PDA

View Full Version : Things D&D could learn from videogames



Pages : [1] 2

Starsinger
2008-05-16, 12:45 AM
After seeing numerous comments like this one here as of late
I'm pretty sure DnD has been becoming more like a video game ever since the release of 2nd Edition. I've decided I was interested in compiling a list of things which D&D could stand to learn from video games. Please, feel free to contribute. Disclaimer: I am not advocating things like not role playing (unless that's what your group enjoys), nor am I advocating rail roading or turning characters into bunnies for entering the dark world without a magical pearl.

It's okay for not casters to do awesome things.
It's okay to hurt something's HP instead of trying to find a "win" button in a turn or two.
It's okay for PCs to be blatantly special.
It's okay to not have stats for things that won't ever use them.
It's okay to do things cinematically without regards for mechanics sometimes.

.... Actually I do advocate that bunny thing.

Jack Zander
2008-05-16, 01:57 AM
Things DnD could learn from video games:


*Character creation is quick and easy.
*Learning the system is quick and easy.
*All the rules are simple and streamlined.
*Turns take as little time as possible.
*Every character concept is balanced.


Things DnD should not take away from video games:


*NPCs "level up" in completely different ways than the PCs do.
*NPCs work on completely different mechanics than the PCs do.
*PCs cannot do anything creative, because the system is not designed to handle anything outside the programing.
*Abilities the characters have make no sense in real world terms (such as per encounter abilities).
*PCs are special because they are the PCs, not because of any training, merit, fortune, or respect they have earned.

Starsinger
2008-05-16, 02:02 AM
Things DnD should not take away from video games: *PCs cannot do anything creative, because the system is not designed to handle anything outside the programing.

Nobody wants that.

Blanks
2008-05-16, 02:04 AM
Yes, the king has "Unlimited HP"
No, you are not a merchant, you kill monsters, you don't haggle about items.
Yes, if the BBEG had a flaw in his plan, you can exploit it. You don't have to fight the fight that was "planned".

Chronicled
2008-05-16, 02:11 AM
*PCs cannot do anything creative, because the system is not designed to handle anything outside the programing.

Having rules for almost everything =/= being able to handle things outside the programming.

There are times when a DM needs to say "Sure, that works," or "That's an amazingly creative, intelligent, and/or cinematic idea. It works," or "No, despite the rules loophole, that doesn't work."

When there's tables to determine the demeanors of prostitutes in a bar, as well as any STDs they may have, and the likelihood of pregnancy (I wish I was making this stuff up), then I think reliance on mechanics has gone far too far.

Irreverent Fool
2008-05-16, 02:16 AM
Having rules for almost everything =/= being able to handle things outside the programming.

There are times when a DM needs to say "Sure, that works," or "That's an amazingly creative, intelligent, and/or cinematic idea. It works," or "No, despite the rules loophole, that doesn't work."

When there's tables to determine the demeanors of prostitutes in a bar, as well as any STDs they may have, and the likelihood of pregnancy (I wish I was making this stuff up), then I think reliance on mechanics has gone far too far.

I think you're arguing the same point here.

SurlySeraph
2008-05-16, 02:21 AM
It's okay for not casters to do awesome things.

Yes


It's okay to hurt something's HP instead of trying to find a "win" button in a turn or two.

Yes


It's okay for PCs to be blatantly special.

Only at sufficiently high levels. There should be low levels where the PCs are essentially mooks.


It's okay to not have stats for things that won't ever use them.

But usually the players will find ways to make the stats come into play. Whether it's "I stab the king" or "I let them finish summoning the Elder God, so we can get more XP by killing it," players make stats necessary. Anything that gives the DM more options and makes it easier for him to adjust to what the players are doing is good.


It's okay to do things cinematically without regards for mechanics sometimes.

What with how video games run on, ya know game engines, video games don't actually let you do things cinematically without regard to mechanics. DnD already does let you do things cinematically, when the DM says so.[/QUOTE]

Starsinger
2008-05-16, 02:29 AM
Only at sufficiently high levels. There should be low levels where the PCs are essentially mooks. By blatantly special I mean, if a player comes to me and says "Hey, I want to be the reincarnation of the warrior demi-god Heracles." I should try and work with the character as opposed to saying "No, all characters should be regular people off the street who decided to adventure one day."



What with how video games run on, ya know game engines, video games don't actually let you do things cinematically without regard to
mechanics. Really? Is that how video games run? I was referring to, for example, in Final Fantasy 9 how the bad guys assault cities with Summon magic, and despite having two summoners in your party, you can not do that in return. Nor does said assaulted city simply take 9999 damage. Y'know "cut scenes".

DnD already does let you do things cinematically, when the DM says so. You'd be suprised how many DMs I've ran into that are opposed to this. Somewhat related to the DMs who figure out how to mechanically stat a concept like "a meteor that falls from the sky and instantly kills anyone." instead of just doing it. I think DMs are a bit afraid of the "You're the DM, do it." function of their jobs.

Bender
2008-05-16, 04:31 AM
*Character creation is quick and easy.
Usually true

*Learning the system is quick and easy.
Only true because you don't actually learn the system. You can do the same in D&D by depending on your DM

*All the rules are simple and streamlined.
You could be very surprised as to how complicated those rules can get in computer games, you just don't really have a clue about them, but you don't have to, because the computer handles everything.

*Turns take as little time as possible.
very true, if there are turns at all

*Every character concept is balanced.
highly depends on the game, it is of course much easier to test this as the number of options/combinations is limited


# It's okay for not casters to do awesome things.
# It's okay to hurt something's HP instead of trying to find a "win" button in a turn or two.
Depends on your D&D play style and is not true in our (unoptimised) group. It's often the sword-and-shield fighter who wins the battle by dealing damage. :smallcool:

# It's okay to not have stats for things that won't ever use them. There are computer games with even more stats you'll never use, or even know you have them

Most of these points are related to computer=DM, and a computer is much better in remembering rules and calculating than any human DM will ever be.
The human DM is better at one thing, which happens to be so important I barely ever play computer games: improvising

An extra point for the list:
computer games are always available and don't require other people's agenda to fit with yours

rockdeworld
2008-05-16, 04:48 AM
2 words: house rules :smallbiggrin:

Any and all of these things depend entirely on the DM. Since DnD is essentially rules for what a character can/can not do while roleplaying (or how a specific encounter happens), it's basically up to the DM how any given game is played.

For example, I could make a DBZ game w/ DnD rules...

Rutee
2008-05-16, 04:55 AM
For example, I could make a DBZ game w/ DnD rules...
Yeah, but why bother? BESM3e and MnM2e handle it so much better. They're pretty much built from the ground up for it.

The number 1, to me, is related to "It's fine for non-casters to do cool things". It's perfectly fine to have the casters work with the same resource management as the melee.

Spiryt
2008-05-16, 05:57 AM
Things DnD could learn from video games:

*All the rules are simple and streamlined.


What vidoe games are you talking about?

I mean most games on Infinity engine ( Baldurs Gates for ex), while great, where constantly making me mad about monsters who resisted my 8th level spell just beacuse. Neverwinter nights were slighty better, probably.

And outside the cRPGs and pseudo cRPG it's even more visible. Only maniacs of FPS really know how many damage each weapon do/ how high can be the rocket jump.

I can't see how video games can beat pen and paper in that matter - if player doesn't know what had just happened, he can just ask GM.

Kurald Galain
2008-05-16, 06:15 AM
"Character creation is quick and easy" - in many computer RPGs, this is either trivial (i.e. you can't actually make meaningful choices) or false (as in, it's neither quick nor easy).

"Learning the system is quick and easy" is completely false; nearly every computer game with strategic elements (including most RPGs) has extremely complex rules. They can do this because they have a computer for the math.

"All the rules are simple and streamlined" is completely false for the same reason.

"Turns take as little time as possible" is often false for games that let you think as long as you want to (and trivial for real-time games since they don't have "turns")

"Every character concept is balanced" is utterly ridiculous.

"NPCs "level up" in completely different ways than the PCs do" is generally false because NPCs usually don't level up.

"NPCs work on completely different mechanics than the PCs do" is generally false because the mechanics work better if they're the same for everybody.

"Abilities the characters have make no sense in real world terms (such as per encounter abilities)" is generally false because computer games (unlike D&D 4E) tend to focus on verisimilitude these days.

"PCs are special because they are the PCs, not because of any training, merit, fortune, or respect they have earned" is generally false because the PCs tend to be destined, fortuned and so forth.

Wow, someone should play more computer games.

MeTheGameGuy
2008-05-16, 06:20 AM
I can't see how video games can beat pen and paper in that matter - if player doesn't know what had just happened, he can just ask GM.

But in pen and paper games, the players must at least learn the rules. In a video game, you can just stick the disc in and play. That's the main problem with pen and paper games: they're hard to get into.

To try out D&D, you need to do the following:

Find an RPG store.
Buy the 3 core books (probably some settings or modules too).
Get yourself a pile of dice with many sides.
Read all the books you've bought. (About 1000 pages of core material, other sourcebooks add more)
Find six friends who want to play, and have the same evening available for play every week.
Explain all of those 1000 pages to your friends.
Roll up characters. (Can take quite a while, possibly up to 2 hours if you have big backstories and things)
Finally, you can play!


To try out a video game, you can just go online and download a demo. Easier, simpler, cheaper, and less time consuming. You should be able to do the same in a pen and paper game: Download a few free rules, print them off, spend 5 minutes making a character, and have a quick adventure in your lunch break.

The other problem with pen and paper is the need for a DM. While this gives great flexibility to both the campaign and the players, it means you need an extra person at every game who can't play and needs to do lots of thinking. Perhaps a GM Simulator would help?

Rutee
2008-05-16, 06:21 AM
"Learning the system is quick and easy" is completely false; nearly every computer game with strategic elements (including most RPGs) has extremely complex rules. They can do this because they have a computer for the math.

"All the rules are simple and streamlined" is completely false for the same reason.

You're conflating "Rules" with "Math". An easy, if arcane, example is Super Robot Wars. There's something like 40 entries in the series; The math between two randomly selected titles will (usually) be vastly different; The /rules/ have pretty much never changed.


"NPCs "level up" in completely different ways than the PCs do" is generally false because NPCs usually don't level up.
Arguably, the difference is nil; NPCs don't usually level up in a game of DnD too.


"NPCs work on completely different mechanics than the PCs do" is generally false because the mechanics work better if they're the same for everybody.

This is both true and false, depending on interpretation and game, frankly.


"PCs are special because they are the PCs, not because of any training, merit, fortune, or respect they have earned" is generally false because the PCs tend to be destined, fortuned and so forth.
Varies vastly with game.


Wow, someone should play more computer games.
You?

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-16, 06:28 AM
Agreed with Rutee here. The rules you play under are easy as pie. The math is some kind of half monkey spawn from hell. Rules are easy, math is not.

Tengu
2008-05-16, 06:29 AM
DND needs a Goomba Stomp (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoombaStomp) attack.

Kurald Galain
2008-05-16, 06:35 AM
You're conflating "Rules" with "Math".
No I'm not. The rules describe how the game works and how things interact and so forth. You're saying that "the part that you don't understand" somehow isn't part of the "rules", but that is false. Even if the rules call for a mathematical function, the function is part of the rules; the knowledge how to treat such a function is what one might learn in math class.


Arguably, the difference is nil; NPCs don't usually level up in a game of DnD too.
Well, except in 3E, with its high-level commoners.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-16, 06:38 AM
Kurald, the player is under a different set of rules than the arbiter (In a Vidgame case, the computer). Player rules are easy, you declare an action among the ones offered and the computer does the math for you and tells you how it worked out.

Rutee
2008-05-16, 06:43 AM
No I'm not. The rules describe how the game works and how things interact and so forth. You're saying that "the part that you don't understand" somehow isn't part of the "rules", but that is false. Even if the rules call for a mathematical function, the function is part of the rules; the knowledge how to treat such a function is what one might learn in math class.
I've dissected the math in games. I've used it to recreate the system with less (irritatingly) complex math. You're conflating them, period. The systems frankly don't care about the underlying math.



Well, except in 3E, with its high-level commoners.

Did you level them up according to exp rules (Calculating the experience that they've earned from their actions), or did you generate a high level commoner? Because I've actually seen games level up NPCs (Usually Strat RPGs) based on their actions. I've never heard of precise calculations of NPC exp based on actions.

Tengu
2008-05-16, 06:45 AM
Seriously though, what could DND learn from computer games:

1. Non-mages could be able to do cool stuff (as already mentioned). Actually, I agree with all Starsinger's points.
2. Mechanical balance is an important part of both competition and team play.
3. Super-random elements of character creation and advancement (such as HP) are not a good idea.
4. Low levels are where combat should be easiest, not hardest.
5. Skill is more important than gear.

G-Man
2008-05-16, 06:52 AM
No matter what anyone says, the DM of a group should always be a flexible person willing to incorporate good ideas from his group and work with them, not against them, to make the game better.


The new D&D is too rule intensive. It's relegated the Dungeon Master to being an entertainer rather than master of the game. It's done away with the archetypes, focused on nothing but combat and character power, lost the group cooperative aspect, bastardized the class-based system, and resembles a comic-book superheroes game more than a fantasy RPG where a player can play any alignment desired, not just lawful good.
-Gary Gygax

If a player truly has an idea that they think should work, let them do it if they can prove to you they can handle the responsbility of playing a character with some powerful advantage.


Pen-and-paper role-playing is live theater and computer games are television. People want the convenience and instant gratification of turning on the TV rather than getting dressed up and going out to see a live play. In the same way, the computer is a more immediately accessible way to play games.
-Gary Gygax

I much prefer the ability to go out, meet my friends, and use powerful, provocative words and images to bring forth a true adventure. Computers can aid us in working around time schedules and larger distances, but they just don't have the same feel as meeting in person.

I play Neverwinter Nights, the original, online and DM for a server. The players are wonderful, and the atmosphere is excellent. There is, however, always a limitation. No matter how eloquently one writes, or types, it is impossible to fully cope with the fact that you have to type it, while they usually want to see it. The gaming engine is always limited by what the developers thought would be useful to add into the game design because of the limits of time and data they had.


There is no intimacy; it’s not live. [he said of online games] It’s being translated through a computer, and your imagination is not there the same way it is when you’re actually together with a group of people. It reminds me of one time where I saw some children talking about whether they liked radio or television, and I asked one little boy why he preferred radio, and he said, "Because the pictures are so much better."
-Gary Gygax

Dungeons and Dragons does not need to learn anything from Computer Games, in my opinion. In fact, we need to unlearn the things we learned from computer games, and re-immerse ourselves in the river of fantasy and fun, instead of trying to make everything have a rule, and a set outcome.

G-Man

Rutee
2008-05-16, 06:55 AM
Gary Gygax was frankly a remarkably bad DM, if what is told about his games is /anything remotely similar/ to the reality. Evidently, he was also a luddite. What should any of us care what he had to say?

Edit: I suppose I should treat the arguments the same as any other


The new D&D is too rule intensive. It's relegated the Dungeon Master to being an entertainer rather than master of the game. It's done away with the archetypes, focused on nothing but combat and character power, lost the group cooperative aspect, bastardized the class-based system, and resembles a comic-book superheroes game more than a fantasy RPG where a player can play any alignment desired, not just lawful good
Notwithstanding the comic book superhero insinuation as if it were a bad thing (Comic Book heroes are probably about as much of a full spectrum as anything he's run), the GM isn't the master of the game. The GM is the first among equals. To exalt the GM to a higher position is frankly ludicrous, and distances them from their fellow players.


If a player truly has an idea that they think should work, let them do it if they can prove to you they can handle the responsbility of playing a character with some powerful advantage.
What kind of powerful mechanical advantage would I need to give them, pray tell?


Pen-and-paper role-playing is live theater and computer games are television. People want the convenience and instant gratification of turning on the TV rather than getting dressed up and going out to see a live play. In the same way, the computer is a more immediately accessible way to play games.
Yeah, uh, this is frankly just self-glorification. "Video Games aren't interactive!" my foot.


I much prefer the ability to go out, meet my friends, and use powerful, provocative words and images to bring forth a true adventure. Computers can aid us in working around time schedules and larger distances, but they just don't have the same feel as meeting in person.
Speak for yourself.


There is no intimacy; it’s not live. [he said of online games] It’s being translated through a computer, and your imagination is not there the same way it is when you’re actually together with a group of people. It reminds me of one time where I saw some children talking about whether they liked radio or television, and I asked one little boy why he preferred radio, and he said, "Because the pictures are so much better."

Tch. He can't use his imagination over the internet, so none of us can?


Dungeons and Dragons does not need to learn anything from Computer Games, in my opinion. In fact, we need to unlearn the things we learned from computer games, and re-immerse ourselves in the river of fantasy and fun, instead of trying to make everything have a rule, and a set outcome
This is cute, you act as if they're mutually exclusive. Modern Game Design has already proven you wrong. That must feel awkward.

Kurald Galain
2008-05-16, 06:56 AM
Player rules are easy, you declare an action among the ones offered and the computer does the math for you and tells you how it worked out.
Okay, we're working under different terminologies here. I'd say the "list of actions a player can take" is easy, and that the underlying rules tell you (via a computer or dice or whatever) what happens as a result of that. For instance, I'd say that "roll 1d20 and add your BAB" is part of the rules concerning attacks in D&D. I suppose you could also say that the fact that you can attack is a rule, and that the fact that you roll a die is math.


I've dissected the math in games. I've used it to recreate the system with less (irritatingly) complex math. You're conflating them, period. The systems frankly don't care about the underlying math.
Yes, dear, I'm sure that dissecting one system because you found the math irritating makes you an expert on the topic. Your "because I say so, period" argument is most convincing.

Kurald Galain
2008-05-16, 06:59 AM
No matter what anyone says, the DM of a group should always be a flexible person willing to incorporate good ideas from his group and work with them, not against them, to make the game better.
Well, yes. I'm curious about your Gygax quotes, though. Is he talking about any edition in particular? He does sound like the kind of grognard arguments you get in forums like this one :smallbiggrin:

Tengu
2008-05-16, 07:00 AM
Gary Gygax was frankly a remarkably bad DM, if what is told about his games is /anything remotely similar/ to the reality. Evidently, he was also a luddite. What should any of us care what he had to say?

Yup. After all, there is a reason why we use "Gygaxian" to describe games chock-full of dungeon crawling, random traps and monsters, stuff arbitrarily trying to kill you, no roleplaying and generally treating DND like a board game with the DM instead of a board.

Rutee
2008-05-16, 07:06 AM
Yes, dear, I'm sure that dissecting one system because you found the math irritating makes you an expert on the topic. Your "because I say so, period" argument is most convincing.

Okay; You tell me how the math is inextricably tied to the system, since you're so freaking sure. I'm telling you from experience that it really isn't; In terms of straight adaptation, you'll usually find Final Fantasy style games work even if the HP cap is 999, not 9999, with everything sized down a decimal point to match.

G-Man
2008-05-16, 07:07 AM
Gary Gygax was far from a bad DM. That statement is so far from the truth, that I find it almost offensive. And, seeing as you are posting in a Dungeons and Dragons based forum, you are very likely to be flamed to death for such a comment.

I can, however, relate my point to you in a different way.

I never played any games with Gary Gygax, although I do have a friend or two that has, so I cannot in good conscience say he is the best DM I have ever seen because I have never seen him. But if you judge from the modules and adventures he wrote, each one taking the time to explain each intricate detail of how the adventure is to be run, the mood to be set, and why it is that way, he was an excellent DM with an astonishing ability to paint a picturesque scene, then maul it with some grusome images and leave you with a dungeon set before you with every little detail given a purposeful meaning.

Unless you have played with Gary Gygax, I should also suggest you not simply assume he is a bad, or good, DM. I base my judgements solely on what I know of the man, and have seen from his works.

And to deal with the attacks on my posts, I reserve the right to my opinion, and you to yours. I do not, however, like being attacked for simply viewing the world in a different way. I can use my imagination over the internet, I have, and do use computers and games to enhance my experience. But, there is a certain joy and exhileration I get from actually being there with my players, seeing the expressions on there faces, and laying out the scenario before them with the tone of my voice setting the scene instead of me having to type out what I want my voice to sound like, or worry that my microphone is malfunctioning or distorting my voice.

I would appreciate if anyone who disagrees do so in an intelligent fashion, and not sound like they are speaking to a child in a condescending tone more fit for punishing animals than anything else, if even that. Thank you.

G-Man

Rutee
2008-05-16, 07:16 AM
Gary Gygax was far from a bad DM. That statement is so far from the truth, that I find it almost offensive. And, seeing as you are posting in a Dungeons and Dragons based forum, you are very likely to be flamed to death for such a comment.
He is singlehandedly responsible for the idea that the GM is God, not the first among equals, whom is just as bound by the group's social contract as the other players. That's pretty much a guaranteed failure as a GM.


Unless you have played with Gary Gygax, I should also suggest you not simply assume he is a bad, or good, DM. I base my judgements solely on what I know of the man, and have seen from his works.
What you have posted, and a lot of the gaming tropes he's established, are sufficient introduction to his character as a GM.


And to deal with the attacks on my posts, I reserve the right to my opinion, and you to yours.
Ah yes, because you can claim "I was phrasing an opinion" after stating that opinion as objective fact.

Incidentally, at no point did you answer the question "Why should we care what he had to say?" You merely said that by calling Gary Gygax a bad GM, I would be flamed to death (Which very well could be true; Lord knows the man has received a great deal of unfair lionization, both in life and posthumously)

And, on that note, aren't you kind of breaking your own rule? You're not actually responding to my arguments, you're brushing them off as unintelligent arguments because you dislike the tone. So yeah, actually, that's kinda hypocrtical..

SamTheCleric
2008-05-16, 07:19 AM
The best thing D&D can learn from videogames have all already been covered.

The most important thing, however, is that you can't have the game without the rules. If you tried to play a videogame without the code to back it up... it wouldn't function.

The same goes for Pen And Paper: without rules, it does not function.

Kurald Galain
2008-05-16, 07:19 AM
I would appreciate if anyone who disagrees do so in an intelligent fashion, and not sound like they are speaking to a child in a condescending tone more fit for punishing animals than anything else, if even that. Thank you.


Well said.

G-Man
2008-05-16, 07:29 AM
Rutee, the GM is supposed to be God where his world is concerned.

This does not mean that the GM should abuse his powers. The way a GM uses his powers, and how he or she interacts with the players is what makes them a good or bad GM. Maybe this is the way our idea for a GM being first among equals comes, but I believe that they should still have control of the game in all forms.

And why should we care about what he has to say?

He co-created the game. That should be more than sufficient reason.

Also, just because you read what has been said about him, and what he has said to the public, does not mean you really know the man behind the mask.

If you look at politicians, or any celebrity, almost anything they say that has any relevance at all is twisted and warped to make it more interesting to the public and destructive to the individual that made the statement. Its almost sad, honestly. Without personally knowing the man, neither you nor I can truly judge him. Words are far different than actions, and unfortunately I have to go for some time, but rest assured I will check back upon this thread later.

G-Man

Spiryt
2008-05-16, 07:30 AM
The same goes for Pen And Paper: without rules, it does not function.

I won't agree. Some of best games with my players had rather nonexisting rules. We were taking some notes, but that's all.

They were non serious and completely silly, though.

Rutee
2008-05-16, 07:34 AM
Rutee, the GM is supposed to be God where his world is concerned.
It isn't the GM's world. It's not the GM's story. It's everyone's world, everyone's story.


