Flavorless 3e- Advantage- players

[Belen]

This is certainly true. I've put jas on my ignore list because of this thread (not that he'll care), and it wasn't even me he was insulting.

There isn't anything of value in his posts.

PS

I just assumed that he has been burned by "house rules" in the past, most likely by a poor GM, so he is transferring those issues on to me. As he has never played in my game, then 90% of what he says has no point. He would be more relevant if he stuck to discussing the information posted, though.

 

[Belen]

Ah, thanks for clarifying. I don't believe this holds here though. In most of my post I used 'seems to me' and 'i think' to qualify all of my remarks. And given that this is primarily a discussion of perception (i.e. 'flavor'), I think the mindset of the poster is a perfectly reasonable subject of inquiry. He chose to be offended, threw some complelty irrelevant comments my way, to which I responded by noting how irrelevant his insults were to the topic at hand. In all those cases I was making an argument, either about the actual topic or what relevant to that topic. He was simply venting. Again, the truth (as I percieve it) can hurt, and often hurts because it is true. Not speaking it would be to censore myself or, worse, be condescending to the current posters. I just assumed enworld posters were smart enough to look past their immediate emotional response and to the substance as it stands. 'Insulting' to the person to identifies to closely with his campaign perhaps.

Which brings us back to the question of rhetoric. I find that those who are too touchy automatically loose credibility because they are unable to or unwilling to face inconvenient arguments. If I post something that is equal parts irrelevant and substantive (which I do not concede i did), the mature individual would ignore the former and address the later. The person to ducks out completly just looks weak. Of course this depends on the larger audience, but I have no reason to believe that those who posted sympathy for the original, weak poster are representative of the larger messageboard community. If he is a lost cause, others might have easily taken something from my bluntness.

Oh, and 'baby' and 'hypocrite' only came into the equation after i was referred to as something else. So while technically correct, the more defensible statement on your part would be 'there were interesting posts before the original poster started calling people prick'; but I don't blame you for not being consistent given your love of rhetoric. Are you now denying that there are hypocrites on this board? Curious position...

Actually, the insults began far earlier as PirateCat mentioned. I do think that I successfully reigned in my temper until the prick comment, although I admit that I should have waited about an hour to post until I had cooled off a bit.

However, you could choose to make your points without libel and crass personal attacks.

 

[Belen]

My point: The rules, as written, provide little flavor and the generic nature of them cater to the players whims rather than being inclusive to the GM.

I do not advocate changing all spells and abilities in order to hobble players.

I do advocate the need to write new rules to create challenges for players that are more unique than the next monster of the week. An adventure that has players overcoming PERSONAL dilemma's will mean far more than defeating the next dragon.

Not that I am saying that no point exists in fighting monsters and those fights can be made meaningful with appropriate story points added.

However, the game should be about more than combat, and writing rules that can lead to personal obstacles and challenged will be far more rewarding than 4 combats per session every week.

 

[WizarDru]

My point: The rules, as written, provide little flavor and the generic nature of them cater to the players whims rather than being inclusive to the GM.

I agree with most of what you say, but I don't necessarily hold truck with this statement. IMHO, the rules cater to the DM's ability to customize, just as you are doing. Both the DMG and PHB make it clear that some things are exclusively his choice (prestige classes being a classic example). The assumption is made that the DM is going to customize the game to meet his needs, so they provide you with as many options as possible.

It is true that the supplements are more often catered to players than DMs. This is a simple case of economics...there are more players than DMs, and even though DMs buy more books, players outnumber the DM by a wide-margin.

D&D is written to the generic, not the specific, because WotC knows, through market research, that DM's tend to customize. It's a pointless exercise, because the DM is expected to make those choices and decisions....and rather than impose a set of rules that some DMs won't like, they chose a lack of specialization, to place that power back in the DM's hands. That way, one DM can use the rules as written, while another DM can use it to tailor his game as much as desired. Thus, you can accomadate such diverse settings as Midnight, Conan and the Forgotten Realms under the same d20 roof.

I also have to agree with WayneLigon's assessment that the idea that 'being like a video game' is bad, or that D&D is like that (not that you were specifically saying that, BU). Quite frankly, we should all be so lucky as to enjoy a game that's as enthralling as Knights of the Old Republic or Prince of Persia, IMHO. Never mind that it's an apples-to-oranges comparison...like saying that the game Guillotine is a poor game because the French Revolution keeps replaying and has no consequences. It just seems silly, to me.

