What! Limper has a gripe?
- Thread starter Limper
- Start date
- Status
Carnifex
First Post
This is one funny thread. Early on when I saw Silverthrone's first coupla posts I reckoned it might get moderated pretty quickly but it's just descended into hilarity 
Anyway, I have to take issue with Silverthrone's approach to 3e.
Silverthrone: I am, according to the tests, a genius. When I did virtually no work for my first year university exams, including for one module reading the book the course was based on for the first time only the day before the exam, I got a good 2/1 even on that little effort. But, according to you, because I like the fact that 3rd edition provides the rules for lots of situations that the previous editions just didn't cover, I'm a slack-jawed idiot who can't handle rpg's properly?
I love games with lots of rp'ing in. My favourite setting apart from my homebrews is Planescape, which tends towards roleplaying rather than combat. But combat is a perfectly valid method of playing D&D and always has been - hell, the earlier editions of D&D were just as focused, if not more, on dungeon crawling and getting lots of loot, and it took new settings to bring out the focus on other aspects of the game. Somehow praising earlier editions as a kind of rp'ing holy grail is rubbish; I don't doubt that many people might prefer the old rulesets but in no way does that therefore mean that 3e with its more comprehensive rules set, saving time for the DM and players and thus allowing more time for actually playing and enjoying the game, is somehow 'dumbing down' the game.
It sounds more like you don't want to admit that other people have perfectly valid methods of gaming, and always have done, and instead want to blame it on an easy scapegoat - 3e. People who focus far more on non-roleplaying aspects of the game have always existed.
Further, it seems like Limper's argument seems to have oscillated between two points throughout this discussion - on one hand he seemed to be indicating that he should get more XP for better roleplaying and the other guy should be kicked out for not being as good a roleplayer, and on the other hand he was saying that the guy was doing *nothing at all*. Now, in the second case I can sympathise; but in the first, I have my doubts simply because of the disruption it can, potentially, cause, and I've seen it occur amongst some gamers. Now that doesn't necessarily mean those gamers are slack-jawed idiots who shouldn't be playing, but rather that those individuals personalities, likes and dislikes mean that it isn't the way they like to play.
There is no One True Way of playing the game.
Anyway, I have to take issue with Silverthrone's approach to 3e.
Silverthrone: I am, according to the tests, a genius. When I did virtually no work for my first year university exams, including for one module reading the book the course was based on for the first time only the day before the exam, I got a good 2/1 even on that little effort. But, according to you, because I like the fact that 3rd edition provides the rules for lots of situations that the previous editions just didn't cover, I'm a slack-jawed idiot who can't handle rpg's properly?
I love games with lots of rp'ing in. My favourite setting apart from my homebrews is Planescape, which tends towards roleplaying rather than combat. But combat is a perfectly valid method of playing D&D and always has been - hell, the earlier editions of D&D were just as focused, if not more, on dungeon crawling and getting lots of loot, and it took new settings to bring out the focus on other aspects of the game. Somehow praising earlier editions as a kind of rp'ing holy grail is rubbish; I don't doubt that many people might prefer the old rulesets but in no way does that therefore mean that 3e with its more comprehensive rules set, saving time for the DM and players and thus allowing more time for actually playing and enjoying the game, is somehow 'dumbing down' the game.
It sounds more like you don't want to admit that other people have perfectly valid methods of gaming, and always have done, and instead want to blame it on an easy scapegoat - 3e. People who focus far more on non-roleplaying aspects of the game have always existed.
Further, it seems like Limper's argument seems to have oscillated between two points throughout this discussion - on one hand he seemed to be indicating that he should get more XP for better roleplaying and the other guy should be kicked out for not being as good a roleplayer, and on the other hand he was saying that the guy was doing *nothing at all*. Now, in the second case I can sympathise; but in the first, I have my doubts simply because of the disruption it can, potentially, cause, and I've seen it occur amongst some gamers. Now that doesn't necessarily mean those gamers are slack-jawed idiots who shouldn't be playing, but rather that those individuals personalities, likes and dislikes mean that it isn't the way they like to play.
There is no One True Way of playing the game.
Henry
Autoexreginated
Friends, Romans, Countrymen, Lend me your ears...
Although it appears to have died down somewhat since Limper's last post, I would like to ask that we try to be a little more civil here in this thread. Disagreements are fine, name-calling and personal attacks of opportunity are not.
Although it appears to have died down somewhat since Limper's last post, I would like to ask that we try to be a little more civil here in this thread. Disagreements are fine, name-calling and personal attacks of opportunity are not.
Henry
Autoexreginated
Now that that's said...
I have to side with Carnifex on his opinions on playing the game.
First of all, it is a game. It's a game that has the SAME DANGER as pro sports, Magic the Gathering tournaments, and golf tourneys: When people start taking it too seriously, people get hurt. Feelings, physically, or sometimes both.