He co-created the game. That should be more than sufficient reason.
It's not. I've worked with a lot of (amateur, obviously) system creators. The relevance that their opinions had on the game in actuality was nearly close to nil. And that was a 1 or 2 year difference in time; Not you know, 20 or 30 years.



If you look at politicians, or any celebrity, almost anything they say that has any relevance at all is twisted and warped to make it more interesting to the public and destructive to the individual that made the statement. Its almost sad, honestly. Without personally knowing the man, neither you nor I can truly judge him. Words are far different than actions, and unfortunately I have to go for some time, but rest assured I will check back upon this thread later.
He's a game designer. He's /not a politician/. He isn't a celebrity in the sense that his public popularity affects his financial well being. More importantly, you were the one who quoted him. If you're claiming you twisted his words, fine, but that seems /slightly/ improbable.

Bender
2008-05-16, 07:57 AM
Yeah, uh, this is frankly just self-glorification. "Video Games aren't interactive!" my foot.
Neither is going to a theatre play, so the analogy still holds. It has nothing to do with interactive. It's about easy

Speak for yourself.
Most people I know would agree that there is a difference between going out to see friends and a computer game. Of course, I wouldn't know the others, since I would never meet them, so you're perfectly fine feeling that way.


Okay, we're working under different terminologies here. I'd say the "list of actions a player can take" is easy, and that the underlying rules tell you (via a computer or dice or whatever) what happens as a result of that. For instance, I'd say that "roll 1d20 and add your BAB" is part of the rules concerning attacks in D&D. I suppose you could also say that the fact that you can attack is a rule, and that the fact that you roll a die is math.
seconded.

It is perfectly possible to play D&D without knowing the "mechanics" (which for some reason are put under "rules" for D&D and under "math" for computer games). So basically, you just tell your DM you want to swing your sword at the ogre, and he/she will tell you which dice to roll and whether and where your mighty blow found the soft ogre flesh. After a few fights, you'll know what to do yourself, but it's still not necessary to know it (although, honestly, it can be annoying). If you have a (somewhat) patient DM, you don't have to read anything before your first game.
For a computer game, you at least have to know which buttons to press. But you don't have to roll a dice and it is often very hard to learn what really happens over time.


He is singlehandedly responsible for the idea that the GM is God, not the first among equals, whom is just as bound by the group's social contract as the other players. That's pretty much a guaranteed failure as a GM.
I'm inclined to say that say that the GM is both an equal and a god (without capital, don't be silly :smallwink:). He is an equal, because he has to make sure everyone has fun. But he is a god as he decides almost everything that happens in the game world. The players decide what their characters do, and the GM decides how the world reacts to that, that pretty much makes him god.

Also, don't say someone can't sing unless you've heard it, don't say something tastes bad before you had a bite and don't speak bad about someone's style if you never experienced it. (and random people on internet fora aren't a good reference to get second hand opinions)

SamTheCleric
2008-05-16, 08:00 AM
If you have a (somewhat) patient DM, you don't have to read anything before your first game.
For a computer game, you at least have to know which buttons to press. But you don't have to roll a dice and it is often very hard to learn what really happens over time.


I disagree. Most games come with a tutorial as the first level nowadays, even the first person shooters. That's "intro" level is the same as a DM guiding you through which dice to roll and when.

("Press the Right Trigger to Fire" = "Roll a D20 and add your strength modifier to it")

Rutee
2008-05-16, 08:11 AM
Also, don't say someone can't sing unless you've heard it, don't say something tastes bad before you had a bite and don't speak bad about someone's style if you never experienced it. (and random people on internet fora aren't a good reference to get second hand opinions)

I'm not a singer, but I know enough to know that there's actual knowledge to be had about singing, and if you don't have it, the odds are against you being nothing more then a talented amateur, rather then a good singer. Let's take what you're saying in another context:

"If you don't see a transcript of one of his court cases, you can't comment on a trial lawyer"
"...He forgot one of the Amendments completely. And <Insert Landmark Case relevant to the argument>."


Neither is going to a theatre play, so the analogy still holds. It has nothing to do with interactive. It's about easy
Oh, it's about easy? Why was there condescension then? There's nothing inherently better about the theatre compared to television. Sturgeons Law is just as applicable to the playwright as it is to the screenwriter.


I'm inclined to say that say that the GM is both an equal and a god (without capital, don't be silly ). He is an equal, because he has to make sure everyone has fun. But he is a god as he decides almost everything that happens in the game world. The players decide what their characters do, and the GM decides how the world reacts to that, that pretty much makes him god.


Except what Gygax supported was nothing even /that/ close to working together. It's right there in black and white; "The Dungeon Master is the master of the game, not an entertainer".

Telonius
2008-05-16, 08:13 AM
Also, just because you read what has been said about him, and what he has said to the public, does not mean you really know the man behind the mask.

Nor does anyone else on the boards, including G-Man, unless they actually played D&D with him. The suggestion is pointless unless someone has. In the meantime the weight of the evidence is that he ran a game-style that the overwhelming majority of gamers would not find entertaining.

Bender
2008-05-16, 08:15 AM
I disagree. Most games come with a tutorial as the first level nowadays, even the first person shooters. That's "intro" level is the same as a DM guiding you through which dice to roll and when.

("Press the Right Trigger to Fire" = "Roll a D20 and add your strength modifier to it")
seems like I have to start playing more computer games again too :smallamused:

Although I would be slightly more inclined to say that "Press the right trigger to fire"="tell your DM you attack the ogre with your axe" and "computer makes calculations in fraction of a second"="Roll a D20 and add your strength modifier to it"

Seriously, I don't think D&D can learn anything from computer games, even if it wanted to. I think most things mentioned in this thread (related to the original question that is :smallwink:) depend on a quick calculating device that is a computer, so I kinda assumed this wasn't a serious question, but more of a thought exercise.

Starsinger
2008-05-16, 08:20 AM
Seriously, I don't think D&D can learn anything from computer games, even if it wanted to. I think most things mentioned in this thread (related to the original question that is :smallwink:) depend on a quick calculating device that is a computer, so I kinda assumed this wasn't a serious question, but more of a thought exercise.

Yeah, I can see how non-casters being boring is a side effect of DMs not being computers...

bosssmiley
2008-05-16, 08:22 AM
Except what Gygax supported was nothing even /that/ close to working together. It's right there in black and white; "The Dungeon Master is the master of the game, not an entertainer".

Yep. Just like AD&D armour classes, that's totally backwards. Why should players spend hours of their free time not being entertained? :smallconfused:

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-16, 08:36 AM
Indeed. Like a famous article says, the DM is the band's Bass Player. He sets the mood, the others play the melody. You set a number of possible stories, the players play 'em out. If you don't like playing in a band as an equal, become a solo artist. It's far more boring and prone to egomania, but hey, you wanted it.

Bender
2008-05-16, 08:39 AM
Oh, it's about easy? Why was there condescension then? There's nothing inherently better about the theatre compared to television. Sturgeons Law is just as applicable to the playwright as it is to the screenwriter.
There was no condescension in this quote (you might guess about it, but it's not in the words). There are just aspects to going to a play that switching on a television doesn't have. In fact, going to a movie theatre is also different from watching the same film on tv.
There is nothing better or worse about a personal preference for theatre or tv.

note: It just occurred to me that in some places (Japan, and probably lots of other places I'm not aware of) people go to comic book stores (or the like) to play computer games together, which also makes it a social event. In this case the analogy no longer holds. There is of course still a difference with pen and paper, but mostly in the improvisation/everything-is-possible vs no-need-for-a-dm context.


Except what Gygax supported was nothing even /that/ close to working together. It's right there in black and white; "The Dungeon Master is the master of the game, not an entertainer".
The fact that he said that doesn't make him a bad DM. I regularly -for fun- say to my players that I will torture and slaughter them (and their characters :smalltongue:), that doesn't make me a bad DM.


Nor does anyone else on the boards, including G-Man, unless they actually played D&D with him. The suggestion is pointless unless someone has. In the meantime the weight of the evidence is that he ran a game-style that the overwhelming majority of gamers would not find entertaining.
He might be a bad DM, or he might not be, I haven't seen evidence either way. Show me the "weight of the evidence" and I'll accept it.
In the meantime, I don't think it's very respectful to claim he was that bad, after all, there is a reason that his name does appear on the first page of every D&D book/supplement/adventure.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-16, 08:42 AM
There was no condescension in this quote (you might guess about it, but it's not in the words). There are just aspects to going to a play that switching on a television doesn't have. In fact, going to a movie theatre is also different from watching the same film on tv.
There is nothing better or worse about a personal preference for theatre or tv.

note: It just occurred to me that in some places (Japan, and probably lots of other places I'm not aware of) people go to comic book stores (or the like) to play computer games together, which also makes it a social event. In this case the analogy no longer holds. There is of course still a difference with pen and paper, but mostly in the improvisation/everything-is-possible vs no-need-for-a-dm context.


The fact that he said that doesn't make him a bad DM. I regularly -for fun- say to my players that I will torture and slaughter them (and their characters :smalltongue:), that doesn't make me a bad DM.


He might be a bad DM, or he might not be, I haven't seen evidence either way. Show me the "weight of the evidence" and I'll accept it.
In the meantime, I don't think it's very respectful to claim he was that bad, after all, there is a reason that his name does appear on the first page of every D&D book/supplement/adventure.


You say it yourself, you JOKE about torturing your players, you don't go through it. Thus, you do not go God.

Gygax was an excellent game designer, and a visionaire, but if modules like the idiotic tomb of horrors tell us anything, he was crappy as a DM. Seriously, "You die, roll up a new character" is NOT a thing a good DM does for kicks.

Rutee
2008-05-16, 08:45 AM
There was no condescension in this quote (you might guess about it, but it's not in the words). There are just aspects to going to a play that switching on a television doesn't have. In fact, going to a movie theatre is also different from watching the same film on tv.
There is nothing better or worse about a personal preference for theatre or tv.
Given the general context and his apparent luddism, there are two choices: Either G-Man dishonestly quoted him out of context to make one appear preferential to the other, /or he did in fact mean that/.


note: It just occurred to me that in some places (Japan, and probably lots of other places I'm not aware of) people go to comic book stores (or the like) to play computer games together, which also makes it a social event. In this case the analogy no longer holds. There is of course still a difference with pen and paper, but mostly in the improvisation/everything-is-possible vs no-need-for-a-dm context.
There are also arcades, yes.


The fact that he said that doesn't make him a bad DM. I regularly -for fun- say to my players that I will torture and slaughter them (and their characters :smalltongue:), that doesn't make me a bad DM.
The fact that he said it isn't quite as important as the fact that he /meant/ it. Lord and tailor.


He might be a bad DM, or he might not be, I haven't seen evidence either way. Show me the "weight of the evidence" and I'll accept it.
In the meantime, I don't think it's very respectful to claim he was that bad, after all, there is a reason that his name does appear on the first page of every D&D book/supplement/adventure.

The weight of the evidence? Are his own quotes insufficient now? Oh, right, they are, because you keep assuming he's joking (In which case, G-Man is at obvious fault for quoting him as if he were serious)

Cainen
2008-05-16, 08:56 AM
I'm getting the vibe that most of you have just read the Tomb of Horrors and called it a day. Of course the Tomb of Horrors was murderous - that was its gimmick. But Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, a genre-crossing game? Considerably less irritating than the Tomb of Horrors, and more interesting than quite a few games. Gary's written plenty of decent modules, not all of which involved instant death traps. While he's not the best GM in the world, he's certainly not as bad as you claim, and he does have a knack for creating detailed scapes.

Kurald Galain
2008-05-16, 09:08 AM
Three things. First, reading that module primarily tells you things about his module writing. not about how he DMs.

Second, the module was published thirty years ago, and I am quite certain that people had different tastes back then than they do now.

And third, the module is undeniably one of the most famous adventures out there, even if some people call it "so bad it's good".

Talya
2008-05-16, 09:17 AM
This is rather amazing.

I find myself agreeing with both Gary Gygax in many of his points...and agreeing with Rutee's rebuttals of those same points.

I don't think either of them are wrong, yet they are completely opposite in viewpoint.

All-in-all I consider video-game RPGs an admirable (and fun!), yet ultimately poor attempt to immitate pen and paper games. I don't think any of the points listed in the OP are true, at least not universally. I think in general, it's not that pen and paper should immitate computer games more, I think it's that due to the limitations of computer games, those things are necessary. They are not necessary (and therefore, undesireable in most cases) in pen and paper games.

Bender
2008-05-16, 10:46 AM
The weight of the evidence? Are his own quotes insufficient now? Oh, right, they are, because you keep assuming he's joking (In which case, G-Man is at obvious fault for quoting him as if he were serious)
I started wondering where the argument came from and went over the thread again. Apparently, we went from
"...It's relegated the Dungeon Master to being an entertainer rather than master of the game...."
Gary Gygax
to "Gary Gygax is a very bad GM"
I can't really see the link. (unless some loose links based on the assumption that the GM for some reason should have no influence on what happens in the game)

maybe there are other quotes you are referring to that I am unaware of?


Yeah, I can see how non-casters being boring is a side effect of DMs not being computers... non-casters being boring is as much a side effect of play style and personal preference than of anything else. The 'evidence' being that I've never seen a party where not at least one (and usually more than one) player wanted to play a non-caster. And very often even a fighter. Now I'm not that experienced, but it seems like there are a lot of people who enjoy playing non-casters.
You're welcome to think it is boring, but nobody is forcing you to play non-casters (I hope)

Talya
2008-05-16, 11:58 AM
non-casters being boring is as much a side effect of play style and personal preference than of anything else. The 'evidence' being that I've never seen a party where not at least one (and usually more than one) player wanted to play a non-caster. And very often even a fighter. Now I'm not that experienced, but it seems like there are a lot of people who enjoy playing non-casters.
You're welcome to think it is boring, but nobody is forcing you to play non-casters (I hope)

very, very true.

You have to pull teeth to get people to play spellcasting types in many games. People want to play the big strongman with a sword. They do not want their sword to be able to create 10 mile shockwaves when they slam it into the ground. They want to play a mundane, mortal (if spectacular) swordsman.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-16, 12:12 PM
They do not want their sword to be able to create 10 mile shockwaves when they slam it into the ground.

At higher levels, that's what I want my melee to be able to do. Start out small... become a god. That's what I want ALL my PCs to do.

Morty
2008-05-16, 12:29 PM
At higher levels, that's what I want my melee to be able to do. Start out small... become a god. That's what I want ALL my PCs to do.

Yeah, starting small and becoming a god is what D&D played in 1-20(or 30 in 4ed) tends to be about. However, you can become a god with style or without it. Killing a venerable old dragon singlehandely or surviving a spell that obliterates whole cities is stylish. Creating shockwaves with your sword is, for some people, just stupid. It's a matter of taste.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-16, 12:39 PM
Yeah, starting small and becoming a god is what D&D played in 1-20(or 30 in 4ed) tends to be about. However, you can become a god with style or without it. Killing a venerable old dragon singlehandely or surviving a spell that obliterates whole cities is stylish. Creating shockwaves with your sword is, for some people, just stupid. It's a matter of taste.

It really is. All of this back and forth between people is mostly pointless, because no-one will like everything you like 100%... everyone gets to like something different. I like melee shockwaves on swords, you may prefer just two handing a greatsword and calling out various speciest epitaphs... As long as the system (attempts) to cater to most everyone... more power to them.

Spiryt
2008-05-16, 12:48 PM
At higher levels, that's what I want my melee to be able to do. Start out small... become a god. That's what I want ALL my PCs to do.

The problem is that in 3.5 15th level barbarian can survive at least 20 crossbow bolts in his chest, can run at olympic distances with runner speed, carrying armor, weapon, and 213 pieces of something.

He can also cut iron golems with sword survive being immolated by things like fireball, have strenght greater than adult whale, dodge missiles that when he doesn't know they are comming...

Multicassing and feats gives only more. Those things are completely superhuman, and already highly awesome, without need to make Dragon Ball out of it.

Unfortunately, 3.5 system makes those things actualy weak, by reducing their meaning by poorly designed rules, or by giving some classes and monsters idioticaly overpowered stuff. Et cetera.

RukiTanuki
2008-05-16, 04:30 PM
My thoughts on the OP and the side discussions in general:

There are elements of good game design that can transcend the medium and work in multiple environs. Bad design decisions (including "sacred cows" and bad tropes) are often bad most anywhere.

There are no singular answers to what makes good game design, as there is no singular good game. The needs and desires of the audience impacts which design decisions would work out best. D&D finds itself continually trying to balance goals that tug design in different directions (rules heavy/light, focus on tactics vs. strategy, value of what abilities are chosen vs. how they are used). There aren't "best" decisions: you pick what end objective you're trying to achieve, then choose the balance of design that makes your game come out as the experience you want.

A lot of the vitriol in the 4e discussions focuses on whether a core design decision Wizards made (e.g. "all classes contribute meaningfully and at approximately equivalent power for a given character level") was the best decision. Many people want a different experience. They may not find what they want in 4e no matter how well it's designed. (For example, they may find it difficult to run a game where magic is extremely powerful and dangerous, the equivalent of bringing a flamethrower to a sword fight in a hay barn while covered in kindling and drenched in 180-proof rum.) There's no "you're doing it wrong" here; if you're peeling bananas with a pair of pliers, and it works, I won't tell you you should use a melon baller instead (and you shouldn't have to defend your preference of pliers by insisting that the melon baller is a bad idea for people trying to eat fruit, only to receive the flaming wrath of the Watermelon Brigade).

I'm fortunate enough that many of 4e's design goals match my own. My hope remains that the actual implementation is good, and achieves the goals I want. (I also hope that I actually know what I want and what tools make it easier for me to run games... not always true!)

So, tying it together, D&D should pull good game design ideas from every corner. If Parcheesi has a design conceit that would do D&D good, use it! Good ideas should not be dismissed by medium alone.

Matthew
2008-05-16, 05:12 PM
Oh my goodness. Can people stop talking about Gary Gygax as though he had one static opinion for thirty years? I have never ever heard anybody who played under Gygax say he was a bad DM. Never. However, I have heard loads of people who have played under Gygax who said he was a great DM. Whether their idea of good and bad corresponds to other people's ideas is open to discussion, but can we please stop making statements with no more to go on than a few lines you might have heard quoted out of the 1e DMG (1979!) or the friggin' Tomb of Horrors (A 1978 tournament module!)?

Anybody here actually read the 1e DMG (and I don't mean briefly skimmed it)? I know I have, but I would be interested to know who else has. What about some of his more recent work, anybody read that? Yggsburgh? Lejendary Adventures?

EvilElitest
2008-05-16, 05:45 PM
Dam it, i can't even scroll through this thread without seeing a thread that needs answering


After seeing numerous comments like this one here as of late I've decided I was interested in compiling a list of things which D&D could stand to learn from video games. Please, feel free to contribute. Disclaimer: I am not advocating things like not role playing (unless that's what your group enjoys), nor am I advocating rail roading or turning characters into bunnies for entering the dark world without a magical pearl.



Wouldn't a better thing be some sort of explanation for why D&D is apperently not becoming video game like. Which i would of course promply counter for as i've gotten the 2E books i can say that 3E started a slippery slope


It's okay for not casters to do awesome things.
It's okay to hurt something's HP instead of trying to find a "win" button in a turn or two.
It's okay for PCs to be blatantly special.
It's okay to not have stats for things that won't ever use them.
It's okay to do things cinematically without regards for mechanics sometimes.

1) that isn't an intention of D&D, just WotC being stupid when it comes to balence
2) I don't see how that is video game only
3) PCs being special yes, unique no
4) No its not, as can be seen from the 2e DMG. Creatures in teh world shouldn't exist simply as the PCs tools. Also define never use
5) DM fiat. It shouldn't be the case for the Core D&D. If you want cinematics in your game (ignoring the fact that kinda voliates the Pcs free will to actually do stuff) fine, but it shouldn't be a core function



By blatantly special I mean, if a player comes to me and says "Hey, I want to be the reincarnation of the warrior demi-god Heracles." I should try and work with the character as opposed to saying "No, all characters should be regular people off the street who decided to adventure one day."
Why? If you want to design the game specifically around such a concept fine, but if a PC simply says "Hey i want this" it isn't the Dm's duty to simply spoil them.



Really? Is that how video games run? I was referring to, for example, in Final Fantasy 9 how the bad guys assault cities with Summon magic, and despite having two summoners in your party, you can not do that in return. Nor does said assaulted city simply take 9999 damage. Y'know "cut scenes".
yeah, which is inconsistent and sloppy. I mean, if i pulled that on my PCs it would be like

"Alright, the enemies approach"
"Alright, lets fight them, ready some defenses"
"no wait guys, you can't fight these guys"
"Wait Why not?"
"Because they are suppose to win"
"What?"
"yeah, i need them to win so you will have to leave the destroyed city"
"Scew that, i want to fight these bastards"
"You can't do anything"
"But, we he have the super magic powers. WE can defend the city"
"Yeah, but the plot demands you don't"
"So your rail roading us"
"I'm increasing Drama"
"What? So our guys are simply standing there watching as our city is destroyed instead of actually doing anything"
"Its dramatic"
"Its moronic, so much for logic"



You'd be suprised how many DMs I've ran into that are opposed to this. Somewhat related to the DMs who figure out how to mechanically stat a concept like "a meteor that falls from the sky and instantly kills anyone." instead of just doing it. I think DMs are a bit afraid of the "You're the DM, do it." function of their jobs.
That isn't hte DM's Job. The DM is suppose to uphold rules and make sure the game runs well. The DM in this case clearly wants to see who would survive logically and who won't, including the PCs, instead of simply saying "Everybody dies



But in pen and paper games, the players must at least learn the rules. In a video game, you can just stick the disc in and play. That's the main problem with pen and paper games: they're hard to get into.

And inevitable the game is limiting and has massive unfixable flaws. Which doesn't have to happen with table top games



Arguably, the difference is nil; NPCs don't usually level up in a game of DnD too.
Why not? Mine do, and the ones in the game i play do. That isn't a rule, just one way to play the game. You might want to base this off of rules, because D&D certianly has NPCs with class levels, i mean look at ToB



Did you level them up according to exp rules (Calculating the experience that they've earned from their actions), or did you generate a high level commoner? Because I've actually seen games level up NPCs (Usually Strat RPGs) based on their actions. I've never heard of precise calculations of NPC exp based on actions.
well for NPcs with Class levels, how about the.....same ones as the PCs. New idea there



4. Low levels are where combat should be easiest, not hardest.
I don't think so. The fun of low levels is the fun about it being really really tough. If you don't like it, start high level



Gary Gygax was frankly a remarkably bad DM, if what is told about his games is /anything remotely similar/ to the reality. Evidently, he was also a luddite. What should any of us care what he had to say?
And you base this on.......what exactly? The fact that he doesn't spoil his players isn't a sign of a bad Dm. Unless you mean his mechanical balence



Notwithstanding the comic book superhero insinuation as if it were a bad thing (Comic Book heroes are probably about as much of a full spectrum as anything he's run), the GM isn't the master of the game. The GM is the first among equals. To exalt the GM to a higher position is frankly ludicrous, and distances them from their fellow players.
Yes there is, the Dm is given more responsibility to run the game. While he wants the players to have fun, he isn't suppose to simply work as a wish granter who simply lets the PCs have what ever they want.



