The Gaming Den

A claim that 3.x was played because of any desire to 'be more like Magic' is ridiculous. Magic: The Gathering nearly destroyed 2nd edition in my neck of the woods. I had a regular gaming group and half the time when I showed up to play, they decided to play Magic instead. It was also easier to play a game of Magic at lunch in High School.

Magic remained a choice when 3.x was released (as it does now - people still play it and I could join regular tournaments in my neck of the woods). But when 3.x came out, I saw people 'come back' to RPGs that had been driven out by the Magic craze.

infected slut princess wrote:In the wishlist thread, you made the claim that D&D was killed when people started playing 3e because they wanted to tell stories. Are you going to back up THAT bullshit claim with proof?

no, i said in that thread you should come read this one, in which it seems you still ahve not. the first post outlines where i am discussing the game moving from an adventure game to a storytelling game. a game which people played to take an adventure was turned into a game made for people to tell their mini-novella of their pet character.

try reading the first post in this thread. my proof is there as well litter through this thread with DMW's posts, and the existence of the "wishlist" thread itself is further proof.

the objective of play has gone from people playing out an adventure, to playing a specific narrow-focus character concept (Drizzt-clone) in order to tell the story of that character at their children's bedtime.

Vol 1 Men & Magic, 1973 wrote:But those whose imaginations know no bounds will find that these rules are the answer to their prayers. With this last bit of advice we invite you to read on and enjoy a "world" where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!

AD&D PHB, 1978 wrote:ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is a world.

Holmes BD&D, 1978 wrote:With this last bit of advice we invite you to read on and enjoy a "world" where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!


Dungeons & Dragons is a fantastic, exciting and imaginative game of role playing for adults 12 years and up. Each player creates a character or characters who may be dwarves, elves, halflings or human fighting men, magic-users, pious clerics or wily thieves. The characters are then plunged into an adventure....

Holmes added the lower portion above

Mentzer BD&D PM, 1983 wrote:The DUNGEONS & DRAGONS@ game is a way for us to imagine together - like watching the same movie, or reading the same book. But you can write the stories, without putting a word on paper - just by playing the D&D@ game.
You, along with your friends, will create a great fantasy story, you will put it away after each game, and go back to school or work, but - like a book - the adventure will wait. It’s better than a book, though; it will keep going as long as you like.

When you bought some other game or book, did you ever think, “Gee, that’s nice, but it’s not quite what I thought it would be”? Well, your D&D adventures will be just what you want, because you’re the one making them up!

Yes Frank uses the word story, but notice he STOPS using it rather quickly, when he tries to get people to understand the game is about adventures. you can retell the story later, but it is about playing the adventure.

RC, 1991 wrote:Role-playing games are much like radio adventures, except for one important detail: they're interactive. One player provides the narrative and some of the dialogue, but the other players, instead of just sitting and envisioning what's going on, actually participate. Each player controls the actions of a character in the story, decides on his actions, supplies his character's dialogue, and makes decisions based on the character's personality and his current game options.

again story is mentioned, but you are trying to tell me that adventure is synonymous with story?

2e PHB, 1989/199? wrote:It is not a sophisticated game, but it has the essential element that makes a role-playing game: The player is placed in the midst of an unknown or dangerous situation created by a referee and must work his way through it.
This is the heart of role-playing. The player adopts the role of a character and then guides that character through an adventure.

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

D&D is NOT Mad-Libs, where you fill in a few nouns and verbs and make a story. that is a story telling game. D&D is about adventure and the fantasy world; NOT YOUR singular character.

PO:C&T, 1994 wrote:The AD&D game is about more than combat, but what fantasy adventure is complete without at least one pitched battle where the heroes prevail by the strength of their sword arms and the sharpness of their wits? The Combat & Tactics book is for anyone whose heart races (as mine does) at the thought of clashing arms; not just hack ‘n slash, but heroic battles with swirling action, ringing steel, and eldritch flashes of magic.

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

ok adding C&T might be a bit of an asshole thing to do since i decry PO as being the starting point to destroy D&D, but it still focuses on fantasy adventure, NOT a storytelling tool for a pet character.

[quote="PO:S&P, 1995]The central concept behind the Player’s Option books is player choice. We wanted to expand the AD&D game in ways that had never been explored before. We hoped to offer the players and DMs of the AD&D game more options (there’s that word again) than they ever had. We wanted to give those who play the AD&D game more choices, more control over their game and their characters than was previously considered possible. We hope we’ve succeeded, but in truth, that decision is not in our hands. You, the DMs and players of the game will have the final say in this matter.

