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

[Merlion]

Hmm...this thread actually turned out to be something a little different than what I had expected from the title.

I think I am pretty much with Joshua Dyal in this discussion. D&D has always had a feel and theme to it (although I feel it has also always, or at least as of 3.x tried to be generic as well) and I would love to see these "D&Disms" and "sacred cows" or at least most of them, removed. They are for instance a big part of why the Cleric class is able to remain unbalanced for instance, and why despite 3.x's great overall flexibility, there are still large obstacles to creating certain types of characters.

Its odd with d20/D&D 3.x....it is very flexible and very easy to change in a lot of ways, but as the original poster has said, it can have unforseen consquences and ripple effects. For instance, I may soon be running a small D&D/Arcana Unearthed fusion game, and I plan to use the Armor as Damage reduction rules from Unearthed Arcana, but I then have to decide how thats going to affect spells and magic items that grant DR, for instance.


And yes, the core rules do now assume a certain level of wealth. Its built into the Challenge Rating system (of course the challenge rating system tends to suck anyway since its just a hard thing to define and on top of that it doesnt allow for the fact that groups frequently consist of more or less than 4 PCs)


Now as far as the "dungeonpunk" superpower, supposedly anime based feel of things, and to fast level advancement and all, that is all up to the DM, and the group as a whole, to decide what feel they do want, how fast they want to move etc, and altering those things is not terribly hard.

I happen to love both Anime and Tolkien and I dont see why those styles would have to be totally mutually exclusive. I think if WOTC would let go of the "D&Disms" and not try to target any specific audience, but just make a good game that can easily cater to many styles, we'd all be better off

 

[Akrasia]

... G1-3 were hackfests of the highest order, as were most of the UK modules, and U3 was a death trap. The B/X modules shared these characteristics for the most part...

G1-3 was indeed a 'hackfest', however you're quite wrong about most of the UK modules. In fact, in UK1 the PCs got into deep trouble if they killed anything in the crystal caves (iirc). UK2-3 had a complicated plot with many twists, as did UK4. Yes there was combat, but it wasn't anything like the 'hackfest' that is G1-3. UK5 was pretty linear, but it was meant for a single first level PC. UK6 had a intriguing plot, and the conclusion -- to help a tribe survive by locating an item that could provide them with water -- had no huge monetary benefit for the PCs.

B10 also had combat, but was more of an extended Cthulhu-esque minicampaign, with interesting plot twists, secret organizations, and so forth. It is not surprising that two of the authors went on to write the original Warhammer RPG.

In short, you generalization about the old AD&D and D&D modules is incorrect. Some were indeed 'hackfests' while others were not.

...
In other words, they all have most of the "flavor problems" that more recent editions are accused of introducing to the game. D&D has always had very a "hack-n-slash" bent to it, at least as far as published modules go ... Getting annoyed at the current edition because it displays these sorts of characteristics seems to me to be akin to blaming water for being wet.

I've never 'blamed' the current edition for having a "hack-n-slash" orientation, and never claimed that many, if not most, 1e AD&D modules did not have that orientation.

Indeed, I would say that 'hack-n-slash' is very 'old school'. And frankly, I don't know any fans of 'old school' style campaigns that would dispute this. So I'm not sure who you are arguing against here.
:\

 

[Storm Raven]

G1-3 was indeed a 'hackfest', however you're quite wrong about most of the UK modules. In fact, in UK1 the PCs got into deep trouble if they killed anything in the crystal caves (iirc). UK2-3 had a complicated plot with many twists, as did UK4.

And yet, UK 2-4 remain hackfests. The fact that they have something that strings them together does not make them any less so. The basic plot of UK2 (just to run through it) involves attacking the resisdents of an abandoned Xvart lair, fighting a half-orc and her gang of sons, meeting a halfling trader, helping a monk fight gargoyles and a plant, fighting stuff in an abandoned villa, and then fighting a tribe of xvarts to get to the mcguffin. Hack fest of the first degree. U3 wasn't much better, the only real negotiation involved was one forced by overwhelming opposition, but only after you hack your way through a tribe of gnolls.

Yes there was combat, but it wasn't anything like the 'hackfest' that is G1-3. UK5 was pretty linear, but it was meant for a single first level PC. UK6 had a intriguing plot, and the conclusion -- to help a tribe survive by locating an item that could provide them with water -- had no huge monetary benefit for the PCs.

And yet, to get there, was a hackfest. The fact that there was a mcguffin type resolution doesn't mean that it isn't hacky-hacky.

B10 also had combat, but was more of an extended Cthulhu-esque minicampaign, with interesting plot twists, secret organizations, and so forth. It is not surprising that two of the authors went on to write the original Warhammer RPG.

I note you left out B1-9, and all of the X series. The handful of exceptions prove the point.

In short, you generalization about the old AD&D and D&D modules is incorrect. Some were indeed 'hackfests' while others were not.

The vast majority were. Of T1-8, A1-4, G1-3, D1-3, Q1, L1-2, and U1-3, the only one that really required anything more than "find the villains and kill them" was U2. The bulk of "old school" modules were extraordinarily simple - the "cool factor" was mostly in the new monsters and new traps. NOt in the interesting organizations and plots.

I've never 'blamed' the current edition for having a "hack-n-slash" orientation, and never claimed that many, if not most, 1e AD&D modules did not have that orientation.

Yipee for you. But then I am left to wonder what the "old school" feel is that is different from 3e in general? To my eye, the tone of the current game in regard to what the published adventures offer is very much like the older editions published adventures (which is where you said to look for old school feel), just that the newer rule set plays a lot more smoothly.

Indeed, I would say that 'hack-n-slash' is very 'old school'. And frankly, I don't know any fans of 'old school' style campaigns that would dispute this. So I'm not sure who you are arguing against here.

Haven't you seen the guys decrying the "videogame style of hack-hack-hack and powerups with christmas trees of magic items" type complaints? The problem with those complaints is that the D&D system has pretty much always been that way. Getting hot and bothered about this is like complaining that giraffes have long necks, and therefore are not zebras.

 

[Odhanan]

I believe a lot of it comes down to primary influences. My concept of fantasy is literary, deeply entrenched in Tolkein

From page3.

It is TOLKIEN, not "ein", please.

 

[Akrasia]

... Yipee for you. But then I am left to wonder what the "old school" feel is that is different from 3e in general? ...

*sigh* I've answered this question already, and have recommended contemporary publishers that you can check out for yourself. I think we have somewhat different understandings of what is a 'hackfest', but I see no point discussing anything with you any further, given that you clearly failed to appreciate Piratecat's warning earlier.

I am tired of your appallingly rude tone and consistent misinterpretation of my posts. Good-bye.

 

[Piratecat]

Hey, lookee there! I'm willing to bet folks know what happens when a moderator's warning gets ignored.

Klunk.