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

[Crothian]

Ah yes pass the buck to the DMs who find that rules harwired for a certain style of gaming make DMing in another style rather difficult. :\

I and many others use the same rules you use and we have no probles with it, what other X factor is there then different DMs.

No, I am a very good dungeon master and have been for quite a few years. At leas this is what I have been told by the gaming groups I have run for 19yrs. I just find that the current edition of D&D while having some wonderful qualities is much harder to modify to one's liking than previous editions.

Harder then old editions? Its easier. d20 is all about options. I get to pick and use what I want to use, what fits my stely and the style of the people I play with. There are many different satyles of gaming and d20 seems to handle them.

 

[Sundragon2012]

Sorry, but this is completely and utterly incorrect. I've been tinkering with the D&D 3E rules from the day I got the Player's Handbook. My house rules document has over 50 pages, and the game still feels and plays like D&D. Changing the game has never been easier.

According to your experience.

I am doing exactly what you have....retooling things now for the setting I am working on. D&D 3.X is far more finely balanced and therefore easier to mess up than previous incarnations. This is my experience.

However I don't want to derail the thread into merely a "which system is easier to tinker with" discussion. Feel is what I was ranting about.


Chris

 

[atom crash]

I just find that the current edition of D&D while having some wonderful qualities is much harder to modify to one's liking than previous editions.

With the glut of books chock full of options flooding the market, I find it difficult to swallow the line that D&D 3.5 is "harder to modify to one's liking than previous editions." Seems pretty easy to modify to me, and many third-party publishers have already given us plenty of options.

 

[Crothian]

Feel is what I was ranting about.

Feel is the easist thing to do. Its all up to the DM, and a one can make Exalted, HARP, or Riddle of Steel and maker them feel like D&D. Feel comes from descriptions and playing style as much as it does from rules. It is about polayers motivcations and how they conduct their business.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I give Gary credit for creating the most basic skeleton of what is now an archaic system but one upon which all current incarnations are built. Other than that I would concern myself with what Gary used to do in regards to the rather sophisticated role playing heavy campaigns I tend to run, about as much as I would concern myself with the DMing stylistic concerns voiced by my 7yr old son.

Your 7 year old is writing rules for RPGs that you play?

Because Gary's preferences absolutely shaped what's in 1E. That you could suggest otherwise is amazing to me. The man who gave us the 1E cavalier had some very clear ideas on what belonged in a world. The way the game works is based on his preferences, for good or for ill. He created (loose) rules for player characters becoming gods, and created a system where victory meant having more magical firepower, whether in the form of spell-casters or magic items. "Most basic skeleton?" He created the very game that you claim you detest now, but he created it more than 30 years ago.

You aren't pining for 1E, and it's silly to argue that you are.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Ah yes pass the buck to the DMs who find that rules harwired for a certain style of gaming make DMing in another style rather difficult. :\

Make up your mind. Either you were able to do this to create roleplaying masterworks in the 1E era or it's an unreasonable expectation of DMs.

In any case, you sound like someone who needs to be playing C&C instead of inventing fantasy versions of 1E to pine for, since that's not coming back. I'd also suggest Hackmaster, but I suspect its tone clashes with what you're looking for.

 

[molonel]

How on EARTH did anyone come to the conclusion that 3.0/3.5 rules were hard to modify? We've been tweaking them and modifying them since day 1 in all of my campaigns: alternate mechanics, Mongoose's Conan, stuff from Dicefreaks and yes stuff from here at Enworld, Midnight, and so many other campaign worlds.

 

[Sundragon2012]

I and many others use the same rules you use and we have no probles with it, what other X factor is there then different DMs.

I think it is more about stylistic differences than about DM quality once one reaches a certain level of experience in the art/science of DMing. Though awful DMs do exist, I have gamed with a couple that were as bad as one could be.