What kind of powerful mechanical advantage would I need to give them, pray tell?
depends on the specific case


Yeah, uh, this is frankly just self-glorification. "Video Games aren't interactive!" my foot.
want to try basing this off something other than "I say no"
It isn't self glorification, he certainly has a point here, computers games are always limited

Speak for yourself.
ug, such a new generation thing to say. Computer talking is great, but doesn't compare to real life, the abilty to interact phyicall, to see what they are looking like, to actually talk to each other


Tch. He can't use his imagination over the internet, so none of us can?
Actually, his point is that imagination isn't limited in real life.

This is cute, you act as if they're mutually exclusive. Modern Game Design has already proven you wrong. That must feel awkward.

It must be great being able to not back one's points, and simply say something like it is true nor even base your point on fact.



Yup. After all, there is a reason why we use "Gygaxian" to describe games chock-full of dungeon crawling, random traps and monsters, stuff arbitrarily trying to kill you, no roleplaying and generally treating DND like a board game with the DM instead of a board.
I don't think so, he might have made mechanical mistakes, but 2E certainly wasn't a mindless dungeon crawl



And to deal with the attacks on my posts, I reserve the right to my opinion, and you to yours. I do not, however, like being attacked for simply viewing the world in a different way. I can use my imagination over the internet, I have, and do use computers and games to enhance my experience. But, there is a certain joy and exhileration I get from actually being there with my players, seeing the expressions on there faces, and laying out the scenario before them with the tone of my voice setting the scene instead of me having to type out what I want my voice to sound like, or worry that my microphone is malfunctioning or distorting my voice.
I find it amusing that Rutee didn't actually counter anything, just said you were wrong flat out. Hell, i could do better with Devils advocate



He is singlehandedly responsible for the idea that the GM is God, not the first among equals, whom is just as bound by the group's social contract as the other players. That's pretty much a guaranteed failure as a GM.

And that is a problem why? Considering the very nature of the game, that makes perfect sense. The World is somethign to be controlled by the DM, giving them immense responsibility. Part of that is to keep over eager players in check.


Ah yes, because you can claim "I was phrasing an opinion" after stating that opinion as objective fact.
any more than you did and your claim that DM's being god is bad.



Incidentally, at no point did you answer the question "Why should we care what he had to say?" You merely said that by calling Gary Gygax a bad GM, I would be flamed to death (Which very well could be true; Lord knows the man has received a great deal of unfair lionization, both in life and posthumously)
1) and you didn't respond to anythign, you simply went 'well thats wrong' and then didn't actually respond to anything from that point on
2) And you haven't actually proven why he is a "bad Dm" just said that DM is god =bad.
3) And considering his game, he certainly deserves the credit, through i wouldn't count on his balancing issues
4) he also did say why you should care about what he has to say, because his option directly effects this threads subject and he makes a very good point, one you haven't countered it is worth noting



And, on that note, aren't you kind of breaking your own rule? You're not actually responding to my arguments, you're brushing them off as unintelligent arguments because you dislike the tone. So yeah, actually, that's kinda hypocrtical
Ah rutee, the double standards, so amusing, because he didn't have anything to actually respond to other than your unbacked insults



It isn't the GM's world. It's not the GM's story. It's everyone's world, everyone's story.
j
D&D isn't a story telling game, and no game is required to have an ingrated story line. It can be sandbox, story based or more often simply free form. So yes, it is a world, not a story


It's not. I've worked with a lot of (amateur, obviously) system creators. The relevance that their opinions had on the game in actuality was nearly close to nil. And that was a 1 or 2 year difference in time; Not you know, 20 or 30 years.

And yet he makes a good point. And i normally don't like him

Except what Gygax supported was nothing even /that/ close to working together. It's right there in black and white; "The Dungeon Master is the master of the game, not an entertainer".
yeah, exactly. He makes everything, including the challenges. He isn't there to simply allow the PCs to furfill wish fulfillment issues



Given the general context and his apparent luddism, there are two choices: Either G-Man dishonestly quoted him out of context to make one appear preferential to the other, /or he did in fact mean that/.
and you have yet to actually back what he said as being bad

Mathew, i'm reading the 2E DMG, and it amazing. How much was lost in 2E (which didn't play because i started in 3E) that was good for the game
from
EE

Rutee
2008-05-16, 05:47 PM
You have to pull teeth to get people to play spellcasting types in many games. People want to play the big strongman with a sword. They do not want their sword to be able to create 10 mile shockwaves when they slam it into the ground. They want to play a mundane, mortal (if spectacular) swordsman.

Then stick to low levels. Don't pollute the entire game with the idea that swordsmen have to be mortal at every level. If Roland, the Paladin, is allowed to cut (None of this 'well swordsmen can't do it in DnD, so it was obviously a spell' nonsense) a 4km large hole in the side of the Pyrenees, there should be nothing stopping a player from doing so when they get to the higher levels.



Anybody here actually read the 1e DMG (and I don't mean briefly skimmed it)? I know I have, but I would be interested to know who else has. What about some of his more recent work, anybody read that? Yggsburgh? Lejendary Adventures?
I sincerely doubt that you can quote Gary Gygax on online or video games, and still be quoting him from the DMG 1e. If those weren't current opinions, then the one quoting them is at fault; I tend to assume honesty in debate tactics, so those were clearly fairly current quotes.

EvilElitest
2008-05-16, 06:03 PM
Then stick to low levels. Don't pollute the entire game with the idea that swordsmen have to be mortal at every level. If Roland, the Paladin, is allowed to cut (None of this 'well swordsmen can't do it in DnD, so it was obviously a spell' nonsense) a 4km large hole in the side of the Pyrenees, there should be nothing stopping a player from doing so when they get to the higher levels.

That wasn't their intent, just their lack of balence



I sincerely doubt that you can quote Gary Gygax on online or video games, and still be quoting him from the DMG 1e. If those weren't current opinions, then the one quoting them is at fault; I tend to assume honesty in debate tactics, so those were clearly fairly current quotes.
And yet, you still haven't actually proven the quotes wrong
from
EE

Matthew
2008-05-16, 06:21 PM
Matthew, i'm reading the 2E DMG, and it amazing. How much was lost in 2E (which didn't play because i started in 3E) that was good for the game.

Yeah, it is a good read, though generally considered to be very inferior to the 1e DMG (but that is a difficult book to read). I recommend reading both and deciding for yourself. I think they are both good.

EvilElitest
2008-05-16, 06:34 PM
Yeah, it is a good read, though generally considered to be very inferior to the 1e DMG (but that is a difficult book to read). I recommend reading both and deciding for yourself. I think they are both good.

Yeah, i mean 4E and even parts of 3E seem so primitive and less thought out. So video game like
from
EE

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-16, 06:47 PM
Yeah, i mean 4E and even parts of 3E seem so primitive and less thought out. So video game like
from
EE

I wouldn't underestimate video games. Planescape Torment has a campaign (If you want to name it that way) which is so imaginative most DM's would kill for that kind of creativity. Starcraft has one of the most balanced sets of options known to man, shaming almost everything else out there with it's perfection. Black and White is extremely intuitive, but immensely deep. There is much to learn from Videogames, not the least of which is the combination of perfect description that images give and the interactivity. Even a master DM cannot make something as vivid as a well done video game scene.

Talya
2008-05-16, 06:52 PM
I wouldn't underestimate video games. Planescape Torment has a campaign (If you want to name it that way) which is so imaginative most DM's would kill for that kind of creativity. Starcraft has one of the most balanced sets of options known to man, shaming almost everything else out there with it's perfection. Black and White is extremely intuitive, but immensely deep. There is much to learn from Videogames, not the least of which is the combination of perfect description that images give and the interactivity. Even a master DM cannot make something as vivid as a well done video game scene.

Games can be awesome.

Matthew
2008-05-16, 06:52 PM
I sincerely doubt that you can quote Gary Gygax on online or video games, and still be quoting him from the DMG 1e. If those weren't current opinions, then the one quoting them is at fault; I tend to assume honesty in debate tactics, so those were clearly fairly current quotes.

Could you pop my name into the quote? Otherwise I can't really tell when you're quoting me in a thread this cumbersome.

Sure, the three opening quotes are from here and fairly recent: Gary Gygax Wiki Quote (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Gary_Gygax). All are linked to their relevent articles, which I strongly urge people to read to get the context of what is being said. However, do remember he was selling RPGs at that time, so it's pretty unlikely he's going to say "Sure, CRPGs are great". I'm not sure exactly what he was doing in 2004 Lejendary Adventures). :smallwink: It's quite different from what he said to Monte Cook about his D20 DMG, according to Monte.

Seriously, though, have you actually ever read anything by Gary Gygax?



Yeah, i mean 4E and even parts of 3E seem so primitive and less thought out. So video game like

I try to stay away from that meme, but I suppose it is only natural for RPGs to influence CRPGs and be influenced by them in their turn.

I think D&D is becoming more about rules based combat choices and how those interact with character builds. Whether that's a negative or a positive depends on what you want from D&D.

Rutee
2008-05-16, 07:13 PM
No. I have limitted time, as I'm mortal. I'll read things I disagree with; Generally it's more important to do so then it is to read things you agree with. But I'm not going to read his work on game design. Unless everything he says in public is completely reversed in his work, I already know I'm not going to get anything out of it, because it's so wrongheadedly focused it won't do me any good. I've seen what happens when you design and run games according to the design philosophy he has espoused in public. And I'm aware that he has a vested interest in claiming that New Media Are Evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NewMediaAreEvil). That doesn't excuse his words on the topic, nor his luddism. Especailly seeing as there's no need to slam internet-based games based on his financial interests; he still makes money as long as it's purchased.

Incidentally, those quotes were evidently in context.

Matthew
2008-05-16, 07:25 PM
No. I have limitted time, as I'm mortal.

Very true, which is exactly why he might seek to discourage people from playing CRPGs over buying and reading his stuff. I don't know where this idea that CRPGs don't hurt RPGs has come from, but I don't have anywhere near enough time to devote to RPGs, never mind CRPGs.



That doesn't excuse his words on the topic, nor his luddism.

Who's trying to excuse him? I agree with what he's saying, but I doubt you would find that surprising. :smallwink: I do find it kind of odd that you would dismiss his work without having read it, based on the work of other people that you think have a similar design philosophy. Still, it's probably true that his stuff wouldn't be for you (not that I'm particularly familiar with your likes and dislikes).



Incidentally, those quotes were evidently in context.

Good, I'm glad you read them that way.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-16, 07:27 PM
No. I have limitted time, as I'm mortal. I'll read things I disagree with; Generally it's more important to do so then it is to read things you agree with. But I'm not going to read his work on game design. Unless everything he says in public is completely reversed in his work, I already know I'm not going to get anything out of it, because it's so wrongheadedly focused it won't do me any good. I've seen what happens when you design and run games according to the design philosophy he has espoused in public. And I'm aware that he has a vested interest in claiming that New Media Are Evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NewMediaAreEvil). That doesn't excuse his words on the topic, nor his luddism. Especailly seeing as there's no need to slam internet-based games based on his financial interests; he still makes money as long as it's purchased.

Incidentally, those quotes were evidently in context.

I wouldn't be so rash. That's jumping to conclusions, and I'm on your side here. If you don't have time, it's too bad, really, because arguing without knowing the original context is like jumping into the fire without any Fire resistance. It's much better to, to quote Queen, "Light another cigarette and let yourself go" than to argue without knowing what the hell the topic's about.

EvilElitest
2008-05-16, 07:31 PM
I wouldn't underestimate video games. Planescape Torment has a campaign (If you want to name it that way) which is so imaginative most DM's would kill for that kind of creativity. Starcraft has one of the most balanced sets of options known to man, shaming almost everything else out there with it's perfection. Black and White is extremely intuitive, but immensely deep. There is much to learn from Videogames, not the least of which is the combination of perfect description that images give and the interactivity. Even a master DM cannot make something as vivid as a well done video game scene.

actually i don't dislike video game and i'm a huge fan of those games. Except for black and white, which i think is over rated. However video games have also become more primitive sadly, focusing more on graphics than plot and 4E seems to be taking hints from FInal Fantasy

I am a fan of zero punctuation
from
EE

Rutee
2008-05-16, 07:34 PM
Very true, which is exactly why he might seek to discourage people from playing CRPGs over buying and reading his stuff. I don't know where this idea that CRPGs don't hurt RPGs has come from, but I don't have anywhere near enough time to devote to RPGs, never mind CRPGs.
CRPGs are frankly better then anything his design philosophy could produce.



Who's trying to excuse him? I agree with what he's saying, but I doubt you would find that surprising. :smallwink: I do find it kind of odd that you would dismiss his work without having read it, based on the work of other people that you think have a similar design philosophy.
Do his words in public sync up with his works: Yes or No? If yes, then yeah, I'm pretty sure I have his design philosophy pegged down. If not, then he's sunk a level as a person anyway, for using divisive rhetoric that he doesn't even believe in. There are few crimes among the nerd community quite so high as inciting Omega Dog Syndrome between nerds, IMO.


I wouldn't be so rash. That's jumping to conclusions, and I'm on your side here. If you don't have time, it's too bad, really, because arguing without knowing the original context is like jumping into the fire without any Fire resistance. It's much better to, to quote Queen, "Light another cigarette and let yourself go" than to argue without knowing what the hell the topic's about.
Do his words in public match up with his works: Yes or No? Again: I don't need to see trial transcripts from someone to know they're a bad trial lawyer if they can't remember relevant landmark cases. I don't need to read anything Stalin's published to know he was an overly paranoid nutjob who's purges hurt Russia much more often then they've helped.

EvilElitest
2008-05-16, 07:40 PM
No. I have limitted time, as I'm mortal. I'll read things I disagree with; Generally it's more important to do so then it is to read things you agree with. But I'm not going to read his work on game design. Unless everything he says in public is completely reversed in his work, I already know I'm not going to get anything out of it, because it's so wrongheadedly focused it won't do me any good. I've seen what happens when you design and run games according to the design philosophy he has espoused in public. And I'm aware that he has a vested interest in claiming that New Media Are Evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NewMediaAreEvil). That doesn't excuse his words on the topic, nor his luddism. Especailly seeing as there's no need to slam internet-based games based on his financial interests; he still makes money as long as it's purchased.

Incidentally, those quotes were evidently in context.
1) So basically, instead of adding to the debate and actually discussing the content here, your just going to say everything he says is wrong headed just because, and use that as an excuse to not actually respond to anything
2) Not all new media is evil, but that doesn't make it all good (yeah, i mean you Eragon. And you too 24. And resident evil as well). I mean, what he says is a bit like Fahrenheit 451. That doesn't make him wrong
from
EE

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-16, 07:43 PM
CRPGs are frankly better then anything his design philosophy could produce.



Do his words in public sync up with his works: Yes or No? If yes, then yeah, I'm pretty sure I have his design philosophy pegged down. If not, then he's sunk a level as a person anyway, for using divisive rhetoric that he doesn't even believe in. There are few crimes among the nerd community quite so high as inciting Omega Dog Syndrome between nerds, IMO.


Do his words in public match up with his works: Yes or No? Again: I don't need to see trial transcripts from someone to know they're a bad trial lawyer if they can't remember a relevant landmark cases. I don't need to read anything Stalin's published to know he was an overly paranoid nutjob who's purges hurt Russia much more often then they've helped.

And you do not need to know Oda Nobunaga was a bastard who STILL was hugely beneficial for Japan, for example. I think Gygax's case is more in that line.

EvilElitest
2008-05-16, 07:45 PM
CRPGs are frankly better then anything his design philosophy could produce.

Based on......really what flaws in his design philosophy do you find. Reading 2e DMG is amazing and makes 3E's loot primitive most respects.
Of course the ancient problem of not actually doing your research might come up
(http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DidNotDoTheResearch)
because you total unwillingness to actually explain what is wrong with his ideals is very shady

Do his words in public sync up with his works: Yes or No? If yes, then yeah, I'm pretty sure I have his design philosophy pegged down. If not, then he's sunk a level as a person anyway, for using divisive rhetoric that he doesn't even believe in. There are few crimes among the nerd community quite so high as inciting Omega Dog Syndrome between nerds, IMO.

1) Is omega Dog Syndrome your defense for everything? He has a very legitimate complaint, one that you are unwilling to actually counter with any backed argument other than "It sucks"
2) Considering his design ideas are far better than 4E and most of 3E, yes



Do his words in public match up with his works: Yes or No? Again: I don't need to see trial transcripts from someone to know they're a bad trial lawyer if they can't remember a relevant landmark cases. I don't need to read anything Stalin's published to know he was an overly paranoid nutjob who's purges hurt Russia much more often then they've helped.
1) Except his record is full of positive indications
2) Yes but that doesn't mean every single statement Stalin made was 100% wrong on every level
from
EE

Rutee
2008-05-16, 07:47 PM
I have a more apt comparison (Nobunaga isn't generally lionized, and did in fact know he was doing), but it's too close to politics, so let's go with Nobunaga. I'm not denying the man was influential; I'm denying he knew what the hell he was doing.

Matthew
2008-05-16, 07:49 PM
CRPGs are frankly better then anything his design philosophy could produce.

Well, I am sure it comes as no surprise to you that I strongly disagree with you.



Do his words in public sync up with his works: Yes or No? If yes, then yeah, I'm pretty sure I have his design philosophy pegged down. If not, then he's sunk a level as a person anyway, for using divisive rhetoric that he doesn't even believe in. There are few crimes among the nerd community quite so high as inciting Omega Dog Syndrome between nerds, IMO.

That assumes he had an unchanging position.

1) Did Gygax think D20 was too rules heavy for his taste? Sure. No surprises there.

2) Did he think the Dungeon Master should be more than entertainer? Sure. He didn't say the Dungeon Master is not there to entertain, that would be stupid.

3) Did he think D20 was too 'superheroey' for a "Swords & Sorcery" game? Sure.

4) Did he think CRPGs were a form of instant gratification that people want? Sure.

5) Did he think that imagination functions differently when playing Online Massive Multplayer CRPGs? Sure.

6) Did he think that people could imagine better images than you see on the computer? Sure.

Hope that answers your concerns.

[edit]
Not sure where this Luddism thing has come from; as far as I am aware, Gygax liked computers and made considerable use of modern technology.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-16, 07:49 PM
I have a more apt comparison (Nobunaga isn't generally lionized, and did in fact know he was doing), but it's too close to politics, so let's go with Nobunaga. I'm not denying the man was influential; I'm denying he knew what the hell he was doing.

Like, y'know, opening Japan to the world? To name only one of his big ones?

EvilElitest
2008-05-16, 07:51 PM
Well, I am sure it comes as no surprise to you that I strongly disagree with you.

As do i, simply because she isn't backing any points with anything more than ego, and when that comes from me that is like going to london and being told your food sucks.

That assumes he had an unchanging position.



1) Did Gygax think D20 was too rules heavy for his taste? Sure. No surprises there.

2) Did he think the Dungeon Master should be more than entertainer? Sure. He didn't say the Dungeon Master is not there to entertain, that would be stupid.

3) Did he think D20 was too 'superheroey' for a "Swords & Sorcery" game? Sure.

4) Did he think CRPGs were a form of instant gratification that people want? Sure.

5) Did he think that imagination functions differently when playing Online Massive Multplayer CRPGs? Sure.

6) Did he think that people could imagine better images than you see on the computer? Sure.

Hope that answers your concerns.

2-6) and he was right i think, and i'm willing to back this up. Which is funny, because nobody who thinks he is wrong is actually explaining why but hey
from
EE

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-16, 07:53 PM
EE: Tone it down. While I agree that what Rutee is doing is only one or two steps above the flames, going down to accuse of inflated ego is going to lower levels. Let us not lose our composure, lest it doesn't end well for us.

EvilElitest
2008-05-16, 07:59 PM
EE: Tone it down. While I agree that what Rutee is doing is only one or two steps above the flames, going down to accuse of inflated ego is going to lower levels. Let us not lose our composure, lest it doesn't end well for us.

Fine, but here is the thing. I'm fine with disagreement, hence why i get along so well with you and Mr. Scaly. And why despite Tengu making me cry myself to sleep every night, i actually don't dislike him. However they, and people like Dervage or WT will back up their statements. Star singer, while i disagree with his ideas, did at least make it clear why he felt that way. However simply pointing at something and going "Oh gods, he is bad, he is bad, out dated, paranoid and is against new age media, and isn't imaginative s simply missing the point more as much as not catching on to Airplane being a parody. When Rutee says that Gary's idea of DM not acting as entertainers to players wish fantasies is bad, well here is the thing. Why? I'm all for player empowerment, but not for player entitlement .
from
EE

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-16, 08:05 PM
Of course. But hey, if you're pissed off, shout a giant FU and listen to some Heavy, Hard Rockin'. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=un3ycolm5o4)

Or imagine you're the title character from This Song and Rutee's one of the purged Evils. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAagedeKdcQ)

Or one of the mindless servants this one number speaks of. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkuOAY-S6OY)

Hey, it works for me. :smalltongue:

EvilElitest
2008-05-16, 08:09 PM
Of course. But hey, if you're pissed off, shout a giant FU and listen to some Heavy, Hard Rockin'. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=un3ycolm5o4)

Or imagine you're the title character from This Song and Rutee's one of the purged Evils. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAagedeKdcQ)

Or one of the mindless servants this one number speaks of. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkuOAY-S6OY)

Hey, it works for me. :smalltongue:

ok, what did i do to you for my to deserve having my eyes bleed like that. Well, actually the first one was actually quite good, but the second, ugI'd rather just counter her arguments while listening to classical music
from
EE

Rutee
2008-05-16, 08:10 PM
Like, y'know, opening Japan to the world? To name only one of his big ones?
Who's denying Nobunaga's effect on Japan? Or /Nobunaga's/ ability? I deny Gygax's /ability/, but not his /influence/, since you seem to have gone off topic with your analogy. Incidentally, I /am/ here, so it's more then a little unwise to speak of me as though I am not.


That assumes he had an unchanging position.

1) Did Gygax think D20 was too rules heavy for his taste? Sure. No surprises there.

2) Did he think the Dungeon Master should be more than entertainer? Sure. He didn't say the Dungeon Master is not there to entertain, that would be stupid.

3) Did he think D20 was too 'superheroey' for a "Swords & Sorcery" game? Sure.

4) Did he think CRPGs were a form of instant gratification that people want? Sure.

5) Did he think that imagination functions differently when playing Online Massive Multplayer CRPGs? Sure.

6) Did he think that people could imagine better images than you see on the computer? Sure.

Hope that answers your concerns.
1: D20 isn't 'too rules heavy' so much as it emphasizes the wrong things with a lot of its rules, IMO.

2: He also said the GM is in charge of the game, and treated it as an exalted position. Exalting the GM's position is flatly bad, because they're to be the first among equals.

3: It's not even as 'superhero-y' as myth, so I doubt it somewhat.

4: And also condescended on the subject

5: And online tabletop games (Which is funny, because an online tabletop game is fundamentally the same as an RL one, except you read instead of listen)

6: And evidently conflated online tabletop gaming with MMOs.



Not sure where this Luddism thing has come from; as far as I am aware, Gygax liked computers and made considerable use of modern technology.
And argued against the use of technology in his baby...

Talya
2008-05-16, 08:12 PM
Then stick to low levels. Don't pollute the entire game with the idea that swordsmen have to be mortal at every level.

I'd counter with: then stick to exalted. Don't pollute the entire game with the asinine notion that a swordsman swinging a sword can create a ten mile shockwave just because he's got a lot of experience.



He also said the GM is in charge of the game

The GM is in charge of the game. The only thing a player is in charge of is what his own character chooses to do. EVERYTHING that isn't a player character (and that's most of the world) is in the hands of the GM. Furthermore, what happens to the players is ultimately in the hands of the GM.


