RPGs

Error message

Deprecated function: implode(): Passing glue string after array is deprecated. Swap the parameters in drupal_get_feeds() (line 394 of /var/www/pied-piper.ermarian.net/includes/common.inc).

Pages

Author	Topic: RPGs
Error Shock Trooper Member # 5585	written Wednesday, March 16 2005 13:15 Profile #25 Thanks everybody. Whats scary is that I've actually played some of these games recently- there are versions of rogue and Ultima 1, 2, & 3 for Palm OS. I agree, Dungeons and Dragons does look somewhat stupid, and although it's probably somewhat fun I doubt it's anywhere as fun as computer RPGs. Many of the early RPG's you mentioned are technically strategy, but I suppose that back then that was the closest they got to RPG. -------------------- Important Information about Stuff Posts: 258 \| Registered: Wednesday, March 9 2005 08:00
demonslay3r Guardian Member # 2238	written Wednesday, March 16 2005 14:13 Profile Homepage #26 D&D is only "stupid" if you don't like admitting your nerdiness. I used to play it with a friend and her friends, but I was never one of those super-D&D people. It is fun to me, and certainly has its place (long times during power-outages=best time). If it's not your thing, I understand, but you should try it if you are the least bit interested. -------------------- The critics agree! Demonslayer is "a five star hit!" raves TIMES Weekly! "I've never heard such thoughtful comments. This man is a genious!" says two-time Nobel Prize winning physicist Erwin Rasputin! Posts: 1582 \| Registered: Wednesday, November 13 2002 08:00
Drew By Committee Member # 4233	written Thursday, March 17 2005 05:21 Profile #27 quote: Originally written by EviL_TiM: Thanks everybody. Whats scary is that I've actually played some of these games recently- there are versions of rogue and Ultima 1, 2, & 3 for Palm OS. I agree, Dungeons and Dragons does look somewhat stupid, and although it's probably somewhat fun I doubt it's anywhere as fun as computer RPGs. Many of the early RPG's you mentioned are technically strategy, but I suppose that back then that was the closest they got to RPG. Way to pass judgment before giving something a shot. Never mind that cRPGs are the natural decendents of D&D and other PnP RPGs. I weep for your generation. [ Thursday, March 17, 2005 05:22: Message edited by: andrew miller ] Posts: 2242 \| Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Arancaytar Law Bringer Member # 2984	written Thursday, March 17 2005 05:31 Profile Homepage #28 quote: Originally written by andrew miller: quote: Originally written by EviL_TiM: Thanks everybody. Whats scary is that I've actually played some of these games recently- there are versions of rogue and Ultima 1, 2, & 3 for Palm OS. I agree, Dungeons and Dragons does look somewhat stupid, and although it's probably somewhat fun I doubt it's anywhere as fun as computer RPGs. Many of the early RPG's you mentioned are technically strategy, but I suppose that back then that was the closest they got to RPG. Way to pass judgment before giving something a shot. Never mind that cRPGs are the natural decendents of D&D and other PnP RPGs. I weep for your generation. Oh, the youth of today! :P -------------------- The Encyclopaedia Ermariana <-- Now a Wiki! "Polaris leers down from the black vault, winking hideously like an insane watching eye which strives to convey some strange message, yet recalls nothing save that it once had a message to convey." --- HP Lovecraft. "I single Aran out due to his nasty temperament, and his superior intellect." --- SupaNik Posts: 8752 \| Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00
Drew By Committee Member # 4233	written Thursday, March 17 2005 06:58 Profile #29 quote: Originally written by I'm Late, I'm Late, For: Oh, the youth of today! :P Indeed. O tempora, o mores! :) [ Thursday, March 17, 2005 06:58: Message edited by: andrew miller ] Posts: 2242 \| Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
bogus standard candidate Infiltrator Member # 4592	written Thursday, March 17 2005 08:43 Profile #30 (Public Safety Announcement: This is a long post.) AM: Thank you. As I read this post I was hoping someone would say something similar to what you said. Salve Andrew! Alec's post: anybody who disagrees with it should go to a Zen Monastery for a decade and meditate upon their mistakes. Either that or join one of those monasteries in Ireland where one gets to do a lot of self-flagelation as one meditates. Role Playing Games: Note to the younglings out there. As mentioned above, you are playing those computer games of yours that you like so much because, more than likely, one or two (to be on the safe side with a small amount, likely the amount is around 50-90% percent, aslthough by the way the new generation thinks) played an RPG when they were kids (more than likely DnD) or played some Warhammer or some kind of miniature game and loved it so much they decided to make a Computer version of it. Note: Baldur's Gate, any of you heard about it? Well, it's Forgotten Realms, which is a spin off of DnD. (in fact, Jesus christ on skates, the rules for the game are a computerized version of those in DnD!) Ever played a strategy game? Even the dumbest of them probably owes something to the AH or SPI board games of old, or some miniature battle simulation game. These in turn may owe