Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Incenjucar 10-30-03, 05:04 AM	Just figured it would be interesting to list'em, and see how they've moved through the years. This is a list of fads, essentially, topics that get brought up more often then not, used in many games, mentioned in the forums like mad, etc. Feel free to contribute or correct me. -Drow (many editions) -Ninjas (mostly 2e) -Far Realms and Related Lovecraftian Notions (Now) -Oozes (Now) -Kobolds (Now) -Aquatic Campaigns (At least since 2e) -Illithids (always) -Hybrids/Crossbreeds (Late 2e, Now)
Vornth 10-30-03, 08:11 AM	When I first moved from Red Basic Edition to 1st Blue AD & D (early 1980's), everyone wanted to play Vampires, but not have the other players in the game know. It worked well for a couple of games, but of course everyone expected it in the end. Good topic for discussion! Blessings. Vornth
airhead 10-30-03, 08:27 AM	I think most new players at some point want a "non-standard" PC. Be it lycanthrope, half-something (dragon, troll, etc.), they all want their character to be "different". This usually occurs before they have even explored the standard characters & races. They see being more powerful as an advantage. Who doesn't want a free DR/silver or regenerate? But most don't see the big picture. What is challenging about an orc lair if they cannot hurt you? The hard part is recovering from these DM mistakes without have to kill the character or restart the campaign. Other I have noticed: Dungeon crawls - becoming less the norm. City adventures with lots of intrigue - becoming more the norm. Fantastic mounts (pegasus, griffin, etc.) - all players want their PC to have one.
diaglo 10-30-03, 09:39 AM	introducing real world topics: religion (alignment), economics, war, power struggles (politics), and civilized vs. third world technology.
spray paint affiliate 10-30-03, 10:29 AM	Originally posted by airhead Other I have noticed: Dungeon crawls - becoming less the norm. City adventures with lots of intrigue - becoming more the norm. Nowt wrong with that, i'm heartily sick of the "OK, you're in a room 40' square, with a door in the opposing wall" style of play. cities are brimming with ideas, opportunities et. al. (just as long as the DM puts in the effort) Originally posted by airhead Fantastic mounts (pegasus, griffin, etc.) - all players want their PC to have one. whatever happened to the kirin? Twas in 1e, but now mysteriously absent from 3.0/3.5 (dunno about 2e, cos i stopped playing before 2e came out)
Bacon and Eggs 10-30-03, 10:30 AM	Classes as races: Basic & Now
Aeolius 10-30-03, 10:33 AM	Originally posted by Incenjucar Aquatic Campaigns (At least since 2e) My undersea campaign began as a 1e AD&D game in 1998, when 2e was the norm. Granted, undersea supplements date back to OD&D with "The Sea People".
Northen_Spur 10-30-03, 10:46 AM	Oddly almost every girl I played with it was always: I wanna be a High elf female Mage (or enchantress) except one day I was dm and there was a girl I went "Let me guess Elf Female mage right" she relied actualy " I want to be human female thief" and i actualy said "Finaly, Thank you!" like posted above ever since Drizzt people wanna play: Drow (I actualy think they made good a Drow (goddess) just to please the masses, before Drizzt, My players would scream Drow "Kill them all!" now it's "wow a drow I wonder if it's like Drizzit" in 3ed+: People are going stark raving mad over templates and mixes. "Uhm yeah I wannna be a 1/4 tarrasque 1/4 celestial 1/4 gold dragon and 1/4 Mordron" I'll have natural paladin abilties and monk abilities and my primairy class will be a fighter." or the classic : "I wanna be an vampire-werewolf" and they excpect they will be let in most towns without any prejudice.
Mercurius 10-30-03, 10:49 AM	How about: Elf Loving (then) Elf Hating (on the rise)
Sulaco 10-30-03, 10:50 AM	• Evil PCs • Monster PCs (2e/3e) • Grim 'n' Gritty (2e/3e) • High Fantasy (1e/2e)
SputnikCorp 10-30-03, 10:58 AM	i've seen a bias towards free-style DMing in my own group and on these boards. many new gamers don't seem to understand what house rules are. game mechanics have now substituted dramatic storytelling. if it's not in the rules, then it shouldn't be in the game. also there's a bias toward any RPG other than D&D 3.5/d20 modern. it's like the last 25 years of role playing history means nothing to the new crop of gamers.
Northen_Spur 10-30-03, 10:59 AM	Oh and a new fad I think it's pretty much related to the internet: Then: People accepted that D&D was a medival (fantasy) realm, so there where little question an Orc (and other monsters)was an orc and that was bad. If an Orc was good it had to seriously prouve themselves (a bit like Drizzt did). If there where no more orcs to kill, that meant the Dm's pencil had becomed a stub and a new pencil and a fresh piecee of paper would rerise the orc nation. Today: People are asking questions about Orc Genocide and how it's bad to kill an orc just because it's evil. Question arising about humans being racesist towards other species and how it's wrong to hate a Drow just because it's a drow. To people tend to lend values of today's world in a game that should be borrowing more from the middle ages. "Uhm, Charlemagne that thing has horns" "Ack, Kill it kill it!"
Mr. VanderMeer 10-30-03, 11:22 AM	Big fad, throughout the ages of roleplaying: Find a baby dragon and raise it as your own!
dafrca 10-30-03, 11:33 AM	Originally posted by airhead Dungeon crawls - becoming less the norm. City adventures with lots of intrigue - becoming more the norm. Not saying you are right or wrong, I just wonder if this is really the case. I have been playing for 20+ years and from my point of view it seems to go in cycles. People play the crawls for a while, then they want some intrigue and thus they move to city/court adventures. Then after a time the complex plots and betrails get to them and they long for the more simple crawl again. I have watched more then one group go through the cycle. I wish there was some way to see the reality of the situation. As for the topic: Flying or exotic mounts Dragon "pets" Ninjas Barbarians (all Conan look alikes) LOTR look alikes (How many Gandalfs can one meet?) High Technology as Magic (Lasers and Light Sabers) Plane Travel Vampire PCs dafrca
Seeker95 10-30-03, 11:45 AM	PCs with a disability *The disability is usually negated immediately by Feats, magic items, skills, class and race selection. But gods-forbid you mention that the character could get "cure X" or "restoration. If you want to play a character with a disability, keep the disability just that -- a disability. Example: Blind character with blind sense, blind fighting, and innate clairevoyance, playing a monk.
Tae Kwon Dan 10-30-03, 11:55 AM	The DM\Player relationship seems to be cyclic as well. Be it DM and players working together or DM and players working against each other.
idiotgod 10-30-03, 12:37 PM	I'd have to say the biggest problem fad I've seen is people taking more from the modern day than from the medieval period. From the armour illustrations (please, somebody show me some medieval armour that's all asymmetrical, sci-fi-looking, etc), to the fact that everyone can read and write except barbarians (come on! In the middle ages a lot of kings couldn't read and write!), to the fact that modern social norms are used (Yay! Let's have a medieval setting, except without all the icky sexual and racial inequality!). I mean, honestly, the middle ages, especially in Europe (this was back when the Middle East was MORE advanced, before the stagnation set in), was a brutal, filthy, unpleasant affair. Your average fighter could not read, nor was she a she. Or look at the pictures of the iconic characters. How many of them are dirty? Because back then, nobody washed much. The Knights Templar made not washing a religious virtue, for crying out loud. Yet the medieval setting gets all watered down, because a society where women are pretty much breeding animals is politically incorrect, and few people want to play dirty, illiterate characters who aren't barbarians. And the whole "Oh no I don't want to kill those Orcs what if they're not evil" thing is a bunch of crap. Medieval Europeans didn't have trouble turning the Turks living a ways away into monsters, and they didn't find it too hard to turn their neighbours into monsters either. The churches weren't nice and tolerant, and those who were different got screwed over.
