What Do You Play?
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 6 of 7123, 4, 5, 67
Author


Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3066
Joined: Jul 09, 2004
Last Visit: Apr 30, 2015

Post Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:52 am 
 

Deadlord36 wrote:Exactly. There is nothing wrong with a mage using a bow in desperation, but there IS something wrong when he can be proficient in it.

Damn, I didn't realize we were agreeing on this one.  Well there goes my day.  :P

 YIM  


Active Collector

Posts: 98
Joined: Sep 16, 2004
Last Visit: Dec 12, 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA

Post Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:02 am 
 

(Why on earth would your fighter WANT to sit at a door playing with tumblers when he can just bash it in?) based on character class and desire.


Well, my complaint is that you end up conforming your role to the archetypes outlined by the rules, instead of letting the rules help you create a character that conforms to your vision.

Throughout literature there are numerous examples of characters that simply don't fit into a class archetype cleanly, at least not without some fairly gross multiclassing usage.

So I wouldn't say that 1E's restrictions are _bad_, in that they can help keep things balanced, but I would argue that they're restrictive for true role-players that want to create characters that match their visions.  In 1E the rules clearly drove your character, instead of vice versa.  There were near arbitrary restrictions that felt more like boardgame rules (for obvious reasons).  Very often while playing with a cleric you could quickly ask "Which god do you worship?" and they'd have no response...it would be something like "Uhhh...I'm a cleric."  Instead of role-playing it was selecting which figurine best represented what you wanted to accomplish in game.

Different design choices, but to say that 1E's rules make sense...well, that kind of pushes it =)

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 5686
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Last Visit: Dec 01, 2022
Location: New Hampsha

Post Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:20 am 
 

Classless systems. They are the best way to get the most realism out of roleplaying.


If you hit a Rowsdower, you get to keep it.

 WWW  

User avatar

Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3863
Joined: Feb 21, 2004
Last Visit: Mar 27, 2022
Location: Milford, Michigan

Post Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:32 am 
 

Umm...I was being sarcastic about the lock picking thing...Just pointing out the rational that was used to say a wizard who watched his fighter pal use could do the same.

And then there was the old standard..."these are not rules, just guidelines"  Follow the yellow brick road munchkins, because that one leads to munchkinville.

Sure, some rules can be adjusted to fit a specific situation, but the point of having rules is to set a parameter. Parameters can bend from time to time, but what I am seeing is downright destruction.

I have no problem with people changing rules and having fun...that is what it is all about. But don't come to me and say your playing "X" game. Home rules of "X" game, maybe. But when I see Clerics swinging swords, magic users blasting away with crossbows, etc...it is not AD&D.


And I could've bought these damn modules off the 1$ rack!!!

New modules for your Old School game http://pacesettergames.com/

Everything Pacesetter at http://pacesettergames.blog.com/

 WWW  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 7975
Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Last Visit: Dec 04, 2022
Location: DFW TX

Post Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:37 pm 
 

bbarsh wrote:Umm...I was being sarcastic about the lock picking thing...Just pointing out the rational that was used to say a wizard who watched his fighter pal use could do the same.

And then there was the old standard..."these are not rules, just guidelines"  Follow the yellow brick road munchkins, because that one leads to munchkinville.

Sure, some rules can be adjusted to fit a specific situation, but the point of having rules is to set a parameter. Parameters can bend from time to time, but what I am seeing is downright destruction.

I have no problem with people changing rules and having fun...that is what it is all about. But don't come to me and say your playing "X" game. Home rules of "X" game, maybe. But when I see Clerics swinging swords, magic users blasting away with crossbows, etc...it is not AD&D.


Sure it is. It's just 2nd edition AD&D, not 1st edition.  Many of the Forgotten Realms Gods allow their worshippers and priests to use edge weapons, including arrows, swords, tridents, etc.  I can understand it's not your EXPECTATION of what AD&D should be like, but expectations are based on past experiences and events and not applicable in a wide sampling.  My expectations are quite a bit different, having played 1st edition then with my group dropping it in favor of 2nd edition and playing 2nd edition with some tweaks to this day.
 
Mike B.

 WWW  

User avatar

Prolific Collector

Posts: 851
Joined: Jun 12, 2004
Last Visit: Dec 03, 2022

Post Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 5:40 pm 
 

Deadlord36 wrote:PM? Just post it. That is what a forum is all about.
I didn't see anything to take offense over in your post.

I just didn't believe it necessary to clutter up the board with potential flak, that's all.  I take it all in stride no matter how it's posted though, so no biggie.

