Define "___-edition feel"?

[Belegbeth]

What is D&D (or any RPG, for that matter)? Basically, it's a glorified game of make-believe where players pretend to be a dwarf fighter, or an elf ranger, or a halfling thief, or some other fantasy character.

Yeah, RPGs are so much cooler than video games.

Dark Jezter! Do not denigrate the hobby we both like so much.

I think RPGs are SUPERIOR -- not COOLER -- than video games.

Why? At least three reasons. First, it is a creative activity. As a DM you can create an entirely new world. And even if you use a published setting, you come up with new plots, characters, etc. And good players create distinctive characters, with interesting personalities, goals, etc. You cannot do that in most video games.

Second, it is a collaborative activity. The DM and players together make a game work. By being both creative and collaborative, there is an improvisational quality to RPGs that can be found in few other activities.

Third, it requires a lot more intellectual effort to play a RPG than most video games.

Don't get me wrong -- I enjoy playing video games. (Is "Civilzation" a "video game"?) But I do think RPGs are superior.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

i think you are confusing him with me.

No, you're just hardcore.

And you don't use words like "dumb", "stupid", or "fools" to state your opinion or belittle those who don't share it.

 

[jasamcarl]

Dark Jezter! Do not denigrate the hobby we both like so much.

I think RPGs are SUPERIOR -- not COOLER -- than video games.

Why? At least three reasons. First, it is a creative activity. As a DM you can create an entirely new world. And even if you use a published setting, you come up with new plots, characters, etc. And good players create distinctive characters, with interesting personalities, goals, etc. You cannot do that in most video games.

Second, it is a collaborative activity. The DM and players together make a game work. By being both creative and collaborative, there is an improvisational quality to RPGs that can be found in few other activities.

Third, it requires a lot more intellectual effort to play a RPG than most video games.

Don't get me wrong -- I enjoy playing video games. (Is "Civilzation" a "video game"?) But I do think RPGs are superior.

You're not very good at games, are you? Haven't played much multiplayer either, apparently, or else you wouldn't come out with a dumb 'lacks creativity' argument.

It's MUCH easier to come up with subjectivly 'interesting' characters than to develop actual strategies whose benefits and drawbacks can be assessed objectivly. Children do what you are calling for all the time. So the notion that it takes more 'brain power' is laughable.

What's more laughable is that you are defending terrible, clunky, arbitrary rules sets that has little interest gamewise and proclaiming that it requires more 'intellectual' effort to play? Uh huh...

 

[Bendris Noulg]

First, it is a creative activity. As a DM you can create an entirely new world. And even if you use a published setting, you come up with new plots, characters, etc. And good players create distinctive characters, with interesting personalities, goals, etc. You cannot do that in most video games.

Second, it is a collaborative activity. The DM and players together make a game work. By being both creative and collaborative, there is an improvisational quality to RPGs that can be found in few other activities.

Third, it requires a lot more intellectual effort to play a RPG than most video games.

Agreed, agreed, and agreed.

 

[jasamcarl]

Or it will get him banned again, in which case, we will not be able to recieve hi wizardly advice.

In any event, DnD is a group game. The argument that it is the fault of the poster regarding how they interpret the game is fallacious. Any GM can have imagination, but it requires the entire group to make it work.

I'm sorry you always loose....

But anywho. I agree, it is a function of group dynamics. But I wasn't addressing the group, but rather the dms who seem to come online to whine and whine, blame the players, blame the system, but don't blame me.

 

[kenjib]

I'm sorry you always loose....

Hello Jasamcarl,

What does winning and losing have to do with anything? We're just having a friendly conversation and talking about what we like and don't like in various editions of the game. There is no right and wrong answer. If 3e feels more video-gamish to someone else, but not to you, then both of these viewpoints prove themselves. Arguing beyond that is just silly.

Why not add some productive input into the discussion. What do you think are the differences between the various D&D editions, Jasamcarl? Do you think that it's entirely a function of the gaming group or are there any elements of the rules at all that *do* impact the feel of play, in your experience?

 

[Bendris Noulg]

You're not very good at games, are you? Haven't played much multiplayer either, apparently, or else you wouldn't come out with a dumb 'lacks creativity' argument.