something to the simulations mentioned by Alec. (and though this is a detour from the RPG thread, if some of you guys criticized RPG without ever playing them, can't wait to see what you'd say about the 60's and 70's military board games...) For many years, and this still exists to some point, there has been a bit of a schism. There are those who role play and then there are those who play with miniatures. Both fine, fine endeavours. Some brave souls have attempted both. When Lord British sat down to do Ultima, I think you can be pretty sure he had done some DnD or some other kind of PnP role playing before hand. Ever heard of Raymond E. Feist? Maybe he is not your type of author, he is a bit successfull. Well, in case you didn't know, the world of Midkemia first saw the light of day in a role playing game (not quite DnD since they were doing their own thing, but same basic principle) Also, when the good people of Sir-Tech sat down to do Wizardry they more than likely had played DnD. Or the good people of Infocom, etc. This is all old news? Well, d'oh. But what are the foundations for the games you play today? (this is all before the days of tridimensional walls and visual aids like today. Just a bunch of geeks sitting in a table with too much cola and chips discussing whether a lighting bolt can bounce in just such a way over a mirror) I'm not saying that every single CRPG developer has role played in hers or his life, but. . . As for knocking this game, that is just dumb. How can you knock a game by seeing some picture, or some web site. Find a person in your town who plays this, preferably someone you like or at the very least tolerate, and give it a shot. Then you can piss on it as much as you want. Also, an RPG is just as good or total crud as the GM (and, of course players) in it. If your GM is a person with a god complex who only wants to be there to feel superior. . . good luck! On the other hand when there is an organic and harmonious relationship between GM and players and both contribute to the story and the world and are there to have fun, then it's great. Since Warhammer is fairly huge and available in many places, give it a shot. This is miniature fighting simulation. Very, very cool (also very expensive, but you can do good with the starter box) Or, if you like strategy games, you may want to give it a try to one of the old (or modern) military board games. They are very cool, though can get very long too. Also, in case this was not obvious: DnD is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the only RPG out there. There have been literary scores of them. Here are some of the most popular at one point or another: GURPS this was by Steve Jackson, and it was supposed to be a universal rule system for RPG (thus the name), it wasn't bad. Many, many tables, but fun if you waddled through them. Vampire: The Masquerade Yeah, the game is based on this. It is virtually diceless. Far as I know it all began with this. After this you had the books, the games, the stuff. Spin Offs: Werewolf (okay), Ars Magic (one of the absolute best fantasy RPG ever made. Period) Palladium Games They made a few, and still exist. RIFTs, a Robotech and a Super Hero game I don't remember much about. Most used the same or similar rules. Fun stuff, but combat took forever, at least on Rifts which is the one I remember more clearly. Star Wars It was a d6 system (d stands for die, and 6, well. . . This means that the onyl dice you used were 6 sided) and fairly cool. Star Trek I don't how many companies carried the ST logo on their systems. I never played any of these. ShadowRun Another d6 system. Fun stuff. Cyber Punkish. Amber Based on the great series by Roger Zelazny. One of the few Non-dice systems around (Vampire use dice once in a while) Call of Cthulhu Lovecraft. Need I say more? (oh, yeah, it's awesome. But I'm baised) And I know I'm missing a few obvious ones here. DnD is so obscure it has gone through 3 editions and it has seen two movies with its name on the title (terrible, terrible, terrible movies though!) As mentioned above in this post Forgotten Realms is a spin off of DnD (basically it is a HUGE DnD world) but it is not the first. The whole DragonLance series was (I think, I'm not sure) the first books written on a DnD universe. Planescape? Ever played it? Well, that is a spin off of DnD, basically the same basic rules, but different books that you had to buy. There was also Spellhammer, but wasn't very successful, and there was also Ravenloft (based on a. . . 1986? Module) So, for those of you who are Attanasio's fans. No drows without DnD. That Mr. Cool Vin Diesel (I hate the guy, but that's just me) even played it. Maybe even plays it still. And for the record: that whole "you've gotta be smart to play this game" (ANY role playing game), fiddlesticks! If you've ever read a book you can play it. I would've thought that anybody who sits down to RP in the computer had done at least some kind of PnP RPG, but I see I'm mistaken. I used to think that these games didn't work for the socially self-conscious (by that I mean the "I'm too cool for this" crowd), until I realized that most people who play it are in a closet for some reason. I've stopped being amazed at people in this supposedly Machista country. I talk to them about RPGs, some are intrigued (even Macho men) we do an