Quote from: ColonelHardissonI dunno. It read to me like "OK, let's be realistic. D&D isn't the be-all and end-all of RPGs as its most ardent fans profess, but neither is it the albatross around the neck of the RPG hobby its detractors say it is. Let's sift through the bullshit on both sides and get right to the truth - D&D deserves credit for a lot of things, so what are they?"

But if others didn't read it that way, it might explain the contentious nature of this thread.

That's pretty much how I read it.

There are plenty of D&D haters out there, but there are also plenty of people who think D&D is the one best way, and if you don't like it you are inferior.

Or swine. :pundit:



In reality D&D is somewhere between holy grail of gaming and the steaming pile of poo that other make it out to be.

Quote from: ImperatorThere are no mechanics that allow motivations, personality or any desire of the PCs to input into the game.

Thank god for that!
Thank god D&D is a true roleplaying game.

RPGPundit

Well, I always found that the BAB was a great measure of the desire of some players...

Then there's the alignments. Which have quite some impact on the actions, especially when you're playing a class with special restrictions. Isn't that Narrativist?

Quote from: RPGPunditThank god for that!
Thank god D&D is a true roleplaying game.

RPGPundit

oh, boy...


just because a game has mechanics that encourage RPing doesn't mean it's not a "true RPG".

It's just a matter of taste. Some people like that sort of thing and others don't but having those sorts of mechanics does not make the game an invalid RPG.

QuoteIt's just a matter of taste. Some people like that sort of thing and others don't but having those sorts of mechanics does not make the game an invalid RPG.

So we stop talking to each other. To each his own.
Close all forae now.

Quote from: SettembriniSo we stop talking to each other. To each his own.
Close all forae now.

I'm just saying that his reasoning for what a valid RPG is flawed, thats it.

QuoteI'm just saying that his reasoning for what a valid RPG is flawed, thats it.

Now that's controversy!
Round 2! *bing*bing*bing*

Quote from: obrynWow, there are compliments in here, but I'd say most of them are back-handed.

Let's break it down...


Intro... So far, kind of good.  Apart from the weirdass Japanese thing.  WTF?



-O

"Amanojaku" is a creature in Japanese mythology, a "contrarian demon" that always speaks the truth but not the one that's currently popular with the masses.

It advocates the POV that most people can't or won't acknowledge. In short it's a devil's advocate.

I picked the term up from Masamune Shirow's "Ghost in the shell 2: Man Machine Interface" and decided I liked it.

Quote from: BalbinusI have to admit, it may not have been intended that way but the original post read to me as basically saying "hey, DnD is crap, but at least people produced some good games to get away from it and it distracted the moral majority guys from going after the decent games".

But your reading may be more correct.

Actually I was saying that D&D by today's standards isn't so great, but it was the first game out ther, really, and logically once it was introduced it was inevitable that other gamers would build on it and make advances over it, like hit locations for example.

I was actuaslly trying to remind people to have a little respect for D&D even tho I personally am not a fan of it.

Sure, later games were, IMO better, but I acknowledge that they stand on D&Ds shoulders.

Quote from: ColonelHardissonI re-read it, and it seemed pretty fair and well-reasoned to me :shrug:

Thanks.

BTW, D&D also had to deal with the technology of it's day: No internet, no email, now DTP computers, etc.

Modern games can send out PDFs to gamers for evaluation before release, get feedback the day the game hits the shelves, etc.

In the times of original D&D "cut and paste" involved scissors and glue....

So it had to struggle with the technology of it's day, unlike modern games.

I'm not dumping on it so much, it broke new ground, other people came up with new, better ideas after GG and co. did the hard work of inventing RPGing.

BTW, I don't really like D&D's system today as it doesn't use hit locations, and still uses class/levels, but I still respect the game for what it did and for being a real pioneer.

QuoteBTW, I don't really like D&D's system today as it doesn't use hit locations, and still uses class/levels, but I still respect the game for what it did and for being a real pioneer.

You do realize, that realism is not every RPGs aim? D&D is a game, and it's hitpoints and levels are a design merit, at least concious decision.
THough I love Harnmaster for it's realism, it's much less complex and playtested than current D&D.

Quote from: Mcrow... it [3.5] just doesn't seem to give me the adventuring hero feel. It might just be me but the mechanics of the game overshadow the feel of the game...

Well it's not just you, since I feel exactly the same way.

I've run two 3e campaigns (one 3.0 the other 3.5; both roughly 10 months long), and both times I was really surprised at how different the game felt vis-a-vis earlier versions in practice.  So much focus on goddamn 'fiddly bits' ('so if I move here and do x, will I provoke an AoO?'; 'do these modifiers stack?'; 'are you allowing feat y and prestige class z in your campaign?'; etc.).  Christ, towards the end of both campaigns I had to grit my teeth whenever I wrote up a page-long stat block or prepared a battlesheet for the inevitable '4 encounters'.

