So what's gold gonna be for?

[JDJblatherings]

A lot of stuff that D&D has historically had are goin' bye-bye. With every new edition we lose a little bit more.

The crucible of Design continues to fire the impurities out of the gold.

This is not to say that a lot of this stuff is unwelcome or ultimately prohibited-- simply that it should be properly separated from the essence of the system.

Becoming a lord at name level was/is indeed part of the "essence of the system". It's is actually what is different between 3.x and earlier versions of the game. Some players need a "concrete" reason to adventure, they need a goal and buidling a castle and becoming a lord is a fine and dandy reason for some of those folks. Becoming part of the campaign setting instead of simply pillaging ones way accross it is a very different way to look at the game.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Becoming a lord at name level was/is indeed part of the "essence of the system". It's is actually what is different between 3.x and earlier versions of the game. Some players need a "concrete" reason to adventure, they need a goal and buidling a castle and becoming a lord is a fine and dandy reason for some of those folks. Becoming part of the campaign setting instead of simply pillaging ones way accross it is a very different way to look at the game.

No, becoming a lord with a keep and holdings was never part of the "essence" of D&D.

The essence of D&D is going into dungeons, killing the bad guys, and taking their stuff.

That is the CORE STORY.

It's really not up for debate.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Becoming a lord at name level was/is indeed part of the "essence of the system". It's is actually what is different between 3.x and earlier versions of the game. Some players need a "concrete" reason to adventure, they need a goal and buidling a castle and becoming a lord is a fine and dandy reason for some of those folks. Becoming part of the campaign setting instead of simply pillaging ones way accross it is a very different way to look at the game.

What if a campaign didn't use a feudal system of governing? What if a PC had no desire to command others? What if the character did things to tick off the King? He still gets to be a Lord because he reached a certain level, has so much gold and the PHB says so?

The core rules should not contain items that constrain the creativity of the individual campaigns. If they want to put things like this as suggestions for rewards in a book such as the 3.5 DMG II, I have no issue. As part of the PHB, no way.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Becoming a lord at name level was/is indeed part of the "essence of the system". It's is actually what is different between 3.x and earlier versions of the game. Some players need a "concrete" reason to adventure, they need a goal and buidling a castle and becoming a lord is a fine and dandy reason for some of those folks. Becoming part of the campaign setting instead of simply pillaging ones way accross it is a very different way to look at the game.

Being a lord was never an important factor in my 1st edition games. If it's supposed to be part of the "essence" of D&D, I can't imagine why I could have avoided it. The essence is finding enemies, killing them, and taking their stuff. "Name level" is a tacked on justification for this process, just like all the other tacked-on justifications that players and DMs have come up with over the years. The game is about adventuring. Everything else is just how you got to the adventure and what you did with the loot.

edit: Or, what Wulf said.

 

[Irda Ranger]

No, becoming a lord with a keep and holdings was never part of the "essence" of D&D.

The essence of D&D is going into dungeons, killing the bad guys, and taking their stuff.

That is the CORE STORY.

It's really not up for debate.

I'd debate that. I've done a lot of "going into dungeons, killing the bad guys, and taking their stuff", but such activities were means to the end, not the ends of themselves. The "ends" were either the in-game ends of building the castle or saving the Kingdom, or the out-of-game ends of doing something fun with friends on a Sunday afternoon. I've never gotten a thrill from kills orcs per se.

 

[Sundragon2012]

I personally think that Empire building is a bad match for table top RPGs. The demand on the DM is far greater than in a dungeon crawl campaign (who needs to run many non-allied factions simultaneously, with far more power at his immediate disposal). Such games run a far greater risk of becoming a mother-may-I or railroads. While there may be individual DMs and groups up to it, empire building is a niche market at best.