impromptu session and, though many don't become converts, at least they don't go around pissing on the concept either. It simply becomes something that ain't their thing. Which is cool. Some zip first, then button. Some do it the other way around. Haven't seen any fight over such difference yet. Edit: a "whole" wasn't well written. A "Chew on that!" on the Attanasio part. [ Thursday, March 17, 2005 10:45: Message edited by: behind stingy cactus ] -------------------- quote: "I suffer from spiritual malaise," said Cugel meaningfully. "which manifest itself in outburst of vicious rage. I implore you to depart, lest, in an uncontrollable spasm, I cut you in three pieces with my sword, or worse, I invoke magic." Random Jack Vance Quote Manual Generator Apparatus (Cugel's Saga) Posts: 604 \| Registered: Sunday, June 20 2004 07:00
Drew By Committee Member # 4233	written Thursday, March 17 2005 09:45 Profile #31 The first formal (and technically, the default) D&D "setting" was actually Greyhawk, created by Gary Gygax. Dragonlance followed - I may still have the original 1st Ed. Dragonlance manual somewhere. I remember it limited level progression to 18 levels, and magic use depended on the moons. Also, it was the first time specialty priests were introduced. [ Thursday, March 17, 2005 11:59: Message edited by: andrew miller ] Posts: 2242 \| Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
bogus standard candidate Infiltrator Member # 4592	written Thursday, March 17 2005 11:02 Profile #32 D'oh. Completely forgot GH. AM: it's interesting that you mention Greyhawk, since "Temple of Elemental Evil" was made into a so-so game. It's the sign of the times that we've been talking about D&D and we haven't had to make a distinction between AD&D and D&D :P (I never had the rule book, but I've dug up three of the DL modules for nostalgia's sake. The map for the "Lands of Abanasynia" in the "Dragons of Hope" module is huge. I miss the way they used to do modules. Or, for that matter, CRPGs. It may sound like waste of resources, but I liked it when I bought a game and it brought something extra, like the Infocom games, or for example Ultima IV with the ankh, or Ultima II with the cloth map. At least some modern games are doing something similar, like the manual for the FO games or that for Arcanum.) -------------------- quote: "I suffer from spiritual malaise," said Cugel meaningfully. "which manifest itself in outburst of vicious rage. I implore you to depart, lest, in an uncontrollable spasm, I cut you in three pieces with my sword, or worse, I invoke magic." Random Jack Vance Quote Manual Generator Apparatus (Cugel's Saga) Posts: 604 \| Registered: Sunday, June 20 2004 07:00
Kelandon Off With Their Heads Member # 4045	written Thursday, March 17 2005 12:33 Profile Homepage #33 Basic D&D has been dead for longer than I've been alive, so I have to say that AD&D is D&D for all intents and purposes. I thought Greyhawk wasn't formalized into a setting until long after Dragonlance. I actually owned (for reasons unknown to me) a copy of one of the original D&D rulebooks, Expert rules if I'm not mistaken, and Keep on the Borderlands, too. I first read them when I had barely learned to read, when I was six or so, and I didn't realize what they were until I was seventeen. I dug them back up again, and they're still on my shelf. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 \| Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Rupert Agent Member # 618	written Thursday, March 17 2005 15:58 Profile Homepage #34 Khothie, if you like the overall finish to a game, rather than it being slightly more complex, in certain areas, Rogue is definitely better. Angband does have the random char generation system and a shop system, if I'm not mistaken, but Rogue has alot more playability and is alot more fun. -------------------- Aut Tace Aut Loquere Meliora Silencio Posts: 1487 \| Registered: Sunday, February 10 2002 08:00
Error Shock Trooper Member # 5585	written Thursday, March 17 2005 16:44 Profile #35 You're right, I shouldn't call it stupid without actually trying it first, however I would like to point out that I know more about it than that cartoon(I asked my dad about it before and in my opinion the best way to find out someting besides trying it is to ask someone who has). And I shouldn't be criticizing spending hours on RPGs- i've actually considered buying World of Warcraft. I'd also like to say I have nothing against strategy games or old computer games, I've been playing rogue since I was five (on computer and later on palm pilot) and I play Warcraft 3 all the time. -------------------- Important Information about Stuff Posts: 258 \| Registered: Wednesday, March 9 2005 08:00