 

[Belen]

I agree with most of what you say, but I don't necessarily hold truck with this statement. IMHO, the rules cater to the DM's ability to customize, just as you are doing. Both the DMG and PHB make it clear that some things are exclusively his choice (prestige classes being a classic example). The assumption is made that the DM is going to customize the game to meet his needs, so they provide you with as many options as possible.

It is true that the supplements are more often catered to players than DMs. This is a simple case of economics...there are more players than DMs, and even though DMs buy more books, players outnumber the DM by a wide-margin.

D&D is written to the generic, not the specific, because WotC knows, through market research, that DM's tend to customize. It's a pointless exercise, because the DM is expected to make those choices and decisions....and rather than impose a set of rules that some DMs won't like, they chose a lack of specialization, to place that power back in the DM's hands. That way, one DM can use the rules as written, while another DM can use it to tailor his game as much as desired. Thus, you can accomadate such diverse settings as Midnight, Conan and the Forgotten Realms under the same d20 roof.

I also have to agree with WayneLigon's assessment that the idea that 'being like a video game' is bad, or that D&D is like that (not that you were specifically saying that, BU). Quite frankly, we should all be so lucky as to enjoy a game that's as enthralling as Knights of the Old Republic or Prince of Persia, IMHO. Never mind that it's an apples-to-oranges comparison...like saying that the game Guillotine is a poor game because the French Revolution keeps replaying and has no consequences. It just seems silly, to me.

Actually, I would be VERY unhappy if I sat down at the game table and played a game like Knights of the Old Republic. A video game is not something I associate with a good game of DnD.

Current DnD leads to a video game mentality. You do not have to care about your characters, every injury and dilemma can be magically taken away, and you can have a get out of death free card.

If you have someone in your group with a video game mentality, then you're in for some boring games. The person will be obsessed by numbers and powerups, get mad if a condition lasts too long, and will RP only long enough to get to the next battle.

Heck, they would probably want the GM to just have "cut scenes." That way, they cannot be bothered with roleplaying.

Video games and roleplaying games are entirely different animals and using the mentality of one to play in another is just...bad....

 

[jasamcarl]

I just assumed that he has been burned by "house rules" in the past, most likely by a poor GM, so he is transferring those issues on to me. As he has never played in my game, then 90% of what he says has no point. He would be more relevant if he stuck to discussing the information posted, though.

Oh, good god, you seem completly oblivious. The issue I took had nothing to do with your houserules, but rather your specific contention that, as written, the game is flavorless and that arbitrary death that can't be countered through any clearly stated mechanical option is neccesary to creating 'flavor'. I found that charge along with your later comments demonstrated a simplistic mindset.

Of course, you seem able to master complete hypocrisy. I can't judge your dm skill from comments you made on these boards, but you can make broad declarations such as '3e encourages a video game mentality' or discourages roleplaying.

As to the flame 'issue', i forgive you. It seems your bad temper came from your inability to comprehend my point. I'll let ignorance be an excuse here.

 

[Belen]

Oh, good god, you seem completly oblivious. The issue I took had nothing to do with your houserules, but rather your specific contention that, as written, the game is flavorless and that arbitrary death that can't be countered through any clearly stated mechanical option is neccesary to creating 'flavor'. I found that charge along with your later comments demonstrated a simplistic mindset.

Of course, you seem able to master complete hypocrisy. I can't judge your dm skill from comments you made on these boards, but you can make broad declarations such as '3e encourages a video game mentality' or discourages roleplaying.

As to the flame 'issue', i forgive you. It seems your bad temper came from your inability to comprehend my point. I'll let ignorance be an excuse here.

The game is flavorless as written. Many actions, including RP actions, can be solved with a simple roll. The rules do not encourage roleplaying, rather, they encourage building a house of numbers.

How many times have people referred to their kick tail numbers to show what a good character they have? I have heard that far more often lately than I have heard about what they have done. I hear a lot about "builds" and being "effective" than I hear them describe the person behind the concept.

In a video game, I am concerned about what "build" grants me the greatest bonus and the best abilities.

I say that there can be a better mix. 3e is probably the greatest DnD game design ever created, but some of the soul of the game has been lost.

Effects should not be all about the numbers, conditions should not be about the minus to this stat of that ability alone.

