Is it DnD, or MtG? (General Griping)

[iblis]

People who are emotionally close to something often aren't as capable of evaluating that something, as a detached third party.

True. Also and conversely though, people who are not emotionally close to something often aren't as capable of evaluating that something, as a detached third party.

No, seriously - yeah, I know how that looks. I'm not trying to generate more ill-will or whatever, in all honesty.

As an example : What meaningful understanding of an intensely personal, unique experience that one has, is available to a detached third party who will never share that exact experience? I'm not saying or implying that "none" would be the answer here. But clearly, there are other roads to understanding than that often claimed yet never attained state, 'objectivity'.

Erm, anyway...

D&D = MtG? Nope. Not remotely similar, as far as I've seen.

I've been a big fan of a number of systems, most of them not D&D in any incarnation. Though I did like AD&D 1ed a fair bit back when. Much fun!

One thing I've realised is that no matter what system you use, there're gonna be different types of player and GM that will be whatever type they are, regardless. Except when they're not.

One significant (but 'bias-neutral') difference between D&D 3.0/3.5 and earlier editions is (so most people seem to agree) : more options. Yes? Well I hope so, 'cause I'll continue from there.

Quite apart from the fact that any given person might just prefer more, or less options, a major argument against D&D 3.0/3.5 appears to be : "This unnecessary amount of options allows players to min-max their characters more easily and more grievously than ever before." No? I hope I'm reading these things right, otherwise...

Hm, I think, to clarify, I'll start a poll to get more detail out of this devil, sts. Anybody who has opinions on this subject, please vote on it.

But I'll also say here that IMO, having more options by default, in every direction is a Good Thing an' all that. Reason being, if you have less options, less people can do what they want to do (by default) - a Bad Thing. And if you only have options that can't in any way be used for min-maxing, well essentially you've got a system that's a) probably impossible to make in the first place , and b) unbalanced. Yes, unbalanced. 'Cause if you can't go more than a few steps in some logical or intuitive directions, but can go miles in others, well.....some concepts and even archetypes will likely suffer greatly relative to others, i.e. will be shafted.

Lastly, having more options doesn't mean having to use all of them, all of the time. I know that's been said before, many times. But it's such an obvious truth, that it gets a bit tiresome seeing people turn a blind eye to it, so often.

Even more lastly, could someone please give a real example to back up their claims about a particular edition? e.g. "Check out this 1st-Level Half-Orc Barbarian that can kill anything!", or whatever. And list stats etc. It might help.

 

[painandgreed]

Gods, is anyone else getting tired of all these threads devloving into editions wars?!

Naw, I'm new here. It's all fresh and exciting to me.

Well, D&D editions, like different games, I don't think are any better than the others. One may like one over the other but this is due to varying tastes more than anything else. I don't think very many people out there every playeds "Gary's game". Everybody had their three ring binder of house rules. With one group I was with it was huge and larger than the core books. During slow points in the game I would ask them to hand it to me so I could browse (the skill system he had was wonderful and I stole it for my own campaign while others stole it from me after that). 2nd edition was nothing more than modifying 1st ed. to add some of those house rules that many people had created. Third edition reworked the core mechanics and made the game much better in some respects, but dropped the ball in others (IMHO). I don't think any are "better". Some of the best would probably still be those 1E with those three ring binders of house rules. However, unless you're playing with the same people you did them, it is probably easier to move up in edition and deal with the rules that might not be better than yours but are known and accepted by the majority of players out there and will cause less arguements by adopting.

 

[Scribble]

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.

When did I ever actually say this? I'm talking about the 3rd edition of the game. Where it stands currently, and where it could be headed in the future. I'm not going to get into an edition war on this. Persoanly I've had just as fun a time in EVERY edition of the game. (Also I agree with what others have said about this being a bit insulting... and please also remember those memories exist for a reason...)

Yes, it would be arrogant. But you're making an assumption when you suggest that an individual is always the most knowledgeable about the state of their own feelings. It's often not the case.

I think what was being said was that a person is always most knowledgeable about their own likes and dislikes. To say that everyone who preffered the old edition is simply nostalgic and should wake up and realize they are wrong is not a valid statement. Everyone is entitled to their own likes and dislikes.

A perfectly reasonable attitude. But I do not see how 3e accomplishes this less well than any previous editions. In fact, I would think the ability to customize the PC by feats would be a huge plus to you.

Again yes it is a huge plus. I never meant to imply 3e did this any worse then other editions. I'm not trying to have an edition war. See above... When I finally read the 3e rules for the first time I LOVED the concept of feats and PRCs. Still do. My worry is that they are starting the drive the game through simple bonuses. We're moving away from storytelling and adventuring and moving into number crunch competition.

