Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;448680I would suggest that if you don't want to learn how to play the entire game, you should play a different game. There are plenty of games that recreate the low-level D&D 3.x experience without the complexity of high level play.

In principle I agree.

In practice, I've found that it didn't work out so well (in my particular situation).

During the 3.5E era, I found that it was very difficult to find anybody locally who was interested in playing a regular 1E AD&D game.  (ie. Want ads at gaming stores, online ads, etc ...).  Frequently the individuals interested in 1E AD&D I found, were either total flakes or people who I've had bad experiences with previously.  It was much easier to find non-flaky individuals who were interested in playing a regular 3.5E (and later 4E) game.

Gradually over the years (since I got back into rpg games shortly after 3.5E was released), I've found that I prefer to play regular rpg games at nearby gaming stores (or at a community/recreational center) with strangers.  There's no personal crap and/or "friend" issues.  The games are more or less "strictly business" (for lack of a better term).  People who were undesirable and/or behaving badly, can be easily kicked out without any emotional baggage involved.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;448680I would suggest that if you don't want to learn how to play the entire game, you should play a different game. There are plenty of games that recreate the low-level D&D 3.x experience without the complexity of high level play.

I have actually moved on from D&D 3.5 for reasons of complexity and bloat.

I still think, however, that someone can stick to 3.5 core rules or something like an E6 and still have an enjoyable time playing within those parameters.

I don't believe that 3.5 or any game system is take it all or leave it all. There is a happy medium between all or nothing and those tastes are certainly subjective to the individual and the group they game with.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;448680I would suggest that if you don't want to learn how to play the entire game, you should play a different game. There are plenty of games that recreate the low-level D&D 3.x experience without the complexity of high level play.

Yes, I can see how learning every facet of everything that could come into play over 20 levels of 3.x D&D should definitely be necessary.  :rolleyes:

Quote from: misterguignol;448693Yes, I can see how learning every facet of everything that could come into play over 20 levels of 3.x D&D should definitely be necessary.  :rolleyes:

"Just because I don't know what a knight is doesn't mean I can't play chess."

Yes, yes you should learn the game as completely as possible in order to play it as well as possible. It's not even particularly hard, since a quiet afternoon searching the internet will inform you of almost every problematic build, exploitable feat and underlying mechanical issue. You can use this same astounding resource to discover plenty of well-written, interesting information about the mechanical side of the game that will improve your play and the experience of everyone around the table. If you choose not to do this, there are a couple of possibilities:

1) You are stupid and lazy
2) You are pugnaciously ignorant and enjoy inflicting the consequences of your ignorance on others
3) You have different priorities which could be better realised by playing another game with different rules

tl;dr

L2P, dummy

Quote from: PaladinCA;448686I have actually moved on from D&D 3.5 for reasons of complexity and bloat.

I still think, however, that someone can stick to 3.5 core rules or something like an E6 and still have an enjoyable time playing within those parameters.

I don't believe that 3.5 or any game system is take it all or leave it all. There is a happy medium between all or nothing and those tastes are certainly subjective to the individual and the group they game with.

E6 is OK, but the kinds of expectations about the play experience that gave rise to it are really better satisfied by other games. I'm sympathetic to those expectations, so I play Openquest and WFRP, for example, which are both deadlier games where experienced characters never really transcend the highest level of human capability.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;448695It's not even particularly hard, since a quiet afternoon searching the internet will inform you of almost every problematic build, exploitable feat and underlying mechanical issue.

If that's the best use of an afternoon you can come up with, I pity you.

Nothx, I'd rather play games than have to study them on the Internets like a chump.

My solution to the war that has been raging over 3.x lately was simple:  I did play core, but I played core with NWN.

There was a handful of sourcebook material added in the expansions, but the nature of a video game meant they removed many of the spells everyone's whining about being problematic to roleplay, because they weren't practical to implement on a computer. Wish, teleport, and so on, all gone.

Problem solved.  Fun had.  The end.

Quote from: misterguignol;448700If that's the best use of an afternoon you can come up with, I pity you.

Actually a game that can be "mastered" in a single afternoon, exploits and all, is a pretty fucking simple game in terms of tabletop "hobby" shit.

QuoteNothx, I'd rather play games than have to study them on the Internets like a chump.

Yeah man, normal people would never buy anything, like say, a strategy guide for a video-game.  Or look up walk-throughs on GameFaqs.

Oh wait.  Normal people do.  All the time.

Quote from: Peregrin;448740Actually a game that can be "mastered" in a single afternoon, exploits and all, is a pretty fucking simple game in terms of tabletop "hobby" shit.

Do you really feel the need to "master" a game before you play it?  Honest question; I'm actually curious because I feel no such need and would be turned off from a game if that was the expectation.

QuoteYeah man, normal people would never buy anything, like say, a strategy guide for a video-game.  Or look up walk-throughs on GameFaqs.

Oh wait.  Normal people do.  All the time.