It definitely did not feel like the old 1e AD&D and RC D&D games I ran.  Kids who started with 3e definitely have an entirely different understanding of the 'feel' of the game than I do (viz. they seem far more focused on the 'fiddly bits').  

I suppose that this is why, despite loving the genre of D&D, I've pretty much abandoned the 3.5 rulesystem (at least as a DM).

(Okay, my 'irritation with 3e' rant is done.  I feel better now.   )

Quote from: AkrasiaIt definitely did not feel like the old 1e AD&D and RC D&D games I ran.  Kids who started with 3e definitely have an entirely different understanding of the 'feel' of the game than I do (viz. they seem far more focused on the 'fiddly bits').  

I suppose that this is why, despite loving the genre of D&D, I've pretty much abandoned the 3.5 rulesystem (at least as a DM).

While I find that I enjoy 3e as a player*, I have to admit that I find that it's a much different experience than any other edition of D&D that I've played.

It's perhaps closest to 1e, if one were to actually utilize all of the rules available to that game, but even then it's still a different beast.  

What I think is the key difference is that the "game" aspect of the matter is foremost in 3e.  I don't mean that in any sort of snarky way, mind you.  I enjoy playing 3e, but I enjoy it for what it is, and for reasons that are fairly distinct from what I enjoy in pretty much most other RPGs, including previous editions of D&D.

To get the most out of what 3e offers, to fully utilize all of the potential that the designers put into it (and they seemed to have done that, and well) it really needs to be approached in such a way that one's focus is more upon how to play the system than any thought about how to play one's character.  That's not to say that you can't mix roleplaying into a 3e game, but if the game is played in the manner in which I think it was intended, that aspect of play is going to be subordinate to messing around with the "fiddly bits".

In a way, 3e is as much a variation from what the bulk of "mainstream" RPGs are as any of the Forge/indie/thematic games are, I'd say.  Malcolm Sheppard made a more cognizant point about this in one of his blogs, where he talked about how 3e was almost another type of game than other roleplaying games including its predecesors:


"...a game that doesn't really play much like the old AD&D, except for some very rare 1e games where people used all the rules and Chainmail on the side. It runs very smoothly, but I'm not sure it is an RPG the way I understand it any more. (3.x and Spycraft 2.0 are examples of this type GURPS, too). If I wanted to be a weenie and classify them closely, I'd call them Scenario Adventure Games. The feel of these games is one where players test their options in a tightly designed board. Character and plot rationalize the scenario, but do not otherwise have an active hand in play. This is not necessarily a matter of complexity in the rules, but more a matter of rules that allow complex permutations within scenarios. D&D characters and abilities plug into certain challanges in very specific ways. RIFTS is probably just as complicated but does not have the necessarily degree of integration with the challanges of a scenario. It could be story-centered too (as long as the mechanics made the story a field of play), but I've never really seen a complete game that does it well.

A game like Castles and Crusades is more what I think of as an "average" RPG. RIFTS and the World of Darkness, too. These are games where conventional (not rules moderated) narration is important because the rules are not really meant to be at the center of a player's choices. The trend has been to just say that these are crappy designs, but in truth, the point of such rules sets are to provide instances where players give up their decision-making power to the dice. They really do represent the classic "Cops and Robbers with rules to see who gets shot" idea. These play much differently than Scenario Adventure Games. In SAGs, we roll the dice to execute a player command. In, uh -- well, let's call them Moderated Narrative Games -- the rules serve moderate player desires."

(The whole of Malcolm's post can be seen here.)


Anyway, it's nearly 5:30 in the goddamn A.M. here, and I really need to get some sleep.  



* Specifically 3.0 -- I have less experience with 3.5 -- and as a player.  I cannot bring myself to actually GM a 3.x game.  It simply isn't rewarding to me for the time and effort and investment that it requires to be done well.

A postscript to the above:

I'm in no way trying to suggest that 3.x D&D isn't a RPG.  It is, and it's obviously the best-known, best-selling one that you can care to name.  So there's no need to make any assumptions that'll lead down that path.

I'm just saying that it seems to be to be a very distinctive variation on the standard RPG model, making it rather different from most other RPGs out on the market, even all of the various d20 games that descend from it.

My own experience of gaming -- and I'd be willing to be that I have as much experience in playing the various editions of D&D as anyone on here, probably even Yamo -- suggests that most people tend towards a style that's closer to what you'd get playing something like Castles & Crusades as-is than you'd get playing 3e as-is.  Which is why I'd not really recommend 3e to most people anymore than I'd recommend something like Wushu.  I don't suspect that either would give them what they're really wanting.

Anyway, I digress and I'm dragging the thread off-topic, I suspect.

Quite interesting points, Slothrop.