The moment of fragmentation

[nharwell]

If your tastes are such that you simply cannot lower yourself to play with people who prefer a slightly different style, then perhaps you deserve to have fewer choices of groups to play with. There's a point at which the world is not the problem - you are.

Although I agree with the general gist of your message, I think your last part (above) is perhaps a bit harsh. After all, I would imagine that we all have preferred styles of play. Personally, I'm quite picky about the groups I game with...

I may be wrong, but I think it's unlikely that you would game with ANYONE, regardless of their house rules or gaming style.

 

[Emiricol]

Beyond my standard pitch to join B.A.T.G.N.O.M.E., I'm going to violate my sacred oath and post an opinion on this

D&D has always been fragmented. I have never once gamed with a group that had zero number of house rules. I think this "fragmentation" is yet another non-issue, in practice - it is nothing new.

 

[rushlight]

What if he disagrees? I also move every 3 yrs and thus must find a new group. A year from now everyone will have their own 3.0/3.5 hybrids.

What if your group decides they don't want to play D&D at all? What if they decide to switch to GURPS Fantasy with aspects of Time Travel and Steam Punk thrown in? What if they want to play Cyberpunk? Or Star Wars? Or any of a near-infinite number of RPGS that aren't 3.0 D&D? What do you do then?

The point here is that gamers have had to choose their groups based around personal style, and make compromises ever since the first RPG was played. They will continue to do so until the earth is a cold, black dustball. This is not the fault of D&D 3.5 or any other system. It's just that people are different.

When we started playing D&D I Hated the 2e rules. That's with a capital 'H'. But you know what? The rest of my group wanted to play D&D, and I wanted to run a fantasy game, so I worked with the system. Together we reached a common ground where everyone was happy to be playing. I've always wanted to play in a really good cyberpunk style game, but there has yet to be a system that had the right mechanics and background for me to play. So I've never played one of those games. Others in my group have. Perhaps one day I'll write my own take on the genre - one that doesn't focus on guns and evil corporations like all the other ones do.

Some of others in my group play Marvel Supers, whereas I don't really like the system at all, and I'm not super-keen on the whole idea of it, so I don't play that one either. I will be taking part in the upcoming Star Trek game a friend will run, but not everyone will.

When we swtiched to D&D 3e, I still wasn't totally happy with the rules. That has carried over into 3.5. I use alternate systems for falling, poison, disease, tumble checks, concentration checks, dying, and several other things. I actually go over all the house rules when a new player joins, there's that many of them. For example: I think it's absurd that falling does a flat 1d6 / 10 feet max of 20d6. In 2e I had house rules for falling as well. Now, it's the same damage as before, along with a Fort save or die, DC equal to 2 per 10 feet fallen. Fall 200 feet and take 20d6 and a fort save of DC 40 or die. Have you ever considered jumping 200 feet with no protection? Well, my PCs won't either.

 

[PowerWordDumb]

I think your last part (above) is perhaps a bit harsh.

It's not intended to be harsh, apologies if it comes across that way. It is intended to be a splash of cold water and a definite reality check though. The more "I won't play with games that do X, Y, Z, A, B, C, D, or E, and most especially not F" restrictions you put on what game rules you'll play with, the more unlikely you can find a gaming group to fit your tastes. This is not the world's fault for not adhering to your tastes, it's your fault for being too restrictive in how you play.

Personal tastes are fine and dandy, but would you rather play with a group and have fun despite a couple of minor variances from your true preference, or is it preferable to stay home and complain because nobody plays the way you do?

I say play and have fun, and appreciate the fact that more people are joining our past-time for us to play with.

 

[Umbran]

Thousands of people, around the world, were playing games that were pretty much indistinguishable from each other on a mechanical level.

And thousands of people weren't. Thousands were playing highly house-ruled games, or older versions of D&D, or (*gasp!*) entirely different games. Still, somehow we managed to communicate.

The D&D community has always been fragmented, the gaming community on the whole even moreso. We've survived that way for decades. The fragmentation, in fact, is what made the 3.0 improvements possible. Hybrid vigor is a good thing.

 

[Graf]

What on earth possibly led you to believe that 3e was some "unification" effort? That's completely opposite the very ideal that 3e was written around!

The reason 3e was made was to DIVERSIFY, not to unify. Thus the SRD.

Uhh... not according to the people who made the game.
One of Ryan D's big points with the new system 'D20' was that you could effectively break off the mechanics of system generation from story ideas. If you had a cool idea involving zombies you didn't need to kill yourself thinking about creating a task resolution system, you could just focus on your story and use the D20 engine.
Incidentally this worked out basically as planned. The roleplaying market went through a tremendous upheaval. The market for D20 products (mostly D&D) grew tremendously until it dwarfed the rest of the market. And new a lot of games come out in two versions: a standard D20 version and whatever-the-other-proprietary-system-is.

