Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 6992259" data-attributes="member: 6778044">Just because something is distinctive (or not) to a given subject doesn't mean it can't be defining.Yes, D&D always had XP to add levels, although only a few classes gained abilities. But that wasn't necessarily the defining feature. Early in RPG video game design, the part that was latched onto as what defined an RPG was experience and level advancement. Exploration was there a bit, but with the graphics of the day it was mostly just in the form of a maze of sorts, to get from one level to the next, killing monsters on the way. Video games have built on that foundation.While D&D had level advancement, and it's always been a part of the published game, it wasn't the original building block, nor the primary one. Initially, the innovation that was seen as revolutionary is that you stepped into the part of a single character. This came from wargaming, where people were used to battalions and groups, not an individual character. And while the concept of role-playing was in its infancy (and didn't typically equate to the acting style some used later on), the idea that I could be a wizard, or a fighter, is the defining feature. Some early video games stuck very close to the D&D mold (Wizardry, for example), but it never really felt like you were that character. There's a different interaction with the video game, where you don't seem as invested in the character. I think the main difference is that with a TTRPG, you not only get to say you are a wizard, but there are several other people at the table that agree you are a wizard, and interact with you, the wizard. And I wasn't referring to other RPGs in my comment. I have played and run many other RPGs, though to about 2000ish, but most of them once or twice. And most of them I don't recall much because they didn't make much of an impact on me personally, my groups preferred D&D (as do I). My perspective is admittedly skewed very heavily on D&D, particularly 2e and earlier. I know that D&D has influenced a lot of games in and out of the RPG (duh), and that others have had an influence on D&D. And my commentary was solely on the way that 5e seems to have evolved, been presented, and is played by a lot of people.Really, I'm just acknowledging that I don't fully understand how other people play the game in a certain way. I've read some of the articles on character builds, or those by people that declare certain spells, magic items, monsters, class abilities, or whatever as great, or a trap, or what have you. Or the threads about what to multi-class, and when:Some common threads seem to be (more generalizations):They are looking at the rules to find ways to maximize their choices. They don't want to be stuck making (or being perceived as making) "a bad choice."They tend to focus on the long term - this is where I plan for my character to be at 3rd level, 5th level, 9th level, etc.The focus is usually leaning toward combat, if something is useful outside of combat that's great, but if it's useful outside of combat, but not within, then no.They tend to have the same format and feel (to me) as a Video Game guide, or a MtG Deck Building guide, and the general tone of them is that of "winning." That is, this is the "best" character of this type.When it comes right down to it, I don't really get this at all. Sure, I understand from a logical standpoint that people want to have more power, and stuff like that, but it's just not the way my brain works. It doesn't excite or interest me. And from my perspective, they remind me of all of the things that I tend not to like when I check out a video game RPG. It's also what pretty much killed MtG for my daughter and I as well. It's far too competitive. It was fine when we buy some balanced decks to play against each other, and wasn't too bad if we made some decks out of those we bought. As soon as we tried to play against anybody at the local shop? We were slaughtered. Every time. It just wasn't fun. D&D has always been fun to me because it has never been a competitive game to me. For some people it is, or at least has that tone. That's all.I've played the game for a long time, and sure there are some choices that might be "better" from raw numbers, but our games rarely seem to be about raw numbers. The characters seem to take on a life of their own, and what seems right for them when the time comes I generally can't predict when creating one.As I've mentioned elsewhere, I love the approach of rolling stats first (we don't swap them around), and seeing what comes from that. There's a story that starts right with that unexpected, random roll, that starts to build a history and eventually a race and class. I have no idea what I'll be trying to attempt at 5th level, much less know whether this character will still be alive. We treat our characters like people, and the majority of people do their best to avoid deadly combat where possible. It was usually relegated to the military and criminals, because it's, well, deadly. It's the lure of easy treasure that's usually the catalyst, but a lot of times it's because of things that happen in the world around the characters that starts them on their way.When I run public games, I get a wide variety of play styles. I like that because I use them specifically to challenge my DMing ability and grow. And the Min/Maxers seem to fit in fine. Sometimes I get the sense that they are gloating over their ability to get one over on me (really, it happens), and I still don't get it. OK, so you "rolled" nothing lower than a 15 on 3d6, re-roll ones (once). Whatever. If that's what you have to do to have fun, then so be it. Somehow they never seem to have much more of an advantage once we're playing.So maybe I'm mis-assigning the influences. It's the way I see it based on the gamers I meet and play with, and the changes I've seen in the rules over the years. The source isn't really relevant to me compared to my recognition about what the differences are that I like and don't like, since that helps me tailor the game to my (and my players') preferences. I'm not really responding to prove my case, just explain a bit of what I was thinking. It was a generalization, which was probably a poor decision to start with.</blockquote>

Verification