Is it DnD, or MtG? (General Griping)

[Akrasia]

... 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. ...

Yes, this is correct.

And in fact this dates back to the first two "D&D" campaigns: supposedly, Dave Arneson's Blackmoor campaign was pretty free-form and 'narrativist' in nature, whereas Gary Gygax's Greyhawk campaign was much more 'wargamist' in nature.

...
But I'll also say here that IMO, having more options by default, in every direction is a Good Thing an' all that. ....

Well, you might think that requiring players to focus so much on the mechanical aspects of their characters (because of the options) leads them to focus on understanding their characters as sets of numbers and abilities, rather than as protagonists in a story. This is not necessarily the case, but a game that provides a wide a array of 'gamist/mechanical' options might have this effect.

Also, options introduce complexity into the game, and can slow it down (as players/DMs scramble through their manuals to check a particular feat, skill, or feat).

Furthermore, a wide set of mechanically-defined options can actually limit the flexibility and possible actions of characters -- i.e. your fighter can only 'swing from a rope while trying to kick the orc lord in the face' if he has the appropriate, clearly definied and quantified, abilities (feats and skills).
In contrast, a well designed rules lite system could give you a basic resolution mechanic for resolving unusual actions, and thus give players (and GMs) more lattitude for trying interesting actions with their PCs (and NPCs).

Finally -- and this is the biggie for me -- increased player (and thus NPC) options means increased DM burdens. This is the case both during the game (as DM you have to be aware of the players' abilities, as well as those of a number of NPCs and monsters), and even moreso before the game. The additional prep time caused by many options -- which have to be used for important NPCs as well PCs, in order to provide adequate challenges for the players -- can be a pain, and can also distract the DM from the other, less 'crunchy' but more interesting, aspects of adventure design.

 

[iblis]

[O]ptions introduce complexity into the game, and can slow it down (as players/DMs scramble through their manuals to check a particular feat, skill, or feat).

I knew I missed a major concern there. OK, the min-maxing thing is one - well to some commenters anyhow, but yes it certainly seems slowness is another. Damn.

...a well designed rules lite system could give you a basic resolution mechanic for resolving unusual actions, and thus give players (and GMs) more lattitude for trying interesting actions with their PCs (and NPCs).

A good example being? ...and how does that system achieve this goal, if it's possible - and worth the time/effort in your view - to explain that in a fairly short space?

Finally -- and this is the biggie for me -- increased player (and thus NPC) options means increased DM burdens. This is the case both during the game (as DM you have to be aware of the players' abilities, as well as those of a number of NPCs and monsters), and even moreso before the game. The additional prep time caused by many options -- which have to be used for important NPCs as well PCs, in order to provide adequate challenges for the players -- can be a pain, and can also distract the DM from the other, less 'crunchy' but more interesting, aspects of adventure design.

OK, that's fairly difficult to refute. Pondering required. Hoom.

 

[Storyteller01]

HOLD IT!!!!

Please, lets be civil folks. I started this thread because I believed that I saw a trend, and wanted your opinions on it. Unfortunately, I'm not the greastest communicator, and apologize for any misconceptions.

Agruing whether 3.0 is better than 3.5 or vice versa is a mute point (we've all tried in one form or another).

My question is, is there sales or rules trend similar to that used in MtG, and do or don't you agree with its use. (I don't, but tht's my two cents...)

 

[Cithindril]

As a frequent player of both D&D (3.0 Grognard here also ) and MtG, I can agree that a common corporate marketing philosophy seems to drive both product lines. However, one key difference between the two (apart from one being a card game and the other an RPG ) is that MtG experiences rapid change because earlier card expansions are annually removed from Type 2 legal tournament play. Each year's new release and old retirement changes the way that the existing cards work together and ensures that the game will continually reinvent itself. In the case of D&D, old options aren't really retired in the same fashion so the net effect of new releases is additive rather than revolutionary.

In addition, the DM has complete discretion on which options to permit or restrict in his/her campaign and so can tailor the flavor and number of choices. In MtG, there is really very little local variability (in my experience) since the DCI is pretty much the final word on how the rules are written and interpreted.

