The former Tomb of Horrors / current 3e debate thread
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 2 of 1012, 3 ... 8910
Author


Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

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

Post Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 10:18 pm 
 

Blackmoor wrote:I find that the latest version simply the best game in the market today.

Can't argue too much there.  3.5 is the only version of D&D in the market today, so of course it's the best game out there.  Given it's pedigree, you'd have to try pretty hard to ruin it.  Though I still can't believe people can compare it to earlier works with a straight face.

I must admit that I hate 3.5/d20 with a passion.  There are many reasons for this, but none of them have to do with gameplay.  That wouldn't be fair, as I've never actually played it.  

I hate the artwork, the glossy covers, and the way they keep reusing 1st edition titles.  (Make it harder to find the originals on eBay!)  But mostly, I hate d20 simply because it wasn't what I expected it would be.

I purchased the core rulebooks, and tried to read them.  I soon realized they were completely the opposite of what I was hoping:  a reorganization and renewal of 1st Edition, bringing in whatever good might have come from 2nd Edition.  

However, d20 more accurately resembles 2nd Edition "on steroids".  You can imagine my utter disappointment to see those same themes continued: more skills, options, books, rules and complexity; less thought, personality, development, and originality.  I quickly gave the books away to someone who would better appreciate them.

I intend run a game with a party consisting solely of human fighters, all equipped identically, and sent on a mission from their leader.  We'll assume all their stats are 12, and see whether the players really know how to make a character come alive, and survive.  Does nobody else remember when your DM handed you a character sheet to play?  Ok, I'm done ranting.

 YIM  

User avatar

Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3593
Joined: Dec 20, 2003
Last Visit: Nov 25, 2021
Location: Canada

Post Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 10:38 pm 
 

The new game gives you more chance to develop your character than previous releases, you can pick skills, feats and character class so that now 2 characters are the same.  It is the ultimate in flexibility.  The game is incredibly easy to run, there are few grey areas about what you can and cannot do; there are the same opportunities to role-play as in the previous additions.  The best part is that when you meet the orc leader you better watch your step, he may also have 10 levels in barbarian to knock you over with, he may even not be evil!!

The new game rocks, one game in my group would prove it to you.  The old editions are fun, but leave a lot out and 2nd edition is very imbalanced.

J


Games can get you through times of no money but money can not get you through times of no games!!

 WWW  


Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

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

Post Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 10:55 pm 
 

Blackmoor wrote:The new game gives you more chance to develop your character than previous releases, you can pick skills, feats and character class so that now 2 characters are the same. It is the ultimate in flexibility. The game is incredibly easy to run, there are few grey areas about what you can and cannot do; there are the same opportunities to role-play as in the previous additions. The best part is that when you meet the orc leader you better watch your step, he may also have 10 levels in barbarian to knock you over with, he may even not be evil!!

The new game rocks, one game in my group would prove it to you. The old editions are fun, but leave a lot out and 2nd edition is very imbalanced.


We'll never agree on this one, and that's ok.  The very things you've highlighted as good things are the same reasons I don't like the new game... ;)

1. You can pick skills, feats and class so that no two characters are the same.  (I believe that you can do that without skills, feats, or extra classes).
2.  There are few grey areas about what you can and cannot do.  (So where exactly is the mystery and excitement?)
3.  When you meet the orc leader you better watch your step. (This should be a given.)

 YIM  


Prolific Collector

Posts: 752
Joined: Jun 29, 2005
Last Visit: Aug 09, 2020
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada, eh?

Post Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 11:04 pm 
 

MShipley88 wrote:I suspect that a certain number of those who really liked the first editions of D&D (particularly those who became DM's) enjoyed arguing about the rules. The 3.5 game plays better, longer and has far fewer arguments.

