Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bendris Noulg" data-source="post: 1542478" data-attributes="member: 6398">I think your missing my point. The encouragement was to see the world as a thriving, living environment in which a multitude of cultures (each different in their views, perceptions, morals, and outlooks) were in relation to each other.  All the 3E DMG provides is a set of statistics based on a poorly supported default setting.  Hardly the same thing. This is a limitation of the player, not of the "typical" behavior of a race.  I mean, really, compare to dwarves in the 2E PH to the Dwarves in Dragonlance to the Dwarves in Dark Sun.  On top, there was almost always the side-note that stated "PCs are always allowed to be exceptions."  So, if this was a problem with the people you played with, don't forget where the problem actually lies: With the people, not the rules. At the vary least, providing ample information on the culture, personalities, and social standards of these races doesn't aid in "real role-play".  Why not?  Because there's no basis for a PC to be different.  A PC breaking from the norms of his culture and a PC that adheres to his cultural norms are both more interesting than a character that comes from a barely detailed race and that might or might not be a unique individual. Abusing the rules is a problem with the player, not with the rules themselves.  That 3E caters to this ("lowering the bar" would be the expression) isn't a sign of improvement, it's a sign of catering to those that were incapable or unwilling to follow the rules.  So, instead of people not adhering to these qualities being viewed as the poor gamers that they actually are, we now have those that value RP being seen as hard-core freaks that take the game too seriously. Reversing the table does not change the facts, although bringing in a bunch of new gamers that don't know any better seems to definately change popular perceptions. That this philosophy is true in professional game design is a good thing, I agree.  That this is also assumed to be true at the gaming table is nothing but propaganda and closed-mindedness, and could have very easily have been avoided by a simple paragraph or two in the DMG (or, preferably, in the PH, where new gamers would likely take it more seriously). Your understanding is wrong.  Sure, they include motivations for certain groups and individuals, but in the presentation of the material, these are reduced to little more than window dressing.  Having read the FRCS, I quickly and gladly gave it to a friend (whom, as I understand it, also passed it on to a friend).  Give me the Gray Box Set anyday.  It at least tried to be a campaign world instead of a stage for munchkinized novel characters. You need to take a better look: Consider that the chapter on running the game (3 I think) is all about dungeoneering, combat, and abilities.  The design principal the game presents is undeniably "From the Dungeon Out" rather than "From the World In".  2E was very much about the campaign, long-running campaigns at that; 3E is exactly what "Taking it back to the dungeon" would seem to imply. Even the design concept of making the game "completable" in 1 year's time of "average gaming", meaning that 4-6 hours a week for a full year is supposed to produce 20th Level characters, shows more emphasis on confrontation, reward, and advancement than it is on maintaining any degree of a long-term storyline.  Case-in-point: The time-frame and advancement rate evidenced in Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil. These aren't ill-founded opinions or unsupportable facts, here...  The material that WotC continues to produce (and thus other publishers feel inclined to follow in-kind) proves it time and time again. As is, I loaned out my DMG just last night (and this is the third occassion I've had to look in it today after not looking at it in weeks, and if that's not irony, I don't know what is...) and likely won't be seeing it again for a week or two, but I do recall in reading the material that it was very dry, very minimalist, and very uninspiring.  I will concede that, for some people, it might be all the inspiration they need, but for others, it may be all that they want.  However, it just put me to sleep and inspired me to do little more than ignore it in favor of my own ways of doing things.  Does this make me right or wrong?  Don't know.  But I think the fact that this perception of 3E continues to surface should be an indicator that there is, indeed, more than a kernal of truth to it.</blockquote>

Verification