bogus standard candidate Infiltrator Member # 4592	written Thursday, March 17 2005 20:22 Profile #36 Hi. Sorry if I came a little too strong earlier today. I was talking from my gut and not my brain. Rogue. Here you can find some info on the history of the game in addition some Rogue like games. I've enjoyed a good number of Rogue like games through the years, but my favorite so far is a 1980's Mac game called "Dungeon of Doom" (which I think you can download it here, but since I'm using a PC I don't know if the link works or not.) The reason it's my favorite is mostly nostalgia, since it was the first Rogue like game I played. E_T: I've also been tempted to buy World of Warcraft. I've never played a mmorpg, and the fact that I have to pay 30 dollars (or whatever the amount is) a month makes me a little weary, even though I've enjoyed all the Blizzard games I've played. Anybody recommends WoW? Actually are those mmorpg worth the time/money? Here's a Question for Mac Users, specially those who played 1980's games: There was an RPG whose name was something like "Zornth" or "Xornth." (or maybe nothing like that, I remember an "X" somewhere) My memory about it is as vague as it gets: I remember when you hit someone, the monsters hit points were shown as a circle (I don't recal numbers) which either was filled or emptied the more you hit it. I also seem to remember that you had a little "fist" icon when you hit. There were several maps. The last one had caves. Boy, this is vague! -------------------- quote: "I suffer from spiritual malaise," said Cugel meaningfully. "which manifest itself in outburst of vicious rage. I implore you to depart, lest, in an uncontrollable spasm, I cut you in three pieces with my sword, or worse, I invoke magic." Random Jack Vance Quote Manual Generator Apparatus (Cugel's Saga) Posts: 604 \| Registered: Sunday, June 20 2004 07:00
Thuryl ...b10010b... Member # 869	written Thursday, March 17 2005 23:36 Profile Homepage #37 quote: Originally written by Kelandon: Basic D&D has been dead for longer than I've been alive, so I have to say that AD&D is D&D for all intents and purposes. The AD&D/D&D distinction was dropped completely in 3rd Edition anyway, wasn't it? -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 \| Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Arancaytar Law Bringer Member # 2984	written Friday, March 18 2005 00:00 Profile Homepage #38 If that's true... then am I right in assuming that, if anyone says AD&D now, they've either been playing since the dawn of time and before, or they're just trying to sound smart? :D -------------------- The Encyclopaedia Ermariana <-- Now a Wiki! "Polaris leers down from the black vault, winking hideously like an insane watching eye which strives to convey some strange message, yet recalls nothing save that it once had a message to convey." --- HP Lovecraft. "I single Aran out due to his nasty temperament, and his superior intellect." --- SupaNik Posts: 8752 \| Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00
Imban Shake Before Using Member # 75	written Friday, March 18 2005 05:07 Profile #39 Actually, I believe it's still proper if you're not playing 3rd Edition. :P Posts: 3234 \| Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00
Drew By Committee Member # 4233	written Friday, March 18 2005 05:20 Profile #40 Or they're in their early twenties or older. :) Greyhawk was reborn as a formal setting, but it was the default setting for all the first AD&D modules. The original Temple of Elemental Evil, which I'm fairly certain was released before Dragonlance, incorporated deities and demigods (St. Cuthbert and Iuz) from the Greyhawk setting. The Greyhawk campaign setting was notable for being less magic-filled and grittier than the Forgotten Realms, where +3 swords grow on trees and every bartender is a 25 lvl mage with nothing better to do (serious balance issues in that campaign) - more "realistic," if you will. The original Dragonlance trilogy spawned out of Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman's AD&D campaign, from what I understand. The rules for the formal setting came after. Posts: 2242 \| Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
The Immortal BANNED Member # 4	written Friday, March 18 2005 06:19 Profile Homepage #41 Point of clarification- Wizards' Star Wars mod is most definitely d20 by now, and uses 3.0 or higher. -------------------- 人たちを燃えるために俺はかれらに火を上げるから死んだ Posts: 6936 \| Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00
Drew By Committee Member # 4233	written Friday, March 18 2005 07:11 Profile #42 quote: Originally written by Solomon Strokes: Point of clarification- Wizards' Star Wars mod is most definitely d20 by now, and uses 3.0 or higher. Ah, but the original version was d6, created by West End Games back in the day. Posts: 2242 \| Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Error Shock Trooper Member # 5585	written Friday, March 18 2005 13:08 Profile #43 quote: Originally written by behind stingy cactus: ]Anybody recommends WoW? Actually are those mmorpg worth the time/money? If you have plenty of time WoW is probably good. I could probably only play it in the summer because I have tons of free time then and I make more money then also. It looks pretty cool, but if you have a Mac, beware, because at the apple website's chatboard there are many people complaining that WoW made there computer crash and when they restarted it thier computer wouldn't recognize thier hard drive. Some screenshots of the game are here http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/screenshots/screenshot.aspx?ImageIndex=191&Set=0 and you can tell just by these that its a really good game. [ Friday, March 18, 2005 13:18: Message edited by: EviL_TiM ] -------------------- Important Information about Stuff Posts: 258 \| Registered: Wednesday, March 9 2005 08:00