Mark


I have to disagree. The rules for 3.5 are so complicated that rules "discussions" are inevitable, and common. The rules are so close to *complete* that there's not a lot the DM needs to come up with on the fly. Back when i played 2nd Edition, there weren't many rules arguments - since there weren't all that many rules, there wasn't much to argue about ;)  The game really depended on the DM for good rules. That's changed in 3.5 - the game provides good rules, and the DM (mostly) just has to provide a good game.

I intend run a game with a party consisting solely of human fighters, all equipped identically, and sent on a mission from their leader.  We'll assume all their stats are 12, and see whether the players really know how to make a character come alive, and survive.  Does nobody else remember when your DM handed you a character sheet to play?  Ok, I'm done ranting.


That's the exact kind of argument that, imo, doesn't make any sense. You're not talking about a problem with the rules, you're talking about a problem with players. Roleplaying isn't constrained by rules, it's supported by them.  A 3.5 game with that exact scenario would play just fine - if the players were into it, and were good roleplayers. Ditto for 1st/2nd Edition.

The first 3.5 game a buddy of mine ran was a one-off where he handed us all character sheets, and told us the story. We got into the characters he'd created, and had a blast.[/u]

 WWW  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 5648
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Last Visit: Nov 18, 2021
Location: New Hampsha

Post Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 11:06 pm 
 

3E is a joke. There are TONS of game systems that are far more flexible and realistic, mine included. I will never play 3E again. No reason to, I have an Xbox.


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

 WWW  

User avatar

Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3861
Joined: Feb 21, 2004
Last Visit: Jul 20, 2021
Location: Milford, Michigan

Post Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 11:11 pm 
 

deimos3428 wrote:
Blackmoor wrote:The new game gives you more chance to develop your character than previous releases, you can pick skills, feats and character class so that now 2 characters are the same. It is the ultimate in flexibility. The game is incredibly easy to run, there are few grey areas about what you can and cannot do; there are the same opportunities to role-play as in the previous additions. The best part is that when you meet the orc leader you better watch your step, he may also have 10 levels in barbarian to knock you over with, he may even not be evil!!

The new game rocks, one game in my group would prove it to you. The old editions are fun, but leave a lot out and 2nd edition is very imbalanced.


We'll never agree on this one, and that's ok. The very things you've highlighted as good things are the same reasons I don't like the new game... ;)

1. You can pick skills, feats and class so that no two characters are the same. (I believe that you can do that without skills, feats, or extra classes).
2. There are few grey areas about what you can and cannot do. (So where exactly is the mystery and excitement?)
3. When you meet the orc leader you better watch your step. (This should be a given.)


I have too agree with Diemos here. I hate the way 3.5 looks and feels. It might play fine, but it is not the D&D that I associaite with. It never will be, and that is ok, too. To me, 3.5 brought out all the things I hated about power gamers who mutilated earlier versions to make their super characters of everything slaying. There seems to be no sense of balance. Everything has its place. An orc is an orc - yeah, the orc king might be 5 hit dice, so what. In 3.5 that orc king could be the equal to 15th level fighter and slaughter an entire army by himself.

Shipley - Not to be critical. But what the hell kind of game were you playing where an 11th level 1 ed fighter can wipe out a Cloud giant without taking damage? If that was the norm for your group, then something was seriously wrong with your game. (at least compared to our group)


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: Sun Nov 06, 2005 11:34 pm 
 

GraysonAC wrote:
I intend run a game with a party consisting solely of human fighters, all equipped identically, and sent on a mission from their leader. We'll assume all their stats are 12, and see whether the players really know how to make a character come alive, and survive. Does nobody else remember when your DM handed you a character sheet to play? Ok, I'm done ranting.


That's the exact kind of argument that, imo, doesn't make any sense. You're not talking about a problem with the rules, you're talking about a problem with players. Roleplaying isn't constrained by rules, it's supported by them. A 3.5 game with that exact scenario would play just fine - if the players were into it, and were good roleplayers. Ditto for 1st/2nd Edition.

