Geriatric Grumbling

[Drifter Bob]

Well now, I wouldn't go that far. Could have used a better name, but after all, it's only a name...

Funny thing about the internet, you never know when you're talking to a discordian or when you're talking to a charter member of the Bavarian Illuminati or worse, a fundamentalist agnostic of the Old Order.

It's funny, I was stationed in Bavaria in the Army, though I never made it to Ingoldstadt...

Really? An anarchist? Was he a bomb throwing anarchist or a non-bomb throwing anarchist? Cuz here in my part of 'merica where we don't have no bridge dictionaries, we think they're all bomb throwing. Yea, and they all wear black overcoats and skulk away in the night like Sacco and Vanzetti.

As in the time of those two unlucky Italians, we are in a period where this is no longer a laughing matter. Many Americans buy into exactly the kind of cliches you joke about. I've known a few anarchists who were holier than thou, or annoyingly self rightous, even a few who were vegetarian hippies. But that is a far cry from being greedy sociopaths. That's just warped! Kind of like MTV putting circle A graphiti in montages about racism.

The people who brought us the weekend and the 8 hour day should be treated with a bit more respect.

I never trust anyone who sees fnords.

"I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of man I'm preaching too..."

DB

 

[Qlippoth]

"I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of man I'm preaching too..."

GUT BLOWOUT!

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

I find this rather incredible. Can you explain to me how adding some role playing bonuses to Bluff checks, granting experience points for actions other than killing monsters, and changing the alignment system is going to guarantee that the next WOTC book would be unprofitable? Or was it just raising the possibility of making the game more mature which is going to guarantee it's doom?

Btw, I wouldn't call 1/4 of the members of ENworld "almost no one"

Marketing. 1/4 of the members of ENWorld is absolutely, positively not even a blip on the radar. And I would hesitate to say that all of ENWorld bothered replying to this poll. We've got a LOT more than 444 people floating around here. Since the motivation behind replying to anything on the internet is usually the opportunity to complain, I would guess that your numbers are also heavily skewed in favor of people with a complaint. Heck, the "Geriatric Grumbling" title is the only reason I even looked at it. If the title had been indicative of the content (should D&D be more mature?), I would have ignored it.

In any case, what you and others seem to be suggesting has morphed throughout the thread. A summary of the suggestions as I see them: 1) a separate "mature" or "expert" version with minor rules variations. 2) a re-tooling of the rules for the next edition to be more "mature"

1 is untenable. A niche of a niche of a niche will not sell enough to be profitable. There is no demonstrable need in the market. So many 3rd party publishers put out material addressing most of these concerns.

2 is not a problem in my mind, but nor does it add anything of value. IMO, You have failed to prove the lack of "maturity" in the existing rules. You keep pointed to disagreements between players and DMs, and problems of players who use metagame knowledge, and adversarial relationships between DMs and players. These are all problems of the people and problems of trust, not problems of the system. I've seen all these problems and more in action. So I left those people behind and created a new group of players. I no longer have any of those problems. And one of the reasons I don't have those problems is that I've demystified the DM. I'm not sitting behind a screen exercising godly power over my players by arbitrarily deciding whether they succeed or fail. They may not always know what the DC of a task is, though they would if they asked me about the conditions and remembered what we've talked about as far as how conditions affect DC. Of course, I don't think most of them have committed the target DCs from the PH to memory, either. They trust me to handle the mechanics fairly and are there to have fun.

The only area in which I tend to agree with you slightly is alignments, but an hour on these boards can net you 50 variations on handling alignments. And if you can't talk your group into trying one of them, then again, your problem is trust and/or people.

 

[Ourph]

I find this rather incredible. Can you explain to me how adding some role playing bonuses to Bluff checks, granting experience points for actions other than killing monsters, and changing the alignment system is going to guarantee that the next WOTC book would be unprofitable?

I think the main problem is that, even though I voted that I would like a more "mature" version of the game, I completely disagree with you on what would constitute a more mature game. I imagine a lot of other people who responded to the poll would as well.

You seem to like the fact that 3e includes Bluff skills, but would like more rules to change the way the skill works. I, on the other hand, hate the idea of having "roleplaying skills" and would simply do away with them in my "mature" version of the game.

You would like to see rules for granting XP in exchange for roleplaying. I would like to see the system go back to an XP for treasure gained system.

It sounds to me as if your version of a more "mature" game would focus on changing the rules to encourage and reward people for treating their character as an independent entity that they have to bring to life through their speech, described actions, etc. In my version of a more "mature" game, the rules would encourage players to treat their PC as a game piece and nothing more; a marker (if you will) that identifies them on the gaming table and describes what actions they are capable of.