Dr_Draco 10-30-03, 12:54 PM	Githyanki and Githzerai (mostly 3.5+). May have been talked about a lot in 1e (with their devut in the Fiend Folio) and 2e, but I dunno for sure... http://www.geocities.com/flammabledragon/psion.TXT Dr. D
Tzor 10-30-03, 01:10 PM	I'm going to put on my memory hat and think of some of the general fads that were common when I was playing 1E in the early 80's. Roll based Role Playing: A number of third party supplements and non TSR game systems had a plethora of tables for character generation. Want to know your social status ... roll it. Want to know how many brothers and sisters you have ... roll it. This was before point based character generation was the norm. Attributes were already randomly rolled so this was not a big logical stretch of the imagination. Critical hits and Critical Failures: Inpired by third party supplements, tables that dictated what could happen when you critically hit or critically failed were common. Hex Grids: Although hex would be common in GURPS, hex facing rules existed with the square facing rules in 1E. Using hex for outdoor encouters was considered an option for some. (Square still worked well for dungeons with 90 degree walls.) Outdoor maps were almost always on hex paper. Percentile Dice: Most of the major modifications based on third party products tended to use percentile dice as opposed to the d20 in order to get a more accurate result and to limit critical success/failure. This was back when d10's were rare and d20's tended to be 0-9,0-9 with one side marked with a thin wet erase marker.
JQPublic 10-30-03, 01:53 PM	Originally posted by idiotgod Yet the medieval setting gets all watered down, because a society where women are pretty much breeding animals is politically incorrect, and few people want to play dirty, illiterate characters who aren't barbarians. I think this paragraph alone is a really good reason for the "glossing over" of the Medeival aspect of D&D. While I agree that it has gotten a bit out of hand, and I for one would like a grittier, more realistic setting, the fact remains, like you said very well, few people would want to play that. On topic...I'm really surprised I'm the first to mention this... Rangers with Bows that cast energy bolts (not just for damage! that can also perform non-offensive purposes!) (1e)
Simeon38X 10-30-03, 03:45 PM	I've noticed that some people have an obsession with small signatures, and they have a spaz at anyone whose sig box exceeds 1/2 a mm...
Incenjucar 10-30-03, 05:41 PM	Risen Succubi (No idea how long) Half-Races Elven Subraces Planar Awareness (Since 2e, of course, heh) Bumps
Dreamstryder 10-30-03, 09:14 PM	There is a reason D&D is oft called medieval fantasy and not medieval history. Nothing wrong with playing it like that, but people can play in a medieval Europe-esqe etting with modern day values too, if they want. That wheel of the planes reminds me much of BCE China, btw. Trend at least since 3e came out: classless systems, particularly point-buy. (I know, GURPS preceded 3e, but I wasn't paying attention then.)
Shemeska the Marauder 10-30-03, 10:10 PM	Shadow touched creatures. FR has been going NUTS with them lately, and its been spreading I think as the latest fad. ... now to make Yugoloths a fad... muahaha... *cough* Praise the 'loths or DIE pesky mortals! ... yeah that sounded good enough. :D
Darth K'Trava 10-30-03, 10:58 PM	Originally posted by Mr. VanderMeer Big fad, throughout the ages of roleplaying: Find a baby dragon and raise it as your own! Try 7(!) White Dragon wyrmlings!! And hoping to raise them opposite their natural alignment.... THen: Boring clerics Now: Clerics with a personality and 'tude :D Then: stale fighter types Now: Odd race-type fighters (Not your "normal" human or dwarven fighter) Then: Paladins with a huge rod up their arse Now: Paladins who actually have a sense of humor...
Darth K'Trava 10-30-03, 11:04 PM	Originally posted by idiotgod I'd have to say the biggest problem fad I've seen is people taking more from the modern day than from the medieval period. From the armour illustrations (please, somebody show me some medieval armour that's all asymmetrical, sci-fi-looking, etc), to the fact that everyone can read and write except barbarians (come on! In the middle ages a lot of kings couldn't read and write!), to the fact that modern social norms are used (Yay! Let's have a medieval setting, except without all the icky sexual and racial inequality!). I mean, honestly, the middle ages, especially in Europe (this was back when the Middle East was MORE advanced, before the stagnation set in), was a brutal, filthy, unpleasant affair. Your average fighter could not read, nor was she a she. Or look at the pictures of the iconic characters. How many of them are dirty? Because back then, nobody washed much. The Knights Templar made not washing a religious virtue, for crying out loud. Yet the medieval setting gets all watered down, because a society where women are pretty much breeding animals is politically incorrect, and few people want to play dirty, illiterate characters who aren't barbarians. And the whole "Oh no I don't want to kill those Orcs what if they're not evil" thing is a bunch of crap. Medieval Europeans didn't have trouble turning the Turks living a ways away into monsters, and they didn't find it too hard to turn their neighbours into monsters either. The churches weren't nice and tolerant, and those who were different got screwed over. If based on real medieval history, then the clerics(priests) should be the only ones that were literate. Barbarians are already stereotyped. And not everyone's characters are "squeaky-clean" as you might think..... Most times, we don't think about them bathing until we're in a town. Then they bathe. And don fresh clothing. And there were cultures where the women were as much a fighting force as the men were. Won't even go into the whole church bit as that might start something ugly that's best avoided.
abisai 10-31-03, 03:16 AM	Realism. Quite a current demand. Maybe it was just eaier when my friends and I were younger to accept some things as "just because" but now everything seems to demand a plausible explanation if requested. I find myself wanting to exclaim, "because it's magic" many times in recent discussions/threads. Rules. We got rules for things that were not there in 2E, which is great. However, now everything boils down to a rule somewhere and then there is this darn 3.5 upgrade to worry about too. Again, maybe it was just easier when my friends and I were younger and the DM just said "you cannot even look within the DMG you stupid PCs." Now that's where the Prestige Classes are.
aldymnor 10-31-03, 05:14 AM	I didn't see "Orc" as just a simple word, (but I guess there was some paragraph on them as they relate to Drizzt) but I'd say a newly-restored trend is Orcs as Foes (From LotR, it might be dying by now, I dunno.)
Seeker95 10-31-03, 08:25 AM	Originally posted by abisai Realism. Rules. abisai, this is off topic, but send me an e-mail. You're in Durham, and so am I. seeker@intrex.net On Topic: I agree with the "realism" trend.
Count Arioch the 28th 10-31-03, 08:40 AM	I have moved away from random encounters myself, they take a lot of time to set up, and add little to the gaming experience. Plus, I play a lot of CRPGs. I'm sick of random encounters.
Shemeska the Marauder 10-31-03, 08:54 AM	Originally posted by Seeker95 abisai, this is off topic, but send me an e-mail. You're in Durham, and so am I. *chuckle* Wow, NC isn't so utterly gamer desperate than. I'm about 2 hours from there myself. Again off topic, but oh well.
Northen_Spur 10-31-03, 08:57 AM	Like I sated early, people now tend to wan't to play weird creature combinations and honestly for some reason it irks me the wrong way. Everyone wants to play the unique, powerful yet missunderstood drizzt clone player, But almost no one I've seen is willing to play the outcast period that comes with it. Let's take a simple creature the Half-Dragon. Now depending on how you choose it the H-Dragon will look more or less human. But I've rarely seen someone rp: "Ok, we are going in a mostly human city, I think the troll should stay outside and the half-dragon you cover up tighter that a chase paladin at a party at sune's temple." This is also what I meant by a more medival(fantasy) feel. Yes Men and woman in the fantasy PnP are equal. But distrust amongst the races is still exist. LotR is a good example. (elves and humans while temporary allies don't like each other that much) 2nd didn't prevent being exotic, we had a super hight Campaing where all the players where mid-level exotic characters (I was a Erinyes). But we had to roleplay the creature proprely and that extra text in monstrous manual came in pretty handy. If we din't roleplay the creature proprely Boom exp penalty. It's nice to play an Orc, but what does an orc want? Even if it's shyed away from evil. It's still is a Orc, with traditions, fears, rituals ect.. So yes it's fun to play weird a unique character but I then to see, more Troll who are humans wannabes more that a Troll that decided to shy away from being evil.