 

[Umbran]

Folks, it is a fairly simple concept - address the position, not the poster. Please refrain from looking at the words, drawing a conclusion about the mental state or motivations of the poster. This is a text-only medium, and does not allow us to read minds. Trying to do so frequently leads down the road of name-calling and annoyance. Please don't lead us down that road.

Now back to our discussion...

Well, you might think that requiring players to focus so much on the mechanical aspects of their characters (because of the options) leads them to focus on understanding their characters as sets of numbers and abilities, rather than as protagonists in a story.

Requiring players to focus so much on mechanical aspects might have that effect. But as others have said, and I will repeat - there is no such requirement.

The presence of options does not require use, or even consideration, of those options. If those options are (as we hope) reasonably balanced, then those options only differ in flavor, rather than in effectiveness, and so nobody *needs* to look at them. If they are not balanced, then they likely shouldn't be present in your game, leading again to no *need* for a player to look at them.

We now come to a place that D&D differs from video games:

In a video game, the enemy is objective, determined long before you begin playing your character. The challenges you face are part of the program, and the point is to build yourself up to be tougher than these objective challenges.

In a well-run game of D&D, the DM should be choosing his encounters based upon what is in the party, and what they're capable of doing - the challenges are subjective. So choosing a supposedly more powerful option gains you nothing, as the DM will simply choose more powerful opponents.

 

[Akrasia]

Requiring players to focus so much on mechanical aspects might have that effect. But as others have said, and I will repeat - there is no such requirement.

Well I honestly don't understand why you're disagreeing with me here, since in the very next sentence following the passage you quote I state:

"This is not necessarily the case, but a game that provides a wide a array of 'gamist/mechanical' options might have this effect."

 

[Akrasia]

...
A good example being?

A good example of a coherent, unified and effective 'rules lite' system?

Well, I would recommend checking out Eden's Unisystem -- especially the "cinematic" version of the game that is used in the Buffy and Angel RPGs. The 'game mechanics' in those games are easy to master, comprehensive (but relatively simple), and really 'fade into the background' during play.

Another good example IMO is the upcoming "Castles and Crusades" system from TLG, which draws on all editions of D&D (including d20), but aims to be 'rules lite'. (Here is my review of the "intro box set" over at RPG.net: http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/10/10797.phtml )

...
...and how does that system achieve this goal, if it's possible - and worth the time/effort in your view - to explain that in a fairly short space?

Umm ... don't have time to do this, sorry.
But you could track down reviews/info on the game systems on the internet (here or RPG.net, for example) with little difficulty.

 

[Umbran]

Well I honestly don't understand why you're disagreeing with me here, since in the very next sentence following the passage you quote I state:

"This is not necessarily the case, but a game that provides a wide a array of 'gamist/mechanical' options might have this effect."

You say it is not necessarily the case. I say it flat out isn't the case for D&D. You say a game with many options might have the effect, I say that it wouldn't. Simply maintaining my stance that the game doesn't really have anything to do with it. The game doesn't cause people to do anything. They do it because they like to do it.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

You say it is not necessarily the case. I say it flat out isn't the case for D&D. You say a game with many options might have the effect, I say that it wouldn't. Simply maintaining my stance that the game doesn't really have anything to do with it. The game doesn't cause people to do anything. They do it because they like to do it.

In part I agree, and in part I disagree. I do agree that, ultimately, everybody decides for him- or herself which options to use, and which to leave, which supplements to buy, to upgrade to the next edition of a game or not. But wouldn't you agree that things can be presented in a way to make them look indispensable, like you simply have to get and use them, be it not to stay behind on updated setting information, be it to get the best out of your character, even though you still could explore all the options in the core rules?

 

[Storyteller01]

But you can't say that the players are not effected by the environment (unless they live in a vacuum). Subtle and simple changes in mechanics will chanege the flavor of the game. As these changes progress, people will end up playing in a proscribed fashion, and most likely not notice the change. This is especially true if more mechanical options are provided, instead of storyline or creative options (that 'frog in the pot' analogy).