Timewaster's Guide Archive
Games => Role-Playing Games => Topic started by: Fellfrosch on April 25, 2005, 11:22:47 AM
-
Jam review the Players Handbook first: http://www.timewastersguide.com/view.php?id=1041
A lot of Jam's problems with the game stem from the old argument about gamist, narrativist, and simulationist gameplay--narrativists tend to dislike systems that use too many rules, yet gamists tend to dislike anything that doesn't. D&D 3.5 is decidedly gamist, though the system itself, as Jam pointed out, can be used to other ends (as proven in the d20 Call of Cthulu, which has virtually no combat focus at all). Overall I have to say this was an excellent review: quick to point out flaws, but just as quick to give credit for quality. He managed to avoid bias in either direction, which is nice.
(Oh, and Jam: in my last D&D game almost everybody in the group maxed their Charisma, because of the social bonuses and several class bonuses. So it's a lot more valuable in practice than it looks on paper.)
-
Thankyou. I felt everyone knew the general word on D&D by now, so I didn't even try to be objective about this, or present it as such.
The review does show my opinion though exactly. I love fiddling with experience and equipment and such, and I love rolling dice and dungeon crawl, but I hate the way it does everything. It has no right to annoy me this much.
See, to perfect D&D I'd change everything about it. But that would destroy everything I like about it. See the quandry?
-
That's because you hate what it represents, but you enjoy it in spite of yourself. Kind of like me and American Idol.
-
which is why I hate BOTH of you!
wait.. no... that's not right.
Look! A monkey!
-
Actually as you level up you tend to have skill totals stupidly high - 60+ - which means the dice is kinda wierdly useless.
And yes, D&D promotes stereotypes a lot. Far more, certainly, than White Wolf splat books, the traditional focus of RPG stereotype based hatred (RPGSBH in short).
-
/me tries to figure out how to get 60+ on a skill roll.
+7 for an attribute at 24 (not realistic), +4 for some class bonus, +2 for a feat, +23 for max ranks in a class skill at level 20, +4 for a racial ability... lessee... that makes 40. An unrealistic 40, at that. I don't think I've ever seen a legitimate bonus above +35, and that was extremely rare, and only showed up in one or two skills.
and maybe white wolf has changed, but when I played back in the day, those vampires were at least as stereotyped at any dwarf.
-
White wolf books state, repeatedly, that each splat is not intended to be a homogenius 'one-man' group. The splat books generally spend a lot of effort on that point. D&D 3e, on the other hand, did not.
-
I think I have heard wells stated that D&D is both a role-playing game and a battle-tactics game.
I'm also finding that people play D&D differently and everyone has a slightly different understanding or interpretation of the rules. A lot of rules get ignored, no matter how clearly stated.
I think D&D strikes a nice balance between role-playing and war-tactics. It is annoying when it seems as though your players just want to bash stuff rather than role-play. Yet there are down sides to too much role-playing, particularly when people start to take it too seriously, or there are other issues in the group. At that point it is nice just being able to fall back on some standardized rules, even if the rules don't always make sense.
Plus, D&D has scores more players than any other RPG, so it's easier to get into D&D groups, even if it isn't one's first choice.
Oh, no matter what anyone says, I think think that White Wolf enforces stereotypes, even if they don't intend too. So their declarations that they don't mean for their books to enforce stereotypes is just frivilous tripe.
-
Yeah but does it score more players because its better or because it has the advertising weight of the worlds largest toy company behind them.
I thought about this the other day, a lot of D&D's appeal is name cachet, people remember it from their youth and want to go back to that. But D&D has been good at getting new gamers pretty consistently and I think I know why now.
Advertising and distribution.
D&D is the only game I can find with any regularity in both RPG stores and bookstores. I'd say about 1/2 to 3/4 of all D&D sales have been in regular bookstores (although I dont have numbers) the only other company to do s well in the market is white wolf, who also ship to bookstores. Gurps has designed a comic book style distribution network and are only occasionally available outside of RPG and Hobby stores. Palladium is almost impossible to find. So when it comes to shelf space and visibility the one with the most money wins.
All this would matter more if D&D were a crappy game.
But it isnt. Its just mediocre and thats enough for the kid in Rural Minnesota to enjoy.
But since I like Jam am firmly in the Narrativist camp I dont know hoow objective I am.
-
It's kinda a habit for wizards. Now, I'm biased, but even objectively, Shadowfist is far, far better than magic on a lot of levels. I won't justify that, just take it as a given for now.
Now, Magic is the most popular game. Why? Because they did it first, and they did it well enough, as was pointed out on the shadowfist forum a little while ago. The game isn't good, but it is decent, and it has that huge market leader thing that causes everyone to pick it up.
-
White wolf books state, repeatedly, that each splat is not intended to be a homogenius 'one-man' group. The splat books generally spend a lot of effort on that point. D&D 3e, on the other hand, did not.
making a statement that "this is not a one man group" and then proceding to act like it is doesn't change anything. That statement means nothing.