The GM is in charge of the game. The gods themselves are insignificant next to the will of the GM.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-16, 08:14 PM
ok, what did i do to you for my to deserve having my eyes bleed like that. Well, actually the first one was actually quite good, but the second, ugI'd rather just counter her arguments while listening to classical music
from
EE

I'm all for classical, but when you have to unwind, heavy metal is the top choice, the big one.

Rutee: Why? Gossip is the ultimate attack, incredibly difficult to counter. More power to anyone who can use it wisely and effectively.

And yeah, I think of Gygax like Nobunaga. Did some great things no one else could have done, but he also had MAJOR screwups.

I can even think up other examples if you want.

Talya
2008-05-16, 08:16 PM
I'm all for classical, but when you have to unwind, heavy metal is the top choice, the big one.


I despise metal. Unwind? All it does is leave me vaguely irritated and stressed.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-16, 08:16 PM
I'd counter with, You stick to exalted. Don't pollute the entire game with the asinine notion that a swordsman swinging a sword can create a ten mile shockwave.

Yeah, the shockwave IS OTT. Personally, I prefer the happy medium, dozens of strikes in a matter of seconds, wildcard attacks that, due to lady luck's blessing, result in an incredible comeback, and marvelous chinese acrobat pirouette's to catch the opponent offguard.

Because, y'see, I also hate "I swing my pointy metal stick, AGAIN".

EvilElitest
2008-05-16, 08:18 PM
Who's denying Nobunaga's effect on Japan? Or /Nobunaga's/ ability? I deny Gygax's, since you seem to have gone off topic with your analogy.

Except actually proving what Gygax does wrong could be a start


1: D20 isn't 'too rules heavy' so much as it emphasizes the wrong things with a lot of its rules, IMO.

2: He also said the GM is in charge of the game, and treated it as an exalted position. Exalting the GM's position is flatly bad, because they're to be the first among equals.

3: It's not even as 'superhero-y' as myth, so I doubt it somewhat.

4: And also condescended on the subject

5: And online tabletop games (Which is funny, because an online tabletop game is fundamentally the same as an RL one, except you read instead of listen)

6: And evidently conflated online tabletop gaming with MMOs.

1) Depends, some of them are quite well
2) And that is bad why? Really, try backing your option
3) 4E seems to disagree
4) i ask you again is he wrong? i love good RPG computer games but i realize their limitations, IE they are better single players
5)As a fan of Orwell, i think that is in actuality a big different
6) They related, i think he was criticizing one
from
EE


And argued against the use of technology in his baby...[/QUOTE]

Rutee
2008-05-16, 08:19 PM
Nah, it'd just derail things further. I was just trying to say that it's not necessary to read the published works of a person to have an educated opinion on them, if you have other factors to work with.


I'd counter with: then stick to exalted. Don't pollute the entire game with the asinine notion that a swordsman swinging a sword can create a ten mile shockwave just because he's got a lot of experience.

It's not because he has a lot of experience. It's because he's /powerful/. Higher level PCs are /supposed/ to be. Again: Heroic myth provides characters far more capable then DnD Melee. Roland is the Paladin. A PC Paladin is never allowed to be that bad ass, going by the rules of Dungeons and Dragons in any edition, because all they can do is smack people for decent damage, and sometimes smite evil.

Honestly, it's like you weren't looking at my example. I named someone I can almost guarantee Dungeons and Dragons looked at for inspiration doing exactly what you said a guy with a sword should never do.

Starsinger
2008-05-16, 08:19 PM
I'd counter with: then stick to exalted. Don't pollute the entire game with the asinine notion that a swordsman swinging a sword can create a ten mile shockwave.

If only there was a happy medium, like Tome of Battle. Of course that's not mundane enough is it? I'm not asking for a level 20 fighter to feel like something out of Exalted or DBZ. But it would be nice if not-casters could do stuff other than "I hit it with my sharp metal stick." But I guess I prefer my fantasy games to have fantasy in everyone's hands, not just those of the select few.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-16, 08:20 PM
I despise metal. Unwind? All it does is leave me vaguely irritated and stressed.

Ah, well, guess I won't be able to bring Pantera here. But would you allow The Number of The Beast? It has one of the best screams to practice Scream therapy with. Or maybe Thick as a Brick, by Jethro Tull?

EvilElitest
2008-05-16, 08:21 PM
I'm all for classical, but when you have to unwind, heavy metal is the top choice, the big one.

Rutee: Why? Gossip is the ultimate attack, incredibly difficult to counter. More power to anyone who can use it wisely and effectively.

And yeah, I think of Gygax like Nobunaga. Did some great things no one else could have done, but he also had MAJOR screwups.

I can even think up other examples if you want.

Heavy rock, no. I'm far more of a fan of Leanord Cohan (what, anyone here Canada) or Christ Super star. I have a good eye for music and i prefer classic. There are some gems in the Heavy rock industry but i fine it painful to go digging

On the subject of fighters, i would like to point out that there are more than two options. It isn't Fighters suck or fighters swing sword and mountains explode like some juvinial day dream, there are other options out there
from
EE

Matthew
2008-05-16, 08:24 PM
1: D20 isn't 'too rules heavy' so much as it emphasizes the wrong things with a lot of its rules, IMO.

I would disagree, but then that's what makes such things subjective.



2: He also said the GM is in charge of the game, and treated it as an exalted position. Exalting the GM's position is flatly bad, because they're to be the first among equals.

As far as I am concerned, the GM is in charge of the game. The position of GM is an honour bestowed on one player. That's pretty much the same as being the first among equals as far as I can see. Depends on the degree of exaltation he intended.



3: It's not even as 'superhero-y' as myth, so I doubt it somewhat.

That's opinion, everyone is entitled to one. D20 is more high powered than previous editions of D&D, it is more 'superheroey'. Whether you have a stricter definition of 'superheroey' than I, may be the cause of disagreement. 'Sword and Sorcery is not superheroey.'



4: And also condescended on the subject

Irrelevant, and also not how I read it.



5: And online tabletop games (Which is funny, because an online tabletop game is fundamentally the same as an RL one, except you read instead of listen)

Dunno where you're getting that from. As far as I can see, they're talking about Computer Games, not Online Tabletop RPGs.



6: And evidently conflated online tabletop gaming with MMOs.

Evidently not, but you seem to be.



And argued against the use of technology in his baby...

Where?

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-16, 08:24 PM
Yeah, ToB, also known as 1337ness, to use n00bspeak. But it IS really that good.

As for Heavy metal...well, maybe I can tempt you with some Green Grass and High Tides (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R82OM5tzcrk), if you don't like the heavy sets and enjoy something calmer?

EvilElitest
2008-05-16, 08:29 PM
I would disagree, but then that's what makes such things subjective.

It depends on the situation. I mean D&D's focus on not making the PCs entitled is great, or was


As far as I am concerned, the GM is in charge of the game. The position of GM is an honour bestowed on one player. That's pretty much the same as being the first among equals as far as I can see. Depends on the degree of exaltation he intended.
The DM also has the heavy responsibilty for running the world


That's opinion, everyone is entitled to one. D20 is more high powered than previous editions of D&D, it is more 'superheroey'. Whether you ahve a stricter definition of 'superheroey' than I, may be the cause of disagreement.

mostly i think this comes from a very mis understood notion of superhero's. i'd consider the film beowulf and grendel to be more super hero like than say, Beowulf.

Irrelevant, and also not how I read it.
I think he actually makes a good point

As for the music, it started rather good, but once the singing started i lost interest. It wasn't awful, and didn't make me consider killing myself, but it didn't impress me. I mean, look at this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2cCuadivpE)
no i don't want to start a religious debate now
from
EE

Rutee
2008-05-16, 08:30 PM
Dunno where you're getting that from. As far as I can see, they're talking about Computer Games, not Online Tabletop RPGs.



There is no intimacy; it’s not live. [he said of online games] It’s being translated through a computer, and your imagination is not there the same way it is when you’re actually together with a group of people. It reminds me of one time where I saw some children talking about whether they liked radio or television, and I asked one little boy why he preferred radio, and he said, "Because the pictures are so much better."

Nothing here is indicative of specifically MMOs. Granted, the New York Times isn't going to distinguish between the two, but there's nothing to indicate Gygax does either.


As far as I am concerned, the GM is in charge of the game. The position of GM is an honour bestowed on one player. That's pretty much the same as being the first among equals as far as I can see. Depends on the degree of exaltation he intended.
No, he isn't. You can't be in charge of something where you're that closely connected to, and answer that directly to, the other people you have a deal with. Perhaps you mean things with a lighter connotation then I do, I don't know, but GMs don't (Or at least shouldn't) have control that is any more meaningful over the game then what the other players have.

To use less connotationally bound language, the GM is there to facilitate what everyone wants out of the game (Including the GM! I don't mean to say they take a back seat to everyone else, but they don't take a front seat either), and nothing more.


Where?
*Points above*

EvilElitest
2008-05-16, 08:32 PM
Nothing here is indicative of specifically MMOs. Granted, the New York Times isn't going to distinguish between the two, but there's nothing to indicate Gygax does either.

There is also nothing you've said to indicate his option is actually that off base.



No, he isn't. You can't be in charge of something where you're that closely connected to, and answer that directly to, the other people you have a deal with. Perhaps you mean things with a lighter connotation then I do, I don't know, but GMs don't (Or at least shouldn't) have control that is any more meaningful over the game then what the other players have.
Yes they should. They are the ones making hte adventures, creating and maintaining the world, making sure the NPCs and the plots are realistic, keeping balence, making sure the players aren't too weak or too powerful, keeping the players in check and running everything

A monty haul game shouldn't be advocated
from
EE

Matthew
2008-05-16, 08:35 PM
Nothing here is indicative of specifically MMOs. Granted, the New York Times isn't going to distinguish between the two, but there's nothing to indicate Gygax does either.

*Points above*

I thought you said you read the context?



These days, pen-and-paper role-playing games have largely been supplanted by online computer games. Dungeons & Dragons itself has been translated into electronic games, including Dungeons & Dragons Online. Mr. Gygax recognized the shift, but he never fully approved. To him, all of the graphics of a computer dulled what he considered one of the major human faculties: the imagination.

“There is no intimacy; it’s not live,” he said of online games. “It’s being translated through a computer, and your imagination is not there the same way it is when you’re actually together with a group of people. It reminds me of one time where I saw some children talking about whether they liked radio or television, and I asked one little boy why he preferred radio, and he said, ‘Because the pictures are so much better.’ ”


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/05/arts/05gygax.html?_r=2&ref=arts&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

You'd have to really reach to think he's talking about Online Tabletop RPGs. He designed games intended for computers, as far as I am aware. I know there's another quote where he says he wished he had time to play CRPGs.



No, he isn't. You can't be in charge of something where you're that closely connected to, and answer that directly to, the other people you have a deal with. Perhaps you mean things with a lighter connotation then I do, I don't know, but GMs don't (Or at least shouldn't) have control that is any more meaningful over the game then what the other players have.

I mean when there is a disagreement about the rules or what is happening in the game, the DM has the final say. He has been given charge of the game to perform that function (amongst others).

Cainen
2008-05-16, 08:37 PM
Nothing here is indicative of specifically MMOs.

You're right. It's computer RPGs in general. It doesn't matter if it's an MMORPG or not - his point still stands. If it wasn't, he'd STILL have a point because playing tabletop games over the Internet doesn't involve everything that playing them in person does. No sharing pizza with your group, no beer and pretzels, nothing like that. It's not the same no matter what, and he may value that as character-building.


No, he isn't. You can't be in charge of something where you're that closely connected to, and answer that directly to, the other people you have a deal with. Perhaps you mean things with a lighter connotation then I do, I don't know, but GMs don't (Or at least shouldn't) have control that is any more meaningful over the game then what the other players have.

I'm fairly certain I can be in charge of my own game, madam. I don't let my players kick me around unless I can't play without listening to them, for one - that's taking charge, for one thing. While they may have some part in the game, it's definitely not as much as I have - I'm the guy who comes up with the rules and how to use the settings that are ahead of me, no? That's not bad GMing at all.

Rutee
2008-05-16, 08:39 PM
I thought you said you read the context?


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/05/arts/05gygax.html?_r=2&ref=arts&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

You'd have to really reach to think he's talking about Online Tabletop RPGs.
His words spoke of both, frankly. Right there, with the "Your imagination's not the same as if you were with the people present."



I mean when there is a disagreement about the rules or what is happening in the game, the DM has the final say. He has been given charge of the game to perform that function (amongst others).
That I'll agree with, in a general sense (Obviously, if most people disagree..)

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-16, 08:41 PM
+1'ed, EE. Monty haul is the third worst thing ever to happen to humanity, outside Carson Dally, and Can't Get away with Nuthin'.

Music: Well, if you put it that way. Gillan is another league. If you go to that level, I bring forth Fish (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwNVfNc1IQM) and Ian Anderson (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pzze87ZilQk).

And on the musical side, I still have to find anyone who can reach the levels of The (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=047jbfCE4p8) Incredible (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siBoLc9vxac) Guns (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxpG1PgrSZA) 'N (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZCdPcPh4XA) Roses (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=En_I2RqAQis&feature=related).

Yeah, not even Queen or Led Zepp. They come REALLY close, though.

Matthew
2008-05-16, 08:43 PM
His words spoke of both, frankly. Right there, with the "Your imagination's not the same as if you were with the people present."

Well, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think he's saying "Your imagination's not the same as if you were with the people present," therefore anytime your not gathered in a group in person it's rubbish. He's saying, I prefer to be gathered in a group than play over the computer. So do I, no big deal.

EvilElitest
2008-05-16, 08:51 PM
His words spoke of both, frankly. Right there, with the "Your imagination's not the same as if you were with the people present."

Which is true, when i talk to people right now i'm very different from when i talk normally
from
EE

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-16, 08:59 PM
Indeed. The Internet is a gigantic Gestalt alter ego. I know that is not what Gygax meant, but we're making an incredibly deep and simple counterpoint, and I enjoy it.

EvilElitest
2008-05-16, 09:01 PM
+1'ed, EE. Monty haul is the third worst thing ever to happen to humanity, outside Carson Dally, and Can't Get away with Nuthin'.

Music: Well, if you put it that way. Gillan is another league. If you go to that level, I bring forth Fish (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwNVfNc1IQM) and Ian Anderson (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pzze87ZilQk).

And on the musical side, I still have to find anyone who can reach the levels of The (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=047jbfCE4p8) Incredible (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siBoLc9vxac) Guns (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxpG1PgrSZA) 'N (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZCdPcPh4XA) Roses (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=En_I2RqAQis&feature=related).

Yeah, not even Queen or Led Zepp. They come REALLY close, though.
Meh, fish is ok, the lyrics just don't seem very deep. I dont' see the apeal of Ian, that song at least doesn't strike me as interesting

i am not actually a fan of Guns and Roses, they seem to blank. except for knock knock on heaven's door, which i think could be done better with another band. Hell, i can hear it in my head actually, and it is amazing

from
EE

Corolinth
2008-05-16, 10:11 PM
I only made it about ten posts in, but this thread highlights what I've noticed to be the biggest problems with the current incarnation of D&D.
It's okay for not casters to do awesome things.And they do. Quite often. The problem is that many players don't know awesome when they see it. Most of the time, awesome is a team effort, and it usually takes one of two scenarios: the stars align just right, or you build it from the ground up. What's happened is that the eastern influence in our video games and some of our television has convinced us that awesome has to be something that real people aren't capable of. We want our fighter to sprout angel wings made out of pure light, and go chasing after a runaway mana-comet so that he can catch it before it escapes the solar system and use it to revive the tree of life and save the world. In video games, your fighters have so much magical power that the spellcasters are worthless. This has caused a lot of players, especially the younger or newer ones, to have vastly different expectations of what the fighter is. In D&D, the fighter is a guy with a sword.


It's okay to hurt something's HP instead of trying to find a "win" button in a turn or two.You do realize that in video games, most of your opponents are either immune to all of the "win buttons," or else can be one-shotted by the top third of your party members? You hurt the hit point totals of all of your major encounters because you have no other means of defeating them. You hurt the hit point totals of your trash encounters because physical attacks are free and it's not worth wasting magic when your fighters are hitting for five digits worth of damage.


It's okay for PCs to be blatantly special.And they are. The overwhelming majority of people who populate the world are classless humans. A single level in any PC class is enough to make you pretty damn special. If Tom the Serf had a level of a PC class, any PC class, he'd be done shoveling manure. Relative "specialness" is an issue between player and DM, not the system and its players. That being said, D&D is not designed to be a game where you play as the children of deities, vampires, or cybernetic humans. You can do it if your DM will let you, but that's not how the game was designed.


It's okay to not have stats for things that won't ever use them.This is an issue with the DM, not the system. There is a difference between having stats for everything, and being able to have stats for everything. You need to have the capacity to come up with stats for anything, because your players like to kill and break things, and you need to know how to adjudicate that when the time comes. However, you only really need stats for things that your PCs are trying to kill or break. Otherwise, you can wing it pretty well. I have several major recurring NPCs that have gone unstatted for about two years now.


It's okay to do things cinematically without regards for mechanics sometimes.Again, this is an issue with the DM, not the system. D&D is perfectly capable of handling things in a cinematic manner, without regards for mechanics. The DM just says something like, "... and with a great leap at the last minute, you make it to the other side of the bridge just before it crumbles away into the abyss below." Furthermore, there are these neat little things called "circumstance modifiers" that a DM can use to give things a nudge. I do it a lot if a character is trying something I think is really cool, and would like to see succeed, but don't want to just hand out an automatic success them.

You have to be very careful with what you handle cinematically, without rolling dice. If you're going to handle a success without dice, you're eventually going to have to adjudicate a failure in the same manner. Players don't like to fail without a die roll. They like to call it "railroading," and will gladly do so any time they feel events did not shake out in their favor. A lot of times they get a bit jaded when they succeed, too. Succeeding without the possibility of failure (represented by the die roll) just isn't very satisfying. At the same time, when they make that million-to-one longshot, they're standing on top of the world.

Starsinger
2008-05-16, 10:28 PM
In D&D, the fighter is a guy with a sword.
Which would be fine, if the fighter was comparitively awesome with the rest of the cast. But the fact that two of your presumed four party roles are awesome and get to reshape reality while the other two are regulated to stabbing things isn't nearly as awesome. And you can be awesome while being mostly mundane.


You have to be very careful with what you handle cinematically, without rolling dice. If you're going to handle a success without dice, you're eventually going to have to adjudicate a failure in the same manner. Players don't like to fail without a die roll. They like to call it "railroading," and will gladly do so any time they feel events did not shake out in their favor. A lot of times they get a bit jaded when they succeed, too. Succeeding without the possibility of failure (represented by the die roll) just isn't very satisfying. At the same time, when they make that million-to-one longshot, they're standing on top of the world.

See, I see it as the ever famous DM advice "Roll dice for effect and make **** up. Just without the rolling dice part. That way, when I make stuff up, my players know it was supposed to happen. Admittedly, I DM different than the norm apparently. I sort of have a script of what's going to happen, which is heavily modified by what the players do as opposed to sand boxing and occasionally throwing in quests to find out why Ogres have gloves of dexterity.

Crow
2008-05-16, 10:36 PM
No. I have limitted time, as I'm mortal. I'll read things I disagree with; Generally it's more important to do so then it is to read things you agree with. But I'm not going to read his work on game design. Unless everything he says in public is completely reversed in his work, I already know I'm not going to get anything out of it, because it's so wrongheadedly focused it won't do me any good. I've seen what happens when you design and run games according to the design philosophy he has espoused in public. And I'm aware that he has a vested interest in claiming that New Media Are Evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NewMediaAreEvil). That doesn't excuse his words on the topic, nor his luddism. Especailly seeing as there's no need to slam internet-based games based on his financial interests; he still makes money as long as it's purchased.

Incidentally, those quotes were evidently in context.

You may have time to read some it if you sacrificed some of your forum time :smallwink:


I don't need to read anything Stalin's published to know he was an overly paranoid nutjob who's purges hurt Russia much more often then they've helped.

You would be surprised at how intelligent that bastard was if you took the time to research, rather than forming one-off half-baked conclusions. I'm not trying to start a political discussion, but just pointing out a flaw in your argument. Take a look at some of Gygax's stuff. You may not agree with everything he puts into print, but you may be surprised at some things you do agree with.

Reinboom
2008-05-16, 10:41 PM
Things I think D&D could learn from videogames (but should not):
You automatically have an extra resurrection shield when you get 100 gold pieces. Instead of starting back at the previous level, however, when you die, you just start at the beginning of your current level.
Alternatively, the players could just bribe the DM with quarters for a resurrection, but only in 'fast paced, high difficulty' games where they are likely to lose more than they think in this way.

Pushing the DM's buttons in the right why should make you get away with clearly defined special attacks - or a very fancy coup de grace.

It is ok if the DM does the same campaign next year again, but with a slightly different player character line up.

Sticks should of course deal more damage than short swords.

And most importantly, every detail of the world needs to be layed out perfectly for the players to interact with, and each detail emphasized internally from there. The world doesn't need anything beyond that though, the DM can just say "no".



i am not actually a fan of Guns and Roses, they seem to blank. except for knock knock on heaven's door, which i think could be done better with another band. Hell, i can hear it in my head actually, and it is amazing

I'm not fond of a lot of your opinions, but with this one, I agree.

Talya
2008-05-17, 09:28 AM
If only there was a happy medium, like Tome of Battle. Of course that's not mundane enough is it? I'm not asking for a level 20 fighter to feel like something out of Exalted or DBZ. But it would be nice if not-casters could do stuff other than "I hit it with my sharp metal stick." But I guess I prefer my fantasy games to have fantasy in everyone's hands, not just those of the select few.

Hey, I love ToB. And to point out...



Personally, I prefer the happy medium, dozens of strikes in a matter of seconds, wildcard attacks that, due to lady luck's blessing, result in an incredible comeback, and marvelous chinese acrobat pirouette's to catch the opponent offguard.

Because, y'see, I also hate "I swing my pointy metal stick, AGAIN".

Nothing about these things are supernatural. They are amazing, but believable as a swordsman of extreme skill, training, and natural talent. And a pure-classed fighter can do them! (as boring as that idea is to me.)

(BTW, I'm not all that fond of the flashier ToB powers, but the book works fine if you choose maneuvers that don't ever make someone seem to be a wizard weilding a sword.)


Heavy rock, no. I'm far more of a fan of Leanord Cohan (what, anyone here Canada)

I don't mind some heavy rock. And some stuff that sits on the line...some of the popular rock/alternative today would have seemed heavier than 80's metal. I guess I don't despise all metal, it's just not my thing.

Leonard Cohen is great, but I've gotta be in the mood.


Christ Super star.

No! If you're going to go live musicals, Les Mis is far better than any of ALW's crap. (Although Phantom actually isn't bad.)


I have a good eye for music and i prefer classic.


I like classical folk and alternative folk. I might occasionally listen to some Beethoven or Mozart, too. (Helps that I can play the stuff on piano.) Combined with Sarah McLachlan, U2, Aerosmith, Johnny Cash, and Loreena McKennitt, my ecclectic music tastes have no boundaries!

