Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Kolakuba 04-12-06, 12:58 AM	Once there wasn't internet. I was twelve and blissfully unaware of about 99,9% of the AD&D 2nd ed. gaming community. We sat in our living rooms and played our Bilbo-ripoffs, Cutter-ripoffs and every other ripoff you can possibly imagine. Together our brave band of adventurers traveled the areas around Cormyr, and the brave companions found great riches mostly by killing things. We were a close-knit group of friends who enjoyed each others company, and as the years passed our characters grew into more than the rip-offs they initially were. The dwarf fighter, the hobitt "thief" and the elf ranger, all the time fiercely loyal to one another after long years of adventuring together was retired last year after we had played them for 11 RL years. During this time they had first been converted from 2nd to 3rd, and then from 3rd to 3.5. When remembering the old days of playing, I believe many share the same fond memories with a couple of variations. I was just wondering if (and this goes to all the old-timers on these boards) you plotted on how to kill your co-player's character, tried to figure out ways to annoy your DM or were afraid to even talk disrespectfully to the "DMPC" (if there ever was an axionom, this is) in fear of your character's life because the DMPC is an avatar of Ao and will be ****** off as hell if you don't remember to adress him with "your high uber-lord of the wondrous supergod"? We didn't have to much contact with the gaming community, except at our local book store in Oslo, Norway, and being afraid of your co-players plotting to kill you was never an issue we discussed or was made aware was a problem in the gaming community in general. Why do people subject each other to this? DnD is a wonderful hobby, and it is an oppurtunity for both the DMs and players to let their imaginations flow freely. Why do people use that oppurtunity to find creative ways of ruining the gaming experience for their co-players? Why do DMs invest more energy into finding degrading ways of killing PCs, than creating a rich and detailed campaign world? And why do they receive praise from other players/dms for acting in such a manner? A day doesn't pass on these boards without at least ten posts like: -My DMs an idiot!!! -How can I poison the group wizard without the other characters suspecting me? -Best TPK evar!!! -My DM killed my 17th level barbarian after he was food-poisoned from eating raw meat!!! -Why won't my stupid DM allow me to play a phrenic half-dragon phaerimm with the fiendish template? Is this the game we are playing now, or are most of the gaming community sticking to the old ideals (at least in our group) of having a really good time when playing, and trying to together create a fun and exciting game for everyone involved? Please don't flame me. I value your opinion even if we disagree.
Mitchell 04-12-06, 01:25 AM	Societal breakdown? I'm in the same boat you are, only I got on a little earlier (1st edition and some basic stuff because we didn't know any better :)). I like the feeling that I can trust my fellow players. I like them to know that they can trust me. Alot of these things seem somewhat childish to me, and are really non-dillemas if the players (DM included) would just decide that they don't want to play with <X> anymore, but different strokes and all of that. Is it videogames, with the emphasis on obtaining power? Is it videogames being primarily a solo medium? Is it that if you PK someone in an MMOG that they are wherever and you are safe and secure in your house? That being good is boring, as some people would lead the weak-willed to believe? Who knows? All I can say is that unless I decide to run an evil game (and I have no idea why I would want to do such a thing to myself), then the players are all good or neutral. If one of them slips into evil, then they lose their character and I take them over (currently DMing now). The only exception would be an invouluntary shift such as putting on a helm of opposite alignment, and then I will meet with them and lay down some ground rules.
kelvinaw273 04-12-06, 01:31 AM	I remember the good old days of the old D&D boxed set. I also remember the DMs and players ... we were perhaps the worst around, just entering our teens and dealing with all that stuff. I generally found that I had a basic incompatability with most of my peers; I thought the game should be like a book, where you take the hero's role and do the things you cannot do in real life. Most of my fellow players thought that it was good for doing all the things you were not allowed to do in real life. So I was introduced into the concept of party betrayal early on - after all, killing party memebers not expecting it is easier than killing monsters, right? I have to admit that I was among the worst players and DMs ever. But after a year or two things settled a little, and we could run and play a decent dungeon crawl. A few more, and we were getting good at this. By the time I went to university, I was running a good campaign. Times change, and we veered away from D&D. TSR had fallen behind the other games out there that were smarter, more 'realistic' and with better games mechanics by a loooonnnngg way. In the years since, I have wandered through Runequest, Call of Cthulhu, Pendragon, Space Opera, Traveller, Star Wars, Storyteller, Aliens and many more. Finally, a few years ago I came full circle back to D&D. 3.0 was just released, and I took another swing at it after playing a game of Baldur's Gate. Result was a great success, but the breakup of my marriage left things a little chaotic. Recently I have started again in 3.5, playing at the moment but readying yet another campaign, promising myself soon, soon ....
