A Dungeons and Dragons Documentary

This is an area to discuss topics related to gaming.
User avatar
jackattack
Minotaur Lord
Minotaur Lord
Posts: 3359
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 12:47 pm

A Dungeons and Dragons Documentary

Post by jackattack » Mon Nov 27, 2006 11:28 pm

I think one problem some people have with 3e is that it can become very math-intensive. I hear stories of one action taking up to twenty minutes, due to feats that turn into chain reactions of rolls and rerolls and figuring stats and resolving reactions to the action and so on and so forth.
Favorite Pieces: Chasms, 45 Degree Passages, River & Lava Banks, Ledges, Large Curved Walls, Elevation Arch

Law
Minotaur Lord
Minotaur Lord
Posts: 4812
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 11:26 am

A Dungeons and Dragons Documentary

Post by Law » Mon Nov 27, 2006 11:00 pm

I actually enjoy 3e, but I have barely played it. I haven't had NEARLY as much time to play as I did in the AD&D (i.e. 1e) days.

I think that the company has gone overboard with the feats and skills -- in the sense that every new book seems to be nothing more than a huge list of these things -- but I do like the fact that they exist.

It struck me as just an expansion on the skills that were once the province of thieves. If they can be good at opening locks and hiding in shadows, why can't fighters be good at fighting with a sword in each hand, or fighting on horseback?

I look at the 3e rules as a set of guidelines for giving the game a different flavor, but even in the small amount of gametime I've had, I haven't tried following them to the nth degree.

L

User avatar
Harneloot
Minotaur Lord
Minotaur Lord
Posts: 3668
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2012 8:32 pm

A Dungeons and Dragons Documentary

Post by Harneloot » Mon Nov 27, 2006 8:05 pm

I agree with Otherworld....

1st edition all the way for maximum imagination and role-playing and "specializing" your character THROUGH role-playing...

3.x for that "video game combat/feat tree feel" and the best chance to min/max your character into munchin obilivion

whitewind
Minotaur
Minotaur
Posts: 1072
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 6:59 am

A Dungeons and Dragons Documentary

Post by whitewind » Mon Nov 27, 2006 4:48 pm

Well in the one I watched was ok but you did seem a bit tired? Reading now what you were doing at the time and your schedule I have to say yeah, very tired. Glad you got that project done. Do you think these will every be made into that documentary or has it already?

User avatar
Zaltar of Valoria
Minotaur Lord
Minotaur Lord
Posts: 2158
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 9:08 am

A Dungeons and Dragons Documentary

Post by Zaltar of Valoria » Mon Nov 27, 2006 12:28 pm

I agree with Jack attack here. Well Put! And I want to add that Roleplaying AND Miniature tactical combat can co-exist in the same game fluidly...My friends and I Role Play the encounters, like talking to bartenders and barwenches, beggars, city officials, and the occasional talking monster...but when the combat goes down, the mini's usually take the attention and the positions and movement on the board are noted and become tacticaly important. If everyone stays in Character even during miniature combat I feel it doesn't detract from the story or imagination of the game...When I DM I describe what happens on a 'hit" roll to make it more colorful rather than just saying: you hit, and do 6 points damage. In fact, when I first started playing my DM never let us roll damage, just the 20 sided to hit. he would roll secretly and describe what occured after that. With the right group of people (and a fair DM) this is possible, and I think it helps to keep players minds eye in the imagined story rather than on cold numbers...

User avatar
jackattack
Minotaur Lord
Minotaur Lord
Posts: 3359
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 12:47 pm

A Dungeons and Dragons Documentary

Post by jackattack » Mon Nov 27, 2006 11:59 am

I regard roleplaying as playing in role. It is the "acting" portion of the game -- speaking as your character, responding to situations according to your character's personality instead of your character's stats, and being willing to "take a hit" in order to move a story forward (or any other interesting direction).

"My character tells everyone what just happened," is not roleplaying. "Friends, I am glad to see you all -- I have just escaped from the Overlord's dungeon, where I was imprisoned for the murder of the heir apparent, but I swear on my life I did not kill him!" is roleplaying.

Grabbing every piece of magic treasure because it maxes out your combat capabilities (or your finances), killing every creature because it gets you more experience, and relying solely on your statistics and special abilities is not roleplaying. Selecting particular magic treasure because it falls into your character's area of expertise, or foregoing magic treasure because your character eschews magic, is roleplaying. Killing every orc you find because orcs killed your family, or trying to negotiate with intelligent monsters rather than killing them without question, is roleplaying. (A GM of my acquaintance awards XP for monsters that are "dealt with", as opposed to simply killed, which allows characters to get XP for negotiation, capture, and avoidance.) Abandoning your proven 80%-success-rate battle manuever to do something creative (like pushing a burning hut over on six kobolds) is roleplaying.

Allowing your character to do things that seem foolish, embarassing, or ineffectual is roleplaying. So let your character be fooled by the trap that you know the answer to -- you saw the movie the GM lifted it from, but your character didn't. Allow the castle chef to chase your unbeatable fighter out of the kitchen with a rolling pin. If the knight in armor that your character cannot hope to pierce insults your honor, go on and flail away at him anyway.

