|
Post by Vile Traveller on Aug 13, 2014 22:21:16 GMT -6
Yes, I have no problem with the concept of feats as class features, it's the options and the endless feat-arms-race that results, that I can't handles even as a player - I couldn't even imaging trying to create my own NPCs and having to go to all that trouble. I think there is enough flexibility inherent in minimal systems like OD&D (and even B/X) to have vastly different characters of the same class without giving them a lot of class options.
I say again that I have no problem with skill-based systems, but I don't think skills and class/level systems integrate that well. And optional class features (feats) are just way too much work to be fun for me.
|
|
jdjarvis
Level 4 Theurgist
Hmmm,,,, had two user names, I'll be using this one from now on.
Posts: 123
|
Post by jdjarvis on Sept 5, 2014 6:48:46 GMT -6
I was a stalwart edition warrior and defender of 3.0 in the early days and then 3.x came out and fixed problems that just were not there for me and then 4.0 came outa freind lent me the corebooks asking me what I thought of the game and my thoughts were "draned immpresive dungeon skirmish game but it's only a subset of D&D" and they never really moved beyond that in 4e from what little I saw. 5th edition looks like 4th edition with a lot of problems fixed but it does a lot i dont like. The basic Player and DM pdfs do not encourage me as in 170+ pages and there stil isn't a complete basic game. I framkly believe if you can't present the basic game uder 100 pages you can't write compling and enduring game of over 100 pages.
|
|
jdjarvis
Level 4 Theurgist
Hmmm,,,, had two user names, I'll be using this one from now on.
Posts: 123
|
Post by jdjarvis on Sept 5, 2014 6:52:56 GMT -6
I don't have to justify a decision to not buy; you need to justify WHY I should buy. I see where you are coming from the compeling force of new and bright is pretty easy to resist and just doesn't do it for me. WOTC took their shot and showed me why I wouldnt want to buy.
|
|
|
Post by tkdco2 on Sept 5, 2014 17:50:41 GMT -6
I learned my lesson in 3e. I said I wouldn't buy it and didn't for years. But my curiosity got the better of me, and I bought the basic books and a bunch of supplements. I really did give it a fair shot, but in the end, I went back to 2e and older editions. I have tried 5e and like it better than 3e, but it's still not enough for me to make the switch.
|
|
|
Post by Merctime on Sept 6, 2014 10:14:43 GMT -6
I suppose my issue, when I tried 3.0 or 3.5 (I don't recall which, now), and the really extraordinarily done (at least in my opinion) Mongoose Publishing "Conan" RPG that was based off of I believe 3.5, was that I eventually realized I wasn't making "Characters".
I was making "Character builds".
When I finally realized that, during play, I was more concerned with finding the most efficient set of feats for a particular class than I was in playing a character, and found myself reverse-engineering characters from level 20 downwards to satisfy this, I knew it was time to stop.
Please note this is simply my experience; I'm not trying to imply anything or impose my experience as the 'general experience of all who play anything but old D&D' or anything. But this WAS my experience and why I realized it was far more fun to leave things up for interpretation to the DM instead of play rulesets that seemed to hedge me into certain styles of play with a profuse amount of game mechanics. Just my 2 copper!
Have fun, and happy gaming... Tim ("Merctime")
|
|
|
Post by tkdco2 on Sept 6, 2014 17:21:15 GMT -6
That was my experience as well. I prefer having the characters grow organically, not figuring out how to optimize my character starting at level 20. I was never enamored of prestige classes to begin with. The 2e kits were much better, IMO.
