Sorry for the partial Troll - ideas, not rant, continues
Wow!
Lots of good responses! Thanks!
I am not sure how to continue here. In normal written arguments, as I was taught in high school, you have an opening, a body of argument and then a conclusion. In speech, not that I took as much as my wife would like, there is a form where you give credit to the other side, usually at the beginning, and then talk about your own points. I am not sure what to do as I am the type of person who wants to be understood, regardless of whether or not people agree with me. So, let's get started, because I am never brief anyway.
DND is awesome! DND is an easy game to learn and teach. DND has a very simple game mechanic that works. I have been DMing DND for about eighteen years, playing for over twenty two. Of the many games out there, DND is by far the best way to introduce a new player to role playing.
Skill based systems, while having some advantages and disadvanatages over DND, are also much tougher to explain. There are more choices which confuses and overwhelms a new player. As someone responded, new players usually want to get down to it, not worry about the specific game mechanic.
DND is like Star Wars to me. I love Star Wars. I even loved Episode 1. Not because I had to or that it was the newest Star Wars in twenty years but because I am a fan. I take Star Wars for what it is: George's creation that he gets to do whatever he wants. I am just along for the ride. Well, I am going to enjoy that ride. Having said that, knowing Star Wars so well, I also see the contradictions, the bad points. It doesn't detract from my love of Star Wars. The things I notice are the things you can only notice from watching them hundreds of time, being able to quote them at a partial line from the movie and by reading about it.
Well, that describes my love of DND. Since my brother brought the game home and let me read the PH and DMG, actually I think I read the DMG first, I have been hooked. I have the DND shrine, as my wife calls it, in the basement with the wall of DND stuff. Nearly every new thing put out by TSR and then WotC, I have bought. 1E, 2E, 3E, all of them. I buy them all and read them. It has been tougher with 3E and all of the publishers. I stick with the main company (WotC) and pick up other products as sites like this tell me it is good. And for the most part, they are right.
Again, though, reading everything about a system, you start to see its flaws. I could do that with Alternity as well (and yes, someone has done an excellent Fantasy setting for the Alternity system at www.alternity.net) as I know and have read all they put out on it. But the focus here is DND.
Now, if it was 2E DND, I bet some of the people on this board would be on my side. I mean, come on! How many times did we 2E players groan at the new character write ups that completely ignored the rules but did accurately get a character from the novel correct? Driz'zt, Midnight, Kelemvor, Cyric, Artemis, Shandril and others all managed to "break" the rules somehow in 2E. I mean, come on! Driz'zt and Artemis are supposed to be equal in ability yet Artemis was a Fighter/Rogue! How could a split class be as good as a pure fighter? It never worked for me. Later, then, they broke the rules by allowing Driz'zt an unprecedented 5 attacks per round! They also gave him special abilities that allowed critical hits and a chance at a kill! While, with Combat and Tactics, this could be done by PCs later, Driz'zt did it first and he did it by cheating.
And that, really, is the core of my rant on 2E. Those that made the rules seemed to be above them, as they could do whatever they wanted. They didn't have the tools they needed to create a system to do what they wanted. So, they had to patch what they had and keep going.
3E, then, seemed poised to change all of that. They touted it, in Dragon, as the new "tool set" that would allow DMs and players alike to do what they wanted. (Even the ill fated computer program was called Master Tools. Although, eTools does sound neat from what I have seen.)
The problem that I have seen is what they decided were "sacred cows" were probably still both too concrete and abstract, based on what they kept. The strength of DND is its simplicity. It's ability to be learned by anyone. (And is anyone going to argue that at the end of 2E, with all of the optional books, that DND was still easy?) 3E has done a great job of being very simple. 3 core books that most things are based. (Although they do allow changes, as shown in the Realms and such.) All based on one die. Always want high when rolled. Few charts to look up what a result means. All of these are the strengths of DND.
And they could be the strengths of DND while still having a less abstract system and adding more realism in at the same time. Several systems out there have the concept of classes layered on top of a skill based system. From what I have seen, that works and it works well. I completely agree that all players, new or not, like the basis of a character done for them in the archetypes of the classes. I am not saying that they should go away. They could be done in a different way, though, that still allows more flexibility in the game.
In the end, I will always be playing DND. It is a great system, despite, and sometimes because of, its flaws. I think DND absolutely shines with levels less than 10. I also think that having the abstract levels does give all players a good goal of just getting to the next level. Many times, that is needed in a game because the system doesn't have good base goals like that. I am just allowed to voice my opinion, and that's all this is, about how a Fantasy system with tools as its base could have been so much better. Same as Star Wars.
****
*deep breath*
Okay, to answer a few responses that I got as well as add something I missed above.