bogus standard candidate Infiltrator Member # 4592	written Friday, March 18 2005 13:53 Profile #44 d20 is the rage these days. Not only is SW a d20, but also CoC. From what I've seen in quick scanning of the rules for CoC and SW, mostly out of curiosity, and what I've seen by playing KotOR, the problem with d20 is all systems are beginning to resemble each other too much. If you see the feats, for instance, in SW and D&D, sometimes all you need to is change a laser for a sword. And since SW can use melee weapons, you may not need even that. Maybe this is a conscious decision on the part of the designers to make RPG more friendly to the newer audiences. Some people complain that the changes in the d20 system have made the characters more powerful after a certain number of levels. Well? I think one only needs to make the enemies more powerful, and maybe make the battles either more tactic than just hack & slash, or just concentrate on other aspects of role playing. Anyway, if you've played Baldur's Gate (Icewind, Planescape, etc) and then played Neverwinter, you may see some of the differences between AD&D and 3rd Edition. It may not be the same as PnP RP, but it gives you some inkling. (also, how powerful can you ever be in CoC when the more you learn, the more insane you get, and the big enemies are. . . well, big.) ;) Edit1: Partly answered my own question: SW and D&D fall under the WotC empire. Edit2: the whole AD&D is a little bit of several things, I think. If you're playing 2nd Ed, you may refer to is as such, or just say D&D for short. If you're playing 3rd edition, then it might be silly to say you're going to play AD&D since the "A" stood for Advanced to diferentiate it from the regular D&D. Or you may just be stuck in nostalgia and refuse to use any other nomenclature :P Edit3: Just saw in the Chaosium page that apparently the Mythos CCG is still kinda big in Finnland. That's neat! It was a cool game. :D [ Friday, March 18, 2005 13:59: Message edited by: behind stingy cactus ] -------------------- quote: "I suffer from spiritual malaise," said Cugel meaningfully. "which manifest itself in outburst of vicious rage. I implore you to depart, lest, in an uncontrollable spasm, I cut you in three pieces with my sword, or worse, I invoke magic." Random Jack Vance Quote Manual Generator Apparatus (Cugel's Saga) Posts: 604 \| Registered: Sunday, June 20 2004 07:00
VCH Shaper Member # 247	written Friday, March 18 2005 22:49 Profile Homepage #45 WoW looks sweet. But I hate the idea of paying a monthly fee to play it. -------------------- I stop rubber at 160km/h, five times a week. CANUCKS RESPEK! My Style The Knight Between Posts. Posts: 2395 \| Registered: Friday, November 2 2001 08:00
Student of Trinity Electric Sheep One Member # 3431	written Saturday, March 19 2005 06:18 Profile #46 It's pretty easy to turn up accurate histories of RPGs on Google. Wargaming with miniatures was invented by the German army in the 19th century, and was used (as it still is in armies all over the world) to train officers. This original Kriegspiel introduced the 'gamemaster'. Rather than devising extensive statistical tables, an experienced commander would just decide what the results of player decisions would be. By the 1950s or so, tabletop wargaming with painted lead figures was an obscure hobby, but I once found a hardcover book from that era discussing rules and strategies. It was very much like Warhammer, although the themes tended to be historical. The crucial thing is that there were no mass-produced scenarios. Every game was concocted fresh by the players, and with the minimal rules a lot of the simulation had to be invented out on the fly. It was out of this that D&D first emerged, the joint work of Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson. The rest you can dig up with Google (which will confirm pretty much everything the older posters have said in this topic). The one essential thing to realize about pen-and-paper RPGs is that, thanks to those grim old Prussian generals, instead of a program you have an online human gamemaster. As a result, you can do (or at least try to do!) absolutely anything with your character. You are not constrained to choose from a list, however long, of implemented actions. You can attack a monster by pulling a tapestry off the wall, setting it alight, and throwing it over the brute's head. You can decide you're bored with the Elvish Kingdom and go on a thousand mile march to the Dark Republic. You can try to woo the Vampire Queen instead of slaying her. It takes a good gamemaster to handle such creative actions in ways that don't break mimesis. A reluctant referee flipping through a rulebook is not going to manage something that makes you realize you've got anything World of Warcraft ain't got. But a good GM can give you a simulation experience that no computer program in the foreseeable future will be able to provide. Plus, as with the old lead figure wargames, the overall theme and style of the game can be tailored to exactly what you and your friends most enjoy. You totally miss this possibility if your GM is just awkwardly administering a storebought scenario, but if you've got an inspired worldcrafter of a referee, it can be like having J.R.R. Tolkien working just for you. And if your fellow players are creative too, the interactions between your characters can be much more substantial than just trading items and talking trash. If you want beautiful pictures and sound, CRPGs are of course the only way. If you're on a Spiderweb forum, you're obviously happy to accept sketchier graphics in return for a great story. Pen-and-paper RPGs are just further in this same direction. -------------------- It is not enough to discover how things seem to seem. We must discover how things really seem. Posts: 3335 \| Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00