Playing a low or no magic campaign with 3e seems like it could be very enjoyable to me. I would not want to play that kind of campaign with 1e/2e rules; the characters would be too mechanically similar for my tastes and it would require extra work on my part to maintain character.

Undersdtandable, but I think in any major rewrite like that (a true low magic) then there's a lot of houseruling that needs to be done. Afterall if you make a very low magic world, you've basically just hamstrung a bunch of classes in either edition. I think the approach to how that would be solved is just different based on the edition. But that's really a different discussion. A good one no doubt, but it would derail this thread I think!

And what do the gamers do with this? Anecdotally, at least, they turned this example of storytelling into the single biggest D&D munchkin craze in the history of the game. Sure, trying to show the gamers that they can tell stories with the game really works wonders, doesn't it?

Munchkin??? Now hold on there that's a bit harsh. Sure it got repetative and a little boring seeing pople constantly play the same character, but how is wanting to emulate your heros munchkinism?

To me that's the point of the game. To get together with your friends and live the lives of a fantasy adventurers if only for a few hours. In real life I have a boring desk job. But on thursday nights I get to cast magic spells and fight giant fire breathing lizards.

And that's the aspect I don't want to see leave the game.

Chicken and the egg - do the books push the people, or do the people push the books? WotC has made most of it's decisions on what ot publish based upon what they think will sell to the audience.

Sure, I'm not saying WOTC is an Illuminati like evil mastermind corporation. They're a business and they're in it to make money. That's what businesses do. What I fear is that they've decided the best way to do that is to cater to the power gamers. And not only that but to begin to grow the idea in new gamer's heads that power gaming is the "way" to play.

Is power gaming bad? No. if you have fun with it, then it's great!

Is WOTC wanting to make money bad? No, everyone needs a job and needs money, and I like game designers so I think they should make lots of money.

What I do see as bad is the possibility of the gameplay itself becoming incidental to the number crunching competition. If this happens we're no longer fighting dragons with our magical sword. We're simply sitting around trying to figure out what bonuses I can stack onto a d8 in order to overcome the dreaded number 660...


p.s. how do you guys get the quote box to say "originally posted by..." I've never figured that out...

 

[LostSoul]

p.s. how do you guys get the quote box to say "originally posted by..." I've never figured that out...

(quote=Scribble), except with square brackets.

 

[Incenjucar]

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.

The internet is part of that, I think. I dunno about you, but when there's a commercial on, I'm reading message boards.

That and I mostly watch Comedy Central and Cartoon Network, and I have no interest in "Girls Gone Wild" (already got as wild a girl as anyone could hope to handle), nor with childrens toys or Christian Music CDs (they advertise those during adult swim... don't ask me why). But even with, say, soda, I go by prices.

Brand loyalty isn't healthy anyways.

 

[Asmo]

LostSoul wrote:

"(quote=Scribble), except with square brackets."

Huh?

I`ve always wondered how to get a quote-box too.

Asmo

 

[diaglo]

LostSoul wrote:

"(quote=Scribble), except with square brackets."

Huh?

I`ve always wondered how to get a quote-box too.

Asmo

hit quote button at the bottom of someone's post.

or use [ ] instead of ( ) in the above example

 

[FireLance]

hit quote button at the bottom of someone's post.

or use [ ] instead of ( ) in the above example

Don't forget to end the quoted portion with (/QUOTE) where the () is replaced by [] or you may get weird formatting results.

 

[Psychic Warrior]

LostSoul wrote:

"(quote=Scribble), except with square brackets."

Huh?

I`ve always wondered how to get a quote-box too.

Asmo

Just click the 'quote' button that appears in the lower right hand corner of everyone's post.

Editions wars make me itchy. I can't imagine anyone taking this stuff seriously enough to berate others over their choice of role playing game. There really is no 'right' way to play. As long as you have fun (and I mean everyone at the gaming table) you are playing the game the 'right' way.

 

[Akrasia]

... Not ignorant as I understand the word..

It is ignorant given that the person in question is making judgements about people s/he doesn't even know, people posting on a message board on the internet for crying out loud.

Give me a break -- of course that's ignorant. (Just as my observation that you have a big nose is ignorant, given how much I know about you.)

... But you're making an assumption when you suggest that an individual is always the most knowledgeable about the state of their own feelings. It's often not the case.

I think it is a pretty safe assumption to make about people I don't know over the internet.

And it is also a more respectful assumption as well.