What I want to know is how else the books are supposed to tell you rules. It seems really stupid to include a statement on every other page saying "these rules are subject to DM discretion." what a pointless waste of space. No one on the planet ever plays a game without any variation at all, so why keep telling people to do what they already do? That the rule book makes a statement without qualifying it doesn't mean that they're trying to keep you from ever modifying the rules, it's jsut good writing. "If you want, here's one way you might want to think about using..." (grappling, skills, feats, money, damage, etc) would be lame. Use paragraphs, sentences, or words at your own discretion. That's the way everyone else does it.
And I have to make one more complaint about the review. I've put it off, but I can't hold back. Yes, the second shortest chapter is on fleshing out hte characters. That doesn't bother me remotely and seems like a poor complaint. I don't read any of that stuff in other books anyway. I know how to make a character (as in a personality). I don't need advice on that in every RPG book I ever read. I just need the crunchy bits. How do I do the mechanics for this system. That's it.
-
There is some stuff I would like to comment on, but after writing it out I guess I didn't care that much afterall.
-
True, SE, you don't need a lot of "how to flesh out a character" stuff, but you've been roleplaying forever. For a new kid just getting into RPGs, it helps to have a big section on that.
-
There's still a problem with the complaint.
While there may not be a chapter devoted to it, there's TONS of material throughout the book about it. Each race and class has info about how they fit into society, typical personalities, etc. All that stuff people complain about as stereotypes? Yup, there for newbies so they can get an idea of how it works. and there are pages and pages of it throughout the whole manual. Every chapter has information on the setting. The weapon descriptions? Good for envisioning whether your character would use it. Much easier to do that when you have a paragrpah describing the khopesh sword than just a single price listing for "sword."
Look, D&D's not perfect, but I think 90% of the complaints about it dictating rules and not paying attention to role playing is based on reputation, not on what's actually in the book. You could make the same complaints about any other book. "It dictates the setting I have to use to me. I don't want that, so the game is poor." It's better to have the rules available and choose not to use some of them than it is to never have the option.
-
I think most of Jams comments are being overlooked because of a small part of his review about character background and development. What about miniatures? What about the flavorlessness of the text? He never stated that he hated it, I read this review as a "its just not my style" kind of review. He prefaces it well with his own gaming history and I think he makes a lot of valid points.
-
I never said it was a badly written view or skewed balance. I'm just saying I disagree with this particular point.
-
Yeah, but you're wrong.
-
And now he does the DM Guide: http://www.timewastersguide.com/view.php?id=1042&dep=6
I recognize that number crunching is a big sticking point for you, Jam, but I want to point out that the class and experience system in D&D has the best multiclassing options I've ever seen. The ability to take a level in anything, at any time, and create your own character as you go is great, and offers a ton of variety. It's very number-heavy, as you say, but after one campaign in the system I knew it well enough that I didn't notice anymore.
-
woah woah woah woah. NOW I'm saying it's unfair and unbalanced.
Jam criticized the PHB for not having info about making a character. WHich, I said wasn't fair because I don't *need* that information. Yet the DMG review proceeds to criticize it FOR having material of considerably less use to long time gamers. This pretty much lends credence to my mostly unstated opinion that Jam's perception of the problems with D&D is due primarily to complaints others have given. You criticize one book because it gives stuff you don't need, and criticize another book because it DOESN'T include stuff on the same level.
I don't think you've given it a fair shake, Jam.
I also don't think the XP system criticism is at all accurate. The xp award is for defeating the opponent or overcoming an obstacle. That includes talking your way out of a fight or using skills to get around it -- not just killing it. It does *not* follow that the only benefit is fighting. Other systems that say all humans are all the same fighting capability are the ones that have a poor balance. People who've actually trained and practiced are inherantly better than I am at fighting. We're not ALL the same. ANd what? You don't WANT any rewards for roleplaying? Your review really feels like you went into it looking for ways you could make it more number crunching than it actually is.
which leads me to criticism number three: You pretty much say that the NPC stats chapter isn't useful, because you can make up stats as you go and the stats become to bother some. This also isn't the case. Do what you've been doing: don't assign stats until you need them. Then choose a line on the chart for the NPC when you DO need it. Voila, done, and you don't have to worry about anything being inconsistant. You've get 'em there. You can still modify on the fly, if you're so disposed to do so. There is nothing in that chapter saying it's against the rules to make any changes to those example stats. In fact, if I remember correctly, it mentions customizing them if you need to.
There's no way for you to really know this, but you need to, but that chapter on planes isn't the only information out there about planes. Nor was planescape the introduction of planes. It would be more accurate to say they've abandoned planescape. There is, after all, the Manual of the Planes if you really want more about it. But to be honest, in the thousands of hours I've played D&D, I think I've had characters in other planes less than 30 hours of game time.
So yes, I can see why the game annoys you more than it should. It's because you're determined not to like it for some reason, even if the reason you choose doesn't accurately reflect what the books present, much less how people actually play it.