Xaxor 10-31-03, 09:02 AM	The Ki-Rin trotted over to Oriental Adventures if you're interested. I'm prefectly fine with the Lovecraftian Far Realms about, but you do know this all started with The Gates of Firestorm Peak, right? Happened upon that fact as an accident really, but now I'll be loooking into that. And heck, it gives you a reason to buy yet another WotC product, which I must say is a fine piece of work. *stops sucking up* Current fad I've noticed... perversion of the alignment system. You need only to read a paladin thread. And Prestige Class overload.
Shemeska the Marauder 10-31-03, 09:15 AM	Originally posted by Xaxor I'm prefectly fine with the Lovecraftian Far Realms about, but you do know this all started with The Gates of Firestorm Peak, right? Happened upon that fact as an accident really, but now I'll be loooking into that. And heck, it gives you a reason to buy yet another WotC product, which I must say is a fine piece of work. *stops sucking up* Started in 'Gates of Firestorm Peak', (which I've yet to read actually...) and was expanded a bit and referred to though not by name, in the Planescape 'Guide to the Ethereal Plane' and very obliquely perhaps in the Planescape MCIII.
Northen_Spur 10-31-03, 09:17 AM	Oh that also reminds me: Before: Gods where ultimate, a powerfull party might dream of defeating one of Shar's avartars and live to see the glory. Today: People are going up in ultra-high levels and Killing gods like someone would kill a chicken. "Let's see I am in Bator, I just killed Set before breakfast, I'll eat breakfast on one othe the cubes in Acheron, kill the Durguar god, Jump to mechanus Kill Helm eat diner and I should be on arcadia before the second world becomes dark". Then they want to become gods. I swear by the time 4.0 rolls around there will be a book on "How to Kill Ao the overlord on a goldpiece a day within a week"
jasper 10-31-03, 09:59 AM	Can I make a pet out of it. Can I have the cool weapon (or item) we just saw on movie, cartoon, book, or tv? Can I play the x from the Dragon mag? Where x could be but not limited to npc class, new race, prestige class, monster, etc. Can I use x supplement? Can I use y book which has nothing to do with D&D? Gurps, Vulcan from Star Trek, port race over from Traveller. Look alikes from movies, books, comics, tv, and dragon mag. How dare the Dm be different and not core! After all in the complete Beholder handbook it says. Gary in Dragon mag 13 stated Trolls ate anything. Etc Medieval town laid out like modern city and just as clean except for the occasional chamber pot. God killers then and now. Crazy rule lawyers, power munchkins, stupid dms, stupid players, strange rule interpretations. People who want minis, need minis and people who don't.
dafrca 10-31-03, 10:03 AM	Originally posted by Northen_Spur Oh that also reminds me: Before: Gods where ultimate, a powerfull party might dream of defeating one of Shar's avartars and live to see the glory. Today: People are going up in ultra-high levels and Killing gods like someone would kill a chicken. I don't agree this is the case. I think you hi on a fad that is very old. Kill a God. I remember in the orginal AD&D when the Diety and Demigod book came out there were lots of people who talked about how their party killed this god or that god. I remember getting trapped once at a convention listening to one dork tell how his ninja/thief/fighter killed some of the greek gods and then had to fight his way through to kill some of the egyption gods. That was in the mid 80's. How does that saying go? The more things change, the more they are the same. dafrca
Northen_Spur 10-31-03, 10:21 AM	Originally posted by dafrca I don't agree this is the case. I think you hi on a fad that is very old. Kill a God. I remember in the orginal AD&D when the Diety and Demigod book came out there were lots of people who talked about how their party killed this god or that god. I remember getting trapped once at a convention listening to one dork tell how his ninja/thief/fighter killed some of the greek gods and then had to fight his way through to kill some of the egyption gods. That was in the mid 80's. How does that saying go? The more things change, the more they are the same. dafrca Personaly I never had any players with the ambition to kill a god in my 2nd campaigns. In the 3ed campaigns I hear it more frequently "say let's kill a god" but like all games some are diferent so there might a have been multiple 2nd games where people want to kill gods. I just get the Feeling 3ed made the problem wider.
Droog 10-31-03, 10:42 AM	1. Two weapon style - it's not bad enough that everyone wants to be Drow, but there are so many two weapon fighters out there. From daggers to bastard swords, they've gotta have two. 2. Tattos - especially tribal, on the face/head/neck. The fantasy ink slingers are making good trade.
jasper 10-31-03, 11:38 AM	The problems are not wider except for the population of players have grown. The problems are better known due to the communication by the internet. In the early eighties I could complain to 8 or 9 groups which hung out at the game store and the occasional con etc. Today I can complain to THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS (insert Carl Sagan voice here). I call this "same player, same problem, different face." In the early years I met rules lawyers, flavor of month clubbers, splat books hoarders, etc. Today I met the same. The two differences, the edition and less hair on my head and more grey in my beard. The problems are not with the edition or game system but the gamers. Some want to tick of the DM. Some want to kill Kenny's character cause Kenny got a good insult on Kyle in Math class last Monday. Some want the most powerfully character in the world. REAL world. Some want a wimp with a thirty page back story.
dafrca 10-31-03, 11:43 AM	Originally posted by Northen_Spur Personaly I never had any players with the ambition to kill a god in my 2nd campaigns. In the 3ed campaigns I hear it more frequently "say let's kill a god" You have been lucky. I envy you. I remember when the original D&D box set #5 The Immortals came out. It allowed the players to become gods and slay other gods. Talk about a head ache. :( That is when quit trying to keep some D&D in my AD&D game. I think that was about 86 or so. Ah the memories you have brought back to me. Odd times then. dafrca
Shemeska the Marauder 10-31-03, 12:17 PM	Rule #1 of planewalking : Don't (self edited) with deities! Unless a character has somehow actually attained divinity, and that raises a whole host of issues in itself, there's virtually no way a PC should EVER be able to kill a deity. An avatar maybe, but that's going to make you a target and you will loose eventually one way or another. If you go around killing deities with your epic kewl stuff your DM, and perhaps you too, need to have a face first beating with the proverbial stick of pain... I've had one case in a campaign where a deity was killed. It was already trapped within its own domain by the force of belief of every one of its followers as a race betraying it at once when the deity itself betrayed them to their mutual enemies to save itself. What eventually killed it finally in its entrapped, withered state, was another being of deific status itself. Though what it actually was remains to be seen by my players. (A year into the plot I'm not saying exactly what it is, my players read the boards here). The PC's might witness such an event, or it might happen in the background of a plot. But you have some problems if your players are going around trying to kill deities themselves because they've reached 'epic' level.
Xavim 10-31-03, 03:16 PM	I've had many instances of players want to assume divinity in my 2e. Mostly it was the same guy, but the other players followed suit pretty quickly. Once characters reach epic they're basically quasi-divine anyway so I personally don't see slaying demigods as much of a problem. Personally I look foreward to one day playing at that level. The only time I ever had that was in 2e where my PCs 23rd level wizard slaughtered Lloth because I didn't know how to run gods. Boy I'd love to run THAT battle again! Sigh, I need to get back with my old group. Stupid distance...
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-31-03, 03:37 PM	Old dude complaining about the new generation of gamers. Then and Now.
evoken_november 10-31-03, 05:26 PM	I too can chime in here and say that god killing is nothing new. I never got to game a lot growing up, but I knew a lot of people who did, and they all talked about their super swords that could cut through time and space, and how they all got to either level 100 or level 69 (never anything else), and killed several of the major gods all in one swoop. This was not the exception. This was not a 3E phenomenon. If anything, I see less and less of this nowadays than I did in my early years.
