Is it DnD, or MtG? (General Griping)

[MerricB]

So how does that preclude a rules lite system from making balanced add on options? So we have a better way now, the point still remains. You can have a rules lite rules system, and a bunch of add ons that are all balanced, but not nessesary.

Are you still wanting to play D&D?

Quite seriously, D&D 3E is part of the AD&D line - giving a system of fantasy roleplaying for players who are interested in the level of detail it provides.

It accomodates quite a range of players, however, like every other game ever created, it is not a game for everyone.

Perhaps you should be playing C&C?

I am also not convinced by any means that there is a rules-light system that you can add meaningful options to without disturbing the balance of the game. Although I've primarily focused on the effect of adding such features between PCs, the other aspect of balance is between the PCs and the monsters - and it is there that trouble can really arise.

Why so? Well, a very good example is Weapon Specialization, 1E style.

In 1E, a typical 1st-level fighter would have a THAC0 of 20 and a 1d8 damage. Thus, most orcs would be slain in one or two hits.

In 1E + Weapon Specialization, that same fighter would get double weapon specialization in Longsword: +3 to hit, +3 to damage and AT #3/2. Suddenly the fighter is far more effective than before.

This affects published modules significantly, but it also affects the DM as he tries to work out the balance of monsters to characters - the familiar levels (which all the guidelines in the books assume) are no longer true.

If you wanted to keep the same relative balance in the system, you'd have to adjust everything else in the system, which is not a trivial task by any means. If you want the option of Weapon Specialization, it's far better to have it in the game from the beginning, so everything assumes its usage. Such is the case with feats and skills.

These systems are there so that there is diversity in the approach to the game. Not all fighters are alike. (Initially, feats were only going to be for fighters, but it was recognised during the design of 3e that they were such a powerful tool for diversity that they should be opened up to all characters).

Cheers!

 

[Storyteller01]

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?

No, not at all. PLayers are just likwe everyone one else. It's a case of intelliggent people manipulating intelligent people. Just because your aware of manipulattion doesn't make you immune to it.

 

[Akrasia]

... I am also not convinced by any means that there is a rules-light system that you can add meaningful options to without disturbing the balance of the game. ...

The fact that such systems actually exist fails to convince you?

Geez ... what will it take? :\

 

[Akrasia]

.... Quite seriously, D&D 3E is part of the AD&D line - giving a system of fantasy roleplaying for players who are interested in the level of detail it provides. ...

As I mentioned earlier, unlike 3E, it was relatively easy to ignore/replace large parts of the AD&D system without undermining its playability or 'balance' (I don't know anyone who actually used weapon speeds). This is nigh impossible with the core rules of 3E.

 

[Akrasia]

... Although I've primarily focused on the effect of adding such features between PCs, the other aspect of balance is between the PCs and the monsters - and it is there that trouble can really arise.
...

Man, this 'balance issue' is so much easier to handle that it hardly bears worth mentioning.

If you think an optional rule increases all PC power by 10 percent, just toughen the encounters by that much as well.

Really, it is no different than adjusting a standard encounter/adventure for a party with (a.) lots of magic items (the encounter/adventure is going to have to be 'beefed up' somewhat) or (b.) very few magic items (the encounter/adventure is going to have to be weakened somewhat).

 

[Storyteller01]

I would say the "Get the Edge" was against any foes your character encounters, not the other characters. And BECAUSE of good game balance, any "edge" you get is illusionary at best. The monsters will still be as tough as the DM makes them. It isn't, after all, a video game with "cheat codes".

Which is where the loop comes in. Get the edge, DM increases the lethaity, challenge, etc, and you get another edge...

I've noticed when I play (I use lots of OGL sources, but I know players who mix/match abilities from WotC website and source books) that I have to pick a concept and a book that fits it. If the DM approves, I stick with the options in said book, and leave it at that (focusing on the concept). If I go hunting else where, the focus gets lost in the 'if I get this, I'll max that...). I concider myself a roleplayer, instead of a min/max specialist and I still find it hard to pick options for their flavor instead of some far reaching, complex benefit

 

[Remathilis]

As I mentioned earlier, unlike 3E, it was relatively easy to ignore/replace large parts of the AD&D system without undermining its playability or 'balance' (I don't know anyone who actually used weapon speeds). This is nigh impossible with the core rules of 3E.

Try using AD&D second Edition with WP/NWP. I DARE you.

* Fighters loose specializaiton (and there reason for living, aside from what happens when you loose your paladin status)
* Kits become Inoperative (and they were a LARGE chunk of AD&D 2e)
* Later Modules require re-working due to NWP dependancy.
* Rangers FORCE you to use the NWP Track to use its tracking skill.

Despite all this, they were labeled optional in the PHB. Never met a DM who didn't use them, never met a DM who didn't cuss at thier implementation.

BTW: I played in a D&D group that DID use Weapon Speeds. The half-orge with the two handed sword usually cried at his initiative numbers of 18...

 

[Storyteller01]

No offense folkS, but I'm a little confused.

Does the rules lite discussion apply to the D&D/MtG similarity debate? If so, please let me know. I can't see the connection...

Again, I don't want to insult a business, this web site, or others using it. I've seen a trend when I compare D&D to MtG. Many of you have helped me see it from the other side, and I'm not as concerned as I was. Still, with the constant barrage of feats, PrC's, and new skills or uses for them, I'm wondering if it isn't time to focus on some other aspect (so as to improve the game, rather than promote the on going cycle).

 

[Akrasia]

No offense folkS, but I'm a little confused.

Does the rules lite discussion apply to the D&D/MtG similarity debate? If so, please let me know. I can't see the connection...

....

In an earlier post I remarked on these two 'subthreads' and their relation to each other in this thread.

My points still stand.

 

[Storyteller01]

In an earlier post I remarked on these two 'subthreads' and their relation to each other in this thread.

My points still stand.

Gotcha!!