The first 3.5 game a buddy of mine ran was a one-off where he handed us all character sheets, and told us the story. We got into the characters he'd created, and had a blast.[/u]

Roleplaying isn't constrained by the rules, you can still roleplay to your hearts content, that's true.  However, the game now intrinsically favors the creative selection of abilities as the definition of a character, and as a survival method, more than ever before.  It's built into the rules, and it's not a minor footnote.  I'm not saying stats were never a part of D&D before 3.5, but increasingly, things like bravery, bravado, and dumb luck are giving way to skills, feats, and stats.

 YIM  


Prolific Collector

Posts: 752
Joined: Jun 29, 2005
Last Visit: Aug 09, 2020
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada, eh?

Post Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 11:40 pm 
 

bbarsh wrote:There seems to be no sense of balance.


I couldn't disagree more. 3.5 was built from the ground up to be balanced. That's the overriding concern. A 10th level Fighter is as useful to the group as a 10th level Wizard. The earlier editions didn't have balance as a focus, and fighters and rogues really suffered for it.

Everything has its place. An orc is an orc - yeah, the orc king might be 5 hit dice, so what. In 3.5 that orc king could be the equal to 15th level fighter and slaughter an entire army by himself.


Honestly, does that make any sense to you? That because it's an orc, it's always going to just be an orc? In 3.5, that orc could very well be tough enough to challenge the entire damn party. In 1st/2nd, it was just another speedbump.

And you've got one thing backwards - a high level character *isn't* invulnerable to weaker enemies. A handful of weak enemies can "assist" (essentially, make a very easy 'attack roll', and instead of dealing damage, add +2 to their buddies attack roll), and thus can actually hurt and quickly kill higher level guys. Just ask my players if a pack of kobolds is anything to worry about in 3.5 :lol:

Shipley - Not to be critical. But what the hell kind of game were you playing where an 11th level 1 ed fighter can wipe out a Cloud giant without taking damage? If that was the norm for your group, then something was seriously wrong with your game. (at least compared to our group)


Well, at least we agree on something :P

 WWW  

User avatar

Prolific Collector

Posts: 851
Joined: Jun 12, 2004
Last Visit: Nov 09, 2021

Post Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 1:42 am 
 

GameSpy wrote:GameSpy: Have you had a chance to play or even look at some of the current Dungeons & Dragons games?

Gygax: I've looked at them, yes, but I'm not really a fan. The new D&D is too rule intensive. It's relegated the Dungeon Master to being an entertainer rather than master of the game. It's done away with the archetypes, focused on nothing but combat and character power, lost the group cooperative aspect, bastardized the class-based system, and resembles a comic-book superheroes game more than a fantasy RPG where a player can play any alignment desired, not just lawful good.

Now, should I tell you what I really think?


I think that about sums it up, although I would also add the lack of consequences to casting spells like raise dead compared to AD&D, as well as the stupidity of creatures having 360 degree vision, due to not having a defined front and back.  There are other things about the system that are annoying, such as the fact you cannot change one rule without having to change every rule that is affected by that change (removing Attacks of Opportunity for a simple example).  The game is internally balanced, just as OD&D, BECMI, and AD&D were balanced.

d20 Fantasy is certainly a product of its time, having been created for people weaned on video games.  But, as can be seen below, the d20 wave is seen by some to be dying out, with the exception of "sub-brands" based on the d20 SRD.  It seems that the market is correcting itself, with games NOT based off of d20 making a resurgance.

Mystaros wrote:The d20 bubble has long since popped. When two or three years ago you had dozens of moderately successful third-tier d20 publishers, and several second-tier companies even, now you have less than a handful. White Wolf has given up on d20, and is only publishing Necromancer Games and Malhavoc products. The publishers that remain successful with d20 (and that is a relative term), are those that developed their own d20 sub-brands, such as the Conan game from Mongoose, Castles & Crusades from Troll Lords, Mutants & Masterminds from Green Ronin, and so forth... I predicted this trend myself back in 2003 in Comics & Games Retailer. These successful brand allow these few publishers to publish a couple of generics now and again, but they remain focused on their specific brands, which have developed the network to maintain regular sales.

