Is it DnD, or MtG? (General Griping)

[WizarDru]

I asked the DM about via an e-mail later. He confessed to being an old-school gamer, and he didn't like that, but it seemed to be the defacto way that stuff was handled in LG, so he just rolled with it.

Well, I'm an old school gamer, all my players are as well as a significant portion of this board. Many of us recall 'Monty Haul' play style from then, too. I have three words for you: "Tomb of Horrors". Written by EGG specifically to humble power-players, who were just as much a problem then as they are now.

Still, when I'm running a 3.X game, there is no way in hell I'd let a player look through the MM. So, I'm not bound by the rules to do so. (And I still have rule 0.)

No way, ever? That seems more than a little unfair to casters who have to summon creatures, with no idea of their abilities or statistics. One of the things I like the most about 3E is how easy it is to tinker with monsters, so that PCs are never quite sure about what they're facing. Sure, it looks like an umber hulk...but why is it blindfolded and...hey, it can tumble! Look OUT!

However, I still contend, with everything designed/formulated/balanced, 3.X does enable a particular kind of play (per above), if not outright encouraging it, in a way that the previous editions did not. Couple that with the ever increasing array of "kewl stuff", the "cheat book/save game" mentality that many players have, it's no wonder many decry 3.X as "videogamish" and the province of munchkins.

Well, I've already stated why the term "Videogamish" is a poor choice, IMHO. But it ignores a basic fact: video games got many of their central concepts.....FROM D&D. Wotc's current marketing even embraces this fact, with the "We invented God Mode, We invented the First Level and We created the first Boss" ads. I remember AD&D...and I remember it being all about the items, the spells and killing the monsters and taking their loot...when I was 14. Character levels and XP? D&D. Power-ups? D&D. Character progressions? D&D. Kewl Loot? D&D. What magic-user didn't lust after the Staff of Power? What character didn't...well, wonder, what would happen if he drew from the Deck of Wonder? What caster didn't dream of casting a 9th level spell? What warrior didn't dream of +5 weapon, or slaying a dragon?

How do the G-D-Q modules specifically encourage role-playing in a way that the 3e adventure path does not? How does AD&Ds vast array of charts and tables magically push players towards deeper roleplaying? Was my 18/56 strength an impetus to be a more interesting character? IMHO, we roleplayed in AD&D in spite of the system, not because of it.

 

[Psion]

But as I profess, if those guys are having fun, more power to them. I hope they keep buying every supplement ever printed in droves, so the RPG industry stays afloat and I can cherry pick the good stuff.

Yeah. But really, I think I would be hard pressed to deny that a large part of D&D's appeal is player empowerment. The trick for designers and DMs is to balance that so all the players have fun.

 

[Umbran]

How much turnover do you have in your group, Psion? How diverse has your 3e groups been?

The character builders/ SMackdown people are NOT the minority of 3e players. Just sit down with the thousands of LG people and you will see them in their majority glow at any given time.

Your contention, then, is that LG folks are somehow in the majority of D&D players? I have trouble believing that. LG may have some thousands, but the player base is on the order of a million and more. I think it reasonable ot guess that most players don't even know what LG is. That suggests that the LG players might not be a good representation of average gamers.

However, you cannot say that 3e does not have its flaws, or that those flaws are entirely GM or Player fault. You have to lay some of the blame at the system and the method it's promoted.

Hold on there, partner. One man's flaw is another man's entertainment.

It is already your contention that the majority of players are powergamers. For sake of argument, let's say that it is true. This means that you contend that the game is flawed because it allows the majority of it's players to have the type of fun they want? It does what it is supposed to do, so therefore it is broken and needs fixing?

That's a pretty odd definition of "flaw".

3.) Lack of built in flavor- EVERYTHING is mechanical (ie- it's hard to add drama and flavor to some very dry crunchy rules.)

I see that as a feature, not a flaw. If I want a game with it's own built-in flavor, I'll go play something that's strongly tied to it's setting, like a White Wolf Storyteller game, or Shadowrun, or Deadlands, or something.

D&D has always had a strong tradition of customization - building your own world with it's own flavor. If the system was loaded down with flavor, I'd have to work harder to inject my own. Thank you, but leave the flavor in the supplements, don't put it in the Core Rules.

Ignoring the problem or assigning blame to GMs does not make the problem go away. The rules and how they are promoted are at least equal in the blame department.

Calling it a "problem" when by your own admission most players like it that way is efectively saying that the majority is the problem. And thus we come back to the point - it is the players who like the style of play that are the issue, not the rules.