DND is still based on wargaming and TOO heavily on classes. In the end, it can't be more than its base. So, until that changes, DND will always have these issues for me. Yes, if a Fantasy system came out that didn't have certain things, it wouldn't be DND. Yet, if a Fantasy system came out using the same dice, having the same archetypes (Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard), my guess is, we would accept it as DND. I mean, 3E is a new system, and is the best version of DND out there, and we have accepted it.
****
Ashtal: The reason I post things like this here is because talking to my players is preaching to the choir. They also want to play DND and also know its flaws. It is nice to know that I am not alone in sometimes not liking DND.
I think DND could have been more successful with a more modular set of rules used as tools, rather than the strict cohesion they have now. For example, it seems as if other d20 games, once they take out or modify one part of the game, they HAVE to modify EVERY part of the game. In some ways, this is a VERY big strength. I understand and recognize that. I just wanted my tool set to be able to pick and choose what I wanted.
****
Heap Thematurgist: First of all, funny about letting loose after being confined to one page. Brought a smile to my face!
Second, you said many good things. Some were for my side and some not. For example, your example of DR armor, seemed to indicate that you also thought that the numbers would just keep going up as levels increase. That's something that I don't like. As one of the game designers pointed out, at higher levels, the modifier is more important than the roll.
I am also not against the base reward of seeing a character "level up". I think that is a good reward to work towards.
When you mention items, though, you again seem to nod agreement with me, that items are emphasized too much. What I mean is, just as with the modifier, the ITEM becomes more important than the CHARACTER. That's what I don't like. The SYSTEM can't handle a 1st level character with a +2 sword without messing up BALANCE.
Contrast this to a skill based system where a good weapon does better damage but doesn't also help the wielder hit any better than before. As magic weapons do both in DND, that is what makes them more important than they should be.
Can I change the rules? Sure! But part of my rant is having a nice system that is close to what I like. And, changing too much is unfair to players, who then have to learn my rules. So, to keep my players on the same terms, I play by the rules. (I have rules lawyers for players and have to deal with them.) I play by the rules so my players know what to expect when the come to the table. That gives a much better feel for consistency. Sure, I have my own rules. Yes, I know these are just a guideline. But, they are a guideline that anyone can pick up and read, which makes not following them very cumbersome.
****
Colonel - Good to read you again! It has been a while.
Yes, radical changes would scare away many. 3E has brought to the table those many people who might not have gamed when it was 2E, which was more complicated. (My wife is a very good example of this. She is only a casual gamer and admitted that she wouldn't have continued with 2E but likes 3E. Enough so that *she* now asks to play!)
At the same time, those elements can be there in such a way to be useful to new players and experienced people all at the same time.
****
Atreus: I mostly agree with what you say. I will point out this, though, in what you said. You say that if a person still gets a 34 and the DC is a 35, they should get some margin of success. I agree. Within this example, though, where is the cut off point? And then, when have I created a sub system of skill rolls? (Also, mathematically, it would be much better to roll low and have the skill number go up, to show degrees of success, which is what you are suggesting.) For example, if the DC is 35, does anything over 30 count as a partial? Or 25? What if the DC is 45? Should it then still be 30 for a partial? Or does it go up to 37? How do you adjust for that?
By the same token, as you say that you allow a high skill roll to be a partial success, you do say you won't allow a high to hit roll be a partial success. I find that contradictory.
Yes, HPs are an abstraction. The problem is they change meaning every time more are added. In other words, at 1st level any character hit for 5 hit points damage is huge! At 5th, 5 points damage isn't that much and by 10th and higher, 5 is a scratch even to a wizard! While I don't want something so real as to know where a hit was or if it broke bones, it would be nice to know if the hit was something the character would try to get treated right away or can keep on fighting. Unfortunately, the system is TOO abstract. I am still for an abstract system. I just want an abstract system I can do more than what exists with HPs.
btw, whatever works for you game is great. I was not commenting on your game or how you play or what you do with the game. Only what I do.
You are probably right that I don't get out much to not be challenged. Many of the people I talk to seem to agree that they haven't found something that life has thrown at them that they couldn't handle. Notice, though, that I said handle. Not do perfectly first time but handle. Even if it took a while. I would be surprised if in any but the most dire situation that the person who has just learned how to shoot is given the job of being a sniper from a helicopter. That's me, though.
****
Black Omega, EK: I agree for the most part. I think there is a way to create a system that has the abilities to have abstract classes while still allowing freedom of choice. (Hate to harp but Alternity does EXACTLY that.) You are both right, though, in saying that DND needs those items to be called DND.
****
Okay, this is way too long and I apologize. I do like a good discussion. My point here is two fold. One, DND could have been better. There is a way to make DND a bit less abstract and still be DND. The designers are pretty smart, so I am guessing they could have done it. Two, I will be playing DND for many, many years to come.
