The Dungeon Masters' Foundation

[ChaosEvoker]

@Nightcloak
[sblock]It's awesome, Half-Life 2 is better. But I mean, when there such a huge difference in time an technology between games that's to be expected. I would say both games are worth your money but half life 1 is REALLY hard. Way harder than HL2. Keep in mind that HL2 will make pretty much no sence if you haven't played HL1[/sblock]

@Test
I begin to wonder, the first tiem I took that test it said I was a NG Gnome Bard. NG alignemtn I'm fine with. But, I HATE GNOMES AND BARDS!!! I almsot cvonsidered trying to hack in and screw up the test after that. But decided against it. After taking the test again I was a NG Human Wizard which is awesome. Yeah I did have some different answers though. Anyways....

@Campaign
I'm not seeing anyone posting characters. Is no one interested or is RL just getting in the way right now?

@New Topic (which I'm creating right now)
What do you think the Pros/Cons are of D&D 1E, 2E, 3E, and 3.5E? What do you think still needs to be worked on or altered to make the game better/more realistic? What did you like beter in previous versions and what did you liek about the more recent ones? That should get some discussion going here.

 

[LilMissKittyn]

Yeah, the posts are slowing down a bit. The new topic might help.

About the stats:
I'm not so sure I put a lot of stock in the tests either. The personality (I'd like to convince myself) is awfully close, though I might be more of a bard than a paladin. The stats test...well, let's just put it this way. I'd like to think my stats are higher than an average of 11. Maybe I'll retake it.

About the campaign:
I'll join if I can. Let me see about time.

 

[BSF]

@Campaign
I'm not seeing anyone posting characters. Is no one interested or is RL just getting in the way right now?

Sorry man, I run one game and play in another. Between posts, logs, and minimal game prep, I don't have much more time to join a game.

@New Topic (which I'm creating right now)
What do you think the Pros/Cons are of D&D 1E, 2E, 3E, and 3.5E? What do you think still needs to be worked on or altered to make the game better/more realistic? What did you like beter in previous versions and what did you liek about the more recent ones? That should get some discussion going here.

This is an interesting question. I really think the game has improved with each revision. I don't necessarily want more realistic, I want the game to be better playable.

I like the depth of detail that you can get into when creating a character. I appreciate the subtleties of tweaking a character build to accomodate unusual development. I do a pretty decent job juggling variables during combat and I am able to resolve my actions reasonably quickly. I am able to do the same with most of the NPCs when I DM.

But that isn't for everyone. Not everyone enjoys the same things I do.

I enjoy the HERO system and I used to be able to build decent characters straight out of my head. So keep in mind that I have that sort of mentality. The bookkeeping is one of the things that puts people off HERO. With a modular, open-ended system, you have a lot of options. That being said, I think DnD could stand to take a little more from the HERO system, but not in the bookkeeping aspects. One of the things HERO does well is label problematic powers and present reasons why you might want to exclude them from your game. I would like to see books like the DMG go through the process of helping DMs understand how to adjust the power level of their campaigns. Label potentially problematic spells and powers and teach the DM how to decide what belongs in their games.

DnD still needs a very solid resource to help budding DMs improve rapidly. We need a DM fast track plan. The advantage to that groundwork is that experienced DMs would also be able to quickly peruse the guidelines and warnings and put together a campaign that suits their campaigns.

Maybe the new DMGII will have some of this and can fill that niche. We will see.

As for what was better about previous editions, that is a difficult question for me. The simplicity and open-endedness was nice because it could keep things moving fast. But the codified rules in current editions keep rules interpretation bickering down. (Or maybe the gamers I game with are less likely to devolve into bickering?) It is hard for me to really say what was better because it is difficult to take off the glasses of nostalgia.

 

[Mordmorgan the Mad]

I didn't see too many problems with 2e except for some confusion about when a negative mod was a good thing or a bad thing. Players Option was a good idea but a massive disaster in practice. 3.0 cleared a lot of the rules up, but still had some problems with balance. 3.5 is much better, even if power creep has gotten a little out of hand. I don't have so much of a problem with the power creep (even if other do) because I decide what I let in my game (and I have players who trust me).

I don't see enough problems with 3.5 to warrant another edition any time soon. I see a lot of people on the WotC boards complaining about 3.5, but I don't think many of them are really doing thier jobs as DMs.

