Is it DnD, or MtG? (General Griping)

[Storyteller01]

works wonders, doesn't it?

Simply put - it does not matter what you give them, the players will choose to use it as they see fit. If most of them want action and fights and little plot or role-play, that's what they'll use it for.

Not snarking, just a rebuttal...

We are talking about the same people that advertising companies and psychologists have made money on by manipulating on a second by second basis?

 

[Storyteller01]

In the dozen or so FR campaigns I have played in by now, I've yet to see a single person want to play anything like that.

FR has a rich and very detailed background, that's why I like it, at least.

Granted, there are some very powerful feats, PrC, etc in the 3rd edition FR supplements, which often find their way into those powergaming builds, but that doesn't mean that most players also play that way.

Bye
Thanee

Agreed. FR is a very well made game,and ithas a rather rich history (its been around since 2nd ed). The trade maps wqere an especially nice touch. I haven't followed FR in a while (the whole Chosen thing). Has anything new come out (new as in not previously seen in 2nd ed)? ANy 3.5 products (beyond reprints)?

 

[Thanee]

Quite a bit. Serpent Kingdoms and Shining South are the two most recent books, I think, both came after the Player's Guide to Faerûn, which updates the previous books to 3.5.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Storyteller01]

Thought they had box sets for them in 2nd ed?

 

[Thanee]

Well, I do not really know all the 2nd Ed. stuff. I think I read that those were regions not yet covered, but there has been so many FR supplements in the past already, that it's probably hard to find something, which has not been yet.

Altho, to be honest, I don't care if it is new or not, as I do not have most of the 2nd Ed. books, I'd be glad to see some of the more traditional regions covered (again), in the great quality the 3rd Edition FR books have. Next year, the Waterdeep book will fit into that niche.

Now I only need books about the Swordcoast, Amn, The North, Heartlands, Cormyr, Dalelands, Cormanthor, Moonsea, ...

Bye
Thanee

 

[Abstraction]

Here's the basic rundown, in my mind:

1ed/2ed: You were playing GARY's game. You played by GARY's rules, in GARY's world using the flavor that GARY made up. If you didn't want to play by GARY's idea of gaming, you were swimming upriver. This was not a bad thing when it was the only thing we had.

3.xed: You are given a complete set of RULES in the core books. These are rules mostly devoid of any flavor. You are allowed and somewhat encouraged to come up with the flavor for your game. If you cannot or will not, you can still just play the game as a set of RULES.

The people who hark back to "the good old days" are seeing the past through rose-colored glasses. 1e/2e had far too problems. For instance, if you wanted to play a halfling, you were basically forced to be a thief. The ONLY options for a halfling were thief and fighter, and with small size and strength penalties, they stank at fighter. Every single time I tried to play a halfling in 1e/2e, at some point fairly early on, somebody "picked up the halfling that's been picking our pockets, turned him upside down and shook him."

Do you remember individual experience in 1e/2e? So that you were in competition with other players? So that accusations of DM favoritism were virtually guaranteed?

Finally, I stopped playing M:tG because the rules changed far too often for me to keep up with them even playing casually. I stick with 3.5 because the rules don't change. Big, big difference there.

You guys arguing that the "feel" was better really have to sit down and mentally go through one entire typical evening of one of your old games, not just cherry-pick the best memories over 20 years of playing.

 

[Krieg]

1ed/2ed: You were playing GARY's game. You played by GARY's rules, in GARY's world using the flavor that GARY made up. If you didn't want to play by GARY's idea of gaming, you were swimming upriver. This was not a bad thing when it was the only thing we had.

Strange how we all still managed to play by our own ideas of gaming without any trouble.

PS the implication that 2E was "GARY's" game is quite....humorous.

3.xed: You are given a complete set of RULES in the core books. These are rules mostly devoid of any flavor. You are allowed and somewhat encouraged to come up with the flavor for your game. If you cannot or will not, you can still just play the game as a set of RULES.

