Home ›
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
>Madagraphs
No.
Okay. It's three in the morning and my arms kinda hurt, so I'll just say this: " In fact, The Witcher strikes me as what D&D ought to have been and ought to be." is a blatantly false statement; D&D can be like The Witcher if it wants to, but unlike The Witcher, it can also be a bunch of other things. That's one of the (arguable, by Sturgeon's Law) advantages of D&D over vidya; it's dependent on the group playing it.
(high-fives Everest)
>Write three sentence rebuttal to alex post
>he replies
>ten paragraphs
More seriously, seconding what Everest said. There's no reason a D&D game can't have deep character stuff or meaning in it's plot or encounters.
Wasn't this like the plot of the Series 5 episode Amy's Choice?
^^^^ That's not really a fair comparison; The Witcher is much more specific in narrative and approach, being a series of books before a game. D&D isn't very narrative until you apply a setting and characters to it, being a set of game mechanics meant to evoke a quasi-medieval setting. Even then, the d20 system itself has been applied to a variety of other settings.
D&D has a load of issues that are ingrained into its audience at this point. A great example is "party balance". It's expected that a party is going to have a certain dispersal of skills, and many players will choose a class based on the choices of other players to fill in the gaps. Its designers and its audience, I think, consider the game from too much of a mechanical perspective without relating it back to what's really important -- the overall experience. It's all well and good to say what can be done, but those are often big "ifs". Most of the time, a party will have a rogue, a spellcaster, a healer and some kind of close combat expert.
This can work well, because the versatility can give DMs and players alike the space they need to set up something spectacular. More often, though, DMs and players both falter and fail to find consistency and meaning in that sea of options. Most games and campaigns of D&D end up being unfocused as a result.
Contrast this with, say, the way White Wolf sets out its games. They have more or less identical mechanics, but they recontexutalise them to support a particular theme. Werewolf is all about the struggle between instinct and reason; Mage is all about the balance of secrecy and power. In fact, most games aim to theme themselves more specifically than D&D for a very good reason -- it ensures that the GM and players are on the level. You always know what Mutants & Masterminds is about, thematically. The capacity to do anything in D&D carries with it the responsibility to make a good use of those tools. If you don't live up to that responsibility, the game loses focus and can devolve into a crapshoot from there.
By trying to be everything, D&D fails to reconcile its mechanics with any strong element of narrative. A good DM needn't railroad, but they must impose focus somehow. Other games skip the middleman in this respect and establish a theme from the turning of the first page, which is probably why they're almost always far more interesting.
I'm considering posting what I personally think are the issues of D&D in a separate thread but I worry it will become the Malk & Alex wank show.
Not that I don't enjoy getting Alex's perspective on things but I feel my vitriolic language and his verbosity tend to discourage other people.
For a random guy on the internet Malkavian, your posts are relatively tame. Hardly what I would call seething with vitriol.
> D&D
> not expecting like, me or Everest to get involved when we like D&D and it isn't late for us
I say do it.
Of course, I would say that.
And why not? There's no reason we can't have more flexible games like D&D alongside more focused games like Mage.
And what's to stop that happening with Mage? The setting might be more condusive to it, but if you have a DM or players who don't live up to it, then you're in the same situation.
Plus, there's nothing wrong with a D&D DM imposing his own rules based on his setting. That's half the point.
In the end, the written rules and settings aren't nearly as important as the creativity of the people sitting at the table and writing their own story.
Huh, now that I think about it White Wolf's tendency to make thematically strong games is a double edged sword. On one hand it can help to construct a more meaningful narrative. But it also pigeonholes the sort of game you are going to play. Every single Changeling game is going to be about characters going through PTSD and trying to pick up the pieces of the goddamn mess that is their life. Every single fucking one.
Of course this is meaningless if the players and storyteller disregard the fluff and decide to have a game about Vampires in SPACE!!! or a team of Mage con men Ocean's 11 style.
> focused
>Mage.
...goddammit, I promise Everest I wouldn't post another laughing girls gif.
More seriously, Mage honestly works it's damn hardest to be as freeform as possible. My current Mage character is a motorcycle-riding Paladin dressed in periwinkle and using his faith in the lord as shield from demons, all the while summoning the demon in his soul controls to wreak havoc on other monsters.
^See, I don't think sticking the games to a theme is a problem. Honestly the problem with both vampire games I've had is a lot of players don't want to be, you know, vampires.
...
You just wanted to play an amalgamation of Kamen Rider and Ghost Rider, didn't you?