The obvious solution is splitting the DMing load by going to an MMORPG system with every faction being run by players. It has been tried, and to my knowledge (I haven't made a detailed study) the only succesful one is EVE-Online. Which, market scale-wise doesn't even register as a blip on WoW's bootkicking scale. Some of that is EVE's mediocre design, mind, but the difference in numbers is striking, as has been the failure of every other PvP based player run faction MMORPG I've ever heard of.

Horrible, horrible idea. Keep your MMORPG away from my D&D.

Empire building, running castles and kingdoms, raising and battling armies, playing with the power-brokers of the setting, defending nations, carving nations, becoming the heroes from the setting's storybooks, becoming a legend, etc. is what High Level gaming IMO is all about. It is ridiculous that heroes of 10th+ level have as their only goal to enter the next big, dumb dungeon. Then at 20th level they can find a 20th level dungeon to go into. Blech.

I never could understand why, if people don't want to have characters that actually impact the setting, why bother with these silly super-dungeons when video games like Elder Scrolls: Oblivion does the who dungeoneering thing so much better than a tabletop game ever could. I am not claiming that this game is real role-playing in the sense of being in character and getting into your role. However it is role-playing as in "you are playing a role so its role playing :\ " and as much a role-playing experience as the giant endless dungeon modules that came out for 3.5

Yeah I know D&D is all about killing things and taking their stuff....a phrase that jumped the shark long ago. MMORPGs and even single player option games like Oblivion are more gratifying IMO in that mode of play than D&D can ever be. Better visuals, more immersion, and more viceral excitement is what video games of this type give. It is perfect for players who only want the kill and rob mode of play. Who really cares about character development in the world of endless dungeons? There is no reason to care. D&D can never compete with computer and console RPGs in the modern era on their level....never.

If D&D isn't run as a game that can offer a far, far richer role-playing experience than the MMORPGs D&D will die for certain. It has to be advertised as something more than a tabletop videogame.

Ultimately D&D is a social, storytelling, adventure game that allows, within the bounds of the millieu used, nearly limitless choices and allows a deep sense of identification with one's chosen character, a character who can actually have impact on a setting and environment in a campaign that can last for 5, 10, 15, 20+ years. It is a game that will allow you to model your favorite fantasy fiction and create grand interactive stories that you can talk about with friends for years.

NO video game can ever do this. D&D has its strengths and MMORPGs have their. If either tries to pretend it can do what it does as well as the other then....well its D&D that is going to lose. There are already people that really believe the WoW and Baldur's Gate are real RPG experiences when all that seperates them from Legacy of Kain, Half-Life 2, Halo, etc. is that there is more resource management and more scripted dialogue. Half Life 2 and the Halo series have as good a story as anything I have ever seen in CRPGs. In all instances you are trapped in a world that have every little options, no character immersion, allows nothing to happen that isn't somehow pre-scripter and allows you to rebook from save or spawn points after something goes wrong. Even D&D isn't this forgiving, even with True Resurrection. At least you aren't starting you character over from before the fight with the BBEG after you get raised.

MMORPGs serve the broadest common denominator the same way WWE wrestling serves a broader common broader denominator of potential fans than PBS's Nova or a Ken Burns documentary or a serious drama like Mystic River for example. WWE is silly, artificial, simplistic and ultimately adolescent. Nothing that raises the bar above sex and violence can ever compete societally with the WWE on its level because in WWE wrestling you have all the ingrediants necessary to activate the most primal purient interests of millions and millions of people.

I know I may draw some ire with this but, hack and slash gaming is to immersive role-playing what US Weekly is to the New Yorker. CRPGs and MMORPGs do the whole kill and rob thing better than D&D. D&D does social interaction, storytelling, impact and consequences, free choice, activating the imagination, character depth, potentially endless play in one setting let along the many settings currently on the market and character player identification better than CRPGs and MMORPGs ever can.

D&D has to play to what makes it different from MMORPGS and CARPGs while at the same time allowing the kill and rob playstyle some enjoy but not marketing that style as its greatest strength when it isn't.



