Is it DnD, or MtG? (General Griping)

[Storyteller01]

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.

But chess hasn't had to reinvent itself (at least not within the last 50 or so years), and competitions are held regularly. Granted, its concidered boring by more than a few people, but still...

You could argue that MtC changes the game to keep players from getting bored or stagnate, but the bottom line is still a need for profit. The game simply will not sell in the long run if it doesn't. It's like selling chess. Most everyone has a grasp of the basic rules, and only those with an interst buy the game. MtG changes rules to maintain interest and profit.

According to a retailer I know, the best time for RPG sales is the first week that the book is out. If their shipment is late, they lose money, since customers will go elsewhere. The profit comes with the bulk sales, which comes with new books (ie: new rules).

You could also argue that WotC does not regularly change rules in D&D for two reasons.

1) they'll lose the consumer base they all ready have, since no one wants to shell out $60 to $100 for core rules every year (MtG posts their core rules for free).

2) they just don't have the capital for it. The books cost what they do for a reason, and Hasbro has more than role playing games to sell (according to a retailer I talked to, RPG's didn't sell as well compared to Hasbro's other products, such as children's board games). Since RPG"S are not there biggest seller, why invest more capital. Just wait for a few years...


To the administrators: I don't think I've stepped on any toes, and I'm not out to insult a possible contributor to your site. If I'm in the wrong, please let me know.

 

[Scribble]

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.

Yes, true everything is optional in any game of course. Rule 0 is there for a reason.

In a rules LITE type game system, you have a few basic mechanics for dealing with a situation.

Now lets say somone writes a book about a new optional FEAT system. Everyone in your group really likes it. In the rules lite system, you could simply add it in. Where there once was NOT a ruling for something, now there is. You've added more rules, but you haven't crippled any of the original rules.

In a rules heavy system this is much harder. Basically because the rules assume that the others are used so a change to one effects the others.

Let's say for instance in 3e we don't like the feat system. So we remove it. Now we've SERIOUSLY hamstrung a character class like the Fighter, who's built on the concept of feats being a part of the game.

If we remove the skill system a similar thing happens to the rogue.

So in order not to hamstring any particular player you need to make a LOAD of changes in order to remove an option.

 

[BryonD]

I played AD&D for a few years. Then I played 2E for a couple years. Then I palyed GURPS for several years. Then I stopped gaming for about 5 years. Then 3E came out. It brought me back and I find it to be the most entertaining system I've ever used. 3.5 is, on balance, a very good touch up of that system.

 

[Akrasia]

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.

Well, if you're playing D&D, insofar as you are actually playing the game, you will be 'caused' to do certain things (e.g. rolling dice, writing things down, etc.).

The nature of the game system will of course have some effect on the way people play it. With a system like 3.x D&D, there are a number of different ways to play the game, but to suggest that the system has no effect whatsoever on how people play the game strikes me as obviously implausible. How many people play D&D without any combat, ever?

Ultimately, people will choose (if properly informed) the system the like the most -- GURPS, HARP, Unisystem, or whatever -- and/or will (again, if properly informed) adapt their chosen game to suit their tastes and aims. But of course an emphasis on mechanics and 'crunchy bits' (feats, prestige classes, etc.) in 3.x D&D will have some effect on how people play the game -- even if only by forcing players to consciously resist thinking in terms of skill modifiers, feats, etc. while role-playing (and agreeing as a group not to use allow feat-inflation, prestige class-inflation, etc. in their games).

 

[J_A_Garlock]

Give me a break, how old are you?

 

[Aust Diamondew]

Yes, true everything is optional in any game of course. Rule 0 is there for a reason.

In a rules LITE type game system, you have a few basic mechanics for dealing with a situation.

Now lets say somone writes a book about a new optional FEAT system. Everyone in your group really likes it. In the rules lite system, you could simply add it in. Where there once was NOT a ruling for something, now there is. You've added more rules, but you haven't crippled any of the original rules.

In a rules heavy system this is much harder. Basically because the rules assume that the others are used so a change to one effects the others.

Let's say for instance in 3e we don't like the feat system. So we remove it. Now we've SERIOUSLY hamstrung a character class like the Fighter, who's built on the concept of feats being a part of the game.

If we remove the skill system a similar thing happens to the rogue.

So in order not to hamstring any particular player you need to make a LOAD of changes in order to remove an option.

I can't think of any systems where this isn't the case.
You're examples involve taking out core parts of the system and not replacing it with anything else.

Feats and skills are core to d&d, just as much as the strength ability.

If you really want to remove feats from d&d (lord knows why you would) just up the fighters hit dice to d12, 4 skills a level and give him a good reflex save. If you decide to get rid of skill points (and not replace it with some similar mechanic) just bumb rogue HD to d8s and give them good BAB.