^It's not necessarily a problem, but I feel it can burn players out. Playing Vampire all the time means they are always struggling to hold onto some humanity when anything and everything is pushing them to act more like a monster. It can get players and GM into a boring rut, you know?
Feel free to insert whatever the hell else you want there that makes more sense.
^^...
Maaaaybe.... >_>
^It's definitely worth checking it out. It's super-flawed, but I've never seen a game in my life so open to ideas.
The point is that the written rules suggest focus and narrative on their own. The bulk of D&D's rules are about combat -- and that was fine back in the era when tabletop roleplaying was literally 100% dungeon crawls. D&D works fine there. But it's kept the same mechanical basis while trying to open up into a complete world. The addition of extra non-combat skills is a token step towards representing this when the majority of character building is based around a character's ability to contribute to a fight.
The Riddle of Steel is an example of a game that introduces a mechanic that influences narrative away from the standard RPG setup. Each player character has Spiritual Attributes, the specifics of which are decided upon the player. The score of this attribute represents the extra amount of dice that come into play concerning any task closely related to it, and using these attributes increases their level immediately afterward. Those attribute levels can then be spent to increase skills, proficiencies and regular attributes. The result of this is that a character essentially "levels up" by adhering to and following their character traits. Or, in short, roleplaying becomes the basis for levelling up rather than experience.
Ergo, RoS is a game where the mechanically efficient way to succeed is to play in character. Combat is dangerous and has no inherent reward, so it's to be avoided unless necessary. Magic is similarly dangerous, and so ought not to be used unless the scenario is pressing or there's a lot to be gained. It's a game that encourages its players to solve problems using the most efficient tools available to them while avoiding danger. By mechanical design alone, it leads players down a narrative path.
The capacity to do anything doesn't make D&D a good game. It gives opportunities to allow good DMs and good players to shine and that's its strength, but that doesn't mean its flaws can be discounted.
A mark of a well-designed narrative game is how well its mechanics and narrative interact and support one-another. Video games provide an excellent example of this. Most excellent games have a specific focus or theme they follow from beginning until the end. This is what helps draw the player in. Even chess is a facsimile of a medieval battle; the movement of knights even imitates flanking. It has narrative and focus, as simple as it is. All games are designed under the same principles, irrespective of medium, and D&D fails at one of the baseline ones -- supporting narrative with mechanical focus.
You may argue that a good group can make D&D work extremely well, but it's just as true that a good mod team can fix a mediocre video game. That doesn't change the fact that the game needed fixing in the first place. And if a game needs an exceptional clause to validate it, then it might be of questionable quality to begin with. All tabletop roleplaying games are arguably subject to such a clause, but many mitigate that factor with theming so as to focus the experience.
Your themes will still be the same, though. Vampires in space are still vampires; they have to struggle to find a balance between keeping their humanity and giving in to the thirst. Mage will still be about balancing the use of one's powers with secrecy. That's what makes some themes so strong; it doesn't matter what setting or appearance they're given, they can work exactly the same way.
Oh Jesus Christ. If you like Batman at all, you really need to read the Black Mirror.
My heart. It is breaking.
Why is this comic teaching me how to feel?
no, what they are arguing is that D&D is flexible, able to tell near any story and the mechanics are eminently adaptable
but blah walls of text i can't be arsed arguing with today
I know what they're arguing, which is what you pointed out. I think that's vaguely true, but not the entire story -- D&D is the result of a tabletop wargamer coming up with a more small-scale set of rules for personal stories. It started as a game based entirely on dungeon crawling scenarios, and its current state reflects those beginnings.
Indeed, because skill checks are totally supportive of dungeon crawling :v
I've played in campaigns where there was no combat at all, the conflict drawn entirely through our interactions with NPC's, and I've played in campaigns where we fought bands of enemies interspersed with diplomatic relations and building of fortresses and defences.
The game is primarily built around combat, yes, but not only do they have aspects to them that are not to do with combat, but combat is not dungeon crawling. They are very seperate things.
Case in point: Tomb of Horrors.
But again: just because the game includes rules for non-combat encounters doesn't mean the mechanics support that kind of scenario well. Can is not the same as good. In the same way that a low-combat run of Skyrim can be interesting via smithing, enchanting, socialisation and other stuff, the game doesn't mechanically support that style of play.
