I think the very fact that you've compared the gameplay of Diablo and the gameplay of D&D as directly equivalent with a straight face pretty much proves the answer is yes.  

I mean come on, this is like going back to "D&D Bashing 101" or something.

Droog, you say you can stand Diablo even though it is D&D-like because it is a computer game. Can you stand to play the computer game versions of D&D? Take a stab at those and see how you feel about them in comparison to your tabletop play. Because this might not be just about D&D, but about how you feel towards tabletop gaming versus computer gaming.

But yeah, I'd say that you have developed a dislike for tabletop D&D.

You could embarass me with that question, Pundit.

Droog's a big old-school Runequest guy and I think he likes some of them newfangled games, but I'll let him speak for himself.

Droog, 3e D&D is an incredible design, the ultimate eighties RPG (that is in no way a backhanded compliment): it synthesizes a lot of what was best about old D&D and a lot of the best games around it (Palladium Fantasy, Arduin, Runequest, Fantasy Trip, Champions) into a really effective overall package. It's worth reading and playing a little just to see what they did even given your preferences, if you're into game design.

I doubt I've got anything to say you haven't heard about classes.

With schlock, yeah, it's a problem, and so is the endless proliferation of supplements. Especially because if you're learning the system you'll want to digest as much of this stuff as you can to see different ways of doing things, and then you'll have indigestion. I'm going back with a stripped-down core to build on instead. There ARE tools (mainly feats and prestige classes) for making 3e into a much more culture-focused game than it will be in its default incarnation where the whole kitchen sink is laid out there.

Killing things and taking its stuff, well, yeah, there's the most support for that, but there are tools for doing other things too. What, are you some kind of 'system matters' guy?

Quote from: CalithenaWhat, are you some kind of 'system matters' guy?

Ouch..

Regards,
David R

Quote from: jeff37923Droog, you say you can stand Diablo even though it is D&D-like because it is a computer game. Can you stand to play the computer game versions of D&D? Take a stab at those and see how you feel about them in comparison to your tabletop play. Because this might not be just about D&D, but about how you feel towards tabletop gaming versus computer gaming.

As it happens, I really don't do a lot of computer gaming. I've got Diablo because a mate of mine gave me it. I played the free version of Doom until I'd been through it a couple of times and found all the secrets. I've never bought a game. I've got one or two more sitting around that I've been given (King of Dragon Pass, Salammbo: Battle for Carthage), but I've never bothered to play them. So you could be right, but I can't say.

Quote from: RPGPunditThis is a really interesting thread, Droog. What I would want to know is: what RPGs do you actually play that you DO like? List as many as you can.

Okay, though I hope it doesn't derail my own thread. My tastes are like a red rag to a bull round here.

• I'm always up for some Pendragon.
  
• I think HeroQuest is a very useful system for many applications if you want a low-crunch game. I've adapted it to a historical setting, for instance.
  
• I've still got a soft spot for V&V, though I'm pretty sure that has to do with my last campaign rather than anything intrinsic to the game.
• I'm very fond of Sorcerer.
  
• I used to think I was off crunch in general, but I've enjoyed Burning Wheel recently.
  
• I like Dogs in the Vineyard a lot. I like Trollbabe for many of the same reasons (which have to do with system and set-up).
  
• I had a blast playing My Life with Master.
  

So I guess you could look at the list and say I'm (generally) into Forge games, but I'm picky all round in my own view. There are many games connected with the Forge that I'm not interested in. There never were many games I was into, and I've tried quite a few. I currently own only about a dozen games.

But I think it's a good thing to challenge your own assumptions from time to time. Keeps your brain healthy.

Quote from: CalithenaWhat, are you some kind of 'system matters' guy?

System monkey guy, if you please.

Thanks for the rest--that's the sort of thing I'm looking for. On the 'old-school RQ' thing, I certainly did use to be, but I'm so burned out on it I think I'd rather play almost anything else. I'm way past thinking of it as the system to end all systems.