5e does allow your character to grow organically, but only to a point. At 3rd level, you have to choose a path for your character. These paths are unique for each character class, but since you're only given 3 or 4 paths, your choices are limited. Maybe the DMG will offer more when it comes out.
|
|
|
Post by havard on Sept 7, 2014 4:01:31 GMT -6
I plan on owning every edition of D&D. I still keep going back to my old favorites though. Mostly BECMI -Havard
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2014 11:12:22 GMT -6
I plan on owning every edition of D&D. I still keep going back to my old favorites though. Mostly BECMI -Havard I understand "wanting to own every edition." That makes sense; collectors like to collect. What baffles me is the notion many seem to have that EVERYONE wants every edition.
|
|
|
Post by thorswulf on Sept 11, 2014 12:31:34 GMT -6
I played Holmes, B/X, AD&D 1 &2, 3E, skipped 3.5 and 4, and bought the 5E boxed set out of idle curiosity. Honestly I prefer the simplicity of Holmes and B/X and the numerous retroclones. I have an 8 year old who wants to play rpgs with her dad. Simple is better. Honestly I don't get to play, but ref most games anyhow. What annoys me with the various editions are the fact that the idea is somehow flawed with previous editions. It isn't flawed it's the gestalt of creative consciousness at the time of creation. Make no mistake creativity evolves with an understanding of the people about concepts such as "fantasy". D&D was spawned from Tolkien, and Swords and Sorcery yarns (roughly, so no nitpicking thank you). Fast forward 40 years. Fantasy has changed, matured, and is interpreted by modern people with modern ideas, mores, and standards about what is acceptable, and what isn't. Most of this is arguably for the better, and there is still room for improvement. Yet the basic idea is still the basic idea.
We pretend to be somebody we are not, flex our imaginations, play with friends (old and new), and enjoy cooperative storytelling. I traded plastic army men for dragons and knights, then for more historical soldiers. I changed because my creativity grew more focussed, and my awareness expanded. At the end of the day I roll my dice, move my minis and laugh with my friends.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Sept 11, 2014 15:57:24 GMT -6
I think I play old school because I prefer the classical and traditional legendaria that the original edition attempted to engage.
I am not at all attracted to what I see "fantasy" to have "evolved" into.
I do not want my fantasy to reflect modern mores. I read fantasy and play fantasy war game campaigns in order to escape modernity!
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Sept 13, 2014 4:14:46 GMT -6
I tend not to try every edition of every game I referee (playing's a different matter). I played B/X, tried but didn't like AD&D, skipped BECMI and 2E, got back into D&D with 3E, skipped 3.5E and 4E, now play Pathfiner occasionally but can't really get into it, and have just ordered the 5E starter set and will use that to run a game RAW to see if I like it.
I don't often try new rules as a referee, the last one was 3E and GURPS before that. But I've never been truly happy with any games system or my house rulings thereof, so from time to time I am open to trying out something new even though I have no free time at all, really. That means it's got to be something I can run off-the-shelf, at least initially, and thereafter something that I can easily run by the seat of my pants. So, even the games I try are not guaranteed to make it long-term at my table. So far the only ones are RuneQuest and B/X. We'll see what happens.
|
|
|
Post by exploderwizard on Sept 24, 2014 7:57:23 GMT -6
Newer editions of D&D do not annoy me. They are simply games which I can choose to play or not like any other. Newer edition D&D FANS however, can be a major pain in the ass.
An entire generation of players has sprung up who seem to be at a loss regarding how to actually play unless every detail is spoon fed to them. If there isn't a button to press or a widget to manipulate on the character sheet they just sit there and twiddle their thumbs wondering what they are supposed to do.
New school D&D characters can do more? Ha! I don't think so. A more complex, cluttered character sheet does not equate to a more capable character. All those fancy buttons do is remove the need for creative problem solving from the player. It facilitates success in the game for anyone even if they are zoned out and playing on autopilot. Necessity is the mother of invention, and if thinking isn't required to get ahead in the game there is little incentive for a player to bother doing it.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Sept 24, 2014 8:29:30 GMT -6
To me, the "new" editions of D&D are AD&D and Moldvay/Cook.
