|
ExiledTinkerer posted:I'll also always wonder about an alternate reality where the D&D masters didn't botch things so drat terribly with Japan, how Sword World(still seems to be running their race as they do compared to all the troubles D&D continually gets into) rose up, giving up on/despite early high notes with video game/arcade licensing---the whole lot of it had to have left so much on the table it boggles the mind.
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 10:05 |
|
|
Verisimilitude is very fun and interesting though?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
Not verisimilitude, but "verisimilitude," meaning unnecessary and burdensome simulation. Worse, simulation based on false assumptions (poo poo like, of course two-handed swords weigh 20 pounds, and of course you have to track every item you're carrying and its weight to the nearest tenth of a pound, etc.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
You're fooling yourself if you think Japanese games are all full of whimsy and modern design just because you can be wacky jrpg races. Many of them are specifically designed with old school ideas in mind; Ryuutama, a game basically about being a wandering artisan that is cute as all get out, has an introduction in the translation that basically says "this and lots of other Japanese RPGs have pretty traditional assumptions when it comes to things like gm fiat/control, the purpose of stats, etc." They take fewer notes from DnD than they do jrpgs, but a lot of classic jrpgs have very player-unfriendly ideas.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
Verisimilitude is fun. Book-keeping isn't.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
Serf posted:Verisimilitude is fun. Book-keeping isn't. I would probably still buy an Erol Otus-cover Audits & Accountancy Basic set if I could find one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
Bookkeeping is extremely fun, but I will admit that this is a minority opinion. Doing it half way is very lame though and no one gets off. I have realized that there is a large gulf between "games I want to play" and "games I have even a small chance of getting others to play with me", so the I am trying to embrace less complex stuff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
Is there a japanese TRPG that lets me play as Torneko in his chapter in DQIV or Recette?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
TheLovablePlutonis posted:Is there a japanese TRPG that lets me play as [...] Recette? http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/140692/Retail-Magic-Golden-Friday-Edition
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
bongwizzard posted:Verisimilitude is very fun and interesting though? bongwizzard posted:Bookkeeping is extremely fun, but I will admit that this is a minority opinion. Doing it half way is very lame though and no one gets off.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
Meh, as much as I like Ewen's original stuff it's not a "real" japanese TRPG.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:At some point, "verisimilitude" was hijacked to mean something different in online discussion--namely, the idea that the game is not a game, but a virtual reality engine. This tends to come packed with a lot of really awful design concepts; for example, the idea that PCs shouldn't be balanced against each other because some stuff is just better. I have a theatre background, so verisimilitude comes up a lot, I didn't know it had other connotations in gaming. I guess I do prefer more "low fantasy" settings that work closer to the real world. Until recently I have never given it much thought, but for example, when I was looking to get back into gaming I read some of the 4e stuff and had an immediate negative reaction to the dragon dudes and golems guys as being "to silly". I started gaming with AD&D 1e, and we played it as close to RAW as a bunch of 14 yearolds can. So stuff like tracking spell components, ammo, how many feet of rope carried, all that stuff. We played very focused on problem solving and not so much any roleplaying. We did progress a little into other games and a bit more actual roleplaying, but I still miss the days of fretting over how to waterproof my dude's spellbook.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
homullus posted:I would probably still buy an Erol Otus-cover Audits & Accountancy Basic set if I could find one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
chrisoya posted:Maybe 2016 is the year we'll finally get a good Fantasy Classic Traveller. I would totally buy this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
bongwizzard posted:immediate negative reaction to the dragon dudes and golems guys as being "to silly" Dragon guys: not realistic enough. Magic: perfectly fine.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
homullus posted:I would totally buy this. I can't empty-quote, so let's just say that if you cherry-pick Traveller enough you can totally play it as a John Carter of Mars-esque planetary sword adventure anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
bongwizzard posted:I guess I do prefer more "low fantasy" settings that work closer to the real world. In what ways does AD&D meet the criteria of being low fantasy or working similarly to the real world?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Dragon guys: not realistic enough. Magic: perfectly fine. Well that's sort of the problem with typical fantasy and D&D in particular. They have shaped expectations for decades, and in such ways that some things seem very realistic and others not at all, even though they're both wildly out of theme for medieval Europe. Simple example: firearms. Lots of people object to the presence of gunpowder in D&D because they want to "keep it medieval" but they have no problems at all with full plate armor. Which is ironic, considering that firearms were used in Europe for a long time before full plate was invented. I believe there are actually indications that full plate was developed because firearms were around. That also goes for henotheism (google it), the presence of elves, the explicit answers that gods can give (including whether kings rule by divine mandate or not), wizards, and so forth. Your typical "medieval European" fantasy looks absolutely nothing like medieval Europe. I guess that's just what people want though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