I doubt making those few changes (either yours or mine) would make the next edition unprofitable, but you're probably going to leave just as many people dissatisfied with the changes as you satisfy by making them.

 

[Desdichado]

Btw, I wouldn't call 1/4 of the members of ENworld "almost no one"

Btw, I wouldn't call 83 people "1/4 of the members of ENworld" either.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I've made it a skill check to ID items and detect magic, as it seems silly to have the wizards preparing spells to do that. If they have an elaborate understanding of magical principles, they should be able to work these things out in other ways. And it freed up our wizards to diversify their spell selection without having to blow a day to go into "study mode."

I like this idea. Would you be willing to post a summary of how you do this? I'm very interesting in stealing it for my campaign.

 

[jasper]

…I think one of the specific ways DnD is dumbed down and made Disney-esque if you will, is in the interpretation of alignment. Players and NPC's often seem either cartoonishly good or cartoonishly evil, or they take a chaotic neutral alignment as a license to behave in whatever manner strikes their whim at the moment, i.e. totally random…. Um Drifter Bob which version are you talking about? I had players in early 80’s doing this. Ex I CN I roll 79 I kill the pizza man etc?

…It does often seem like there are a lot of groups who play the game as if it's a Computer based rpg; running from room to room, killing the baddies, taking loot, leveling up…. Um Pierce Did you play with my group around 1981?


Bravo auldgrump nice shade of azure.

I have traveled alot, played in different editions, under different dms, in different decades.
Rules have change, faces have changed, game play hasn't. Or differ rules, different face but same player type.
Aka Seeker is hack slasher
Diaglo is an ham actor
Jasper is munckin he was this build for splat book a or to use the npc in dragon issue 45.
Change the names and faces of players but still the same problem.

 

[Campbell]

I find this rather incredible. Can you explain to me how adding some role playing bonuses to Bluff checks, granting experience points for actions other than killing monsters, and changing the alignment system is going to guarantee that the next WOTC book would be unprofitable? Or was it just raising the possibility of making the game more mature which is going to guarantee it's doom?

Btw, I wouldn't call 1/4 of the members of ENworld "almost no one"

DB

Role Playing Bonuses to Bluff Checks: The problem herein is that 'quality of roleplaying' is not a quantifiable entity. While I agree that the exposition within the core rulebooks does not promote a roleplaying atmosphere, I believe that it isn't practical to expect a set of rules to handle the sort of solutions that should remain within the capable grasp of DMs who choose to modify rolls based on such situational factors. Besides, shouldn't we try to encourage a variety of playstyles, rather than try to force everyone to play the game in the manner that we choose to?

As an aside: Bluff and Diplomacy, like most other skills, are dependent on expected bonuses to meet certain DCs. Would you up the Sense Motive DC for a particularly good lie if it come from an NPC? There are other ways to promote roleplaying at the table than to force your vision of the game onto other people.

I'm sorry if I come off a little preachy. It's just that this line of thinking sounds awfully similar to 'punishing PCs with weird names at the table, rather than nipping it in the bud before play' idealogues.

 

[William Ronald]

For myself, I feel no need to greatly change the rules to reflect some concept of maturity -- a concept that seems to vary depending on who is discussing it.

I think what ultimately determines the quality and "seriousness" of a game is the calibre of the DM, the players, the adventures, and the role-playing. I have seen games where people have dealt with serious issues, including the consequences of war and invasions. I have spent hours in role playing sessions with little dice rolling and in combat-filled adventure. I did not feel that the rules ever limited my ability to address serious themes.

As for the issue of bonuses, it can be a very subjective matter. What is a good bluff? Perhaps there can be some advice on assigning bonuses or penalties beyond what is already covered.

When I have seen good campaigns collapse and gaming groups fall apart, it was not so much an issue of rules as the players and DMs.

 

[Pierce_Inverarity]

…
…It does often seem like there are a lot of groups who play the game as if it's a Computer based rpg; running from room to room, killing the baddies, taking loot, leveling up…. Um Pierce Did you play with my group around 1981?

I have traveled alot, played in different editions, under different dms, in different decades.
Rules have change, faces have changed, game play hasn't. Or differ rules, different face but same player type.

Too true, sometimes I wonder if it's that CRPG's have influenced DnD or if DnD is responsible for all the hack/slash CRPG's.

I played a lot in 1981, but the room to room hack and slash model was pretty common. Doesn't that basically describe modules B1 & B2?

I know some folks complained about the stranger locales and more intricate plots of the late 80's and 90's (some great FR modules came out then!) and I know that one of the motto's of 3rd edition is "back to the dungeon!" but I think some of those modules elevated the play of DnD.