Is it DnD, or MtG? (General Griping)

[Storm Raven]

With the new D&D, you can be good at it. No previous RPG had this quality. Previously- in D&D as in many other games: you could be a good player in the sense of being inventive or a good roleplayer or well-behaved. or know the rules really well.

But as far as being good at the game? There aren't any winners and there was very little point at being good at them anyhow.

In the new D&D, thats no longer true. You can be good at the game. You can research your options and build your character to be death-dealing beyond others. You can pick up just the right items to combo with your abilities and cover your weak spots.

Then when you play, you can play tactics. You can use formations and cover, special weapons, strike from a distance, take out closing enemies with
attacks of opportunities, leverage off of skills and 'aid other's to put together an offense like a trained SEAL team.

Umm, what? No previous RPG had this? Have you never heard of GURPS? Or Hero?

 

[UniversalMonster]

I guess Hero and Gurps might have counted, maybe, if your'e talking about use of tactical options- those do provide some. But the lack of a class or levelling system really crippled both of them for me. Over the course of a campaign, you would never see any rise in intensity. by exposing all the options in points you never got focused characters. You'd always end up with 4-6 characters with similar builds, rather than a team dynamic that D&D provides. And thats part of the skill in the game.

I can easily imagine a scenario where a group of skilled and unskilled players of D&D met at a tournament, got blindly handed pre-genned characters and participated in a judged game where rankings were awarded for player skill.
I suspect that you could even rate from paragon down to rank amateur just based on watching.

With Gurps or Hero, I honestly can't imagine there being much difference being made by player skill.

Caveats- I intensely dislike both Gurps and Hero at least in their 1990-1998 incanrnations which is the only time I had any experience with either (well, brief flirtation with Gurps lite when that little booklet came out). I considered Gurps especially to be a failure as a workable system. I don't mind if anyone disagrees with me, but I am not going to change my mind about that. My neandarthal opinion is that "me no like Gurps. Or Hero." Earthdawn, on the other hand, I like.

 

[Umbran]

Fine...can you lend me some of yours, in that case? Mine seems to be missing.

You're experiiencing "missing time"? That's a common symptom seen is UFO abduction cases. Can I interest you in a tinfoil hat?

 

[Scribble]

You're experiiencing "missing time"? That's a common symptom seen is UFO abduction cases. Can I interest you in a tinfoil hat?

Wait you mean all that missing time on my weekends is from UFOs??? That's some good beer then.

 

[Storm Raven]

I guess Hero and Gurps might have counted, maybe, if your'e talking about use of tactical options- those do provide some. But the lack of a class or levelling system really crippled both of them for me. Over the course of a campaign, you would never see any rise in intensity. by exposing all the options in points you never got focused characters. You'd always end up with 4-6 characters with similar builds, rather than a team dynamic that D&D provides. And thats part of the skill in the game.

Huh? A system like GURPS (or Hero) can provide "balanced" unfocused characters, but it is intensely good at producing extremely focused characters with unbeatable abilities at one thing or another - there is even a general name given to this sort of character: "Johnny One-Note". And those characters are usually so good at their skill that they overwhelm all other aspects of the game (by being able to dominate almost any situation with their skill). There are also other ways for people with an intimate knowledge of the rules to overwhelm a game system like GURPS in their character builds (some would say that a point buy system makes it easier to do this).

 

[Storyteller01]

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...

Sorry 'bout that.

Just don't want to see the need for profit offset the need for a good product

 

[Storyteller01]

Glad to help.

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

Would seem so...

 

[Spatula]

I meant, how does a rogue move through a threatened square to flank an opponent (and thereby get the sneak attack) when you get rid of AoOs as a way to limit this? (As the rules stand, IIRC, the rogue has to succeed in a tumble check vs DC 15 in order to avoid the AoO.)

If you get rid of AoOs, then he can either (a) move through threatened squares and sneak attack with impunity; or (b) cannot move through threatened squares at all (or perhaps only with a successful tumble check?).

The latter (b) seems like the better option (as I think sneak attack is already overpowered).

IME rogues simply circle around their prospective opponent, or take 5' steps, in order to flank. The only time you need to possibly tumble is when dealing with creatures with reach (which the miniatures rules don't address, as AoOs can only happen when directly adjacent to a creature in those rules), or when moving in tightly-constrained environments.

