Explain the State of the RPG Industry and 3.5... Please!

[Mouseferatu]

Well, I'll answer this even though it wasn't directed at me.

Why exactly IS feeling "like wargaming" so bad?

Nothing at all, if that's what you want. I don't believe that wargames are "inferior," or that they're evil. But they aren't roleplaying games. I'm not making a judgment call; I'm not saying one's "better" than the other. Pizza and ice cream are both good, but some people like one, some the other, and some both. And they're certainly different.

Roleplaying games and wargames are different. And if I want to play a roleplaying game, then a wargaming feel is bad--for my purposes.

D&D, despite its origins, touts itself as a roleplaying game. It should therefore be possible to play it without getting into the wargaming.

(And again, for the record, it is possible, and I know it's possible. But the current book, as written, states otherwise.)

 

[danzig138]

Let me guess

You're probably from RPG.net, right?

Your "commentary" would certainly feel more at home over there than here, thats for sure.

Snarky much? Anyway, next time, could you try and not quote 9 paragraphs and reply with only three lines? Thanks. And there's nothing wrong with RPG.net.

 

[JasonT]

WotC is trying to make more money. They seem to think that selling miniatures will do this, and apparently they're hoping to take advantage of D&D's popularity to do so. They're not making changes to the game in order to make it more "miniaturey" (at least, none of the rule changes look like that to me), but they are promoting miniatures as the "best" way to play the game -- presumably in the hopes that D&D players will buy miniatures.

I'm drawing a little bit on Monte Cook's big review/rant here (not that he endorses my views, of course) -- he pointed out that in many cases in the new rules they start talking about "squares" instead of "feet", and many of the minor changes are simply to make things work better in miniatures play (no more "rectangular" creatures, the 5 ft-10 ft penalty for moving diagonally, etc.). I can't say these changes are bad, they work very well with the existing rules, but they do seem to be changing the game to make it even more miniatures-y than 3rd edition. Is this a bad thing? No, though some of their text about integrating the battle grid and miniatures in your game is pretty clunky (to very liberally paraphrase the DMG: "if you're drawing rubble or something on a map, you don't HAVE to draw it in discrete 5' squares. It's okay to draw a little bit of rubble spilling into the adjacent grids! Just make sure you remember which squares have rubble on them and which ones don't!...").

To be honest (I hope this doesn't make me seem hypocritical), for the most part I _do_ use miniatures in 3rd edition D&D (though not in other RPGs, mostly). d20 is just perfectly designed for miniatures, and I actually like the new miniatures. Occasionally I play a miniatures-less D&D game if I'm caught without my figures (frankly, usually I just use dice or tokens), or if there's only a few PCs and the combat situations are simple and easily explainable. ("Okay, I rush at the nearest orc!" "As you charge in with your shortsword, he gets a free attack with his 10-foot-long halberd!") Miniatures can be very useful, and they're perfect for D&D/d20, but they're not always necessary, and occasionally they can get in the way of the imagination.

But now this is drifting into a "d20 is great, but sometimes I prefer other systems" digression.... I think what I'm realizing is: miniatures are great for d20, not necessarily so good for other RPG game systems. But of course it's not Wizards' business to introduce newbies to "RPG game systems" in general; it's their business to introduce newbies to d20....

The second one I think you are overstating. The Book of Erotic Fantasy was not crushed, it was released as planned -- just without the d20 trademark logo. I would be surprised to find that this has hurt their sales. Keep in mind that the decency clause is to do with the d20 trademark and NOT the SRD. People can continue to put out any sort of twisted or sensual or whatever sort of d20 game they like -- they just can't put the d20 logo on it unless WotC approves..

That's a good point, and one I wasn't aware of. I guess I need to study the differences between "OGL" and "d20" more closely. I don't have any particular interest in "The Book of Erotic Fantasy" except as an example, and for the Valar guy's comment that one way to create a boom in RPG interest might be to release a product so shocking that the mainstream media did news stories on it. Which I think is a legitimate, if questionably likely, strategy...

