Quote from: RPGPunditNo, the rules were just not the player's concern.

Sounds a lot like "matters of state are none of a serf's/woman's concern". :hehe:

Quote from: RPGPunditNo, the rules were just not the player's concern.

I'm not sure where you read that.  Maybe you meant something like "the players were encouraged not to read the rules in the DMG"?

Quote from: ColonelHardissonIf you're gonna try to empirically prove that 3e D&D is not as fun a game as whatever you prefer, or that it doesn't meet these standards for a lot of others - and I do mean a lot of others, since it's the 800 lb. gorilla of RPGs - then there's really no discussion.

D&D 3.x is fun. But if you want to play anything beyond the core books, prepare to be assaulted with lots of monkey poo.

My main issue with D&D 3.x is it's inability to mesh with new material well. If your group plays with splat books, it's almost like playing an entirely different game.

I also really despise the grappling and two weapon fighting rules, but besides that, I'm cool with it.

None of this means that "zomg my game is more fun than D&D 3.x" It means that I don't like the rules, because I think they are too complicated.

Quote from: GrimGent"Players are encouraged to conform to gimmicky systems and funnel their creativity into ... how many beans they will invest in their action..."

From a strictly mechanical point of view, I don't really see how this "beancounting" is enough to render a system any trickier than, say, d20.

Oh, I see. As usual your one-track mind is worried that I'm insulting Nobilis here.

Don't worry, I am.

RPGPundit

Quote from: StuartI'm not sure where you read that.  Maybe you meant something like "the players were encouraged not to read the rules in the DMG"?

Yes, that's pretty much what I meant. With the emphasis being that this is not the horrible thing others make it out to be.

It is fairly unrealistic, mind you, impractical; but not wrong.

There's nothing wrong about wanting to give the GM authority and about discouraging players from using rules-lawyering to get their way.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditOh, I see. As usual your one-track mind is worried that I'm insulting Nobilis here.

Don't worry, I am.

Nothing unusual there, in other words. But since this is hardly the first time you've been disparaging "beancounting" in RPG systems, I have to wonder why it is that you appear to view point allocation mechanics of all sorts as a plague upon gaming. Rationally speaking, it doesn't make much sense.

QuoteMy main issue with D&D 3.x is it's inability to mesh with new material well. If your group plays with splat books, it's almost like playing an entirely different game.

Huh? The Complete Xxxx and their Xxxx & Xxxx predecesors work well within the rules and introduce very few actual rules (the one I can think of is the whole think surrounding Quick and interupts and such).

Now when you leave that, yes you are heading off the reservation. Which was the whole point. To have a different game that's the same game.

QuoteI also really despise the grappling.....

Grappling is disturbingly close to AD&D's, where it was humped too. I chalk that up to something that got missed on the to-fix list.

Quote from: RPGPunditThere's nothing wrong about wanting to give the GM authority and about discouraging players from using rules-lawyering to get their way.

There is nothing wrong with having a strong well meaning totalitarian government in place to keep people in line.

Quote from: RPGPunditThere's nothing wrong about wanting to give the GM authority and about discouraging players from using rules-lawyering to get their way.

EGG is certainly not a fan of rules-lawyering...

Quote from: Gary Gygaxeven a bit of rules lawyering makes me want to go and find something else to do.

Quote from: YamoLike it or not, the one who gets there first sets the standards.

If that were true, we could fairly quickly prove that The Beatles and Jimi Hendrix (or pick your favorite artist of the last couple centuries) totally sucked ass. Standards change with the times, except in a paranoid and/or delusional worlds of those who take a "My way is the only way" mindset.

Quote from: RPGPunditHaving the Game Designer force his philosophy and style of play on the game itself and creating a GM by obligation who is impotent to change that style is pretty well their guiding philosophy over there.

How  can a game designer, even one so insidiously evil as those at the Forge, force their philosophy and style on anyone? Are you saying that the people playing the games didn't buy the games and decide to play them, but were somehow coerced into it by these dictatorial overlords of alternative gaming?

Quote from: GrimGentNothing unusual there, in other words. But since this is hardly the first time you've been disparaging "beancounting" in RPG systems, I have to wonder why it is that you appear to view point allocation mechanics of all sorts as a plague upon gaming. Rationally speaking, it doesn't make much sense.

It removes the element of risk that often acts as a motivator to relying upon roleplaying; and encourages people to rely on accountancy and rules/points-manipulation instead.

RPGPundit

Quote from: blakkieThere is nothing wrong with having a strong well meaning totalitarian government in place to keep people in line.

What a brainbashingly stupid comparison. Unless someone is putting a gun to your head and FORCING you to be a player.

RPGPundit

Quote from: James McMurrayHow  can a game designer, even one so insidiously evil as those at the Forge, force their philosophy and style on anyone? Are you saying that the people playing the games didn't buy the games and decide to play them, but were somehow coerced into it by these dictatorial overlords of alternative gaming?

Judging by the Forge's pathetic sales records, I'd have to say no.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditWhat a brainbashingly stupid comparison. Unless someone is putting a gun to your head and FORCING you to be a player.

My country! Love it or leave it!

Quote from: James McMurrayIf that were true, we could fairly quickly prove that The Beatles and Jimi Hendrix (or pick your favorite artist of the last couple centuries) totally sucked ass. Standards change with the times, except in a paranoid and/or delusional worlds of those who take a "My way is the only way" mindset.

The argument is based on category, not quality.  

D&D invented the RPG, with other founding fathers like Runequest and Traveller helping to define it.  The tradition continued with a whole host of games in the 80's.  Something that in no way resembles any of these games is clearly not a RPG.

Take the swinetacular My Life with Master.  It, in no shape or form, resembles any of these games.  Neither does the swinetastic game, Nobilis.  They are games, and players may even take on a role, but they are not RPGs.  No more than the TSR game Alpha Dawn was a real RPG, or the MB Heroquest boardgame was, or any of the Murder Mystery type games are.

A mule might have descended from a horse, and even share some characteristics, but it's not still not a horse.  And it probably won't win the Kentucky Derby, either.