Harniacs vs. d20/D&D players

[Falstaff]

you can all thank me anytime now

 

[TiQuinn]

Wicht, you are so the man! Thank you for summing that up so nicely!

 

[Kaptain_Kantrip]

D&D is written for the LCD--the LCD of gamers, not the LCD of humanity. Big difference! The LCD of humanity live in trailer parks and call Miss Cleo for career advice when they aren't busy playing the Lottery or appearing on Jerry Springer. The LCD of gamers are by the very nature of gaming, smarter than the average bear. To be a gamer, one must be smarter than average. I think this is important to define.

Does that mean that D&D is only for the LCD of gamers? No. It is written to be accessible to the largest audience (post Gygax, that is!). That is a marketing strategy, not an insult to anyone's intelligence. Sheesh!

 

[Psion]

It is almost impossible to explain the difference between Harn (the rules independent setting) and any of D&D's settings without ruffling feathers.

No, it's not. Patrick did it just fine. Your problem is that you can't go two sentences without giving statements that pidgeonhole or outright denigrate players of the game.

Psion: A clarification--I said "Much of the third party product is high fantasy hack-n-slash" and I stand by this statement.

Sure, it's easy to say that out of context of what you were saying, but you said that as part of your thesis supposedly proving that the "intended" playstyle of D&D is "videogame" and that "nothing else is supported."

but most of it is high fantasy, and assumes everyone is playing such, because that is the type of game supported by WoTC and their "back to the dungeon" (video game) mentality in designing 3e.

There is a difference between "high fantasy" and "video game" -- one that you seem oblivious to.

3e and d20 can certainly be used to play other than high fantasy, but it works best in its basic (unaltered) form for cinematic, heroic, four-color comic book, high fantasy games like D&D or Spycraft.

Cinematic, high fantasy, yes. Video game, no. To say so is to insult those of us who like heroic play but aren't hack-n-slashers. Many a game has transpired in my group without one hit point of damage to friend or foe. And it's not unusual, because the other group I play with in a d20 game has had no combat at all in a SW d20 game and the PCs are almost 3rd level.

 

[Wicht]

I don't think it's the fact that PC's level, it's the speed at which they level according to the core rules that give that feeling to some, me at least. Everything is jacked up over previous editions as well. PC's get a lot more power compared to say 1e or 2e.

I have noticed that PCs level up quickly during the first couple of sessions and then it slows down until they are leveling about every other gaming session. But this can be easily slowed down and a DM who has only 1 or 2 combat encounters a game will have their PCs leveling up about every 7 sessions. Leveling will occur as fast or as slow as the DM wants. The core rules make this clear and the fact that they give the formula of 14 combat encounters (of the right EL) = a level raise makes it very easy to calculate how fast the PCs will rise in power. If you are leveling too fast for your taste, its the fault of the DM, not the game nor the rules 9since the rules make it very clear how to control this problem.

I like the fact that the players get a visible character reward on a regular basis as it makes it easier to keep their interest. I also know from experience that if a new player levels during their first session, from 1st to 2nd level, it makes them more excited about the game. This has nothing to do with the game being hack and slash, its simple human nature. So IMO the leveling works out just fine. And I am far from being a powergamer (indeed I suffer from the always the DM curse). And if one wants a slower experience growth, thats fine, but there is no need to put down the playing style of others as inferior to make the point as to what one's own personal preference is.

 

[Desdichado]

As gamers we like to think that we're more intelligent than the "average" Joe Blow. I don't know if this is really true, or just a conceit common amongst us. I've known plenty of gamers that I wouldn't call real geniuses and they've done just fine.

Then again, I've never known a gamer that was a really dim bulb either. But I don't think it's a truism that gamers are more intelligent than anyone else. Believe it or not, gamers tend to be all kinds of people with all kinds of other interests besides gaming. We're not a monolithic marketing group.

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Hey there Joshua! How are you my friend?

Well, as for why Kaptain Kantrip gets crucified, while I am favourably regarded, I must simply say what my mother used to say to me:

"It's not what you say, but how you say it!"

As a correllary, I would say that saying things differently, de facto, *changes* precisely what *is* said.

For example:

"Ech! This steak bites! Who they hell would eat this? You call this meat? I wouldn't feed my dog this piece of leather!"

