What are you a minority about?

[FireLance]

Combat Length.

Game difficulty.

I see where you're coming from, and I generally agree, but I take a slightly different perspective. The real issue to me is not combat length or game difficulty but choices and strategic, tactical or creative thinking.

To me, regardless of how long combat takes, it is not a grind as long as there are interesting choices to be made or scope for strategic, tactical or creative thinking.

Similarly, difficulty that arises simply because the game mechanics are set up to give you a high failure rate doesn't work for me. A flat 90% chance of failure doesn't make a game interesting; it just makes it frustrating. However, give me a chance to make choices or come up with creative ways to bring that 90% chance of failure down to 10% or even 0% and you've got a game that I will probably be interested in.

 

[Hairfoot]

I think our group tends to the "heavy combat emphasis" more than appears to be the norm.

^ us too...

^ us three

1. Combat Length....I want combats to be long...tactical choices didn't really matter...not just sailed through a tactically-simple "appropriately balanced" little auto-win.

All of that raises the question: why D&D? Aren't there miniature combat games that simulate fights better that you could then add roleplay to with a more satisfying result?

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I am a minority in that I prefer all pcs to start at 1st level; alas, post-2e this is entirely impractical above about 3rd or 4th level.

Hm, that's funny. I've always felt a minority for liking to start above 1st level. Go figure.

From reading threads here, and various D&D-related blogs and such, I've come to feel like I've got some very different play preferences than (what appears to be) the majority of people.

Maybe, but I hear ya mate! I do feel like 4e combat takes too long, but I don't think I'd mind if the default difficulty weren't so lame. A D&D battle is like a movie--if it's really good I'll sit for hours and hours, but if it's lame why even bother?

. . .

Sometimes I feel like a minority for not having a hate-on for alignment, but I think that's just a result of a vocal interweb minority. I can't imagine that a majority of gamers have had such volatile emotionally-scarring experiences with petty DMs.

 

[mach1.9pants]

All of that raises the question: why D&D? Aren't there miniature combat games that simulate fights better that you could then add roleplay to with a more satisfying result?

Nope not at all, there is a HUGE difference between minis combat, wargaimg and combat heavy RPing. We still RP but the majority of our encounters are combat. You RP in combat. You do not RP in the other two game styles.

EDIT: mis read you. Most minis / wargames are a lot worse at simulating small number combats than RPs. Also there is much much more to RP combat than just RPing and fighting: traps, skills etc.

 

[FireLance]

All of that raises the question: why D&D? Aren't there miniature combat games that simulate fights better that you could then add roleplay to with a more satisfying result?

To be frank, I haven't come across any, although to tell the truth, I haven't been searching very hard for any alternatives, either.

I think the key advantage that D&D has over miniature combat games is the degree of customizability you have over your character and the sheer variety of customization options. For most other miniature combat games (that I am aware of, anyway) customization occurs at the unit level instead of at the individual level, and units are made up of a relatively small number of pre-determined individual troop types.

 

[Hairfoot]

For most other miniature combat games (that I am aware of, anyway) customization occurs at the unit level instead of at the individual level, and units are made up of a relatively small number of pre-determined individual troop types.

I think that's probably true. It does, however, mean that combat survival becomes the #1 priority for a PC, which also leads to the power creep that I most dislike about 4E. There is no room for talented mortals; only superheroes.

 

[Lancelot]

I'm in a tiny minority (possibly a minority of 1) in that I think N2 - The Forest Oracle is far from the worst classic D&D module. It's not a good module by any stretch of the imagination, but it has better artwork, maps and "introductory" encounters for a beginner group than many of its contemporaries. Yes, it has huge plot holes, cliches, and editing errors... but I remain steadfast in my belief that it is far, far better than any module with the word "Bloodstone" in its title.

Heck with it... that's not contentious enough. I'll claim that Forest Oracle, as written, is in many ways superior to the original Tomb of Horrors.

 

[Shemeska]

I am a minority in that I prefer rolling stats. HATE HATE HATE point buy.

I'll join you in that minority.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm black & a practicing Roman Catholic...oh wait...that's not what you meant.

I like rolling stats...but also have no problem with point buy systems (my fave RPG is HERO, after all).

I like 9 point alignment.

I like that multiclassing spellcasters actually costs them something.

I like the arcane/divine dichotomy.

 

[mach1.9pants]

I think that's probably true. It does, however, mean that combat survival becomes the #1 priority for a PC, which also leads to the power creep that I most dislike about 4E. There is no room for talented mortals; only superheroes.

Sorry but that is plain out wrong. We love gritty low power games, that is why we like the combat it is bloody dangerous! Only big girls blouses need superhero survival rates