-
SE, go back and READ my review.
I am NOT trying to look objectively at the system. I SAID that. I am trying to give, as the title suggests, AN ALTERNATIVE VIEWPOINT.
I never criticised the PHB for not including information I didn't need. I criticised it for focusing on stats before character. I never said I didn't need information on how to develop a character - on the contrary, I quite like information of that nature, to read different people's ideas on it. I think that chapter should have been placed earlier in the book and earlier in the list of how to design a character.
Now, the stuff in the DMG isn't of use to me, nor does it interest me. Did I make a big deal about it? NO. Did I say the complaint was, in fact, spurious and not really fair on the book? YES.
Now, where do you get off saying I am unfair to criticise a book for making a criticism that I SAID and ADMITTED was unfair?
I also never said I wanted a system where all humans were at the same level. I said I wanted a system where all humans with a combat score are equal to other humans with the same combat score. D&D is like this, but the large number of stats make it difficult to judge compared to say, Sword 6 vs Sword 8. My preference for this simplicity is purely opinion. YOU CANNOT SAY THAT MY OPINION IS WRONG. You can disagree, but preference is SUBJECTIVE. Oh, wait, what is my article called again? Oh that's right, AN ALTERNATIVE VIEWPOINT. Namely, my viewpoint. I'm being unfair for expressing my viewpoint in a piece that is designed simply to do that? Did I ever say I was being objective?
I did not say the NPC chapter wasn't useful. What I said was I didn't like the way NPC classes worked. I said that it was more difficult to create NPC stats than it should be, because MY PREFRENCE (yes, that little thing the title of the article says the article is about) is for simple systems like Paranoia XP where I can make stats easily on the fly. What I DID say was that the NPC chapter is extremely useful for making the stats, I'd just prefer not to need it.
Did I say that the stuff in the book was the only information on the Planes? I said the PLANESCAPE setting had been reduced to this token information which isn't particularly useful, and the stuff in the book of planes which I havn't read. YES, I MENTIONED THE BOOK OF PLANES IN MY REVIEW. I'd really like it if when you accuse me of something, it's something I've actually freaking DONE. I happen to very much like the PLANESCAPE setting and find it more interesting to hold adventures on the planes than in generic fantasy worlds.
Now, I concluded saying that the system annoys me more than I should, but I really like it regardless. How does that make me "Determined not to like it?". I said I *DID* like it. I also gave it a thumbs up, positive overall. I said it was good.
Now, I could have agreed with you completely and made a very similar review to the ones we already have, but that would have been useless and redundant. So, I wrote an ALTERNATIVE VIEWPOINT to the books. This is SUBJECTIVE ACCOUNT from someone with a PREFERENCE FOR SIMPLE NARATIVE SYSTEMS. At no point have I tried to hide this fact. So, how exactly am I being unfair? Because the game isn't my style exactly, even though I still like it?
SE, the world does not centre around you. You need to learn than other people have viewpoints. I chose to share mine. You may disagree if you will. But think twice before you falsely accuse me of being unfair and unbalanced over a subjective piece of work, and then criticise me by citing factual errors proving you had not in fact properly read the piece.
-
I see this ending well
/me says with much sarcasm
-
* 42 gets popcorn ready and takes a comfortable seat infront of his computer.*
-
JP is trying to turn Gonzo Jounalizm into RPG reviews, this is going to be a fun argument.
-
Again, it wasn't a review, it was an "Alternative Viewpoint" article.
And yeah, wouldn't it be great if we had a forum mod right about now. I hear our one stepped down last week because everyone thought he was doing a bad job.
-
You just stepped down because your an anarchist, and we provided an excuse for you to not be the man.
-
Let me tell you a story.
Once there were three people. Two were anarchists and one was The Man. The Man tried to institute law on the anarchists, so the first anarchist socked him on the head and the second cut out his liver and ate it.
The moral of the story is don't get up early, you just might explode randomly.
-
T minus 2 hours till the fur flies.
-
This is boreing, you're all boreing!
I want blood!
-
sorry, I just got here.
Really the only thing I have to say about contradiction is that II said it wasn't fair. If the review says it isn't fair, then well, how is that bad? I dont' think my points were invalid, though I was certainly way too harsh.
I like JP. He's my favorite violent anarchist. I don't want to be hating. So, I'm sorry for being harsh. But not for disagreeing.
sorry, the monkeys are sleeping. so their fur will not fly and they will not spill blood.
/me thiefs some of 42's popcorn.
-
*Spriggan sulks in the corner and puts away his umbrella.
-
/me tells Gallagher to smash a watermelon now that Spriggan is unprotected.
-
y'know, that's exactly what I thought of
-
Then maybe you had time to duck. Everyone else is covered in sweet, sweet watermelon.
-
yum!
-
And now, the monster manual (well, the first one): http://www.timewastersguide.com/view.php?id=1043&dep=6
-
I enjoyed the reviews, they were interesting.