|
1 year ago ::
Apr 23, 2012 - 5:44AM
#191
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
Anyway I don't agree when you say that D&D had a distinct flavor for 30 years. I played for several years AD&D 2e with the Player's Option books and High Level Campaign rules, and those where more or less superheroes like epic characters in 4e.
Traditionally D&D's core concept has been the original three books. Everything else is an option. Many people played 2e without using the options books. They are "options" as in optional rules. They were in fact trying to expand the traditional game in new directions just like we are discussing here. I realize that 4e said everything is core which for me makes the term meaningless but I still started out with the original three books. Everything else in my campaign (that I DM) was optional until I approved it.
I think we are agreeing. I'm only saying that there is a good sized base of players out there that want a game that is streamlined, a bit more balanced, and easier to play but still the game they've always loved. Each individual amongst that group though likely has something new that they like which is why I'm all for expanding and broading our options.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 23, 2012 - 8:34AM
#192
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
Yeah AD&D was the day when they cared about such stuff. I like an underlying "science" of magic but i realize that probably goes against what narrativists want.
As Pash said, when I create a new campaign world I also create its magic system, the "science" of magic. I think it is one of the most fun things to tinker with, and it often leads to very good storylines. Different rules for magic mean variety in different campaigns too, with what is possible to accomplish with magic varying in the different universes you play in. Of course, I started to do this systematically with 4E, where changing the base assumptions of magic didn't mean you need to houserule half* of the spell system. To make an example, one of the things that irked me to no end in 3e was the fact that I pretty much needed to have an Ethereal Plane for some spells and skills to work, and couldn't just get away with another cosmology quite as easily.
* exaggeration.
Are you interested in an online 4E game on Sunday? Contact me with a PM! Spoiler:
Show
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept.
Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new.
Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept.
Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept. Ideas for 5ESpoiler:
Show
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 23, 2012 - 9:56AM
#193
|
|
|
Yeah AD&D was the day when they cared about such stuff. I like an underlying "science" of magic but i realize that probably goes against what narrativists want.
As a narrativist, I must cry foul.
I think magic without some underlying "science" is idiotic. I also think the specific explanation quoted is...less than impressive, but at least it's something.
Now, and this might be what you meant, I don't know, I am not ok with the "scientific" explanation route being the only option, or even the only option presented in the core books.
Whatever ideology anyone adheres to, they're certainly welcome to discard any element of the system they wish to.
In my experience, they sometimes assert that the elements they didn't like never existed, or some variant of that statement, and I get a little miffed.
I see this cycle happen more than I'd like, on various boards.
1. Make assertion that a particular version of D&D doesn't have some game element X. Any version is fair game.
2. When shown element X, claim it's not 'really' element X.
3. When corrected, assert that no one used it at all.
4. When corrected, assert that no one used it as written.
5. When corrected, assert that no one who used it enjoyed it.
6. When corrected, assert that anyone who enjoyed it is a bad gamer in an oblique way so as to avoid getting in trouble.
7. Wait a week.
8. Make same assertion.
Repeat.
You've described the behavior of every single "camp" of posters on these forums. from the 4vengers to the 4e haters, and from the simulationists to the narrativists.
I take issue with this argument.
Olympians are wayyyyy better at jumping than martial artists.
The only thing martial artists are good at is punching things.
Moderated by
Orc_Bane
on Apr 23, 2012 - 12:02PM
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
I could say anything in D&D is silly though, because it's a silly game and we are silly people.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 23, 2012 - 11:25AM
#194
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
Yeah AD&D was the day when they cared about such stuff. I like an underlying "science" of magic but i realize that probably goes against what narrativists want.
As Pash said, when I create a new campaign world I also create its magic system, the "science" of magic. I think it is one of the most fun things to tinker with, and it often leads to very good storylines. Different rules for magic mean variety in different campaigns too, with what is possible to accomplish with magic varying in the different universes you play in. Of course, I started to do this systematically with 4E, where changing the base assumptions of magic didn't mean you need to houserule half* of the spell system. To make an example, one of the things that irked me to no end in 3e was the fact that I pretty much needed to have an Ethereal Plane for some spells and skills to work, and couldn't just get away with another cosmology quite as easily.
* exaggeration.