CzarGarrett 04-12-06, 10:01 AM	Kids these days are getting worse and worse. Sure, there's a few shining stars out there, but most of them have never truly experienced loss or failure, so they think that they will always win. And they approach D&D on the same level- "I'm going to win D&D!" They spend time trying to find ways how to make the most uber character ever, and if there's any other characters who pose a threat to that superiority- they have to die. And as you mentioned, there were clones off characters from books. You ask kids these days about a book, and they barely know what you're talking about. Their inspiration comes not from time honored books, but from crappy movies made a year ago. They'd rather use a character from a Manga comic than from a book read by millions of people over the last 30 years. And then there's the computer games. Far too many 'RPGs' in the year days were single player games, where YOU were the focus of everything. In a group setting of D&D, it is the group that is the focus, and some kids resent that. Its a compound problem, and I'm sure there's more to it than what I've listed here. And sadly, I fear it will only be getting worse.
LCD2YOU 04-12-06, 11:49 AM	Back in the day, when I had to walk up hill to school, 5 miles one way, in 3' snow, in a driving sub-zero blizzard, with no shoes to face Sister Mary Battleaxe, with my meager white bread and mustard sandwhiches we really played DnD. Heck we were lucky to have them. But then, I had to walk back haome, 10 miles this way, in 6' of snow, during the last ice age, with no shoes.....
Pandaemoni 04-12-06, 12:41 PM	It's a double edged sword. Back when I started playing (early 1980's) we had no internet on which to rant, but we also could have used to to enhance our games. I see these boards as a giant, 24/365 gaming convention where we can discuss our ideas and thereby improve our games. The downside is that the anonimity of the web also allows pointless (and often angry) ranting and insulting of people who happen to disagree with your gaming style.
LCD2YOU 04-12-06, 12:44 PM	It's a double edged sword. Back when I started playing (early 1980's) we had no internet on which to rant, but we also could have used to to enhance our games. I see these boards as a giant, 24/365 gaming convention where we can discuss our ideas and thereby improve our games. The downside is that the anonimity of the web also allows pointless (and often angry) ranting and insulting of people who happen to disagree with your gaming style.Well if you would have such a bad game style nobody would give you a bad time. ;)
DM_Greatness 04-12-06, 12:48 PM	To the original thread starter - I'm right there with you brotha! :tiphat: The game that I'm running is very much like the game that you just finished. However, whenever I go and talke with all the other games at my local Nerdery (game shop) or you have to deal with people online, you quickly realize that they are playing a very different game... A game that isn't even Dungeons and Dragons anymore.
DM_Greatness 04-12-06, 12:51 PM	-My DMs an idiot!!! -How can I poison the group wizard without the other characters suspecting me? -Best TPK evar!!! -My DM killed my 17th level barbarian after he was food-poisoned from eating raw meat!!! -Why won't my stupid DM allow me to play a phrenic half-dragon phaerimm with the fiendish template? All this and more btw whenever I'm interacting local Nerdery games and most of the online posters. I have no idea how they get to thinking like this, or why. You totally forgot one though. Usually the same group of people like you posted about are the very first ones to exclaim: - Psionics are 110% totally balanced! :dice:
Kolakuba 04-13-06, 04:41 AM	You totally forgot one though. Usually the same group of people like you posted about are the very first ones to exclaim: - Psionics are 110% totally balanced! :dice: Psionics should have been scrapped after it failed in 1st edition, then it should have been scrapped after it failed in 2nd edition, then it should have been scrapped after it failed in 3rd edition and now we're stuck with another just as broken system in 3.5 edition as well. Personally I don't care. I own the book, I've tried it IG and it didn't work out well in my game. If other DMs choose to include psionics, that's fine with me. It's a matter of personal taste, but that doesn't make it any less broken..... I'd like to move to your second point about the young players today playing a game we don't even recognize. I fully agree that from what I read on the boards it seems a lot of groups don't exactly follow what I would call a winning formula for creating a good game. But I was kind of hoping when I started this thread that some teenage player would tell me that I am wrong, that not all young players play in the fashion that we usually see described on these forums. But all I've seen are some fellow old-timers who agree with me. That's actually kind of sad.