EvilElitest
2008-05-17, 09:54 AM
Which would be fine, if the fighter was comparitively awesome with the rest of the cast. But the fact that two of your presumed four party roles are awesome and get to reshape reality while the other two are regulated to stabbing things isn't nearly as awesome. And you can be awesome while being mostly mundane.
[/QUOTE}
Actually, as i said before, the fighter isn't intended to be sucky. They just can't reform reality to their will, that doesn't stop them from being sucky. Fighters in theory are suppose to be like Drizzt

[QUOTE]
See, I see it as the ever famous DM advice "Roll dice for effect and make **** up. Just without the rolling dice part. That way, when I make stuff up, my players know it was supposed to happen. Admittedly, I DM different than the norm apparently. I sort of have a script of what's going to happen, which is heavily modified by what the players do as opposed to sand boxing and occasionally throwing in quests to find out why Ogres have gloves of dexterity.
1) You roll the dice and see what happens
2) And a script style D&D is limiting. You can play it fine, but that style of play is limiting enough that it shouldn't be the basis of the core game
from
EE

EvilElitest
2008-05-17, 10:05 AM
You would be surprised at how intelligent that bastard was if you took the time to research, rather than forming one-off half-baked conclusions. I'm not trying to start a political discussion, but just pointing out a flaw in your argument. Take a look at some of Gygax's stuff. You may not agree with everything he puts into print, but you may be surprised at some things you do agree with.

Yeah, exactly. Stalin may have killed 23 million people, but you got to give it to him, he knew how to run a dicatorship.


I'm not fond of a lot of your opinions, but with this one, I agree.
Thanks, through i have to wonder why you wouldn't agree with me more



Nothing about these things are supernatural. They are amazing, but believable as a swordsman of extreme skill, training, and natural talent. And a pure-classed fighter can do them! (as boring as that idea is to me.)

(BTW, I'm not all that fond of the flashier ToB powers, but the book works fine if you choose maneuvers that don't ever make someone seem to be a wizard weilding a sword.)
here is the thing, i have no problem with the ToB classes. However i don't think they should be fighters. I like fighters as the normal guys who don't use Chi like magic, and are more like Drizzt in fighting.



I don't mind some heavy rock. And some stuff that sits on the line...some of the popular rock/alternative today would have seemed heavier than 80's metal. I guess I don't despise all metal, it's just not my thing.

Leonard Cohen is great, but I've gotta be in the mood.
Cohen isn't a great guitarist but he is a wonderful singers and a great song writers


No! If you're going to go live musicals, Les Mis is far better than any of ALW's crap. (Although Phantom actually isn't bad.)

I prefer Superstar, and its not because i'm religious, i just like the story and the lyrics better. I didn't like cats however
from
EE

Talya
2008-05-17, 10:18 AM
here is the thing, i have no problem with the ToB classes. However i don't think they should be fighters. I like fighters as the normal guys who don't use Chi like magic, and are more like Drizzt in fighting.




There is absolutely no "Chi-using" feel about the warblade. Warblade with White Raven, Iron Heart and Tiger Claw schools feels more fighterish than the fighter. They're the strategist, the tactician, the stand-up swordsman, the agile fighter...all rolled into one.

Crusader's not meant to be a fighter, it's more of a divine champion. Swordsage is more monk/ninja-like.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-17, 10:28 AM
Indeed. And if the swordsage ignores Desert Wind, which is nigh useless anyway, it's very martial, even with shadow hand factored in. Spellcasers perform complicated arcane formulas to tell the laws of physics to sit down and shut up. YOU are so badass you can subconsciously tell the laws of physics to sit down, cheer you, and want to make sweet love to you.

Rutee
2008-05-17, 10:31 AM
You would be surprised at how intelligent that bastard was if you took the time to research, rather than forming one-off half-baked conclusions.

I know he was intelligent. I picked my example carefully, and /do/ in fact know quite a bit about him.

He was still a paranoid whackjob who did a lot of damage to his own country in a lot of ways.

EvilElitest
2008-05-17, 10:36 AM
There is absolutely no "Chi-using" feel about the warblade. Warblade with White Raven, Iron Heart and Tiger Claw schools feels more fighterish than the fighter. They're the strategist, the tactician, the stand-up swordsman, the agile fighter...all rolled into one.

Crusader's not meant to be a fighter, it's more of a divine champion. Swordsage is more monk/ninja-like.

Actually i feel they are cool in their own right, but they don't have the feel the fighter is suppose to evoke. I'm against replacing fighter with ToB, i'm all for seperate but equal. The warblade envokes a Martial arts sword fighter feel, the Crusader has divine champion (not a paladin) feel and the Swordsage has a very chi feel. However the way their class works is fundamentally different from fighter, who i think should be more like Drizzt


I know he was intelligent. I picked my example carefully, and /do/ in fact know quite a bit about him.

He was still a paranoid whackjob who did a lot of damage to his own country in a lot of ways.
that is no reason to simply ignore his writings however. Nor your unfounded option of GG, which doesn't justify your tendency to not actually counter him
from
EE

Talya
2008-05-17, 10:45 AM
Actually i feel they are cool in their own right, but they don't have the feel the fighter is suppose to evoke. I'm against replacing fighter with ToB, i'm all for seperate but equal.

I don't like replacing any class. While I'd never play a single class fighter, I'd certainly dip them for a level or four.


The warblade envokes a Martial arts sword fighter feel, the Crusader has divine champion (not a paladin) feel and the Swordsage has a very chi feel.

There's nothing martial-arts in the feel of the warblade to me. I just don't see it. They're too direct, almost like a barbarian in their approach to things, although with more brains and tactics.


However the way their class works is fundamentally different from fighter, who i think should be more like Drizzt

Fighter feels nothing like Drizzt, on it's own. Drizzt is more ranger than fighter. But to make him seem remotely like what he does in the book, he'd be a heavily multiclassed ranger/fighter/swashbuckler/dervish. (Yes, I know that doesn't match his silly "official" statblock of Ranger/Barbarian/Fighter.)


Indeed. And if the swordsage ignores Desert Wind, which is nigh useless anyway, it's very martial, even with shadow hand factored in. Spellcasers perform complicated arcane formulas to tell the laws of physics to sit down and shut up. YOU are so badass you can subconsciously tell the laws of physics to sit down, cheer you, and want to make sweet love to you.

See, I don't like this. The way I see it, while the magic-user coerces, manipulates, and outright changes the laws of physics for a time, the melee character rather makes the laws of physics work for her, using them to her advantage. See, I don't see the laws of physics so much as a limitation for the martial character, but instead as an enabler...the martial combatant is only possible because of the laws of physics.

ahammer
2008-05-17, 11:03 AM
try this one one for size

any sequel that is seen by the fans as only for money and the devls did not put care into it(no matter how much they sell of it) will fail if a 2nd sequel is made.

unless in that sequel you clearly show you have seen the error of your ways.


im pro 4th btw just saying good thing to learn from games.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-17, 11:11 AM
I don't like replacing any class. While I'd never play a single class fighter, I'd certainly dip them for a level or four.



There's nothing martial-arts in the feel of the warblade to me. I just don't see it. They're too direct, almost like a barbarian in their approach to things, although with more brains and tactics.



Fighter feels nothing like Drizzt, on it's own. Drizzt is more ranger than fighter. But to make him seem remotely like what he does in the book, he'd be a heavily multiclassed ranger/fighter/swashbuckler/dervish. (Yes, I know that doesn't match his silly "official" statblock of Ranger/Barbarian/Fighter.)



See, I don't like this. The way I see it, while the magic-user coerces, manipulates, and outright changes the laws of physics for a time, the melee character rather makes the laws of physics work for her, using them to her advantage. See, I don't see the laws of physics so much as a limitation for the martial character, but instead as an enabler...the martial combatant is only possible because of the laws of physics.

The way I see it, a swordsman who tries, in D&D, to win against a reality bender, loses. That's why I like Swordsage. Your martial prowess is so great, you best the universe and it bows before you. The other meleers court physics trying to win it's favor, even though it's a very harsh mistress. The swordsage, who doesn't take that kind of crap, simply goes "Now, YOU hear me, bitch! I'm one of the greatest swordsmen who has ever lived, and I'm not going to take any of your crap! You better be with me, 'coz if you go against me, I'm going to break you into a pulp!", and calmly walks away.

EvilElitest
2008-05-17, 11:18 AM
I don't like replacing any class. While I'd never play a single class fighter, I'd certainly dip them for a level or four.


Fair enough, i just don't like the whole "replacing fighter with ToB" feel


There's nothing martial-arts in the feel of the warblade to me. I just don't see it. They're too direct, almost like a barbarian in their approach to things, although with more brains and tactics.

Fair enough



Fighter feels nothing like Drizzt, on it's own. Drizzt is more ranger than fighter. But to make him seem remotely like what he does in the book, he'd be a heavily multiclassed ranger/fighter/swashbuckler/dervish. (Yes, I know that doesn't match his silly "official" statblock of Ranger/Barbarian/Fighter.)
No, i'm referring to that strand of awesome the fighter is suppose to evoke. Not magic using, but still very awesome
from
EE

Bleen
2008-05-17, 11:44 AM
Behind every BBEG, there should be a switch. If you can make a Jump check to get over him and land on the switch, he dies instantly.

Indon
2008-05-17, 03:17 PM
Computer games generally have their mechanics strongly divorced from their interface (thus the distinction between 'rules' and 'math' which does not really exist in a tabletop game) - this is something both facilitated and mandated by a computer running the game. Facilitated in that the computer can run complex math invisibly then present the user with apparently simple results, and mandated in that a computer is incapable of dynamic thought making interface/rule integration (and thus transparency) generally more difficult than its' worth for a game of any strong degree of complexity.

No, that distinction is not something we should take from computer games. We aren't computers. We have neither their advantages (making such measures unfeasible) nor need we suffer their drawbacks (making such measures silly).


He is singlehandedly responsible for the idea that the GM is God, not the first among equals, whom is just as bound by the group's social contract as the other players. That's pretty much a guaranteed failure as a GM.
Unless you're a particularly good DM. The "First among equals" thing is in the event the DM isn't exceedingly good, to facilitate improvement and a more collective style of game.

It's certainly not a style that can work for everyone. But it's definitely a style that can work.


The same goes for Pen And Paper: without rules, it does not function.

I've been highly complimented for running free-form games. So, no. RPG's are a form of interactive storytelling, and while rules often facilitate the experience, they are not mandatory (Well, aside from, "What the storyteller says, goes" - aka the GM is God).

And while there's nothing bad with mandating HP damage, there sure is something uninteresting about it. When was the last time any of you used a status effect spell in a Final Fantasy game? And God only knows how excited everyone gets when they kill an undead with a Life spell for the first time because it's not using HP to kill an opponent like you do all the rest of the time.

The key is to introduce variety: When your system has everyone dying in X fashion, it's boring. But when your system has nothing dying in X fashion... it's still boring.

Balance in video games exists for a similar reason: A lack of variety in game objectives leads to different choices all needing to be equally good, because there are no subjective value judgements involved in evaluating the usefulness of those choices. This leads to, essentially, things being less interesting, because when you have a limited choice of destination, you're going to have limited choices for how to get there. Lack of variety begets lack of variety.

A video game example that tries to break that mold is the Elder Scrolls games - by trying to increase the variety of objectives availible in the game, they can attempt to increase the variety of character choices to achieve those objectives. Of course, being a video game, they don't do a very good job compared to a tabletop game (like the ones White Wolf makes).

Really, D&D could stand to learn more from TvTropes than from any video game, and what little it could learn from video games, it could learn from Chess.

Talya
2008-05-17, 03:43 PM
Indon, that post was awesome.

Indon
2008-05-17, 03:49 PM
Indon, that post was awesome.

So are you complimenting the content of the post, or the fact that unlike the rest of the last few pages of the thread, it was on topic? :P

SamTheCleric
2008-05-17, 03:52 PM
I've been highly complimented for running free-form games. So, no. RPG's are a form of interactive storytelling, and while rules often facilitate the experience, they are not mandatory (Well, aside from, "What the storyteller says, goes" - aka the GM is God).


Even "Free Form" games have rules. You wouldnt let someone just walk into your fantasy game as a Space Marine with atomic weaponry that can kill with merely a look would you? Of course not... that's a rule. All games must have rules.

Indon
2008-05-17, 03:58 PM
Even "Free Form" games have rules. You wouldnt let someone just walk into your fantasy game as a Space Marine with atomic weaponry that can kill with merely a look would you? Of course not... that's a rule. All games must have rules.

If you do that, I'll just say "no". That would be the single rule I specified must be there - I, as GM, am God. I say no space marines, no space marines. I say you _can_ have a space marine, then you can have a space marine.

It wouldn't be story-telling if there wasn't a storyteller, after all.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-05-17, 03:59 PM
It's in late, but, here you go, G-Man -

*flames Rutee for (1d3+4)[6]) fire damage, now roll a fort save.*

Anyway, things D&D could learn from videogames ...

I want the ability to mic spam players from the other side of the world. I can has?

SamTheCleric
2008-05-17, 04:01 PM
If you do that, I'll just say "no". That would be the single rule I specified must be there - I, as GM, am God. I say no space marines, no space marines. I say you _can_ have a space marine, then you can have a space marine.

It wouldn't be story-telling if there wasn't a storyteller, after all.

Yes, but that's still a rule... "No Space Marines" is a rule. "You can play space marines in my fantasy setting" is also a rule.

But... I'm not trying to start a fight or anything... you may not see it as a rule or set of rules.. that's cool.

Flickerdart
2008-05-17, 04:04 PM
The number 1 thing D&D needs to borrow from video games are graphics. But beyond awesome artwork, that's not happening.

Second, faster, more exciting combat. No successful video game has just "run up to a dude and stand in one place while hitting "attack" every 6 seconds". See Sands of Time for how to do a fighter properly.

Scintillatus
2008-05-17, 04:10 PM
Obligatory on-topic: Plots which aren't just "so, you meet in a tavern"; see: NWN 1, 2, expansions, Torment, VtM Bloodlines, Arcanum, Fallout, Bioshock, Deus Ex, System Shock 1 and 2, KOTOR 1 and 2... I could go on, you know.

MORE METAL: Metal with a zither (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ7oqsB0R4g), Metal with a female rapper vocalist, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1q5e7d7GKw0) plain old badass Metal. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mtlWQZ-jP8)

Indon
2008-05-17, 04:38 PM
Second, faster, more exciting combat. No successful video game has just "run up to a dude and stand in one place while hitting "attack" every 6 seconds". See Sands of Time for how to do a fighter properly.

Have you ever played a game in the Diablo series?


Yes, but that's still a rule... "No Space Marines" is a rule. "You can play space marines in my fantasy setting" is also a rule.
No, those aren't rules. Those are my judgements. I can change them any time I see fit, in accordance with the only rule.

Edit: Not to say there is no structure. Stories have plenty of structure - but they do not have rules.

Crow
2008-05-17, 08:13 PM
Obligatory on-topic: Plots which aren't just "so, you meet in a tavern"; see: NWN 1, 2, expansions, Torment, VtM Bloodlines, Arcanum, Fallout, Bioshock, Deus Ex, System Shock 1 and 2, KOTOR 1 and 2... I could go on, you know.


Of the ones I've played...

NWN; Trapped in some city, pretty much railroaded.
NWN2; Town attacked by dwarfs and siamese cat looking dudes, a little better, but then proceed to be railroaded hardcore.
NWN2 MotB; Trapped in some cavern, then railroaded by terrible "spirit hunger" mechanic.
Torment; Seemed to have a good bit of freeedom and side-hooks...this wasn't bad.
KotOR2; Start out trapped in some facility.

I think i'll just start my next adventure in a tavern...

Rutee
2008-05-17, 08:20 PM
It wouldn't be story-telling if there wasn't a storyteller, after all.

Yeah; That storyteller is supposed to be everyone, not just the GM. I'll agree that there are going to be characters that don't work due to the setting, but your tone, not so much.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-17, 08:32 PM
Of the ones I've played...

Torment; Seemed to have a good bit of freeedom and side-hooks...this wasn't bad.

I think i'll just start my next adventure in a tavern...


I take offense to torment being called not bad. It's a frickin' masterpiece. If you can make a story THAT good, you would be the new Gygax.

Rutee: That's correct. But if you have no GM things tend to go horribly wrong, even in freeform. It's TOO chaotic.

Rutee
2008-05-17, 08:34 PM
I'm not objecting to the existence of a GM. I'm objecting to their being /the/ storyteller, and as usual, they're being treated like god :P

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-17, 08:35 PM
Aaah. 'Splains a lot.

Personally, I stand by saying GM's are the bass players. If you know 'bout the bass player's job, you'll get why. What d'you think about that stance?

Crow
2008-05-17, 08:45 PM
I take offense to torment being called not bad. It's a frickin' masterpiece. If you can make a story THAT good, you would be the new Gygax.

I didn't get to play the game all the way through. My playing experience consisted of exploring for a few hours and repeatedly "testing my immortality against the wrong creatures" :smallwink:

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-17, 08:49 PM
I didn't get to play the game all the way through. My playing experience consisted of exploring for a few hours and repeatedly "testing my immortality against the wrong creatures" :smallwink:

Finish it up, really. And try to avoid anything that is not a plot based fight. The whole POINT of the game is that Words can be more powerful than Blades, to the point there is only one wieldable sword in the game.

Trust me, play it that way. It's unadulterated r0xx0rz. :smallwink:

Crow
2008-05-17, 08:57 PM
Finish it up, really. And try to avoid anything that is not a plot based fight. The whole POINT of the game is that Words can be more powerful than Blades, to the point there is only one wieldable sword in the game.

Trust me, play it that way. It's unadulterated r0xx0rz. :smallwink:

I don't own the game...will it run on Vista?

I did enjoy running around talking to Dustmen and then "snapping his neck with my free hand".

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-17, 09:14 PM
I don't own the game...will it run on Vista?

I did enjoy running around talking to Dustmen and then "snapping his neck with my free hand".

I...think so. Though Vista is so shoddy it mightn't.

But yeah, the game is less of a game and more of a piece of art. The most interesting part is not the gameplay itself, but the myriad of questions it places, and the impressively deep characterization it has.

Hint: When you can, buy the modron toy from Vrischika. Play with it until something strange happens.

Or, if you can't play it, I recommend reading the Rhyss Hess novelization, which is almost verbatim lifted from the script and is as awesome as the game.

Rutee
2008-05-17, 09:16 PM
Aaah. 'Splains a lot.

Personally, I stand by saying GM's are the bass players. If you know 'bout the bass player's job, you'll get why. What d'you think about that stance?

I don't know the nuances of music that well, honestly. I would think the GM would be the Front Man, except the Front Man actually does get most of the praise without really doing much /extra/ to deserve it, don't they? That'd fit what they /are/ I guess, but not what they should be.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-17, 09:27 PM
I don't know the nuances of music that well, honestly. I would think the GM would be the Front Man, except the Front Man actually does get most of the praise without really doing much /extra/ to deserve it, don't they? That'd fit what they /are/ I guess, but not what they should be.

Well, basically, the idea is that a bass player always goes unnoticed (Tell me! I played both bass and guitar in a band. The adoration came in massive numbers as a guitarist, but as a bassist, you're like some sort of shadow, except for critics, who bombard you with praise if you're good.). Others play the melody, but he sets the mood. Which is what good DM's do, let the players be free, while still remaining as arbiters. You are supposed to be unnoticed, your godly acts shouldn't be notorious and obvious. Hence the bass player analogy, since no one ever hears the bass. :smalltongue:

horseboy
2008-05-17, 10:05 PM
Yeah, but why bother? BESM3e and MnM2e handle it so much better. They're pretty much built from the ground up for it.And there is an actual DBZ RPG, but from what I hear, there's a reason nobody talks about it.
To try out a video game, you can just go online and download a demo. Easier, simpler, cheaper, and less time consuming. You should be able to do the same in a pen and paper game: Download a few free rules, print them off, spend 5 minutes making a character, and have a quick adventure in your lunch break.Well, that's becoming quite common (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product_info.php?products_id=12486&it=1&filters=0_0_0&manufacturers_id=72&free=1).

The new D&D is too rule intensive. It's relegated the Dungeon Master to being an entertainer rather than master of the game. It's done away with the archetypes, focused on nothing but combat and character power, lost the group cooperative aspect, bastardized the class-based system, and resembles a comic-book superheroes game more than a fantasy RPG where a player can play any alignment desired, not just lawful good.
-Gary GygaxOMG! I can't stop laughing! I never knew Irony could be lethal.


Incidentally, at no point did you answer the question "Why should we care what he had to say?" You merely said that by calling Gary Gygax a bad GM, I would be flamed to death (Which very well could be true; Lord knows the man has received a great deal of unfair lionization, both in life and posthumously)
Well, yeah, you don't speak ill of the dead, it's bad form and hurts the bereaved.

Oh my goodness. Can people stop talking about Gary Gygax as though he had one static opinion for thirty years? I have never ever heard anybody who played under Gygax say he was a bad DM. Never. However, I have heard loads of people who have played under Gygax who said he was a great DM. Whether their idea of good and bad corresponds to other people's ideas is open to discussion, but can we please stop making statements with no more to go on than a few lines you might have heard quoted out of the 1e DMG (1979!) or the friggin' Tomb of Horrors (A 1978 tournament module!)?I always heard "It was cool, but he rolled for EVERYTHING! Every time you ordered food, food poisoning check. Every time you slept outside, flu check. They said it was alright, but he got lost in minutia really easily.

Anybody here actually read the 1e DMG (and I don't mean briefly skimmed it)? I know I have, but I would be interested to know who else has. What about some of his more recent work, anybody read that? Yggsburgh? Lejendary Adventures?Granted it's been quite a while, but yes, I did read through it several times. From what I remember it was really neat to read through, but an absolute nightmare to play from. So generally you only ever opened the book during games for the treasure types, as trying to find anything else was too great a pain in the rectum to find. Never got around to trying the new stuff. Wasn't Lejendary Adventures the rename of Dark Dungeons?
I have a more apt comparison (Nobunaga isn't generally lionized, and did in fact know he was doing), but it's too close to politics, so let's go with Nobunaga. I'm not denying the man was influential; I'm denying he knew what the hell he was doing.I'd go with Miyamoto. As I pretty much feel the exact same way about him as you do Gygax.
There is also nothing you've said to indicate his option is actually that off base.


Yes they should. They are the ones making hte adventures, creating and maintaining the world, making sure the NPCs and the plots are realistic, keeping balence, making sure the players aren't too weak or too powerful, keeping the players in check and running everything

A monty haul game shouldn't be advocated
from
EEYou know, Monty Haul games was a concept coined in 1st edition. Also, how much control a DM has over making the adventures, and making sure the players aren't too weak or keeping them in check depends on how much sand there is in the game.
I only made it about ten posts in, but this thread highlights what I've noticed to be the biggest problems with the current incarnation of D&D.And they do. Quite often. The problem is that many players don't know awesome when they see it. Most of the time, awesome is a team effort, and it usually takes one of two scenarios: the stars align just right, or you build it from the ground up. What's happened is that the eastern influence in our video games and some of our television has convinced us that awesome has to be something that real people aren't capable of. We want our fighter to sprout angel wings made out of pure light, and go chasing after a runaway mana-comet so that he can catch it before it escapes the solar system and use it to revive the tree of life and save the world. Wait, wait, I saw that on an episode of Super Friends. So Super Friends is now considered Eastern? :smallconfused: Fionn mac Cumhaill, Ronald of Paris, Hector of Troy, Pecos Bill are considered Eastern?

As to the Metal, well, there's only been one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fM2tVZ0UtVc) band I've ever bothered going to a concert to see.

What can they learn from video games?

Don't over hype. 4th is not going to make me it's bitch.

