Oh look, a gaming post
Oct. 11th, 2004 09:24 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
bluegargantuaHey,
I'm about to pontificate on gaming some more. So if you don't care, you should move along.
So today, I'm going to try and figure out what it is about D&D.
Here's the thing right: D&D even in it's current incarnation is not the holy grail of Role Playing games. Anything that it does can be done just as well, if not better, by pretty much any other gaming system on the planet. The whole level/class thing is just incredibly contrived and although the new edition gives you a level of flexibility that never existed before, it's still incredibly confining. The heart of the game revolves around killing things and taking their stuff. Then you cash the blood and plunder for improvements to your character and go back and do it again. Sure, you can have deep meaningful character interactions and social conflicts, but usually a quck sword stroke will solve your problems over a whisper campaign. Which is good because those foes are in the employ of a more powerful organization/foe who come after you as you rise in power. It's just really...meh.
Plus, the open source license means there's a flood of material on the market. Some of it is excellent, but most... It makes me wonder how long it will be before the entire system collapses in on itself. Worse, it's funneling tons of original material into the d20 mold. Some game worlds didn't have the best systems to begin with (Fading Suns), others had excellent systems (Legend of the Five Rings and DP9's Core System). Perhaps they were hoping to cash in on d20's popularity and bring people over, but I think we're losing perfectly good systems to the lowest common denominator of d20.
And yet. The longest running game I've ever played in (and still play in) is a D&D game and I own a fair amount of the material (probably not more than say...my Traveller obsession, but it's getting there). I'm actively looking forward to playing in another game. So what gives? What's with the love/hate?
See, for me, what it really is, is that D&D was born of wargamming and that's where it's really at for me. I really want to play a minatures game where I don't need to paint up vast armies of minatures and where I can really identify with "my side". In D&D, that's absolute -- there's only one figure, mine, and it's all I've got. The level/class thing becomes a challenge because I'm always dreaming of that next level when I'll get the cool ability or feat that'd let me mop up dozens of the mooks who are a real pain the ass today.
I've gotten a feel for how you need to take a "long view" in building up your character and understand that the choices you make now affect the kinds of fights you're going to have later.
So...I dunno. I think I'd almost be happier with a very short adventure arcs that let me run bunches of different character types. Maybe fight sequences entirely divorced from background adventures altogether.
It's also helped me figure out why I like Rogues so much. See, you're always looking to build your character up until he becomes "great" at what he does. Usually, that's a pretty high level. Fighters get good at what they do very quickly, Rogues shortly thereafter and clerics and mages usually take a bit longer (and even then, they always lust for the next higher-level spell slot). But fighters are only good at smaking things. Rogues, have the mad skill points and that's what makes them very good, very fast. It's not long before you hear a rogue making ridiculously hard skill checks with points to spare. There's a comfortable, smug feeling knowing that whenever you're called on to use a skill, you'll probably succeed at it. Moreso, when you know you can keep making those checks all day long and never run out of "uses".
See, it's right there. It's not that I want to spend all this time building up the character to do cool stuff, I want a cool character to be in a tough fight and do cool things. And when I get tired of him, I'll just think of some cool new thing to do and go with that.
So that's where it's at for me right now. I love D&D the wargame but I'm a bit underwhelmed with D&D the RPG.
later
Tom
I'm about to pontificate on gaming some more. So if you don't care, you should move along.
So today, I'm going to try and figure out what it is about D&D.
Here's the thing right: D&D even in it's current incarnation is not the holy grail of Role Playing games. Anything that it does can be done just as well, if not better, by pretty much any other gaming system on the planet. The whole level/class thing is just incredibly contrived and although the new edition gives you a level of flexibility that never existed before, it's still incredibly confining. The heart of the game revolves around killing things and taking their stuff. Then you cash the blood and plunder for improvements to your character and go back and do it again. Sure, you can have deep meaningful character interactions and social conflicts, but usually a quck sword stroke will solve your problems over a whisper campaign. Which is good because those foes are in the employ of a more powerful organization/foe who come after you as you rise in power. It's just really...meh.
Plus, the open source license means there's a flood of material on the market. Some of it is excellent, but most... It makes me wonder how long it will be before the entire system collapses in on itself. Worse, it's funneling tons of original material into the d20 mold. Some game worlds didn't have the best systems to begin with (Fading Suns), others had excellent systems (Legend of the Five Rings and DP9's Core System). Perhaps they were hoping to cash in on d20's popularity and bring people over, but I think we're losing perfectly good systems to the lowest common denominator of d20.