Cavanoskus Warrior Member # 4414	written Thursday, March 24 2005 16:49 Profile Homepage #47 In my experience, most people who say Dungeons and Dragons is (or looks) boring have very little creativity and imagination and a very short attention span. Those of us who do not have to have animations flashing in our faces to keep our interest find it to be quite worth the time. I'm pretty experienced in D&D and have run games of my own, and while it's true that being a Dungeon Master requires massive amounts of work and planning (in fact, I will say I have never worked so hard to have fun in my entire life), just playing (not running) a D&D game is not in the least bit hard, boring, or work-intensive, and offers more possibilities for character customization than is possible in ANY computer game. There are even options for the more lazy aspiring DMs: pre-printed adventures. Additionally, enough random tables are provided that it is possible to run an entire adventure by simply rolling dice to generate random events. Oh, and a note for anyone complaining about the monthly fee of World of Warcraft: It works out to about 25 cents a day. It's more than worth it. I spend more per month on my Mountain Dew habit. -------------------- AIM/Yahoo IM: Cavanoskus Scary artwork and Bad Poetry The Wildlife Research Team SnakeNetMetalRadio "We, who are about to die, salute you." Posts: 86 \| Registered: Friday, May 21 2004 07:00
Custer Bob's Big Date Member # 3151	written Thursday, March 24 2005 17:03 Profile Homepage #48 Ah, a typical countercritique of the Old Glory of the roleplaying world: that if you don't like it, you're just not enough of an artistic personality. You're not creative enough, your imagination isn't free or wide enough, and you don't have the mental capacity to deal with this wonderful world of fantasy. Bull, bull, a thousand times bull. D&D is perhaps the most stultifyingly oppressive RPG I've ever had the displeasure to play. It's a definite and marked anachronism. Rules for everything you could concievably do, determined by statistics and random chance, were fine things to waste tables and pages and books on in the 1970s and 1980s, but nowadays you have these things called computers for that. The only meaningful niche for tabletops in the future is going to be as a looser, more freeform and discretionary roleplaying system than the more calculated, gamelike computerized systems. Other rule systems try and give more leeway in creating a world and setting, whereas D&D shoves a horrible generic fantasy world down the throat and makes you gargle. It's honestly a few steps from Risk with elves. The rules are literally the most important and distinctive factor, and that's not right. I resent D&D because it's the first introduction most have to tabletop roleplaying, and it's completely unrepresentative of what tabletops ought to be; it's an overelaborate board game stretched over an incredibly truncated and generic fantasy world. Yes, it was vital to the development of modern CRPGs as we know them, but nowadays it is not only unnecessary but counterproductive. It's the single worst factor in suppressing creativity among RPers and attracting the exact wrong crowd into roleplaying. As an RPer and and RPGer, as a player and a DM, I loathe Dungeons and Dragons, and they ought to do one of three things to it: put it in a museum, force it to the periphery and put a more deserving system in the role of first tutor, or reclassify it as a Goddamn war game. Any which way, it shouldn't corrupt new RPGers any more. [ Thursday, March 24, 2005 17:05: Message edited by: Bad-Ass Mother Custer ] -------------------- The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest. Posts: 2367 \| Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00
Cavanoskus Warrior Member # 4414	written Friday, March 25 2005 03:42 Profile Homepage #49 quote: Originally written by Bad-Ass Mother Custer: Ah, a typical countercritique of the Old Glory of the roleplaying world: that if you don't like it, you're just not enough of an artistic personality. You're not creative enough, your imagination isn't free or wide enough, and you don't have the mental capacity to deal with this wonderful world of fantasy. Bull, bull, a thousand times bull. Ah, the time-honored tradition of paraphrasing what was said in such a way as to make it insulting, to facilitate a defensive response! Please don't misquote me. I didn't say anything about being an "artistic personality," and the fact that I'm an artist has nothing to do with my enjoyment of D&D (in fact, I find many of their illustrations horrible). Don't make me out to be lording it over anyone just because I would dare to think that I might have a bit of creativity myself. You're twisting what I said and making it into an arrogant condescension, which is rather grating when combined with the presumption you show later in your post (but I'll get to that). quote: D&D