Ozymandias V. 04-13-06, 10:48 AM	@OP: The reason it seems bad is that you are now aware of a section of the population you were previously isolated from. Things haven't changed that much. You just never knew what was going on elsewhere.
babysamurai 04-13-06, 11:05 AM	Also, D&D has become Magicafide (as in MtG) since 3rd edition - which is good and bad. The only thing that really bugs me is the way the word "Broken" is thrown around all the time...about everything! Before 1993, you never heard the word "broken" used in a sentence pertaining to D&D.
cutsleeve 04-13-06, 11:32 AM	well back then you didnt complain about it being broken you just fixed it. I had so many house rules to 2nd edition it wasnt funny. Nowadays kids say you should stick to the rules or use the raw or core only. They seem to hate customization or anything that isnt produced by WOTC. EDIT Some of those house rules wherent to fix problems but to create a unique game or campaign.
IbanezNinja 04-13-06, 12:21 PM	If you think Psonics are overpowered, than must really hate Arcane magic, considering how much better it is. And your head must explode when you comprehend just how good Divine magic is.
jnrhayz 04-13-06, 12:37 PM	I started playing D&D in the early 90's. It was a blast, the DM had rules everyone today would consider broken, but were there to make the world unique. I think that is something many people forget, most DM's just want to create a unique world and in doing so you can't take into account every rule in every book. Heck, Wizards can't even do that when they publish stuff or you wouldn't end up with some of those crazy builds in the optimization board. I only played a couple of years before the group moved on to Vampire, then werewolf, then mage, then Star Wars D6, then some other stuff. They would sometimes play D&D, but I wouldn't join those games because I just thought the rules were too clunky that it took away from the enjoyment. When D&D 3.0 came out, we all jumped on board. I don't know why, but something about D&D just called to us I guess. That is really the only game I have played since 2000. A couple of nights of Vampire and a couple of nights of Star Wars D20, but those games just never worked out. It was always back to D&D. I think a lot of people blame the attitude of today's players on Wizards. Basically they say that Wizards makes the players think that they are running the game. I don't know if I buy that. Wizards is just trying to sell books to make a profit. The reason they sell is because, we as players are always striving to find that perfect character. At least that is why I buy them. As a player I want the character than matches everything I picture in my mind and as a DM I like having things I can just pull out and use without spending hours working out exactly what does travel across a glacier entail. I use a lot of Nature vs Man plots and to be honest, those books cut down on a lot of prep time for me. Players need to have a certain level of trust in the DM and DMs need to stop making rules changes with no explanation to their players. A little suggestion to DMs, I have my House Rules typed out and for each rule I give an explanation as to why it is that way. I limit the books available to the players, but note that I am willing to make exceptions if they want to discuss something. I also ask the players to agree to the rules before each game; maybe someone wants to try something different that I don't allow. We as a group discuss that kind of thing. I guess D&D players in todays world just have poor communication skills. I have about a million more things I could say, but I will end here without actually having made any points other than I like D&D 3.5, I like Wizards for giving me options as a player and reducing prep time as a DM, and I think we should all just get along. :)
kelvinaw273 04-13-06, 12:47 PM	Actually, I find 3.5 to be fairly well balanced. The problem is the growth of feats and additional rules that allow a player to bamboozle the DM with half remembered (and selectively forgotten) rules that make their character 'legal' and 'uber'. It really is a case of bringing video-game mentality into a PnP game. It can work, but not as well as going back to basics. D&D is a ROLEPLAYING game. It isn't a tactics, strategy or wargame. It is about playing a chcarcter in a fantasy world, not accumulating kills and neat loot. It is attitudes like this that lead to the Smite-O-Matic paladin and the uber-mind psion.