Sundragon

 

[DandD]

I'd debate that. I've done a lot of "going into dungeons, killing the bad guys, and taking their stuff", but such activities were means to the end, not the ends of themselves. The "ends" were either the in-game ends of building the castle or saving the Kingdom, or the out-of-game ends of doing something fun with friends on a Sunday afternoon. I've never gotten a thrill from kills orcs per se.

Then kill dragons. They're more fun to kill, as soon as you're strong enough to do it.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I never could understand why, if people don't want to have characters that actually impact the setting, why bother with these silly super-dungeons when video games like Elder Scrolls: Oblivion does the who dungeoneering thing so much better than a tabletop game ever could.
*snip*

Yeah I know D&D is all about killing things and taking their stuff....a phrase that jumped the shark long ago. MMORPGs and even single player option games like Oblivion are more gratifying IMO in that mode of play than D&D can ever be. Better visuals, more immersion, and more viceral excitement is what video games of this type give.

Actually, video game monster grinding is about the most boring version of that style of play I've ever encountered. Swinging a sword at an endless stream of monsters without the kind of tactical options and variety of encounter frameworks that D&D provides, "jumped the shark" somewhere around the Diablo II expansion.

It is exactly why I only played Neverwinter Nights II for a few hours before uninstalling it. All they could manage to challenge me with was yet another walking bag of hit points. That game is based very closely on D&D, but it fails to capture the interesting parts of killing things and taking their stuff.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Empire building, running castles and kingdoms, raising and battling armies, playing with the power-brokers of the setting, defending nations, carving nations, becoming the heroes from the setting's storybooks, becoming a legend, etc. is what High Level gaming IMO is all about. It is ridiculous that heroes of 10th+ level have as their only goal to enter the next big, dumb dungeon. Then at 20th level they can find a 20th level dungeon to go into. Blech.

I dunno, the adventure paths were pretty well received. They go to level 20+. None of them have centered on pushing units around ala Axis and Allies.

I never could understand why, if people don't want to have characters that actually impact the setting, why bother with these silly super-dungeons when video games like Elder Scrolls: Oblivion does the who dungeoneering thing so much better than a tabletop game ever could.

High level adventuring DOES impact the setting. You save the world and are the big cheese in Age of Worms and Savage Tides (I havent read shackled city). No fortress sitting required. My 3.0 anachronistic Al-Quadim game went to level 20, all the players were members of a band. One guy described it as "The Beatles who Save the World and Fight Godzilla". It was a resounding success, despite having several "boring" high level dungeon crawls, planar intrigue, demon bashing and not one PC owned fort, militia or restuarant. Unless you want to count them selling t-shirts and action figures of themselves (Hey, it was a humerous game). MOST of the time, they went out, solved mysteries and kicked ass, and that certainly didnt resolve things through ordering minions around.

Moreover, I find D&D combat usually more exciting than computer game combat. Particularly MMO's, where 99% of the monsters are killed fairly thoughtlessly (its called a grind for a reason). Mob AI is limited, as are your options. I enjoy a high level of cinematic action in my games. Breaking through plaster walls, kicking a crate at someone across the room to trip them, swinging on chandoliers, dunking someone's head in a deep fryer. I can get that in D&D. Not so with the gussied up large rats I killed for the vast majority of my stint in WoW from 1-60. I enjoy interacting with NPC's in a more meaningful fashion than "accept/decline" quest or a canned series of responses. I enjoy getting more back from them as well.

Also, if you believe that Oblivion handles high level combat and dugneon crawls better... why doesnt it handle low level combat dungeon crawls better? Should we just cut out the combat of D&D? Good luck finding a game with the 6 players scattered throughout the world still interested in the game

 

[Clavis]

No, becoming a lord with a keep and holdings was never part of the "essence" of D&D.

The essence of D&D is going into dungeons, killing the bad guys, and taking their stuff.

That is the CORE STORY.

It's really not up for debate.

I think somebody should ask a certain Mr Gygax about the essence of D&D before debate is ended.