Companies that publish "generic" d20 products have pretty much faded away or gone to direct PDF to consumer publishing, which is a far less expensive and less risky venture. Of course, these sales do absolutely no good for the industry overall, having even a deletorious effect on sales as the margins get nibbled at... and game retailers, distributors, and publishers are already operating under extremely thin margins as it is.

But yes, the d20 baloon has definitely burst, and the glut is now passed. Unfortunately, the glut was a major factor in the loss of nearly 25% of game specialty retail stores in 2004 (the other major factor being no major "fad" product to drive sales). This is a trend that continues. As for d20 products themselves, whereas once upon a time a second-tier company could count on pre-order sales of 5,000 to 20,000 units on a product, these days the remaining companies are fortunate to get sales of 500 to 2,000... about 10% on average of what sales levels had been only a few years before.

That has nothing to do, of course, with sales of Dungeons & Dragons products straight from Wizards of the Coast, which continue to do quite well... the masws channels WotC has access to, and the much broader base of sales it has access to on the web, more than making up for the losses from the shrinkage of the retail specialty market. WotC is even expanding and moving into bigger digs this month.

-Is The d20 Glut Over?



  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6720
Joined: Jul 16, 2005
Last Visit: Feb 02, 2021

Post Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:03 am 
 

bbarsh wrote:Shipley - Not to be critical. But what the hell kind of game were you playing where an 11th level 1 ed fighter can wipe out a Cloud giant without taking damage? If that was the norm for your group, then something was seriously wrong with your game. (at least compared to our group)


   OK, so SOME damage.  But, a first edition 11th level fighter with even a moderately magical suit of armor, a +3 sword and double specialization could chop up a cloud giant (12d8 hit dice, average of 54 hit points, one swing, no strength bonuses to hit, no constitution bonus, no skills, slow and only a ceremonial armor class) without much worry.  

    Reducing all character stats down to 12 (no bonuses) might prolong the agony, but the result would be the same...particularly if PC magic-users were also involved.

    In fact, the first and second edition game tended to break down when the party fighters reached 7th level and/or the mages reached 9th level...particularly after Unearthed Arcana made all of the Dragon magazine material official.  In fact 9th or 10th level was usually the level at which we started a new group of characters because it made no logical game sense to populate a region with literally hundreds of huge monsters for the party to chop up while laughing and drinking wine from crystal goblets without spilling a drop.

    By comparison, last night a couple of basic 3.5 cloud giants (2 of them), with nothing but the stats right out of the book, sent my campaign's party of seven 10th and 11th level PC's screaming in terror and trying to hide from giants who could run faster than them, hit harder than them and utilize all of the same combat skills of the party's fighters.   8)

    Much fun.    :wink:

Mark


"But I have watched the dragons come, fire-eyed, across the world."

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 5648
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Last Visit: Nov 18, 2021
Location: New Hampsha

Post Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:06 am 
 

Gary and Traveller are exactly correct. It is a paper and pencil video game, nothing more.
Read the modules. There is little or no roleplaying. I can sum up most any 3E module:

1. Characters get quest.
2. Characters fight their way to the goal.
3. Characters achieve goal.

I Dmed a 3E campaign for a while, and I tried so hard to force people to roleplay that I nearly burned myself out on gaming. The key word for 3E is BUILD. I hear it all the time. "My half-ogre/half mind flayer ranger/sorcerer/rogue is the perfect build!". Players look 10 levels into the future and pick their skills based on future levels/skills. It's inane.
Log on to Neverwinter Nights and you can see it in action. Count the number of hack and slash servers as opposed to the number of RPG servers. You'll be shocked. And even in the RPG ones, when you gain a level, you have to think to yourself "OK, I have to take great cleave so I can get overwhelming critical when I reach 13th level."
What a joke.
D&D was intended to be a ROLEPLAYING game. Hack and slash was certainly supposed to be a part of it, but how many of us were concerned with min/maxing in the old days? I used to spend hours in a town just visiting vendors, taverns, talking to people etc. That phase of the game has vanished.
Einstein has E=MC2. I have this to offer:

