Has D&D become too...D&Dish?

[Jarrod]

I think the idea of purchasing any magic item is linked to the newer, faster-paced modules that are coming out. When a character goes up a level or two within a short span of time, there isn't time to custom-craft items. At that point, the GM either says "no, you can't have it" (which is inherently unfair to some players) or says "yes, you can" (which is fair to all).

If there's time in my campaign, crafting and such is the preferred method. But if the players are in the middle of battling the Doom Cult from Hades and the wizard has been saving up for months/years for a Headband of Intellect, I'm not going to say no.

Interestingly, the crafting rules from the DMG2 (the ritual-based ones) mention _nothing_ of crafting time. The challenge you have to overcome, and the reward - those are both in there. But the time is short, which allows someone to actually make use of them.

 

[Imp]

In every game we get into town and the players just look at their cash, page through the DMG and hand the GM a list of what they want, and almost always get rubber stamped. Forget a limited selection. Also forget haggleing or any possibility that the shop keeper or townspeople might possibly cut you some slack just because you saved them, their livestock, and their immortal souls from horror and torment.

Heh. Back in the day thumbing through the DMG and handing it to the DM with demands for anything was grounds for heavenly lightning bolts once per round, as I recall. There's your problem.

 

[A'koss]

For me, and I'm willing to bet for more than a few of you, that a lot of the perceived problems with D&D stem from the fact that it doesn't do a good job at mirroring the kind of fantasy (movies, literature) that we grew up with.

D&D only reflects itself. Eberron (and Ptolus by the sound of it too) are perfect examples of this - campaigns/cities built around the D&D ruleset which bear little resemblance to of any of the style of fantasy I recognize. The kind of popular fantasy that got me into playing the game in the first place (Conan, Red Sonja, Lanhkmar, Elric, LotR, King Arthur, Beowulf, The Greek Heroes, the Norse Heroes...).

Now when I was younger, I ran "games" and not really campaigns, so it didn't matter to me all that much. D&D players are relatively easy to find and it was, essentially, the only game in town. But when you start building your own homebrews and try to run games closer to the fantasy that got you playing in the first place, you find that the D&D ruleset doesn't do a great job of it. And the higher level you go, the greater departure from the style of anything you recognize.

I remember one of my players once commenting on how HL play in D&D beared no resemblance to what he had envisioned an "EPIC FANTASY BATTLE" to be like. And you know... he was right. D&D, whether you love it or not, is it's own unique brand of fantasy and is really only really suited to running "D&D" worlds.

 

[RFisher]

My matra of late has become: “Let D&D be D&D!”

Or, more generally: “Let [insert game name] be itself!”

I’ve been much happier since.

Which basically means I try not to push it too far. I can’t help but change some things to fit my preferences, but I try to moderate that tendency.

Except for a few games that really are flexible enough that it really takes some pushing before I feel the boundaries. (Although it’s probably not so much flexibility as that the boundaries of those games happen to fall outside my myopia.)

 

[Andor]

D&D only reflects itself. Eberron (and Ptolus by the sound of it too) are perfect examples of this - campaigns/cities built around the D&D ruleset which bear little resemblance to of any of the style of fantasy I recognize. The kind of popular fantasy that got me into playing the game in the first place (Conan, Red Sonja, Lanhkmar, Elric, LotR, King Arthur, Beowulf, The Greek Heroes, the Norse Heroes...).

You'll notice that in all of those settings, the heroes (except for Elric) are fighting men battleing powerful but evil wizards, and that magic is an arcane art, known only to a very few, who are corrupted and depraved by their eldritch lore (including Elric).

The problem in D&D is that everybody wants to play wizards. They also want to be a good guy. So the game is set up to accomadate this desire. However, if magic is easy, and not inherently evil or at least dehumanizing, then it no longer looks like the worlds of the fiction you love, and instead becomes D&D.

You want Conan & Red Sonja? Play Iron Heros. You want PC magic users? Then you're looking at some variation of D&D.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Heh. Back in the day thumbing through the DMG and handing it to the DM with demands for anything was grounds for heavenly lightning bolts once per round, as I recall. There's your problem.

It still is, IMC.

 

[The Shaman]

Heh. Back in the day thumbing through the DMG and handing it to the DM with demands for anything was grounds for heavenly lightning bolts once per round, as I recall.

Ah, yes, Ye Goode Olde Daze.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I find the notion that Monte would find Iron Heroes to be "inimicable" to his style of play an awfully presumptive one. D&D 3E isn't his game. He was hired, as were other people, to update someone else's game (namely, it belonged to WotC and, perhaps, the fans). He was given strict mandates in that regard and, as someone who's written for other people's products for a living (in my case, I'm a journalist), your own desires typically get sublimated to the needs of the product.

 

[JohnSnow]

For me, and I'm willing to bet for more than a few of you, that a lot of the perceived problems with D&D stem from the fact that it doesn't do a good job at mirroring the kind of fantasy (movies, literature) that we grew up with.

D&D only reflects itself. Eberron (and Ptolus by the sound of it too) are perfect examples of this - campaigns/cities built around the D&D ruleset which bear little resemblance to of any of the style of fantasy I recognize. The kind of popular fantasy that got me into playing the game in the first place (Conan, Red Sonja, Lanhkmar, Elric, LotR, King Arthur, Beowulf, The Greek Heroes, the Norse Heroes...).

Now when I was younger, I ran "games" and not really campaigns, so it didn't matter to me all that much. D&D players are relatively easy to find and it was, essentially, the only game in town. But when you start building your own homebrews and try to run games closer to the fantasy that got you playing in the first place, you find that the D&D ruleset doesn't do a great job of it. And the higher level you go, the greater departure from the style of anything you recognize.

I suppose it should come as no surprise to me that the person who seems to "get" my comment the most is one of my fellow Iron Heroes fans. Mike really tapped into a certain mindset, didn't he?

In defense of Eberron, from our conversations, I think Keith would "get" what I'm talking about. The reason high-level PCs are "rare" in Eberron is to prevent the PCs from being "utterly irrelevant" at low levels. For the record, I have to say I LIKE Eberron and I'd probably like Ptolus, as long as the system keeps the "game-isms" from adversely impacting the realism (suspension of disbelief, actually) of the setting.

Monte made a comment that he wasn't sure about character "retraining" (per PHB II) because "it would hurt the 'suspension of disbelief' if a character could change his skillset 'every month or so.'"

Let me state that I have NO problem with retraining rules. However, if I were operating under the same assumptions, I'd have to agree with Monte. But here's the difference. Monte's assuming a character levels up EVERY MONTH. And THAT makes me twitch. If I operated under the same assumption, I'd be forced to agree with him. Fortunately, I don't, and so the retraining rules don't upset my suspension of disbelief.

Of course, if I operated under the same assumption as Monte, the simple act of leveling up every month is what would make me twitch, not just the rebuilding part.

As an aside, it's nice to know I can cause such a lively, and productive, debate.

 

[JohnSnow]

I find the notion that Monte would find Iron Heroes to be "inimicable" to his style of play an awfully presumptive one.

If I'm in error, I'll happily apologize. Monte has made no secret of two opinions in everything I've ever read of his writings about fantasy roleplaying games:

1. That his favorite classes are the ones that cast spells.
2. That he likes his "fantasy" to be "over-the-top" "high-magic."

By contrast, Iron Heroes offers a whole lot of love for the non-spellcasters in what most people would call a "low-magic" assumed setting. I don't think I'm out of line to believe that's not Monte's "preferred style." But like I said, if I'm wrong, I apologize.

For the record, I'm using "style" to mean "setting and tone."