Assigning flaws to your character and portraying them honestly is roleplaying. I played a monk in a feudal-oriental fantasy game who was a fairly enlightened guy, and accepted that all peoples and creatures have a place in the world, but he demanded that they actually BE in their place. When the group visited a tavern run by a pale, blond foreigner he was very rude to say the least. When he met the naga who lived in the forest he was delighted to meet them, but if they talked about expanding their territory beyond the forest he was ready to run straight to the local lord to keep them in the forest where they belonged. Not a very attractive character trait, but it didn't come up very often, and it made for a more interesting character.

Being a shill for the GM (on occasion) is roleplaying. If the GM tells you that your character was hit over the head (or passed out after drinking a single tankard of ale) and woke up tied to a chair in a strange room, accept it and move forward -- don't spend ten minutes arguing that you would never be taken unawares like that, or demanding a roll to detect the potion in the ale, or otherwise trying to undo a plot device. If the GM tells you that three months pass while you are working as prisoners in the mine, accept it and move forward -- don't insist on giving a day-by-day account of your many escape attempts. A story-driven campaign is going to require a bit of nudging here and there, every once in a while. A good GM won't use heavy-handed tactics too often, and you should have faith that when he does he is doing so for a good reason.

Most roleplaying will take place out of combat -- if your game consists solely of combat, with lots of out-of-character consulting between players, you are actually playing combat miniatures, or "skirmish" gaming. In-combat roleplaying often consists of battle-cries, in-character warnings ("Beware its eyes, do not meet its gaze!" being much better than, "Careful, it has a gaze weapon with no saving throw!"), withholding knowledge that you have but your character doesn't, and trying innovative tactics that are unproven but interesting or fun to play. (A long time ago, playing a system in which a low-level character COULD NOT pierce plate armor for more than a couple of points of damage, we dealt very effectively with an evil knight by throwing a sheet over his helm and using a table to push him out of a window -- we had a good laugh, got kudos from the GM for originality, and the met the knight again when he came looking to restore his sullied honor.)

Roleplaying is what happens between the dice rolls, it's what is going on at the table in addition to the game mechanics. So I've never really found that roleplaying relies on the system.
Favorite Pieces: Chasms, 45 Degree Passages, River & Lava Banks, Ledges, Large Curved Walls, Elevation Arch

David Wasilewski
Orc
Orc
Posts: 492
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 3:46 am
Location: North West England

A Dungeons and Dragons Documentary

Post by David Wasilewski » Mon Nov 27, 2006 7:29 am

I have all my old AD&D 1st edition stuff but we rarely play it now as our group prefers v3.5.
I think the system is better and we use figures as a role playing aid (along with DF) not as a substitute.
In my opinion, role playing is a wide 'spectrum' of play styles ranging from wargaming right through to diceless systems and even live RPG - no one style or system is inherently 'better' than the other - it depends where on the spectrum you and your group are standing on.

That's my reasonable relativist point of view anyway.

Dave :)

THOTH
Orc
Orc
Posts: 211
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 6:59 am

A Dungeons and Dragons Documentary

Post by THOTH » Mon Nov 27, 2006 3:09 am

I still use D & D first edition!..(OK Greyhawk...and I still have all of the books...as well as the whole 1st year or more of the Dragon...used to even have all the Strategy & Tactics mags - but they got swiped at some point...)...well I sort of use original D & D...modded to the point of...well some of it is still reconizable...and I've added bits and pieces from various AD&D editions (though couldn't tell one from the other)...as well as from a bunch of other games - from Chivalry and Sorcery to Ars Magica to various Iron Crown and Chaosium stuff...mostly its my take on things though...I can't seem to do it any other way...and I'm always modding and working on "my system"...lol

jkratzer
Minotaur Lord
Minotaur Lord
Posts: 2023
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 6:59 am

A Dungeons and Dragons Documentary

Post by jkratzer » Sun Nov 26, 2006 10:21 pm

ow -

I am NOT going to start any fights on here, but I will say this:

I've played both 1st and 3rd Edition, via Sandy's original assortment of 1st Edition stuff, and our joint package of 3rd. While 3rd is MUCH easier to miniatures-game, BOTH are excellently suited to Role-Playing; it's just a matter of flexibility and adaptability - and, if I may say so, having been in a few amateur theater productions and stuff, having either acting experience or a VERY fertile imagination helps A LOT!

That ISN'T a shot at you, otherworld; I don't know your level of experience in RPG or acting, and have no desire to start any stupid little petty fights here about something that is a purely subjective matter. And taking shots at someone in another country, over what version of a game they prefer and why, would be about as petty and stupid as I could possibly get. Besides, what YOU play is YOUR business; it ONLY becomes MY business if you make it so.

And aren't we all here to have fun, and talk about having fun?

Anyway, just my 2 cents worth. Have a good one!

See ya!

Jim

otherworld
Orc
Orc
Posts: 272
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 6:59 am

A Dungeons and Dragons Documentary

Post by otherworld » Fri Nov 24, 2006 4:48 am


...3rd edition is better for miniature combat.

That's because 3rd Edition D&D is a miniatures combat game! If you want to role-play, stick with 1st.

Post Reply

Return to “Gaming Talk”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests