Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 1080748" data-attributes="member: 177">First, and foremost - being a nerd and being angsty have pretty much no connection.  Angsty folks don't play D&D, they play WoD <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />Now, as to your comments, I find I have to disagree on most of your points:1) Such extensive rules give players a lot of ammo when arguing over a GM call. Whether they have ammunition is not particularly important.  Rules don't cause rules arguments, players do.  Players aren't supposed to argue rules points at the table, so the issue here are the players, or teh player/DM relationship, not the rules.2.) Rules rather than roleplay: The social skills have really taken a beating in 3e.Well, considering that they didn't exist in previous editions, it is hard to say that they've taken a beating relative to earlier times.  When you claim that "half of D&D is learning so socialize" you confuse a possible use with the intent of the designers - in effect, you're complaining that the hammer you have isn't ideally designed to put screws in the wall.  Yes, D&D can be a socialization aid for some gamers, but that is not what it was designed to do, and it's not reasonable to gripe about how the rules fail to serve a purpose for which they weren't designed.  WotC is not the Children's Television Workshop.  They published a game, not a course in social behavior.3.) 3e- the PnP PC game: Anyone else notice how close 3e gets to a computer game?Is it that 3e is close to a computer game, or that computer games are close to 3e?  D&D, in general, has always been a game with a large focus on combat.  Many (perhaps weven most) players like it that way.  The game's social mechanics have improved over tiem so that now they are about as strong as anyone else's.  It's about as reasonable ot play a social-focus D&D game as a social-focus campaign in any other game, so I don't see much reason to complain.  4.) GMs have a lot more to do and consider than in past games.[sarcasm] Poor, poor, GMs.  Actually have to think!  How dare they make a game where the GM has to actually consider his options!?!  Woe betide us, we've a game that encourages a DM to put careful and cunning craft into his adventures.  The days of slapdashing together a scenario while paying rapt attention to reality TV shows are over!  Unheard of!  Foul, I say!  [/sarcasm]   You say, "so much more work has to go into mechanics these days that you need to spend twice the time to have a good story and good encounters."  I ask a simple question - twice the time as compared to what?  Compared to earlier editions?  As compared to other games?The rules in 3e are an aid, rather than a hindrance, in producing encounters that do what the DM intends.  In previous editions, and in nost other games, there are few to no guidelines whatsoever as to what will probably make a good challenege for a given group of PCs.  3e and 3.5e have such tools.  They are imprefect, but work better than what you'll find elsewhere.5.) There are so many rules that even players get lost. If you don't use a rule often enough to remember it, then it is unlikely that it is coming up often enough to significantly impact your game through losing time in looking it up.  I like to play a variety of characters and I love to create stories. When my half my prep is learning arcane mechanics and my sessions are five hours of social and combat DIE rolls, then I am unfulfilled.You don't need to refer to arcane mechanics to create interesting characters and stories.  Personality is not dictated by the rules, and stories don't arise from mechanics.  At worst, you only need to bury yourself in rules minutae when you wish to present an interesting tactical problem.</blockquote>

Verification