NearbyGamers

Rest in Peace Dnd

History

Forum:

NearbyGamers General
Hello, I'm looking to run and play games.
2007-11-16 22:57:28

I had the honor of playing the Original DnD back in the day when 1st edition or AD&D was in its glory, I played basic, I playtested the 2nd edition and played 3rd and through SRD rules 3.5. So I'm of the opinion real DnD died its slow death starting as far back as 1st edition. The original DnD was about love one could see Gygax really adored his creation then basic came out and that also had many charms. It was easier to play, accessible and kept many elements of the original DnD system. Then AD&D came along...

Now I know why he did it, money. Three hardbound books and the other things needed to play was comparatively expensive to original DnD and the boxed sets. You had the core books, you had supplemental books which kind of became mandatory to run the game. But it was a shame he gave up his dream the best game ever put out, the original DnD and later basic still on the money to a great degree.

Later 2nd edition another change that made AD&D obsolete but one could argue the mechanics and play were at least better.

Then WotC got the game and did 3rd edition and then screwed us over with 3.5 and the screw over continues with the upcoming incompatible with any earlier sets 4th edition. Its no longer about the love of the game of a designer putting his all into a creation but handing it over to professional design teams bent on making a cheap product that lost its soul.

And why the hell does more complicated equal better? For me the more complicated a game is the less fun it is to run and to play. The learning curves are a nightmare for new players. The GM has so much more work to do I think that is on purpose. Its easier to buy a book for a game world than make it up yourself anymore so MORE MONEY.

I wish someone could convince me I'm wrong and inspire me to even look at the DnD set about to come out but for me it seems DnD is dead and that started a long time ago, WotC just put the stake in its heart faster. And what I read about and saw as a preview for the 4th edition its going to be the most complicated and power hungry set ever to be released not suited to ROLE-playing but ROLL-playing.

Gamers posting in this discussion

If you can see this, you're blocking JavaScript. Or I broke the maps.
preload gamer marker preload gamer_group marker preload group marker
AD7D 2nd Edition game wanted!
2007-11-17 23:12:40

Wizards of the coast just about killed D&D when it took over and produced the bastardisation that is 3rd edition! I haven't bought anything new since and don't plan to get 4th either! What is the point of buying every product if they are going to make each edition incompatable with the next?

Their loss - I would have bought product even if I wasn't playing but no way am I getting stuff that I can not use with what I already have!

Is it raining AGAIN?
2007-11-18 06:46:48

What can I say that hasn't already been said? Well, if you don't mind a ramble, here I go... I started with basic D&D way back in the early eighties, subscribed to Dragon and Dungeon magazines, played lots of first edition AD&D and then bought up all kinds of materials for 2nd edition when that came out. I thought the game was moving in a good direction: AD&D was more "realistic" than basic, and with 2nd edition AD&D there were tons more options for making a character to fit the role a player envisioned. You finally got non-weapon proficiencies, a few new world settings, PC kits from the Complete series... I thought these were great ideas, definite improvements on 1st edition (which I hadn't bought books for, so didn't get upset about the incompatibility issue).

I never got on the bus for third edition. It was too slick, too power-hungry and soulless, like Sauron himself designed it. The One System to bind them all did just that -- d20 was everywhere! What a glut of material! I knew that I didn't need that kind of drain on my income. 3rd edition also ENCOURAGED min/maxing! It made designing the perfect (broken) combinations of feats and abilities the most important aspect of the game to most players. What ever happened to character, personality and role-play? That all became unimportant next to being able to upstage your fellow players by showing them what it means to really whup ass!

And then edition 3.5 came out a few years later, and I just had to chuckle at all those people who fell for it. Rebuy a bunch of the same books because of some rules tweaks? Just so that you can play the current, "official" version? I say, no chance in hell, but then, I wasn't playing in any "Living" campaigns, and I guess the devoted really didn't have a choice. Talk about a captive audience!