Harder then old editions? Its easier. d20 is all about options. I get to pick and use what I want to use, what fits my stely and the style of the people I play with. There are many different satyles of gaming and d20 seems to handle them.

I agree, there are seemingly limitless options but in order to keep things balanced the changes have to be very carefully done so as to not throw things out of whack. I recall the discussions about magic levels in the campaign and I read more than once individuals saying, "well D&D isn't set up for that, maybe you should try a variant rule set."

I never heard anything like that in amongst the folks who played 1e and 2e. In those editions, and maybe this is the only thing I liked better about them mechanically, you could lift out a piece here and add a piece there and you had exaclty what you needed.

I got rid of demi-human level limits, I used kits willy nilly, I used player's option rules (foreshadowing of D&D 3), I used everything at one time or another. Adding and removing as I saw fit. However, it did seem as though "balance" was less an issue back then. Balance was what the DM wanted in his or her campaign, some thought the Complete Elves handbook was wonderful, some thought it was from hell, and it wasn't balanced but those terms were used far less.

Dark Sun, a great setting was as far from balanced as anything could be but it was the most innovative thing around (some planescape fans may differ). It wasn't supposed to be balanced. The defilers were better at magic than the preservers, period. A thri kreen warrior of equal level to a regular fighter would tear him into little pieces and pick his teeth with your bones. A psionic gladiator was hell on wheels and the desert teemed with horrors that could have your brains dribbling out of your ears in minutes if you weren't lucky.

Balance nothing. It wasn't supposed to be balanced and I think that sometimes thats ok. But current D&D gaming philosophy is to balance IMO at the expence of flavor and atmosphere from time to time because if you don't CRs will be off and then XP will be screwy, blah, blah, blah.....

I guess I am grumpy from too much rules immersion for the past few weeks and need some air. That may be the root of this rant.


Chris

 

[Sundragon2012]

Make up your mind. Either you were able to do this to create roleplaying masterworks in the 1E era or it's an unreasonable expectation of DMs.

In any case, you sound like someone who needs to be playing C&C instead of inventing fantasy versions of 1E to pine for, since that's not coming back. I'd also suggest Hackmaster, but I suspect its tone clashes with what you're looking for.

Who is doing this? I said I like the system of 3.X but there are a couple things that rub me a bit wrong. I would never go back to the utter confinement of 1e and 2e character creation. Everyone in retrospect was kind of the same. I mean, character sheets were really simple and it required real imagination to differentiate one ftr from another. I am not opining for those older systems just venting about the current one.

But I can gripe a bit because WoTC isn't the Vatican and D&D isn't my religion so I can be a good DM and still have some issues with the direction of the game.


Chris

 

[Sammael]

I'm sorry, but you've posted so many contradictions that I honestly can't figure out what it is you actually want.

You want the 1e feel - but wait, Gygax sucked, and his suggestions sucked, and so on.

You want the freedom to change the game as you see fit - but wait, that breaks up the balance. Must not break the balance. No, what was I saying - balance sucks, it hinders innovation, it is unnecessary.

3E isn't customizable - but wait, it is - but customizing it is difficult because it messes up the balance - but you don't actually care about the balance, do you?

You don't want dungeonpunk, you want to add your own flavor, just like in 1e - but wait, 1e had LOTS of flavor, and it included characters with ridiculous names (Bigby, Digby, Rigby, anyone?), and people wielding uber-munchkin vorpal weapons, and people finding sci-fi artifacts, and people fighting Nazis (watch the thread go berserk after this) - AND WINNING! So, that's obviously not 1e as you remember it. I never played 1e for any length of time, but plenty of people here did, and that's how they seem to remember it.

You don't want people having many magic items, but when confonted with the fact that characters had just as many magic items in the days of 1e, you say "sure, but there weren't any RULES for it then." Sure there were, you just tossed them away. Just as you can now. No special weapon materials? Sure thing, just remove the DR from monsters. It doesn't mean much, anyway. And so on, and so forth.