1E=RPG
3E=XBOX


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

 WWW  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6720
Joined: Jul 16, 2005
Last Visit: Feb 02, 2021

Post Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:18 am 
 

The market is certainly "correcting itself," but not because D20 was bad for it.

    Lawerence Schick put it this way in his 1991 book, Heroic Worlds:  "As a result of this failure to connect with the average consumer, the role-playing industry has largely turned inward, and the trend toward complexity has returned as the publishers cater to the small but safe market of commited RPG fans. Today's most popular systems -- AD&D, Shadowrun, Battletech, GURPS are all aimed at the dedicated gamer."

   The way I see it, D20 prolonged the most recent wave of pen and paper RPG's by at least five years.  D20, and the genius of an open content game system, has been the savior of the game market.

   What is correcting is the decline that would have happened even faster if D20 had not appeared.  My son's generation has computers to imagine things for them.  Why bother imagining for themselves?

    The future of gaming will be a combination of electronic mayhem with the increased emotional impact of table-top RPG's.  It is a simple fact that more people are able to relate to the visual effects of electronic games, and that that branch of the industry is destined to grow.  The reason that RPG's are so often associated with genius geeks is because that is the kind of person with the brain power to immerse himself in the RPG world.  That is a small market to maintain a cultural phenomenon indefinately.

    As it grows the more electronic game industry's products become more and more like table top games (at least in their freedom, their creativity and their emotional impact).  As multi-player participation and interaction grows more common and better with each generation of technology, the electronic experience will come to approximate and then equal the table top experience...and even the dull witted will be able to relate to it.

    Isn't that the immersive game experience that we used to talk about back in junior high and high school...looking ahead to today's technology?


"But I have watched the dragons come, fire-eyed, across the world."

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 8219
Joined: Jan 21, 2005
Last Visit: Jun 12, 2017
Location: Wallasey, Merseyside, UK

Post Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:53 am 
 

MShipley88 wrote:  In the first edition of AD&D, an 11th level fighter would not really be even slightly afraid of a single cloud giant. This was even more true after the publication of Unearthed Arcana sent the rules spinning out of control. After Unearthed Arcana, an 11th level fighter with a +3 sword could be expected to massacre almost every creature in the Monster Manual single-handed, and possibly take almost no damage.


well chummer i dunno which version of 1E you played to come up with that one :) a good DM who plays monsters properly can make a melee as hard as he wants to.

for instance, if a person/party happens upon an ancient red dragon, there is no way in the world i will play that one easy. they are ancient for a reason and i will play it that way and will wing every thing out of the book that i can, including attacks like "squashing" and "crushing" as they are that massive, they will use their size to all-sorts of advantages. same goes with giants too. also an 11th level fighter will always have a hard-time against a nice crafty beholder or any other such thing.

an 11th level character is VERY tough, sure they are, but DM'd properly, monsters can be as tough as you want them to be.

MShipley88 wrote:I suspect that a certain number of those who really liked the first editions of D&D (particularly those who became DM's) enjoyed arguing about the rules. The 3.5 game plays better, longer and has far fewer arguments.


this is a good point and i am sure that it is true in most cases. however in my game, my mate keith comes to over to play and joins up with jess n mand, as well as my chaotic-neutral dwarf fighter who is a blast :) . he's DM'd mostly for the last 30 years and so knows everything inside out, back-to-front, you name it. but in mine, i am DM. and thats it. i dont care about his interpretation of the rules. its my game, it runs how i say and my decision is final. nuff said.

i use very few rules, cos i enjoy the role play. that to me is more important. after all, rules are there to guide and i use them when i really need to, otherwise common sense prevails (with a pretend dice roll) :D

i want the game quick and fun - not sat there for 20 mins looking for a ruling :D

Al



  

User avatar

Prolific Collector

Posts: 851
Joined: Jun 12, 2004
Last Visit: Nov 09, 2021

Post Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 4:03 am 
 

MShipley88 wrote:The market is certainly "correcting itself," but not because D20 was bad for it.

