Is it DnD, or MtG? (General Griping)

[Storyteller01]

Is it me, or do these new DnD rules (3.0 & 3.5) seem to be going the way of Magic: the Gathering?


It used to be "This is how I stopped Lord soandso while in the Temple of Truely bad things!"

Now it's "if you mix this with that, and add some of tihs, no one can touch you!!"

Do any of you see the same 'evolution', or am I just missing AD&D too much??

 

[francisca]

Do any of you see the same 'evolution', or am I just missing AD&D too much??

Probably some of both.

I feel the same way about prestige classes and feats. Too much meta-gaming going on in a lot of groups. My home 3.5 game that I DM, doesn't have that problem though. If a player wants a prestige class, the class has to belong to an organization. The players have to build the organization in concert with me, and it has to fit the world's context.

 

[Desdichado]

I don't see it, and I don't miss AD&D. In fact, I had quit playing D&D for something like 12 years because the rules sucked so hard; 3e brought me back.

Of course, now I'm a 3e "grognard" who isn't very interested in 3.5, but there you have it...

 

[Storm Raven]

Is it me, or do these new DnD rules (3.0 & 3.5) seem to be going the way of Magic: the Gathering?

It used to be "This is how I stopped Lord soandso while in the Temple of Truely bad things!"

Now it's "if you mix this with that, and add some of tihs, no one can touch you!!"

Do any of you see the same 'evolution', or am I just missing AD&D too much??

I think it is just you, in the sense that you think this is new. There has always been an element of players who want to come up with the "best" characters and "win". Do you remember the old letters to the editor in Dragon (circa 1980-something) in which a contributor asserted that no one else could play in Greyhawk anymore, since his character destroyed it. Or where a letter writer talked about how his character had used a wish spell to get himself a bunch of Star Destroyers and AT-ATs to conquer the world, or where Thor was killed by pushing him off a really tall wall with a push spell (the assassin managed to save Mjolnir for himself though).

In point of fact, I don't remember very many "This is how I stopped Lord So-and-so" recountings, even in the "glory days" of D&D. The ranks of immersive roleplayers seemed quite thin (in my experience) in the days of yore when 1e was dominant, and even thinner when 2e rolled around.

You see people talking about mechanical issues more now, but that's more a function of the internet than the game. There have always been people intensely interested in making the "perfect" character, just as there have always been people interested in story.

 

[francisca]

I don't see it

Oh yeah, all of this should be pre-fixed with "In my experience, your mileage may vary."

I didn't see it until recently, when I started playing 3.5 with some other groups. In some cases, tweaking/builds/feat chains consume more table time than actual gaming.

Again, I'd like to point out to all: Nothing about 3.5 forces you to play that way. Certainly there were power gamers back in the 1E days. Munchkin is an old term.

I do however, feel that 3.X makes it easier to play that way, in part because there are simply more options to add to the mix.

 

[diaglo]

Of course, now I'm a 3e "grognard" who isn't very interested in 3.5, but there you have it...

i'm a grognard. i came from the wargaming side of things before i ever played D&D.

Storyteller01,

i don't think it is anything new. there is a graduation of sorts to different levels of play. some people like to power build. they like the mechanical part of building their number/character.

others like to build stories about what they did when, how, why, etc...

give the newer editions some time. they are still young. eventually they will reach the same levelling off area that 1ed and 2edADnD did.

 

[fredramsey]

Quick, get me a flask of oil and a torch...

***

Look, there's a dead horse, hand me a stick...

***

YAWBT (Yet another WOTC Bashing Thread).

Is it me, or do these new DnD rules (3.0 & 3.5) seem to be going the way of Magic: the Gathering?

It used to be "This is how I stopped Lord soandso while in the Temple of Truely bad things!"

Now it's "if you mix this with that, and add some of tihs, no one can touch you!!"

Do any of you see the same 'evolution', or am I just missing AD&D too much??

 

[Greatwyrm]

I don't intend to bash, just observe.

I think in the beginning D&D (or rpgs in general) was it's own entity. As computer rpgs became more and more prevalent, there was a split between paper and computer. They were similar, but distinct. With 3e, D&D embraced the other path. For example, crpgs typically depend more on gear to make you better. I think that's more true in 3e than 2e. Whether this sort of thing is good or bad is up to the individual.

 

[fredramsey]

I'm afraid I must respectfully disagree about the equipment part.

I played Basic D&D, 1e, 2e, and now 3.0 and 3.5. Before all the skills, feats, etc., every character past 3rd level was defined by his or her equipment. Especially weapons. Oh, and potions... wands... staffs... rods... oh, and rings...

I'd say now you have much more opportunities to make your character unique without focusing on items, IMHO.

I don't intend to bash, just observe.

I think in the beginning D&D (or rpgs in general) was it's own entity. As computer rpgs became more and more prevalent, there was a split between paper and computer. They were similar, but distinct. With 3e, D&D embraced the other path. For example, crpgs typically depend more on gear to make you better. I think that's more true in 3e than 2e. Whether this sort of thing is good or bad is up to the individual.

 

[Trainz]

Sure, there might be some of that, but unlike MtG, if you don't have the Ultimate Deck tm the DM will adjust his game to whatever power level your group currently has.

You see, as long as there is no "winner" in D&D, it just won't happen.