"Hmmm...I don't think I prefer this steak. I tend to like Prime over Choice cuts of meat, and I like it to be cooked medium-rare, instead of well-done. oh, and with lots of cracked pepper, too!"

These are two very different things! Though both are displaying a negative preference, the former is saying something entirely different from the latter.

I'm glad that even Kaptain Kantrip likes what I said! Indeed, he thinks that I expressed his views better than he did!

SHARK waves at Kaptain

I think that is why Joshua!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[Wicht]

D&D is written for the LCD--the LCD of gamers, not the LCD of humanity. . . (snip)That is a marketing strategy, not an insult to anyone's intelligence. Sheesh!

One more time.

I think most of us can grant that D&D is written for mass consumption and is the most popular game out there today (rpg wise). The problem is with the phrase Lowest Common Denominator. The mere use of the phrase is insulting. Stop using it and you will make your point a whole lot better.

Originally posted by Joshua Dyal
As gamers we like to think that we're more intelligent than the "average" Joe Blow. I don't know if this is really true, or just a conceit common amongst us. I've known plenty of gamers that I wouldn't call real geniuses and they've done just fine.

Hear, hear.

It is a common human failing for groups of individuals to think that their particular group is inherently superior to all other groups. At least half the time such groups are wrong.

 

[TruffleGrubber]

One last post on this thread and I think that's it for me. The conversation apears to rapidly degenerating into a circular argument.

LCD: In my opinion, 3eD&D was written for the LCD of the target market. This is a rational marketing decision. This is how you become a WotC and stay that way. Good marketing. This is in no way, in my mind, desultory to those that play 3e, of which I am one- on occasion. In fact I would say they were amazingly successful at it, since I'm one who generally scorns those types of products off hand. It's a good, versatile and fun system. Is it 'realistic' (out of the box, so to say), in my opinion- no. But neither is High Fantasy, so why in the hell would I want a realistic system for a High Fantasy setting?

I say that it is not realistic because of wooden hitpoints and levels, primarily. The term 'wooden hitpoints' is self-explanitory enough. Levels provide a stepped progression of characters with sudden rapid jumps in power rather than a smooth progression throughout the character's life. These two items are something that Harnmaster overcomes elegantly and it is the reason why I like Harnmaster so much for the low-fantasy setting of Harn. Would I use Harnmaster for KoK? No, not a chance. As an aside, I have had thoughts of doing a conversion of it for Warhammer Fantasy, but that's another thread all together.

KK is doing some quite interesting things with his d20 Harn (pHarn as we refer to it). I've run d20 Harn and didn't like it, but I don't think that there is any fault in anyone using whatever system they like with Harn. The setting is just too good to have people limited by the thought that they have to use this system or that with it. Something to Note here: On the Harn Forum I will be a vocal advocate of using Harnmaster with Harn, with many reasons, but in the end I don't disdain anyone who does otherwise.

And now I'll be quiet and lurk until something Harnic comes up again

Good Gaming to you all, regardless of system or setting.

**edit**

I corrected a couple above, but pardon my abhorrent grammar and spelling. I'm going to blame it on the Thera-Flu. Having the flu in the summer is like having hemmarhoids on a long road trip.

 

[Shadow of Bukrai]

Yeah, KK, cut it out before these people send some d20 critter over to your house to tie you up and drag you to their tower so they may then beat you with a +3 Stick of Face Scambling. Not pretty.

Y'all, I just have to say this is very ironic. Poor KK is a proponent of D&D/D20 over at the Hârn site and has defended the game on more than one occassion. Yet here he gets bashed by the very folks he defends. (yes, I understand why he is getting bashed - poor choice of words).

Check it out: Not Lowest Common Denominator. Most Common Denominator. I don't think that is insulting. Can we live with that?

In KK's defense: it says so right in the DMG that nearly all of the rules for 3E were designed with dungeon crawling in mind. Of course, there's also text about low-fantasy campaigns and intensive roleplaying. And no one is saying you can't use D&D to play a realistic campaign (as many folks who run D20 Hârn do).

It's just that's what is says in the DMG.

And please no calling me an elitist or anything like that. If you only knew the extent to which I have defended and championed D20 in the Hârn circles...
___________________
ShaneNINE