?

Log in

No account? Create an account
D&D 3E
so who is playing what? 
14th-Sep-2005 10:53 pm
Btw what games are people playing these days?

I stopped playing D&D a year or 2 after 2nd edition came out (around the time that magic got big). I wrote my own RPG and I have been playing that and cyberpunk 2020 (heavily modified) for the last few years. Recently when my co writer suggested we go d20 I walked into a game store for the first time in years. Everything looked like d20. It looked like world of darkness and rifts was still somewhat around. It was also nice to see some battletech books.

Anyway I would like to get a feel for what people are playing.
Comments 
15th-Sep-2005 02:59 am (UTC)
I'm a fan of d20, especially D&D 3.5, and the current incarnation of the World of Darkness.
15th-Sep-2005 03:11 am (UTC)
It's been a while from when I last played any of the World of Darkness games.

I never found anyone who was able to really run a good Vampire game.
15th-Sep-2005 03:13 am (UTC)
It is difficult, but I've played with a good GM or two.

I can run a D&D session, but I don't think I could do Vampire ...
15th-Sep-2005 03:22 am (UTC) -
Mage was the one I could never get a grip on no matter how much planning was done.
15th-Sep-2005 03:25 am (UTC) - Re:
I've never had the pleasure of playing it.
15th-Sep-2005 03:48 am (UTC)
The problem with all of them is the battle system. They're built around roleplaying, so battles generally suck.

But then, I would similarly argue that the problem with Dungeons and Dragons is the roleplaying system. It's built around battles, so roleplaying is entirely left onto the players, and you get just one of those obsessive powergamers, and it generally sucks.
15th-Sep-2005 05:15 am (UTC)
I've never had a problem with the current system.

The one before that, though, was pretty flawed because it meant that the better you were with something, the more chances you had to fail.

And while both are much more limited in what you can do as far as technique goes, battles generally were very short. I was especially a fan of the initiative system.
15th-Sep-2005 04:07 pm (UTC)
See, I find now that our characters have things like celerity and temporis, one player can take a half an hour if you're not careful every single turn.
15th-Sep-2005 07:22 pm (UTC)
The newest system eliminates most of those problems.
15th-Sep-2005 07:34 pm (UTC)
The new system does that by dumbing things down though, doesn't it? I noticed there weren't that many clans at all, and the metaplot seems almost obselete. I'd like to keep the integrity of the game while still skimming the time from it.
15th-Sep-2005 07:39 pm (UTC)
I disagree. There are fewere clans because they incorporated a bloodlines system which makes it much more in depth than the previous clan system, as well as the Covenants, which are basically like a secondary "class".

The metaplot isn't obsolete, just more diverse. That is, it isn't just that Caine is the great-granddaddy of all vampires, there are several theories about their origins. And it's not just the Camarilla and the Sabbat because the covenant system replaces that (making it more diverse and interesting).

I also feel that the new merit system makes a lot more sense, and the concept of devotions (special powers used by combining different disciplines) is just groovy.
15th-Sep-2005 07:48 pm (UTC)
There's combined disciplines in the old version.

I dunno, maybe I'm not opening my mind up to it. From flipping through the new books though, I wasn't impressed.
15th-Sep-2005 09:14 pm (UTC)
*shrugs* To each, his own.

I happen to be a huge fan, though.
15th-Sep-2005 03:05 am (UTC)
I'm playing in one 3rd ed game, and am working on putting together a one-shot 3rd ed reverse dungeon as well as a 3e Ravenloft game.

I will not buy the sourcebooks for 3.5

I've also recently played some Fading Suns, some Unknown Armies, and some Call of Cthulhu, all of which I've rather enjoyed.
15th-Sep-2005 03:09 am (UTC)
Call of Cthulhu is still out there? Omg

if you dont mind me asking why will you not buy 3.5 books?
15th-Sep-2005 03:14 am (UTC)
It's a good position to have since 3.5 is basically marketed as a scam.
15th-Sep-2005 03:50 am (UTC)
People got angry when 3.5 came out and said it was some grand scam for Wizards to make more money. I don't know if I agree with it or not. The changes weren't major, although they were enough to notably say that powergamers struggle a bit more with 3.5, especially with the feat system.

(Feats being this twist where you can pick extraordinary things your characters can do beyond basic skills [known in 2nd edition as the nonweapon proficiency]).
15th-Sep-2005 04:46 am (UTC)
Yeah, it's still out- though the version I've played a couple of times isn't the d20 version, but rather the old-school kind. (The friend of mine who owns the books hasn't bought the new version, though he's interested.)