Thanks. :)



  

User avatar

Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3863
Joined: Feb 21, 2004
Last Visit: Mar 27, 2022
Location: Milford, Michigan

Post Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:30 pm 
 

It has nothing to do with EXPECTATION.

A book has rules. Some people play within them, others do not. Neither is right or wrong. Again, I could care less how anyone plays the game. But rationalizing ways to break the rules is not playing within them. My group played 1st Edition from around 1978 until the release of 2nd Edition. We played 2nd for a while and pretty much went back to 1st. It is just personal preference. No big deal.

We liked the "feel" of first edition and stuck with it. Also, as much as we played, we were a pretty easy going group. We never felt the need to manipulate or change things to expand our game beyond what was already there. We never sat around and thought of ways to expand the game out of its confines. It just was not necessary. But I can see how people would do that. They need more and that's cool. Second Edition provided for that. Then came the abomination of 3rd Edition and legalized munchkinism. Again, whatever floats your boat.


And I could've bought these damn modules off the 1$ rack!!!

New modules for your Old School game http://pacesettergames.com/

Everything Pacesetter at http://pacesettergames.blog.com/

 WWW  


Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3066
Joined: Jul 09, 2004
Last Visit: Apr 30, 2015

Post Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2004 8:47 am 
 

bbarsh wrote:I have no problem with people changing rules and having fun...that is what it is all about. But don't come to me and say your playing "X" game. Home rules of "X" game, maybe. But when I see Clerics swinging swords, magic users blasting away with crossbows, etc...it is not AD&D.


It most certainly is AD&D.  That's like saying if you're not playing Texas Holdum, you're not playing poker.  One of the things that made AD&D great was that the game could be bent and changed as required.

Let me make it clear that I think the most recent published changes are total crap, for the most part.  But they're still AD&D.  Unearthed Arcana was AD&D.  WSG/DSG were AD&D.  2nd edition AD&D was AD&D.  3rd edition Savage Species is AD&D.  Well ok, they took the letter A away, but that's not relevant.  WG7 was AD&D.  Spelljammer, sadly, was AD&D.  The fact is, some of AD&D ain't so great.  The game never was something "pure" as we so often like to remember.  Get over it.

 YIM  

User avatar

Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3863
Joined: Feb 21, 2004
Last Visit: Mar 27, 2022
Location: Milford, Michigan

Post Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2004 4:59 pm 
 

Read my last post again. I am over it, though I don't think I really have anything to get over!

It is very simple. There are rules (in the rule books) and there are home rules. Some home rules are minor adjustments, others change the entire dynamic of the game.

For the last time, I don't care how or what anyone plays.

There are differences. It is really very simple.


And I could've bought these damn modules off the 1$ rack!!!

New modules for your Old School game http://pacesettergames.com/

Everything Pacesetter at http://pacesettergames.blog.com/

 WWW  


Prolific Collector
Valuation Board

Posts: 681
Joined: Oct 13, 2003
Last Visit: Apr 29, 2022
Location: Denver, CO

Post Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2004 5:26 pm 
 

There actually was a very orthodox, structured AD&D under Gygax's tenure from 1978-1985 ('77, if you go back to the Monster Manual).  Many DMs rebelled against it and modified the structure, which was fine.  The advantage was that anyone could approach a group of players/strangers with "real" AD&D and be speaking the same language of rules and application.

That age ended with the exile of Gary and the TSR diversification of worlds.  I could argue that also ended TSR's glory days with an endless spiral of diminishing returns spread over too many franchises, but I won't go there ... much.
:wink:

The important thing is that everyone plays the game that is right for them, be it C&C, D&D, AD&D 2nd, 3.5, or whatever.  Play what is fun to you.  Gripe about the other versions, but don't proselytize.  Everyone's playing the game they want to, and few people agree on what that is.  Which is great; I was just lamenting that I can't find like-minded people to play "my" version with.  Each version has strengths and weaknesses, and a unique flavor.

On a trivia aside ... I think actually a few classes of specialized Greyhawk priests can use swords.  I'll have to look back at the 1983 boxed set again.  But I'm almost sure there's precedent for clerics to use blades in "official" AD&D, even early on.  Magi using crossbows, not so much.  I would classify that as an "in extremis" situation, in which if the PC believes his life is in danger, he can do it.  But he won't be getting any experience from the encounter.

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 5686
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Last Visit: Dec 01, 2022
Location: New Hampsha

Post Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2004 6:22 pm 
 

The problem lies in the fact that an average 13-year old ONLY has access to 3E. That is what the stores sell, and that is all he can get.


If you hit a Rowsdower, you get to keep it.