4th edition D&D is a backwards step in respect to my argument, as most of the game's resources are devoted to tile-based combat and all such mechanics for all classes have been tied together. Even the geometric shape and uniformity of tile-based combat suggests a dungeon crawl. That said, D&D might benefit from that kind of focus, and that original concept is what initially spurred it into popularity. But while it continued to devote more and more resources to that one mechanical outlet, it also tried to encompass other aspects and forgot to support them in the same way.
As I said above, concerning the versatile nature of D&D:
What I'm looking at here is how mechanics support narrative and vice-versa. Versatility can be a strong game element, but each mechanic still needs to tie itself to narrative well. A persuasion check technically accomplishes this, but it's still just a dice roll -- much more mechanic than narrative. A player can build a character with huge charisma and intelligence, putting as many points into persuade as possible and it might not help the game at all.
One exception is the 3.5 Paladin restriction of remaining Lawful Good. I'd argue that was too restrictive, but the concept was there. The core concept was "to remain in a role, one must adhere to the role". Its flaw was probably in looking at it from the wrong angle. Instead of punishing players for falling from Lawful Good alignment, it should have rewarded players the more they performed Lawful and Good actions. All the same, it's a perfect example of something D&D doesn't do often -- tying narrative directly to mechanics. This is how strong games work. I'm not saying every class should have some kind of character alignment mechanic, but it was an example of D&D trying to support characterisation and narrative mechanically.
In a game, narrative is expressed by action. Doing. Mechanics. That's why it's important to tie narrative and mechanics together so closely, no matter the game's medium. The better this is accomplished, the more simply playing feels like a story in its own right.
Alex. Goddammit. You're doing it again after people have pointed out several times that nobody really wants to read walls of text tonight.
Holy god, I'm getting pissy and I'm not even reading what you said. Time to log off for a while.
Apologies. I don't set out to write walls of text -- they just happen. It hasn't once crossed my mind to write a large post on this forum, but you can see how often it happens. This isn't an attempt at spite or some kind of snide argumentative tactic, but the way I express ideas.
No, you have to hit send before you post them. You always have the option to stop and check what you are going to be posting before you actually post it, unlike real time conversation. The they just sort of happen excuse doesn't fly.
Then I would question how much effort you want me to put into each post. I might write long posts, but it's another matter entirely to go over them again, edit them, and carefully prune away the things I consider least necessary.
I also find myself in a Catch 22 scenario; if my posts are too short, then I can't express myself with the clarity I'd like. If they're too long, no-one reads them. To me, longer posts are the lesser evil, because at least then I can express my thoughts with clarity and completeness.
If long posts are not to your personal tastes, then I can't fault you on those grounds. Implying that long posts are poor form by nature is a matter of complete subjectivity, however, and I'm not interested in getting into a debate that only has room for personal opinion.
Lemme just say this.
This? This is a fucking fantastic character concept. If I ran a game of D&D, I would love to have this character in it.
However, the mechanics of the game, the fact that the fluff ties being a Paladin to being Lawful Good and punishes them from deviating from a set of morals- this character would Fall within a couple of sessions. There is no room for deviation, there is no room for buts and whys; there is just "You must play your character like this or else you can't play this character."
It is restrictive. It restricts people who want to play as a champion of Good wielding divine magic into a certain role, and it punishes them by stripping them of nearly all their abilities if they deviate from the concept of 'someone who upholds the law and the abstract concept of good'.
Now, this is not always a bad thing; a character who fits within those parameters can and has been a fantastic character in the past. However, it means that concepts like the above cannot exist unless the GM deviates from the rules.
Which is where D&D excels; because if a GM does not like a concept, he can just ignore it. If he thinks Fireball should deal 3d12+1d6/level damage but be a 3rd Level Sorceror spell, then that's what it is. If he thinks that a Paladin can be Chaotic Good and represent the ideals of anarchy and selfless altruism, then that's what goes. If he thinks that combat is stupid and creates a campaign devoted entirely to diplomatic relations, then there are rules he can call upon to do that.
You say that mechanics should be tied with the narrative. I say that is stupid, because it is unnecessarily restrictive on the player. The mechanics should be able to be tied to the narrative, but if the player or the GM wants something different, then that's what goes.
And that is what D&D is fantastic at; allowing the DM to ignore the rules and adjust the game, setting and mechanics to fit the players.
That clarity and completeness doesn't do you a lot of practical good if people won't actually be bothered to read what you are saying. And yeah how tolerable people find long posts is just a personal opinion, but that translates into an objective fact you need to consider when talking to said people, if you want to be well received.