And now, there's 4th edition on the horizon. It's a shame that Dungeon and Dragon magazines have gone the way of the dodo as the Internet claims two more victims. What I don't understand is, why are people going to buy into yet another scheme to sell you the SAME books, with some slightly modified stats and rules? What are folks going to do with their PILES of 3rd & 3.5 edition books? What about all of those d20 compatible books that will be useless to them, now that d20 is being snuffed out?

I gave up on D&D long ago, which may be difficult for a lot of people to understand, because so many folks consider it the only game in town. Well, Wizards weren't able to kill off the remainder of the gaming market, thank goodness. I still have Call of Cthulhu, which is in its 6th edition, yet is still about 95% compatible with its 1st edition. Yes, I can still use my all of my old mods pretty much as written :-) I also have King Arthur Pendragon, now in its 5th edition, which is relatively unchanged from many of the prior editions. The only other game that I have that is vastly different from prior editions, is the massive new Hero System book. And it is a huge improvement over its predecessors, so I don't mind so much how hefty the new volume is.

Anyway, is there a point to my ramble? Just say NO to 4th edition. Keep your sanity by playing your 3.5 edition games. I mean really, do you want to spend hundreds upon hundreds of dollars to play what is essentially the same game? Don't let Wizards force you into a newer set of bloated, overly-detailed rules that you'll feel obligated to own. Newer isn't always better. I say, explore other options that allow for more fun and less looking up rules. I hear there is a new edition of Talislanta out there... Hell, try Hackmaster - at least it is pure monster-bashing, and not incorrectly labeled as a role-playing game like the new, new, new D&D will be.

Cogito, ergo ludo.
2007-11-18 18:19:58

The best thing about 3rd ed is that it is free, save for experience-related rules and few monsters. You can check it out and steal the useful bits and concepts for your own gaming. There is OSRIC which is, IIRC, an open source project for older editions of the game.

Anyway; a lot of the people, if not most of them, who design D&D under WotC's pay are enthusiastic gamers. It is not like they are intentionally making a bad product or anything. They are simply making a game that works and appeals to many gamers. Min-maxing and combat do. Hence, there is lot of detail given to them.

D&D 3rd and 4th do qualify as rpgs unless the term is defined in such a way as to make almost all games exempt from it. IME, D&D 3rd works the best as high-action, high-fantasy combat game with some cool story and setting bits mixed in for fun and profit. I haven't played the older editions, but from my understanding the style of play they work best with is different. Not objectively better or worse, but different.

I'm down for whatever.
2007-11-19 18:34:30

Man, it's so terrible how WotC applied modern game design theory to D&D!

I can't stand paying 60bux for a game book! Why, I never spent anything near that for a single board game or for any other RPG (especially not Wild Talents, Reign, Unknown Armies, Delta Green, Call of Cthluhu).

I don't even like d20 anymore, but that doesn't stop 3.5 from being a step in the right direction for D&D. Dungeons and Dragons has been about killing monsters and taking their stuff. That's pretty much it. Sure you could have epic campaigns and intricate political infighting, but D&D is good at being Dungeons and Dragons; heavy on the dungeons and heavy on the dragons.

— I'm testing asswords in personal tells.
Hello, I'm looking to run and play games.
2007-11-20 02:06:09

FREE Basic Fantasy RPG Rules

This is a dandy old school game using a few tiny elements from DnD 3.0 ,simply put armor class and some ideas for combat, generally it reminds me of oDnD and Basic DnD. And its kind of funny they are framework rules that allow the gamemaster to (GASP) customize them to fit their game. And get this if you want to add to the rules you can submit them to the designer and he might include them as optional rules. And all the rules you need are in 152 nice crisp pages and buying the rules hardcopy (yes you can) is very affordable off a site called Lulu my softcover wirebound rules with media rate shipping cost me $11.35, the hardcover is also fairly modest in price.

Most of all they are simple, straight forward and easy to use like the rules for DnD used to be. Sigh, for the good old days.

This is what I run and tr to play now, and its not a commercial game but an act of love from a designer with a joy for his game, that is sorely missed great free game systems.