Actually, I disagree in regards to d20 not being bad for the hobby. By making the SRD available, it caused a proliferation of really bad clones and really bad supplements. Innovation and imagination went out the window when the SRD was first released, and only now is the industry, such as it is, returning to some semblance of reality. I think it's an accomplished fact that one game will NOT rule them all.

Think about it. Why go and create your own rules and monsters when you can just use the ones provided by a company that has conclusively proven it does not give a damn about you? Other than the d20 sub-brands noted in the quote in my last post, tell me where the innovation and the imagination is in doing such a thing, because I'm not seeing it. I'm biased, but Castles & Crusades is what d20 should have been, fast, light, and with a focus on role playing, not rules. It is the descendant of Dungeons & Dragons, not the heavy, bloated, mechanistic feeling, rule laden monstrosity that is d20.

Role playing is all about the imagination, and today's computerized society simply cannot handle imagination. Apparently a lot of d20 players cannot handle imagination and innovation either, as they seem to need a game where the rules are the focus, rather than the roleplay. To me, the atrophy of the human brain began when the transistor was invented. When calculators replaced the slide rule, people got lazy, and figured the machine could do it for them if they put in the numbers. On some calculations, I could see it, but for adding 2+2, you don't need a calculator for that. However, the transistor's ubiquity, first in calculators, then computers, and game systems as well as a hundred other items encourages man to not think, but to let the machine do the work.

It's really bad when first grade students are required to bring a basic calculator to their math classes. Instead of being taught how to do basic math longhand, the teachers are encouraging kids to take the shortcut. What do we have as an end result? Kids working behind the counter of the local McDonalds unable to give back change because they let a calculator do the work for them in school, instead of exercising the gray matter upstairs and actually learning how to do it without the machine.

Why bother imagining for themselves? Because without imagination, we would not have half the things we do now. Things like the transistor were built upon the backs of people's imaginations in the late 50's, early 60's. If kids today are nothing but apathetic video whores bereft of imagination and innovation, that does not bode well for the society here. Kids (and adults too) really need to get away from these boxes and simply spend time living, not existing behind a computer screeen waiting for the next power up.



  


Prolific Collector

Posts: 752
Joined: Jun 29, 2005
Last Visit: Aug 09, 2020
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada, eh?

Post Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 4:11 am 
 

Traveller wrote:I think that about sums it up, although I would also add the lack of consequences to casting spells like raise dead compared to AD&D


Maybe my memory is fuzzy, but the only consequence I remember is losing a level. 3E is the same - you lose a level, and it costs 5k in cash to cast.

as well as the stupidity of creatures having 360 degree vision, due to not having a defined front and back.


Couldn't agree more. I think it's a stupid rule myself. 3E went back to tabletop gaming style for the movement and a lot of combat.

There are other things about the system that are annoying, such as the fact you cannot change one rule without having to change every rule that is affected by that change (removing Attacks of Opportunity for a simple example). The game is internally balanced, just as OD&D, BECMI, and AD&D were balanced.


That's the same for any game system that's got a tight set of rules.

d20 Fantasy is certainly a product of its time, having been created for people weaned on video games. But, as can be seen below, the d20 wave is seen by some to be dying out, with the exception of "sub-brands" based on the d20 SRD. It seems that the market is correcting itself, with games NOT based off of d20 making a resurgance.


