Proclamation

[S'mon]

I agree with Mythusmage.

I resent it when D&Ders try to tell me that if I want a roleplaying game (D&D started roleplaying games!) I should go play another game such as Exalted.
But that's what it's come down to.

I agree with Edena.

D&D 3.5 is far more a tactical game than was any previous iteration. At times I enjoy tht tactical game, but more often I find it gets in the way of the elements I most enjoy.

Edit: However, I have no desire to cease playing D&D as such; it's the _genre_ I most enjoy. Maybe I will eventually abandon 3.5 for C&C; maybe I will continue to tweak 3.5 indefinitely to try to get the game I want.

 

[Reynard]

I agree with Mythusmage.

I resent it when D&Ders try to tell me that if I want a roleplaying game (D&D started roleplaying games!) I should go play another game such as Exalted.
But that's what it's come down to.

Did you just say that people told you Exalted was somehow more of an RPG than D&D?

Ahahahahahaha...

I love the game, and have worked o n a number of books for it, but Exalted shares more with D&D than it doesn't.

Sometimes forums are great fun.

 

[fusangite]

I haven't seen that thread about metatextual gaming -- could you post a link? I'm really interested in that stuff, possibly because I'm just not good at immersion and don't enjoy it, so I have to find my fun within roleplaying using other tools.

Here ya go: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=68315

I think the thing about metagaming is that it really isn't anything more than a player making a decision as a player. I don't see any inherent problem in that unless it violates the social contract and thus disrupts play -- but any disruptive action is bad.

Agreed. The thing that exasperates me about this "metagaming" bugbear is that if a character's knowledge is just a subset of ours, he's going to be an ignorant moron because we live in his world 3.5 hours a week and he lives in his world 168 hours a week. In many respects, he should know the rules better than we do, not worse. They're the physics dictating his day-to-day experience whereas for us, they're just a bunch of words in a book. So we have to use every legitimate tool available to approximate his knowledge.

Then again, maybe people just don't notice metagame actions unless they're also violating the social contract. Because social contract's usually implied, "Hey, you're metagaming!" is the easiest way to cry foul.

I find the metagaming accusation tends to come from people who are not fans of anthropology, history or sociology, people who cannot conceive of how different their character's knowledge, values and worldview can be from their own. When people understand that in-game character knowledge is not a subset but an intersection point between two knowledge sets, they are more likely to calm down on the whole metagame front.

 

[fusangite]

Is it succeeding? If it is, is it as an amphibious beast, or despite it? How much more sucessful could it be if it became a true RPG, instead of the dual natured creature it is?

Well, you can measure that by looking at the success of all the games that are not "amphibious," can't you?

The requirement for gridded battles only became a requirement under the rules with the advent of 3.0. While I'm not thrilled with that development as a GM, it is undeniable that D&D has rebounded in popularity since then.

Now, if success = "inspires people to play the game," I think the evidence of this success is pretty much incontrovertible. If success = "makes mythusmage happy" then I think you'll find most of us on ENWorld don't care if D&D is "successful."

I'm a little baffled as to why you won't answer anyone who asks why you just don't use a game system that meets your criteria better rather than whining that D&D doesn't do it for you anymore.

 

[S'mon]

The requirement for gridded battles only became a requirement under the rules with the advent of 3.0. While I'm not thrilled with that development as a GM, it is undeniable that D&D has rebounded in popularity since then.

It was only in 3.5 that battlegrids & square-counting became Holy Writ. I don't think it's surprising that plenty of longtime D&Ders are less than thrilled at this development, but still want to play D&D.

 

[TheGM]

Why is it that whenever anyone expresses some kind of discontent with not wanting to use battle grids, miniatures, etc etc immediately there is the assumption that the individual in question clearly wants to
a) change game systems
b) wants to go diceless and
c) really ought to admit that they are some kind of closet thespian?

Agreed. Just because the system lends itself to this type of thing more than previous versions did does not mean I have an issue, it means the game does.

Lastly, if there is a gaming group that "has problems role playing" - it's not the system, it's not the amount of rules, and it's not the old role v. roll argument (again, which is pretty much how I percieve most of this thread) - some people have, again, varying degrees of taste for the "soft" (i.e. non-crunch) aspect of the game.
I know from personal experience that if your group prefers the crunchy end of things, then find something about the system to fall in love with, or get another group.

I disagree. I've got a 20 year RPG vet who is a good roleplayer that has told me repeatedly "you can't play 3.5 without a mat." Utterly ridiculous, we do it all the time, we just don't invite him to to 3.5 games.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I think what I find offensive in Mythus Mage's posts is that he uses phrases like D&D must. Bull puckey. It is surviving because of what it is, and in fact the success of the D&D miniatures game, which is nothing more than a simplified version of the gridded D&D combat system. If he wants to complain, over, and over, and over, then yes, he should find a different system. D&D is succeeding as an RPG, so tone it down. If you want to add 'in my opinion', or 'it seems to me' then go ahead, but as soon as you start proclaiming from Mt. Sinai I write you off. It is not that you are not allowed to have an opinion, goodness knows the world would be a much duller place if everyone agreed, but do not proclaim that yours is the one true way, 'cause it ain't.

And it is quite possible to run combat without the grid - I have done so since 3.0 came out and did not start using a grid when 3.5 came out. All that the grid represents is a way of simplifying things for people who do not like having to haul out rulers for movement and determining ranges - something that you have to do any time you use miniatures for combat in any RPG.

The Auld Grump

 

[The_Universe]

I think it's arguable that the only thing you *can't play D&D without* is players and a DM. Even the *dice* can be replaced by a number of alternative random number generating devices (even slips of paper in a cup). Everything but the people are just aides to make sure that everyone is imagining roughly the same thing at the same time.

 

[Kanegrundar]

The only things that annoys me out of all these "ROLE-playing vs ROLL-playing" flame-war starting threads is that some people just can't see that the way THEY play the game isn't really the TRUE way to play the game. If you play D&D with only the occasion physical conflict and emphasize the story, that's great. If that's how you have fun, go for it. It works vice versa as well. Who really give a rat's butt how anyone else plays as long as you're having fun. If you not having fun, then you need to play something else or with a different group that has fun the same way that you do. After all that's the point of a GAME, to have fun. No amount of complaining or wishing D&D would turn into something that it's NEVER going to turn into will change that.

Kane

 

[Aaron L]

I've never used miniatures in 3.5 and I never will. We map things out in our heads or pieces of scrap paper just the same as we did in 1E. The inclusions of square references and such exist in 3.5 for those people who do use them, not as a mandatory rule that you must. Everything is still expressed in real values such as feet.

If you dont want tactical combat in your games, dont have tactical combat in your games. Ignore it. Just because the option and rules exist for those who want it does not mean that it is a requirement for those who dont want it.

Just what is a "pure" roleplaying game anyway? One with no rules for combat? If this is the case, I dont see what need for rules there would be, maybe a basic task resolution system. Maybe you mean a game with rules for social interaction, in which you make die rolls to determine what you can say? ALL roleplaying games are "hybrids" If there were no rules then they wouldnt be games, they would be excersizes in free form roleplaying. Which is fine if thats what you want. But dont try to change my GAME or belittle it because it isnt the pure theatrical excursion you desire.