Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="WizarDru" data-source="post: 1360596" data-attributes="member: 151">Well, clearly we have different ideas about video games...either you and I played KOTOR very differently, or we interpeted it very differently.  However, they're two different animals entirely: a single-layer d20 CRPG with a lot of freedom versus a PnP RPG.  If you didn't become attached to some of your NPCs in KOTOR, then I'd wager you weren't interested in doing so, not that it doesn't happen.  As far as I know, only one of the NPCs in KOTOR actually needs to make it all the way through the game...and she isn't with you continually.If your contention is that CRPGs and video games remove from the experience by allowing you to load a save game, I'd say that it's a question of taste, but that there are solid design and mechanical reasons for the way such issues are handled in video games, and those reasons are directly related to the enjoyability of the game.  Many of these rules don't apply to an RPG...but then, I don't accept that D&D has been made like a video game.  They are different design pursuits, with different audiences (primarily single-player versus a social multi-player) and have different limitations, each with their own strengths and weaknesses. Many of the so-called penalties of previous editions were not really penalties at all.  Few characters survived long enough to worry about the problems of aging from haste, for example...and it certainly wasn't a problem to elves.  Few campaigns lasted long enough for players to reach double-digit levels, IME.  WoTC's market research bore this out, generally speaking.   Now, setting aside the issue of some people enjoy role-playing in a different fashion than you do (i.e. they want to put sword to monster, and grab his loot...and that's all), I'm still not sure where the idea that there are no lingering effects comes from, or that it's particularly indemic to 3e or 3.5e. Min-maxing is hardly a new term, nor is the idea of building a superlative character.  If you think it is, then I guess we'll just agree that our experiences have been very different.  I can recall with clarity many, many instances of people in the early 80s bragging about their characters, their stats and how they manipulated the system in some way.  "Tomb of Horrors" was Gygax's direct response to such behavior, in fact.   "Knights of the Dinner Table" is solidly based in such lore, and a classic example of such behavior...that's what makes it funny.  If you mean to say that 3e encourages such behavior, I'd disagree, and merely point out that increased options give those so inclined more to work with, as opposed to pointing them in that direction.  In 1e, a thief didn't get to choose to be better or worse at a particular skill set...his abilities were set by his level, and little else.  In 3e, a rogue can choose to be a con man or a pickpocket, a master of disguise or what have you.  I consider that the opportunity to create more flavor, not deprive it of same.   In short, I haven't found that any game system affects the nature of those playing it so much as the reverse is true.  A powergamer may find weaknesses in one system more than another...but if the rest of his group doesn't enjoy that style of play, that's the problem.  D&D was written to accomadate their tastes, mine and yours, all at once.  The system should not be providing the 'sexy' parts...that's what world settings and DMs are for, IMHO. As for the issue of solving certain interactions with a single die roll...well, that's an entirely different debate, and one that's existed for a long time, as well.</blockquote>

Verification