It wouldn't surprise me to see the market collapse inwards to just support the good brands. That's normal. But, in all honesty, TSR didn't survive at all.

I Dmed a 3E campaign for a while, and I tried so hard to force people to roleplay that I nearly burned myself out on gaming.


Again, a problem with people, not with the system. Your problem is with non-rp players, not with the system you're using. The guys in my 3E game are as focused on their 'build' as anybody else - and they also roleplay the characters created. One of my players wants to pick up the Aasimar template (he's a 15th level Favored Soul), not because it gives any particular advantage (it's not actually a good choice, power-wise, for him), but because it makes sense with his character and the setting. He's using the rules to further roleplaying. Imagine that, the system actually helps that.

Log on to Neverwinter Nights and you can see it in action. Count the number of hack and slash servers as opposed to the number of RPG servers


Again, a problem with people, not the game. I played a ton of the AD&D computer games, and not a single one had any signifigant roleplaying. At all. A computer game isn't ever an RPG that can compare to a good sitting-around-the-table game.

but how many of us were concerned with min/maxing in the old days? I used to spend hours in a town just visiting vendors, taverns, talking to people etc. That phase of the game has vanished.


Yet again, people, not system. And again, using my game as an example, a few weeks ago we spent pretty much an entire session (4 hours) selling the loot from their previous adventure, and having folks looking around for the gear they wanted now.

 WWW  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 8219
Joined: Jan 21, 2005
Last Visit: Jun 12, 2017
Location: Wallasey, Merseyside, UK

Post Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:09 am 
 

GraysonAC wrote:Again, a problem with people, not with the system. Your problem is with non-rp players, not with the system you're using. The guys in my 3E game are as focused on their 'build' as anybody else - and they also roleplay the characters created. One of my players wants to pick up the Aasimar template (he's a 15th level Favored Soul), not because it gives any particular advantage (it's not actually a good choice, power-wise, for him), but because it makes sense with his character and the setting. He's using the rules to further roleplaying. Imagine that, the system actually helps that.


a 15th level Favoured Soul??!!! WTF :D :D :D :D

the best game i ever played was with a fighter who had 13 strength. no bonuses, no nothing.

with that, you HAD to be inventive on how you did things to try and get an upper hand on things.

the DM was cool for that game, we rolled our stats and we got one roll of 3D6 per ability and could only swap them around per ability not jump a bit from this one to that one etc.

my rolls varied from 8 to 14.

it was a right blast and the character still lives to this day, mid way through about 5th level or something like that. i dig him out from time to time as a NPC in my games.

i try and be like that in my games too. when you dont have anything special happening like that, it just encourages role-play and makes the game that much more enjoyable.

Al



  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 8219
Joined: Jan 21, 2005
Last Visit: Jun 12, 2017
Location: Wallasey, Merseyside, UK

Post Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:13 am 
 

just as a further note, another thing i do in my game with regards to magic items, is this:

regardless of whether an item is identified or not, depending on their level at the time, i wlll not allow them to use the item to all its benefits, due to their "lack of experience". only when they become more experienced will i allow them to gain the full benefit of the item, plus the xp etc (which i allow on a gradual basis as they use the item more and become more familiar with it).

i feel this way, it allows more balance in the game, and you dont end up with a low-level character bristling with magic items that will dispose of anything and everything.

works for me and the group enjoy it, as it allows for some pretty fun circumstances too.

Al



  


Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

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

Post Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 7:07 am 
 

MShipley88 wrote:After Unearthed Arcana, an 11th level fighter with a +3 sword could be expected to massacre almost every creature in the Monster Manual single-handed, and possibly take almost no damage.

I don't see any modifications to the fighter class in UA at all, unless you're referring to comeliness, social class, or weaponless combat...  :?   Barbarian/Cavalier, sure...they were experiments gone awry that unfortunately spawned what we have today.  :wink:

 YIM  
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 2 of 1012, 3 ... 8910