Converting D&D Paladins?!

[prophet118]

well... everything went fine, til the person playing the cleric complained about not having as many possible spells as she did in D&D....

i went step by step and worked on every problem she could come up with, til this one...

i even added a "double your MA in spells you can ready cast".... wasnt enough.... so i said screw it...

im going to still do a TROS, but im just going to put my D&D game on hold til i can stomach it again

[Brian Leybourne]

Sometimes, you just have to give up and stop trying to push round gamers into square games :-)

Brian.

[prophet118]

my problem is that i tried really hard to keep the game, because we had decided to go to epic... now theres talk of another dm converting these characters possibly to hero 5th edition... good luck i say... lol

im at the point where i dont really want to do any D&D anymore....

for likely the same reasons jake stopped

[Brian Leybourne]

I know what you're saying. Went off D&D many many years ago, came back to try it with 3e "it's fixed. No really. Honest", and then went off it again. Maybe I'll pick up 6th edition or so in another 10 years and see what that's like :-)

Brian.

[Draigh]

Prophet 118 wrote:

im at the point where i dont really want to do any D&D anymore....

Brian Leybourne wrote:

I know what you're saying. Went off D&D many many years ago, came back to try it with 3e "it's fixed. No really. Honest", and then went off it again. Maybe I'll pick up 6th edition or so in another 10 years and see what that's like :-)

I too have had similar experiences with D&D.  3e brought about what I feel are a couple of abominable tendencies in gaming:

The first being the tendency to "computer RPG-ize"  traditional tabletop or pen and paper rpgs.  2e AD&D was a convoluted system, but it was alright... it wasn't overly realistic, nor was it completely over the top (well, apart from being able to ride around on 1,000 year old dragons a-la dragonlance, oh, and be sure to disregard the entirety of the forgotten realms setting).  Anyway... that's not the point.  It seems that the d20 system of role playing, and especially the roll-playing aspect of it, has been reduced to a number-crunching game of piling on the bonuses and stacking the odds, until your character is just a pile of +2s and +4s and circumstantial modifiers and racial adjustments and (insert endless wave of horseshit here).  It's like playing final fantasy... in order for anything to be challenging to your character, you have to play in a world of ever escalating freaks, because your character is a freak. I just couldn't find the fun in that anymore.

The second thing that really bothered me is something that was supposed to help the industry as a whole, and bring new people into the game...  The prevalence of "d20". With the open-license agreement and what not, anyone is able to put out a product and say that it is for use with the d20 system.  That's good.  I tend to use about anything I find interesting as sorce material or inspiration.  The main problem I have is with the gamers, I guess...  People don't tend to like to learn new systems...  I for one, love Deadlands : The Weird West and Deadlands : Hell on Earth.  At one point I wanted to start up a Deadlands game at my FLGS, but everyone who was interested would only play Deadlands d20, so I bummed a copy of the rules off a friend, and started studying and converting the rules from "not quite D&D with guns" to something more akin to the original... Needless to say, it didn't work out that well.  The d20 system was so ill-suited to the level of grittiness that the original deadlands captured that I hated running it, and dropped the game after a couple of weeks when my PCs wouldn't convert to the original rules.  Overall, I think the d20 system has done some good for role playing as a hobby, but not as much as we were told it would.

That's why I love TRoS so much, it's gritty and realistic without having an over complicated rules system, and there's not alot of tweaking that you have to do to make it whatever you want it to be...

Anyway, sorry if I've run long in my ranting.

[Rattlehead]

Ok.... This is silly....

All I hear on the internet is how horrid D&D is.... I happen to like D&D.

Why? Because it's a good system, a good game, and it's popular. It's only as screwed up as the DM and players make it. The last serious D&D campaign I ran (3e, by the way) didn't have a single magic item in it... at least, not in the traditional sense. There was a coffin-like stasis chamber, but that's about it....

Magic was pretty rare in general. That's the way we played it. Experience points were given out for role-playing. Combat was rare. 3rd Edition D&D is only Diablo with dice if you let it be that.

If that's your complaint, then the problem doesn't lie with the system, it lies with the DM. You make of it what you want. That's why we play these games.