I won't buy 3.5 for several reasons:
1. I really can't justify supporting Wizards of the Coast any more than I feel I have to.
2. Relatedly, 3.5 is far from a "must-have" for those who already have the basic 3e books. It introduces some new errata, which I hear fix some loopholes previously available for exploitation, and adds just a tiny bit of content to the game as it previously existed. (See my next point.) Personally, I never let my players break the game to begin with, so I didn't see it as necessary.
3. The new content seems to me to be fairly dumb. This is true of much of the material WotC has released.
4. 3.5 makes the game much more complicated than it was in 3e, in my opinion, while simultaneously sucking out even more of its soul. Somehow it seems like even more of a hollow shell to me. For example, in typical WotC errata-the-sucker-until-it's-dead style, it seems like they've rewritten the rules to contain like seventeen different categories of "actions". I'm pretty much fine with the preexisting system of full, partial, move-equivalent, and free actions. Let's not muddle things any more than they already are, guys!
5. Related to the first point, the new books cost $10 apiece more than the old ones did, which pisses me off in and of itself.

So what we've got is this:
Errata for rules which, given a decent DM, need no errataing.
Extra complication.
Half-assed new content.
Cosmetic changes (some of which are for the definite worse- for example, the old picture used for the description of the Bard class is much better than the new one).
And not only is WotC telling us that our game will be really improved if we shell out to buy these basically redundant materials, they're charging us even more for the privilege of doing it?

I'll pass, thanks.
15th-Sep-2005 09:38 am (UTC)
Actually, they reduced the number of different actions with 3.5, but then they proceeded to add two new ones in the Expanded Psionics Handbook.
15th-Sep-2005 04:50 pm (UTC)
Yep, partial actions disappeared in 3.5.

To paraphrase Tyler Durden "Immediate and Swift Actions were always there: 3.5 just gave them a name". Quicken Spell and Feather Fall already existed: now there are more spells and stuff like them without painful duplication of the rules text (not that WotC is shy about doing that!)
15th-Sep-2005 09:56 pm (UTC)
They're willing to tell you what it means to be a Swift Action, as often as entertainment magazines are willing to tell readers how to pronounce Ioan Gruffudd
16th-Sep-2005 04:53 pm (UTC)
Ah, I see. Typical WotC style: taking a pretty easily understandable mechanic, naming it unnecessarily, and then proceeding to explain anyway. (See also: "haste (creatures with haste are unaffected by summoning sickness)" in place of the quite serviceable and much shorter "[x] is not affected by summoning sickness.")
15th-Sep-2005 03:08 am (UTC)
D20 DnD 3.0 or D20 Modern. I'd like to play some D20 games based off of video games but you need the right crew of people for that so it hasn't happened yet.
15th-Sep-2005 03:14 am (UTC)
D&D 3.5 and Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 2nd Edition.
Cyberpunk 2020 and other systems on the rare occasion (anymore) :)
15th-Sep-2005 03:21 am (UTC)
The new World of Darkness sucks, we play the old version. (IMHO)

We play 3.5 D&D. I try to stay away from 3rd party d20 stuff a lot because I find it can be very unbalancing, especially with 10,000 prestige classes out there. :-/
15th-Sep-2005 03:26 am (UTC) - SPRIKSIE!!!!!!!
I did not get the chance to look at the new world of darkness stuff when I went to the store. I was in awe at the new D&D stuff.

Before someone has me kicked off the board....(Im going to get it for this) What is a prestige class?

15th-Sep-2005 03:31 am (UTC) - Re: SPRIKSIE!!!!!!!
hahahaha.

Well......

The best way to describe it is...hmm, did you get Skills and Powers in 2.0? Those books that allowed you to powergame the system by investing points into things to make a cleric with a warrior's THAC0 that could wield every weapon and cast wizard spells? :-p

Prestige classes are essentially stretches beyond the basic classes. They have these "specialties" that make them a whole new class. Instead of a fighter, you have a fighter that channels magic through daggers glowing with blue light, and that's your entire class for, ehhh, the next ten levels or so.

I'm not entirely fond of them. They're one of the big reasons the new system is critiqued so hard for powergaming. They allow people to play a million different classes instead of just being creative with the classic fighter and wizard.

I dunno if that made sense or not. Honestly, I didn't even get into prestige classes until after playing d20 for about half a year. They make things too complicated, IMHO.

