Whats Wrong with Ganking CRPG Stuff???

[Jinete]

"Okay, I want to run up the monster's tail, leap on it's back, and begin shooting it in the back of the head."

Rules Heavy system. "The monster is going to get an attack against you because you entered its space. Going up its back is difficult terrain, meaning that you can only get half way up its hind quarter. Also, you need to make a balance check to succeed in the first place. Next round, you make a balance check at a higher DC just to stay on as it starts to fight back."

Rules Light system: "Okay. In fact, I'll give you a +1 for doing that."

Rules Heavy system #2 "You can't do that, running up a monster is not covered in the rules"

Rules Heavy system #3 "You can't do that, there's a feat in Dungeonscape that lets you climb a monster, but you have to attack it with a hammer and a spike first"

 

[The Merciful]

why base an unlimited potential on a limited one? To put it another way, I've never liked online MMORGs as much as Table-Top RPGs because, having experienced both, I am aware of the limited nature of computer games. You can only reach X Level, you can only be Class Y if you are Race Z and so forth. There are only so many missions and so many abilities to choose and the like. Instead of a WoW-like Talent Tree, I'd rather see an M&M-like system for designing and building any talent or power you can dream up.

That all sounds awfull lot like the old D&D, except you didn't have talent trees and you got XP form each gold piece you got.

I say people are against any CRPG influence because they lack perspective.

 

[The Green Adam]

That all sounds awfull lot like the old D&D, except you didn't have talent trees and you got XP form each gold piece you got.

I say people are against any CRPG influence because they lack perspective.

Yes it does sound like old D&D...something we evolved from and are now apparently going back to. How exactly does noticing this that show a lack of perspective on the part of those not impressed with these CRPG elements? Rather, I would think it shows a lack of perspective among those producing a product that instead of moving forward and expanding the hobby, goes backward and copies from a medium that has already copied from table-tops. It feels a little like a gourmet restaurant being 'inspired' to become more like McDonalds.

Now, I haven't awarded an XP for a GP in about 20 years and my inspirations come from sources as varied as Babylonian mythology and mecha anime. All I needed and continue to need is a set of rules that enables me to create what I want and not one that feels...I don't know...shoehorned in to reflect a currently popular trend or medium.

Again, this is just the impression I'm getting right now. Its my opinion only and I don't berate anyone for feeling or viewing it differently.

AD

 

[Doug McCrae]

For me its also conceptual...why base an unlimited potential on a limited one?

By this logic, fantasy fiction should never be used as a source of inspiration as it's incredibly limited - characters can only ever act as they are written. We could only be inspired by other rpgs.

Also I don't see crpgs as being more limited than tabletop. Mods could potentially be created to do anything in a crpg. In a tabletop game one is greatly limited by the other players. Say I want to start a smuggling operation and the other players and DM all want to do a dungeon bash. Limitation. Say I want to run up the dragon's tail and the DM says I can't. Limitation. Say I want to play 1e and the other players want to play 3.5. Limitation.

 

[Jinete]

By this logic, fantasy fiction should never be used as a source of inspiration as it's incredibly limited - characters can only ever act as they are written. We could only be inspired by other rpgs.

Also I don't see crpgs as being more limited than tabletop. Mods could potentially be created to do anything in a crpg. In a tabletop game one is greatly limited by the other players. Say I want to start a smuggling operation and the other players and DM all want to do a dungeon bash. Limitation. Say I want to run up the dragon's tail and the DM says I can't. Limitation. Say I want to play 1e and the other players want to play 3.5. Limitation.

It's one thing to draw inspiration from something and another to use rules and aids that work in a different type of game/passtime.

A hero in a book will defeat the villain the way the author imagined it.

A hero in a computer game will defeat the villain the way the designers imagined it, though they might have come up with severals different ways of him doing it.

A hero in a D&D game should defeat the villain if he comes up with a plan that works. Any plan that he can think of, not just the plans the DM thought of. Or he could join the villain. Or he could just go off and become a pirate

The quest cards seem to me like something that brings D&D closer to the second way of dealing with the villain.

 

[Glyfair]

I can't appreciate them for motivation unless every player writes down their own individual motivation on their own personal card.