|
|
|
Post by Merctime on Sept 24, 2014 9:19:36 GMT -6
All those fancy buttons do is remove the need for creative problem solving from the player. This. This has been my experience with the people who play the newer editions. The spoon-feeding comment is spot-on, too, in my experience. Too many options leads to 'optimizing' and 'character building' instead of playing the game, and coming up with hip-shot creative solutions to game challenges that I love so much in the older mentality of gameplay. It mirrors the desire to have a computer game experience, vice a read-a-book experience, to me. Makes it tough to find gamers that will be fun to run through a dungeon for me. Just my two cents on this.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Sept 24, 2014 9:50:02 GMT -6
Agree with the last few posters. My players who never played RPGs before are able, right off the bat, to immerse themselves in the game and come up with creative solutions to problems. Players with previous D20 experience stare with disgust at their character sheets and complain that they have nothing to do.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Sept 24, 2014 11:35:15 GMT -6
Players with previous D20 experience stare with disgust at their character sheets and complain that they have nothing to do. Sad.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Darke on Sept 25, 2014 15:18:40 GMT -6
I really have no problem with new editions at all as I have played most of them. These days I tend to stick to C&C when I want something like AD&D or BFRPG/S&W when I want original or classic D&D. I know, why not play the originals? Well it boils down to a couple things; First, the above mentioned games make a few updates that I feel improve on the older games and they play similar enough not to matter. Second, they are in print. Meaning if an unfortunate accident happens to one of my C&C books I can replace it a lot easier than I can an AD&D or OD&D book.
Of course this is all YMMV and I am not big on edition wars either. I even glanced at the new 5e books the other day and had it not been for price (and heavy investment into C&C) I would have actually picked it up.
|
|
|
Post by Merctime on Sept 27, 2014 18:52:48 GMT -6
Agree with the last few posters. My players who never played RPGs before are able, right off the bat, to immerse themselves in the game and come up with creative solutions to problems. Players with previous D20 experience stare with disgust at their character sheets and complain that they have nothing to do. Quite funny. I've just today had a co-worker describe an online game he was getting involved in. He said that some of the recovered treasure was non-coin; Something like a little gold statue and a couple of gems. Then he went on to tell me of a whole sourcebook made so that object value can be quantified piece by piece (!!!). I just kind of bit my tongue on that one, but told him that I made a very frequent habit of using non-standard treasures in hoards for the purpose of putting some extra challenge at cashing in on the players and some variety. I'm sure many of us have done and do this; Nothing special. So, he says to me, "Yeah, but in the older D&D you don't even have an appraise skill so you can't determine the value of that stuff." Emphasis mine. At first, I looked at him in silence. Then, I laughed. It totally reminded me of your very post, Falconer... Just can't get through to some people!
|
|
eldrad
Level 3 Conjurer
Posts: 77
|
Post by eldrad on Dec 27, 2014 20:44:18 GMT -6
I've never understood why it's such a difficult thing to learn a new rules set. You've missed my entire point. I'm speaking specifically about BUYING. HEY you are trying to trick one on us into buying you all the 5E books! VERY CLEVER but it won't work on me!
|
|
skars
Level 6 Magician
Posts: 407
|
Post by skars on Jan 8, 2015 13:24:35 GMT -6
You are right Gronan, whatever happened to actually _selling_ a new product? I think video games and movies are the chief culprits by regurgitating the same thing repeatedly and just expecting customers to buy it because it's the latest thing but apple has done a pretty bang up job as well in that sense.. As for 5e, I like having saving throws associated with each ability score (similar to T&T). Advantage/Disadvantage is kinda novel as is inspiration. But, none of those mechanics would require you to BUY the new set of rules to incorporate them into your games. Some aspects of the book layout are better than OD&D and others are just absolutely frustrating- For instance, why have an entry in the index point to another entry in the index? Is this a choose your own adventure solo mission? Just point me to the page number! *Note to future publishers of D&D that want to get Gronan on board, Digest sized rulebooks in a convenient boxed set (unlike 1e-5e with the large hardbound tomes).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2015 16:13:08 GMT -6
Looking at this thread I see several people have had the same experience I have.
In playing OD&D, you say "What do you do" and everybody looks at each other and starts talking.