 WWW  

User avatar

Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3863
Joined: Feb 21, 2004
Last Visit: Mar 27, 2022
Location: Milford, Michigan

Post Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2004 6:33 pm 
 

Back in the day, you could go to a convention and play an event (AD&D)and pretty much go for broke. Everyone played by the same rules and most people know them.

What they have created is mess. I personally liked more "game" in my game. Again, personal opinion. I also look at those rulebooks and wonder how many 13 year-olds can actually read and understand 3.5. I don't want to make a blanked statement, but you can teach someone 1st ed. in a short time. I don't think the same is true for 3.5.  

That does not make 3.5 bad, just very different from its ancestor.


And I could've bought these damn modules off the 1$ rack!!!

New modules for your Old School game http://pacesettergames.com/

Everything Pacesetter at http://pacesettergames.blog.com/

 WWW  


Prolific Collector
Valuation Board

Posts: 681
Joined: Oct 13, 2003
Last Visit: Apr 29, 2022
Location: Denver, CO

Post Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2004 6:34 pm 
 

>>>The problem lies in the fact ...

Yup ... and that's why I make a concerted effort to sell AD&D 1st Edition modules with passion and sincerity, and why I sneak a free 1st or 2nd AD&D item into virtually every 3.0 and 3.5 package I ship.  At the very least, I want them to see the flavor the early editions provide, and to grab adventure hooks for their own games.  I'm 100% for spreading the good word without forcing people to like what I like.
8)

On 3.5, it is very technical and difficult to grasp at first.  The first time I read through the attack of opportunity rules I checked to see if my brain had slid out onto the floor.  But I've seen an amazing overlap in young gamers between 3.5 and Magic the Gathering - both highly technical games where rules lawyering is a competitive sport. The similiarity in art is intended to draw these people in.  Also, teens that like highly technical fantasy vidgames like Final Fantasy Tactics and Tactics Ogre are catered to as well ... you can see that in the print ads in current vidgame magazines.  Check them out sometime - "We invented god mode."  "We gave boss monsters their first job."  Etc.  There is a direct, concerted effort to link the appeal of videogames to the appeal of 3.5.  It's not accidental or imagined.
8O

*dig, dig*
D&D Invented Godmode? | gamegrene.com

  


Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3066
Joined: Jul 09, 2004
Last Visit: Apr 30, 2015

Post Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:07 pm 
 

darkseraphim wrote:you.  Gripe about the other versions, but don't proselytize.  

Damn, I thought I had a decent vocabulary until that line.  You get that 'word of the day' toilet paper or something?  :)

If anyone else out there is scratching their head, heres' what dictionary.com had to say:

pros·e·ly·tize    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (prs-l-tz)
v. pros·e·ly·tized, pros·e·ly·tiz·ing, pros·e·ly·tiz·es
v. intr.
To induce someone to convert to one's own religious faith.
To induce someone to join one's own political party or to espouse one's doctrine.

v. tr.
To convert (a person) from one belief, doctrine, cause, or faith to another.

 YIM  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 7975
Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Last Visit: Dec 04, 2022
Location: DFW TX

Post Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2004 10:13 pm 
 

darkseraphim wrote:>>>The problem lies in the fact ...

Yup ... and that's why I make a concerted effort to sell AD&D 1st Edition modules with passion and sincerity, and why I sneak a free 1st or 2nd AD&D item into virtually every 3.0 and 3.5 package I ship.  At the very least, I want them to see the flavor the early editions provide, and to grab adventure hooks for their own games.  I'm 100% for spreading the good word without forcing people to like what I like.
8)

On 3.5, it is very technical and difficult to grasp at first.  The first time I read through the attack of opportunity rules I checked to see if my brain had slid out onto the floor.  But I've seen an amazing overlap in young gamers between 3.5 and Magic the Gathering - both highly technical games where rules lawyering is a competitive sport. The similiarity in art is intended to draw these people in.  Also, teens that like highly technical fantasy vidgames like Final Fantasy Tactics and Tactics Ogre are catered to as well ... you can see that in the print ads in current vidgame magazines.  Check them out sometime - "We invented god mode."  "We gave boss monsters their first job."  Etc.  There is a direct, concerted effort to link the appeal of videogames to the appeal of 3.5.  It's not accidental or imagined.
8O