Darth K'Trava 10-31-03, 05:38 PM	Originally posted by Count Arioch the 28th I have moved away from random encounters myself, they take a lot of time to set up, and add little to the gaming experience. Plus, I play a lot of CRPGs. I'm sick of random encounters. We still do alot of random encounters. Mostly at night during camp.... while only about two PCs are awake and on watch.... And I'm not too far from you, Seeker95.... ;)
Dr_Draco 10-31-03, 06:29 PM	Here's another one: Psionic Equivalents for everything. It's a popular idea by posters on the psionics board (as can be seen in the sticky threads on the psi-board for feats and powers). Granted, I don't particularly favor the popularity of doing this, it does seem to be a fad over on the boards. http://www.geocities.com/flammabledragon/psion.TXT Dr. D
thalious 10-31-03, 06:36 PM	Originally posted by spray paint affiliate whatever happened to the kirin? Twas in 1e, but now mysteriously absent from 3.0/3.5 (dunno about 2e, cos i stopped playing before 2e came out) The Kirin is in the OA book section for monsters.
LTugo 10-31-03, 08:45 PM	I'm surprised a couple of fads have not been mentioned: Nudity in the game books (1e) Remember when everyone wanted to check out the picture of the Succubus and the Harpy? Traps, Traps, and more TRAPS! (1e) Ever since the original Tomb of Horrors, there seemed to be this kind of trap arms race, which was made worse with the publication of all the Grimtooth's Traps books. LTugo
The Gray 11-01-03, 02:29 PM	Originally posted by LTugo Nudity in the game books (1e) Remember when everyone wanted to check out the picture of the Succubus and the Harpy? LTugo [/B] Anyone remember the "Lewd Monsters" thread back on the old boards? What a mess that was.
idiotgod 11-01-03, 06:30 PM	I'd have to say that one fad is splatbooks. Now, I know that, even though some people slag WotC for making splatbooks, TSR beat them out in every way possible. I mean, are there any official 3rd ed race handbooks? No. However, it seems that more and more the people I game with USE optional stuff. Back in 2nd ed, it wasn't like that, but for some reason in 3rd ed you could build a bunker with all the books brought to the table.
Seeker95 11-01-03, 11:17 PM	In pre-3e, the only D&D publisher on the block was TSR. WotC invoted more people to the party, and let 3rd party publishers handle the majority of the less profitable types of items.
Teh Lurv 11-02-03, 12:19 AM	Originally posted by Count Arioch the 28th I have moved away from random encounters myself, they take a lot of time to set up, and add little to the gaming experience. Plus, I play a lot of CRPGs. I'm sick of random encounters. I agree with your points. In addition, the random encounter tables in the DMG have way too diverse set of creatures. If you follow the tables, your party will encounter 1d4 Orge Zombies, then a small evil dragon, and then a clay golem to follow up. What kind of route does the book think my party is taking to get from point A to B? :confused: I still give out the ocassional attacks by bandits or local monsters on trips to keep my party on their toes, but I would rather spend the session time giving them a small side-quest than roll-play out a series of meaningless encounters. Fads: 3e PrCs: You can't play a game without someone going for/taking a PrC for their character. 3e Templates: Everyone in my area want characters with templates as if all the cool kids were doing it. After seeing one too many half-dragon/half-fiends in other games I have banned the player use of templates for all my future games. PC races with a high ECL: In my campaigns I cap races I allow at ECL +1. I find that a disturbing number of players are drawn to ECL +2 or +3 races like a siren call, and then get ticked off when they only have 12hp and every one else with an ECL +0 races has 20 - 40 hp. :nonono: Drizzt clones: Please R.A. Salatore, kill off that drow in your third 'A Thousand Orcs' book. I actually have player who made a half-Drow ranger called Drizz'le. :nonono: (Note to RA: j/k on that. Don't kill Drizzt, otherwise the fanboys will come after me. :D ) Players playing 'good' evil creatures: Whether it's a Drow or a Medusa, players around the globe want to be that traditionally evil-aligned monster with a heart of gold. And I think the fad will only get worse with the 'redeemed villian' material in the Book of Exalted Deeds. :tantrum: The slow encroacement of Anime art in D&D: If anyone has looked at some of the art in Races of Faerun, they will know what I am talking about. I hope WotC knows better to keep Anime style drawing at arms length. In addition, I hardly see a character illustration of a PC have doesn't look like it stepped out of DBZ.:tantrum:
Delguidance 11-02-03, 04:49 PM	Summoning and pets was so five minutes ago. First our ranger got a black bear animal companion, then the sorcerer got an earth elemental familiar, then the paladin got a hippogriff mount, then the cleric never wanted to fight, but just stood back and summoned things.
jasper 11-03-03, 09:04 AM	Originally posted by Vaalingrade Ashland Old dude complaining about the new generation of gamers. Then and Now. :bow: :tiphat:
Seeker95 11-03-03, 10:54 AM	The new generation of gamers pretending "their game" exists in a vacuum with neither history nor tradition. :devil:
The MadStepDad 11-03-03, 11:07 AM	oooo Old School vs. New School. The battle continues...
Tae Kwon Dan 11-03-03, 11:09 AM	My own problem with random encounters is that they also sort of much with the reality of the game world resulting in what I call the Final Fantasy Effect(tm). The FFE got its name from that point in all of the FF games where you get access to the airship or some other means of going whever you please and you start exploring the game world in earnest. You always land on that one island that apparently just got overrun with Behemoth's and you're lucky if you don't die on the first encounter. Well in D&D random encounter tables kind of encourage the same thing. If the table is built around a common CR, as suggested in the 3.5 DMG, then you are either stuck with huge numbers of lower CR creatures or a couple of big things that basically don't make sense all living together. e.g. In my recent first DM'ing experience on a commonly travelled road my PC's ran into 2 Rocs, a Yrthak, an Advanced Grey Render, and a single Ogre bandit. Of course the first three were my "rare" 2% chance of happening encounters (and I rolled a 1 on d6 Ogre Warriors :rolleyes: ) , but the first thing my players said was "How in HFIL did that lone Ogre surive in this territory?" After that night I ditched the encounter table and started tailoring the encounters to the group.
Rotipher 11-03-03, 11:23 AM	Originally posted by Seeker95 In pre-3e, the only D&D publisher on the block was TSR. The only *legal* publisher. Early on, a number of third-party companies -- most notably Judge's Guild and RoleAids -- slipped under the radar, by using non-copyrighted jargon (like HTK instead of hp) in their modules. ;-)
Rotipher 11-03-03, 11:39 AM	Power-inflation has been a perennial fad among D&D *designers*. Consider the relative power-level and tenacity of average villains in the various campaign worlds: GH local warlord -> DL dragon highlord -> FR conspiring wizard -> RL darklord -> CoW evil dragon -> DS god-king -> BR dark scion (w/ nation) -> PS archfiend If you look back at the modules and supplements of the past, you can see how the designers often got caught up in the competition to make *their* new product cooler/higher-level/flashier than the *last* new product. (Case in point: the original Gazetteer series for BD&D.) That's saying nothing of how power inflation occurs, from one *edition* to the next! Anyone else recall that in the old B/E/etc D&D, fighters had 1d8 hp per level and 1st level clerics couldn't cast spells yet...? Who says game *fans* are the only ones subject to fads? ;-D
Tae Kwon Dan 11-03-03, 11:43 AM	Great point Rotipher! As much as I like Bruce Cordell's work he was very guilty of this with the Winterwight. In 2E Return to the Tomb of Horrors it's supposed to be a challenge for like a 15th or 16th level party. In 3E it becamse a challenge for a 22nd level party according to the ELH.
Bulabase 11-03-03, 01:26 PM	Katanas... Re: Killing gods. I paraphrase "Arnold" in the movie Predator, "If it has hit points, I can kill it."
