Timewaster's Guide Archive
Games => Role-Playing Games => Topic started by: Fellfrosch on August 07, 2003, 03:40:32 PM
-
Well, Mr. Postman just brought my starter pack of the new collectible D&D miniatures, and since I'm home eating lunch I thought I'd give you guys my first impression.
a) The figures are very small. Well, not VERY small, probably about Warhammer scale, but for someone accustomed to Mage Knight they strike me as pretty tiny. They are also very dark, with a generally subdued color palette that obscures a lot of the detail unless you're looking very closely. The paint job and the sculpts are middling--better than Mage Knight's first set, certainly, but not quite up to current WizKids standards.
b) As a stand-alone game, it looks very complex. It doesn't have any of the elegance or simplicity of Mage Knight (it's only competition in the realm of collectible miniature games), and the rule book is thick and intense. On the bright side, the game looks essentially identical to a D&D combat round. If you're already into D&D and know the system, playing this game will be cake--if a bit lacking in the roleplaying department.
c) As a companion to the RPG, I have to admit it looks pretty cool. It comes with a big fold-out maps and several full-color map cards, and could facilitate battles quite helpfully. The problem, of course, is that you'll have to buy a ton of packs to get all the guys you need for a given adventure (or just structure your adventure around the random guys you open in a pack--but how many adventures require you to fight a lone kobold?).
d) A starter costs 20 bucks and has 16 guys, so you're getting a better cost-per-figure than Mage Knight. Still kind of expensive, though. I'm not sure what boosters cost or how many are in one, but we'll see.
-
Personally, if i was that bothered about using minitures i would just use my Warhammer figs. Stand-ins are your friend, and i have enough that i could field unfeasabily large numbers of enemies.
And what real benefit does D&D clix have over wizkids? I only play Heroclix, since i vastly prefer warhammer to normal mage knight games.
-
So these AREN'T just minis to go along with? This is the "new game?" stuff? Any reason you can't just buy whatever mini you find on the shelf and use it? I've been experiementing with the "battle grid" from the new DMG and it's pretty darn easy to find a mini for any small, med, or large creature on the map. So I don't know why I'd buy WotC minis. Unless they take the HGMA route and say only their minis can be used in official D&D games. In which case I'll show them my middle finger and never play an "official" D&D game, con or other wise.
-
To answer Entropy: D&D's game is collectible, but it's not a clix game--instead of a cool dial to keep track of everything, you need paper and pencils and a handy rulebook. That is why I predict that this game will fail as a stand-alone minis game--it's just too hard to play, given the other options.
To answer Saint Ehlers: The more I look through this, the more I ask myself the same question. There really isn't much incentive for you to buy these particular minis when any old fantasy mini will work just as well. There is in fact a disincentive, since the random nature of the packs makes it almost impossible to get a figure that represents exactly what you want--and if you're just going to use stand-ins, why buy official D&D minis in the first place? I suppose this is offset by the fact that they come pre-painted, but it's still a pretty big problem.
It's time for some baseless Fellfrosch conjecture: D&D 3.0 was designed with a very tabletop-ish combat system in order to work in conjunction with Chainmail, but they quickly realized that a collectible mini games are the wave of the future and much easier to sell than minis you have to assemble and paint, so they aborted Chainmail and developed D&D Miniatures to release with 3.5. Therefore, WotC considers the minis to be an essential part of the basic game--you'll buy them because that's how the game works, they're just inherent to the system. This makes the game scizophrenic, since it has to be a stand-alone and an addition at the same time, and the two purposes work against each other. It also ignores the concept of competition, which is not something WotC has to worry about very often--I honestly think that any old random mini, no matter who makes it, will get the job done for an RPG, and WotC isn't taking that into account.
You know what they should have done? Half or more of a pack should be set--you know when you buy it that it will have a certain number of orcs or zombies or something, so that you can use them in your games. The rest of the figures in the pack are random, so you maintain the collectible aspect. as it is, you'll have to either buy a ton of boxes or trade away half your figures just so your RPG group can fight a pack of goblins, and that's just silly.
-
Yeah, coulda shoulda woulda. I don't collect minis. If I decide I need a ton of zombies, I've seen at the store where you can get 100 for like, $15. Yeah, they're crap as far as minis go, but they'll show you where the zombies are in relation to the characters.
Now, the big question. Will this absurd emphasis on minis hurt WotC? I think it will. Just because you're a D&D nerd doesn't mean you'll get minis. I mean, if you already like it, you already know you can play it without any minis, so if you haven't used them before, you'll be unlikely to use them in the future (unless, like me, you were already moving that route). But 3.5 barely even hints that it's possible to play D&D without minis. At best you get 2 sentences in the whole of the 3 core books that even hint you could think about not using them, and those two sentences are essentially to tell you to stop thinking about it and go buy your minis, cuz that's the new rule, bub. The rest of the rules don't just use "squares" to give examples, but talk about your miniatures.
So, they've turned it into a game where you not only have to buy a new $20-40 book each month, but hwere you need to buy a huge stock of expensive figures too. I liked that there was a game where I didn't need to "collect" to play. RPGs are it. I think that people will be turning from D&D in even greater numbers now with the new emphasis on minis. They've been alienating a lot of people, which I didn't mind, because I LIKED 3ed better than 1 or 2. But now I'm starting to encourage people not to buy anymore because they ask for too much.