BTW yes technically DnD 3.5 is available for free but try to use those rules as a GM or player in a face to face game I would say its very challenging if you can use them that way at all.

2007-11-23 08:49:14

Yes, rest in Peace and might I suggest on the tomb stone "Setting > System".

LARP/Tabletop. Good times.
2008-01-07 22:00:47

So why is everyone so horribly opposed to change? I disagree with 4th ed not having a publicly available SRD, but basically, everyone's gripe seems to be, "ZOMG THEY WANTS MORE MONEYS." Duh, it's a business, not a charity. Guess what you people would be doing if they were still making Basic? That's right, buying the new expansions and the new modules. Inflation would take care of the raise in price, so you'd still be spending the same amount of money.

I haven't seen anything but streamlining the system and adding more options. 3.0/3.5 is the smoothest-running iteration of DnD yet, and if your complaint is that it doesn't make for good RP, well, that's your DM's fault, not the system. If you need the system to make a good story for you, you probably don't have the imagination for DnD anyways, and should go grind something in WoW.

Whiney, immature people with no grip on reality are killing the hobby, not the game designers. I'll reserve judgement for 4th ed until I've got a copy of the book in my hands to read myself.

Truth.

-Smee

ROLEplayer
2008-01-08 13:31:13

I completely agree with you Smee.

You can't complain about the gaming SYSTEM when it comes to lack of RP. I've played a number of systems, and haven't seen a SINGLE system that promotes RPing.... cause it isn't the system that determines the level of RPing, it is the players and GM.

I absolutely love the d20 system, because you are able to actually see the action. I never played with miniatures until I played 3.5..... now I want a miniature combat system with all my games...

Though I will say that I'm not looking to buy 4th edition, as I'm happy with 3.5.... but then I haven't seen 4th edition.

As far as "Setting > System", well DnD has the best/most documented setting in my opinion... Forgotten Realms. A setting some people play with other systems.

GURPS. Check profile for more info.
2008-01-08 20:15:38

[quote]You can't complain about the gaming SYSTEM when it comes to lack of RP. I've played a number of systems, and haven't seen a SINGLE system that promotes RPing.... cause it isn't the system that determines the level of RPing, it is the players and GM.[/quote]

GURPS does... it's basic premise for rewards is based on how well you portray the character. I'm sure there are others.

Me disliking D&D has nothing to do with WotC, but that it's a poorly designed system that's too easy to unbalance. Adding another edition won't change that from the looks of it.

ROLEplayer
2008-01-11 22:58:18

If having it in print that the GM should reward players with XP for how well they played their characters then I point you to page 40-41 of the DMG.

I have played many game systems, though haven't played GURPS, so I don't know how much more GURPS does for promoting roleplaying.

I will back off and say that there are actually some game systems that I recall that promote roleplaying. I recall a game system that was more story based, and had very little in the way of any rules and dice rolling was at the minimum. I forget the game though, it was something out of Jules Vern genre game..... airships going to the moon or something.... =) It was well over 10 years ago.

however I've always seen the promotion of roleplaying boiling down to "Reward your players with XP for roleplaying"

Munchkinism is a threat to many a game, if the GM doesn't keep things in check.

I once remember playing Shadowrun where someone was hit in the leg with a missile... and survived... leg intact. =)

No school like old school.
2008-01-12 00:28:45

As long you keep playing it, it doesn't matter if someone is not printing it. As long as you keep playing, and enjoying it, D&D will never die.

obsessed with Eberron & WarMachine, & a big 4e fan
2008-01-14 21:04:12

I honestly don't understand all the bitching about how 4e will supposedly make all the 3.5e books people own suddenly useless. Most of the D&D books I own are Eberron books -- books, like the Player's Guide to Eberron, that go on for pages and pages with nary a stat, save Knowledge DCs to determine levels of PC knowledge. Even the books with more stats for monsters & items, like Magic of Eberron, still favor "fluff" text that builds the world, page for page. When 4e comes out, a minor amount of tweaking should be all that's really required for me to keep playing in Khorvaire -- something most GMs already do in spades via houserules.

