Is it DnD, or MtG? (General Griping)

[Cithindril]

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.

Great points, but I'm not sure who's arguing with you (it certainly isn't me ). If we want to discuss the Hasbro business model, you're absolutely correct in all the assertions you made. My point was simply to compare and contrast the two games in keeping with the original intent of the thread.

I'll try to clarify my point. A common business philiosophy permeates the WotC operation, and this isn't necessarily a bad thing...it's just the reality of the situation. In this way, the two games bear some similarity in the way they are positioned, marketed, etc. However they are different because MtG is much more dynamic (ie: a revolving door of rules which really aren't optional). D&D on the other hand runs according to a cumulative process (ie: new rules ARE optional and are usually additive to that which has already been published).

The reasons behind these differences can be debated at length but this wasn't my purpose. I merely wanted to point out the differences I see.

As always, just my 2 cents...

 

[Akrasia]

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

This is a dare that I have, like, zero interest in pursuing...
:\

 

[Scribble]

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...

Storyteller my point was this:

What I consider as more of an optiona' rule "Feats" is worked directly into the core system.

This creates more of a they are not optional feel.

Foster this feeling with phrazes like "get the edge.." blah blah

This creates a convinient way to market new "power-ups" in the form of one of these built in "feats", that I find similar to MTG and it's new cards that give you new abilities...

Though I sometimes get caught wandering off on a different tangent for a bit

 

[MerricB]

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

Geez ... what will it take? :\

You choosing a system other than GURPS to make your point with.

GURPS and 3E are remarkably similar: they both have sockets which you can plug optional rules into, and are designed with the use of those sockets in mind.

You can limit the options in GURPS and 3E quite easily by restricting the lists of feats/options people can choose from.

If you consider GURPS to be rules-light, then 3E must also be rules light.

Cheers!

 

[Spatula]

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

With or without? I imagine you meant without, since IME everyone played with weapon/non-weapon proficiencies.

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...

I never played in one that didn't. I don't recall using them much in 1E, but then it didn't come up as often. In 2E, weapon speeds are built into the initiative system, so... remove them and you're removing the "balance" between the different weapon types, if you go by Akrasia's reasoning. You'll also have to remove casting times for spells (for spells that had a number for a casting time).

 

[Akrasia]

You choosing a system other than GURPS to make your point with.

GURPS and 3E are remarkably similar: they both have sockets which you can plug optional rules into, and are designed with the use of those sockets in mind.

You can limit the options in GURPS and 3E quite easily by restricting the lists of feats/options people can choose from.

If you consider GURPS to be rules-light, then 3E must also be rules light.

Cheers!

Merric, are you deliberately misreading my posts?

GURPS was not the only example I mentioned (and in fact it is not even the system with which I am most familiar -- I would be on firmer ground talking about, say, Unisystem).

But even with respect to GURPS I think that you are being too quick: the "GURPS lite" rules (as well as the full rules, for that matter) include a 'basic combat system' that is pretty fast and easy. If you don't want to bother with lots of complex tactical rules, you can play just using the basic combat rules. On the other hand, if tactical combat is your thing, you can add combat rules without unbalancing the game.

3E lacks this feature (it might be possible to 'simplify' the 3E combat system, but every change you make, e.g. getting rid of AoOs, is likely to 'unbalance' things, e.g. by giving spellcasters and rogues an advantage in combat).

It will be interesting to see if C&C can accomplish 'balanced modularity' with respect to optional rules. If most optional rules can be appended to C&C the way that the RC skills system could be added or dropped from the RC core rules without greating imbalances (well, aside from the very minor ones you mentioned), then C&C will prove to be another successful example of a kind of game design that you strangely claim is impossible. (Many playtesters have claimed that C&C is modular in this way -- I hope they are right.)

 

[Akrasia]

Gotcha!!

Glad to help.

I can't believe this thread is still going -- obviously your observation touched a nerve.

 

[MerricB]

Merric, are you deliberately misreading my posts?

Who me? Never. I can misread by mistake at will, however.

GURPS was not the only example I mentioned (and in fact it is not even the system with which I am most familiar -- I would be on firmer ground talking about, say, Unisystem).

Quite probably.

