Is it DnD, or MtG? (General Griping)

[Maggan]

How is theis different from before?

The d20 market, and a reliance on designers who did not partake in the initial design of 3e has in a number of ways forced DMs to become ametuer game designers. Market forces when combined with the strong language evoked in the DMG has caused a feeling of DM disempowerment in some segments of the community. As it currently stands, disenfranchised DMs do not have the right tools to retain control of their games, to play D&D in the way they want to play it. They do not know how to look over a feat, a new rule, a magic item, monster or spell and judge its viability for their games. They are dealing with player pressure and market pressure. They need meaningful guidance on how to deal with these factors, while maintaining a sufficient level of game balance. We have HEROization without HEROized GMing advice, and this has become problematic.

The more I think about this matter, the more I believe it deserves its own thread.

Thank you for your interesting posts. One question on the above that I quoted.

Is this really that much different from before?

As long as I have been rpg:ing there have been DMs (or GMs for other games) that have felt uneasy about changing rules, that lock themselves inside a rule structure and feel disempowered. Since many RPGs are of the mojo kind, where stuff is made up more or less on a whim and with a gut feeling of balance (at least the games I have in my shelf, YMMV) there are bound to be a lot of GMs out there not knowing really what effect any given aspect has on the game structure as a whole.

I think this is one of the driving forces behind people trying new systems, we want to fill a need we don't see the other game (or edition) filling. So it's not really, I think, something that sprung up with D&D3e or d20.

Still, I'm all for more DM advice! Bring on the DMGII!

Cheers!

Maggan

 

[Keoki]

Hear, hear

I don't see it, and I don't miss AD&D. In fact, I had quit playing D&D for something like 12 years because the rules sucked so hard; 3e brought me back.

Ditto for me. I liked 1E and 2E, but always felt so limited by them. The flexibility of 3E to create practically any fantasy character imaginable got me back into the game after 8 years.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Ponder the irony of the juxtaposition of the above comment with all the anti-3E posts.

Yes? Meaning?

 

[FireLance]

Yes? Meaning?

I think Patryn was alluding to one of the more common complaints about 3e: that it is not modular enough and it is not possible to change one aspect of the game system (e.g. removing feats) without creating knock-on problems (e.g. fighters get nerfed).

 

[barsoomcore]

My turn! My turn!

There a TONS of new books that come out pushing the stat up style.

Huh. Which books? I'd like to see a TON of book titles, thank you.

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?

Maybe your Magic play was different from mine, but I always looked forward to new decks because I'd gotten bored playing with my old cards, rather than because I'd been hypnotically drawn to them. You can only build so many decks from one box-ful of cards. D&D of course doesn't have that problem, since there's only the limit of your imagination to hold you back.

So the notion that bringing out new decks affects casual Magic players is kind of flawed to begin with, since Magic players have a built-in reason to WANT new rules -- because they've exhausted the options available in their existing cards. That built-in reason doesn't exist in D&D, so it's natural to assume that the impact of new rules being released would be different in D&D than in Magic.

D&D gives the impression (to me at least) of being an elaborately interwoven, interdependent framework that is so precisely balanced that even changing little details like wealth allotment or class skill access could set the whole structure teetering on the brink of collapse.

It does? Well, not to me. To me, right from the get-go, 3E gave the impression of being (just like 1E) incredibly "mushable" -- a system you could mutilate, fold and spindle to your heart's content without a worry in sight. I revamped the magic system, stripped out the races, threw out 90% of the classes, added firearms, added a half-dozen feats around AC improvements and am continuing to have a grand old time years later.

Nobody whines and complains that they don't get enough attacks of opportunity or that their feat choices are under-powered.

Here's a tip: if your players are complaining about that sort of thing, you have bigger problems in your campaign than the rules. Cause if your players were having FUN, they wouldn't be worrying about that sort of stuff.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I think Patryn was alluding to one of the more common complaints about 3e: that it is not modular enough and it is not possible to change one aspect of the game system (e.g. removing feats) without creating knock-on problems (e.g. fighters get nerfed).

I think the reason 3rd ed D&D is less modular than other games is that it's actually fairly balanced to begin with making it unusual, if not unique, among rpgs. Changing things around in systems like Rifts or Champions or BESM doesn't unbalance the game because there was no balance to begin with.