Quote from: hgjsI've often seen people take this attitude -- for example, White Wolf fans claiming that the shit-poor rules for combat make their games better for "real roleplaying," as if lowering quality in one area magically raises it in another and visa versa.

I agree with pretty much all of your points, but I thought I'd comment on this bit.

In my view, making the combat system of poor quality in White Wolf games does successfully discourage combat - but in the most negative way possible. Combat is a boring chore which is always won by people who've invested in Celerity and/or Potence. Therefore, players and GM alike are going to try and avoid it, because nobody wants to deal with it.

Conversely, games where the combat system is well-developed and exciting are going to see more combat, because people enjoy combat in those systems OOC, and are so more likely to take the opportunity to bust some heads.

The failure, to my mind, of Vampire: the Masquerade (the version I'm familiar with) is that it doesn't have any especially well-developed and exciting components of the system. Rather than simply providing a quick and functional combat system to get combat out of the way with, and them providing a well-developed and exciting system for the parts of the game they would prefer people to focus on (drinking blood, political intrigue, whatever), they just provide a poor combat system and are very system-light with everything else.

Quote from: WarthurThe failure, to my mind, of Vampire: the Masquerade

Tee Hee.

It seems to me like you're not a big fan of D&D, but since it changes every ten years or so, it always worth a try when a new one comes up. Although the themes are pretty constant through the editions, the expression of those themes do change through the rules.

But all of those things about Diablo you can put up with, are worth a rollicking good-time shot with D&D 3.5. All of the things you can't stand about Diablo and D&D, can be worked around with the same rules, so it's still worth a shot.

Yes.

I think, perhaps, because (partially based on your list, partially from picking up vibes from this or that thread) it doesn't have the kind of personality/thematic mechanics you'd prefer.

So it devolves, essentially, into KTATTS - which is always a possibility with any version of D&D. This is evidenced by your inclusion of that aspect as the goal of it's design and the default mode of play.

With the computer game - that's expected.  So you give it more leeway, as it were. As others have pointed out, the fact that you compare the two illustrates your view of the D&D rule set. What's not in that computer game? Any personality/character building/thematic elements -it's all stats, weapons, and combat.

For you to compare them means to me that you see D&D that way. Whether it really is or not is a moot point; it's how you see the game, and perception is often reality.

Quote from: droogI've also been wondering if this is what intrigues me about Iron Heroes. It sounds like it's pushed the D&D aesthetic to the point where it's so OTT that I'm prepared to think about running it for certain people as a laugh and a joke. It's way down the end of my wish list, but if somebody gave it to me I'd probably unlimber it and give it a go.

I'm curious droog. How would you run IH as a laugh and a joke?

Edit: Because to me, it seems you're kind of making fun at the way how you think folks run D&D. I could be wrong...

Regards,
David R

Any of our stupid roll-playing games are a hoot and a holler for "certain people"...

what specifically bugs you about it (d&d, whatever version)?  
the armor class mechanic?
vancian magic?
inflationary hit points?
experience points?

Quote from: droogSo I thought I'd lay out my reasons for being indifferent to the old D&D, and see if anybody can persuade me that there's something in it I might like.

What would you get out of it if somebody did?

Yeah, I think you're confusing your image of D&D play with how it's actually played...  Maybe that'd be the way you & your group would play it - I have no idea - but quite seriously, I have never played in or run a D&D campaign that resembled Diablo.

1. Classes - You can look at them as archetypes, simplifications, or even as crutches when you don't have much imagination at a given moment.  I find them to be a useful abstraction - good shorthand to keep things simple for me and my players.

2. Schlock - One man's schlock is another man's entertainment.  I like D&D as D&D.  It's fun.  If you don't like it, then you won't like D&D without heavy modifications.

3. Kill Things / Take their Stuff - I admit, I think this part of D&D can be a lot of fun.  It's not all that the game's good for, though, even remotely.

-O