That is my point. I am only advocating that the rules can be sexed up. They do not have to be so bland and generic. I think the designers have lost sight of that in the mad rush for cool powers and how to increase stat x or skill y.

That is why I wrote game rules for my world in the first place.

And you cannot judge my skill as a GM from comments on messageboards. The comments may be how I would like the game to be, but not how I play the game.

However, I can judge 3e because I have read the rules, played the system, and discussed it with a variety of people. You may feel differently about the game and I am not telling you how to play the game, however, I am providing my thoughts about parts of the system that disatisfy me.

Getting defensive and lashing out with personal attacks does not help anyone see a different viewpoint.

 

[buzzard]

As to the flame 'issue', i forgive you. It seems your bad temper came from your inability to comprehend my point. I'll let ignorance be an excuse here.

If ever I have seen a perfect example of 'pot calling the kettle black' it is here. Not only did you start the insults, you have been more severe and persistant- yet you think it's his fault? What color is the sky in your world?

Though to get back to topic- the game is rather more videogame like than pervious editions. I can accept that, and I don't really find it to be objectionable.

You know I rather like playing a character who doesn't get mutilated and remain that way. I guess that's a videogamey attitude. I rather just like playing to have fun.

Which has more sales the RPG industry or the videogame industry?
If you were trying to market something in the (oh the humanity!) attempt to make money, what course would you take? Cater to a small, and not terribly dynamic niche market, or would you try to grow a market segment by adopting traits of a successful product category?

I'd say it is self evident as to what WoTC did. I certainly don't fault them for it. Keep in mind the sucess of 3rd Ed was such with the D20 license that many other compatable worlds have been spawned which do cater to different flavors.

Now as for players whining about flavor changes- I have to sympathize with BelenUmeria. I'm playing in a game which has just started and is in a world of the DM's creation. The magic system is completely different from stock D&D (and since I'm the rules junkie the DM decided to let me cook it up). I worked with the guy who is actually playing the wizard to develop the new system, so he's OK with it, and finds it to be cool. I still have the expand the spell list some more, but it will happen. One player, however, just won't stop complaining about the new spellcasting. I find this extremely irritating since he isn't even playing the caster.

He seems to have an inherent beef with D&D though, so I don't know if his whining counts under flavor whining. He appears to be a disgruntled Rolemaster player who hates the world because nobody wants to play his game.

buzzard

 

[WayneLigon]

Current DnD leads to a video game mentality. You do not have to care about your characters, every injury and dilemma can be magically taken away, and you can have a get out of death free card.

Tell me of a time D&D never had these things?

People can RP well or they can RP badly and no 'system' is going to change that. There are apparently a number of people that (to use a White Wolf term) always play D&D in the 'playing a game' mode and not in the 'telling a story' mode, mainly because they've never seen anything different. They have very few movies or TV shows to draw on for fantasy. Perhaps they probably don't read a great deal, and so have never been exposed to the very things that D&D is suppossed to simulate. What they do have to go on is video games, which confuses the matter by using the term RPG (which is impossible in a standard computer game; it is in a MMORPG). They'll use what model they have for RPG's, and it doesn't matter if they're playing D&D or Ars Magica.

'every injury and dilemma'

Again, tell me when this wasn't the case? Cure spells have always existed, as have potions of healing and staffs of healing. Reversal spells for everything have always existed, from OD&D on down to today. Get stoned? Stone to Flesh. Get paralysed? Remove Paralysis. Get Slowed? Haste. Get poisoned? There are still no less than two spells to deal with that.

The difference is now that we have explanations for the various counters, and they're arranged in a logical manner that makes sense. Every condition does have a counter, as it should be. The availability and cost of that counter is, as it always has been, in the hands of the GM. Petrification is now, arguably, an even worse threat than it was before: there's one thing that reverses it, and it's far from common.

The various raise dead spells have always been with us. Again, how has 3E changed things? I'll admit that for the most part, it was seldom a worry in older editions because unless you started at a higher level, were very generous with XP (mainly from house-ruled additional systems), or just plain cheated, it would take you several years of weekly play to get to the point where your character could cast Ressurection. So most GM's never had to deal with the higher levels of play. Now you do.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

This is certainly true. I've put jas on my ignore list because of this thread (not that he'll care), and it wasn't even me he was insulting.

There isn't anything of value in his posts.

I've been ignoring him for several weeks now, mostly for similar behavor in other threads.

It's quite liberating.