Who are Howard and Leiber?

[Orius]

No it doesn't. D&D was originally based on a mixture of elements from those authors' works (and some others as well, of course).

3e has some evolved from those origins -- but I'm not sure if it has any new literary sources.

Well, there's the sorcerer class for one, which seems to be inspired by more modern fantasy fiction, particularly Eddings.

 

[Mark CMG]

It is a story consideration. If death is permenant, and death can be one failed saving throw away, then the story built around the character is subject to being completely derailed by one die roll.

Sounds like an exciting game that can be won or lost. But is that D&D?

 

[kigmatzomat]

Well,
As someone who recently ran a game for a group of stranger at my FLGS, let me say, the ways of gaming are a changing. It is much more tactical now.

You are aware that TSR stood for Tactical Studies Rules, right?

1 thing that really bothered me, is after every fight, they would expend their magic, and want to rest. They fought for 2 minutes, spent 15 searching, and now, let's rest to get our spells back. Very computer gamish if you ask me. They want to take weeks to create items, and expect everything to remain static.

It would surprise me if they did NOT want to rest and heal if they have the option and no particular disincentive. Let's think about it: you get hurt in the middle of the boonies by a bear. Youascertain that if you can rest for a day you'll be hail and hearty again. Since the offending bear is dead and likely drove off other major predators, you are likely safe from further assault. Sounds like a perfect lace to rest.

Taking weeks to create magic items? Why not? Some things take time. I'm driven insane by gamers who never want to take a day's downtime; always eager to kill the next thing. What's the hurry?

The only problem I see they have is expecting things to be static. That is a problem with many less than stellar CRPGs; nothing is time dependent and very little is event driven. As a DM you should help them unlearn. LET them take 2 weeks to make a magic doodad of Bob-Slaying but let them see what mayhem Bob hath wrought in the meantime. If they decide to rest while Bob flees, Bob may get far enough ahead that he disappears while he makes his doodad of Bob-Don't-Die.

If you don't like the tactical decisions they make, give them strategic reasons to do otherwise.

 

[Orius]

I entirely agree. One of the first CRPG's, Final Fantasy, had character classes: Warrior, Thief, Wizard, Priest, Bard. It had spell slots. Later in the game you could upgrade your classes (like the prestige classes of earlier editions).

The original Final Fantasy shows clear D&D influences.

Of 6 playable chacter types, 4 more or less correspond to the 4 basic classes of D&D: fighter, thief, clerc (white mage), wizard (black mage). It has a magic system in which the character have a fixed number of spells/level/day which are regained by resting. The monsters encountered are in many cases inspired by D&D monsters — and this is more clear in the PSX rerelease since it has more memory do display the names (unlike the NES version which chopped down some of the names for space). Tiamat and Bahamut exist in the world. I'm sure there's more, but that's just off the top of my head.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Sounds like an exciting game that can be won or lost. But is that D&D?

According to the quotes from the PHB and DMG, it absolutely *is* D&D. Especially the new edition, which is not geared toward constantly starting over at 1st level like the other editions have been (and, odly enough, like video games are).

Is this true to D&D's origins? I don't rightly know for a fact. I just know coming back to life and poofing all over Middle-Earth have been with D&D since before I started to play, and have probably been complained about for just as long. Their influence apparently is not from video games, but from D&D itself.

If you get rid of teleportation, divination, and resurrection magic, is that still D&D? It is to me, but I think I have a pretty broad view of what D&D can be before it stops being D&D to me.

Oh, and P.S.:

I'm sure there's more, but that's just off the top of my head.

You may be interested in what's in my sig....

 

[Mark CMG]

... I think I have a pretty broad view of what D&D can be before it stops being D&D to me.

I believe I do as well. I've always been able to switch to new editions without much trouble or grousing. When I said/asked "Sounds like an exciting game that can be won or lost. But is that D&D?" it was meant rhetorically and with the understanding that it's a question to which not all would agree.

 

[Wolv0rine]

Hmm, I sometimes have the feeling that the people on this messageboard are to a certain extent detached from how the game is often played by groups outside in the world, even though we have quite a mix of different playstyles presented here. When I see the book "Deities and Demigods" denigrated on this board (for the record: I don't like it, either), I have to think about how many groups out there actually take this book and, with their bags of holding full of major artifacts and riding their gold dragon cohorts, work down the list of gods in that book on their way to replace them as rulers of the world. I know they exist. I know they always existed, even in prior incarnations of D&D. It's just that they don't post on EN World . Doesn't make them less real, though .

Don't they? Before I start, let me preface by saying I actually do understand that (as far as I can tell) you're referring to people who's typical play style is like this without seeing anything shallow or asinine about it. That said...

Circa 1989 (give or take a few months), my best friend at the time and I, at the end of a 72 hellride of vivarin over-dosed madness decide to roll up 2 characters using NPC stats (1E DMG) and then progress them to godhood. 24 hours later we were systematically slaughtering our way through the 1E D&Dg. It was never meant to be anything but a lark, although that fit of pure purile goofiness actually spawned a campaign setting based on the ideals of logic and sensibility (ironically). So yeah, in a manner of speaking those people Do post on EN World.

(And just to keep this even vaguely on topic)...

I'd have to agree that D&D must remain current with the time it's in to have any hope of continuing on past the time of those of us who's been keeping it's torch alive since it began. But that doesn't mean (I'd go so far as to say Mustn't mean) that the classic literature that the game (and the gamers) were based on should be let to fall by the wayside. You can keep the game current while still pointing the newcomers to the roots of it, and you damned well should. Gamers have always been (typically) the smart lot. Gygax never wrote down to his audience (he never felt the need to explain what a DOOR was to us for godsake). We were assumed to be smart enough to understand and play the game we were offered, and we usually were. If we allow those who come after us to become a lower and lower denominator we are just doing a disservice to the game and to those future gamers. Sure, make things familiar in a way they can relate to it, but at least point them in the direction of those things that helped expand our minds and our vocabularies. And hope they understand that the game should be more than just Killing Things and Taking Their Stuff.

 

[Wolv0rine]

Not everyone likes playing in a world that makes sense. To a certain extent, without overstating it, I think that comes with maturation of one's gaming tastes. But my question is this: As the DM, why did you allow this?


As the DM, what prevents you from saying that the acquisition of feats and prestige classes doesn't require a teacher or an initiator?

I don't think his point was that the game played out that way, or that he as DM could disallow it or didn't disallow it... I think his point was that the players were coming from that angle, and to HAVE to disallow it was what he was sorry to experience.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Why, though? There's nothing wrong with how they wanted to play. It might not be to his taste, but I don't feel bad for telling guests in my house that they can't put on trance music. Feeling sad because they "shouldn't want to play like that in the first place" is ridiculous - who is anyone to say how someone should have fun?

Your choice is to participate or not.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I believe I do as well. I've always been able to switch to new editions without much trouble or grousing. When I said/asked "Sounds like an exciting game that can be won or lost. But is that D&D?" it was meant rhetorically and with the understanding that it's a question to which not all would agree.

It was good for my brain to think like that, and you're right, not everyone would agree to such a change, I guess, even if it made the game more "playable," in a certain light.

I still don't see how videogames are at fault, but I guess I see why some may use them as a scapegoat for their own problems with D&D today.