"Low fantasy" is such a fuzzy concept it's not worth debating, but the idea that dragonborn are "silly" compared to older D&D stuff is just pure unexamined bellyfeel.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
Didn't Dragonlance have dragon-men or lizard-people in like the 80s already?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
Serf posted:Didn't Dragonlance have dragon-men or lizard-people in like the 80s already? Yeah but they were the bad guys made from an evil ritual performed on good dragon eggs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure you'll find that the idea of dragonpeople was invented by 4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons circa 2008, actually.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
Serf posted:Didn't Dragonlance have dragon-men or lizard-people in like the 80s already? You'll find that most of the things people complain about "not being D&D enough" were included in AD&D, just not a part of it that they were exposed to when they were first playing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 21:55
|
|
Serf posted:Didn't Dragonlance have dragon-men or lizard-people in like the 80s already? The Draconians are the coolest part of Dragonlance, all in all. They're an artificial race created by the bad guys corrupting good dragon eggs, but once the bad guys were defeated, they lingered on and had to struggle to create their own cultural identity. They're actually super neat on a purely narrative level, and have the advantage of possessing very interesting mechanics to boot.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
Serf posted:Didn't Dragonlance have dragon-men or lizard-people in like the 80s already? I still remember one guy back in 4e Encounters getting upset because there was a draconian NPC in the Dark Sun adventure. People draw the logic lines for fantasy in the dumbest places.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
I wonder where that notion of "low fantasy" "versimilitude" actually infected the hobby. The game materials for D&D, even from the earliest days, seem much more gonzo than that. Kung fu monks and psychics fighting along side elves and knights against Ray Harryhausen monsters over treasure. Robot dudes and dragon people have been in the game since at least the 80's; now you can finally just play one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
Didn't Expedition to the Barrier Peaks have ray-guns, aliens and robots? Seems to me that "silly" things have been around in D&D since before I was even born.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
I was reading though the Basic D&D rules compendium and found an honest-to-goodness martial encounter power. It's amazing how badly we've let the grogs rewrite history...
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
Serf posted:Didn't Expedition to the Barrier Peaks have ray-guns, aliens and robots? Seems to me that "silly" things have been around in D&D since before I was even born. It totally did, but it doesn't count because
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
Serf posted:Didn't Expedition to the Barrier Peaks have ray-guns, aliens and robots? Seems to me that "silly" things have been around in D&D since before I was even born. Remember that in the wild, wooly days of the 70's, the lines between fantasy and sci-fi weren't as firmly drawn. They weren't even separate sections of the bookstore; fantasy was just a sub-genre of the larger sci-fi category.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
Mecha Gojira posted:I wonder where that notion of "low fantasy" "versimilitude" actually infected the hobby. The game materials for D&D, even from the earliest days, seem much more gonzo than that. Kung fu monks and psychics fighting along side elves and knights against Ray Harryhausen monsters over treasure. Robot dudes and dragon people have been in the game since at least the 80's; now you can finally just play one. A lot of what's "low" or "classic" or otherwise acceptable fantasy seems to be predicated on the idea of more-or-less normal people exploring a magical world--so if the player can look at a picture of his character and imagine himself as that guy, it's acceptable, even if that guy can create gravity wells with his mind. Dragonmen and Crystalmen are no more fantastical than a wizard from Vance's novels, but they set off mental alarms. Likewise, Elric's world is the stage of an epic battle between abstract forces of Law and Chaos, but because your PC is likely to be a vagabond with a sword, it satisfies many people's idea of "low fantasy." moths posted:I was reading though the Basic D&D rules compendium and found an honest-to-goodness martial encounter power. It's amazing how badly we've let the grogs rewrite history... Halloween Jack fucked around with this message at 22:10 on Feb 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
That's what's always bugged me about a lot of OSR games; they seem so focused on this mythical "dirt farmers tossed in a meat grinder" style of low fantasy they completely ignore all the goofy-rear end nonsensical poo poo that gave D&D its character.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