*embraces for onslaught of powergamers who will protest my opinions*
15th-Sep-2005 04:49 am (UTC) - Re: SPRIKSIE!!!!!!!
That's interesting. I'm a big opponent of powergaming in roleplaying, but I actually rather like the idea of prestige classes in general. I think that as long as they're reasonably balanced, they add something to the game- a little bit more customizability and flavor, really. The key things for me is that they need to be neither under- nor overpowered, and they need to be general enough that I don't feel like allowing a player access to them infringes upon my world.
(Deleted comment)
15th-Sep-2005 07:43 pm (UTC) - Re: SPRIKSIE!!!!!!!
I'll agree with that.
15th-Sep-2005 10:04 pm (UTC) - Re: SPRIKSIE!!!!!!!
Of course, DMs shoudl always have full veto power on PrCs
(Deleted comment)
15th-Sep-2005 07:32 pm (UTC) - Re: SPRIKSIE!!!!!!!
Yes, because the worst part about prestige classes when it comes to running your own campaign from scratch, is that 82% of them don't fit into your storyline/the general theme of your world. Especially all these ones they've released as of late that have these soceities or communities attached to them.

Like, the Daggerspell Mage? C'mon, people.
15th-Sep-2005 08:59 pm (UTC) - Re: SPRIKSIE!!!!!!!
I was all happy when the DMG2 was coming out and Wizards said "It'll have rules on building your own PrCs!" I was like "Yes! I can finally design a class for those elite NPCs in my world" And then the book just had stuff like "a +5 BAB requirement means that a character will have to be at least 5th level to take this class."

I read somewhere that the original idea behind PrCs was for DMs to make classes specific to their worlds. But Wizards messed up that idea when they just published a dozen in the DMG without explaining how to make them, or even actually making them fit some specific role.
15th-Sep-2005 10:02 pm (UTC) - Re: SPRIKSIE!!!!!!!
I actually made the Eldritch Knight into the "Pyrian Knight" (same class, changed name to fit my campaign) where instead of my fire god Pyre having paladins, those existed within the clergy.

But yeah, it's generally a pain in the butt to adapt prestige classes to a specific campaign.
15th-Sep-2005 03:51 am (UTC)
Oh, I might make mention, I also used to play, and am currently in the process of recollecting the books for, Iron Crown Enterprise's system known as Rolemaster. Nobody seems to know what the heck I'm talking about, but anyone who played MERP played the Rolemaster system. I find that to be another fascinating gaming system, but the only way you'll get the books for it anymore is through ebay/Internet means.
15th-Sep-2005 04:20 am (UTC)
I'm running an Ars Magica game which runs every other week. The group play wizards in medieval Poland, trying to build up enough personal power to survive the Mongols, who will soon invade.

Last session one of the PCs got his leg crushed from the knee down by a massive stone block, and another one was incapacitated by a swarm of demonic bats. This isn't D&D now -- so the first wizard now has a peg-leg and the second is going to be recuperating for about 3 months.

Good game.
15th-Sep-2005 09:59 am (UTC)
I'm running a D&D 3.5 game, using some rules from d20 Past to set the game in something resembling an 18th century South Atlantic, for a fantasy Pirates of the Caribbean game. I've also GMed d20 Modern in the past and I'm dying to get my hands on d20 Future, just so I can disguise a lot of stuff and drop it on my D&D players.

I've used 3.5 since it came out, though I only bought the PHB in January. The other books I received as gifts. I think the changes made to the Ranger and Bard are reason enough to warrant a switch, but my favorite is the update of Damage Reduction.
15th-Sep-2005 10:15 am (UTC)
D&D3.5, every Thursday night. I also run an online (play-byu-post) game at Enworld.
15th-Sep-2005 11:31 am (UTC)
D&D 3.5 and Conan
15th-Sep-2005 01:58 pm (UTC)
I run in one 3.5 game, play in another, and play in an Ars Magica game. If your world is a fairly typical fantasy world, then OGL is probably a good option. IIRC, you need to do something special to use the d20 mark, but its not hard (for print publications). For generic sword and sorcery fantasy, I can't think of any other big systems at the moment, except maybe the rerelease of the BRPS coming down the pipe.
15th-Sep-2005 04:06 pm (UTC)
I've been playing D&D 3.5 Eberron setting for some time now. I've also just started playing a S.L.A. Industries game, which is really fun. I hadn't looked at it in years and was really thrilled when my GM suggested it.
15th-Sep-2005 05:02 pm (UTC)
For about ten years I was only playing freeform RPGs with about thirty players and five GMs while occasionally tinkering with homebrew FRPG rules, but was invited into a 3.5 game (with rules that blew mine out of the water) the week it was released and have been playing the same character every week (or two) since (now 13th level).
16th-Sep-2005 12:12 am (UTC)
I run D&D 3.5. It's all I've known and I'm not liable to stray from it; One set of rulebooks is time consuming enough for my liking and store of free time.
This page was loaded Aug 23rd 2017, 6:16 am GMT.