IN playing later games (Star Wars d20 was my example) you say "What do you do" and everybody looks at their character sheet.
Even when it's the same group of players in the games. The games drive the behaviors.
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Jan 8, 2015 16:30:52 GMT -6
To be fair, in od&d, people sometimes look at their character sheets to see if they are carrying anything useful. But it usually starts with talking about options.
|
|
|
Post by angelicdoctor on Jan 10, 2015 22:59:11 GMT -6
Marketers in the gaming industry have been very successful in this regard. Often, folks are painted in a negative fashion for not 'giving a particular game a chance' as a method for encouraging a purchase or a read through. This is horrible way to market an item, imho. It creates an opportunity to mock the gamer who might be hesitant to try and results in a response Oakes has already written of. It is not unlike the guff I get for not having watched a particular film which might be all the rage at the moment. "What? You haven't seen X? Well, then you can't very well criticize what you haven't seen, now can you, idiot?" No. I haven't seen X because I just haven't been persuaded that my life will have been enriched for having done so at the moment. Please tell me again why you think it important that I spend the hard earned money to do so. Evangelize it, brother!
On the contrary, the marketer's (be he a professional or an amateur) job is one of positive persuasion. Tell me 'what's in it for me?' or 'why should I bother to read or buy it when what I am using now is working very well?'
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jan 11, 2015 10:13:08 GMT -6
So, he says to me, "Yeah, but in the older D&D you don't even have an appraise skill so you can't determine the value of that stuff." Yeah, I always hated playing OD&D. Since it doesn't have rules for lighting fires, our characters always sat motionless in the cold and the dark, not daring to move. Don't even mention the lack of essential skills such as Go to Sleep, Eat Food, and Go to the Bathroom. Talk about hapless, helpless, and hopeless!
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Jan 11, 2015 15:28:25 GMT -6
Not going to the bathroom sounds gruesome, but I had a whole party who couldn't go on an adventure at all, because nobody made their roll to open the door to the inn! They were all trapped inside!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2015 19:40:13 GMT -6
Yeah, I always hated playing OD&D. Since it doesn't have rules for lighting fires, our characters always sat motionless in the cold and the dark, not daring to move. Don't even mention the lack of essential skills such as Go to Sleep, Eat Food, and Go to the Bathroom. Talk about hapless, helpless, and hopeless! You stole that from me! Though I use slightly different language....
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Jan 24, 2015 8:10:12 GMT -6
It's really cool to have access to your experiences. So thanks for that.
Did you guys ever cross over to what we call SF now in OD&D? Like, did you ever battle robots or get death rays? I recall Gary didn't use gunpowder.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2015 18:46:03 GMT -6
Dave had a lot of science fiction stuff.
|
|
|
Post by archersix on Jan 24, 2015 23:51:31 GMT -6
Do you have any insight into how close the Temple of the Frog in Blackmoor is to how Dave ran his game?
|
|
|
Post by scottyg on Jan 25, 2015 8:20:26 GMT -6
My problems with 3.X are the result of over quantifying everything. It was the Seven Heavens for rules lawyers. There was a formula for everything. The absolute tying of skills to level/HD is one area where the game failed compared to other skill based games. Every creature in the multiverse is bound to the same rules as PCs for getting better at things. This was epitomized by leveled commoners. A hamlet baker couldn’t be written up as ‘The baker (HP 4), an expert at his craft’. Instead he would have half a page of stats: The baker (medium sized humanoid): L10 Commoner, HP: 40, Skills: Craft (baking) 16, etc. etc. etc. Even the fantastic was quantified to an absurd degree. There was a formula for creating magic items and some items from older editions were modified, not because they conflicted in any mechanic-based way, but because they broke the formula. I played 3.X quite a bit, and my experiences were mixed based, like every other edition, on the DM. The good games were run by players that had experience with older games, and were better at winging it, and chucking the superfluous stuff. But if you didn’t already have those skills, there was nothing in D20 to encourage you, or help you develop them.
|
|