Have you decided to change systems?

[Imaro]

mhacdebhandia, it's cool and after your second post I get, and eve agree with, your points.

You know it's funny I've been gaming with a core group of people(mostly family but also friends) for years. Most of us started with D&D others with AD&D, and it's basically all we knew about for a long time. Now that we're older mid 20's up to 30, and have discovered a wider variety of games...I can totally vibe with what rycanda is saying above. For our group D&D just doesn't cut it anymore...to many rules, maybe it's me, maybe it's age or my kid, or work or responsibilities, or whatever... but I always feel like I'm forgetting something or mis-remebering a rule, or have to look it up when I play...and it's just not fun. We often joke that D&D 3.x is certainly a young man's game.

Yeah people will say just go to rule 0 and make it up, but the question then is why did I spend $90 to make it up, when there are other games that I can get what I and my group are more comfortale with and enjoy greater. We have recently discovered that the amount of rules we can retain fun and deal with is about World of Darkness level. Beyond that and we're either making it up or glossing over it. We've also discovered a few rules-light indie games that we're loads of fun(Mortal Coil, Seven Leagues, etc.). To each his own, but I see no problem in people broadening there horizons and checking other games and playstyles out.

 

[Ry]

I have to ask: why green onions?

I HATE green onions.

Aside from that, what you seem to be saying is that preference has to be subjective, which is part of its definition. Gamer C just seems to be placating the other two, by making them each think they are right, perhaps to avoid a conflict. The problem in the situation is that the conflict needs to happen, so the other two can get a better handle on where their lines are drawn, and Gamer C is preventing that with his/her fence-straddling.

That's what I'm getting at - but there's a stronger point I'd make: The conflict needs to happen, so System X can hit the garbage bin and System Y (which is the game that Gamer B is actually playing) can come to light. If we let Gamer C have his way, Gamer A just plays something else, and Gamer B keeps playing the Not-Quite-But-Nominally-And-Vociferously-Defended-System-X. We get nowhere in the hobby.

I still think that preference has to play a major role in most choices, especially in a hobby like ours. (snip) You seem pretty strong in this opinion, so I probably can't convince you.

We already agree; preference is what brings about the decisions on what game should be played. What I'm saying is that you can't go straight to "I like to play the Dragonlance Saga System RPG" (the old card-based one). Instead, you have to say "I want to play a dramatic fantasy game, with lots of visual aids, more emphasis on taking part in a story, and simple ajudication." If the Dragonlance Saga ruleset delivers on your goals, then great - but if something else does it better, I don't think preference alone justifies the choice of system.

 

[Razz]

3.5E all the way! Woo!

Sorry, but, 1E and 2E sucked horribly. Yeah, we had our memories in 2E as a group, but it was so restrictive, so whacky, so spiraling out of control and so ??? that 3E was a refreshing relief. 3E is everything we wanted to see in D&D finally come to life. Some of 3E we were already doing in our 2E games before 2E died out.

Races can be any class? Done.

Take off level limites from nonhuman races? Done.

Play nonstandard races/monsters? Done.

Used all Player's Options books because we wanted more options and customization for characters and NPCs? Done.

I can't ever see myself playing "Stone Age" systems like 2E, and I sure as hell won't be caught playing 1E. Maybe you "old schoolers" (and I mean old) like that stuff just like you like your "Pong" and can't fathom games like "Metal Gear" or "Final Fantasy", but I think D&D is better than it ever was before.

3.5E all the way!

 

[Nyaricus]

In what ways are you changing the system? House rules or some OGL variant?

House Rules, and tons of them to suit my tastes. Speaking of tastes, check out my Tasty Bits thread linked in my sig to see a peek at some of the stuff I've done, considered doing or thought was plain cool. Note: it's kinda messy and needs cleaning up - but there are funny quotes at the end!

cheers,
--N

 

[TGryph]

Did I switch? Oh yes...after giving 3.0 a try for a year, I ran, not walked to several other systems. My fond memories of Old Skool D&D were dashed after playing 3.0, and I hated what it had become. Oddly enough though , I am glad, as it pushed me to try other systems I probably would not have tried otherwise. Harp, WFRP, FUDGE, COC, C&C among others, before my group seleected GURPS as our system of choice.