Archtyrant Terevoth 11-03-03, 03:43 PM	Yeah, power inflation is a huge fad especially in 3E. It happened at first with unearthed arcana for 1E, but after that power got scaled down quite a bit... For 3E, it seems like every supplement tries to top the one that came before it, almost like sets of magic cards. Also monty haulism is back... More than ever 3E is about procuring as much gold and magical goodies as you can. I don't think I can ever remember seeing a 2E or 1E character with every single item slot filled... in 3E it's a common thing at high levels. Thoguh by far the fad I hate the most is the new lycanthrope... what in the hell happened to lycanthropy being a bad curse that you wanted to avoid? Now you get bitten by a werewolf and you thank him for giving you a new set of powers.
Teh Lurv 11-03-03, 04:00 PM	Originally posted by Archtyrant Terevoth Thoguh by far the fad I hate the most is the new lycanthrope... what in the hell happened to lycanthropy being a bad curse that you wanted to avoid? Now you get bitten by a werewolf and you thank him for giving you a new set of powers. I think it's in part due to players and DMs not enforcing the alignment change lycanthropy brings. Lycanthropy SHOULD be a bad curse i.e. when a PC transforms, his first victims should be those closest to him/her, namely the other party members or loved ones.
Seeker95 11-03-03, 05:18 PM	Originally posted by Teh Lurv When a PC transforms, his first victims should be those closest to him/her, namely the other party members or loved ones. I DMed a campaign with my nephews and two of their cousins (ages 10-14 -- I am 34). One of the players got bitten by a wererat, and failed the save. I met with him after that game session and explained the situation. He agreed to roleplay it through. By the time the party realized that the creature that came into the room was their friend, one character was dead, two lay wounded (one became afflicted) and the wererat was dead. They had a blast, and the player that agreed to let his evil lycanthrope actually be evil and devious earned my respect.
Incenjucar 11-03-03, 05:33 PM	I think part of the issue is there are so many non-evil lycanthropes, but nobody wrote down a reason why there's a curse in the first place. I consider it to be a curse placed on the werecreatures THEMSELVES, forcing them to be outcasts and so forth, lest they turn any human friends in to horrible, twisted versions of the werecreature. Bleh.
bushwak 11-03-03, 09:30 PM	i for one am GLAD that the medieval europe stigma has been removed from d and d. it always bothered me when players assumed that people living in towns wore burlap bags tied at the waist with a rope, or that everyone was an indentured servant, or everyone talked like they were in a shakespearian play. why would communities be based on agriculture when a very low level cleric/druid can MAGICALLY MAKE FOOD FOR EVERYONE??? in a land where people can shoot fire with their hands and warriors can lift the equivalent of an automobile over their head, orcs and other monsters prowl the countryside and death is a temporary setback instead of permanent...tell me, why would we need more REALISM??????????????????????????? how do we know that medieval people didn't wash? there are no firsthand accounts of how people lived back then...and they KILLED people who they THOUGHT could use magic...for good or ill... it's called dungeons and dragons, not A.D. 1000 - agents of the catholic church.
idiotgod 11-04-03, 08:10 AM	Because then you get some sort of Sci Fi via Fantasy setting, you know, "I'm gonna get in my magical horseless carriage and turn on my scrying screen to Fox". If you were to take the magic powers to their logical extremes, ASSUMING there are many druids around, and all priests are clerics, well, things would get a little wacky.
Corthan 11-04-03, 12:38 PM	The coolest character concept that was out there was my brother's half-druger-drow fighter.
Seeker95 11-04-03, 01:33 PM	Originally posted by idiotgod If you were to take the magic powers to their logical extremes, ASSUMING there are many druids around, and all priests are clerics, well, things would get a little wacky. Unless you also assume the game mechanics and flavor text are also fairly accurate. Very few acolytes ever become a cleric. A 1st level cleric is the cream of the crop of acolytes. Very few 1st level clerics ever gain the experience necessary to reach 2nd level. Very few 2nd level clerics ever gain the experience to reach 3rd... So while every 20th level cleric of every pantheon / deity would truly be uber powerful, it is also likely that no every deity would have a 20th level cleric. Think of it the same way as our degree system. Not everyone goes to school. Not everyone who goes to school graduates. Not everyone who graduates goes to college. Not everyone who goes to college gets a degree. Not everyone who gets a degree goes to graduate school. Not everyone who goes to graduate school gets a Master's. Not everyone who gets a Master's goes on for a PhD. Not everyone who goes on for a PhD gets one. Not everyone who gets a PhD becomes an assistant professor. Not every assistant professor becomes an associate professor. Not every associate professor becomes a tenured professor. Not every tenured professor becomes a department head. Not every department head becomes a dean. Not every dean becomes a professor emeritus. (Wow! That became much longer than I thought it would!) Anyway, the player characters are the cream of the crop -- truly uncommon personages. And the PC that moves into upper levels is even more uncommon. Those that reach epic levels are well-nigh unique.
theDwarf 11-04-03, 02:23 PM	Originally posted by Mercurius How about: Elf Loving (then) Elf Hating (on the rise) Actually "Elf Hating" has a long history. At least one game system I can remember made "and no elves" as a selling point of the game (Jourune). I remember some other also mentioning it, but cannot remember their names (or even bad misspelling thereof ;) ). I know of a number of systems that do not have elves (EPT and its decendants, and so forth). Every new addition or suppliment that makes elves seem more overpowering refuels a new wave of elf hating (or bashing). For some reason dwarves don't get clobbered as hard except in Science Fiction games (heavy worlders are often compared unfavorably to dwarves, often to the point of being called "just dwarves in space" :rolleyes: )
Rotipher 11-05-03, 12:28 PM	Wasn't it "Talislanta" that had the "No elves!" ad campaign...? One perennial fad among players is the "bored with PHB PCs" fad. First in 1E with its optional class descriptions in Dragon, then in 2E with its kits, and now in 3E with prestige classes, it seems like nobody's satisfied with the core classes for very long ... even though, hypothetically, you could play for YEARS without exhausting all possible 3E combinations of skills, feats, spells, domains, styles, specializations and so forth available to *single*-classed characters! Let's be honest, here: how many of the players who come crying to their DMs that they're bored and want to try some weird new PrC have played all eleven of the PHB classes, even *once*? Let alone a few times, which you'd think would be a bare minimum for exploring all of a class's powers and possibilities?
Random bloke 11-05-03, 06:09 PM	D&D is really medival europe, and I can use that claim to justify any mysogonistic / racist/ religious stupidity on my part VS D&D is not on bloody earth, and is taking place in a pararell univirse, right now. It has elves, orcs, dragons, fireballs, and real deties, and NOTHING that happened on Earth in the medival times, in the old west, or in red china has any impact on the D&D universe, nor can it be used to claim "this isn't the way things were back then". Guess which fad I support?
idiotgod 11-05-03, 06:54 PM	Well, yeah. However, most fantasy is medieval-derived. Once you mess with the base conceits, you get into all sorts of wierd stuff. Like Spelljammer. I have nothing against using a non-medieval setting. However, it is D&D's "medieval without the unpleasant parts" setting that annoys me. If you're gonna do something, do it right. Anything that would remove the unpleasant bits of medieval life, such as disease, illiteracy, etc would have effects far beyond your PC not catching the plague. Remove disease through cure spells and what have you? People live longer, and you have overpopulation for a while. Then, people will catch on that their kids have a decent chance of surviving, and have less. That's what's happening in the west. The more advanced a group is, the less children they are likely to have, and thus they are outbred by the least advanced. Look at our world today. Remove illiteracy, you get all sorts of wacky stuff. The thing that finally made books available was movable type. Once movable type is invented, what can't be printed? You could conceivably have mass-produced spellbooks. I mean, what possible explaination could there be for a world where your PC does not have lice, has white teeth, and doesn't face a slow and unpleasant death from an infected sword wound, while people still use medieval weapons and armour, and are mostly agricultural?
split infinitude 11-05-03, 08:07 PM	Ot, but. Originally posted by bushwak how do we know that medieval people didn't wash? there are no firsthand accounts of how people lived back then . . . Errm. Actually, it depends on what part of the middle ages you're talking about. At some times, bathing was common; others, no one bathed. And how do we know? Becuase people wrote about it. Or about the common belief that bathing would make you sick. Or about the constant use of perfumes and spices to mask the stench. Or about buying/selling that stuff. And because of the stuff we find from various periods. Some periods have lots of bathing-related paraphernelia. Some do ont. Of course, you can always shrug off the weight of the evidence and say "We don't really know, because none of us actually were there." But I, for one, am happy to see the "Tolkien was based on Medieval Europe, so D&D is too" attitude lessen a little.
idiotgod 11-06-03, 08:09 AM	But now it's based on some kind of sanitized version of Western Europe.