You want to collect? Buy Magic. You want to role play? BESM is cheap and diverse. Decipher has a good system. But don't buy D&D.
Yeah, i'm a exaggerating a little. But the more I look, the less necessary 3.5 becomes. I still like D&D, but I'm hating where it's going in a major way. Maybe they'll recover, but ick. No signs of it yet.
-
D&D 3.0 is still the most cohesive, best RPG I've played. It's also the best supported. Some of the other systems need to overcome their inhernet 'we're gaming nerds' shortfalls and try and streamline their products a bit. (I'm talking to you, Palladium.)
-
I've started playing D&D 3.5 and I'm not having a problem with not using minitures. It you want to have very involved combat than you would want to use minitures. Still they're not entirely necessary, though the new books would lead you to believe that they are.
-
I think that's the problem--the actual mechanics of combat haven't really changed, but the book tries to convince you that minis are necessary. I hate it when companies use cross-promotion to sell their products.
-
I've always maintained that D&D (IMO the worst RPG out there) isn't even an RPG, but really a wargame with a story attached. This only confirms my theories. A Roleplay should be about story and character interaction, not mathematics and looking up tables to see exactly how long in milliseconds it takes to shoot an arrow. Trying to market an RPG with a CCG mindset is probably the most insane thing I've heard since recent memory.
-
I'm not seeing the ccg marketing in a an RPG.
-
Ummm...the whole "Collectable" thing. Like a CCG, you never know what pieces you're goign to get. In the case og Mage Knight/Heroclix, this makes sense. However, an RPG isn't a game in the sense that there are no winners or losers. It is (Or should be) based around some kind of character or story. As such, the characters use dhsould be based on what is dramatically interesting, not what you randomly picked.
Now, based on the information in the above posts, the new D&D rules are written so as to sound as if they cannot be played without the minutures. If that isn't an attempt to make more money in the whole CCG wayof forcing people who want to play to buy more to get the pieces they want, I don't see what is.
-
Again, i find it interesting that WoTC is taking a company that once made tabletop and now is the RPG market leader back into tabletop, while GW, a company that used to be in RPGs and is now the tabletop market leader, is moving back into RPGs. Both are doing so half heartedly, in conjunction with their current products (Inquisitor and D&D minis) but interesting all the same.
-
What was confusing is that the D&D minuratures have a different game that the D&D rpg. So there is pen and paper D&D, minurature D&D, video game D&D, and novel D&D. They actually need to make a D&D ccg. Despite the fact that this screws over D&D consumers, it's marketing brilliance. Most game manufacterors cater to demographics that are far too limited. Particulary in RPGs where most seem to cater to the "I'm fed up with D&D" demographic.
-
D&D being a "wargame with a story attached" is interesting as an exaggeration, but is hardly a valid statement of fact about the nature of the game. Yeah, it has a lot of rules, but it has always (and as far as I can tell, will always) sucked rocks when it comes to mass combat.
And yes, I still really like D&D 3.0. I'm not saying the new rules change the necessity of minis. Like I said, people who already know aren't going to automatically change their style of play just because WotC released a new book demanding it, but I wonder if it's going to hurt the attraction of new players who think they have to spend all this extra, when they can go out and with any other system and spend less on core books than on D&D, and not feel pressured to buy more crap from the same company for the privelege of playing the game.
-
SaintEhlers,
I don't think that it's an exaggertaion toc all D&D a wargame with a story attached. You argue that it is bad when it comes to mass combat, which is true. Not all wargames are about mass combat though, look at a game like heroclix where a team may only be about four charcaters.
D&D has a lot of rules. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, depending on what you're trying to achieve it can be a very good thing. As a story oriented Role-player, I consider it a bad thing, but only if it gets in the way of the game. The trouble is, in D&D is does. Unless you have absolutely no life, you will occasionally have to change/ignore a rule, or look it up in the book. It is too complex a game to completely memorise.
D&D grew out of wargaming. This is a historical fact. When D&D was designed, the creators looked at existing wargames, and decided to make a similar sort of game, but with story and charcater. As such, D&D was an important first step. But now, RPGs are designed to be RPGs specifically, and so design their rules for that purpose specifically, rather than with wargame roots.
Combat exists in RPGs, and it probably wouldn't be very good without it. But D&D focuses far too much on that aspect, to the exclusion of character and story.
-
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.
-
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... :)
-
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.
-
I never looked at it that way. Good point 42.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I feel your pain, JamPaladin. I grew up with Palladium, which (if possible) has a worse reputation for munchkinism than D&D. I admit that I went throught my munchkin phase, but eventually I decided that ultimate combat prowess wasn't the end-all of an RPG. It's still kind of fun every now and then, though, I have to admit....
-
I think roleplayers need to be a lot more relaxed about their hobby. Like at Critical Miss, where they have a column ABOUT making your character as over powered as possible. It's funny. The phenomenon exists, just find people who don't do it to play with.
-
I have never understood the comepetive and downright nasty attitudes that so many roleplayers possess. You suck if you don't play their game or your game sucks if they don't play it. People just get nasty about things. I've just never understood...
What does it matter as long as everyone has fun with the game they choose?