Is it DnD, or MtG? (General Griping)

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

I'm starting to think we should just have one thread called "Edition Wars" and get the rest of it out of other threads...

YES, WotC is marketing D&D in a way to make people feel they 'need' the new books. But why shouldn't they?! If they don't, everyone will know the horrible horrible truth that you only need the Core Books and WotC won't make anymore money!

 

[Scribble]

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.

But that's my point... In your example you're changing fundamental rules to match the options you've removed.

In a rules lite system only the basic NEEDED resolution mechanics are detailed. All other rules are optional that you can feel free to add. Adding the options won't fundamentaly change the basic mechanics of the game. It simply expands upon it.

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.

Yes this is true Crunch sells. But what I worry about is that since Crunch sells, WOTC produces mainly Crunch, and sooner or later as new players enter the game and see only crunch, they begin to believe that the game consists ONLY as crunch and it becomes merely a really complicated board game.

I'm starting to think we should just have one thread called "Edition Wars" and get the rest of it out of other threads..

I agree. It should be stickied to the top of the forum...

 

[MerricB]

But that's my point... In your example you're changing fundamental rules to match the options you've removed.

In a rules lite system only the basic NEEDED resolution mechanics are detailed. All other rules are optional that you can feel free to add. Adding the options won't fundamentaly change the basic mechanics of the game. It simply expands upon it.

That's very true of 3E, actually.

Adding options doesn't fundamentally change the basic mechanics of the game - but it greatly alters the balance of the game.

Earlier editions of D&D might be described as "modular", however they changed greatly whenever new options were added because, for the most part, the options were not equally distributed.

e.g. Unearthed Arcana added Weapon Specialisation to fighters. What did Wizards get? Nothing. Thus, Fighters became more powerful in relation to the other classes. Sure, it's Modular, but it isn't balanced.

This was even more true with the Rules Cyclopedia/Master set Weapon Mastery Rules.

Take Non Weapon Proficiencies in 1E: The game didn't have them, then they were added... and fighters got more of them than wizards.

Cheers!

 

[Akrasia]

....
This was even more true with the Rules Cyclopedia/Master set Weapon Mastery Rules.
...

Well you might think (as I do) that the Weapon Mastery Rules in the RC help balance high-level fighters against high-level spellcasters, and thus correct an 'imbalance' in the existing core rules (but whatever )...

Since this thread is not IMO an 'editions war' (and I don't understand why people interpret it as such, as most of the discussion has focused on elements of 3E, and not arguing that 3E is better than 1E, or vice versa), I will move on to the core point:

Merric, the fact that earlier editions of D&D were 'modular' but potentially unbalancing is actually irrelevant. It does not change the basic point that Scribble (I think) has been trying to make: namely, that it could be possible to have a 'rules lite' core system, onto which additional elements -- feats, skills, complex tactical combat rules, and so forth -- could be added as desired. (And as I mentioned in an earlier posts, there are systems that actually do this.) This is nigh impossible in 3E, as these rules are built into the core system itself. Moreover, the fact that these 'crunchy' bits are included in the core rules -- and thus can be readily combined with other 'crunchy bits' purchased from various Complete Splatbooks, etc. -- is what gives 3E the appearance of being like MtG (the original complaint of this thread).

Sure you can just play with the core rules (or some variant thereof), and ignore all the optional crap that is continually accumulating. (In fact, those are the only kinds of groups that I would want to join.)

But it does not change the fact that the 3E 'gaming culture' as a whole, so to speak, is increasingly resembling that of MtG. And this was, I think, the original observation that led Storyteller01 to start this thread.

 

[Piratecat]

Give me a break, how old are you?

Hopefully you've read the rules regarding EN World; if not, you may want to review them. One of these is "don't be rude or insult other members." Even when you don't agree with other folks, I expect everyone to follow this guideline.

If this is somehow a problem, feel free to drop me an email.

Thank you to everyone who has helped keep this thread calm, polite and on-track.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Sure you can just play with the core rules (or some variant thereof), and ignore all the optional crap that is continually accumulating. (In fact, those are the only kinds of groups that I would want to join.)

But it does not change the fact that the 3E 'gaming culture' as a whole, so to speak, is increasingly resembling that of MtG. And this was, I think, the original observation that led Storyteller01 to start this thread.

I guess I just don't see it as resembling MtG as much as maybe GURPS. Probably because I can't seem to put the connection between card game and roleplaying game in any other way than apples and oranges.