Indeed, I played in a D&D game just like this as a one-off. Just substitute "character sheet" for "card."

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think the stigma comes from something pretty basic. We're damn proud and protective of our game. Originally, many computer games were based on D&D, and that felt kind of cool. Now, we're embarrassed and insecure that D&D is borrowing design aspects of video games. We're no longer the innovator. The balance of popularity has changed, and it's galling.

For me, anyways.

I can understand that, but I think it's too defensive. Innovation doesn't occur in a vacuum. Before videogames, D&D was informed by wargaming, by board games, by fantasy fiction and fantasy movies, etc.

But now as then, D&D fills a niche not quite filled by any of it's inspirations, and though it may be informed and inspired by them, it will always (if well-designed) carve out it's own unique version of them all.

Also, I'm reminded that this debate is more about human nature than about this specifically. The videogame vs. D&D debate follows a lot of the same polemical designs as a religion vs. science debate, and probably many other debates throughout human history. It's not about VIDEOGAMES and D&D per se. It's about something new treading on territory that has been exclusive to one group from the outside.

It's a game. It's a game we should be proud of, but it's just a game. It's not sacred. It's not inviolate. It's not above "inspiration" from any medium it cares to take it from. And if worst comes to worst, your own game remains YOURS, and no one from WotC is going to make you change it. Be like them: take what works for you, discard the rest.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

It's one thing to draw inspiration from something and another to use rules and aids that work in a different type of game/passtime.

A hero in a book will defeat the villain the way the author imagined it.

A hero in a computer game will defeat the villain the way the designers imagined it, though they might have come up with severals different ways of him doing it.

A hero in a D&D game should defeat the villain if he comes up with a plan that works. Any plan that he can think of, not just the plans the DM thought of. Or he could join the villain. Or he could just go off and become a pirate

The quest cards seem to me like something that brings D&D closer to the second way of dealing with the villain.

No, that's not true. The advice doesn't tell "only give quests for the few things you came up with". Some people might interpret it that way, but these people would be inflexible with or without the idea of quests and quest cards. If you find this limiting, you obviously wouldn't take the advice this way, you'd come up with better ideas, and so you and your players are only limited by your own imaginations, just as without the advice - but you at least get some tools to measure rewards for quests, and even a tool to keep character goals and concepts in mind even if you switch DMs around, need to take a 12 week vacation from playing, or are working overtime for 3 weeks in a row and are happy if you remember your character's name.

 

[Beginning of the End]

"Okay, I want to run up the monster's tail, leap on it's back, and begin shooting it in the back of the head."

Rules Heavy system. "The monster is going to get an attack against you because you entered its space. Going up its back is difficult terrain, meaning that you can only get half way up its hind quarter. Also, you need to make a balance check to succeed in the first place. Next round, you make a balance check at a higher DC just to stay on as it starts to fight back."

Rules Light system: "Okay. In fact, I'll give you a +1 for doing that."

That's just a difference in what the rules allow and don't allow. It has nothing to do with the number of rules.

It would be just as easy for a "Rules Heavy" system to give the DM the tools to say: "Okay, give me a conjoined Balance and Jump check to get up the creature's back while hurdling its spines. As you slide in behind its head, you'll have the creature at your mercy, giving a +2 bonus to your attack roll and making them vulnerable for sneak attacks."

In fact, I've already got a stunt system in place for my D&D games that allow you to do just that within a structured environment (instead of depending on the DM to decide whether your cool idea works or not).

I think the mistake they made with 3rd Edition was not having rules for covering lots of different nifty combat options -- I think the mistake they made was having so many of those nifty options provoke AoOs. (Not designing them around common core mechanics was also a mistake, in my opinion.)

 

[JDJblatherings]

Well I don't care what the rules say when I'm DM there is no way I'm doing the auto-mapping.

Carefully formatted and spelled out quests are not a bad idea at all. Keeping some of the info away form the players would still be a good idea (like no exp total or challenge level) but putting some of it on a card or sheet of paper that is clearly distinct from the notes everyone should be taking isn't all that bad of an idea.

Some of my players have used spell cards on and off for decades now, they are a great idea.

I've handed out item cards and treasure cards in some games and it works great. (I should SO start doing that again).

Extra reminders for players is never a bad thing.