Lincoln Hills 04-13-06, 05:30 PM	I don't think that the percentage of good players who play D&D has decreased, Kolakuba. But consider where you're looking: an online message board. Neither DMs nor players tend to post on a message board about how nice and normal everything is: on how well-balanced their character is compared to the rest of the party: or on the fact that they're within 6 gp! of normal character wealth for their level. We just don't hear those comments. At most they're spoken to one other player, at the table. No, we get the complaints, the lamentations, and the whining! Oy!
malignor 04-13-06, 05:47 PM	I started playing in the boxed sets & the original AD&D. That was over 20 years ago. I never had a long runnig AD&D game though. Kept switching games every few months. Actually, I've ran the longest AD&D game I've ever seen (though I broke it apart into 2-4 month chapters; chapter 2 of 4 just finished). I've also ran the longest Rifts game I've seen (just over 2 years; great ending). I've some of the crazy stuff you see on the boards... - conspiring against fellow PCs: In 2 evil games; one I was a paranoid Wizard/Oozemaster/Alienist, dreading the mummified dark priest of Death (played by my comrade) and so conspired to destroy him. Found out the hard way that the feeling was very mutual... but I survived. The other I was a fiendish Orc Fighter/Planar Champ, and everyone was insulting and threatening each other, so I worked hard to get strong enough to kill them all, but only mutilated the corpse of one (for calling me coward) and beat another senseless (for ratting me out). - Been DMed by a guy who couldn't run a game to save his life: And after the campaign, he agreed. But we all believed in giving everyone a chance to run. There are currently 2 of the 5 of us who we'll never let DM again... because they just suck at it.
Trarth 04-13-06, 07:21 PM	I know several Good players. I also know millions of mentally ill characters. While I have never pesonally had characters try to kill each other, I have heard 8,489 stories about it. Or even better yet, "How can we kill the powerful spell caster in our group so that we feel more special while disregarding if we look like jack-holes or not?" My characters have....slight....quarrels, but nothing to serious, a flesh wound or three, and then the conflict is resolved when they start laughing at each other's ridiculous insults. Any way, stay in school, and don't plot to kill your friends. Because the LG cleric that plots to kill his friends is not so lawful....or good.
David_Roben2 04-13-06, 08:17 PM	I'm a firm believer that the older versions had "better" players because it was difficult. I greatly enjoy the fact that everything is simplified now and mostly consistant, but when you had to be a math wiz to play it really cut out the riff-raff. Intelligent people will almost always make better gamers. Creative people with ALWAYS make better gamers. Now it was fun to occasionally throw in some interparty angst. But. for the most part, if you had to work at the game then you wanted to make it as fun as possible. I do think that wotc has done alot with the game and opened it up to all ages. Could that be the problem? Not everyone has the mental capacity, patience, or maturity to play a game fun for everyone. I think everyone should play this game. I also think that every idiot who needs a car battery to get their two brain cells to spark should be relocated to Hawaii and forced to play with only other semi-sentient, rule-mongering, roll-flubbing trolls. We can give New Jersey to the munchkins. Better make that Alaska, that's the only state with enough room to hold that much ego.
Doopliss 04-13-06, 09:28 PM	Just need to speak up here, and defend my (Other) hobby. I was playing video games at seven, and D&D for only around three years. I like this game so much because it has so much that video games don't. Freedom mainly, (Not stupid freedom. I've never dealt lethal damage to a party member, for example.) and you live in less of a void. If you have a DM like mine, (though I've gotten behind the screen relatively often) you never know what gets thrown at you. Things a video game could never accomplish. Despite this, I still play video games and have no intention of stopping relatively soon. Nor with D&D. I only really play with close friends, so I've never really experienced any of the problems you talk about. Incedentally, I also prefer books to movies. ;) Just had to say my bit... If one can look at D&D the right way, experience with video games can improve your roleplaying.
Molitor 04-13-06, 11:05 PM	Ya know, this might not be totally in response to the OP's post but here we go............I have a friend Chris and his twin boys love the game, I think they are 10. Anyways to see their faces light up when me and Chris talk about the game really feels good, it feels right. Then I remember being 10 and first learning about the game when I saw some kids playing it on a picnic table in 6th grade. The game seemed so filled with wonderment and mystery with the maps, funny dice I had never seen, and the creatures. To know that you could create a world and build friends through that world is just awesome. I'm going to go cry. Period.
cutsleeve 04-14-06, 01:23 AM	There have always been antisocial players we just have more creative names for them now. Munchkin or character optimizer instead of powergamer Player killer instead of A**hole we still have rules lawyers. I hate Rules lawyers theyre worse then real Lawyers and of course clone boy you knoiw the guy who mad the black skinned elf who is a chaotic good ranger wielding 2 scimitars. I think they would call him "Emo elf with swords" Basically we aren't seeing a precentage just the amounts more gamers = more gamers who dont know what an RPG really is.