Seeker95 11-06-03, 08:21 AM	I thought it was based on Middle-Earth? :P
JQPublic 11-06-03, 09:27 AM	Originally posted by idiotgod People live longer, and you have overpopulation for a while. Additionally, overpopulation was already a problem before the Black Death. The surplus of labor kept the poor poor. After the plague, you actually see a vast increase in the standard of living with peasants and laborers being paid more and receiving more rights. So the more sanitized, plague and illness free medieval fantasy would seem to encourage the abuse of the lower classes. But then I forget, in this sanitized world the people all have pure moral and ethical standards (better than today even, with the removal of racism, sexism, and social elitism). Like I've said before, I can agree with why WOTC went with this approach: more people like sanitized-modern-medieval-fantasy. But personally, and I don't think I'm alone on this, this sort of fantasy takes my suspension of disbelief to the breaking point. (Maybe we should make another thread for this topic?)
Tzor 11-06-03, 10:13 AM	Originally posted by bushwak i for one am GLAD that the medieval europe stigma has been removed from d and d. it always bothered me when players assumed that people living in towns wore burlap bags tied at the waist with a rope, or that everyone was an indentured servant, or everyone talked like they were in a shakespearian play. Which is a good thing because for the most part that never happened. Shakespere made half of this words up out of thin air! Medieval clothing is an interesting study which probably has no place whatsoever in most campaign worlds. Baring places like what would become Germany, no one wore the "pants" in the family. The evolution of the toga to the long tunic, to the short tunic, to a tunic that made the 60's mini skirt seem long and often exposed a man's private parts is only interesting if you are into the history stuff. Medieval cooking and cleaning customs are disgusting to most people today. I thank God that I am blessed to live in the age of the toilet and the shower. Yet a little medieval thinking is a good thing. There is a good d20 supplement that addresses this while at the same time taking magic into account. Because without that mindset we can also fall into the trap of a modern mindset. And that can be just as bad a blunder as a false medieval mindset. Chain mail bicinis and all that! We know what people did because they wrote honestly about it. People didn't always burn magic users, in fact there were serious debates about the nature of "white" magic and "black" magic. A lot of that debate became lost when the witch hunting craze started in Europe, but it did exist. There are a lot of good reference works that are available should anyone care to study this with an open mind. And please can we have no bashing of historical religious institutions. That's pushing the COC. It is often said that history is written by the victors. I find that history is often written equally well by the whiners. Dark age and Medieval history is unfortunately flavored by Renissance writers who wanted to prove themselves superior and to justify their positions. Those days produced the charitable love of Francis of Assisi, the calm logical mind of Thomas Aquinas, and a whole lot of other things. If it wasn't for the lack of toilets and showers, (and drinking water) it wasn't a bad time at all.
Darth K'Trava 11-06-03, 10:53 AM	Originally posted by Rotipher Wasn't it "Talislanta" that had the "No elves!" ad campaign...? One perennial fad among players is the "bored with PHB PCs" fad. First in 1E with its optional class descriptions in Dragon, then in 2E with its kits, and now in 3E with prestige classes, it seems like nobody's satisfied with the core classes for very long ... even though, hypothetically, you could play for YEARS without exhausting all possible 3E combinations of skills, feats, spells, domains, styles, specializations and so forth available to *single*-classed characters! Let's be honest, here: how many of the players who come crying to their DMs that they're bored and want to try some weird new PrC have played all eleven of the PHB classes, even *once*? Let alone a few times, which you'd think would be a bare minimum for exploring all of a class's powers and possibilities? Along that same vein, those who abhor the PHB iconic characters. There's quite a few on these boards who wish them harm and other vile things. :bored: And usually younger players who want to see just how far they can go with their character..... not out of boredom, per se, but just experimentation. I've only played, I think, about three of the PHB classes. Haven't gotten bored with them yet. :D
Astanax 11-06-03, 11:09 AM	"When I first moved from Red Basic Edition to 1st Blue AD & D (early 1980's), everyone wanted to play Vampires, but not have the other players in the game know." I had really good reasons but this is exactly what I wanted to do if my friend was going to dm a certain campaign recently. It wasn't for power, everyone would have been the same basic power level, but instead for role-playing reasons. "Dungeon crawls - becoming less the norm. City adventures with lots of intrigue - becoming more the norm." Oh how I wish the forests, mountains, valleys, etc. would become the norm. Me want more wilderness. :mad:
Random bloke 11-06-03, 01:50 PM	Originally posted by idiotgod Well, yeah. However, most fantasy is medieval-derived. Once you mess with the base conceits, you get into all sorts of wierd stuff. Like Spelljammer. I have nothing against using a non-medieval setting. However, it is D&D's "medieval without the unpleasant parts" setting that annoys me. If you're gonna do something, do it right. Anything that would remove the unpleasant bits of medieval life, such as disease, illiteracy, etc would have effects far beyond your PC not catching the plague. Remove disease through cure spells and what have you? People live longer, and you have overpopulation for a while. Then, people will catch on that their kids have a decent chance of surviving, and have less. That's what's happening in the west. The more advanced a group is, the less children they are likely to have, and thus they are outbred by the least advanced. Look at our world today. Remove illiteracy, you get all sorts of wacky stuff. The thing that finally made books available was movable type. Once movable type is invented, what can't be printed? You could conceivably have mass-produced spellbooks. I mean, what possible explaination could there be for a world where your PC does not have lice, has white teeth, and doesn't face a slow and unpleasant death from an infected sword wound, while people still use medieval weapons and armour, and are mostly agricultural? 1) While people who attempt to place D&D in a specific earth time period and exclaim stuff like "they didn't have that back then!" are severly retarded, if you take away all the fantasy stuff - magic, dragons, gods - you'll still be left with full plate-mail, crossobows, rapiers(!) - the technological timeline being more 16th - 18th century then 10th-16th... 2) Actually, the people of Rome, had indoor plumbing and public baths, and tended to keep themselves clean. A fairly limited democracy - even before Rome, in the greek city-states. As for infected sword wounds, I have no idea what you mean - you can die of a neglected pin prick today, and the 19th century was a very bad place to get stabbed in the gut... 3) My point with 2? That there's really nothing weird with a world that has no steam engines, electricity, and in which people do most of their fighting with swords and arrows, and yet public toilets and bath-houses are present, a semi-beneficial democracy exists and in which people smell nice... Just as long as you put some thought into how your world works, things work out... Like how in Pratchett's world the wizards actually object quite strongly and effectively to typing-machines being introduced for the very reasons you mentioned. Now, most DM's would solve the problem with a "Technlogy and magic don't mix well" or "Spells need to be written by hand to have any effect"... If you see people who's septic "medival style" campaigns have no rhyme, reason, and no cause and effect... well, it has little to do with the genre or style they're running - their world would be just as "movie set with cardboard buildings" if they were playing d20 Modern or Shadowrun... 4) What exactly is the point you're trying to make, anyways?
idiotgod 11-06-03, 06:02 PM	But in Pratchett's world, Ankh-Morpork is not cleaned up and made to look pretty lest the book-buying public be offended. It's more the social sanitization than anything else, y'know? Sure, a neglected pinprick can kill, but that's more a case of not getting it treated, which is different from not being able to treat it at all. Yes, Rome had democracy. However, this democracy didn't include women. Rome had slavery. Would either of these things be found in a good society in your average D&D game? Okay, fine, D&D may be closer to the Renaissance than the Middle Ages. Still, how enlightened were those days? A hell of a lot less than the modern day. My point is this: D&D is too politically correct. I understand that WotC is afraid of getting sued by some group or another for mentioning that things were unpleasant back then (And most people are playing D&D in a Medieval-Renaissance setting.). Hell, things are more enlightened in D&D than they are in most of the world today.