I can see that the canned stuff from WotC is a lot like people describe. I agree. I despise the thought of a PC being able to buy a magic weapon in a shop. What nonsense! I hate that the people designing the worlds and such for D&D these days think that Diablo and Final Fantasy are RPGs. But that doesn't mean that the system is broken. It means that you have to think for yourself. Which shouldn't be a problem.... after all, we roleplayers have been coming up with our own worlds and adventures for decades, so nothing's changed. If you're like me and you think that Frostbrand should be a unique named weapon, rather than a flavor of sword the PCs can buy, then make it so!!!

But don't sit and whine about the system just because your DM is too lazy to do "his job" and make the world interesting and realistic. Get a new DM, or better yet, do it yourself for others who feel the way you do. Can't find players who want to roleplay rather than roll-play? Get new players. Hell, the hobby needs all the recruitment it can get - go out and make new players!

Sorry about the rant folks, but sometimes, I just get disgusted with the whining I hear all over the net.

Brandon

PS: I happen to love TROS, for those who don't know (Jake and others can vouch for that). But that doesn't mean I can't like D&D too.

[Draigh]

I'll agree that the DM makes the game Brandon, but the reality is that many people aren't interested in a more realistic DnD. Also, systems tend to lend themselves to certain styles of play.  An over the top TRoS game would be difficult to do, but not impossible, just as a gritty game of DnD wouldn't be impossible... just extremely hard to pull off.  People tend to have preconcieved notions about a game based on what they've experienced in the past with different GMs, and many players forget that the GM is the one who makes the final call.  It seems to me that many people don't have the inclination to trust the GM that is neccisary to make an enjoyable game, especially if said GM deviates from the "book rules".

You know that I like to deviate from the more "traditional" role playing settings and such in my games, and the main problem that I've encountered is that many people don't want to play in any setting that's not based around a Tolkienesque world or a generic "european middle ages" world.   This seems like a giant hurdle to me... trying to convince people that while there are no buckles to swash, it doesn't mean that there are no swashbucklers... Or that while there are no knights, chivalrous and honorable men (and women) still band together to combat the less noble forces of the world..  Shit man, I ran TRoS in Middle Earth, and it was really hard to get people to pull their heads out of their asses long enough to look at the world through their character's eyes... to see what was really going on in the story... because they had common misconceptions about the world around them.  I guess that alot of the problems that I have with most gamers stems from their past experience with shoddy systems and poor GMs, and their tendency to think that because this is the way so and so did it, then I will do it that way too.  I guess that's where my disgust for the d20 system comes from.

[Draigh]

I guess that my main point is that while DnD can be fun, and is popular, it should be left as DnD.  Instead of being ported to other game types, there are tons of better ways to play Deadlands or superheros or modern or whatever you're looking to play than trying to make it out of d20.

To me, it's like trying to use a hammer to cut a board in half... wrong tool for the job.

[contracycle]

But don't sit and whine about the system just because your DM is too lazy to do "his job" and make the world interesting and realistic.

Equally, don;t sit around whining about the fact that your product gets publicly dissed a lot just becuase your game designer was too lazy to make an entretaining system.  Oh dear, the consumers are unhappy - clearly we need a new type of consumer.

Now, rightly or wrongly, I think D&D in most of its varieties is a steaming pile of dogshit.  I recognises that this is Just My Opinion, so please don't lecture me on the point.

Sorry about the rant folks, but sometimes, I just get disgusted with the whining I hear all over the net.

Indeed, indeed.

[Draigh]

contracycle wrote:

Now, rightly or wrongly, I think D&D in most of its varieties is a steaming pile of dogshit.

LOL... I'll second that.

[Rattlehead]

I'll agree that the DM makes the game Brandon, but the reality is that many people aren't interested in a more realistic DnD.

Then you're playing with the wrong people.... Find new ones. :-D

Also, systems tend to lend themselves to certain styles of play.  An over the top TRoS game would be difficult to do, but not impossible, just as a gritty game of DnD wouldn't be impossible... just extremely hard to pull off.

Gritty D&D is easy. I did it. Any DM worth his dice bag can...

People tend to have preconcieved notions about a game based on what they've experienced in the past with different GMs, and many players forget that the GM is the one who makes the final call.  It seems to me that many people don't have the inclination to trust the GM that is neccisary to make an enjoyable game, especially if said GM deviates from the "book rules".