a_psh 04-14-06, 02:07 AM	I greatly enjoy the fact that everything is simplified now and mostly consistant, but when you had to be a math wiz to play it really cut out the riff-raff. Intelligent people will almost always make better gamers. Creative people with ALWAYS make better gamers.The only truly annoying repetitive calculation that you had to do was THAC0, and that's just numerically cumbersome because it's subtraction rather than addition (addition being the more commonly used operation in gradeschool and everyday life). How is calculating a skill check and then figuring out the DC any easier mathematically than rolling d20 or d% on some random chart? You didn't have to be a math wiz to play D&D. Ever. Unless you just mean "reasonably proficient with arithmetic". If anything, I'd say the game is much more mathematically involved now because of the various possibilities that really didn't exist before... there weren't 1000 different ways to boost AC in OD&D. Nowadays, it's possible to approach various aspects of the game mechanics as optimization problems and really apply a lot of statistics and even a drop of game theory to figuring out optimal combinations of abilities. (E.g. now every level poses a new optimization challenge: what class do you take? what skills? what feats and spells? Should your rogue dip in lurk or ninja or shadowblade? Whereas in OD&D you were just an elf.) Now, yes, something can be said for the (somewhat self-inconsistent but) simple rules present in OD&D. But I wouldn't say standardizing the die roll mechanic has somehow dumbed down D&D. If you really care about "solving" games, 3/3.5e is 100 times more mathematical than previous editions.
a_psh 04-14-06, 02:23 AM	I'll also point out that a lot of the old D&D games you mention had simplistic plots, arbitrary designer/DM heavy-handedness, simplistic worlds, rules that were often simultaneously vague and restrictive, and, probably, the occasional fourth-wall-breaking pun or anachronism. When we look at the stuff you played as a kid and compare it to what kids are playing now, can we really say that it was less juvenile rather than just differently juvenile? Given gaming stories old and new, I find it hard to believe that the rabble(see footnote) have gotten much dumber. At the same time, the quality of a really top-notch game, whether it's focused on story or strategy, seems to have gotten higher. Is D&D more mainstream than before? Yes. Does that probably cause an uptake in the number of people who don't "get" roleplaying? Sure. Were most of the or 20-year-old games that certain folk like to reminisce about really full of deep characterization, moving plots, and serious strategic wargaming? No. (Who cares? You had fun!) In summary: most certainly, back in the day, gaming was different; I don't think you can convince me that it was across-the-board better, however. Of course, if we're talking about poor quality of gaming at a convention, comic book store, &c... err, duh? Footnote: Here, of course, we should note that, probably, something like 90% of posters on these boards naturally assuming they are in the top 10% of D&D players. Special snowflake blah blah. Yes, I know I'm guilty, too.
cutsleeve 04-14-06, 02:41 AM	I've been tempted for days to add this to my sig: Thac0 is for people who understand math. Paste this into your signature if you enjoyed playing old fashioned D&D. I haven't because it would be rude and for some unknown reason I keep telling myself im not that much of an A-hole.
Mitchell 04-14-06, 05:22 AM	Also, D&D has become Magicafide (as in MtG) since 3rd edition - which is good and bad. The only thing that really bugs me is the way the word "Broken" is thrown around all the time...about everything! Before 1993, you never heard the word "broken" used in a sentence pertaining to D&D. Not entirely true... 1st edition cavalier, anyone? :)
a_psh 04-14-06, 12:00 PM	Not entirely true... 1st edition cavalier, anyone? :)Oh, most certainly. I think the idea is that no one called it "broken" until the mid-90s, however. ...Dunno, I don't really mind a system where the mechanics are sufficiently standardized that I can actually discuss class balance, even if it does result in words like "broken," "overpowered," and "game balance" being thrown around a lot.
MongooseWarrior 04-14-06, 03:31 PM	WARNING: if my story rambles in diffrent directions I cant be held responsible for I am Bi-polar, am semi-retarded, and have Downsyndrome My heart goes out to all you old school gamers, AMISH HATS ALL THE WAY :tiphat: Anyhoo... I've been playin for 4-6 years first char, "bilbo ripoff-o-meter broken" Alton Underhill, famous for hitting on his cousin (to be fair he didn't know it) First group made up o' six friends, me, my bro and DM and his bro still play together, so dont get me started on mid-game fights. We play D20 Modern now but we'll get back to D&D sooner or later
solbergb 04-14-06, 03:43 PM	Guys, it's just different tastes. The "cutthroat D&D" campaign dates back at least to my childhood in the late 70s, where as a preteen I went to the local gaming store and engaged in a game where nobody could usually level past 2 because the campaign was so cash poor you could never pay training costs, where parties dissolved while walking to the dungeon in infighting, where evil halforc clerics and paladins were in the same party unbeknownst to each other, where paladins lost paladinhood due to normal playstyle and where deaths were frequent and the games were treated mostly as a tactical challenge. It's just a style of play. Some people enjoy it. I actually had some pretty memorable games there. In some ways it's not that different from things like Doom, except without the twitch. Problems occur when most folks want to play a normal cooperative game and someone at the table (it could be a player or DM) does not want to, or thinks it is one of the "competetive" kinds of games. That's the source of most of those posts. Some of it may just be immaturity. The "competetive" game, like the "Monty Haul" game and the "kill the gods" kinds of epic games tend to be more popular among younger gamers (this is a broad generalization, but when I was a teenager, I played in and enjoyed far more sessions of those kinds of games than as an adult, and judging from postings, those games are still out there, but I probably don't move in the right circles to encounter one)
Shinryouga 04-14-06, 05:16 PM	DnD is also a community game, it operates best and was designed for a group of 5 people. Here on the boards, we have a huge community that we can come to for advice and suggestions. But it is in human nature to dwell on the negative. A person who has everything they need has no need to worry, complain, or otherwise make a stir. But take away something from them, and they become vocal. We only make noises when something is amiss, look at infants. An infant giggles when happy, but that noise isn't nearly so loud as how it cries when hungry. A more contempory example would be the news media. There rarely is news regarding "this donation to this charity" or "several teens were seen at the mall today NOT shoplifting, NOT doing drugs, NOT harassing the elderly, and generally NOT setting a bad example". Our culture focuses on the negative, and it does paint a depressing picture when we don't realize that for every bad thing said, a hundred good ones go unsaid. Think I might start a "Great players/Awesome DM" thread. Just my two coppers.
celtredleg 04-14-06, 09:57 PM	I have played since 1977, and I saw every one of the bad play types listed here back then The only thing that is different is the ability to mix feats. But I always knew people that tried to mix classes to get the maximum power. Hey, I played the original cavalier, it wasnt broken at all. Of course thats only because we did not call it that then. I saw players plot against each other, and kill each other. I have heard the arguments that psi is just so cool that everybody should play it or you are lame and dumb. I have seen DMs take malitios glee in wipeing out a party. And all of this with out a single video game or bad fantasy movie. The thing is we did not post threads "my DM is an idiot". Instead we would all meet togather and spmebody would say " you know what that idiot dave ruled in his game last night?". Same thing, just to a smaller audience. Other than my wife, not a player in my current group is over 25. I think they are about as good gamers as my groups of 30 years ago. And I have had some poor gamers in recent days as well. I actualy believe we have fewer percentage of real whackos any more. Somebody on another thread recently comented on the creepy guy that plays the elf chick. I played with that same guy 25 years ago, and he really was creepy, the sort a mental health proffesional could found a career on. I have never ever seen a real woman act at all like the elf chick. But I dont seem to run into quite as many of the creepy guys any more. They are still there, but there are so many more people around now that you can ignore them. OP, I know this is not quite what you wanted to hear, but it is what I have observed. I am glad you had a great group for so long, but some of us have long familiarity with the not so good elements of the game.
allenchan 04-14-06, 10:14 PM	Like anything, the most radical and extreme of it garners the most attention, but is always the minority.
Duvanok 04-15-06, 02:15 AM	Well, I guess I am getting to be an "oldtimer", been playing since '90 though I don't remember the original boxed set which seems to be a prerequisite for calling yourself such. The great thing about this game is you can play it how you want to play it. The rules fit every type of play style imaginable. Are you a drama geek who loves stepping into the shoes of another character? Or are you a hack and slasher who is focused only on the battlegrid? Either end of the spectrum, and every step inbetween, the rules work. And who are we to say how the game should be played or which way is better? As for these boards. . . I have been around a little over two years and my experience has been that the responses I have received to my posts on these boards break down as follows: 50% insults/arguments/inflated egos. 20% complete misinterpretation of the original post. 30% Useful feeback/insight/information that is helpful to my game. I have learned to ignore the inflated egos and not take things personally, and I've been around long enough to know who to just ignore and who to take seriously. Overall, I still think these boards are a valuable tool. They've saved my group from some of my more imaginative house rules. :)