 

[Piratecat]

I don't see enough problems with 3.5 to warrant another edition any time soon.

I think the inevitable approach of another edition and the gaming-related need for such a thing is relatively unrelated. More accurately, the next edition will occur in order to provide a continuing income stream for WotC. That's not necessarily a problem -- what's good for them is good for the industry -- so long as they take as much care on it as they originally did with 3e.

 

[Imret]

Yikes. Lack access to ENWorld for a few days and there's like 5 pages of posts I didn't catch. So, let's see...

1) DM Foundation campaign. Cool idea, certainly. Sad thing is, my personal computer isn't networked right now, so I can't jump in and say "Yes! Gaming! After months of nothing, gaming!!"...sorry, was that desperate? If I get connected in time, I could be available. Concepts vary as to if it's FR or some other setting.

2) Benefits of old vs. new editions; hmmm. 1st Edition had simplicity going for it, and 2nd edition had....okay, I admit it. I hated 2nd Edition with a passion, but it was D&D. I played it, but I didn't really like much about it. 3.x, however, seems to be pretty much everything I want...except for 3.5 DR. And possibly other things...sitting down with the 3.0 and 3.5 books and finding all the differences sounds like a nightmare. Anybody done it?

3) The Test. True Neutral Human Sorceror, though very close to Neutral Evil. But I knew that.

 

[Blade of Desecration]

Alright, I'm back.

Campaign characters: I need to see what exact level we'll be before I post, so other people need to post what they will be (CE, maybe you could make a post with a compilation of what everyone so far has said they will be). Also, I want to do my character history at the same time, so I need to know what our CS is gonna' be. Are we using FR, Eberron, homebrew, what?

Topic: The only 2nd edition I've played was on the comp games (BG, BG2, IWD), so I don't really have any opinion. Especially since how they explain the 2nd edition rules makes no sense, and even after owning the games for many years I still don't understand half of it.

 

[LilMissKittyn]

Just a note: will post char tomorrow or early Sat. morning. However, since I'm STILL not very familiar with the game, you'll have to excuse me when I make mistakes (and CE will let me know about them, I'm sure). I'm gonna go buy a player's guide tomorrow. So starts the endless collection of D&D books.

 

[Dyne]

@Nightcloak
[sblock]It's awesome, Half-Life 2 is better. But I mean, when there such a huge difference in time an technology between games that's to be expected. I would say both games are worth your money but half life 1 is REALLY hard. Way harder than HL2. Keep in mind that HL2 will make pretty much no sence if you haven't played HL1[/sblock]

@Test
I begin to wonder, the first tiem I took that test it said I was a NG Gnome Bard. NG alignemtn I'm fine with. But, I HATE GNOMES AND BARDS!!! I almsot cvonsidered trying to hack in and screw up the test after that. But decided against it. After taking the test again I was a NG Human Wizard which is awesome. Yeah I did have some different answers though. Anyways....

@Campaign
I'm not seeing anyone posting characters. Is no one interested or is RL just getting in the way right now?

@New Topic (which I'm creating right now)
What do you think the Pros/Cons are of D&D 1E, 2E, 3E, and 3.5E? What do you think still needs to be worked on or altered to make the game better/more realistic? What did you like beter in previous versions and what did you liek about the more recent ones? That should get some discussion going here.

@Test
That's nothing. It told me that I was a Half-Elf once. I had about the same reaction as you did, if you catch my meaning (IFWG inside joke). I originally had no problems with Half-Elves. In fact, before I got into D&D, I found the concept interesting, and I often played as them in D&Distic video games. Then I got 3rd Edition, and I found the race completely worthless. Then, I met a Half-Elf that I particularly do not like.

Now, the test almost always says I'm a Half-Orc. I don't really mind that, in fact, one of my best friends plays as a Half-Orc Barbarian. But, then, my ability score results are the opposite of a Half-Orc, and I think my personality is closer to an Elf or a Dwarf. Two completely different races, I know.

 

[Blade of Desecration]

I really think I'm closer to a dwarf myself. I mean, I'm anti-social to the extreme and have an abstract sense of humor. That and I'm short and stocky. If I had a beard yet, I'd be exactly like one.