And will enjoy every minute of it.
turlough
Wow!
Lots of good responses! Thanks!
I am not sure how to continue here. In normal written arguments, as I was taught in high school, you have an opening, a body of argument and then a conclusion. In speech, not that I took as much as my wife would like, there is a form where you give credit to the other side, usually at the beginning, and then talk about your own points. I am not sure what to do as I am the type of person who wants to be understood, regardless of whether or not people agree with me. So, let's get started, because I am never brief anyway.
DND is awesome! DND is an easy game to learn and teach. DND has a very simple game mechanic that works. I have been DMing DND for about eighteen years, playing for over twenty two. Of the many games out there, DND is by far the best way to introduce a new player to role playing.
Skill based systems, while having some advantages and disadvanatages over DND, are also much tougher to explain. There are more choices which confuses and overwhelms a new player. As someone responded, new players usually want to get down to it, not worry about the specific game mechanic.
DND is like Star Wars to me. I love Star Wars. I even loved Episode 1. Not because I had to or that it was the newest Star Wars in twenty years but because I am a fan. I take Star Wars for what it is: George's creation that he gets to do whatever he wants. I am just along for the ride. Well, I am going to enjoy that ride. Having said that, knowing Star Wars so well, I also see the contradictions, the bad points. It doesn't detract from my love of Star Wars. The things I notice are the things you can only notice from watching them hundreds of time, being able to quote them at a partial line from the movie and by reading about it.
Well, that describes my love of DND. Since my brother brought the game home and let me read the PH and DMG, actually I think I read the DMG first, I have been hooked. I have the DND shrine, as my wife calls it, in the basement with the wall of DND stuff. Nearly every new thing put out by TSR and then WotC, I have bought. 1E, 2E, 3E, all of them. I buy them all and read them. It has been tougher with 3E and all of the publishers. I stick with the main company (WotC) and pick up other products as sites like this tell me it is good. And for the most part, they are right.
Again, though, reading everything about a system, you start to see its flaws. I could do that with Alternity as well (and yes, someone has done an excellent Fantasy setting for the Alternity system at www.alternity.net) as I know and have read all they put out on it. But the focus here is DND.
Now, if it was 2E DND, I bet some of the people on this board would be on my side. I mean, come on! How many times did we 2E players groan at the new character write ups that completely ignored the rules but did accurately get a character from the novel correct? Driz'zt, Midnight, Kelemvor, Cyric, Artemis, Shandril and others all managed to "break" the rules somehow in 2E. I mean, come on! Driz'zt and Artemis are supposed to be equal in ability yet Artemis was a Fighter/Rogue! How could a split class be as good as a pure fighter? It never worked for me. Later, then, they broke the rules by allowing Driz'zt an unprecedented 5 attacks per round! They also gave him special abilities that allowed critical hits and a chance at a kill! While, with Combat and Tactics, this could be done by PCs later, Driz'zt did it first and he did it by cheating.
And that, really, is the core of my rant on 2E. Those that made the rules seemed to be above them, as they could do whatever they wanted. They didn't have the tools they needed to create a system to do what they wanted. So, they had to patch what they had and keep going.
3E, then, seemed poised to change all of that. They touted it, in Dragon, as the new "tool set" that would allow DMs and players alike to do what they wanted. (Even the ill fated computer program was called Master Tools. Although, eTools does sound neat from what I have seen.)
The problem that I have seen is what they decided were "sacred cows" were probably still both too concrete and abstract, based on what they kept. The strength of DND is its simplicity. It's ability to be learned by anyone. (And is anyone going to argue that at the end of 2E, with all of the optional books, that DND was still easy?) 3E has done a great job of being very simple. 3 core books that most things are based. (Although they do allow changes, as shown in the Realms and such.) All based on one die. Always want high when rolled. Few charts to look up what a result means. All of these are the strengths of DND.
And they could be the strengths of DND while still having a less abstract system and adding more realism in at the same time. Several systems out there have the concept of classes layered on top of a skill based system. From what I have seen, that works and it works well. I completely agree that all players, new or not, like the basis of a character done for them in the archetypes of the classes. I am not saying that they should go away. They could be done in a different way, though, that still allows more flexibility in the game.
In the end, I will always be playing DND. It is a great system, despite, and sometimes because of, its flaws. I think DND absolutely shines with levels less than 10. I also think that having the abstract levels does give all players a good goal of just getting to the next level. Many times, that is needed in a game because the system doesn't have good base goals like that. I am just allowed to voice my opinion, and that's all this is, about how a Fantasy system with tools as its base could have been so much better. Same as Star Wars.
****
*deep breath*
Okay, to answer a few responses that I got as well as add something I missed above.