I have very few house rules, myself - as you know. I don't like to deviate from the book rules. But, that doesn't mean that you can't work within those rules in whatever way you please. But, you do have to always be clear that the DM has final say. Still, if the DM is pushing for fun rather than policing the rules, then it's usually pointless anyway. If the players break a minor rule and the result was an exciting and fun event, then it's worth it. The rules are only a vehicle...  A means to an end.

Most importantly, the DM should make it clear that his world is different and the experience will be different from the canned D&D experience. In my case, powergamers need not apply. They won't be happy in Brandon-Land.

You know that I like to deviate from the more "traditional" role playing settings and such in my games, and the main problem that I've encountered is that many people don't want to play in any setting that's not based around a Tolkienesque world or a generic "european middle ages" world.   This seems like a giant hurdle to me... trying to convince people that while there are no buckles to swash, it doesn't mean that there are no swashbucklers... Or that while there are no knights, chivalrous and honorable men (and women) still band together to combat the less noble forces of the world..  Shit man, I ran TRoS in Middle Earth, and it was really hard to get people to pull their heads out of their asses long enough to look at the world through their character's eyes... to see what was really going on in the story... because they had common misconceptions about the world around them.  I guess that alot of the problems that I have with most gamers stems from their past experience with shoddy systems and poor GMs, and their tendency to think that because this is the way so and so did it, then I will do it that way too.  I guess that's where my disgust for the d20 system comes from.

That's exactly what I'm saying! You're disgusted with d20 when you should be disgusted with the people you're playing with. The system doesn't make the game. You do. Here's a little exercise to try: Strip away the rules. Give your players a description of a character that you rolled up in 3rd Ed. D&D. But don't let them know that it's a D&D character. Just let them know that it's a fantasy RPG. Then begin the campaign. Make it roleplaying, not roll-playing. Let the players think it's your own homebrew rules for a while. See how they play without the rules to shape their preconceptions.... see if that helps.

Brandon

[Draigh]

Rattlehead wrote:

Here's a little exercise to try: Strip away the rules. Give your players a description of a character that you rolled up in 3rd Ed. D&D. But don't let them know that it's a D&D character. Just let them know that it's a fantasy RPG. Then begin the campaign. Make it roleplaying, not roll-playing. Let the players think it's your own homebrew rules for a while. See how they play without the rules to shape their preconceptions.... see if that helps.

I'd rather just play a system that doesn't make me feel like I'm having an aneurism.

[Rattlehead]

@Draigh - I agree. D20 doesn't work for everything. D20 Call of Cthulhu doesn't work. D20 Deadlands doesn't work. At least not for me. I think a lot of it comes from the level-based character development and such.

As far as the Open Gaming bit is concerned, I think it's a good idea, but not for every setting/game.

@Contracycle - You have every right to have an opinion. Everyone does. That's not the point. The point I'm making (that you've clearly missed) is that if you're going to complain about something, complain for valid reasons. If someone doesn't like D&D, that's fine. I couldn't possibly care less. But if someone's going to cry about how it's so horrible because it's all hack 'n slash then they need to look at their DM, not their rulebooks. For example, some people don't like games that use experience levels for character advancement. That's a good reason to not like D&D. But if your DM runs the game in a way that you don't like, then that's not the game designers' fault. And if you're a DM complaining about how the game is, then you should look at how you're letting your players down... unless your players want the canned D&D, which most apparently don't.

Brandon

[MonkeyWrench]

I simply find that I've moved past DnD. I want more from my game than I feel the system can give me. I look back on my time spent playing DnD with rather fond memories, and in some ways regret not being able to fully enjoy 3rd edition. I found TRoS through the WotC forums and it was like water to a parched throat. To me it's fresh and innovative. However  my main problem with DnD isn't rules or mechanics but certain types of players that I don't want to associate with anymore, and unfortunatly to me they seem drawn to DnD likes moths to a flame. But the bottom line is as long as you and your group is having fun who cares what the other groups are doing.

[Draigh]

MonkeyWrench wrote:

I simply find that I've moved past DnD. I want more from my game than I feel the system can give me. I look back on my time spent playing DnD with rather fond memories, and in some ways regret not being able to fully enjoy 3rd edition.

Thank you for putting what also feel in more eloquent terms than I am able of expressing at the moment :).