The miniatures rules are simpler than the basic D&D combat, in that creatures only ever get one AoO a round and most actions that trigger AoOs are not allowed (which includes all combat maneuvers). Also, combat options like Power Attack, Rapid Shot, etc. are fixed - if a creature is using Power Attack, it's using it for the same amount each and every round. And the list of castable spells is drastically reduced.

If you port that over to normal D&D, remove Combat Reflexes and the various Improved Feats (along with their associated maneuvers). Force characters with Power Attack, Combat Expertise, Rapid Shot, etc. to decide whether or not they're using those abilities at the start of each combat, and for how much (in the case of PA and CE), and don't allow them to change until the fight is over. Make all spell bonuses "unnamed" bonuses so that you don't have to worry about stacking/not stacking in the middle of an encounter.

 

[Storyteller01]

Being aware has nothing to do with it.

The entire history of the game is dependant and devoted to playing the game in ways other than the rules as written. AD&D1e would not exist if people didn't deviate from playing Basic D&D. 3e would not exist if folks didn't deviate from what the 2e books said. 3.5e would not exist if people didn't have problems with what was in the books. White Wolf would not exist if gamers stuck to what D&D did. Etc.

Look at the list of different foums on this site - yes, there is a D&D rules forum. But there's also a house rules forum,which is about playing other than in the way mentioned in the core rules. There's the d20/OGL forum, again about playing the game other than in the way the D&D rulebooks are written. The General forum, too, depends upon the existance of other ways to play. This very discussion is based on the idea that gamers already have relaized that there's more than one type of game you can play by the core rules. People are questioning the way the books say to play the game all the bloody time! Constantly. Insessantly.

You keep saying you have this fear - buy you have produced no evidence that it has ground in which to root. The history of the game up to this very day almost literally screams at you that gamers do not, in general, stick to what the rulebooks say. They play in the way that they have fun.

Stop blaming subtle book-induced hypnosis for what is simply the way some folks like to play.

Manipulation of the sort you suggest does not function when the intended victim has lots of time to think and full information at their disposal. The full information is right there in the rulebooks. Time we have aplenty. There is no reason to believe that gamers are somehow manipulated into behaving in one way and only one way and never should they deviate.

So the fact that MtG always comes out with new rules has no effect on those who play casually, have time to think about there deck builds, and do not play in tournaments ?

I see things a little differently (again, milage may vary). New cards meant a spending frenzy to create the best deck, since new changes either nullified certain strategies or introduced new ones, even if you concider MtG houserules used on site (we did have a few).

I have seen the same situation in D&D, and in the same in forums of play (school, campaign groups, etc). Yes, everyone is a casual player, but a DM cannot control what their players will purchase. These players are going to buy these optional rules, see new improvemenets, options, or rules changes (the improved critical feat rules change from 3.0 to 3.5 is a good example), and want to run with the new rules (I've seen several 3.5 OGL sources that "allow" Improved Critical to stack with similar effects, per 3.0. Players don't have to argue about using 3.0 rules in a 3.5 game anymore. They just quote a new 3.5 source). The DM now has to decide whether this rule or that applies.

To be honest, I have yet to meet a DM has played a 3.0 or 3.5 game straight from the core rules. It can be done, but most players don't want that. As you said, players deviate from the original rules. If you enforce a strict 'core rules only' set, you lose players. This happens (or happened to me) even if the group agrees on this ahead of time. The new 'options' are just too enticing. Everyone will want to play their own style, and a DM will have to make allowances.

Also, the 3.x rules also follow the MtG philosophy (sorry if I butchered the spelling) of 'a rule for everything' instead of 'DM's call', as mentioned earlier on this post. Yes, the rules say that DM's have final say, but human nature prevails is this case. I've run into several players who site obscure new optional rules, even when the DM has already made a call on a situation previously in the campaign. And these weren't the rule lawyers of my group!!

My point is that I see so much out there that the DM has to make a call on, or explain to his players (ever have to tell some one that the NPC is not targeted by AoO's for a reason, and not explain why? Or better yet, have that player mimic the same strategy because the rules now allow it?) even with the rules as they are.

I'd say that the min/max folks have enough to play with for now, let the roleplayers have their fun...

 

[Storyteller01]

You're experiiencing "missing time"? That's a common symptom seen is UFO abduction cases. Can I interest you in a tinfoil hat?

Careful now... **admin is watching **