DND is still based on wargaming and TOO heavily on classes. In the end, it can't be more than its base. So, until that changes, DND will always have these issues for me. Yes, if a Fantasy system came out that didn't have certain things, it wouldn't be DND. Yet, if a Fantasy system came out using the same dice, having the same archetypes (Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard), my guess is, we would accept it as DND. I mean, 3E is a new system, and is the best version of DND out there, and we have accepted it.
****
Ashtal: The reason I post things like this here is because talking to my players is preaching to the choir. They also want to play DND and also know its flaws. It is nice to know that I am not alone in sometimes not liking DND.
I think DND could have been more successful with a more modular set of rules used as tools, rather than the strict cohesion they have now. For example, it seems as if other d20 games, once they take out or modify one part of the game, they HAVE to modify EVERY part of the game. In some ways, this is a VERY big strength. I understand and recognize that. I just wanted my tool set to be able to pick and choose what I wanted.
****
Heap Thematurgist: First of all, funny about letting loose after being confined to one page. Brought a smile to my face!
Second, you said many good things. Some were for my side and some not. For example, your example of DR armor, seemed to indicate that you also thought that the numbers would just keep going up as levels increase. That's something that I don't like. As one of the game designers pointed out, at higher levels, the modifier is more important than the roll.
I am also not against the base reward of seeing a character "level up". I think that is a good reward to work towards.
When you mention items, though, you again seem to nod agreement with me, that items are emphasized too much. What I mean is, just as with the modifier, the ITEM becomes more important than the CHARACTER. That's what I don't like. The SYSTEM can't handle a 1st level character with a +2 sword without messing up BALANCE.
Contrast this to a skill based system where a good weapon does better damage but doesn't also help the wielder hit any better than before. As magic weapons do both in DND, that is what makes them more important than they should be.
Can I change the rules? Sure! But part of my rant is having a nice system that is close to what I like. And, changing too much is unfair to players, who then have to learn my rules. So, to keep my players on the same terms, I play by the rules. (I have rules lawyers for players and have to deal with them.) I play by the rules so my players know what to expect when the come to the table. That gives a much better feel for consistency. Sure, I have my own rules. Yes, I know these are just a guideline. But, they are a guideline that anyone can pick up and read, which makes not following them very cumbersome.
****
Colonel - Good to read you again! It has been a while.
Yes, radical changes would scare away many. 3E has brought to the table those many people who might not have gamed when it was 2E, which was more complicated. (My wife is a very good example of this. She is only a casual gamer and admitted that she wouldn't have continued with 2E but likes 3E. Enough so that *she* now asks to play!)
At the same time, those elements can be there in such a way to be useful to new players and experienced people all at the same time.
****
Atreus: I mostly agree with what you say. I will point out this, though, in what you said. You say that if a person still gets a 34 and the DC is a 35, they should get some margin of success. I agree. Within this example, though, where is the cut off point? And then, when have I created a sub system of skill rolls? (Also, mathematically, it would be much better to roll low and have the skill number go up, to show degrees of success, which is what you are suggesting.) For example, if the DC is 35, does anything over 30 count as a partial? Or 25? What if the DC is 45? Should it then still be 30 for a partial? Or does it go up to 37? How do you adjust for that?
By the same token, as you say that you allow a high skill roll to be a partial success, you do say you won't allow a high to hit roll be a partial success. I find that contradictory.
Yes, HPs are an abstraction. The problem is they change meaning every time more are added. In other words, at 1st level any character hit for 5 hit points damage is huge! At 5th, 5 points damage isn't that much and by 10th and higher, 5 is a scratch even to a wizard! While I don't want something so real as to know where a hit was or if it broke bones, it would be nice to know if the hit was something the character would try to get treated right away or can keep on fighting. Unfortunately, the system is TOO abstract. I am still for an abstract system. I just want an abstract system I can do more than what exists with HPs.
btw, whatever works for you game is great. I was not commenting on your game or how you play or what you do with the game. Only what I do.
You are probably right that I don't get out much to not be challenged. Many of the people I talk to seem to agree that they haven't found something that life has thrown at them that they couldn't handle. Notice, though, that I said handle. Not do perfectly first time but handle. Even if it took a while. I would be surprised if in any but the most dire situation that the person who has just learned how to shoot is given the job of being a sniper from a helicopter. That's me, though.
****
Black Omega, EK: I agree for the most part. I think there is a way to create a system that has the abilities to have abstract classes while still allowing freedom of choice. (Hate to harp but Alternity does EXACTLY that.) You are both right, though, in saying that DND needs those items to be called DND.
****
Okay, this is way too long and I apologize. I do like a good discussion. My point here is two fold. One, DND could have been better. There is a way to make DND a bit less abstract and still be DND. The designers are pretty smart, so I am guessing they could have done it. Two, I will be playing DND for many, many years to come.
And will enjoy every minute of it.
turlough