And yet. The longest running game I've ever played in (and still play in) is a D&D game and I own a fair amount of the material (probably not more than say...my Traveller obsession, but it's getting there). I'm actively looking forward to playing in another game. So what gives? What's with the love/hate?
See, for me, what it really is, is that D&D was born of wargamming and that's where it's really at for me. I really want to play a minatures game where I don't need to paint up vast armies of minatures and where I can really identify with "my side". In D&D, that's absolute -- there's only one figure, mine, and it's all I've got. The level/class thing becomes a challenge because I'm always dreaming of that next level when I'll get the cool ability or feat that'd let me mop up dozens of the mooks who are a real pain the ass today.
I've gotten a feel for how you need to take a "long view" in building up your character and understand that the choices you make now affect the kinds of fights you're going to have later.
So...I dunno. I think I'd almost be happier with a very short adventure arcs that let me run bunches of different character types. Maybe fight sequences entirely divorced from background adventures altogether.
It's also helped me figure out why I like Rogues so much. See, you're always looking to build your character up until he becomes "great" at what he does. Usually, that's a pretty high level. Fighters get good at what they do very quickly, Rogues shortly thereafter and clerics and mages usually take a bit longer (and even then, they always lust for the next higher-level spell slot). But fighters are only good at smaking things. Rogues, have the mad skill points and that's what makes them very good, very fast. It's not long before you hear a rogue making ridiculously hard skill checks with points to spare. There's a comfortable, smug feeling knowing that whenever you're called on to use a skill, you'll probably succeed at it. Moreso, when you know you can keep making those checks all day long and never run out of "uses".
See, it's right there. It's not that I want to spend all this time building up the character to do cool stuff, I want a cool character to be in a tough fight and do cool things. And when I get tired of him, I'll just think of some cool new thing to do and go with that.
So that's where it's at for me right now. I love D&D the wargame but I'm a bit underwhelmed with D&D the RPG.
later
Tom
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-10-11 07:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-11 09:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-12 07:04 pm (UTC)But could you make it harder? I mean, c'mon. In one shot we've got a seekrit stronghold, a mysterious patron, and an armory. Not to mention the wagons full of Dog Swag.
So what if we almost died. Twice. We didn't, did we?
- That short asshole with the big honkin' morningstar.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-11 07:41 pm (UTC)That said, how'd you like to run a rogue in an Oriental Adventures setting with a shaman and a monk on Monday nights?
no subject
Date: 2004-10-12 05:16 pm (UTC)aw man, I'd love to be in a game with you, but Monday is my "spent all weekend with the girl, need to clean up now" night and CT is *just* outta range.
:(
Tom
no subject
Date: 2004-10-11 07:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-12 05:17 pm (UTC)Hey bitch!
Run a Heavy Gear game!
Tom
p.s. I do like how DP9 incorporated the take 10 and take 20 rules into their system (along with a couple cool new bits).
no subject
Date: 2004-10-11 08:29 pm (UTC)Toh-MAY-toh / Toh-MAH-toh
Date: 2004-10-11 08:46 pm (UTC)You say that everything D&D does can be done as well, or perhaps better by pretty much every other game on the planet. This is true. But the same can be said for just about every other game on the planet. RPGs have been around for about 30 years, so most of the kinks have gotten ironed out of everything. Most of the games out there do stuff reasonably well.
You say the class/level thing is restrictive. This is true. But every game has it's restrictions in how you do things. World of Darkness' character generation system, with it's contrived primary, secondary, and tertiary groups is, in it's own way, just as restrictive as classes. And, if you've ever read and appreciated a sonnet, you'll know that sometimes restictive rules can be an enhancement, rather than a detriment.
You say the heart of the game revolves around killing things and taking their stuff. That's true, insofar as the rules as written are mostly about that. For two reasons - First and foremost because the designers thought to go out and ask, and found players wanted that to be in the game. Second because making the heart of the game something else makes it more difficult to customize. And, for all that focus, the game works fine and dandy if you don't play it about killing things and taking their stuff.
You note that the OGL has meant that there's a lot of stuff on the market, and much of it is junk. True again - as the old saw goes, 90% of everything is crud. But that goes for the supplements of all the other games, too. At least with the flood of d20 stuff out there, you have enough left in the 10% of good stuff to have some options.
