Is it DnD, or MtG? (General Griping)

The_Universe said:
The problem with this philosophy, for most gamers, is that using it assumes that all gamers really want to be game designers. IME, this is simply not true.

Not really. It's just assuming that not all gamers want a game with every rule built into the system. You can still have all of the optional rules (such as feats, combat options, skills, etc...) that you want, but they are not BUILT into the basic rules. Doing this allows you to ADD ON, more advanced rules as you see fit.

*Edit*

A good exapmle of this would be the weapon mastery optional rules in the rules cyclopedia. You can add this option in (which lets you do more and more neat tricks the better you get with a weapon) if the added time/complexity is to your liking. Since it is an optional rule, however, there are no classes, or other rules that rely on it being in your game.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Scribble said:
Not really. It's just assuming that not all gamers want a game with every rule built into the system. You can still have all of the optional rules (such as feats, combat options, skills, etc...) that you want, but they are not BUILT into the basic rules. Doing this allows you to ADD ON, more advanced rules as you see fit.

*Edit*

A good exapmle of this would be the weapon mastery optional rules in the rules cyclopedia. You can add this option in (which lets you do more and more neat tricks the better you get with a weapon) if the added time/complexity is to your liking. Since it is an optional rule, however, there are no classes, or other rules that rely on it being in your game.
That sounds strangely familiar...

Anyone else remember 2e? ;) People complain now that 3e has too many options. So, wouldn't a rule lite game be WORSE? Since there are less rules, there would be MORE options to fill out those places.

I'm throwing my hat in with the 'rules lite does not mean better' camp. As one who played WEG d6 Star Wars, The_Universe is very right. Too many things happened that the rules just plain didn't cover, and they seemed to ALWAYS happen. Of course, that completely ignores the insane power that Jedi had...
 
Last edited:

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
Anyone else remember 2e? People complain now that 3e has too many options. So, wouldn't a rule lite game be WORSE? Since there are less rules, there would be MORE options to fill out those places.

I'm not getting into a wether it's better or not argument really. What I'm talking about (which Akrasia seemed to be getting) is that because these optional Crunchy rules are built into the system it makes them hard to remove, so it's pretty safe for WOTC to assume that the large majority of the gamers out there are using them.

This creates an easy crunchy thing for WOTC to release en masse. And if you release ads for it like "Give your character the edge!!!" then you begin to have the same effect that new cards have on the MTG community. No you don't NEED any new cards, but hey it'll give me the edge!!!

My fear is that because soooo many feats are coming out new players see collecting feats and "stating up" their character as the way the game is played. It becomes basically a competition like MTG.
 

Scribble said:
My fear is that because soooo many feats are coming out new players see collecting feats and "stating up" their character as the way the game is played. It becomes basically a competition like MTG.

Among insular groups who have no contact with other gamers, this indeed can happen. However, it's not prescribed to happen, because the DMG gives lots of advice on injecting dynamic, storytelling elements into the games themselves. If the DM does not read the DMG, and the players only look for the rules (say, like people using only the SRD with no other frame of reference), then this certainly would prevail. However, most new gamers come into the hobby via existing gaming groups, and despite advertising this STILL hasn't yet changed; of the remainder, the majority has read all three books, or the basic set, and has some idea that the game is built around heroic adenture more than optimizing a character. I really haven't seen the percentage of this change over the years; what I AM seeing is the growing divide between a newer crop of gamers (who have yet to go through those "power-up" stages of play) and an existing stock of aging gamers who've already been through those stages of play, and have an increasing lack of patience for them. It puts one in the mindset that the game is "going kiddie-fied" and it's not only (from my perspective) an inaccurate portrayal, but an unhealthy one, as existing gamers become more hostile to younger or newer players.

We were ALL 10 once; we weren't ALL 10-year old gamers, however.
 

Henry said:
Among insular groups who have no contact with other gamers, this indeed can happen. However, it's not prescribed to happen, because the DMG gives lots of advice on injecting dynamic, storytelling elements into the games themselves.

True, but my only issue is that the DMG is one book. There a TONS of new books that come out pushing the stat up style. Again it could have the effect of overshadowing the DMGs advice, and reinforcing the concept of powergaming over adventure gaming.
 

True (due to the player's market being aimed for more than the DM's market, which is 1/4 the size), but it's also like saying that the advertisements for newer and faster cars with low turning radius are overshadowing the need for a state driver's test, because the words "Professional driver on closed course - Do not attempt" are so small and subtly stated.

It's true to sell something that it's valid to push it's "newness & edginess" - but don't forget that certain minimum requirements have to be met. If you don't, then it's not the company's fault if you cause an accident. :)
 

Henry said:
It's true to sell something that it's valid to push it's "newness & edginess" - but don't forget that certain minimum requirements have to be met. If you don't, then it's not the company's fault if you cause an accident.

Oh I won't say WOTC is out to destroy the gaming community... They are a company afterall and they need to make money. If they don't D&D won't exist in ANY form.

My hope is that they continue to push both sides and don't abandon what is/was D&D in the face of what's easiest to hook people on, in a quest for the almighty Dollar.
 

The storytelling aspect of D&D grew out of the combat/monty haul aspect. It will do so again. New players, young players, want to feel the thrill that us oldsters felt when first chopping a kobold into itty-bitty pieces and taking his 3 gold pieces. Let them. Don't expect 10-15 year olds to play like us 30-50 year olds ;)
 

Scribble said:
My hope is that they continue to push both sides and don't abandon what is/was D&D in the face of what's easiest to hook people on, in a quest for the almighty Dollar.
I think we can all agree that WotC saved D&D from the brink of something bad (tm). Specifics aside, WotC listens to their customer base, and generally speaking sells them what they want. They may not always be successful, but they have, as of the last four years, shown a genuine desire to make the hobby sustainable at the same time as their own company. Despite many problems in the industry and other revenue streams at WotC, the simple fact is that they've managed to continue to make a profit, put out reasonably good product and continue to maintain the hobby. Sincere effort has been made to grow the hobby like never before. I've seen more advertising announcing the 30th anniversary of D&D than I've seen for D&D just about ever, I suppose.

Even with three successive layoffs (or was it merely two?), WotC has managed to keep things going. I think that's saying something, personally.
 

fredramsey said:
The storytelling aspect of D&D grew out of the combat/monty haul aspect. It will do so again. New players, young players, want to feel the thrill that us oldsters felt when first chopping a kobold into itty-bitty pieces and taking his 3 gold pieces. Let them. Don't expect 10-15 year olds to play like us 30-50 year olds ;)

Hey watch it bud I'm only 27!!! :lol:

But in anycase sure, I see where you're coming from, but look at 3e. One of the things they did was create "balance"

Great I thought upon hearing that... But then I thought, balanced against what? I thought D&D wasn't a competition? There are no winners or loosers in D&D.

So why does balance become such an issue? And that's what to me begins to foster the idea that it IS a competition.

And therefore from the VERY begining, the game instills the idea that you WIN when your character gets to the end of the campaign.

Does that make sense? Who knows maybe I'm nuts. I hope I am. :LOL:
 

Remove ads

Top