Vornth 11-07-03, 08:29 AM	Hmm. Long discussion about this I see. I personally play a Fantasy Role Playing Game in a Fantasy World and am happy to leave it at that ;) Blessings. Vornth
Vornth 11-07-03, 08:30 AM	Hmm. Long discussion about this I see. I personally play a Fantasy Role Playing Game in a Fantasy World and am happy to leave it at that ;) Blessings. Vornth
Astanax 11-07-03, 11:35 AM	I think at one point I enjoyed all the options due to the splatbooks and such but now it is ridiculous. I think there are too many and a simplified game is better than a complex one in a lot of ways.
Teh Lurv 11-07-03, 12:35 PM	Another 3e fad I see: Splatbooks that must have discussion of mechanics. I remember from 2e that TSR would print books that dealt more with providing the DM with more background and settings than to provide new spells or monsters (Volo's guides come to mind.) In 3e, we have not seen any book put out that solely deals with the setting or RP of either Greyhawk or FR or anything else. I would guess that this is in response to the current 3e player outlook, that any book worth buying must have new feats, spells, new ways to use skills, etc. I know that there are 3rd party publishers out there that produce these kind of books, but it's not substitute for WotC putting out such material for either FR or Greyhawk.
Dasein 11-07-03, 01:00 PM	My point is this: D&D is too politically correct. I understand that WotC is afraid of getting sued by some group or another for mentioning that things were unpleasant back then (And most people are playing D&D in a Medieval-Renaissance setting.). Hell, things are more enlightened in D&D than they are in most of the world today. It has far less to do with lawsuits and political correctness than it does with appealing to as broad a market as possible, and thus selling as many units as possible. From a marketing perspective, how many female gamers are you going to attract if women are treated only slightly better than chattle, and the idea of a female adventurer is preposterous? So, rather than portray 'realistic' sexism, you portray fantasy egalitarianism, because that is more likely to get you the female gamer market share. Other decisions may be made for the sake of playability. Diseases and infections, for example, while realistic, make for a rather dull game. Imagine after every fight having to roll for sepsis or gangrene? And lets not even get started on tainted water. Dasein
Random bloke 11-07-03, 02:54 PM	Originally posted by idiotgod But in Pratchett's world, Ankh-Morpork is not cleaned up and made to look pretty lest the book-buying public be offended. Err... in pratchetts world, Ankh-Morphoc is a big city, which is fairly dangerous and complex - you can find clean and semi-friendly places... I repeat - nothing in official D&D products hints that big cities aren't dirty and dangerous. If you're playing in a campaign where the "good" kingdoms are filled with shiny happy people - bad DM-ing and nothing else... Yes, Rome had democracy. However, this democracy didn't include women. Rome had slavery. Would either of these things be found in a good society in your average D&D game? And? Ok... at this point my frustration would be best expressed by ALL CAPS and lots of exclamation points... but I won't. I still repeat: What is your point? If we go to a certain historical period on earth which superficially resembles D&D with the fantasy stuff removed, the social circumstances will be A. Whereas in D&D they are very much Not A. AND THIS IS WRONG, HOW? We already established that a democracy of sorts could and did exist is socities which aren't technologically advanced. Ditto for person hygiene. Ditto for female equality/warriors (more of a tribe thing, but still). Why is it so difficult to believe that in a society MUCH different then then any on Earth, thing could work out differently? If you're playing in a PC, septic version of the medival times... well, it's a shame that your DM has no imagination. D&D society is much different then any society on earth... And I repeat - said DM would probably dm steampunk/shadowrun the same way...
Arbitrary Aardvark 11-07-03, 04:12 PM	Originally posted by dafrca I don't agree this is the case. I think you hi on a fad that is very old. Kill a God. I remember in the orginal AD&D when the Diety and Demigod book came out there were lots of people who talked about how their party killed this god or that god. I remember getting trapped once at a convention listening to one dork tell how his ninja/thief/fighter killed some of the greek gods and then had to fight his way through to kill some of the egyption gods. That was in the mid 80's. How does that saying go? The more things change, the more they are the same. dafrca Hey, I remember it from the white-box days when "Gods, Demigods, and Heros" came out. Actually, each edition has made deities even tougher. In 3rd edition, it is virtually impossible to kill any deity when below epic levels, and I suspect quite difficult below 40th.
Arbitrary Aardvark 11-07-03, 04:23 PM	Originally posted by idiotgod Remove illiteracy, you get all sorts of wacky stuff. The thing that finally made books available was movable type. Once movable type is invented, what can't be printed? You could conceivably have mass-produced spellbooks. In my world moveable type doesn't exist, but there are magical means of creating engraved plates for printing presses. The main city in my campaign has three or four newspapers. Mass-produced spell books aren't a problem. First, magic is so intense and personal that a printed description of a spell only provides the bare minimum to actually learn the spell. You have to note down all the details that govern how you learn to cast it in order to actually understand it. (As a DM, I would figure out some argument for why that cost so much.) Secondly, learning magic is so difficult, that not everyone can. Gosh, this sounds like higher math. I'm married to a Mathematician, so I'm quite aware that to actually learn a theorem from a book takes about ten pages of notebook paper and a couple of hours of work. That's when the proof is in the book. Consider spells the same way. All that the printed spell book gives you is a common set of spells.
Arbitrary Aardvark 11-07-03, 04:29 PM	Originally posted by idiotgod But now it's based on some kind of sanitized version of Western Europe. You know, if you make D&D too much like the middle ages, things just don't work. For example, a couple of wizards with fly and cloudkill could destroy a typical army of the period. Some games, like Chivalry&Sorcery, are sufficiently committed to historical accuracy to come up with in-game arguments for why that doesn't occur. (Mages organizations, the fact that wars between humans are perfectly legal and also limites means that wizards have no real stake in the matter etc.) Barring external reasons, I've noticed (mostly in previous editions) that mass combat becomes a lot more like 20th century warfare, with magical superiority replacing air supperiority, and monsters replacing tanks. (Including the use of arrows of slaying as anti-tank missles.) If your side ends up with the remaining spell casters, the enemy army better not be in nice parade ground close order formations.
Rotipher 11-10-03, 01:58 PM	One of the more lamentable trends: People who grouse that female equality shouldn't be found in a "medieval fantasy world", yet are totally blind to the fact that *adventurers* shouldn't be running around loose in a "medieval" setting, either! If we're REALLY being "realistic" here, they should either be tied to the land as serfs, with no right to travel or bear weapons, or else bound up by their duties to their sovereigns if they're of noble blood. Medieval societies had a word for armed people who roamed from place to place, seeking wealth and bowing to no leige, and that word was "bandits".
