D&D Miniatures

[42]

I think I would have to agree with SE about this. We've already discussed how the "wargame" origins of D&D have been disputed. And I would agree that D&D doesn't really have everything necessary to make a wargame. It's always had sucky mass combat rules, which are usually the core of wargames.

I also have to agree with some authors I've heard talk about story-telling and RPGs. That is that people who feel that RPGs are about character development and story-telling are very frustrated writers who lack the inspiration to actually write. It's a Role-Playing GAME, not a writing/story-telling workshop.

Also, it would be hard for me to disassociate D&D and RPG, because D&D sort of sets the paradigm of what makes and RPG. D&D is definitely what most people think of when they think of RPGs. It was first and has gotten the most publicity.

[Mr_Pleasington]

The 'brilliance' of 3E wore off on me long ago...right after running a year long campaign.  Its then I realized just how streamlined it was and just how many options there were that I enjoyed playing older version much better.  They were just more fun for us.  3E brought forth more rules lawyering than any other game I've played, hands down.  And lets not get started on whether or not you can tinker with the system much at all...

So I won't be picking up 3.5, nor the minis game, since I invested in Chainmail and got the short end of that stick.  

If I want to play D&D, I'll play a version that's more fun...like Hackmaster, Rule Cyclopedia, or AD&D

Of course, Savage Worlds and Buffy have me a little busy right now...

[42]

I'm not necessarily saying that D&D 3.5 is brilliant. What I'm saying is that WotC marketing is brilliant. First, they're one of the few (if not the only) rpg companies that actually markets their products, instead of just throwing their stuff on some game store shelf and expecting people to buy it. Also, releasing various editions and versions of D&D is also a smart move because it gets a larger demographic. Sure you may not play 3.0 or 3.5, but if you play 2nd, 1rst or basic, you're stiff a D&D player which boost the total of people who would be willing to buy products from them.

That is something that I with other game designers would catch onto. It's like some people like diet pepsi, others like pepsi twist and some just like the regular stuff. They are still all buying from the same producer. Now GURPS and Palladiukm try to do this but they haven't ever really changed their system. The Champions/Heros system only produced one system and once everyone who was intersted bought it, the company was left without a product to sell. So changing your product regularly, is just basic smarts when it comes to marketing. Otherwise people lose interest and you're just left with the die-hards and cult followers who evetually will also lose reason to buy from you.

[Spriggan]

I never looked at it that way.  Good point 42.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

Rules heavy != wargame
failure to focus on story != mechanics problem
too many rules to memorize != true

In less geeky terms, you can have a rules heavy game and that doesn't make it a wargame. If your rpg fails to focus on a story, I still maintain that's a player problem. I don't want the system dictating my story. That is exactly one of my biggest problems with Nobilis and White  Wolf and their ilk. THey're too specific to one type of story telling, which  imo  weakens the system. And frankly, I could play entire campaigns of D&D 1st Ed  only referencing the MM for specific stat details on certain monsters, and even with that we often had those memorized as well. As 1st ed was much more complex than 3ed, well, I have to disagree that you can't memorize the rules.

[JP Dogberry]

Ok, this is a point I will give you.  It *is* more of an issue about players than the system. Personally, while I prefer story oriented games, I have nothing against those who prefer "Gamer" or "simulation" styles.  If that's the way you enjoy your games, play them that way, and repect for doing it.

The ability to memorise all the rules is certainly beyond me, but I'll take your word that it's possible. It can't be ignored though, that D&D is combat centered/focused. There *is* more of an emphasis on combat than most other things, and so you are in a way forced to adopt a "Gamer" style. It is my opinion, and that is all, that if you prefer combat-oriented games, a wargame is a better choice. I find D&D far to restrictive, mainly in how the class system almost forces you to play a sterotype. But if you enjoy the game, play it.

42, I take offece at the "writer" comment. I could easily retort by saying that it is a *Role-playing* game, and that all people who play d&D are wannabe accountants who get their fun from calculating logistics, but the simple fatc of the matter is that that isn't true, and neither is your comment.  I do spend time actually writing, yet I still find enjoyment in crafting a well-tuned story with others in the form of RPGs, such as an Ars Magica saga I am currently involved in. But hey, that's my style.

[42]

A writing/story-telling workshop is where people create stories as group.

In role-playing games, there are set rules to which agree to follow. There is also usually a preconcieved setting which would exclude part of the story-telling process.

Its because of the prepackaged elelments that RPGs provide, that writers I have met hold some disdain for RPG writers who think they are story-tellers. And by writers I mean Orsen Scott Card, Dave Wolverton, Margeret Weiss and others. And I can see how RPGs become a crutch for story-tellers, because they can limit the amount of ideas of the story-teller.