 

[Scribble]

There have always been powergamers in just about every edition I've played and just about every GAME I've played. It's a fact of Gaming Life. Is it bad? I don't think so. Unless it's creating a problem for other players in some way, if it makes you happy, then go for it. (I almost said it can't be that bad... but then realized what a horrible mistake that would be... hehe)

What I do see in the new edition is that it does try to foster this side of the game. In my opinion that's why you don't see a "What is roleplaying" section in the front of the book... Obviously it's the money side. Sure you can sell a setting or concept, but since it's not "integral" to the game then it's easier to ignore. If a concept doesn't jive with how you see it in your mind's eye you probably WILL ignore it even.

But if you foster the PGer style of play in people's minds then the new rules and options are not so easy to ignore. You can't pass up that new rule, because it might just give you an extra bonus. Allowing you to "win" the game.

Which is the big problem I see.

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.

This is the change I fear for D&D. When the game becomes more about winning it then actualy playing it. And though powergaming isn't a bad thing (like I said if it's your cup of tea by all means go for it!) to much of it tends to grow the concept of "winning the game."

And yes I'm well aware that I can "choose to play the game however I want" and that WOTC doesn't have a "Brute Squad" designed to force me to buy books I don't want/need. But WOTC is the defining force of how new gamers see the game. If new gamers are only shown one side of the picture, sooner or later that's what it becoems in full...

 

[Arnwyn]

No way, ever? That seems more than a little unfair to casters who have to summon creatures, with no idea of their abilities or statistics.

Unfair? Please. If the DM is taking care of the summoned monster, the caster can learn the abilities through - wait for it - observation and game experience. Suggesting that it's "unfair" is nonsensical.

Or, of course, if the DM doesn't want to put more on his/her plate, statblocks with the pertinent info is likely more utilitarian than flipping through the MM.

 

[francisca]

Well, I'm an old school gamer, all my players are as well as a significant portion of this board. Many of us recall 'Monty Haul' play style from then, too. I have three words for you: "Tomb of Horrors". Written by EGG specifically to humble power-players, who were just as much a problem then as they are now.

You aren't telling me nothing I don't already know. I've already stated Munchkin is an old term, in this thread or a similar one. Part of why I quit back in 86/87 was because I could not find anything but munchkins to game with. Not that I'm King of all roleplayers, myself.

No way, ever? That seems more than a little unfair to casters who have to summon creatures, with no idea of their abilities or statistics.

Point taken. We've got all the stats for the summoned creatures printed out and on hand in a folder on the table for spellcasters to use, simply to save the time of flipping thorugh the book to find the stats.

(note to self: stop saying never.)

Well, I've already stated why the term "Videogamish" is a poor choice, IMHO.

Sure. But you knew what I meant.

But it ignores a basic fact: video games got many of their central concepts.....FROM D&D. Wotc's current marketing even embraces this fact, with the "We invented God Mode, We invented the First Level and We created the first Boss" ads. I remember AD&D...and I remember it being all about the items, the spells and killing the monsters and taking their loot...when I was 14. Character levels and XP? D&D. Power-ups? D&D. Character progressions? D&D. Kewl Loot? D&D. What magic-user didn't lust after the Staff of Power? What character didn't...well, wonder, what would happen if he drew from the Deck of Wonder? What caster didn't dream of casting a 9th level spell? What warrior didn't dream of +5 weapon, or slaying a dragon?

Sure. And it is most obvious in old games like Rogue, Nethack, and Telengard. That's all cool stuff, and part and parcel to the game we all share.

How do the G-D-Q modules specifically encourage role-playing in a way that the 3e adventure path does not? How does AD&Ds vast array of charts and tables magically push players towards deeper roleplaying? Was my 18/56 strength an impetus to be a more interesting character? IMHO, we roleplayed in AD&D in spite of the system, not because of it.

I think you are trying to explain something to me that I already understand and agree with you about. I'm not sure where the disconnect is, but for the record, I agree with you.

I sure spent my early teens with one disposable character after another in search of the artifact that would let me take down Tiamat. It was fun then, and is still fun now. I guess the point I am trying to make is that with 3E, it seems that the path to power is much more formulamatic, with all of the PrCs, feat chains, etc.. Much like certain video games, there is a definite sequence of puzzles and items to collect to "win", which goes all the way back to ADVENT.

