I think that's all probably right.  I think it's as much not an RPG as the likes of My Life With Master.  Just in the opposite direction.

Quote from: Slothrop... 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...

Interesting observation.

Quote from: Slothrop... 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...

This certainly conforms to my own experience.  But I'm not sure whether it covers kids who started with 3e.

It's the more radical assumption, but basically the same I'm trying to say in my former post. There is a reason why even Pundit prefers True20 or BRP or WFRP  or the RCto D&D 3.5.

D&D IMHO is the most sophisticated and well thought out product in what it is supposed to do. And the tactical aspects actually don't take away anything from your Role-Assumption and Story-Consumption and Setting-Exploration experience, but  enable smooth, non-stop action against a  colourful background. It only takes some legwork with the rules, or published adventures for the DM.

DMs have become lazy or time constrived, IMHO.

Challenges need definition, defining things takes time. Whether it is calculatin manorial income for the Agrikan Chapterhouse or statting NPCs with classs levels. I like the strategic prep more, but prep you have to. Otherwise it's an onanistic, shallow wanking exercise without any sense of accomplishment for the players.

Quote from: Settembrini...  the tactical aspects actually don't take away anything from your Role-Assumption and Story-Consumption and Setting-Exploration experience, but  enable smooth, non-stop action against a  colourful background...

Well, IME pulling out a battleboard, setting up miniatures, consulting rulebooks when a little-used manoeuvre or spell (or circumstance, etc.) emerges, sifting though page-long statblocks, etc. do not 'enable smooth, non-stop action against a colourful background...'
:nono:

Quote from: Settembrini... DMs have become lazy or time constrived, IMHO.

What the hell?  (What do you mean by 'constrived' anyway?  If you mean 'constrained', ummm, welcome to life in the 21st century with a full time job, etc.!)

Look, this is a goddamn hobby.  There's nothing I can't stand more than moralising about people being 'lazy' with respect to a hobby.
:hitrock:

Well some players aren't adolescent anal retentives unable to get an erection unless they're involved in the minutiae of tactical planning and some GMs aren't witless hacks whose idea of creative writing involves having the goblins turn up half-way through the fourth battle of the evening.

Morals and psychology – this must be a good site!

Quote from: Slothrop... (The whole of Malcolm's post can be seen here.)...

That was a pretty interesting post.  Despite being written by Eyebeams, I think that I agree with the overall point.  Hell, I know that I agree with it.

Also, it was amusing to see Mearls be so snarky and defensive about D20 Superlatives (or whatever the now-aborted project was called) in the comments section.  Also interesting to note that he did not dispute Eyebeams' main claim about d20/3e.

Well, some lazy/short on time GMs prefer low-prep games, which offer an experience I do not care for.
It can never reach the depth of a well-prepped campaign. More prep means more options and more fun.

Go, glorify your not wanting to prep. Truth is: only hard work will give excellent results, no matter what you do. I don't see how being a hobby makes this invalid. But obviously there are people who like to waste time on forae talking about rules-light extravaganzas instead of prepping for there game. Oh how time-constrained they are!

Quote from: SettembriniWell, some lazy/short on time GMs prefer low-prep games, which offer an experience I do not care for.
It can never reach the depth of a well-prepped campaign. More prep means more options and more fun...

Some people prefer to 'prep' settings, plots, and characters -- not distribute skillpoints for a 4rog/3barb/2sorc, with a 'half-ooze' template.

Running 3e requires me to do the kind of prep work I dislike.  And yeah, I'm fucking lazy to boot.
:sleeping:

Quote from: Settembrini... Truth is: only hard work will give excellent results, no matter what you do...

You know, I've found that relying on sheer genius can be a viable substitute.

Quote from: AkrasiaYou know, I've found that relying on sheer genius can be a viable substitute.

That's how I get by...or were we talking about roleplaying?

Quote from: AkrasiaThat was a pretty interesting post.  Despite being written by Eyebeams, I think that I agree with the overall point.  Hell, I know that I agree with it.

Bleh. I looked there and saw another iteration of "my way if roleplaying is roleplaying and yours isn't." Which is a more longwinded, if less annoying and equivalently self-centered and "out of touch in a wishful thinking sort of way" as the tiresome "roleplaying not rollplaying" quip.

Well, quality matters too, not just quantity. No amount of preparation time can compensate for a game master who isn't able to improvise. And I've seen GM's, who can come up with a better plot flying by the seat of their pants than others do with a half-ton of graph paper.

Then you'll have to distinguish between time spent when starting the campaign (or upgrading the big picture after a few sessions) and time spent preparing individual sessions. Some systems require less details when preparing for combat situations or NPC details, not neccesarily because they're rules-light (cf. Spycraft). That doesn't help very much with the big picture.

Equaling preparation time with game quality isn't very realistic. That's like saying that movies get better the more money you spend on them and projects take half as much time with twice the people. Over-generalisations don't help much.

QuoteSome people prefer to 'prep' settings, plots, and characters -- not distribute skillpoints for a 4rog/3barb/2sorc, with a 'half-ooze' template.

I prefer to prep GDPs, armies, navies, factions, politics, societies, religions, planets etc.
Traveller is the most sophisticated for this.
D&D is the most sophisticated for other stuff.

Obviously nobody forces you to DM D&D.


@ Quality: Obviously quality matters. but the quality is a function of your innate abilities, which you can`t change (quickly). Thusly more is better, always, as nobody can take the burden away from you.
You might be better with less prep than John R. Bumquist i wiht much prep. But Mr. Bumquist GMing will always be better the more he preps. As will your game.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadBleh. I looked there and saw another iteration of "my way if roleplaying is roleplaying and yours isn't." Which is a more longwinded, if less annoying and equivalently self-centered and "out of touch in a wishful thinking sort of way" as the tiresome "roleplaying not rollplaying" quip.

Well, I'm certainly no fan of Eyebeams, and I agree that a lot of his posts in various fora tend to be pompous and longwinded.  (This is the only post I've ever read from his blog, though I imagine that it's normally even worse than his typical posts at Enworld, etc.)

However, I think that his core point about how 3e is a different kind of game -- or, more precisely, encourages a different 'kind of gaming' -- than other RPGs (including earlier versions of D&D) is legitimate.  The 'game' aspects of 3e are far more salient during play than they are in many other RPGs, at least in my experience.  This makes for a very different kind of gaming experience overall.  

Note that this observation does not entail any judgement about which kind/style of gaming is superior.  Since this is a hobby, the answer is obviously whichever style you find most fun and/or satisfying.