TGryph

 

[Piratecat]

3.5E all the way! Woo!

Sorry, but, 1E and 2E sucked horribly. Yeah, we had our memories in 2E as a group, but it was so restrictive, so whacky, so spiraling out of control and so ??? that 3E was a refreshing relief. 3E is everything we wanted to see in D&D finally come to life. Some of 3E we were already doing in our 2E games before 2E died out.

First, Razz, don't post in this thread from this point on. Look for an email from me.

Second, ladies and gentleman, what you are looking at is the quintessential threadcrap. It occurs when someone enters a thread they have no real interest in, and then post something antithetical to the thread in order to start a fight. We don't have a lot of patience for it.

So, folks, please don't derail this with a discussion of why you agree or disagree with Razz. If you'd like to do so, feel free to start a new thread.

And as always, please report any problematic posts.

 

[Biohazard]

3.5E all the way! Woo!

Sorry, but, 1E and 2E sucked horribly. Yeah, we had our memories in 2E as a group, but it was so restrictive, so whacky, so spiraling out of control and so ??? that 3E was a refreshing relief. 3E is everything we wanted to see in D&D finally come to life. Some of 3E we were already doing in our 2E games before 2E died out.

Races can be any class? Done.

Take off level limites from nonhuman races? Done.

Play nonstandard races/monsters? Done.

Used all Player's Options books because we wanted more options and customization for characters and NPCs? Done.

I can't ever see myself playing "Stone Age" systems like 2E, and I sure as hell won't be caught playing 1E. Maybe you "old schoolers" (and I mean old) like that stuff just like you like your "Pong" and can't fathom games like "Metal Gear" or "Final Fantasy", but I think D&D is better than it ever was before.

3.5E all the way!

[post edited due to not having read Piratecat's warning sooner]

 

[Piratecat]

EDIT: Thanks!

 

[papastebu]

I HATE green onions.

But it's such a good tune.

That's what I'm getting at - but there's a stronger point I'd make: The conflict needs to happen, so System X can hit the garbage bin and System Y (which is the game that Gamer B is actually playing) can come to light. If we let Gamer C have his way, Gamer A just plays something else, and Gamer B keeps playing the Not-Quite-But-Nominally-And-Vociferously-Defended-System-X. We get nowhere in the hobby.



We already agree; preference is what brings about the decisions on what game should be played. What I'm saying is that you can't go straight to "I like to play the Dragonlance Saga System RPG" (the old card-based one). Instead, you have to say "I want to play a dramatic fantasy game, with lots of visual aids, more emphasis on taking part in a story, and simple ajudication." If the Dragonlance Saga ruleset delivers on your goals, then great - but if something else does it better, I don't think preference alone justifies the choice of system.

If it's just the name being defended and not the ruleset, there's no consensus after all, right? What B is talking about is slightly out of kilter with what A is understanding, and vice-versa, and C is just compounding the problem. Unfortunately, this happens alot.
I hadn't actually thought of it in these terms, before, but saying, "Let's play D&D," actually brings to mind a different set of ideas for everyone that hears it. My ruleset, for example, is such a mutated version of d20 and all forms of D&D, coupled with bits and pieces from Earthdawn, Rifts, Shadowrun, all kinds of White Wolf, Ars Magica, et cetera, et al, that I can't call it D&D, anymore. If I called it that and my old gaming group started to play it, their expectations wouldn't be met, and they'd probably get a little annoyed with me for not being more specific.
It's kind of like the implied promise in a literary work. If you don't deliver, the reader is likely to put the book down, because they feel like they have been cheated.
To be a little more on-topic, finally, I guess that I haven't decided to change systems, because there are no new systems to change to, and even if one popped up, I'd just take what I liked and leave the rest. My homebrew is the BORG of the RPG world.

 

[Ry]

If it's just the name being defended and not the ruleset, there's no consensus after all, right? What B is talking about is slightly out of kilter with what A is understanding, and vice-versa, and C is just compounding the problem. Unfortunately, this happens alot.

papastebu, I think you've basically nailed it there. btw, I'm glad we had this little side-discussion; we actually went from disagreeing to agreeing.