You are of course agreeing with me. The fact you want to put one in on the fly means you don't want a restrictive one in place in advance. One downside to your approach is that the spells must of necessity be less tied to any science. I do though think some compromises could be reached that might make us both happy. If there was a way to group an effect without explicitly defining the "how of the effect" then that might be a nice middle road. I also think it's fine if in the fluff (maybe a campaign setting) they lay out an option.
One example. Ghost form vs Ghost touch. Etherealness is one explanation for these two effects but not the only one.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 23, 2012 - 12:03PM
#195
|
Date Joined:
Feb 17, 2012
|
I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 23, 2012 - 1:12PM
#196
|
|
|
Orc_Bane, if you are going to delete an entire response in my post, remove the text (ie, the part of my quote containing it) I'm responding to as well, please.
EDIT: also, is it your doing, or some weird forum bug that is stopping me from editing my own post?
If it's something you did, please undo it. I should always be able to edit my post. Either way, since I can't do it myself, please delete the quote that the moderated text of my post was in response to.
Thank you.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
I could say anything in D&D is silly though, because it's a silly game and we are silly people.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 23, 2012 - 3:08PM
#197
|
Date Joined:
Jun 16, 2004
|
As a narrativist, who enjoys strong storylines...I'm quite willing to just leave it at "Its magic!"
After all, how many times did the Enterprise recalibrate their sensor array or whatever?
edit: Formatting. You italicize ship names.
Gold is for the mistress, silver for the maid Copper for the craftsman, cunning at his trade." "Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall, "But Iron -- Cold Iron -- is master of them all." -Kipling Defenders: We ARE the wall! I've replaced the previous Edition Warring line in my sig with this one, because honestly, everybody needs to work together to make the D&D they like without trampling on somebody else's D&D. Miss d20 Modern? Take a look at Dias Ex Machina Game's UltraModern 4e! I am a hero, not a chump.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 23, 2012 - 4:54PM
#198
|
|
|
"You've described the behavior of every single "camp" of posters on these forums. from the 4vengers to the 4e haters, and from the simulationists to the narrativists. "
That was the point. I dislike the intellectually dishonest argumentative tactic. I have no particular onus against any group.
I have my preferences, and hopefully I can articulate why I have them. I like to find out why other people don't share them. I like to tell people about my playstyle, maybe they'll find something to use, maybe they'll just get a clearer idea of exactly why it is that they don't prefer my style, and that will make their own goals clearer by contrast, and thus easier to achieve.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 23, 2012 - 11:12PM
#199
|
|
|
"You've described the behavior of every single "camp" of posters on these forums. from the 4vengers to the 4e haters, and from the simulationists to the narrativists. "
That was the point. I dislike the intellectually dishonest argumentative tactic. I have no particular onus against any group.
I have my preferences, and hopefully I can articulate why I have them. I like to find out why other people don't share them. I like to tell people about my playstyle, maybe they'll find something to use, maybe they'll just get a clearer idea of exactly why it is that they don't prefer my style, and that will make their own goals clearer by contrast, and thus easier to achieve.
I just thought it was funny, because it seems like there's no end to it.
Also, it did seem a bit, in your post, that you were directing the comment at narrativists in particular.
but mostly, funny.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
I could say anything in D&D is silly though, because it's a silly game and we are silly people.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 23, 2012 - 11:58PM
#200
|
Date Joined:
Dec 12, 2011
|
Alot of people use the word "realism" when actually the word they should have used is "believable."
Or, rather, "verisimilitude". And this is something that can vary from setting to setting, campaign to campaign. What can break a sense od verisimilitude in a setting like A Game of Thrones' may be perfectly viable in setting like Final Fantasy (insert number of your choice here), and vice-versa. Or between Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms or Forgotten Realms and Eberron or Eberron and Dark Sun, etc. or even different campaigns within the same setting.
The fantasy genre covers a lot of ground and that's one of the problems that D&D faces. In my opinion, the baseline verisimilitude of D&D needs to support the different published settings first and foremost before tackling outliers like A Game of Thrones or (at the other end of the spectrum) Dragonball Z.
Playtest or get off the playtest boards.
---
I want justice for the voice that can't be heard
Vindication for every suffering and hurt
Let retribution hold dominion over earth
--Nemesis, VNV Nation
|
|
|