Seems to me that D&D gets a lot of bashing. But, you see, it is a big boy, and it can take it. The "network externalities" did help it be profitable, sure. But if the game really stank, it would still have flopped. At the heart of it, the thing works pretty darned well.
And, for all that ranting, it isn't the game I play most often these days.
No it's not
Date: 2004-10-12 03:04 am (UTC)No it's not. WoD is restrictive, just like D&D, but not just as restrictive. Any character can buy any skill - because in the real world, and in all forms of dramatic storytelling, characters are capable of independent thought, and are not shoe-horned into only a few areas of study. It is the rare character in White Wolf that has stats so low so as to be 1/3/3 or 2/2/3, whereas D&D forces your character to always be poor in certain areas, and to only be strong in the areas of expertise for your "class."
Yes it is. :p
Date: 2004-10-12 05:52 am (UTC)Odd, because in WoD, the restictions on skills have nothing at all to do with thought, but instead are based upon some contrived notion of aptitude.
In D&D, you have restrictions that are, in terms of story, based upon the character's training. Characters [i]can[/i] have any skill, but if they're purchasing something outside the list they're assumed to be trained in, they have to work a little harder at it by spending more skill points.
I WoD, you have restictions based upon supposed aptitude with Physical, Social, or Mental skills. You *will* be good in one area, and you *won't* be good in another, and that's final. This made even worse in WoD 2.0 with the lack of freebies in character generation. If you want a character that's evenly distributed, too darned bad. If you want someone that's even better in the primary area, and worse in the tertiary, too darned bad. The system's lack of resolution makes the problem even worse for attributes.
So, I say it is just as restrictive, in it's own way.
Don't get me wrong - I think restrictions are pretty necessary to make the games robust and interesting. WoD and D&D simply have different approaches to forcing resouce allocation choices.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-12 05:45 am (UTC)I used to despise D&D and d20. Now, after a few games with good GMs and characters I like, I don't mind them as much. I think levels and classes are really only suited to the hack'n'loot school of gaming, but my friend
It's only a very few systems that have managed to transcend RPG's wargaming roots, and most of those are bizarre mutants that aren't suited for the mass market. *hugs Nobilis and Amber*
By the way
Date: 2004-10-12 05:54 am (UTC)The Amber/Noblis game.
Coming soon.
Seriously.
Help look for players.
Tom
Re: By the way
Date: 2004-10-12 06:13 am (UTC)Unfortunately, since
Re: By the way
Date: 2004-10-12 07:28 am (UTC)Re: By the way
Date: 2004-10-12 08:42 am (UTC)Re: By the way
Date: 2004-10-12 09:10 am (UTC)Re: By the way
Date: 2004-10-12 05:30 pm (UTC)Here's the cheat sheet.
Tom
no subject
Date: 2004-10-12 06:20 am (UTC)I've yet to play under one who would allow it. Putting the weakness of personal anecdotes aside - you aren't being fair. You're comparing D&D core rules to WoD non-core house rules.
In essence, what you're telling me is that folks have found the WoD rules as written too restictive, so that they commonly need house rules to become flexible. That more supports my point than counters it.
It's much, much harder to kitbash D&D that way.
Nonsense. All that needs to happen is this conversation -
Player: "Hey, DM! Could I please drop Concentration as a class skill and take Perform instead?"
DM: "I don't see as that'll break anything. Sure, go ahead."
Kitbashing complete, with about the same amount of work you'd need to get a WoD GM to allow you to swap points around.
I think levels and classes are really only suited to the hack'n'loot school of gaming
You are allowed to think what you like. I think that the bias against classes and levels, and the thought that somehow it is only suited to hack-and-slash gaming is an outdated (and somewhat elitist) historic artifact. Back in the 80s and 90s it was a fair criticism. But these days the prejudice has little basis.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-12 06:41 am (UTC)WoD is just as much of a class-based system as D&D, only they call 'em "clans." Or "traditions." Or "kith." Or whatever the hell it is in Werewolf. In case you missed it in your fervor to defend D&D, I'm not terrifically impressed with either system. (God, I feel so emo. No system can ever meet my exacting requirements! Tom, did you follow that link I posted to somethingawful yesterday? That's me, only for games instead of bands. *dies*)
What I don't think is coming through is that I really, really enjoy roleplaying, even in some of the most screwed-up systems out there. Which both D&D and WoD aren't. But who the hell wants to talk about the good bits?