*dig, dig*
D&D Invented Godmode? | gamegrene.com


I don't have any problem teaching 2nd edition D&D to players who have never played an RPG in their life. By the end of the first session, they have a good grasp of the rules. By the end of the first dungeon, the crazy "I must have MORE dungeon crawling!!!" look comes into their eyes and they are rattling off words like Hit Points, Armor Class, Backstab and Halberd like experts.  
    By contrast I do believe 3 and 3.5 is harder to learn, but then again it's probably just because I'm not interested in it, and had I bothered to learn it maybe it would be as easy to teach.  If a kid learns 3.5 just starting out, I can see where 1st and 2nd edition could be a colossal bore.  But starting out learning 2nd edition, I think it makes moving on to 3 or 3.5 much easier, because they can get the concepts down first.  Then again this is going from a very small sample....one kid who learned D&D with 3rd edition got really antsy playing with my second edition group and eventually left, while two kids who learned to play with 2nd edition in my group left to try 3rd edition and quickly returned with many a horror story.

Mike B.

 WWW  

User avatar

Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3863
Joined: Feb 21, 2004
Last Visit: Mar 27, 2022
Location: Milford, Michigan

Post Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2004 11:20 pm 
 

In thinking about this topic for the last few days, I think what I really want to say is simple - kinda like my pea brain... 8O

It seemed to me that when we played 1st Edition AD&D (and maybe even 2nd), it was about the adventure...I mean the story, the combat, the treasure and the gratification of solving the problem. Afterall, most prepublished modules were nothing more than combat based around some sort of mystery/problem.

I think 3+ is all about the characters. Everything in the rule system is based on the PCs. They have become the storyline. Maybe not in every case, but that is where the rulebooks center their focus. That is how the game has changed. And quite possibly the players, too. I guess this fits the DarkSeraphim line of thought, to some degree.


And I could've bought these damn modules off the 1$ rack!!!

New modules for your Old School game http://pacesettergames.com/

Everything Pacesetter at http://pacesettergames.blog.com/

 WWW  


Prolific Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 764
Joined: Feb 05, 2003
Last Visit: Oct 20, 2022

Post Posted: Thu Oct 21, 2004 1:00 am 
 

Howdy All,


bbarsh wrote:I think 3+ is all about the characters. Everything in the rule system is based on the PCs. They have become the storyline. Maybe not in every case, but that is where the rulebooks center their focus. That is how the game has changed. And quite possibly the players, too. I guess this fits the DarkSeraphim line of thought, to some degree.


Exactly, players have become the main focus of support and DM's have been dropped as the most important aspect of the game. Why? There are more players to spend money than DM's. Sad, really. The DM used to be king, no DM, no game.

Heck, they even stopped making modules for the game. Gave it all over to the poorly regulated quality of the unwashed, d20-license, masses.


Futures Bright,

Paul


The Collector's Trove The online auction house that features the collections of game designers and artists.

 WWW  


Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3066
Joined: Jul 09, 2004
Last Visit: Apr 30, 2015

Post Posted: Thu Oct 21, 2004 8:49 am 
 

stormber wrote:Howdy All,


bbarsh wrote:I think 3+ is all about the characters. Everything in the rule system is based on the PCs. They have become the storyline. Maybe not in every case, but that is where the rulebooks center their focus. That is how the game has changed. And quite possibly the players, too. I guess this fits the DarkSeraphim line of thought, to some degree.


Exactly, players have become the main focus of support and DM's have been dropped as the most important aspect of the game. Why? There are more players to spend money than DM's. Sad, really. The DM used to be king, no DM, no game.

Heck, they even stopped making modules for the game. Gave it all over to the poorly regulated quality of the unwashed, d20-license, masses.


Futures Bright,

Paul


In our campaigns we were all DMs (only one of us at a time, of course).  So the marketing advantage I don't really see.  I do see a huge money grab with all the supplements, etc, etc, etc.  I remember one of the original reasons TSR said it was introducing 2nd edition was that 1st edition had become too cumbersome, with more than 12 hardcover rulebooks to lug around!  :D  

I can what maybe they're trying to do with the d20 license, some sort of pseudo-linuxish open-source thing, hoping that the best work will come out of it.  But it isn't open source, since they aren't sharing their pre-publication notes on the web before the books go to the printers...either that or I'm way off and they're just doing some sort of franchising thing to make more $$$..

I gotta say though...everyone seems to be going on about how great the older 'classic' modules like the G-series are.  Don't get me wrong, I played them many times as well, and enjoyed them thoroughly.  But I just opened one of mine up, (G2) read through it, and was surprisingly unimpressed.  I certainly remember there being a lot more to it, but maybe the experience of actually playing it in a group has a more lasting impression than what's actually written on the page.  Food for thought, anyway.

 YIM  
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 6 of 7123, 4, 5, 67