Jason Thompson

 

[MerricB]

I think what I'm realizing is: miniatures are great for d20, not necessarily so good for other RPG game systems. But of course it's not Wizards' business to introduce newbies to "RPG game systems" in general; it's their business to introduce newbies to d20....

To a large extent, the reason that miniatures are great for D&D is that the game focusses so much on combat! And more than that - it focusses on melee combat!

Hand-to-hand combat is much more reliant on accurate positioning than ranged combat (esp. with gunfire, where cover is really the only thing that matters and can be easily described by the GM).

In games where combat is not such a driving force, and there are many of them, you don't really need such accuracy and you can rely on descriptions from the GM.

Cheers!

 

[jmucchiello]

...in many cases in the new rules they start talking about "squares" instead of "feet"

Ah, yes, it reminds me of a so-called "role-playing" game popular 20 years ago where figures were moved on a table top and movement was measured in inches, spell distances too. And an inch meant two different things depending on if the combat took place indoors or outdoors. Perhaps you should compare 3E to a copy of this game. It's called Advanced Dungeon and Dragons, and was written by some guy named Gygax. You would think he didn't know the difference between role-playing games and tabletop miniatures games.

All sarcasm aside, I fail to see how people get so uptight over a game whose roots are firmly rooted in miniatures wargaming might have rules that resemble miniatures wargaming.

 

[JasonT]

Ah, yes, it reminds me of a so-called "role-playing" game popular 20 years ago where figures were moved on a table top and movement was measured in inches, spell distances too. And an inch meant two different things depending on if the combat took place indoors or outdoors. Perhaps you should compare 3E to a copy of this game. It's called Advanced Dungeon and Dragons, and was written by some guy named Gygax. You would think he didn't know the difference between role-playing games and tabletop miniatures games.

All sarcasm aside, I fail to see how people get so uptight over a game whose roots are firmly rooted in miniatures wargaming might have rules that resemble miniatures wargaming.

Since Monte Cook was the person who pointed out (in his rant/review) the "squares instead of feet" thing in 3.5, let's just say I'm on the same page with him: I think it's a step backward.

I never understood the "inches" rules in AD&D either. In my experience, 3rd and 3.5 is much friendlier to miniatures than AD&D, simply by virtue of making sense (then again, I was mostly in elementary school when I was playing AD&D, so maybe it'd be easier to understand if I went back and looked at it...). I've used way more miniatures in 3rd/3.5 than I ever did in AD&D.

I'd play a RPG without miniatures (with pleasure!), but I wouldn't play a miniatures game without RPG elements (tho' I know lots of people who do), and I guess that just boils down to personal preference.

As long as D&D still has both elements, I'm happy as pie. But the moment some bad DM tells me "You can't play a cleric in my D&D game because you don't have any cleric minis", I will murder them and mail their corpse to Wizards of the Coast.

Jason

 

[jmucchiello]

Since Monte Cook was the person who pointed out (in his rant/review) the "squares instead of feet" thing in 3.5, let's just say I'm on the same page with him: I think it's a step backward.

But why is it a step backwards? What does backwards mean here? D&D has always been a combat heavy game. 3E is a very combat heavy game. The number of pages in the 3E and 3.5E PHBs discussing characterization, personality and adopting roles is roughly equal. If you were arguing the 3.5E de-emphasizes "role" compared to 3E, that would be a step "backwards". But using squares in lieu of feet? Backwards is not the right term.

 

[Nightfall]

jm,

Maybe side-ways. But in any case yes D&D is combat heavy. It's been combat heavy since 1st edition. HOWEVER it's evolved into something more than that. So in any case Jason, I don't agree with everything you've said. I think you are being way too over sensitive and also far too panky about things that haven't happened yet. If you want to fear someone or something thing, fear the US Government. Or bomb makers. Not the fate of a game that will change over time.

 

[diaglo]

If you want to fear someone or something thing, fear the US Government...

i am the Feds. yeah, so fear me.

 

[diaglo]

Balderdash!

that is a completely different game.

i am starting to worry about your views of the RPG industry. if you think board games like Balderdash are worth mentioning on D&D boards.