As I see it, RPGs are games, not creative writing courses.

[JP Dogberry]

A perfectly valid point of view to hold. However, as a game, part of the fun can, if you are that way inclined, from telling a story in a group. I don't think it is a substitute for writing, nor does telling a story in such a way make you a writer. But it does (Or rather, can)  exercise the same sorts of creative skills that a writer would use. Do you look down at people who tell scary ghost stories to each other at midnight, even though it is equally superflous? I doubt you would unles shtese people did it all the time, and considered themselves artists because of this.

I don't consider myself a genius storyteller because I roleplay in a story-oriented style. It's just something I do for fun. I agree with you entirely that playing RPGs does not make you a storyteller, but it is possible to be a storyteller (good or bad) and play RPGs.

[42]

I know people who are professional story-tellers, and that is a different thing than playing and RPG.

One of my cousins makes a living as a story-teller for festivals, fairs, local events and contests. The works she does is very different than what RPG players do, (even those who claim to be story-telling gamers).

So I don't really consider teling ghost-stories around a camp fire as the same as playing an RPG. It's not that I look down on it, it's just something different.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

No, I don't think that D&D is more restrictive than wargames. Most miniature wargaming, as I understand it, has preset options for combatants. D&D presents a lot more options for that. I'm not sure where your argument is going either, as you say that wargames are better for combat than D&D, ... because D&D restricts your character?

Yes, I feel that D&D might be more restrictive than point based systems, but there are ways around that for role playing.

When it comes down to it, there really is very little that needs defining in a role playing game other than combat. It's where you find the most situations where a character can succeed or fail without a basis on his role playing ideas (generally). In game social interaction shouldn't be goverened by many rules at all. If the player/character has a good idea that could work given the outline of what can happen in that adventure, allow it. Otherwise.....

I like D&D partially because it IS so definitive. I can worry about my story instead of spending 10 hours a day trying to create opponents.

I prefer story driven playing as well, but I also like the occassional dungeon crawl. But role playing isn't storytelling, or, as 42 says, I'd sit around telling stories and not care a wit about the rules. I'd certainly stay away from systems that already tried to create a story for me. However, I have to agree that there's nothing specifically wrong with emphsizing character and plot in an RPG. Everyone has something they like to focus on. Each party just needs to remember that doesn't make them BETTER than another party.

[JP Dogberry]

Ok, I probably worded that badly. I think that D&D because of character restrictions and overabundance of rules is not the best system for roleplaying, and that is seems almost similar to a wargame in its depth of combat. But it isn't designed as a wargame, and so isn't best for that either. There are ways around D&D's problems, but you shouldn't *need* a way around problems, it's better to simply not have problems. But that's just my take.

Anyway, it's been a good debate.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

Sure, it's always better not to have problems. But there isn't a system out there that has no problems. The question is simply can you work around the problems. I really don't think that D&D's problems are so hard to get around, especially if you have the attitude toward the game issue already in hand.

[Fellfrosch]

A very interesting discussion. As an avid wargamer, I can definitely see JamPaladin's point here--D&D's combat system is closer to a wargame than any other RPG I've ever seen, and the current surge of mini rules strengthens that aspect. As SaintEhlers pointed out, though, that doesn't make it bad, just different.

I consider myself a story-oriented roleplayer, even though I love RPG combat. I don't necessarily consider myself a story-oriented GM, but that's another matter.

One of the reasons I like D&D is that it presents strong archetypes and then allows you to play with them. In our current D&D game, based on Savage Species using all monster characters, I'm playing an ancient god who became a mummy and now, thousands of years later, became a paladin of himself as his only believer. Mummies and paladins are both very strong, opposed archetypes, and combining them into a single character is lods of fun and creates a lot of interesting situations for roleplaying and, yes, combat. I think everyone on the thread has said this already, but I'll repeat it--it's not the system you use, it's how you use it.

[42]

I definitely agree with what has been said. It doesn't matter on the system, but how you use it. Right now I'm trying to make a character for a mechwarrior type game using the Hero/Champion system. It's proving to be very difficult since my character doesn't fit into the archetypes too well. Course, this character would be almost impossible to build in D20.

[JP Dogberry]

Fellsfrosch, I very much agree with the point "Its how you use it." Taking a game like D&D and doing something as original as the mummy/paladin thing is playing the system to its strengths, and is a great idea. Much of my problem in D&D comes from the infinate munchkin players who do nothing but combat scenarios, but when people use the system to that sort of end, my negative comments are null and void. Respect.