Proclamation

[mythusmage]

An ironic post if there ever was one

I did not see it as trolling, but sharing a point of view that is debated in about 30% of the threads around here - I think there is an undercurrent of frustration in folks who do not dig the wargaming aspects of D&D, but yet this is the RPG the vast majority of folks play.

The degree of complaint varies from "I'm a little tired of my players refusing to interact with NPCs and just wanting to make a Diplomacy check" to "I thought we had evolved beyond all of this hack and slash nonsense" somehow insinuating there is bad fun.

D&D fits my game playing style well - I'm a gamist with a bit of narrativist thrown in using the Forge's lingo, but a storyteller type could be quickly frustrated by this game. It can be done - it's just that the rules do not lend themselves to it.

OK - now I'm babbling. But in short, I do not think Mythus was trolling. In fact, sometimes I'm in the first camp complaining about my players not wanting to roleplay more.

Does it have to be about the wargaming? Can't it be about the roleplaying, with physical conflict on occasion?

Yes, it grew out of wargaming. Mammals 'grew out' of therapsids. Doesn't mean we're mammal-like reptiles.

My point?

There comes a time in the evolution/development of anything new where it stops being part of an older clade (wargames) and forms a new clade of its own (RPGs). While RPGs have features found in wargames, they also have features found only in RPGs, and thus deserve a category of their own.

 

[Maliki]

I agree the wargamming aspect of D&D had turned me off to the new edition, it doesn't suit my tastes in an RPG so I have moved onto another system.

 

[Shemeska]

If you want to play a game that requires mini use, go play WH40K

People who treat RPGs as wargames.

You're my hero in this regard.

I truly do not like the mini using, 'bow down to the almighty grid' aspect, rules micromanaging shift in 3.5 from 3e. In my opinion it was a step backwards for the creativity and flavor of the game. Obviously people will disagree with me, and they're welcome to.

 

[fusangite]

Does it have to be about the wargaming? Can't it be about the roleplaying, with physical conflict on occasion?

Yes, it grew out of wargaming. Mammals 'grew out' of therapsids. Doesn't mean we're mammal-like reptiles.

But reptiles continue to exist and occupy different parts of the life web that other animals don't. Evolution isn't just succession; it's also branching. You are absolutely free to play roleplay-centred/mammalian games to your heart's content. Nobody is stopping you. But if these games were in all ways superior to D&D, it would have gone extinct and they would have replaced it.

Your position seems to be this, though: why hasn't this species of games that provide wargaming and roleplay simultaneously gone extinct? And the answer is pretty clear: there is a niche for them.

There comes a time in the evolution/development of anything new where it stops being part of an older clade (wargames) and forms a new clade of its own (RPGs). While RPGs have features found in wargames, they also have features found only in RPGs, and thus deserve a category of their own.

And they have one. Go and play one instead of complaining that D&D isn't one of them.

 

[fusangite]

I agree the wargamming aspect of D&D had turned me off to the new edition, it doesn't suit my tastes in an RPG so I have moved onto another system.

BEautifully put. If mythusmage doesn't like 3.x D&D, the solution is both clear and available.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

Why does Mythusmage have to prosthletize about the one-true-way of RPGing constantly? To be honest, it was a little trying to try and get a conversation about nonD&D d20 games going in the d20 forum because of the constant stream of "Dude, C&C Is The Second Coming" threads THERE. At least it's begun to slack off, but now here as well?

Different games do different things. I'm very happy that there's a certain type of game you like to play. Do so.

--fje

 

[SweeneyTodd]

mythusmage, you have a couple of these one-line threadstarters floating around. They're certainly provocative, but I think sometimes they "zoom in" a bit too much. I mean it's good to separate out one variable to discuss in a thread, but the rest of the variables still exist.

I don't want to get all philosophical here, but what does "all about the roleplaying" mean? Does it mean that the players try to inhabit their character's headspace all the time, or does it mean we all tell a story together? It it trying to get rid of the rules and just imagine, or is it using the rules to try to simulate an imaginary world?

D&D tries to handle multiple creative agendas. Sometimes those agendas conflict, and the group social contract has to answer questions that the rules can't. But that's a lot more nuanced than just "wargaming or roleplaying". From where I sit, systems that meticulously describe the physics of an imagined world are all pretty similar, battlemat or no.

Let's take metagaming, for example. Lots of people are against metagaming as a rule, because they've seen it used solely for the purpose of "let's win". If the goal of a game is to have the characters defeat a conflict using only the knowledge obtained in game, then some things discussed at the table between players are off limits.

But metagaming is a tool, and it doesn't have an agenda of its own. What if you take player knowledge and use it to set up a situation for your character that reveals something about their personality, or lets you explore a situation you're interested in? Some people would say you're violating the "let's just roleplay" idea, and some wouldn't.

Roleplaying is a hobby that contains a lot of variety, and that's a good thing. But there hasn't really been a lot of work done in figuring out how the different varieties interrelate. I tend to think that breaking it down between agendas, goals and expectations is more useful than between rulesets. Different rules support different agendas, but very often you'll have one group with one ruleset that contains multiple agendas.

Some people want to wargame. Some want to live in their character's heads. Some want to create a shared story. Those are just simplifications. And I think it's much more useful to discuss those agendas and how they differ than to say "Here's my agenda. The end."

 

[Serendipity]

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?
Face it, it really comes down to whether or not you like a lot of crunch in your game or not (for it's own sake that is - combat here is the most obvious example but hardly the only one). I think we can all acknowledge that no two gamers have the same tastes in the rules crunch department. If I really get into a game, I will get delve waaaaaay deep into the rules/dice/crunch of the system - if the game doesn't do it for me, well, why should I care?

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.

 

[The_Universe]

Wait - wargames are reptiles? Or is D&D the reptile? Does this have anything to do David Icke?

Is it just me, or is this the silliest analogy ever?

http://www.davidicke.com/ - look at it! It's all *about* reptiles! And that must mean that wargames and/or D&D are tools of the ILLUMINATI!

Now it all makes sense.

 

[pogre]

You're my hero in this regard.

I truly do not like the mini using, 'bow down to the almighty grid' aspect, rules micromanaging shift in 3.5 from 3e. In my opinion it was a step backwards for the creativity and flavor of the game. Obviously people will disagree with me, and they're welcome to.

Look - I am not disagreeing with you about the game's shift. IMO - that's mostly a good thing. You are just proving my point that folks that do not like it are swimming upstream against the 3.5 edition rules.

To say you should play 40K if you want to push miniatures ignores the assumptions of the core rules. Those who DO NOT wish to push miniatures should think about a different set of rules or continue swimming upstream against the current set