Is it DnD, or MtG? (General Griping)

[Storyteller01]

All the while moving farther and farther away from its roots as ... a miniatures combat game.

Didn't a book on the history of RPG's trace it back to little green army men?

Something about the original RPG's being strategy or battle re-enactments?

 

[Sebastian Francis]

Again, I'm griping. I've always preferred the flavor text to the math...

You must be a role-player, then. *That's* the trouble.

Pssst...be careful. The number-crunching, mix/maxing, powergaming munchkins will eat you alive...

 

[Sebastian Francis]

Didn't a book on the history of RPG's trace it back to little green army men?

Something about the original RPG's being strategy or battle re-enactments?

Well, it's not exactly a big secret that D&D was originally conceived as a supplement to Chainmail, a fantasy miniatures wargame.

 

[Storyteller01]

YAOWFB (Yet Another Oversensitive WotC Fanboy)

Careful Sebastian. We've already had one warning.

(Think I bit off more than I could chew by starting this thread...)

 

[FireLance]

Sigh, another complaint that D&D is going down the drain because there are people playing it like a computer game/card game/wargame.

But when you think about it, is any of this actually preventing anyone from playing the game the way they want? Even if D&D can't be played like a computer game/card game/wargame, it doesn't mean there will be more players who will play the way you want. Those people who are playing it like a computer game/card game/wargame won't be playing it anyway. They'd be playing their computer game/card game/wargame instead.

It doesn't mean that there will be more material that you find useful. If D&D can't be played like computer game/card game/wargame, the people who play it computer game/card game/wargame will spend their money on their computer game/card game/wargame instead of on D&D. This means that companies will come up with less D&D related material. However, because overheads remain the same, this means less stuff or more expensive stuff for everyone.

So to summarize:

1. If D&D can't be played like a computer game/card game/wargame, it doesn't mean there will be more people who will play the way you want.
2. If D&D can't be played like a computer game/card game/wargame, it doesn't mean that companies will produce more material that you want.
3. People who play D&D like a computer game/card game/wargame are not a bad thing.

 

[J_A_Garlock]

So to summarize:

1. If D&D can't be played like a computer game/card game/wargame, it doesn't mean there will be more people who will play the way you want.
2. If D&D can't be played like a computer game/card game/wargame, it doesn't mean that companies will produce more material that you want.
3. People who play D&D like a computer game/card game/wargame are not a bad thing.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Kesh]

Oh yeah, all of this should be pre-fixed with "In my experience, your mileage may vary."

I didn't see it until recently, when I started playing 3.5 with some other groups. In some cases, tweaking/builds/feat chains consume more table time than actual gaming.

Again, I'd like to point out to all: Nothing about 3.5 forces you to play that way. Certainly there were power gamers back in the 1E days. Munchkin is an old term.

I do however, feel that 3.X makes it easier to play that way, in part because there are simply more options to add to the mix.

That's a good thing!

The rules are there for those who want/need them. They can be ignored by those who don't wan't/need them. They can be easily tweaked or replaced by those who don't want to do so. It's just a more complete toolset for the rules-oriented, and gives a more structured framework for the story-oriented to work in.

 

[Incenjucar]

Think of it this way: So long as SOMEONE is buying it, we can afford it. Yes, it means you have to do a little more filtering, but that's a heck of a lot better than the alternative. Remember, people can be TRAINED in many cases, if you don't like their present methods.

 

[Nightfall]

I don't. There were no guidelines as to what treasure was appropraite; it was just what you rolled or picked. 8th level characters could easily have a staff of the magi, an item which is considered artifact level power.

Of course, if you already played "stingier" than this, well, that's all well and good, but the fact remains that there was not a standard before. That you saw an increase in dependance where I see a massive DECREASE should be unsurprising because of said lack of standard.

Or look at the way I do it. While Scarred Lands (at least the way I run it) doesn't sell a lot of stuff, PCs do have to expend resources to acquire new items if they need it, go on a quest to get an item OR generally rely more on various spellcasters to help them out. So I don't see a dependence here on stuff. Special abilties, feats, skills, to a varying degree sure. But that's why I like 3.x. Because now it's truly about what a character CAN do instead of just a flashy spell or three, or having the best items/scores.

 

[Zaruthustran]

D&D is absolutely tuned more towards M;TG. I mean, magic was a huge, huge, huge, huge success for Wizards. It was a capital-p Phenomena. Of course they'd try to figure out why it was such a smach-hit success, and try to spread that special sauce (once identified) to it's other big brand: D&D.

I think what WotC observed was people spending hours catagorizing and building decks. Coming up with new combos. I mean, Magic is won or lost during deck construction--the actual game play is almost entirely incidental.

People spent much more time thinking about Magic, collecting Magic, discussing Magic, and building decks for Magic than they did actually *playing* Magic.

So WotC tried to add Magic to D&D. The class/feat/spell system begs to be optimized. With d20, players can spend hours thinking about, talking about, and tweaking character combos. This is Good for WotC because, as before, people spend very little time actually playing D&D (typical group meets 1 or 2 times a month for 4-6 hours). By adding Magic to D&D fans can spend time tweaking characters, which means they're thinking about D&D, which means they're more likely to remain fans/purchase future products.

I think it's a Good Thing. I'm one of those people that, when presented with a rule set for a game, automatically starts looking for patterns and exploits. I'm the guy who always takes the center square in tic-tac-toe because it creates the most possibilities for a win. The guy whose Dwarf used a longsword in OD&D instead of a dagger because a longsword does more damage. So the whole feat/class/spell possibilities in d20 are a real joy.

I imagine 4E will skew even farther toward combos, and I'm all for it--as long as they continue to put a big emphasis on balance. That's one of the terrific lessons of M:TG. Tons of new abilities and combos are good for the game only so long as no single ability or combo overpowers the others (and thus reduces the number of options to 1).

Long post, so to summarize: D&D + M:TG = good*.

-z

* As long as it doesn't descend into "collectability."