is perhaps the most stultifyingly oppressive RPG I've ever had the displeasure to play. It's a definite and marked anachronism. Rules for everything you could concievably do, determined by statistics and random chance, were fine things to waste tables and pages and books on in the 1970s and 1980s, but nowadays you have these things called computers for that. How is it "stultifyingly oppressive" to be able to create a character that looks and acts exactly how you want, with no restrictions other than the sensibilites of your gaming group? How is it "stultifyingly oppressive" to be able to take your own course of action instead of choosing a specific, set path out of the few options offered in the rare chance you are even given a choice? Computers can do many things, but they cannot think or replace a human being (no matter how much speculation goes on in that area). A computer can give you a great number of set reactions to your action, but it cannot invent new ones should you leave the intended path; therefore, you cannot leave the intended path. However, with a human mind in charge of the game and its universe, all things are possible, and all courses of action can be taken, even the ones that are not anticipated by the creator of the game. quote: The only meaningful niche for tabletops in the future is going to be as a looser, more freeform and discretionary roleplaying system than the more calculated, gamelike computerized systems. Says who? The rules are an aid to help the DM reach a fair conclusion, and that is all they have ever been. "Freeform and discretionary roleplaying" has its audience (of which I am a member), but there is nothing unusual about roleplaying games (which is all D&D has ever claimed to be) having "gamelike" rules. It's a game. Shouldn't it be gamelike? And who are you to decide what will and will not be "meaningful?" quote: Other rule systems try and give more leeway in creating a world and setting, whereas D&D shoves a horrible generic fantasy world down the throat and makes you gargle. Well, that's garbage. The world is generic for the purpose of giving leeway. Absolutely nothing is "shoved down your throat," and hundreds of creatures are provided for you to choose from when populating your world. In fact, guidelines are supplied for creating your own. More specialized "campaign settings" are also available, giving you a choice of worlds to use as presented or to adapt and alter to your tastes. Any good DM gets an idea of the desires of his (or her, in my case) gaming group before actually starting a game. For example, I am currently running a D&D game in which the players play a party of minotaurs. The minotaurs have their own culture and gods, which I invented from scratch with just a cursory glance at the rulebook. They are using items I created and one of the players is a fire mage, a custom class I built from the ground up with the help of my group. They also began the game as minotaur children and are growing up while also independently gaining levels in their classes. Thus, I have taken the "generic" world, made it specific, tailored it to the desires of my players, exercised my own creativity, and come up with a very fun and involving game that in no way shoves anything down anyone's throat. Without the foundation provided by the core rulebooks, this would have been much more difficult and possibly unbalancing. quote: It's honestly a few steps from Risk with elves. The rules are literally the most important and distinctive factor, and that's not right. No, it's not right, and neither is your assertion that the rules are the most important factor. The rules are guidelines and are not intended to be anything more than that. The most important factors are to have fun and experience immersion. The rulebook itself states that verisimilitude should be preserved; even if the DM has to just "wing it," no one should ever stop the game to search through the book for a specific rule. In fact, that's why those charts were made--you call them a waste, but they exist to promote faster decisions on the part of the DM. In any good group, rules lawyers are looked down upon, because it is understood that the rules only exist to help the DM reach a decision that is fair to all the players. quote: I resent D&D because it's the first introduction most have to tabletop roleplaying, and it's completely unrepresentative of what tabletops ought to be; it's an overelaborate board game stretched over an incredibly truncated and generic fantasy world. Correction: It's completely unrepresentative of what you, based on your uninformed opinion, believe tabletops ought to be. I call your opinion "uninformed" because, the more I read, the more obvious it becomes to me that you have never played D&D with anything resembling a good gaming group. D&D is not a board game, and it was never intended to be a board game; in fact, the manual states that anyone treating it like a board game is not playing it the way it is meant to be played. Combat is the one area of the game that needs the most guidelines for decisions of outcome based on the discretion of the DM, and in this area, miniatures are handy for keeping track of position and distance, but this is the only time they should be used if they are even used at all (they are handy, not necessary). Any group who makes players act