If there IS a right way and wrong way to play, would there not have been a clear authority on this game since its inception. No one argues that Baseball is played with a pool cue instead of a baseball bat; it's been that way from the beginning.
D&D, and other RPG's for example, have always been given loose interpretation to their method and rules of play. It's the way Gygax, Arneson, and the whole wargaming community of the late 60's and early 70's actually played when they developed this crazy little pastime of ours.
We argue about "right way" and "wrong way", yet we have forums spread all over creation about house rules, variant XP systems, variant character classes, and EVEN CLASSLESS and statless role-play! I challenge anyone here to point out the "true way to role-play" without 15 dissenters immediately refuting them. Politics don't get off that easy, Religion don't get off that easy, and gamers CERTAINLY won't get off that easy.
We have mini-rants in this thread, and that one's mine.
I'll hush now, and go back to lurking.
I have to side with Carnifex on his opinions on playing the game.
First of all, it is a game. It's a game that has the SAME DANGER as pro sports, Magic the Gathering tournaments, and golf tourneys: When people start taking it too seriously, people get hurt. Feelings, physically, or sometimes both.
If there IS a right way and wrong way to play, would there not have been a clear authority on this game since its inception. No one argues that Baseball is played with a pool cue instead of a baseball bat; it's been that way from the beginning.
D&D, and other RPG's for example, have always been given loose interpretation to their method and rules of play. It's the way Gygax, Arneson, and the whole wargaming community of the late 60's and early 70's actually played when they developed this crazy little pastime of ours.
We argue about "right way" and "wrong way", yet we have forums spread all over creation about house rules, variant XP systems, variant character classes, and EVEN CLASSLESS and statless role-play! I challenge anyone here to point out the "true way to role-play" without 15 dissenters immediately refuting them. Politics don't get off that easy, Religion don't get off that easy, and gamers CERTAINLY won't get off that easy.
We have mini-rants in this thread, and that one's mine.
I'll hush now, and go back to lurking.
Frostmarrow
First Post
I can see how Limper feel a need to get rewarded. After all it's pretty clear that he put in a lot of effort and thought into the game. However, I don't think that the reward of the game is XP. For me XP is just a tool to have the game develop and gradually change in order to prevent the game from becoming stagnant. In my opinion the true reward in the game (apart from participating of course) is screen time. If you are entertaining, people won't interrupt you as much or tell you what to do. If you add to the game your fellow players will give you some leeway when it comes to solo-acts and extended NPC-interaction. It seems to me that Limper gets a fair share of attention at the game and I fail to see how he can be so discontent.
Screen time: This is what we ultimately want to get out of the game. Our own input, the opportunity to share ideas, the time to express a thespian side of our personality or what have you. For me the most rewarding moments of the game is when I cast the "wrong" spell to the best effect at the perfect time. When my fellow gamers say "Wow -that was clever!". For someone else it might be to show off a nigh-perfect scottish/dwarvish accent. To each his own.
Screen time: This is what we ultimately want to get out of the game. Our own input, the opportunity to share ideas, the time to express a thespian side of our personality or what have you. For me the most rewarding moments of the game is when I cast the "wrong" spell to the best effect at the perfect time. When my fellow gamers say "Wow -that was clever!". For someone else it might be to show off a nigh-perfect scottish/dwarvish accent. To each his own.
bondetamp
First Post
I'm sorry for just jumoing in here, but I can't seem to understand the problem with individual rp-awards.
Of course, it has been quite a while since I was in a game that didn't use it, so I'm rather used to it.
But would it be so bad if one awarded the evening's best roleplayer with 10 or 20% extra xp? Perhaps 10% awarded by the GM and 10% awarded by voting?
I honestly don't see the problem.
Of course, it has been quite a while since I was in a game that didn't use it, so I'm rather used to it.
But would it be so bad if one awarded the evening's best roleplayer with 10 or 20% extra xp? Perhaps 10% awarded by the GM and 10% awarded by voting?
I honestly don't see the problem.
Frostmarrow
First Post
bondetamp said:I'm sorry for just jumoing in here, but I can't seem to understand the problem with individual rp-awards.
Of course, it has been quite a while since I was in a game that didn't use it, so I'm rather used to it.
But would it be so bad if one awarded the evening's best roleplayer with 10 or 20% extra xp? Perhaps 10% awarded by the GM and 10% awarded by voting?
I honestly don't see the problem.
There is no problem but it can get out of hand. As long as all characters are whithin in 4 levels of eachother everything is peachy keen. After that all encounters can become a cake-walk for the powerful character but 100% deadly to the weak (which might result in a downward spiral when applying certain dying-policies).
In Limper's game, for example, it's not impossible that Limper would play an 18th level character and the Lump playing a 1/1 character. That could become a problem.
- Status
Similar Threads
