forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

D&D is actually one of the reasons I generally avoid RPG discussions on the internet. I quite happily played 3rd edition and 3.5 for years before encountering any min-maxers and declarations of this class being useless and this class being broken and how with just the right prestige classes and feats you could make a character who could cast ninth level arcane and divine spells. I find the whole thing off-putting and generally irritating.

The funny thing is, I do like playing with rule systems and squeezing the most out of them that I can. Partially because I'm a game design nerd, but it's mainly because if I want to play a highly-skilled swordswoman, for example, I want to make her the best swordswoman I can. Even in my 90's teenage years full of epic powergaming, it was never about big numbers for the sake of big numbers, or "beating" the game; it was just about being the biggest badasses we could be.

Shieldmaiden wrote: One of the GMs in my group is running Pathfinder when it's his turn (we alternate between three GMs, whenever we get to a suitable stopping point or we get bored of one game, someone else steps up) and I'm finding it a little frustrating. He's playing fast and loose with the rules in a way that doesn't really work, especially as I know the rules so well. It's one of the problems with a highly-detailed system. When you disregard certain rules, things can get out of whack fast, especially if players are expecting something to work in a certain way.

I imagine the same would be true if a player of TOR expecting it to work the way it was intended to, suddenly found himself with a LM that wanted to turn it into a very complex strategic miniatures grid game that used attacks of opportunity and reach and threatening squares etc.

It doesn't mean you can't play TOR that way, and it certainly doesn't mean you can't play Pathfinder with removing alot of the complex combat rules. So long as the GM and the players are all on the same page and there are no false-pretenses.

Robert

Rich H wrote:

SirKicley wrote:

Shieldmaiden wrote:Ugh, yes. I tried a Living Pathfinder game at a convention once. Never again.

Exactly, but that doesn't mean that all Pathfinder is played that way or intended to be. Mine are never like that. Nor is the Rise of the Runelords campaign I play a swashbuckling Sorcerer/Rogue in, nor the Wrath of the Righteous campaign that I play a defending crusader paladin in. Joseph and Brian (respectively) are fantastic DMs who run excellent games and are very imaginative, creative, and descriptive and we all have a wonderful time.

Robert

My experience, granted it's extremely limited, is that convention games are very rarely a good barometer for how games are played in private with peoples' own groups.

I would go so far as to say that most published D&D adventures bear little or no resemblance to how we used to play the game. I think this comes down to the fact that games are intended to be run in a certain way and probably work best like that. While it's certainly possible to do otherwise it is unusual.
I've run a games shop for many years plus a good number of conventions and tournaments and, in my experience, the typical D&D player stereotype is very much a real thing... Not saying it's a bad thing; there's no badwrongfun after all, they're simply playing the game like it's designed to be played.

While it's true that Tolkien's Middle-earth was a major inspiration for Dungeons & Dragons, so was Michael Moorcock's Elric of Melnibone, Robert E. Howard's Conan, Fritz Lieber's world of Nehwon, and even Lovecraft's Cthulhu Mythos. It's no wonder that it is difficult to capture the flavor of Middle-earth in a typical D&D adventure. Of the published campaign settings, I think that the Forgotten Realms comes the closest.

It's well known (at least amongst really old grognards ) that Gary wanted D&D to be Swords and Sorcery and resisted the addition of fantasy races from Tolkien that Dave Arneson wanted to put in. If you look at Appendix N
( http://www.digital-eel.com/blog/ADnD_reading_list.htm ) you'll see a large lists of S&S material as recommended reading and Tolkien isn't pushed as one of the main sources with Camp & Pratt, R. E. Howard, Fritz Leiber, Jack Vance, H. P. Lovecraft, and A. Merritt quoted as being primary sources for shaping the game.

Hermes Serpent wrote:It's well known (at least amongst really old grognards ) that Gary wanted D&D to be Swords and Sorcery and resisted the addition of fantasy races from Tolkien that Dave Arneson wanted to put in.

Not only Dave, but most of the players Gary interacted with. Gary liked The Hobbit, but thought The Lord of the Rings was boring. He was a minority among wargamers at the time. Chainmail's Fantasy Supplement was largely a result of people wanting to play out the Battle of Five Armies in miniature.

Stormcrow wrote:Not only Dave, but most of the players Gary interacted with. Gary liked The Hobbit, but thought The Lord of the Rings was boring. He was a minority among wargamers at the time. Chainmail's Fantasy Supplement was largely a result of people wanting to play out the Battle of Five Armies in miniature.

Yeah, the origins of Chainmail were in reproducing the battles of Middle-earth. And the Chainmail rules eventually led to the start of D&D. Besides Men, the core races of D&D still include Elves, Dwarves and Halflings. Monsters and other creatures still include Orcs, Goblins, Treants (Ents), Wights, Wraiths and the like. Gygax preferred his sword & sorcery, but many of the high-fantasy elements of Tolkien remain.