Who cares if its rules lite or rules heavy?! As long as the game is fun, and people enjoy playing it, that's really all that matters. We're far too negative, even if it is the nature of the internet to complain.

 

[Malic]

I do not know whether there is any actual data to indicate whether 'gamist' play is more common with current editions of D&D than before. People obviously have different opinons based on their personal experience.

Myself, I never played D&D before 3.0. We looked at 2nd ed a few times, but having played other RPGs it just seemed to have so many arbitrary restrictions on what characters could be/do and such a long list of magical powerups that seemed necessary for the game (both from reading the books and anecdotally from people who'd played).

3rd edition seems to me to make it much easier to customise your character rather than its stuff. We have had a lot of fun with it. There is still a huge list of magical items to stack, and now feats and things too. But hey, why is this bad?

* The GMs in all the groups I play in disallow any option which doesn't have a good story backing, and plenty that do if they think it doesn't suit what they are trying to run. No uber builds with 3 prestige classes allowed. We all agree with this because it stops the story getting silly, and we are trying to have a game with a fun and believable story.

* There doesn't seem to me to be anything in the 3 ed books I've read (a fair collection by now) that discourages us from playing this way. Nothing which suggests that we need to have a more effective 'build' or open slather on optional elements. Overall the books seem to me to encourage the DM to be choosy about the options to suit their consistent world.

* Just say 90% of D&D players did treat this as a card game (not that I believe this is the case). Why would this hurt our group? They're having fun, we're having fun, and hopefully the flow of $ from them will keep the industry going so occasionally we can cherry pick an option we like.
(Hopefully the flow of $ from me compulsively buying sourcebooks I know I'm unlikely to get to use will also help.)

OK maybe this is getting a bit long. In summary,
* Is D&D getting more like MTG? I think not, but then I haven't been around it that long.
* If so, would it matter? I think not.

I know from this thread that other peoples M does V, though

Cheers

 

[Umbran]

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?

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.

I thought long and hard on this over the past day or so. And it seems to me that it is based upon the assumption that the majority of gamers are... well, sheep. Stupid sheep, led by the nose. They tend to follow what is written, and not think for themselves. They are somehow victims of manipulation beyond which they cannot see.

I'm sorry, but my experience with gamers is exactly the opposite, and I think the history of the game backs me up. RPG started with Gygax and friends sitting down and asking "Can we do something else with this?" Since then folks have been bending, folding, and mutilating the rules to their own pleasure. We have 3e primarily because of all the experimentation and wandering far afield by the players.

But suddenly, now, exactly how the rules are written is a big deal. As if there's some great power that keeps the players from bending, folding, and mutilating them. I don't buy it. Today's gamers are not fundamentally different from the grognards. In the long run, they play the way they want to, in the way that is fun for them. Slant in the books ultimately means nothing. Once they understand them, people will use the tools in their hands as they see fit.

I mean, really, hair dryers don't have warning labels on them because people read the directions and only use the thing as the author intended, hm?

 

[MerricB]

If the sales for Wizards Complete series are about 1.5 million+ (over half the D&D playing population), then I'd probably agree about the culture being more interested in the new toys...

Cheers!

 

[Geron Raveneye]

I thought long and hard on this over the past day or so. And it seems to me that it is based upon the assumption that the majority of gamers are... well, sheep. Stupid sheep, led by the nose. They tend to follow what is written, and not think for themselves. They are somehow victims of manipulation beyond which they cannot see.

If that was how my pondering came over, I seriously have to apologize, because it was not at all what I intended to imply with what I said.
The point I wished to make was that, partly because there is much higher competition, partly because there is a lot more business to make than before with D&D, advertisement from all sides and the design of supplements themselves have begun to try and make themselves look absolutely indispensable...and they mostly do that by showing off with or offering even more power-up options, more mechanics to make a character look cool by the numbers. At least that is the impression I get each time I try to sift through the new supplements released by major d20 produceers for the "topic of the month". And at least for me, somebody who dearly misses the time he had when he was 17, when pressures from chosen study and from "normal" life weren't eating away as much time as they do now, reading, comparing and selecting is an amount of time I simply cannot spend anymore. I need to look out for reviews, advertisements and articles to see what I actually spend my money on and what I allow in my campaign, and for that I have to follow, to a certain extent, what is said about those supplemets.
More than once I've found myself with the impression that 3E fosters an image of "gotta get'em all" when it came to character power-ups like feats, new spells and prestige classes. And it really IS a piece of work to sort through all the options to see what I really would like to use.