(Oh, and implying that I'm "elitist" will only make me cackle with glee and embrace the label with pride.)
Whee, that was a ramble. Okayworknow.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-12 09:00 am (UTC)Not the same people, in my particular case. But again, personal experience is generally not a good measure. We each individually work only with a handful of GMs in our entire gaming careers, but there are hundreds of thousands of GMs out there.
In case you missed it in your fervor to defend D&D, I'm not terrifically impressed with either system.
No, I didn't miss it in my fervor. I'm simply continuing along the lines already in place. You in particular aren't the full focus of the discussion.
Plus, saying that it has flaws doesn't mean you find it unimpressive. A great many impressive things in the world have flaws.
(Oh, and implying that I'm "elitist" will only make me cackle with glee and embrace the label with pride.)
I said that I think the notion is elitist. A person can hold an elitist notion without being full-fleged elitist themselves.
However, if we're working from my book, you probably don't want to be called "elitist", because it has a strong implication of close-mindedness.
Story vs. System
Date: 2004-10-12 07:41 am (UTC)Little Tiny Nutshell Time:
(Opinions and omissions for simplicity ahead. Bear with me.)
For a full-blown (and generally referred to as "good") game, there are 2 elements: Story and System. If the Story can stand on its own such that everyone decides what happens and is happy with it, you don't really need a System at all. The System is the set of rules that arbitrates what happens next when people don't agree (ref: Taking 10 in D&D).
That in mind, D&D is a decent system, and just as flexible as anything else given the OK from your GM. Swap skills? Sure! Swap class attributes? Have fun! Swap BAB progression for better saves? Knock yourself out! Start with a "basic" character class and add what you want your character to be able to do from a huge list? Sounds good to me!
D&D/AD&D is also the first system that many people (including m'self) have played, so it's sort of a de facto "baseline" system to base comparisons with everything else.
There's a problem when the System overshadows the Story, or when players don't realize that they're not 100% restricted by the System.
So D&D is what it is - a set of rules to handle combat, survival, and other weird things (spells, etc.). If WotC could publish a book that would make every snot-nosed middle schooler a world-class storyteller, they might just do that, but there's no easy way to make sure the Story will work as well as the System. So most companies stick with System with some story ideas thrown in for good measure. But you look at most modules out there and it's a progression of obstacles, not really a story.
Quick aside: Psi World rocked. The flavor was cool (near-future USA with an X-Men style awakening of powers and subsequent overreaction from government), and the game I played had a good rhythm to it. The rules blew chunks. Psi characters could kick the snot out of any normal, and the one huge flaw I remember made it better for you to use weapons untrained than to actually start learning them (i.e. you have a 20% chance to hit untrained, but when you buy a skill point, you went down to 5%). But I still remember the experience positively.
Another aside: I played an AD&D v1 game set in Greyhawk. The GM (Phil) used ALL THE RULES, including weapon speed and adjustments vs AC types. It was one of the best games I've been in because the story was so cool and because Phil did the modifications on the fly and kept the rules from getting in the way of the fun.
I don't really know where I'm going here, so I'll sum up with this:
D&D =is= a wargaming system, just like 95% (if not 100%) of the rules systems on the market. It takes a GM to make the story interesting enough and to keep the rules out of the way so the players don't really notice the system at all, and then it becomes a "cool system" in the players' eyes.
Re: Story vs. System
Date: 2004-10-12 05:22 pm (UTC)"The rules blew chunks. Psi characters could kick the snot out of any normal, and the one huge flaw I remember made it better for you to use weapons untrained than to actually start learning them..."
That's not a flaw, that's a feature!
"It's a game about psionic people. You play a psionic."
"Do I kick ass?"
"Hell yeah!"
"Sign me up."
Tom
Re: Story vs. System
Date: 2004-10-12 06:52 pm (UTC)But the skill system... Ye Gods.
"Huh. I've got shot at quite a lot, and I didn't want to exhaust myself using my TK shield. I did some damage with the .45 Auto I snatched, but I should really figure out how to actually use it well..."
(2 weeks at the shooting range later, our hero gets into a firefight.)
"I've got madd gunn skillz now, you government mooks!" *bang* *bang* *fumble* "AGH! MY FOOT!"