But even with respect to GURPS I think that you are being too quick: the "GURPS lite" rules (as well as the full rules, for that matter) include a 'basic combat system' that is pretty fast and easy. If you don't want to bother with lots of complex tactical rules, you can play just using the basic combat rules. On the other hand, if tactical combat is your thing, you can add combat rules without unbalancing the game.

You see - I think 3E is the same way. I think the basic rules are simple (which really boil down to Attack, Cast Spell and Move), and then complexity is added for special manuevers - which most people will never use.

3E lacks this feature (it might be possible to 'simplify' the 3E combat system, but every change you make, e.g. getting rid of AoOs, is likely to 'unbalance' things, e.g. by giving spellcasters and rogues an advantage in combat).

Have a look at the D&D Miniatures game or Basic D&D - the way that designers simplify the game is simple: Spellcasting and ranged combat cannot be used if you are next to someone (an exception is made in the case of touch spells).

(The D&D Miniatures rules are available for free online, incidentally).

It will be interesting to see if C&C can accomplish 'balanced modularity' with respect to optional rules. If most optional rules can be appended to C&C the way that the RC skills system could be added or dropped from the RC core rules without greating imbalances (well, aside from the very minor ones you mentioned), then C&C will prove to be another successful example of a kind of game design that you strangely claim is impossible.

I think you've got me on the "impossible" bit - it's just that I've been hit once too often by AD&D players saying their system is "modular"...

Cheers!

 

[Campbell]

I simply cannot buy into any connection between D&D 3.x and Magic: The Gathering connection, assuming a group of rational beings are involved in a D&D game. From a marketing standpoint I can understand this sentiment, but from practical grounds, this connection only has a peg leg to stand on. With D&D, at least in my experience, everyone is playing with the same deck, a deck that remains within the DM's purview. It can be as static or dynamic as befits a group.

The real intrinsic problem with this edition of D&D for some DMs lies within the exposition contained in the DMG, not within any concrete rules. Because of the strong set of assumptions made within those pages, some DMs, newer and older, might feel that they should be playing Monte Cook's D&D or Jonathan Tweet's D&D, rather than their D&D. That language when combined with Wizards' marketing can lead to some amount of bitterness. I fault his language more than any rules element or additional crunchy bits.

This language ,ladies and gentlemen, is roleplaying propaganda. Just like Whitewolf's storytelling sections it is by large meaningless in practical play. It was written in order to create a baseline experience of what a game of D&D should feel like. It is also absolute bunk, as far as I am concerned. The DMG could really benefit from taking a page from Robin's Laws and most point-buy system's GMing sections.

I'd argue that meaningful advice on how to shape the rules of the game to fit a given campaign, what D&D handles well and not so well, and when to say no and yes to player requests would really be of benefit to the hobby. This is primarily why I'm excited about Robin D. Laws being attached to the DMG II.

I'm afraid that the additional material that has been realeased for D&D has made this a necessity. D&D has become a much more fluid, customizeable ruleset, much more like a point-buy system, without offering the sort of advice that is needed for newer DMs and those accustomed to older editions to adopt to it. I don't think anyone foresaw that the d20 license would cause such an occurance, except hong of course. I also believe that this phenomenon could be at the root of why some individuals have acquired a distaste for D&D 3.x. While I prefer it over older editions, 3.x requires a fundamentally different approach to advancement than past editions did.

I believe that D&D is becoming more like Hero, not Magic, and that's fine by me. Your Mileage May Vary.

 

[Akrasia]

Have a look at the D&D Miniatures game or Basic D&D - the way that designers simplify the game is simple: Spellcasting and ranged combat cannot be used if you are next to someone (an exception is made in the case of touch spells).

(The D&D Miniatures rules are available for free online, incidentally).

Thanks for that info -- I will look into those rules.
(For some reason, I had always assumed that the miniatures combat system would be more complex than the standard system, given that it requires, well, miniatures, and is focused on combat.)
Out of curiousity: how do they handle rogue sneak attacks without AoOs?

I think you've got me on the "impossible" bit - it's just that I've been hit once too often by AD&D players saying their system is "modular"...

I haven't played AD&D in ages (20 years?) -- I just remember it being kinda "modular" in nature. But then I really didn't think about "balance" as a young whipper-snapper either.

OTOH RC D&D has always seemed remarkably well balanced IMO -- and reasonably modular as well. (Discovering it in the 1990s made me give D&D a try again.) Don't cringe, though, we RC fans don't hit!