Check out what you've just proven: It takes another living player to make a video game less confined by its programming.

At the same time, regardless of being single player or multi-player, all video games are confined by the dictates of the programming, the environment produced by that program, and the options that the designers built into the system. In that regard, CRPGs (a laughable name at best) are severely limited compared to table-top gaming, where the GM can add, alter, allow, shift, and expand the game as the needs of the group dictates and the whims of the players aren't going to be restricted because some computer nerd in Silicon Valley hasn't created AI-driven holodecks yet.

 

[Belegbeth]

1) Price is very much a factor meant to balance pcs in combat at specific levels. It goes hand in hand with the wealth by level chart. Does that indicate that all high level adventurers are insanly wealthy? NO. It says they have a good deal of equipment.

2) The wordbuilding chapter in the dmg with the wealth limits by city is specifically thrown out as GUIDELINES not rules, assuming a certain 'realistic' take on fantasy. Those guidlines are not the equivilant of hit die, and the dmg sure doesn't support you on that. Now do most campaigns follow those guidlines? Maybe, but i'm sure a sizable number of games have a powerful wizard as a BBG. That doesn't mean that it is a rule that has to be strictly followed.

Better arguments, please?

Regarding (1): the fact that levelling up proceeds much more quickly in 3E than in 1E means that there will be a greater number of high level NPCs in 3E (if not for reasons of coherence, then simply to provide challenges for the high level PCs). This means more high level NPCs with "a good deal of equipment." In short, quicker levels = more high level NPCs with magic items.

Regarding (2): I never claimed that the rules regarding magic item costs, high level NPCs, etc. were equivalent in importance to HD (this is something that you have imaginatively projected onto my posts). But they do reflect something about the kinds of settings the rules designers think are most consistent with the rules as a whole (e.g. how common magic items *should be* in order to maintain "balance" etc.). And these guidelines *are* used by many people, especially those less experienced with RPGs.

I agree for the most part with Reiella's claim that the "feel" of any game will be determined primarily by the group in question. My claim has simply been that, insofar as the rules have a significant influence on how most games are run, the differences between 1E and 3E rules -- especially with respect to the rates at which PCs progress in levels -- will, to a great extent, produce different kinds of games.

Finally, I never meant my comments to be taken as an attack on the 3E rules. I certainly have never claimed that it is impossible to run a "low power" campaign with 3E (hell, I ran one for over a year, and it was great). And I have stated MANY times in this thread that, in many important respects, those rules are an improvement over earlier editions. My point has simply been that insofar as most people will run campaigns that (more or less) adhere to the rules as published, and that the rules as published allow for quicker level progression (and hence higher powered games), most 3E campaigns will be higher powered than 1E campaigns. Let's see -- yup, that IS a valid and sound argument.

 

[Belegbeth]

You're not very good at games, are you? Haven't played much multiplayer either, apparently, or else you wouldn't come out with a dumb 'lacks creativity' argument.

It's MUCH easier to come up with subjectivly 'interesting' characters than to develop actual strategies whose benefits and drawbacks can be assessed objectivly. Children do what you are calling for all the time. So the notion that it takes more 'brain power' is laughable.

What's more laughable is that you are defending terrible, clunky, arbitrary rules sets that has little interest gamewise and proclaiming that it requires more 'intellectual' effort to play? Uh huh...

Wow. I am starting to think that you must be a former student of mine, to harbour such resentment!

Ummm... where have I defended "terrible, clunky, arbitrary rules sets"?

In my earlier posts I have claimed: (a.) overall, 3E is more consistent and coherent than 1E; but (b.) the "character" of 1E is much more colourful and interesting than 3E. (I think my views are very similar to those expressed by kenjib in his post.)

By the way, my office is looking forward to your application. We think you're perfect!

 

[Piratecat]

I think this thread needs a time out. I'll unlock it tomorrow; when I do, I think it'd be nice of people could post without all the rancor.

And that's "being angry and insulting" rancor, not "Jabba dropped Luke into a big pit" rancor. Best not to confuse the two.