(And yes, this is condensed but did actually happen. And yes, I laughed my ass off too.)
But let's not forget....
Date: 2004-10-12 11:03 am (UTC)Then, without warning or reason, there's a small table in front of you. It has on it a glass of water and a single, lone, cracker. A saltine, perhaps. Nothing too remarkable. After you quickly down the glass of water, you stare at the cracker for a mere moment. Then you bite into it. It's not only the best cracker you've ever had, but possibly the finest tasting food to ever pass your lips.
That's what it was like for me when 3rd edition D&D came out.
After having spent an entire childhood playing "basic", "expert", then 1st and 2nd edition AD&D, it was the most welcome sight to my weary gaming eyes. We played so much of those games, we got to the point where all of the horrendous flaws in the mechanics drove us to start writing our own RPGs (don't even ask me about the WWF wrestling RPG we cooked up one summer). I think we sometimes forget how absolutely terrible these precursors were. "But I just want to climb my way over that 15 foot wall, why can't I do that? I'm pretty strong." "Well, you're not a thief, so no." "Aaaagggghhhh!!!" Unfortunately, if we wanted to game in a Tolkien-esque world, it was our only real option. Yeah, MERP eventually came out, but I thought it was pretty bad as well. Palladium was a welcome change that we explored for a bit, and had the nice benefit of being the same system for Robotech, but there just weren't too many supplements and modules for it. 2nd edition AD&D didn't even had SKILLS, for deity's sake. It was near-maddening to the point where I forsook the fantasy RPG genre altogether. We buried ourselves in 1st edition Star Wars (d6 based) and we were content. Nice thing about that system was that it was totally skill based and not level based.
But, again, the system is only as good as the rest of the game. A great storyline can make up for a mediocre rules system. I actually was involved with a great Marvel Super Heroes game (1st edition), which is one of the worst RPG systems EVER, but I have fond memories of that being a great campaign.
So, where was I? Oh, yeah. Sure d20 can leave a lot to be desired, but I'm still riding the high of that most yummy of crackers. It'll probably wear off someday, but my pain runs deep and it will take time. I believe the rules system can only be as much a part of the game as your story allows, which holds true for any RPG.
I also believe, somewhere in the optimistic side of my brain, that d20 was truly written "by gamers, for gamers", as advertised. So, these guys went through the same trials and tribulations as we did, and wanted something better. Whether that's true or not is another story, but I sleep better at night thinking it could be that way.
You know, I'm sure we could come up with a fully skill-based 3rd edition D&D. You get skill points after each adventure and spend them on skills, feats, attack bonuses, saves, new spells, special abilities, etc. Of course, depending on your 'class', those things would be cheaper for some that others.
Random encounter....
3rd edition fighter: "So, what do you do?"
Basic edition Elf: "I'm an Elf."
3rd edition fighter: "Yes, I see that, but what is your profession? Are you a fighter, a mage, a thief perhaps?"
Basic edition Elf: "No, I'm just an Elf."
3rd edition fighter: ".....I see."
(I just remembered, I also really dug Top Secret, SI. Skill-based system with an easy hit location chart. Was a lot of fun back in the day. Ah, the memories.)
Re: But let's not forget....
Date: 2004-10-12 05:25 pm (UTC)"You know, I'm sure we could come up with a fully skill-based 3rd edition D&D. You get skill points after each adventure and spend them on skills, feats, attack bonuses, saves, new spells, special abilities, etc. Of course, depending on your 'class', those things would be cheaper for some that others."
Yeah, that would totally rock. I understand that Mutants and Masterminds does something similiar.
"(I just remembered, I also really dug Top Secret, SI. Skill-based system with an easy hit location chart. Was a lot of fun back in the day. Ah, the memories.)"
Yup. Top Secret ruled. The modules are great for In Nomine games.
later
Tom
Re: But let's not forget....
Date: 2004-10-12 07:00 pm (UTC)Custom BAB, Saves, and HP don't fall into this method, but that's not too far of a stretch...
Personally, I think character levels are a convenient yardstick, especially from a GM's point of view.
And I still want to rework the Godlike mechanic into more of a fantasy feel. I just like the fact that you make one roll and you can tell a) if you hit, b) how well you hit, and c) where you hit. Granted, you're rolling a hand full of d10s (which is a plus in my book), but what the hey - that's why I got into Champions way back when.