't have to use their style to play, but that's a tough thing some DMs can't do (not saying you are one of those).

 

[Aldarc]

I highly agree. It is expected, and even balanced, so that characters have to become walking Christmas trees in order to survive. The sheer amount of magic is frightening. Magical abilities have become a short-cut to bypass storytelling. Magical teleports and scrying reveal elements of the story that should remain hidden and the likes. In short, in my eyes D&D has killed magic: the super scope, the commonality, the power, the safeness of use, and magic items. Has magic ceased to be magical now? Are peasants amazed to see a low-level spell cast, or do they expect it as ordinary? This was probably my greatest disappointment when I was first introduced to D&D, the blandness of magic.

D&D 3.X is a good game in my opinion but does anyone else sense a the creeping influence of a pervasive style...a kind of power up, magic toy, EXTREME/KEWL/IN YOUR FACE/RADICAL fantasy that is what D&D is now supposed to be?

Agreed. This is not epic fantasy, this is spoiled kid power-gaming.

Look at the art, the style of dress, the poses of characters and monsters who seem more about how "kick ass" they are with their cool feat trees, dragonblooded/fiend/god touched/knight/monk multiclasses, and a general idea that combat effectiveness and kewl/extreme powers is the defining quality of value in the context of a role playing game.

Again agreed.

God, and look at level advancement.....one year, if played as expected, to reach 20th level. Gimme a break. A character of that level in D&D 1e or 2e could regale listeners for hours and hours, probably days, about the adventures they've had. Compared to those characters, modern PCs haven't done squat to get where they are.

The quickness of the leveling has had a noticeable impact in games. They have become MMORPG's where the mission's importance and the roleplaying have been superceeded by the power leveling. Completing an objective does not seem to be nearly as important as getting to the next level.

 

[dutorn]

I completely agree with you. We now have complete books based on items or a whole sections in every book, for me personally I don't think your character should be defined bye l337 item #4, 7 and 8 or whatever the item is. I feel the default money is a little high for my tastes as well. You can certainly get a lot of items racked up if you start a new character at mid-level, and if you don't have these items your character is weak compared to the monsters in the MM series of books. Anyways, I think items take too much of a front seat in the game books.

As far as levels go, I've only really played since 1998 and the highest I've ever got a character was 9th level (2nd Ed.) So the 20 levels in 1 year has never been a problem, nor is how fast my characters level. I feel they level just fine for my own tastes.

I'll also say my peace about putting out numbers for gods. I don't really think these personas need numbers, it seems bye will alone they should be able to slay any mortal they want without supreme protection of another god, but that's only my opinion.

Most of the things i've mentioned here can be fixed bye the DM and pose no HUGE problem for me when I play the game.

 

[Hjorimir]

The exact reasons why my upcoming game will be powered by Grim Tales and the Black Company Campaign Setting. I want magic to be magical.

 

[Akrasia]

I think that AD&D 1e had a distinctive 'feel' or 'flavour' to it. Read the DMG 1e -- it is dripping with a particular 'feel'. Or check out the art: the illustrations 'Emrikol the Chaotic' and 'A Paladin in Hell' sum up what AD&D 1e is all about, IMO. I love the old stuff by Trampier, Otus, Sutherland, et al., and Gygax's writing style.

In other words, 1e AD&D had a distinctive flavour -- but I like the flavour it had. I still flip through my old PHB and DMG for inspiration (even though I don't play 1e anymore).

As for the art in 3e -- yeah, it is not my cup o' tea. I actively dislike the whole 'dungeonpunk' style. But I've had too many arguments about the 3e 'dungeonpunk' style of art on these boards in the past. Some people like it; some don't. Whatever.

As for level advancement, I agree that the default 3e progression rates are way too fast. From 1st level farmboy to 20th level destroyer of gods in one year?! Ridiculous. But the DMG explicitly states that the DM can alter experience point awards at his own discretion. When I ran my two 3e campaigns I gave out about half the recommended amount (it still felt like too much, but at least the PCs weren't shooting up levels at a ridiculous rate).

 

[Crothian]

Most of the things i've mentioned here can be fixed bye the DM and pose no HUGE problem for me when I play the game.

This is the key to it all. If you don't like it, change it. It's not hard, it's not rocket science. People change the feel and the rules of the game all the time, but D&D is very popular becasue most people do like the way things are done. But for those that don't, change it, fix it, make it different. It's your game, do what you want with it.

 

[Ranger REG]

Any thoughts of your own?

Well, 3e, in a way, grow into its own ... for lack of a better word ... environment. I mean, it was a major overhaul over both 1e and 2e (which both are pretty much the same; 2e was simply a refinement of 1e rules).

But I doubt 3e was meant to limit to one style, as was 1e/2e. Some gamers prefer the subtlety, and yet other gamers prefer over-the-top (they're not necessarily powergamers and munchkinism but were regularly exposed to "wire fu" fantasy elements).

Granted, it is an entirely different engine (the d20 System), one that was meant to be WotC's in-house rulesystem for all of their RPG products. It's not perfect, but playable, just as long as gamers remember that it's the story that makes for a fun RPG session, not the rules. IOW, if there is a conflict, the story should always override the rules.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

D&D 3.X is a good game in my opinion but does anyone else sense a the creeping influence of a pervasive style...a kind of power up, magic toy, EXTREME/KEWL/IN YOUR FACE/RADICAL fantasy that is what D&D is now supposed to be?

I question whether or not anyone who says this actually has any experience in the older editions.

In fact, didn't Gary Gygax himself just post something about ... Oh yeah, here it is:

I seldom have so much as a beer during a game session, but indeed Rob and I shared a good deal of Southern Comfort when Ernie and Mark Ratner had their unfortunate encounter with Fraz'urblu, and Erac lost his two Vorpal blades, aylerach the Paladan his two-handed Holy Sword... that sessin was a laugh riot for Rob and me, a sad day for the players

Let's see ... PCs encountering a Demon (Devil?) Lord and possessing, in the first place, two Vorpal blades and a two-handed holy sword? I bet they even had magical armor, too.

Earlier editions were just as filled with magical goodies and power-ups as the current edition.

 

[Thanee]

I always found that D&D in every incarnation I've known, which isn't as many as some others here, but at least a couple, had a very unique and defining style, which didn't really change regardless of what campaign setting you used.

Bye
Thanee