Matthew
2008-05-17, 10:19 PM
OMG! I can't stop laughing! I never knew Irony could be lethal.
Well, yeah, you don't speak ill of the dead, it's bad form and hurts the bereaved.

Got to remember at this point he was promoting Lejendary Adventures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lejendary_Adventure) and was quite into his skill sets. He's basically saying, they haven't learned anything, just created more combat rules. Give the Quick Start Rules a download, they're free. :smallwink:



I always heard "It was cool, but he rolled for EVERYTHING! Every time you ordered food, food poisoning check. Every time you slept outside, flu check. They said it was alright, but he got lost in minutia really easily.

I can imagine that, but who are "they"? Tournament players? I'm only familiar with guys he played with quite recently and old war stories from those who post about it.



Granted it's been quite a while, but yes, I did read through it several times. From what I remember it was really neat to read through, but an absolute nightmare to play from. So generally you only ever opened the book during games for the treasure types, as trying to find anything else was too great a pain in the rectum to find.

As a rulebook, it's a disaster trying to find anything, but that's none too surprising. I don't think I have ever had to refer to it in game. Content wise, it's fantastic.



Never got around to trying the new stuff. Wasn't Lejendary Adventures the rename of Dark Dungeons?

I don't think so... I think it was originally called Dangerous Journeys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangerous_Journeys), then Lejendary Journeys or somesuch thing. There's a lengthy interview available in OD&Dities (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/cd/) 9 and 10 from 2000 or so.

horseboy
2008-05-17, 10:38 PM
I can imagine that, but who are "they"? Tournament players? I'm only familiar with guys he played with quite recently and old war stories from those who post about it.
Senpai Joe. I'd be really amazed if you knew him. We used to game together before we moved away. He said he played with him once. It could have been at a con.



I don't think so... I think it was originally called Dangerous Journeys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangerous_Journeys), then Lejendary Journeys or somesuch thing. There's a lengthy interview available in OD&Dities (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/cd/) 9 and 10 from 2000 or so.Duh! Dark Dungeons was the Chic publication. Talk about a brain fart. :Elan:
What was the game that he made after his divorce and loss of TSR? I remember it had the initials DD and they sued him to change it.

Matthew
2008-05-17, 10:44 PM
Sem Pai Joe. I'd be really amazed if you knew him. We used to game together before we moved away. He said he played with him once. It could have been at a con.

Nah, never heard of him. Interesting name, though. I'll have a fish around for some of the articles out there on Gygax as a DM if I have the opportunity. I read a couple of pretty interesting ones at the time of his death.

[edit]
My bad, wrong audio file thingy, deleted.



Duh! Dark Dungeons was the Chic publication. Talk about a brain fart. :Elan:
What was the game that he made after his divorce and loss of TSR? I remember it had the initials DD and they sued him to change it.

I had to take a look at the article to get it straight...

Dangerous Dimensions was the game TSR shut down...

this was renamed:

Dangerous Journeys, but TSR still sued and eventually settled, buying the rights to the game

Lejendary Adventures was the relatively 'rules light' skill based RPG he finally developed.

horseboy
2008-05-17, 10:50 PM
It's been 10 years since he said that, and it was a while ago back then. It's entirely possible it was 1st they were playing. Of course, he was always a bigger fan of Traveler so biases could have been involved.

Yeah, none of my friends have real names, Senpai Joe, Kamikaze, Nukem, Moose, Zephry. Well, okay, Zephry is his real name, but come on.

Rutee
2008-05-17, 11:07 PM
And there is an actual DBZ RPG, but from what I hear, there's a reason nobody talks about it.
Yeah, it takes like, hundreds of d6 to play. You'd need a huge container to hold them all. It might actually take a whole purse worth.


Well, yeah, you don't speak ill of the dead, it's bad form and hurts the bereaved
Then they shouldn't have been quoted as though their opinions were sacrosanct; That's equally bad form. Being dead doesn't make him more right.


I'd go with Miyamoto. As I pretty much feel the exact same way about him as you do Gygax.
Musashi, or Shigeru? Since the game designer has continued to contribute interesting things, I'm willing to bet he isn't just /really/ lucky. But I've never read his process or anything..
My example was Reagan...


Wait, wait, I saw that on an episode of Super Friends. So Super Friends is now considered Eastern? :smallconfused: Fionn mac Cumhaill, Ronald of Paris, Hector of Troy, Pecos Bill are considered Eastern?

Yeah pretty much dear. People seem to conveniently forget that the heroes from european, middle eastern, african, and american culture were every bit as larger then life. That's why they're awesome.

EvilElitest
2008-05-17, 11:09 PM
Indon, why did you hide such utter genius for so long, why?

Anyways,



I'm not objecting to the existence of a GM. I'm objecting to their being /the/ storyteller, and as usual, they're being treated like god :P

In order to have total control of their world (which is basically, one of hte tenets of teh game) the DM has to be god. If it is not a bad DM your good


Horseboy the Monty haul idea is something that is brought about by Player feelings of Entitlement
from
EE

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-17, 11:11 PM
Because he learn Poirot's tricks. Dervag still holds the record for scoring 100% Critical posts (Which means each post is Insightful), though.

horseboy
2008-05-17, 11:14 PM
Musashi, or Shigeru? Since the game designer has continued to contribute interesting things, I'm willing to bet he isn't just /really/ lucky. But I've never read his process or anything..Shigeru. Nothing he's developed I've ever found even as entraining as being kicked in the nuts. That, plus his interview with Time when the Wii came out talking about how Sony and Microsoft are doing it wrong, giving gamers what they want, only game designers REALLY know. :smallfurious:

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-17, 11:16 PM
Shigeru. Nothing he's developed I've ever found even as entraining as being kicked in the nuts. That, plus his interview with Time when the Wii came out talking about how Sony and Microsoft are doing it wrong, giving gamers what they want, only game designers REALLY know. :smallfurious:

That's pretty egotistical. But you sure you've NEVER enjoyed even one of his games? Some of them are rightfully considered as classics.

horseboy
2008-05-17, 11:22 PM
Certain. Hate platformers more than life itself.

Rutee
2008-05-17, 11:26 PM
Shigeru. Nothing he's developed I've ever found even as entraining as being kicked in the nuts. That, plus his interview with Time when the Wii came out talking about how Sony and Microsoft are doing it wrong, giving gamers what they want, only game designers REALLY know. :smallfurious:

Hm. I can't come anywhere near claiming that he's as bad a game designer as Gygax, frankly. His theoretical focus is in the right place even if he doesn't get details right (I haven't gotten to play Wii games yet, frankly, but it seems unlikely that he'd turn around and start sucking). I somehow doubt that he said that giving gamers what they want is a bad thing though. I have little doubt that he said PS3 and X-Block were doing it wrong, and the jury's out on them too (Just as it is with Wii) for me.

I mean really, I'm not just saying games I find unfun are badly designed (Since I like WoD and still consider Justin Achilli a freaking idiot). I can buy not finding his stuff fun.


Certain. Hate platformers more than life itself.
Yeah, see, that doesn't make him bad. That'd be like my saying "I hate roleplaying games, therefore, Gygax is a bad game designer". The criticisms I have of him have everything to do with method, not making games who's genre I fundamentally dislike.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-17, 11:30 PM
Yeah, not liking a genre doesn't mean it sucks. I mean, half of this boards seem to hate heavy metal, but most of the people will recognize heavy metal is as much a musical art as progressive rock or Classical music (for the record, I LOVE prog and classical. In fact, I take just about everything except the abomination that is almost all pop past the 80's.)

Matthew
2008-05-17, 11:31 PM
Yeah, see, that doesn't make him bad. That'd be like my saying "I hate roleplaying games, therefore, Gygax is a bad game designer". The criticisms I have of him have everything to do with method, not making games who's genre I fundamentally dislike.

Actually, what would be more apt is you saying "I hate X type of Roleplaying Game, therefore Gygax is a bad designer", which is is exactly the same as what Horseboy is saying, and pretty much sums up your criticisms of Gygax so far. As far as I can see you're both equally wrong, but you know what you like.

Rutee
2008-05-17, 11:33 PM
No, because I haven't said that. I think the entire method Gygax supports of running games is retarded. That's not a 'game style'. A 'game style' would be if we look at dungeon crawling vs. social games vs. War games. Gygax's style of /making games/ does not care about genre, and the entire style is /bad/.

Again, infringing on the other players is /bad/. Period, end of discussion. The GM can not and should not be treated as anything remotely similar to God or Master. Everything he says and makes indicates that he supports this. This is nothing remotely similar to saying "He makes roleplaying games, and is therefore bad"

Cainen
2008-05-17, 11:33 PM
See, what he's saying is as follows - "I don't like Shigeru Miyamoto's games, therefore I don't like his tenets of game design". However, he has a very solid grasp on what he's talking about, and therefore can say this. I don't agree with it, sure, but he's entitled to his opinion if he's going to have an educated one.

Starsinger
2008-05-17, 11:33 PM
Yeah, not liking a genre doesn't mean it sucks. I mean, half of this boards seem to hate heavy metal, but most of the people will recognize heavy metal is as much a musical art as progressive rock or Classical music (for the record, I LOVE prog and classical. In fact, I take just about everything except the abomination that is almost all pop past the 80's.)

Speak for yourself. :smalltongue:

Matthew
2008-05-17, 11:39 PM
No, because I haven't said that. I think the entire method Gygax supports of running games is retarded. That's not a 'game style'. A 'game style' would be if we look at dungeon crawling vs. social games vs. War games. Gygax's style of /running and making games/ does not care about genre, and the entire style is /bad/.

So now we delve into semantics. There is no such thing as a Dungeon Crawling Roleplaying Game. That is a style of playing, not a style of game. You are defining terms without allowing anybody else to define their own.



Again, infringing on the other players is /bad/. Period, end of discussion.
If it were only so easy to end Forum debates.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-17, 11:39 PM
Speak for yourself. :smalltongue:

No, really. I have flinged classic heavy metal around the boards and it has been almost universally rejected. I'm starting to believe I'll have to go to the extremes and start swingin' Trouble and Cannibal Corpse to get people to like the tamer metals.

Rutee
2008-05-17, 11:43 PM
So now we delve into semantics. There is no such thing as a Dungeon Crawling Roleplaying Game. That is a style of playing, not a style of game.
Then what would the style of game be to you, since you'd like to play semantics. It behooves you to define your terms.


If it were only so easy to end Forum debates.
How is not axiomatic that to cheapen the other players is bad? They're humans. You're not supposed to cheapen humans.

horseboy
2008-05-17, 11:46 PM
Hm. I can't come anywhere near claiming that he's as bad a game designer as Gygax, frankly. His theoretical focus is in the right place even if he doesn't get details right (I haven't gotten to play Wii games yet, frankly, but it seems unlikely that he'd turn around and start sucking). I somehow doubt that he said that giving gamers what they want is a bad thing though. I have little doubt that he said PS3 and X-Block were doing it wrong, and the jury's out on them too (Just as it is with Wii) for me.I couldn't believe it myself when I read it. He said that giving people what they wanted was wrong, because they don't know what they want. Now, there's always the possibility of a translation error, but man, you'd think they'd have some sort of retraction on that.

I mean really, I'm not just saying games I find unfun are badly designed (Since I like WoD and still consider Justin Achilli a freaking idiot). I can buy not finding his stuff fun.Ah, but you see I find platformers painfully repetitive and trite, generally this a design flaw. It's unfun because I see them as poorly designed. Much like I hate having to "grind" levels in most JCRPG's and MMO's, but at least those have something more to them.

Yeah, see, that doesn't make him bad. That'd be like my saying "I hate roleplaying games, therefore, Gygax is a bad game designer". The criticisms I have of him have everything to do with method, not making games who's genre I fundamentally dislike.But that's not all he does, that's just what he's known best for.

Rutee
2008-05-17, 11:50 PM
But that's not all he does, that's just what he's known best for.
Then he's bad at roleplaying game design? If he's tried to design other games (He was mentioned as working on an MMO, which didn't seem to pan out), then those aren't necessarily bad. Especially since the largest offenses the man carries out in roleplaying game design don't translate well to other styles of game...


I couldn't believe it myself when I read it. He said that giving people what they wanted was wrong, because they don't know what they want. Now, there's always the possibility of a translation error, but man, you'd think they'd have some sort of retraction on that.
Mmm.. not really.. I don't think he's hot headed enough to sue over what'd be one mistranslation.

Still, if that's what he meant, then it's a heavy black mark nonetheless. Maybe the kind that weighs on my enjoyment of the games, much as Seth McFarlane's humor is difficult to enjoy when I know of his opinions on several things..


Ah, but you see I find platformers painfully repetitive and trite, generally this a design flaw. It's unfun because I see them as poorly designed. Much like I hate having to "grind" levels in most JCRPG's and MMO's, but at least those have something more to them.
Mmm.. trite is something more for emotions, but repetitive? Not sure I see it.

Cuddly
2008-05-17, 11:55 PM
Ah, but you see I find platformers painfully repetitive and trite, generally this a design flaw. It's unfun because I see them as poorly designed. Much like I hate having to "grind" levels in most JCRPG's and MMO's, but at least those have something more to them.

So games you don't like are poorly designed?
I bet food that doesn't fit your taste is poorly cooked, and sports that don't interest you are played by poor athletes?

Bad logic, dood.

Matthew
2008-05-17, 11:58 PM
Then what would the style of game be to you, since you'd like to play semantics. It behooves you to define your terms.

Games and Video games are a false dichotomy. There are only games, video games just use a particular media (computers). CRPGs are a subgenre of RPGs, not a computer equivalent. Platform Games are a type of Game with a distinct style of play. RPGs are a type of Game with diverse styles of play.



How is not axiomatic that to cheapen the other players is bad? They're humans. You're not supposed to cheapen humans.

Your idea of infringing is not necessarily everybody elses'.

Indon
2008-05-17, 11:59 PM
I'm not objecting to the existence of a GM. I'm objecting to their being /the/ storyteller, and as usual, they're being treated like god :P

Well, in a free-form game, you're much more likely to need an approach like that. Rules, after all, are communally established and show everyone how they can interact with each other, allowing the function of storytelling to spread out further.

But in a free-form game, the GM solely governs all aspects of the game world - they very much are god, by necessity. An example is conflict resolution: In a structured system, two players can, say, arm wrestle and resolve the winner by themselves using the rules. But in a free-form game, they tell you they're arm-wrestling, and you decide how it goes (that's one of the more awkward situations you can get into when free-forming, I might add).


Personally, I stand by saying GM's are the bass players. If you know 'bout the bass player's job, you'll get why. What d'you think about that stance?

I think the GM fills the role of the tech crew, personally - they aren't necessarily playing at all, and without someone working as a techie, there's zero music.

(A well-played DMPC I would think functions as a bassist, though)


And there is an actual DBZ RPG, but from what I hear, there's a reason nobody talks about it.

*giggle*

My experience with it was brief and amusing. It does indeed require many D6's, but we made the statistically unsound decision of rolling only 3 and then multiplying the result to get the total. I rolled high for a weak ki attack and incinerated another party member in a spar as a result. We didn't play another session of that.


Indon, why did you hide such utter genius for so long, why?

Because he learn Poirot's tricks.

How are my posts now any different than they were a few weeks ago? And what does a detective have to do with it?

I am genuinely interested in an answer to this: I just graduated a rather long professional development course and to get this reaction _right_ after starting to post again seems to imply it had an impact in how I post stuff online (I guess?).

Rutee
2008-05-18, 12:00 AM
Games and Video games are a false dichotomy. There are only games, video games just use a particular media (computers). CRPGs are a subgenre of RPGs, not a computer equivalent. Platform Games are a type of Game with a distinct style of play. RPGs are a type of Game with many, many styles of play.
And Gary Gygax's "Style of play" would be? Why should his method receive the protection a genre does?


Your idea of infringing is not necessarily everybody elses'.

Sacrificing your rights voluntarily doesn't mean they're still there.

horseboy
2008-05-18, 12:03 AM
Then he's bad at roleplaying game design? Well, I did play an earlier Zelda. Wasn't impressed. Whole lot of back tracking and having to read the GM's mind to figure out the ONE thing he wanted you to do to advance the quest and the whole grinding out heart containers so you could get past certain things. I found Gold Box to be superior.


Mmm.. not really.. I don't think he's hot headed enough to sue over what'd be one mistranslation.Not really a sue more of a press statement claiming that was not his intent, but a mistranslation, what was meant (for example) was that if you always give people what they want, then you never give them something unexpected and therefor new. Political double talk ftw.


Still, if that's what he meant, then it's a heavy black mark nonetheless. Maybe the kind that weighs on my enjoyment of the games, much as Seth McFarlane's humor is difficult to enjoy when I know of his opinions on several things..That and McFarlane is considered phallus in general, from what the industry says, anyways.

Cuddly
2008-05-18, 12:05 AM
Indon-
They're little kids. They mistakenly equate quality with things they agree with; if they don't agree with it, they're not going to compliment you on your well crafted argument.

Personally, though I may not agree with your opinion, your style is always good.

Matthew
2008-05-18, 12:05 AM
And Gary Gygax's "Style of play" would be?

Well, it changed over time, but you're the one who thinks she knows, even though she's never read anything by him (have you even ever played one of his games?). He defined it in 1979 as Swords & Sorcery, but many would disagree with that definition. Trans genre pulp fantasy might serve, but there's a lot of competition for nomenclature.



Sacrificing your rights voluntarily doesn't mean they're still there.

Rights are social and political constructs, not absolutes. They don't exist independently of other people.

horseboy
2008-05-18, 12:09 AM
So games you don't like are poorly designed?
I bet food that doesn't fit your taste is poorly cooked, and sports that don't interest you are played by poor athletes?

Bad logic, dood.No, I dislike poorly designed games.

Rutee
2008-05-18, 12:15 AM
Well, it changed over time, but you're the one who thinks she knows, even though she's never read anything by him (have you even ever played one of his games?). He defined it in 1979 as Swords & Sorcery, but many would disagree with that definition.
Oh no, you're the one who wants to claim that his style of running games is equivalent to a genre. By all means, you expand on how that could possibly be. I can't fathom it.


Rights are social and political constructs, not absolutes. They don't exist independently of other people.

Yes. There are other people in these games. What a coincidence, no?


Well, I did play an earlier Zelda. Wasn't impressed. Whole lot of back tracking and having to read the GM's mind to figure out the ONE thing he wanted you to do to advance the quest and the whole grinding out heart containers so you could get past certain things. I found Gold Box to be superior.
Yeah, that's how you handle puzzles in a video game. But you never grind heart containers. Ever. You search, but you do not grind.



That and McFarlane is considered phallus in general, from what the industry says, anyways.
His public persona in general.. listen to his Harvard Graduation speech. Or talk to him at a Con (Did both). I was.. very negatively surprised.

Matthew
2008-05-18, 12:27 AM
Oh no, you're the one who wants to claim that his style of running games is equivalent to a genre. By all means, you expand on how that could possibly be. I can't fathom it.

He defined the style of game as 'Swords & Sorcery'. It's not actually 'Swords & Sorcery' the genre, though. I could call it many things, Adventure Roleplaying, Fantasy Roleplaying, Pulp Adventure Roleplaying, Fantasy Adventure Roleplaying, but none of them are recognised styles. I could call it 'sandbox style' or 'anti story telling style' or whatever. I suppose if I was seeking an equivalent to platforms, sandbox is fairly close. I suppose it would be something similar to 'Grand Theft Auto' (which I think is described as a sandbox style game). Actually, much closer would be Darklands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darklands_(computer_game)) or Mount & Blade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_%26_Blade).



Yes. There are other people in these games. What a coincidence, no?

Yes, who you have a social contract with.

Rutee
2008-05-18, 12:39 AM
He defined the style of game as 'Swords & Sorcery'. It's not actually 'Swords & Sorcery' the genre, though. I could call it many things, Adventure Roleplaying, Fantasy Roleplaying, Pulp Adventure Roleplaying, Fantasy Adventure Roleplaying, but none of them are recognised styles. I could call it 'sandbox style' or 'anti story telling style' or whatever. I suppose if I was seeking an equivalent to platforms, sandbox is fairly close. I suppose it would be something similar to 'Grand Theft Auto' (which I think is described as a sandbox style game).
How humorous. You're calling that his style then? Is that your final answer? Because guess what: I don't dislike any of those things. Erego, I can not possibly be criticizing him on the grounds of running in a genre I dislike..



Yes, who you have a social contract with.
Correct.

Matthew
2008-05-18, 12:41 AM
How humorous. You're calling that his style then? Is that your final answer? Because guess what: I don't dislike any of those things. Erego, I can not possibly be criticizing him on the grounds of running in a genre I dislike..

I know Rutee. That's what's so funny about your criticisms of him. They are based on a faulty understanding of what kind of games he designed. Not one criticism you made of him has been borne out.

Rutee
2008-05-18, 12:45 AM
Hehehehe. No. It means that I think he is bad at the style of games he attempts to run, due to the method by which he runs them.

horseboy
2008-05-18, 12:45 AM
Yeah, that's how you handle puzzles in a video game. But you never grind heart containers. Ever. You search, but you do not grind.
I remember I had to go farm rupees for a while. Thought it was heart containers or maybe it was to buy a faerie or something retarded. Don't remember anymore, got bored, switched to Contra.


His public persona in general.. listen to his Harvard Graduation speech. Or talk to him at a Con (Did both). I was.. very negatively surprised.
Well I remember a lot of the huge comic fanboys were carrying on about how he was doing to employees exactly the same things in Image that drove him out of Marvel.

Matthew
2008-05-18, 12:45 AM
Hehehehe. No. It means that I think he is bad at the style of games he attempts to run, due to the method by which he runs them.

Yet you don't know anything about his games or his methodology. In fact you have constructed him in order to define what you like as being not him.

Rutee
2008-05-18, 12:47 AM
I.. don't think we're on the same page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth_McFarlane


I remember I had to go farm rupees for a while. Thought it was heart containers or maybe it was to buy a faerie or something retarded. Don't remember anymore, got bored, switched to Contra.

Yeah, buying stuff can require farming. The game is winnable without buying things, IIRC.


Yet you don't know anything about his games or his methodology.
I know that he has 'recently' made and supported statements that strongly support a style of running a game that is flatly bad. If you want to say he made a complete 180 in his works, you can do that, but unless he did, he's not going to have been good at it.

Jack Zander
2008-05-18, 12:48 AM
I remember I had to go farm rupees for a while. Thought it was heart containers or maybe it was to buy a faerie or something retarded. Don't remember anymore, got bored, switched to Contra.

I don't remember ever having to farm for cash in any Zelda game, with all the minigames and sidequests and whatnot. Which Zelda did you play?

Matthew
2008-05-18, 12:49 AM
I know that he has 'recently' made and supported statements that strongly support a style of running a game that is flatly bad. If you want to say he made a complete 180 in his works, you can do that, but unless he did, he's not going to have been good at it.

You keep saying this and yet you never explain what on earth you mean. Just because you do not like something does not make it absolutely bad. It makes it something you do not like. Suck it up, big deal.

Rutee
2008-05-18, 12:51 AM
Perhaps you should go back and refresh your memory then. "The GM is the master of the game"? The whole reason you were trying to say player rights aren't infringed? I don't like minutiae, but I don't consider it 'bad' so much as not for me. Though I will say that tracking minutiae doesn't really fit sword and sorcery tales, I would think; I doubt they care about things like carrying capacity, or catching a cold from sleeping outside.

