Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Campbell" data-source="post: 1870637" data-attributes="member: 16586">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.</blockquote>

Verification