I wouldn't know; I don't play video games.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;448697E6 is OK, but the kinds of expectations about the play experience that gave rise to it are really better satisfied by other games. I'm sympathetic to those expectations, so I play Openquest and WFRP, for example, which are both deadlier games where experienced characters never really transcend the highest level of human capability.

D&D from 1st-6th or 10th level plays differently from BRP (of which in particular I am a big fan, don't get me wrong) or Warhammer. It's entirely reasonable to prefer "the first half" of (d20) D&D to BRP or Warhammer, and just not enjoy as much the higher levels for whatever reason.

The player who thinks "I like the way 3e plays, just not as much after level X," and "I like this character and would like to keep playing him in much the same way" isn't imaginary. I have played with lots of guys who feel this way, and I don't think they are assholes for thinking so.

The mode of play in 3E D&D changes a lot over the span of levels, and given that change, there are going to be people who really like the start and not so much the finish. Just staying with what you like is a MUCH easier fix in that case than switching to an entirely different game. I don't believe in a perfect game, and especially given the convenience of playing/running any given version of D&D for a given group of players, with its great familiarity to a broad base, it's a good compromise game.

I don't see the benefits of approaching gameplay with the attitude of "master high level play or GTFO."

Quote from: misterguignol;448741Do you really feel the need to "master" a game before you play it?  Honest question; I'm actually curious because I feel no such need and would be turned off from a game if that was the expectation.

Me personally?  No.  Especially not with 3e.  I find that type of number-crunching/system-mastery boring.  I'm just saying that in terms of "mastering" something, an afternoon is trivial.  And if mastering something can affect actual play in a positive way, I can't say it's a bad thing.

QuoteI wouldn't know; I don't play video games.

Well, let's put it this way.  An 8-10 billion dollar industry has proven that everyday people will grind away hours for arbitrary "achievement" points that have no affect on actual play, so I'd hardly consider spending an afternoon reading about the mechanics of 3e a waste.

Quote from: Cole;448742D&D from 1st-6th or 10th level plays differently from BRP (of which in particular I am a big fan, don't get me wrong) or Warhammer. It's entirely reasonable to prefer "the first half" of (d20) D&D to BRP or Warhammer, and just not enjoy as much the higher levels for whatever reason.

The player who thinks "I like the way 3e plays, just not as much after level X," and "I like this character and would like to keep playing him in much the same way" isn't imaginary. I have played with lots of guys who feel this way, and I don't think they are assholes for thinking so.

The mode of play in 3E D&D changes a lot over the span of levels, and given that change, there are going to be people who really like the start and not so much the finish. Just staying with what you like is a MUCH easier fix in that case than switching to an entirely different game. I don't believe in a perfect game, and especially given the convenience of playing/running any given version of D&D for a given group of players, with its great familiarity to a broad base, it's a good compromise game.

I don't see the benefits of approaching gameplay with the attitude of "master high level play or GTFO."

I completely agree.

As much as I was arguing on another thread for actually playing the game as a whole and learning the ropes instead of bitching about the game being "broken," I also argued for this side here of the issue from the start: that if for any reason you feel that "hey, I want to play up to 6th level and that's what I like," there is basically nothing wrong with that, because you like the aesthetic, the way the characters relate to the world, you are in familiar territory, whatever the case may be.

The whole notion that one should focus on the mechanical aspect of 3rd ed and learn the ins and outs of the system to even be "worth" playing with is really not something I think is right, or constructive, for that matter.

Quote from: Grymbok;4486317th Sea is another big one. In this case it's more the setting which gets worse the more books you read. Actually - it's been a while since I read them, but I think 7th Sea may even be best if you use only the PHB and ignore the GMG.

Oh, I forgot this, probably because I didn't get any supplement. But you are right, the metaplot here sucks donkey balls and destroys the game.

Quote from: J Arcane;448705My solution to the war that has been raging over 3.x lately was simple:  I did play core, but I played core with NWN.

There was a handful of sourcebook material added in the expansions, but the nature of a video game meant they removed many of the spells everyone's whining about being problematic to roleplay, because they weren't practical to implement on a computer. Wish, teleport, and so on, all gone.

Problem solved.  Fun had.  The end.

A very interesting idea. Thanks fo sharing

Quote from: Peregrin;448740Actually a game that can be "mastered" in a single afternoon, exploits and all, is a pretty fucking simple game in terms of tabletop "hobby" shit.

True. But I call bullshit on the assertion that D&D3 can be mastered in one afternoon. Or ten afternoons. I'm not saying you claimed it.

It takes true talent to know which Rifts supplements to pick from the vast sea of them. There are some true diamonds (Arzno, Mercenaries), most of them are alright, and some that just suck giant donkey dick (Africa, the entire goddamn Siege on Tolkeen series).

There is also the eventual power creep from supplement to supplement with each new one trying to outgun all the previous ones and giving you M.D.C underpants.