Yep, it was real tough in the old days since we didn't have any "RULES" to play with. Of course that begs the question as to what was in those old books instead...

The people who hark back to "the good old days" are seeing the past through rose-colored glasses. 1e/2e had far too problems. For instance, if you wanted to play a halfling, you were basically forced to be a thief. The ONLY options for a halfling were thief and fighter, and with small size and strength penalties, they stank at fighter.

While there actually is a bit of a valid argument here when it comes to open options vs rigid frameworks, it is lost in the inaccurate & overblown statements.

I played a halfling freedom fighter for many years that would gladly have disabused you of the notion that fighter was not a valid option.

Not to mention the number of halfing priests who are wondering what in the heck you are talking about.

Every single time I tried to play a halfling in 1e/2e, at some point fairly early on, somebody "picked up the halfling that's been picking our pockets, turned him upside down and shook him."

Perhaps you should have found a less predictable group rather than blame the game for their behavior.

Do you remember individual experience in 1e/2e? So that you were in competition with other players? So that accusations of DM favoritism were virtually guaranteed?

I give out individual XP awards to this day. It's not an issue of competition or favoritism, but of course maturity has a lot to do with that.

Finally, I stopped playing M:tG because the rules changed far too often for me to keep up with them even playing casually. I stick with 3.5 because the rules don't change. Big, big difference there.

If the rules didn't change it would still be called there wouldn't be a ".5" tacked on to the end.

You guys arguing that the "feel" was better really have to sit down and mentally go through one entire typical evening of one of your old games, not just cherry-pick the best memories over 20 years of playing.

I just hope you realize that there are quite a few folks still playing OD&D/Rules Cyclopedia/1E/2E who would find this to be not only grossly inaccurate but also bordering on ignorant condenscension.

 

[Umbran]

We are talking about the same people that advertising companies and psychologists have made money on by manipulating on a second by second basis?

They try to do so. Only sometimes do they actually succeed.

Note how those same advertising people and psychologists still cannot predict with any real certainty which TV shows, movies, or books will be hits? That's because the manipulation you can do in a short advertisement doesn't carry over into a longer work.

 

[Abstraction]

Interesting you should mention that. Do you realize that advertising has become such a part of our lives that it has scarcely any impact anymore? The so-called Gen-Y kids have absolutely no brand loyalty. They are not Pepsi-people (like me). All that advertising really does anymore is to keep new competitors off the block.

 

[M.L. Martin]

I'm really not sure what you are trying to say here, since most calculators don't have the sort of symbolic manipulation capability you need to do calculus. In college, I used my calculator for physics, chemistry and linear algebra; hardly ever calculus.

But how can you play the HERO System without a calculus-capable calculator? ;-)

(Yes, that's a joke; I have a deep affection and respect for HERO. I just wonder if it requires tracking too many elements for my play style--such as it might be if I roleplayed instead of just reading and talking about it. )

No, you really don't. Unless your GM plays that way. I don't play that way and I can't say I personally know any who do. Folks like those that hang out on the smackdown forum on WotC are an inevitable subset of the D&D audience, but are clearly in the minority.

They may be in the minority, but they are a very vocal minority, and appear to be very influential on people's perceptions of the game. An intriguing point--back in the ramp-up to 3E, Rich Baker (I think it was him) said "Min/max if you like; the game won't break". Yet, here we are with constant discussion of 'broken', 'nerfed', and imbalanced elements. I don't know if the issue is with the design, the players, the supplements, or cosmic radiation, but it's something I'd like to see explored.

IMO, the flaw in D&D (as distinct from elements that just aren't to my taste) is that a game so rigorous and balance-oriented should do considerably more in providing customization and adjustment guidelines beyond the sketchy stuff in the core books. There are too many 'black boxes' in class, ability, feat and spell design, IMO.

Matthew L. Martin