 

[francisca]

Your contention, then, is that LG folks are somehow in the majority of D&D players? I have trouble believing that. LG may have some thousands, but the player base is on the order of a million and more. I think it reasonable ot guess that most players don't even know what LG is. That suggests that the LG players might not be a good representation of average gamers.

Then it's really sad that the 3.5 changes needed to be rubber stamped as "acceptable" by the RPGA, if that was indeed the case.

We can only speak from our experience. Mine has shown about 2/3 to 3/4 of the players play 3.x in this "LG style" (for lack of a better term).

I am pretty sure there are LG groups out there that don't play it like that, as well.

 

[Storyteller01]

I agree that there is a great deal of options involved, and that playing styles are a matter of taste and choice. But here is my consern...

MtG bringsd out new storyline based sets every few years. They bring out new editions of the base set every few years as well. While the storyline sets introduce new rules, the core set is reprinted to accomidate, usually tweaking cards or not printing them at all. If your a tournament player, this is a hassle, since only the current core set is allow in tourneys.

Now I've had the chance to look over several of the 'Complete' character series. Much of what I have seen is a reprinted version of a previously published item (usually from a soft cover source or from Dragon Magazine).

We can also look at the inconssitency of certain rules changes to 3.5. The PhB expands the weapons to incorporate the fact that smaller or larger cratures do not use the same weapons. This was done to facilitate realism. Yet the same publishers reduce the cover rules to a +4 AC, with the DM having the option to increase or decrease as they see fit. This was done to facilitate speed of play.

So which do we want speed of play, or realism?

I don't mind the creature rule, and it makes sense (I don't use it, but that's my call), but it seems that the running theme is to add ideas that facilitate combat and mathematical mechanics over storyline. I do remember the old system giving DM tips for storyline balance.

 

[WizarDru]

You aren't telling me nothing I don't already know. I've already stated Munchkin is an old term, in this thread or a similar one. Part of why I quit back in 86/87 was because I could not find anything but munchkins to game with. Not that I'm King of all roleplayers, myself.

Sorry, It sounds more like I misunderstood you, or applied other folks arguments and wrapped them up with you.

Point taken. We've got all the stats for the summoned creatures printed out and on hand in a folder on the table for spellcasters to use, simply to save the time of flipping thorugh the book to find the stats.

(note to self: stop saying never.)

I understand the sentiment, and that's not a bad solution. However, one thing I also come back to is that while I'm the main DM, I'm not the ONLY DM. This was true back in AD&D days, as well. How can I keep players ignorant of the stats for a beholder, if two of them used them in their own games last week? That's why I invented new monsters back then...but these days, I can do it consistently, within the rules...instead of by total fiat. I consider that a bonus of the system, not being forced into mechanical mode. Different folks may see it differently.

Further, that whole idea is also somewhat flawed in that after the N-th encounter with monster X, the players will have a good idea of it's capablities, anyhow. The third time you fight a Chuul, you know everything there is to know about it...unless you modify it, which invalidates the whole concern about keeping the info secret in the first place. Besides which, there are so many monsters out there, my players rarely remember specific instances of more obscure creatures when they meet them, anyhow. Now, at that time, I may deny them access to the MM, during the encounter (who remembers the stats of a Yeth hound or Yrrthak of the top of their head, and their special attacks?), but I find it hard to believe that a wizard with an INT of 34 and a Knowledge Arcana of 40+ is going to have a hard time figuring certain things out about a creature. Again, that could be just me.

My point being is that if denying exclusive access to the DMG and MM, that it's a quixotic endeavour, and not really necessary to the game, per se.

 

[Desdichado]

Here are some of the problems:

1.) Rules bloat and complexity (even within the core books)
2.) Lack of core GM support, official methods to make a GMs life easier, sheer abundance of options can be overwhelming for a GM.
3.) Lack of built in flavor- EVERYTHING is mechanical (ie- it's hard to add drama and flavor to some very dry crunchy rules.)

1. Except that all of the new rules (beyond Core) are very clearly marked as optional. You have no need to pick them up if you don't want them. Not only that, even if you do, it's extremely unlikely that you'll be using more than a small subset of them at any given time; typically a group will have core rules only, with maybe a feat or prestige class or two out there from some other source.
2. I'd like some clarification on what you mean here. Again, it seems to me that you're equating the existence of options with a requirement to use them, which simply isn't true. Quite frankly, I can continue to take more options. I'm still looking for someone to "accidentally" construct the perfect, optional d20 ruleset for me.
3. Plenty of flavor. Pick up any Forgottern Realms or Eberron book for a great example.