On top of that, from what's been revealed so far, 4e looks like a very encouraging improvement. The Races & Classes design & developer diary presents a lot of reasons to look forward to the release in June. The core setting looks like it'll borrow from Eberron's "cohesive whole" philosophy of races -- a reason for each one to live how it does, where it does, beyond "here's another standard set of arbitrary Tolkienesque fantasy races, all living here for some reason."

Level adjustments being done away with? Hooray! Making unusual PCs, like a satyr I played in an old campaign, will require less tweaking, debuffing, and pleading with the GM. And since I love the psychology of warforged PCs, putting them on more even footing with other races will let me feel like less of a power gamer when I run one.

Condensing similar skills should cut down on some of the rules glut D&D is infamous for, and I think will strike a good balance between a very general universal skill system and one that rewards expertise. After all, who *does* want Spot and not Listen, Hide and not Move Silently, Balance and not Tumble?

I've heard some people say some new things borrow from videogames -- more racial feats, and talent trees. So what? Those things work in videogames because they're fun, why not let RPGs in on that? Good artists borrow, great artists steal. I see no problem with using what works.

And above all, the nice thing about RPGs is that GMs & players are at their leisure to take and leave what they want. No amount of trying will make my Ocarina of Time cart play on a Wii, or Twilight Princess work on an NES, but RPGs let you do the equivalent of both. Plenty of people have kept right on with AD&D; that's great! The important thing to realize is that 4e will expand the options of gaming groups, not limit them.

LARP/Tabletop. Good times.
2008-01-27 20:35:24

4e seems to have some good ideas, most of the stuff that looks ripped from MMO's doesn't look half bad from what's available now. Systems have to run a balance between character customization and preserving game balance. 3.5 did sway a bit in favor of customizations, but all in all, overspecialization usually results in a fatal flaw. Most of the time, you can balance your skills, but not be as good at it as someone who had specialized in one or the other. That's actually a pretty accurate reflection of the progress of skills that require dedicated development.

White Wolf's Storyteller system rewards roleplaying very well, but I've noticed that it will lead players to overact to try and claim rewards, or place their characters in situations that really don't seem appropriate to the personality of the character, in a player's bid to exploit roleplaying-based rules. I'll maintain my stance that the physical/magical system is what the rules should be for, the spirit in an RPG should be a good dynamic between players and DM's, something that really can't be written into a system.

Remember, it's the DM's job to say "No, that's not appropriate for the campaign I'm running, sorry, maybe in another game.". AS Mattereater said, you're free to take it or leave it as you see fit. Alot of the improvements are very streamlining, and it's alot easier to teach new players, in my experience.

2008-03-04 19:29:21

I was going to plug the Basic Fantasy RPG, but I see the original poster has already done so. I think that with the official rules becoming more and more complicated, BFRPG could actually be a commercial success, filling the same niche that Basic D&D did in the 1980s and 1990s as a cheap, simple, fantasy RPG. Particularly if it had better artwork and came packaged with a well designed introductory adventure!

Thomas Kolter, I agree with you 100%! That said, I'm sure many people will enjoy 4th edition D&D. I won't play it myself, but I don't object to Hasbro releasing it. After all, all the older material will still be available on pdf. So people who want a "rules-light" version of D&D can play any of the older editions. Or they can play games such as Basic Fantasy RPG, Castles and Crusades, True20 or Labyrinth Lord.

Hasbro may own the D&D trademark, but they no longer own the ideas behind the game. Anyone can create, distribute, market and play any D&D-style product they want, so who cares what Hasbro do?

The only thing I am rather pissed off at Hasbro about is that they failed to renew Kenzer and Co.'s licence to use AD&D material, thus stopping them from selling their Hackmaster game. Not that I play Hackmaster, but it wasn't a big success, and it's not going to be in competition with 4e, so what was the point?

This Discussion is Closed

Discussions are closed and stop accepting new posts if a moderator closes them or 60 days of inactivity passes.