Matthew
2008-05-18, 12:54 AM
What does the GM is the Master of the game mean to you, Rutee? I have already explained to you what it means, and you agreed with it, with the caveat that you think the group can over rule the GM in certain situations (which I don't agree with).



I mean when there is a disagreement about the rules or what is happening in the game, the DM has the final say. He has been given charge of the game to perform that function (amongst others).




That I'll agree with, in a general sense (Obviously, if most people disagree..)

Rutee
2008-05-18, 12:57 AM
No.. you explained how you handled it. How /you/ handled it is not supported by the late Gygax's tone in his statements. If you were trying to establish that as his meaning, you did a really bad job, and for someone who keeps telling me not to attempt to understand the man's style of running games without playing them, it's pretty hypocrtical.


I mean when there is a disagreement about the rules or what is happening in the game, the DM has the final say. He has been given charge of the game to perform that function (amongst others).

Matthew
2008-05-18, 12:59 AM
No.. you explained how you handled it. How /you/ handled it is not supported by the late Gygax's tone in his statements. If you were trying to establish that as his meaning, you did a really bad job, and for someone who keeps telling me not to attempt to understand the man's style of running games without playing them, it's pretty hypocrtiical.

That is a laughable statement considering you are unacquainted with the majority of his writings.

Rutee
2008-05-18, 01:02 AM
Never mind, actually. "The most zealous of grognards is far more fierce and tenacious then any dragon they have pretended to slay."

Matthew
2008-05-18, 01:05 AM
How? Rutee. I explained to you that you were misunderstanding the quotes. I even pointed you to the context. You said you read the context, but you clearly have not. You've never played a game Gygax ever wrote (or have you, still not answered that). You have never read a game he designed. You are manifestly unacquainted with his style and methodology, which you apparently base on three quotations, two of which discuss computer games. Amusingly, you then claimed he was a luddite, despite the fact that he wrote games intended for computers.

So now I am a Grognard? Well, I guess you truly have managed to construct my identity. What's yours? Anti Grognard? :smallwink:

Dervag
2008-05-18, 01:08 AM
How is not axiomatic that to cheapen the other players is bad? They're humans. You're not supposed to cheapen humans.Well, you can make an argument that the difference between the DM and the players is significant, that the DM is in fact a referee rather than a player.

Lots of games have referees distinct from the players (virtually all team sports in their organized forms, for instance). This does not make them bad games.

In the case of Gygaxian tabletop RPGs, the DM is also responsible for being a content provider to the other players. That's a big part of the reason tabletop games are so flexible- the content provider is right there in the room with you, so he can work stuff out on the fly in response to your play style.

However, having a content provider requires that the content provider have enough power to create the content, even if it bends the rulebook rules or requires the players to do something they'd rather avoid in order to achieve a desired goal.

In short, I would argue that the DM's role does not cheapen the players unless the DM is incompetent, because there is supposed to be a well-defined distinction between the DM (a combination referee/content provider) and the players.



Games and Video games are a false dichotomy. There are only games, video games just use a particular media (computers). CRPGs are a subgenre of RPGs, not a computer equivalent. Platform Games are a type of Game with a distinct style of play. RPGs are a type of Game with diverse styles of play.However, CRPGs are a subtype of RPG with many distinguishing features, compared to non-computer RPGs. For instance:

-Plot and mechanical content is scripted. No matter how many options the player may have, all those options must be programmed into the computer, at least in potential. You may come up with a combo of abilities or in-game strategies the designers never imagined, but only using the pieces of content that are already there. There's no chance of going to Bioware and asking them to allow you to do something the rules and script don't cover.

-All the math and statistics can be abstracted into the computer, creating a much more seamless interface. You never have to roll dice, and in theory you don't even have to have numerical stats. On a non-computer game this is impossible if there are any statistics in the system at all. If there are no statistics in a non-computer game, you get something very different from a CRPG, and probably a separate subgenre in its own right.

-CRPGs come with preconstructed art that tells you how things look and sound. Other kinds of RPGs generally have much less descriptive detail (a picture being worth a thousand words and all). On the one hand, this makes it much easier to have an indescribable horror or a transcendently beautiful scenic view in a non-C RPG, because you don't need a sprite or a 3D model for it. On the other, this also makes it much harder for the DM to provide a convincing level of detail at times. Which means that if the DM forgets to mention some critical piece of information, it can be (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=1209) a very serious problem (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=1213).

For all these reasons, a CRPG is, or can be, a very different gameplay experience than any non-CRPG could be. In which case they probably deserve a separate category.

horseboy
2008-05-18, 01:10 AM
I.. don't think we're on the same page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth_McFarlane
Yeah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_MacFarlane). Keep forgetting there's more than one famous MacFarlane now a days.

I don't remember ever having to farm for cash in any Zelda game, with all the minigames and sidequests and whatnot. Which Zelda did you play?Bugger all if I remember. There was a book, or something that I needed to get off a shelf, but I had to have the right shoes to be able to get the book (Yeah, I associate getting shoes with getting books off of shelves)

Dervag
2008-05-18, 01:11 AM
What does the GM is the Master of the game mean to you, Rutee? I have already explained to you what it means, and you agreed with it, with the caveat that you think the group can over rule the GM in certain situations (which I don't agree with).Actually, I think she knows exactly what it means- she doesn't like it. As in, she thinks the Gygaxian paradigm of "DM is master" is bad because she favors a decentralized game style. Which isn't stupid even if I don't agree with it.

On a side note:

That is a laughable statement considering you are unacquainted with the majority of his writings.

Never mind, actually. "The most zealous of grognards is far more fierce and tenacious then any dragon they have pretended to slay."Would you two please for the love of all that's nominally sane knock it off?

Matthew
2008-05-18, 01:12 AM
However, CRPGs are a subtype of RPG with many distinguishing features, compared to non-computer RPGs. For instance:

-Plot and mechanical content is scripted. No matter how many options the player may have, all those options must be programmed into the computer, at least in potential. You may come up with a combo of abilities or in-game strategies the designers never imagined, but only using the pieces of content that are already there. There's no chance of going to Bioware and asking them to allow you to do something the rules and script don't cover.

-All the math and statistics can be abstracted into the computer, creating a much more seamless interface. You never have to roll dice, and in theory you don't even have to have numerical stats. On a non-computer game this is impossible if there are any statistics in the system at all. If there are no statistics in a non-computer game, you get something very different from a CRPG, and probably a separate subgenre in its own right.

-CRPGs come with preconstructed art that tells you how things look and sound. Other kinds of RPGs generally have much less descriptive detail (a picture being worth a thousand words and all). On the one hand, this makes it much easier to have an indescribable horror or a transcendently beautiful scenic view in a non-C RPG, because you don't need a sprite or a 3D model for it. On the other, this also makes it much harder for the DM to provide a convincing level of detail at times. Which means that if the DM forgets to mention some critical piece of information, it can be (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=1209) a very serious problem (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=1213).

For all these reasons, a CRPG is, or can be, a very different gameplay experience than any non-CRPG could be. In which case they probably deserve a separate category.

Did a little bit of research into this to see how the computer industry describes their own games. Apparently, platform games are a sub genre of action, whilst roleplaying games are a genre with four sub genres. I wouldn't use any of those sub genres to describe what Gygax describes, perhaps Sand Box, but it is not on the list.



Actually, I think she knows exactly what it means- she doesn't [i]like it. As in, she thinks the Gygaxian paradigm of "DM is master" is bad because she favors a decentralized game style. Which isn't stupid even if I don't agree with it.

Who said it was stupid? I never attacked Rutee's preferred style of play or game(s). I said they are not absolutely better than any other. It's one thing to say you don't like something, it's quite another to define it as inferior or bad.

Rutee
2008-05-18, 01:17 AM
Well, you can make an argument that the difference between the DM and the players is significant, that the DM is in fact a referee rather than a player.
Well, no. A referee is a somewhat close analogy in general, but the critical difference is first that a referee is utterly passive, and more importantly, a referee's fun isn't usually considered relevant.

...Well that's not too different, on second thought. Nobody's fun is technically considered important in organized sports...


In the case of Gygaxian tabletop RPGs, the DM is also responsible for being a content provider to the other players. That's a big part of the reason tabletop games are so flexible- the content provider is right there in the room with you, so he can work stuff out on the fly in response to your play style.


However, having a content provider requires that the content provider have enough power to create the content, even if it bends the rulebook rules or requires the players to do something they'd rather avoid in order to achieve a desired goal.
The GM isn't the only content provider at the table though...


In short, I would argue that the DM's role does not cheapen the players unless the DM is incompetent, because there is supposed to be a well-defined distinction between the DM (a combination referee/content provider) and the players.
That distinction, however, exalts the GM in pretty much every published literature I've ever read. There isn't that much of a difference, in truth. The GM just has a more omnipresent character; the setting.

Scintillatus
2008-05-18, 03:16 AM
Of the ones I've played...

NWN; Trapped in some city, pretty much railroaded.
NWN2; Town attacked by dwarfs and siamese cat looking dudes, a little better, but then proceed to be railroaded hardcore.
NWN2 MotB; Trapped in some cavern, then railroaded by terrible "spirit hunger" mechanic.
Torment; Seemed to have a good bit of freeedom and side-hooks...this wasn't bad.
KotOR2; Start out trapped in some facility.

I think i'll just start my next adventure in a tavern...

It's not so much the start as it is the richness of the plot. With a lot of D&D games, the plot begins and ends at the tavern. You're just one more role within a party, fighting monsters "because", and traipsing about the countryside. Perhaps you're off to save the world, perhaps there's some big bad evil guy... But that's where it ends. Defeat the monster of the week, get your reward, level up.

Each of the games has conflict, tension, a beginning and an end - real, involving and interesting plot. Are your choices limited? Well, yes. That's how D&D could do it better. You could have actual stories with the freedom of improvisation and flexibility of a pen and paper game. Cinematic style, getting rid of the fight-fight-fight-fight-rest system... It actually looks like 4e is doing that, which is good.

Jack Zander
2008-05-18, 09:45 AM
It's not so much the start as it is the richness of the plot. With a lot of D&D games, the plot begins and ends at the tavern. You're just one more role within a party, fighting monsters "because", and traipsing about the countryside. Perhaps you're off to save the world, perhaps there's some big bad evil guy... But that's where it ends. Defeat the monster of the week, get your reward, level up.

Each of the games has conflict, tension, a beginning and an end - real, involving and interesting plot. Are your choices limited? Well, yes. That's how D&D could do it better. You could have actual stories with the freedom of improvisation and flexibility of a pen and paper game. Cinematic style, getting rid of the fight-fight-fight-fight-rest system... It actually looks like 4e is doing that, which is good.

That's all up to the DM. I'm not sure how mechanics can actually change that.

Scintillatus
2008-05-18, 09:53 AM
A game's mechanics have an effect upon the perception of the system, and the use of the system. The way in which the player is taught about the game by his rulebooks has the same effect. If a game has easily-broken, poorly-written, absurdly complex or etc rules for one particular situation, that's going to be avoided by the majority of gamers.

Diplocheese is being replaced with tests of skill that involve White Wolfian repeated rolls to succeed, and XP rewards for both quests and such encounters are laid out in core. This means that players will be more likely to engage in social encounters, which means that the plot can extend beyond "I hit it and take its stuff". Of course, it could just turn into "I charm her, and take her stuff."

Or it could never change because of the ingrained style and theme created over decades.

Yahzi
2008-05-18, 10:18 AM
And, seeing as you are posting in a Dungeons and Dragons based forum, you are very likely to be flamed to death for such a comment.
Not in this one.


And to deal with the attacks on my posts, I reserve the right to my opinion, and you to yours.
Really? See your comment, above, where you assert than anyone having a contrary opinion should prepare to be flamed to death.


I would appreciate if anyone who disagrees do so in an intelligent fashion, and not sound like they are speaking to a child in a condescending tone more fit for punishing animals than anything else, if even that.
You know what? So would we.



He is singlehandedly responsible for the idea that the GM is God, not the first among equals, whom is just as bound by the group's social contract as the other players. That's pretty much a guaranteed failure as a GM.
We may disagree on the value of versimilitude, but we agree on this. Well said!

Dervag
2008-05-18, 10:44 AM
Who said it was stupid? I never attacked Rutee's preferred style of play or game(s). I said they are not absolutely better than any other. It's one thing to say you don't like something, it's quite another to define it as inferior or bad.I sometimes say things aren't stupid even though no one else said they were stupid. My point being that there's no intrinsic and obvious flaw in the line of thinking or the approach, even if I don't go that way myself.


That distinction, however, exalts the GM in pretty much every published literature I've ever read. There isn't that much of a difference, in truth. The GM just has a more omnipresent character; the setting.Yes, if the setting is considered a character than the DM gets exceptional and exalted status.

I do not consider the setting to be a character, nor do a lot of other people I know. I'm not saying your approach is wrong here, I'm just saying that mine isn't objectively wrong either. My approach is focused on giving one person enough power over the story to make sure that there is a story, and that the whole thing doesn't devolve into "Bang! You're dead!" "No I'm not!"

You are less concerned about this risk, and therefore consider the idea of a centralized provider of content for the players to use as an unacceptable infringement on their rights. Fine. But it's not universally obvious that you're right and I'm wrong or vice versa.

EvilElitest
2008-05-18, 11:27 AM
Because he learn Poirot's tricks. Dervag still holds the record for scoring 100% Critical posts (Which means each post is Insightful), though.

Hmmm, i think Warty Goblin should get more points for that



Yeah, see, that doesn't make him bad. That'd be like my saying "I hate roleplaying games, therefore, Gygax is a bad game designer". The criticisms I have of him have everything to do with method, not making games who's genre I fundamentally dislike.

And the criticisms you've leveled are never backed by anything more than "I don't like it". You haven't explained nor backed up the things you said is bad, other than "I think it is bad" That is like me saying that the Wii is a bad system because its gaming goal is bad, and then refusing to back it up



No, because I haven't said that. I think the entire method Gygax supports of running games is retarded. That's not a 'game style'. A 'game style' would be if we look at dungeon crawling vs. social games vs. War games. Gygax's style of /making games/ does not care about genre, and the entire style is /bad/
And yet you refuse to explain why it is retarded other than your own claims that it means so. And since Rutee's statements don't =absolute truth, i ask you, what is wrong with GG's ideals? How is his method bad? What is wrong with it? Why? Actually base your claims on something



Again, infringing on the other players is /bad/. Period, end of discussion. The GM can not and should not be treated as anything remotely similar to God or Master. Everything he says and makes indicates that he supports this. This is nothing remotely similar to saying "He makes roleplaying games, and is therefore bad"

And as i said, you confuse player empowerment with player entitlement

How is the DM being the god of teh game world (which makes sense because he is creating the world and all of the things in it). The DM makes the world, and the players use it, He keeps the players in check and he makes sure his world is enjoyable to play in

and so its not end of discussion, because as i said, just because you claim it and don't back it up doesn't make it true



How is not axiomatic that to cheapen the other players is bad? They're humans. You're not supposed to cheapen humans.
i fail to see how a good DM having control over his world cheapens the players in any way actually


How are my posts now any different than they were a few weeks ago? And what does a detective have to do with it?

I am genuinely interested in an answer to this: I just graduated a rather long professional development course and to get this reaction _right_ after starting to post again seems to imply it had an impact in how I post stuff online (I guess?).
because i can see them now. I haven't seen you for a while now


And Gary Gygax's "Style of play" would be? Why should his method receive the protection a genre does?
why is his style bad?



I know Rutee. That's what's so funny about your criticisms of him. They are based on a faulty understanding of what kind of games he designed. Not one criticism you made of him has been borne out.
its becoming a pattern actually



Hehehehe. No. It means that I think he is bad at the style of games he attempts to run, due to the method by which he runs them.j
and now the moment of truth

Why is his style bad. Like try actually explaining this in detail

from
EE

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-18, 11:46 AM
How are my posts now any different than they were a few weeks ago? And what does a detective have to do with it?

I am genuinely interested in an answer to this: I just graduated a rather long professional development course and to get this reaction _right_ after starting to post again seems to imply it had an impact in how I post stuff online (I guess?).

I'm not going to spoil the Poirot analogy, but I think I have the answer to your question. The law of Abscence and prescence.

Matthew
2008-05-18, 12:04 PM
I sometimes say things aren't stupid even though no one else said they were stupid. My point being that there's no intrinsic and obvious flaw in the line of thinking or the approach, even if I don't go that way myself.

Maybe so, but neither is the conclusion that she reaches an absolute truth, it is a subjective opinion that assumes a particular outcome as intrinsically more desirable than another.

Likes and dislikes are fine, as are non judgemental criticisms of methodologies, philosophies, theories, styles, modes and types. Absolute statements of their value are not.

I don't want to construct a 'straw man' here, but I am going to try and restate the core of the issue, as I see it (so I run that risk and must rely on others to correct me if I stray):

"Gygax's approach to sandbox type game design makes for a poor sort of sandbox type game."

The chief (and in fact only) criticism of Gygax made in respect to this is his statement that he thinks that a Dungeon Master Dungeons & Dragons] should be the master of his game and not merely entertainer.

In order for this to be a tenable argument, one needs to define the following things:

1) Gygax's Game Design Philosophy/Method/Theory/Style

2) What a Sand Box Game is.

3) Whether Dungeons & Dragons is a Sand Box Game.

Dungeons & Dragons is what it is, whether Sand Box or some other label is applied. D20, according to Gygax, is not Dungeons & Dragons as he envisioned it. One can dislike Dungeons & Dragons, but it does not follow that it is therefore a bad or poorly designed game, since it does what the designer intended it to do.

Cainen
2008-05-18, 12:49 PM
Role-playing isn't storytelling, if the dungeon master is directing it, it's not a game.


The essence of a role-playing game is that it is a group, cooperative experience. There is no winning or losing, but rather the value is in the experience of imagining yourself as a character in whatever genre you’re involved in, whether it’s a fantasy game, the Wild West, secret agents or whatever else. You get to sort of vicariously experience those things.

I believe these quotes are all you actually need at this point. I don't think he's ever said anything about playing pen and paper games online(not anything I can find, at any rate), but he definitely has said something about video game RPGs. What he said was not negative in the sense you seem to be taking it in, however, and therefore your claims of him being a Luddite are very unfounded - would a Luddite work on a computer RPG? Or even level as little criticism as he has?

Rutee
2008-05-18, 01:54 PM
Yes, if the setting is considered a character than the DM gets exceptional and exalted status.

I do not consider the setting to be a character, nor do a lot of other people I know. I'm not saying your approach is wrong here, I'm just saying that mine isn't objectively wrong either. My approach is focused on giving one person enough power over the story to make sure that there is a story, and that the whole thing doesn't devolve into "Bang! You're dead!" "No I'm not!"

You are less concerned about this risk, and therefore consider the idea of a centralized provider of content for the players to use as an unacceptable infringement on their rights. Fine. But it's not universally obvious that you're right and I'm wrong or vice versa.

Well, no, on the first point. The GM can't (generally) hope to contribute as much as the players, even as the entire setting, because the GM is only one person.

And even then, a centralized provider of content still isn't required to be treated as better or more important by the rules of the game, or by the players.

Indon
2008-05-18, 01:57 PM
I'm not going to spoil the Poirot analogy, but I think I have the answer to your question. The law of Abscence and prescence.

Ah, I see.

Well, I'd rather be ubiquitous than flashy, so so much for that.

Bender
2008-05-18, 04:30 PM
I know that he has 'recently' made and supported statements that strongly support a style of running a game that is flatly bad. If you want to say he made a complete 180 in his works, you can do that, but unless he did, he's not going to have been good at it.
It's better to start these kind of sentences with "I think..." or "my opinion is..." because how you say it now makes it universal, which it is not. (same goes for a lot of other statements you made in this thread)

let me illustrate with an example:
a PC is walking in the countryside
you claim that when the player says: "after 10 minutes I encounter an empty castle, the inhabitants welcome me as their king and give me loads of treasure", the PC is crowned king and gets all the magic items he wants.
This is not general practice in D&D, and tends to get boring pretty quickly, unless you like to just spend an evening of collective storytelling rather than playing a game.
Generally, it is the GM who decides where there are castles and what the inhabitants of those castles do, ergo he is god. Being god means that he could crown a PC king or could drop rocks on the PC's, but it does not mean that he will do that.

(I hope this whole discussion does not root from a traumatic experience you had with a terrible GM who happened to claim that everything he did wrong was the way Gary Gygax did it...)

horseboy
2008-05-18, 05:02 PM
Generally, it is the GM who decides where there are castles and what the inhabitants of those castles do, ergo he is god. Being god means that he could crown a PC king or could drop rocks on the PC's, but it does not mean that he will do that.

(I hope this whole discussion does not root from a traumatic experience you had with a terrible GM who happened to claim that everything he did wrong was the way Gary Gygax did it...)A GM can, a GOOD Gm, on the other hand, never uses "Rocks fall, everybody dies.
A PC can no more declare the actions of an NPC than he can another PC, just as a GM can not declare the actions of a PC*. That doesn't make the GM a "god" it just means he has more roles than the players.

*This excludes compulsion effects brought on by genre specific versions of "magic".

Matthew
2008-05-18, 05:15 PM
That doesn't make the GM a "god" it just means he has more roles than the players.

I am still not sure where this idea of the DM as 'God' has come from. It's not mentioned in the PHB or DMG.

Bender
2008-05-18, 05:16 PM
A GM can, a GOOD Gm, on the other hand, never uses "Rocks fall, everybody dies.
A PC can no more declare the actions of an NPC than he can another PC, just as a GM can not declare the actions of a PC*.
I agree completely

That doesn't make the GM a "god" it just means he has more roles than the players.
I disagree, I think that does make the GM "god"
So it all comes down to different interpretations of the term god... (which is a religious thing and can't be discussed on this forum :smallwink:, but I do believe in free will, which means that if a God really exists, he does not direct my actions, exactly as in the game world)

Jack Zander
2008-05-18, 05:20 PM
I am still not sure where this idea of the DM as 'God' has come from. It's not mentioned in the PHB or DMG.

That fact that both God and the DM have control over their respective worlds.

*Trying to not break any forum rules here*
In Christianity, followers believe that God cannot (or chooses not to) control the actions or minds of people. However, He can control everything else in the world. I think that's where this DM is God is coming from. The DM controls everything that happens except for his PCs.

Matthew
2008-05-18, 05:23 PM
That fact that both God and the DM have control over their respective worlds.

But the DM doesn't. There are rules and random die rolls, and player characters. Besides which, what kind of God controls NPCs? Is an author a God?

Jack Zander
2008-05-18, 05:27 PM
But the DM doesn't. There are rules and random die rolls, and player characters. Besides which, what kind of God controls NPCs? Is an author a God?

When your DM wants the king to die off screen, does he roll dice for it or does he just do it? If a hurricane hits Portland and stops all trade for 2 weeks, does he roll to see if the hurricane occurs and how much damage it does and who dies and who lives, or does he hand wave it all? I think that's pretty much control over the world.

And unless you're playing with 30,000 players, someone has to control all those NPCs. The DM is pretty close to the god of their world (and I'd argue has even more power than God does in ours).

Rutee
2008-05-18, 05:28 PM
Is an Author a God? Many think so. It's called Word of God for a reason, after all.

DMG page 4
"The power of creating worlds, controlling deities and dragons, and leading entire nations is in your hands. You are the master of the game - the rules, the setting, the action, and ultimately, the fun. This is a great deal of power, and you must use it wisely. This book shows you how"

I see a distinct lack of "facilitating the players" here.