out everything through their miniatures (the book gives the example of a player saying, "I go over to the chest and look inside" and then moving his miniature figure and leaning it over to simulate looking down into a chest) is not playing the game as it was meant to be played: in the imagination. My minotaur group uses maps only for combat with multiple opponents, and then only to keep track of relative positions. We don't even use miniatures for this, just marks on paper. Our minds' eyes do the rest. And once again, the fantasy world is anything but truncated; it comes with a litany of possibilities and options that can be used or left out at the discretion of the group. quote: Yes, it was vital to the development of modern CRPGs as we know them, but nowadays it is not only unnecessary but counterproductive. It's the single worst factor in suppressing creativity among RPers and attracting the exact wrong crowd into roleplaying. Now you are talking out of the back side of your nether regions. If I were to make the presumptious statement that anything was "the single worst factor in suppressing creativity among RPers" it would certainly not be an expansive, utterly customizable game--it would be the legions of horrible, horrible excuses for Dungeon Masters and gaming groups that treat D&D like nothing more than a glorified game of Diablo II, care about nothing but hack 'n' slash and experience points, powergame and metagame because they want their character to be more "uber" than their friends' characters, and endlessly bicker with one another about rules to the point that the game grinds to a screeching halt. Now, that sounds a great deal more creativity-suppressing than a game with a set of alterable, bendable, rules that can be disposed of at any time for story element. I don't know who died and gave you such authority to decide who is the "exact wrong crowd" being drawn into roleplaying. If you mean kids like I have described above, they generally don't stick around, and after a while they go back to Diablo II which they can safely play alone in their rooms with no need for imagination. It seems to me that the factor that attracts the "wrong crowd" is the prevalence of fantasy settings in many non- or semi-roleplaying video games. Kids play these games, become interested in fantasy, and assume they can play D&D the same way. They treat it as a board game because they are incapable of playing without visual aids, and they treat it as a rules-lawyering contest because they have come from a world of computerized rules and they don't know how to play without them. They miss the entire concept of roleplaying in the sense of "playing a role," and see it, rather, as "controlling a character that kills stuff, gets loot, and gains levels." If this is what you consider the "wrong crowd," then I hope you see how it is not D&D that attracts them into roleplaying, but other, non-RPG fantasy games. D&D is the first tabletop RPG they pick up because it has an environment with which they are familiar, and because it has a name that everyone knows. But I still wonder what makes you think you can designate the "exact wrong crowd" in roleplaying. I play D&D. Does that make me a member of the wrong crowd? I play all manner of games, including freeform, which is where I created the screen name that I still use. I have played with many available rulesets, and to me, your opinion seems incredibly misinformed. quote: As an RPer and and RPGer, as a player and a DM, I loathe Dungeons and Dragons, and they ought to do one of three things to it: put it in a museum, force it to the periphery and put a more deserving system in the role of first tutor, or reclassify it as a Goddamn war game. Any which way, it shouldn't corrupt new RPGers any more. I've already explained what corrupts new RPGers; they are overloaded with fantasy settings and think they are all alike, and saturated with "action RPGs" and think that roleplaying means hack 'n' slash 'n' level up. Every person I see who hates Dungeons and Dragons has the exact same argument. I'm not exaggerating, making this up, or saying it with intent to insult you. It's the truth. I tell them they are not playing as it was meant to be played, and they usually respond as if I were just offering meager excuses. That is from where I gained the viewpoint that most people who dislike D&D lack imagination and attention spans; they can't even imagine that the game could be played in a way other than the flawed, misinterpreted way in which they played it themselves. But then again, what do I know? I play D&D, and that means I'm the wrong type to be roleplaying. I ought to leave before I oppress everyone with stultifying rules. :rolleyes: By the way, I used to hate D&D too, because it was an awkward system. But then Third Edition came out, and after a reluctant study, I realized that everything I hated had been fixed. If you're talking about second edition AD&D, then no wonder you feel the way you do. Just realize that AD&D no longer represents Dungeons and Dragons and what it is meant to be. [ Friday, March 25, 2005 04:12: Message edited by: Cavanoskus ] -------------------- AIM/Yahoo IM: Cavanoskus Scary artwork and Bad Poetry The Wildlife Research Team SnakeNetMetalRadio "We, who are about to die, salute you." Posts: 86 \| Registered: Friday, May 21 2004 07:00