Mecha Gojira posted:I wonder where that notion of "low fantasy" "versimilitude" actually infected the hobby. The game materials for D&D, even from the earliest days, seem much more gonzo than that. Kung fu monks and psychics fighting along side elves and knights against Ray Harryhausen monsters over treasure. Robot dudes and dragon people have been in the game since at least the 80's; now you can finally just play one. You've finally been able to play as monsters / weird stuff in D&D since forever. I remember reading a (Dragon?) article about how to play as an undead character in OD&D, where obviously you start as a 1HD skeleton then move up to Zombie when you hit level 2 and so on. I'm pretty sure there was also a thing about playing as actual dragons, with rules about starting small at level 1 and getting bigger and stronger (edit: long, long before Council of Wyrms). AD&D's DMG has a whole page explaining why you probably shouldn't have monsters as PCs but you can if you like, followed by a page and a half about lycanthrope PCs. The 2nd ed DMG has rules for creating new PC races on page 15: "...such as orcs, lycanthropes, ogres, lizardmen, or even dragons". 2nd ed had the humanoids handbook. Planescape, like in general. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 22:20 on Feb 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
Okay, you can finally play as these monsters officially without having to houserule a new race or do some bizarre multiclass shenanigans; they're in the PHB's and not tucked away as options in magazine articles or DMG/Monster Manuals. Splitting hairs, though, you know what I mean.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:That's what's always bugged me about a lot of OSR games; they seem so focused on this mythical "dirt farmers tossed in a meat grinder" style of low fantasy they completely ignore all the goofy-rear end nonsensical poo poo that gave D&D its character. That's why they're, forgive me if I'm wrong, culturally irrelevant in a subculture that is itself culturally irrelevant
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
I remember Spelljammer having dragon-centaurs as a player race.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
Mecha Gojira posted:I wonder where that notion of "low fantasy" "versimilitude" actually infected the hobby. The game materials for D&D, even from the earliest days, seem much more gonzo than that. Kung fu monks and psychics fighting along side elves and knights against Ray Harryhausen monsters over treasure. Robot dudes and dragon people have been in the game since at least the 80's; now you can finally just play one. It's always been there. If you read through the oldest editions of Dragon or White Dwarf or whatever you'll see a neigh constant war in the fandom going on about it. Gygax more then once had to officially state that "realism" was bullshit and not a core part of his game. You had dozens of branch off games that ended up being little more then "D&D but with harsher wound penalties" or the like. Nerds have always been nerds - the kinda people who don't want to ever actually play the game, they just want to argue about it and imagine their own "perfect" versions. As for when it became a part of proper mainstream D&D, 3rd edition for sure. Gygax wrote AD&D as a jumbled confusing mess not because it was how he played the game, but because it was how he felt others wanted to play the game. From there you had AD&D fans who were big "realism" types join TSR. Jeff Grub I believe mentioned with AD&D2e that they originally wanted to make a lot more changes, but felt the fandom would revolt against it. Those "realism" types were the ones who ended up working in WotC for 3rd edition - and their legacy is plain as day.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
I don't want to pile on bongwizzard too much, because you know, his visceral gut-feels reaction isn't just made up. It's actually how a lot of people reacted. I don't think dragonborn are misplaced in D&D, but it was, in hindsight, probably a tactical error to include them (and eladrin) in the first published PHB, while not including gnomes. There's nothing inherently more fantastical about a dragon-man than a gnome, mind you: but first impressions matter so very much, and the game was already taking (much needed, good, positive) risks. e. If I recall correctly, when I first heard they were in the book - before I'd read the rules - I also had a negative reaction. I was eye-rolling, because the "half-dragon half-ogre half-vampire thief/fighter/mage/monk" bullshit that had been around for ages in previous editions was exactly the sort of crap I was hoping would be gone in the new D&D game, and yet here we were, oh boy, dragon-people. Once I read the rules? It was obvious they had no particular overpowering advantage and were just another player race. I was disappointed there weren't any gnomes and that the sorcerer and bard and (especially) barbarian were missing... but I was so overwhelmingly pleased with how the game was written and balanced, and they were already clearly announcing that those classes and the gnomes were coming in future books, that it just didn't matter to me. It was also immediately obvious that you could just make a halfling and call it a gnome if you wanted to, or re-flavor any class to be any other class if it suited you. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 22:29 on Feb 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I don't want to pile on bongwizzard too much, because you know, his visceral gut-feels reaction isn't just made up. It's actually how a lot of people reacted. Eladrin were what always confused me. Like, we already had elves. Previous editions had roughly a billion subraces of elves too. Why were there now 2 kinds of elf in the core book? Gnomes would've made much more sense, honestly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 10:05 |
|
|
Serf posted:Eladrin were what always confused me. Like, we already had elves. Previous editions had roughly a billion subraces of elves too. Why were there now 2 kinds of elf in the core book? Gnomes would've made much more sense, honestly. The original reason, IIRC, was the Elf-Elf weres like the wood elves while the Eladrin were like tolkein-fae elves.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 22:28
|
|