Bender
2008-05-18, 05:37 PM
I see a distinct lack of "facilitating the players" here.

And yet every half decent DM does so instinctively...

seriously, to repeat an earlier question: have you ever actually played the game?

Matthew
2008-05-18, 05:41 PM
When your DM wants the king to die off screen, does he roll dice for it or does he just do it? If a hurricane hits Portland and stops all trade for 2 weeks, does he roll to see if the hurricane occurs and how much damage it does and who dies and who lives, or does he hand wave it all? I think that's pretty much control over the world.

And unless you're playing with 30,000 players, someone has to control all those NPCs. The DM is pretty close to the god of their world (and I'd argue has even more power than God does in ours).

Sure, and in that sense he has the final say as to what occurs in the campaign world, but it's not like he creates everything out of his own mind completely unaided and without outside influence. Being empowered by the players to dictate events that do not involve their characters isn't a form of godhood. Nor does he have any worshippers, cult, church, temple or godhead. Still less can he predict the actions of the players. The whole concept seems preposterous.

Rutee
2008-05-18, 05:42 PM
.........

So in the book that's for newbie GMs, you don't find there to be any problem whatsoever that the most important part of a GM's job receives no mention whatso-frelling-ever.

And you know what? i'm not answering that question, because it's frelling irrelevant, and frankly, it's a nonsense 'point' to attempt to make. I've played games, I know what a GM does, I know what /bad/ GMs do.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-18, 05:44 PM
I've come to the conclusion this thread keeps going because we all enjoy an argument and we're all training for Subtle Insult Swordfighting. Is all.

Jack Zander
2008-05-18, 05:50 PM
Nor does he have any worshippers, cult, church, temple or godhead.
It was an analogy. You're taking it way to literally.


Still less can he predict the actions of the players.
If there weren't forum rules about it, I could get into a religious debate with you about what I believe is within and is not within God's power. While talking about my personal beliefs, the DM is pretty much God in every way. Maybe the analogy doesn't fit your personal beliefs and that's why you're having a problem seeing it.

But I think the problem is just that you take analogies way to literally.

Cainen
2008-05-18, 05:55 PM
So in the book that's for newbie GMs, you don't find there to be any problem whatsoever that the most important part of a GM's job receives no mention whatso-frelling-ever.

Except it does, and it does so on the next page.

Matthew
2008-05-18, 05:59 PM
It was an analogy. You're taking it way to literally.

See, that's the problem with analogies and metaphors. People take them way out of context and start making them mean things that was not intended by the originator.



If there weren't forum rules about it, I could get into a religious debate with you about what I believe is within and is not within God's power. While talking about my personal beliefs, the DM is pretty much God in every way. Maybe the analogy doesn't fit your personal beliefs and that's why you're having a problem seeing it.

PM me if you like, I am well acquainted with Christian theology.

Rutee
2008-05-18, 06:00 PM
Except it does, and it does so on the next page.

"In your role as the Dungeon Master, you're the focus of the game" It manages to get worse without really getting better (YEs, I see what you're refering to).

It's talked a lot about how the GM is the one who provides things for the players, but very little about helping the players provide things themselves.

Using the word "Facilitate" doesn't mean you're endorsing actual facilitation.

Cainen
2008-05-18, 06:03 PM
"In your role as the Dungeon Master, you're the focus of the game"

You're taking it out of context yet again. Also, I was not referring to their usage of the word "facilitating". That has nothing to do with it - the paragraph just below that, however, does.

EvilElitest
2008-05-18, 06:13 PM
Perhaps you should go back and refresh your memory then. "The GM is the master of the game"? The whole reason you were trying to say player rights aren't infringed? I don't like minutiae, but I don't consider it 'bad' so much as not for me. Though I will say that tracking minutiae doesn't really fit sword and sorcery tales, I would think; I doubt they care about things like carrying capacity, or catching a cold from sleeping outside.
Would you please explain how the DM having control of his own world, rather than giving in to every one of the player's demands somehow infringes upon their rights? remember, difference between player empowerment and player entitlement


No.. you explained how you handled it. How /you/ handled it is not supported by the late Gygax's tone in his statements. If you were trying to establish that as his meaning, you did a really bad job, and for someone who keeps telling me not to attempt to understand the man's style of running games without playing them, it's pretty hypocrtical.

what is wrong with his meaning then, pray tell?



Never mind, actually. "The most zealous of grognards is far more fierce and tenacious then any dragon they have pretended to slay."

coming from somebody who won't back up their points, nor even reading the writings of the man they dislike?



Actually, I think she knows exactly what it means- she doesn't like it. As in, she thinks the Gygaxian paradigm of "DM is master" is bad because she favors a decentralized game style. Which isn't stupid even if I don't agree with it
1) however it is far better to back such a belief up, because
2) There are some glaring flaws with Decentralization.



Well, no. A referee is a somewhat close analogy in general, but the critical difference is first that a referee is utterly passive, and more importantly, a referee's fun isn't usually considered relevant.
I think the DM =ref is a pretty good analogy actually. They maintain the rules, and run he world, and keep the players in check



It's not so much the start as it is the richness of the plot. With a lot of D&D games, the plot begins and ends at the tavern. You're just one more role within a party, fighting monsters "because", and traipsing about the countryside. Perhaps you're off to save the world, perhaps there's some big bad evil guy... But that's where it ends. Defeat the monster of the week, get your reward, level up.

Each of the games has conflict, tension, a beginning and an end - real, involving and interesting plot. Are your choices limited? Well, yes. That's how D&D could do it better. You could have actual stories with the freedom of improvisation and flexibility of a pen and paper game. Cinematic style, getting rid of the fight-fight-fight-fight-rest system... It actually looks like 4e is doing that, which is good.

I'm sorry, WFT? Just really, WFT?

I love those games, but i've done many plots better than most of them in my games. Your working off quite a few extremely false statements

1) Every D&D game is suppose to be shallow via rules
2) Every game starts in a tavern, as stated in the rules
3) Every D&D game via rules has to have mindless combat

What rule keeps your D&D game from having even more stories, plot, and tension than Neverwinter nights.

Hell, read the 2E DMG, it is all about plot and tension

4E is going away from that sort of persona i feel, and acting more like FFX




DMG page 4
"The power of creating worlds, controlling deities and dragons, and leading entire nations is in your hands. You are the master of the game - the rules, the setting, the action, and ultimately, the fun. This is a great deal of power, and you must use it wisely. This book shows you how"


because that isn't their role in the game. the DM makes hte world, makes the rules (or maintains them) makes the quests, the monsters, teh challenges, the encounters and the setting. THe players interact or play in the setting he has made and they posses free will, something that cut scenes take away from them


And you know what? i'm not answering that question, because it's frelling irrelevant, and frankly, it's a nonsense 'point' to attempt to make. I've played games, I know what a GM does, I know what /bad/ GMs do.
1) Well you haven't been backing your claims so not much change there
2) Well bad DMs are the risk of D&D, something we have to all deal with. However good DMs are the god of their world


to be clear, i see no reason why the DM being the guy who makes the world and runs it somehow cheapens the PCs. As i said,

Player entitlement vs. Player empowerment
from
EE

Rutee
2008-05-18, 06:17 PM
You're taking it out of context yet again. Also, I was not referring to their usage of the word "facilitating". That has nothing to do with it - the paragraph just below that, however, does.

It's the first sentence in the chapter. That's what /sets/ context for Gods sakes. It places the entire credit of a good or bad game at the GM's feet, as the paragraph continues.

As to facilitation?

Providing Adventures.
Writing Adventures.
Using Purchased Adventures.
Teaching the Game.

Perhaps you have a loose interpretation of the words "Just below that", but there's little focus on bringing the players to the fore; A blurb before going on about the more menial tasks. In the description of those tasks, there's very little mentioning of the PCs, and only slightly more of the players

For a guy who wants to claim I'm misinterpreting context, you're not doing a good job of keeping it in mind.

Talya
2008-05-18, 06:21 PM
I've come to the conclusion this thread keeps going because we all enjoy an argument and we're all training for Subtle Insult Swordfighting. Is all.

How appropriate. You fight like a cow.

Cainen
2008-05-18, 06:22 PM
Since when does "Your primary role in the game is to present adventures in which the other players can roleplay their characters" not mean facilitating the players in a roleplaying game? There's almost no other way to read that.

Rutee
2008-05-18, 06:26 PM
Since when does "Your primary role in the game is to present adventures in which the other players can roleplay their characters" not mean facilitating the players in a roleplaying game? There's almost no other way to read that.

If I start my argument with "Piracy is bad, and you really shouldn't do it because it hurts the industry (Or what have you)", and then go on to explain in great detail how to pirate games on every modern platform and OS, would you then proceed to take away from that argument "Piracy is bad, and one shouldn't do it", or "Piracy is fine?"

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-18, 06:26 PM
How appropriate. You fight like a cow.

No, actually, I have you wrapped around a little start, more comically than you tripping on a paper heart, as you do not play it smart, and I'm more irritating than a well placed wart, attacking you with a verbal cream tart, which I bought at the mart, which is my wit which is sharper than a dart, which I store in a cart.

Defeated by a multihit alliterative combo!

Cainen
2008-05-18, 06:29 PM
If I start my argument with "Piracy is bad, and you really shouldn't do it because it hurts the industry (Or what have you)"

Except they never said anything remotely similar, and their concept of GMing as explained in the book is not mutually exclusive with facilitating the players' roleplaying.

Rutee
2008-05-18, 06:32 PM
It's pretty similar, but not perfectly analogous. A more perfect analogy would be "If I start with 'Piracy is Bad', and then go on to discuss the life and times of Abraham Lincoln, wouldn't my 'Piracy is bad' thesis be lost?" It's more a mix of both, since there's some pretty GM-centric talk, and very little about the players.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-18, 06:34 PM
It's pretty similar, but not perfectly analogous. A more perfect analogy would be "If I start with 'Piracy is Bad', and then go on to discuss the life and times of Abraham Lincoln, wouldn't my 'Piracy is bad' thesis be lost?" It's more a mix of both, since there's some pretty GM-centric talk, and very little about the players.

Ah, so what you mean is that it's similar to a Primus song?

PS: Primus is awesome in any case.

Cainen
2008-05-18, 06:37 PM
...It's a DUNGEON MASTER'S GUIDE. Since there's no One True Way to treat your players, as you seem to be insisting, there's no reason to talk about it when the current part isn't about players - it's about WHAT A GM DOES. Generalized. It does, however, illustrate that on Page 10-16.

Rutee
2008-05-18, 06:45 PM
The GM doesn't exist without players. They're kind of relevant to the game, and should be as important.

Cainen
2008-05-18, 06:49 PM
Which is more important - six pages on how to treat players with several long paragraphs on a blatantly more important manner, or one page with short, succinct paragraphs on a less important matter?

Jack Zander
2008-05-18, 06:49 PM
The GM doesn't exist without players. They're kind of relevant to the game, and should be as important.

No one is saying the player's aren't important. We're saying that a DM has more power and control of the world than the players, and what he says goes.

Now if the players don't like how he runs his world, they are free to find a new GM.

Rutee
2008-05-18, 06:51 PM
Which is more important - six pages on how to treat players with several long paragraphs on a blatantly more important manner, or one page with short, succinct paragraphs on a less important matter?

They both sound pretty irrelevant, if you think there's a more important matter then the other players. They're people; They automatically supersede any other possible issue, period.

Actually, that was pretty telling. We've got nothing to discuss.

Cainen
2008-05-18, 06:55 PM
Except one of those is about how a DM can treat their players, and it's the larger one.

If you think that the Dungeon Master's Guide should be wholly about the players, you fail to understand what the Dungeon Master's Guide is. Regardless, it pretty clearly illustrates what their job is, down to how to deal with players - you're playing with them, not against them, and that's very obvious upon a cursory reading of it.

horseboy
2008-05-18, 07:47 PM
I am still not sure where this idea of the DM as 'God' has come from. It's not mentioned in the PHB or DMG.I'm not sure exactly where it originates, I remember it was a common meme in the '80's that DM=God. I keep forgetting you're younger than me, so I'm not sure if you remember them, but there were running jokes about DM's having the power get to their heads because of this line of thought, mainly because it was so common. You didn't question the DM, the DM was ALWAYS right. One was to supplicate before the DM in hopes of his mercies. It was a dark time. I think that's why the next generation of players and games are so strong about "Player Entitlement" as a defiance. Since Gygax was "the" name in DMing during that era, even though he himself didn't play that way, it gets linked to the "Gygaxian" school of DMing by people big on "Player Entitlement" and generally perpetuated due to, well, incomplete understanding of the DM's role in a game by many people.

EvilElitest
2008-05-18, 07:49 PM
If I start my argument with "Piracy is bad, and you really shouldn't do it because it hurts the industry (Or what have you)", and then go on to explain in great detail how to pirate games on every modern platform and OS, would you then proceed to take away from that argument "Piracy is bad, and one shouldn't do it", or "Piracy is fine?"
here is the problem however, you have provided no detail on your options.

you've said GG's options are worthless and he is a bad game designer, because he promotes DM's not acting as entertainers to the PCs. No details explaining how this is the case, why this is bad, and how this makes him a bad game designer. I could pull off a better argument playing Devil's Advocate


The GM doesn't exist without players. They're kind of relevant to the game, and should be as important.

Not when it comes to actually making the setting and the world, just when it comes to affecting it

from
EE

Matthew
2008-05-18, 07:56 PM
I'm not sure exactly where it originates, I remember it was a common meme in the '80's that DM=God. I keep forgetting you're younger than me, so I'm not sure if you remember them, but there were running jokes about DM's having the power get to their heads because of this line of thought, mainly because it was so common. You didn't question the DM, the DM was ALWAYS right. One was to supplicate before the DM in hopes of his mercies. It was a dark time. I think that's why the next generation of players and games are so strong about "Player Entitlement" as a defiance. Since Gygax was "the" name in DMing during that era, even though he himself didn't play that way, it gets linked to the "Gygaxian" school of DMing by people big on "Player Entitlement" and generally perpetuated due to, well, incomplete understanding of the DM's role in a game by many people.

That sounds quite plausible; I remember when I was about thirteen or fourteen there were some 'power' issues, but I think that was just part of growing up. If anybody had actually said 'my word is law' or 'I am God' we'd have probably all laughed ourselves silly. My acquaintance with RPGs began in the early nineties, so I can't say I remember the 'dark time' (for me that was 1995 and the rise of collectable card games). :smallwink:

If you have fifteen minutes, I recommend reading what this guy has to say on the subject: Is this how D&D was meant to be played (http://lotfp.blogspot.com/2008/05/is-this-how-d-is-supposed-to-be-played.html)?

Talya
2008-05-18, 09:09 PM
No, actually, I have you wrapped around a little start, more comically than you tripping on a paper heart, as you do not play it smart, and I'm more irritating than a well placed wart, attacking you with a verbal cream tart, which I bought at the mart, which is my wit which is sharper than a dart, which I store in a cart.

Defeated by a multihit alliterative combo!

*sigh*

No love for Monkey Island.

dyslexicfaser
2008-05-18, 09:41 PM
*sigh*

No love for Monkey Island.

Monkey Island!

Ahh, that takes me back. How did it go? 'You fight like a dairy farmer?'

EvilElitest
2008-05-18, 09:46 PM
That sounds quite plausible; I remember when I was about thirteen or fourteen there were some 'power' issues, but I think that was just part of growing up. If anybody had actually said 'my word is law' or 'I am God' we'd have probably all laughed ourselves silly. My acquaintance with RPGs began in the early nineties, so I can't say I remember the 'dark time' (for me that was 1995 and the rise of collectable card games). :smallwink:

If you have fifteen minutes, I recommend reading what this guy has to say on the subject: Is this how D&D was meant to be played (http://lotfp.blogspot.com/2008/05/is-this-how-d-is-supposed-to-be-played.html)?

Its very good, and kinda kicks WW's entire marketing plan in the nads
from
EE

horseboy
2008-05-18, 09:51 PM
My acquaintance with RPGs began in the early nineties, so I can't say I remember the 'dark time' (for me that was 1995 and the rise of collectable card games). :smallwink:Well, I'm not fully willing to put the blame solely on CCGs for the RPG industry crash that happened shortly thereafter, but, well, it is an interesting coincidence. :smallamused:


If you have fifteen minutes, I recommend reading what this guy has to say on the subject: Is this how D&D was meant to be played (http://lotfp.blogspot.com/2008/05/is-this-how-d-is-supposed-to-be-played.html)?Oh, completely. In fact over this weekend between this and the grognard thread and insomnia I've been thinking along the same lines. Old modules+adolescent male aggression+having to pioneer what a role playing game is-0 real, real life experience to base something non-hack-n-slash around=Prior edition campaign. These kids today got it easy, I tell you.
Of course, TSR could have done better in explaining such things, generally that is why I give credit to FASA for actually "teaching" me how to roleplay with SR2.

Matthew
2008-05-18, 10:26 PM
Aye, it has been an interesting weekend; plenty to think about.

Jade_Tarem
2008-05-18, 10:57 PM
I think we may have lost track of the original thread theme...

Ultimately, there's only so much to say on it, though, because there is only a finite amount of video game content and a theoretically infinite amount of DnD content, since it's all user-generated after a certain point.

Several people beat around this bush before the thread got derailed on, as nearly as I can tell, the question of "how important the DM is as compared to the players." Well, just for the sake of throwing my two bits in a day or two late, I'd say that the DM is as important as the players and controls significantly more of the environment - it is his responsibility to run a smooth and fun game, and to do that he needs the cooperation of the players - granting him such wonderful abilities as complete control over the laws of his game. A good gaming session is not run when the players get to make up the rules as they go and argue with the DM constantly - that's Calvinball, not DnD. So ultimately, the DM needs complete creative control over the world, the NPCs, the plot, and so forth, with the only input of the players being the actions of the "main characters" in the story, or else the game grinds to a halt even faster than a game run by the worst of rules lawyers (as long as they don't also have uncooperative players). Remember that with this, the DM is doing significantly more work than the players (if he's doing it right) - planning sessions, statting out non-standard monsters and important NPCs, and adapting the plot to what the players have done so far take time, energy, and a certain creativity.

As for what it could learn from video games, the thing that kept coming up in some form or another seemed to be "streamlined rules" - and others pointed out that the rules of video games weren't streamlined so much as running really, really fast. This is true, but doesn't invalidate the original point. A combat flight simulator wouldn't be too much fun if the player had to work out the math behind his missile lock before he could fire - and a real pilot couldn't do that either. What these games have done is, essentially, cut to the chase. DMs and players can help with this in one of two ways - they can either relax with regards to the precision of the rules, or they can learn the rules really, really well, and improvise quickly when a situation doesn't cover them.

And of course, people brought up the things that they didn't like as well. Programming limitations have a way of axing in on the enjoyment of crafty players. I remember being somewhat peeved back when I was playing WoW - I had found a truly clever shortcut to avoid something like a half-hour hike through nowhere when I was stopped by an invisible wall. Then I was eaten by a grue. This has always been one of the strongest points of DnD with a good DM - clever solutions can work because they should, and not because the game mechanics allow it. Abuse of the game mechanics can also be quite amusing, although very damaging to the game in general.

In DnD, however, "the chase" mentioned earlier is considerably more complex. I can't remember who said this, but DnD is essentially three things.

1. At its most basic level, it is a game of chance. Dice are rolled for enjoyment.

2. Second, it is a fantasy battle game simulation. There are rules imposed, and within them you try to do the best you can towards a predetermined objective.

3. Lastly, it is a joint stoytelling effort between the DM and the players.

I would venture to say that there is little that DnD could take away from games, other than the rules thing. The DM's ultimate responsibility above all is to make sure that the game is fun (although the players need to make sure that they aren't hurting the game).

And there you have it. I hope this was at least halfway coherant. It's kinda late where I am. G'nite!

Yahzi
2008-05-18, 11:03 PM
I'm a little confused by the argument with Rutee.

As I understood it, she objected to the notion that the DM had complete control of the game. She stated that the game is, itself, a cooperative endeavor between the DM and the players. If either one of those parties refuses to play nice, the game ends. DMs that take too much control are railroading; and players that don't take enough control are freeloading. In either case, maximum fun is not achieved.

The DM makes the game fun by limiting the choices available to the players, and the players make the game fun by creating new choices. (That is, the DM says you have to roll to hit the NPCs in the room, and the player says I'm going to set fire to the entire building and kill 'em that way).

I'm not sure what's problematic about her position. :smallconfused:

Matthew
2008-05-18, 11:15 PM
As for what it could learn from video games, the thing that kept coming up in some form or another seemed to be "streamlined rules" - and others pointed out that the rules of video games weren't streamlined so much as running really, really fast. This is true, but doesn't invalidate the original point. A combat flight simulator wouldn't be too much fun if the player had to work out the math behind his missile lock before he could fire - and a real pilot couldn't do that either. What these games have done is, essentially, cut to the chase. DMs and players can help with this in one of two ways - they can either relax with regards to the precision of the rules, or they can learn the rules really, really well, and improvise quickly when a situation doesn't cover them.

Aye, speedy play is something I consider desirable.



I'm not sure what's problematic about her position. :smallconfused:

At the risk of erecting a giant strawman (cause frankly, I'm not altogether sure I understand and now barely care), it was basically:

Decentralised Game = Good
Centralised Game = Bad

No room for contrary opinion.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-18, 11:23 PM
Aye, speedy play is something I consider desirable.


At the risk of erecting a giant strawman (cause frankly, I'm not altogether sure I understand and now barely care), it was basically:

Decentralised Game = Good
Centralised Game = Bad

No room for contrary opinion.

No, it's more part of the Azerian rule: After a certain point in a thread, we only argue for the pleasure of reveling in the glorious sunshine of the points and counterpoints. It makes us closer than even blood brothers, and there is no real anger or hate behind the words as we finally lay a thread to rest.

Sir Giacomo is the sole exception, apparently.

Matthew
2008-05-18, 11:26 PM
Nah, not me. I just had that wierd 'somebody is wrong on the internet impulse'. In retrospect, I wish I had spent the time playing Baldur's Gate, I still haven't finished Throne of Bhaal.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-18, 11:27 PM
Oh, ye poor forgotten soul. Go now, and see the epic conclusion, but be sure to mod it to make it more epic.

Incidentally, there's a mod that includes a supremely kickass sword named Judgement Day. If anything, that's THE number one mod to install.

xirr2000
2008-05-18, 11:56 PM
But in pen and paper games, the players must at least learn the rules. In a video game, you can just stick the disc in and play. That's the main problem with pen and paper games: they're hard to get into.

To try out D&D, you need to do the following:
[LIST=1]
Find an RPG store.
Buy the 3 core books (probably some settings or modules too).
Get yourself a pile of dice with many sides.
Read all the books you've bought. (About 1000 pages of core material, other sourcebooks add more)
Find six friends who want to play, and have the same evening available for play every week.
Explain all of those 1000 pages to your friends.
Roll up characters. (Can take quite a while, possibly up to 2 hours if you have big backstories and things)


Personally the time I spend doing those things brings me a lot of joy and is a main reason I like pen and paper games. That first session is always about making your character, coming up with a cool story, fiddling with numbers so that you can do what you want to do within the ruleset. It is those things that will always keep pen and paper games alive in a computerized world. I still like video games when I can't get a group of people to socialize with when I want to game so they will also always have a place, but learning new games/rules/character creation will always be a source of creative outlet that video games will never be able to replace.

Cuddly
2008-05-19, 12:06 AM
I, too, find character creation extremely rewarding, even if I may never use the character/