[D&D 3.5] "I don't play for endings" (way too long)
masqueradeball:
To an extent I agree with what your saying. The problem is, IMO, that the way people role play is very different from the way they play Volleyball. Until recently a lot of groups have been playing in isolation, guessing out a lot of what they were doing, with out much contact from the outside. It'd be like if everywhere in the world had a Volleyball League, but they all ran by a different set of rules, a lot of which no one ever bothered to right down. All that local variation is bound to mean confusion for a new player, and talking is the only way to get around it.
For instance, you talk about the DM using is by the text protected prerogative to change the rules of play. The DMG also really stresses explaining the changes to players, explaining why the change was made, and stating it clearly before play begins.
Ninja, by the way, are ridiculously good. At low levels there main role in combat will be defending and drawing opponents off from bigger damage dealers, but their touch AC is going to be really good... which is a major benefit in 3.5. Later, the power array makes up for lost rogue abilities. Also, getting Improved Feint is well worth it. One of the funnest and most frustrating aspects of D&D is how powers combine with one another. Look at the Invisible Blade prestige class for a great pairing for any Ninja, also, multi-classing is always an option.
Ron Edwards:
Hi Nolan,
That's true. Have you read my essay "A hard look at Dungeons & Dragons," in the Articles section? It's aimed at getting out of that isolated, cargo-cult mentality regarding this game in particular.
Best, Ron
masqueradeball:
Ron: Yeah, I almost referenced it in my post. My point to Callan was just this: that a lot of the time the reason play is bad is because roleplaying or Dungeons & Dragons or whatever have different meanings for everyone at the table, and, as you explain really well in your article, this is the baggage the hobby brings with it, since D&D for a really long time, was the hobby. I think Callan has a good point, and I think the newer editions of D&D are pretty clear about what your suppose to be doing when you play, but... the reality is that most people carried over their habits from 2e, or worse still, learned how to play entirely through guessing it out by example, having never read more of the rules than absolutely neccessary.
And D&D does suggest pre-game discussion. Its in that section in the DMG about the two styles of play, you know, Kick Down the Door or Deep Immersion or whatever they call it.
Callan S.:
Hi Nolan,
I don't think that's true. Take your example where everyone has a 'volleyball league'. Why are they all calling it volleyball? That doesn't happen by itself - people invent sports independently all the time, but they name them all sorts of things. For everyone to name their variant the same (volleyball), there must be some central organisation which is telling them it's volleyball. It's sending out the message that it is. It'd have to be organised - you don't get hundreds of people making really different games, then naming them all the same just by chance. Same with D&D. Why is everyone calling their game they essentially made up, D&D? Thousands of games made and all called D&D? Seriously, why? Unless someones patting them on the back somehow and saying 'Oh yeah, that's D&D!'
In terms of D&D, talking about it is not the way to get around it. There's a central authority involved which will say 'Oh yes, that's D&D!' to just about any flippin' set up. When people in the same group have different set ups, but this central authority keeps going 'Oh yes, what your doing is D&D!' to each of them, any talk the group might have is undermined before it even begins. Talking about it only aggrivates the whole situation, because their all bloody certain their doing D&D because they keep getting told through books and shit that they are. Which is terrible, come to think of it, because talking about it is about the only thing we have as human beings to deal with stuff. Though in terms of creative denial and simulationism, it could work out - and there does seem a massive sim culture out there.
I almost feel bad saying 'talk is bad' - it seems really heretical to say, yet it adds up.
Ron Edwards:
Hi Callan,
That kind of talk is bad, I definitely agree. However, that can't possibly mean that any talk is bad - the talk in this thread, for instance, is seriously good. Does it not seem possible to you that, some day, you will be able to play D&D with some folks with whom you talked in this way, instead?
Best, Ron
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page