 

[king_ghidorah]

WOW!! A huge reply is such a short time! Thanks for the replies folks!

I should exress myself a little better.

As I understand it, MtG is based more on manipulating the equation than any actual storyline. I see the same with D&D now. Don't get me wrong, I love 3.0 (since it clasified a lot of unanswered questions) but a lot of the suppliments seem to focus more on the math of the game instead of the intent.

Also miffed about the 3.0 to 3.5. Also seems very MtGish, with rules changes used every edition or 'new originals' (rememebring that many of the PrC's found in the 'Complete [enter class here]' series have been published in Dragon or another suppliment previously).

NOTE: THIS IS NOT A "ONE EDITION IS BETTER THAN THE OTHER" TAG. Just bringing up the concept. I love ideas presented in both editions.

Again, I'm griping. I've always preferred the flavor text to the math...

I think the issue is that crunch sells. Why? Because most buyers can use crunch. Crunch fits into most kinds of campaigns. Story materials, however, do not mix as well. Official story advances (per AD&D 2E, White Wolf' World or Darkness, etc.) reads really well, but doesn't port well to home-brewed systems or into games that tweak with the official storyline. It's not as safe to sell.

WotC does a lot of surveying its customers and responds to them. So they produce the crunch that people say they want and avoid much of the fluff that the vocal masses say they are unsure whether they want.

In short, many DMs (and players) want to put together their own worlds and stories, not have them dictated to them. So the safest and smartest thing to do is to focus on crunch. And it seems to be producing a more stable business model for WotC than the campaign and official storyline days of TSR, so maybe this is the better way to go....

 

[ARandomGod]

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.

No, that's true in Magic, too. As soon as you build the ultimate deck, someone builds a way around it.

But of course it's not you. It's been called Magic: The Dungeoning ever since I can remember... Meaning WoTC's version of the game. You want to play D&D, meaning if you want to play the original feel of the game, go another route. Under New Management, man, they just don't play the same songs anymore. It's not Rock, it's Country. Still good music, in it's own way, mind you, but it's really not the same, no matter if they bought the name.


I personally suggest you get Hackmaster, for some real old style D&D flavor.

 

[ARandomGod]

I think the issue is that crunch sells. Why? Because most buyers can use crunch. Crunch fits into most kinds of campaigns. Story materials, however, do not mix as well. Official story advances (per AD&D 2E, White Wolf' World or Darkness, etc.) reads really well, but doesn't port well to home-brewed systems or into games that tweak with the official storyline. It's not as safe to sell.

WotC does a lot of surveying its customers and responds to them. So they produce the crunch that people say they want and avoid much of the fluff that the vocal masses say they are unsure whether they want.

In short, many DMs (and players) want to put together their own worlds and stories, not have them dictated to them. So the safest and smartest thing to do is to focus on crunch. And it seems to be producing a more stable business model for WotC than the campaign and official storyline days of TSR, so maybe this is the better way to go....

I'd say instead that the issue is 1) Feats. and 2) The whole Rules As Written philosophy. People play RAW a lot, therefore don't really use as much imagination. People accept rulings such as Darkness... this creates illumination. Why? Because it's in the RAW. And say things like "No, you can't research a fireball that's fifth level and does 15d6 damage. You need a feat fot that, because they wrote those feats so that they wouldn't have to write fifth level damage spells.

Meh.

Feats in general... They were an awesome idea, in many ways. And it allows for a large amount of flexibility... but feats are really an almost complete paralell to Magic cards... combine this card with that, this feat with that.

All that being said, I think that if they wanted feats in the game, they didn't take it far enough. THey should have simply eliminated ALL classes, there is only one class, and your feats define who you become. Which would also neatly eliminate multiclass issues.

And, of course, they just need to be less sloppy in a lot of rules. And they need to come up with either more spells or a set system for creating them. Do you realize that there is not ONE direct damage, roll to hit spell in spell levels four, five, six, seven, and eight. That's right, they just didn't make 'em. And they practically stopped making damage spells altogether in those levels, with a few minor and under powered exceptions.

 

[Akrasia]

I can't think of any systems where this isn't the case.

In that case, you really are not familiar with many RPGs outside of 3.x D&D, are you?
There are other systems that begin with a rules lite 'core', and let players add optional elements to it, as they wish. (This was the case even for Rules Cyclopedia D&D, where the skills, weapon mastery rules, etc. were all optional.)

Feats and skills are core to d&d, just as much as the strength ability.

No, they are core to 3.0 and 3.5 D&D. For the first 26 years of the game's history, they were not core to D&D.