Vornth 11-11-03, 03:01 AM	I repeat, to everyone who still hasn't got the point yet - FANTASY. What we are doing here - all of us who play this marvellous game the world over - is creating a beautiful, magickal, challenging world where we see characters grow, politics develop, underdogs get saved from the beast and then rise to be the greatest beings ever known. Don't worry if it doesn't tie in with ANYTHING you know from our world - since the late 1960's (and way before that if you count storytelling and pathworkings) we have been creating this place. Whether you fit it into the wider picture of stuff created by other gamers around you, or remain insulated in your own game's little Universe, live it to get the most out of the game - for everyone. Blessings. Vornth
Vornth 11-11-03, 03:01 AM	I repeat, to everyone who still hasn't got the point yet - FANTASY. What we are doing here - all of us who play this marvellous game the world over - is creating a beautiful, magickal, challenging world where we see characters grow, politics develop, underdogs get saved from the beast and then rise to be the greatest beings ever known. Don't worry if it doesn't tie in with ANYTHING you know from our world - since the late 1960's (and way before that if you count storytelling and pathworkings) we have been creating this place. Whether you fit it into the wider picture of stuff created by other gamers around you, or remain insulated in your own game's little Universe, live it to get the most out of the game - for everyone. Blessings. Vornth
hiryuu 11-11-03, 03:59 AM	Originally posted by Vornth What we are doing here - all of us who play this marvellous game the world over - is creating a beautiful, magickal, challenging world where we see characters grow, politics develop, underdogs get saved from the beast and then rise to be the greatest beings ever known. Magical. You mean magical. No k. Speak English. The k wasn't added until early 50s by Crowley to make his demiatra fit. And just because you create it doesn't mean you don't have to ground it in the real world somewhere - I find that a tiny dose of familiarity makes for some excellent suspensiuon of disbelief, as does internal consistency. SOme people go a bit far, but if that's their cup o' tea, more power to them!
Vornth 11-11-03, 04:22 AM	Hiryuu <chuckles> In the spirit of friendship: an American telling an English guy how to spell English words? LOL...theatre, colour, centre (not even going TOWARDS aluminium!) Sorry - couldn't resist! Still - I agree with your main point: it certainly does help some folk to ground their fantasy world with a modicum of reality. My own view is that this fact should not create a situation where people start getting all argumentative and using nasty words like 'Politically Correct' <shudder>. Each player plays the game his own way, even different members of the same game! It just seems to me that folks are getting a little bit entangled in the 'medieval Europe' argument. Fact is, we don't really know what things were like then anyway, as ANY recorded history is just one person's view from the time. Compare this to modern-day journalism for a few moments and think if you would like our society to be judged on the Daily Sport (British) or National Enquirer (worldwide). Blessings. Vornth
Xaxor 11-11-03, 05:32 AM	Well you could easily produce magical incantations and such, its the diagrams that make everything harder. You need to know how to draw that circle of protection right, especially if you plan on imprisoning something. So spellbooks would still not end up mass produced. You also have to take into account the availability and quality of paper. Generally things would be done on parchment of course, but the quality of such is still a valid concern. Going back to a little more widespread illiteracy wouldn't be a horrible idea, in my view, though. Wizards and Clerics are the likeliest to be able to read, but until you establish a school system, most fighters and such would be too busy training to learn how to read. You only have so many years... of course that allows the longer-lived races to learn how to read an write yet still get all the training they would need. It might be worth looking into.
JQPublic 11-11-03, 01:58 PM	Originally posted by Vornth Fact is, we don't really know what things were like then anyway, as ANY recorded history is just one person's view from the time. Compare this to modern-day journalism for a few moments and think if you would like our society to be judged on the Daily Sport (British) or National Enquirer (worldwide). Yeah, who's to say there weren't dragons, elves, wizards, and goblins in medieval europe? I mean, all we really have to go off of are the accounts and artifacts of the people who were actually alive at that time...and why should we put any faith whatsoever in them? So if we can't believe historical sources on those important points, why should we believe them when it comes to more mundane subjects such as women's rights, cleanliness, and literacy?
Willie the Duck 11-11-03, 04:24 PM	Originally posted by Vornth <chuckles> In the spirit of friendship: an American telling an English guy how to spell English words? LOL...theatre, colour, centre (not even going TOWARDS aluminium!) Oh for God's sakes! They are both right because they are two different dialects. Honestly, do Australians and South African-ians (South africaners?) fight over these things? Then why do we? Fact is, we don't really know what things were like then anyway, as ANY recorded history is just one person's view from the time. Compare this to modern-day journalism for a few moments and think if you would like our society to be judged on the Daily Sport (British) or National Enquirer (worldwide). That's what history is like, that doesn't mean we can't use the best working model. I wasn't alive in the 50s, but I can still make a game or a book or a movie based in that time using the best resources available to me. D&D is unlike medeival times because it would be overly complex, not because we don't know what medeival times were like.
Vornth 11-12-03, 03:23 AM	To JQ:- My original point (again) was that D & D is played in a fantasy world, and so we can adjust issues like 'women's rights, cleanliness, and literacy' to our taste. My point about history stands good - no record is 100% reliable. To Willie:- We are not talking about dialects here, we are talking about spelling. Australians use the modern English language in the same way that modern English people do. South Africans (I believe that they were your next point of reference) speak a mixture of Afrikaans, English, Hindi and a variety of local tribal languages. My comment (which should be taken in the light-hearted spirit in which it was intended) was an observation on an American advising an Englishman on the subject of English spelling. Fact is, there has NEVER really been a set-in-stone version of spellings for the English language. Up until the 20th century, most English was just written down as people thought it sounded, which resulted in a wide variety of spellings for different words. 'Magickal' can be seen in a number of older texts, whether it is 'correct' or not. In more recent times, after that brief 20th C period, we have reverted back to this method, using words like 'lite' and 'tonite', which people either find acceptable or garish according to their taste. Even in the brief period to which I referred above, there were mixtures of spellings for some words (is it 'connection' or 'connexion'?) Thank you, both, for your observations. One more thing to add which is (perhaps) a little more relevant to the thread than my recent rantings, but is also connected with these final few postings:- One modern fad that applies to D & D (and virtually everything else) is how much more we seem to want to analyse things. In this information-rich age, players (and thus characters) want to know MORE about WHY. This can make the DM's job even more challenging, as we seek to find 'on the fly' answers to questions that we simply did not foresee. Wow I love this game! Blessings. Vornth
Vornth 11-12-03, 03:24 AM	Edit: hmm. Seemed to post itself twice for some reason. Sorry, guys.
JQPublic 11-12-03, 10:16 AM	Originally posted by Vornth My original point (again) was that D & D is played in a fantasy world, and so we can adjust issues like 'women's rights, cleanliness, and literacy' to our taste. My point about history stands good - no record is 100% reliable. And I agree with your original point completely. In fact, I've stated before in this thread how I think it is good that WOTC has gone with a sanitized medieval setting. It doesn't work for my campaign, but I think I am in the minority, and therefore I should be the one who has to adjust, not the rest of the community. My objection to your post is your implication that our knowledge of medieval times is unreliable, and that therefore we know nothing of how life was lived back then with any degree of certainty. Your more recent post clarifies this with the statement that no record is 100% reliable. I'll agree with this, however I still maintain that while no one record is 100% reliable, there is still enough evidence of life in medieval times that we are able to put together a picture of how life was back then. While this picture may not be 100% accurate, it is close.
Vornth 11-12-03, 10:18 AM	<~~shaking hands with JQ :) Yeah - I'll have that! Blessings. Vornth
Magus Gar Kan 11-12-03, 07:52 PM	Hmm, heres one: Discussions about an aspect of D&D that goes way off topic.:D
Vornth 11-13-03, 02:44 AM	::choke:: That'll be me then :behold: Blessings. Vornth
Vornth 11-13-03, 02:44 AM	Edit: I'm really gonna have to stop posting early morning UK time - every time I do, my posting comes up twice! Is this a Board problem from your end, Wizards? Sorry guys (again)! Blessings. Vornth
Seeker95 11-13-03, 08:55 AM	Vornth, check your computer settings. Do you have your mouse click settings at an automatic double click? Are you impatient in the morning and click on the Submit button again if you don't see it change pages immediately? Double-posting is a Wizards / Boards software quirk, but it is your clicking that triggers it.
Vornth 11-13-03, 09:15 AM	Hiya Seeker. 'No' to both questions. It's really weird. Having said that, I'm a computer programmer and used to monitor AOL's message boards too, so should be used to computers doing weird things! Blessings. Vornth