The power of D20 to unify does continue somewhat. Monte Cook scrapped his new armor system because it wouldn't have been D&D anymore.... So people who want to use monsters/characters/magic armor from his new line without having to tinker with it nearly as much.
This was one example where the standardized system, and people who use it, won out. And Monte won their business, at least for his monster book.

It's totally illogical ... somehow broken.

I didn't say broken. I was also talking about the market not the game system. But suit yourself.

Midnight and Arcana Unearthed look like the Golden Age of D&D to me.

I deliberately avoided discussing whether this is a good age or a bad age of D&D. I don't really think you can tell for sure. Especially since one of the products in question isn't even out yet.

And even with all that variety, the core books still provide a common language for quick pick-up games. Just say "we're doing it core 3.0/3.5" and you're good to go.

And even with all that variety, the core books still provide a common language for quick pick-up games. Just say "we're doing it core 3.0/3.5" and you're good to go.

Initially I thought this was a good point. But what does core 3.0/3.5 mean? If you were thinking about Runequest then it certainly gives you a lot of new info about the game. If you were talking about D&D then there's not so much info. You need to get technical.

Is it better to have DnD 'fragmented'
or,

Is it better to have a solid, unified DnD

It's funny that you're presenting this as a choice. And one that you've phrased in an excessively pejorative manner, for that matter.

I wasn't talking about 2nd edition, or the 1980s.

Thousands were playing highly house-ruled games, or older versions of D&D, or (*gasp!*) entirely different games.

You are technically correct. There are/were certainly more than a thousand people playing oD&D and nonD20 games.
But the vast majority played D&D games which were very similar to each other.

I'm a frequent and obsessive house ruler myself. I house rule things constantly. We had 30 odd the last time I made a list, from how we rolled hit points, to changes to races to a new mechanic for trips and tumbling, to completely different rules for Druidic spell aquisitition and so forth.
But while I might love and cherish my little tweaks (and happily argue about them for hours on the internet and with players) they're just that... tweaks. Nothing more. Despite the feelings of some people to the contrary house rules are rarely blazing examples of raw creativity and more frequently just adjustments to personal taste.

One more thing for the record.... I'm not anti-non-D&D games. There really isn't much to say about that. [I recently lobbied the group to start a Vampire game and got voted down.] The idea that anyone who talks about the current state of the market, or it's future, is a rabid hater-of-things-I-happen-to-like is kind of silly. I don't hate your favorite game system. I don't mind that you play it. This has nothing to do with that.
[Though I have to think that the current "my version rocks! your version sucks!" etc. vibe is continuing to permeate some people's thought processes such that they can only think in those terms. And ascribe their mindset to people who don't have it.]

I did really like the fact that I could go out and pick up any given fantasy supplement and, in all likelihood, it was written with the system I was running my game in mind. I liked the fact that I could go home and have three people in three wildly different worlds and have a clear and easy idea about what they're games were like. The standardization of D&D was a tremendous boon to the average player, and to DMs who wanted to incorporate the ideas of others. I see a future where this fragmentation becomes more and more pronounced.

 

[seasong]

Originally posted by Graf

Originally posted by seasong
And even with all that variety, the core books still provide a common language for quick pick-up games. Just say "we're doing it core 3.0/3.5" and you're good to go.

Initially I thought this was a good point. But what does core 3.0/3.5 mean? If you were thinking about Runequest then it certainly gives you a lot of new info about the game. If you were talking about D&D then there's not so much info. You need to get technical.

I have to admit, I don't understand what you just said. Or maybe I was the one not being clear.

The '/' was an "OR". Thus: "Hey guys, I'm running a core 3.0 game" OR "Hey guys, I'm running a core 3.5 game".

As for what does that mean? It means I use the core rulebooks for whichever edition is specified, and I'm not using any house rules. Or, if there are any house rules, they are something I can explain in 10 minutes, with no nasty surprises.

 

[Graf]

Re: Re: The moment of fragmentation

The '/' was an "OR". Thus: "Hey guys, I'm running a core 3.0 game" OR "Hey guys, I'm running a core 3.5 game".

Ahhh. I retract my previous comment. You're right, of course.

 

[seasong]

Originally posted by seasong
Midnight and Arcana Unearthed look like the Golden Age of D&D to me. And Nyambe excites me in ways I can't talk about here.

Originally posted by Graf
I deliberately avoided discussing whether this is a good age or a bad age of D&D. I don't really think you can tell for sure. Especially since one of the products in question isn't even out yet.

Oh, it's definitely a good age (though perhaps not a stable good age), but not for any of the reasons we're discussing . And I was just saying that those products look like it to me, not giving an analysis of the market.

And really, I think fragmentation is good in creative endeavors, especially since the popular majority tend to retain a single standard despite fragmentation, and occasionally (and slowly) incorporate the best elements of the creative fringe. Of course, that's my point of view from the fringe - to someone in the mainstream who feels like he's about to fall into the fringe, it may not look so good .

 

[seasong]

Re: Re: Re: The moment of fragmentation

Ahhh. I retract my previous comment.

Yeah, it sounded like we agreed on this point, but we'd somehow failed to communicate that to each other .