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.[/quote]

i made the bolded portion from the book above be underlined so that my bolding could stand out from it. and HERE is where the story game began. the story of the pet Drizzt-clone for the player's personal mini-novella. this is what became the LEADING force in "player entitlement". This was also not that popular in MANY areas and mostly new players picked joined with it, or older players wanting to twist races or classes a bit to do something other than the PHBR series offered.

Skills & Powers is the book that later lead to 3.0 and created the mini-novella attitude. players failed to see this "control" as being something to add that the GAME never had before, but instead used it as a player v DM vantage point. gimme gimme gimme, i want more. they lsoit sight of the game and were more interested in their characters. this is evident in older areas of internet discussions, tho i don't have access to them. at that time i was on AOL, and all discussions there are lost.

the game moved form being about the adventure and world to play in, to something that was designed for players to get their jollies off on some uber character, some CharOp, some Munchkin that they could try to tell a story about.

it lost the whole point of being thrown into the situation and figuring out how to get it. it was like everyone trying to play Boy Scouts in medieval times, thought there were no spoons and forks in Medieval times.... they tried to beat the game before playing it, so that they could tell that story and look important to their peers.

deaddmwalking wrote:A claim that 3.x was played because of any desire to 'be more like Magic' is ridiculous.

no i said that the MtG company being a leader in marketing had effect on 3.0, wherein LW didnt give 2 shits about gamers or even promoting the products. aside form the fact that MtG created game stores that sort of helped promote. the marketing abilities of the times greatly affected the sales of 3.0 and that can be denied by nobody. it cannot be proven the edition on its own merits are what caused 3.0 to sell, because the world was changing at the time and ALL those changes affect EVERYTHING. that was my point.

shadzar wrote:
no, i said in that thread you should come read this one, in which it seems you still ahve not. the first post outlines where i am discussing the game moving from an adventure game to a storytelling game. a game which people played to take an adventure was turned into a game made for people to tell their mini-novella of their pet character.

try reading the first post in this thread. my proof is there as well litter through this thread with DMW's posts, and the existence of the "wishlist" thread itself is further proof.

Your argument in the first post is asinine. It can be summed up like this:

1) D&D is a game for creating stories adventures.
2) Over time rules evolved to give characters interesting abilities to do stuff in the story adventure.
3) Anything that lets characters have interesting abilities is bad.
Therefore Players Options: Skills & Powers ruined D&D forever.

This argument is total shit for many reasons, one of which is that Premise 3 is totally fucking stupid.

no, you jsut cant read....

1. the game was made about adventures rather than single combats. these combats together for a campaign that give adventure more than just one battle then move to the next.

2. options were given for some reason that is not understood be many, to add more shit and bonuses to your character stats.

3. people took these bonuses and decided to stop playing adventures or caring about them, and only worried about the bonuses of their own character, the rest of the players be damned cause in reality they only play for themselves and only their character matters to them.

it went from everyone playing out an adventure to just individual trying to make their own character the MVP.

shadzar wrote: 1. the game was made about adventures rather than single combats. these combats together for a campaign that give adventure more than just one battle then move to the next.

From what I can glean from that, are you suggesting that post 3.0 games do not have campaigns? If so, where the fuck would you get that idea from?

shadzar wrote:2. options were given for some reason that is not understood be many, to add more shit and bonuses to your character stats.

This one is even more difficult to read. A +2 is not a real option, and that's what 3.x brought to light. After the second edition, you could do numerous different things, in combat and outside of it, instead of pleading the DM to let you. The options you keep referring to as harmful to the game, sorry, THE GAME, are actually empowering to the players, who are supposed to partake in how the adventure proceeds. I can summarize it further:

Q: Who decides what the adventure is?
2nd edition: The DM, and the players have fuck-all to say about it.
3rd edition: Everyone at the table.

This is not a bad thing.

shadzar wrote:3. people took these bonuses and decided to stop playing adventures or caring about them, and only worried about the bonuses of their own character, the rest of the players be damned cause in reality they only play for themselves and only their character matters to them.

Now you're once again confusing ruleset and players. So you ran into a group of people who were selfish at the table and were better at the rules than you. I understand how that has to be painful, but condemn a set of rules for adventures and stories because you met some people you don't like? shadzar, do you even see the difference between bad game books and bad players?

Shadzar has basically adopted TheRPGSite's incoherent crusade against "storygames", which is why he isn't making any sense.

I don't know what the fuck Shadzar wants from a game, as everything placed in front of him is something he hates. Games can't be focused on the story or the mechanics or the PCs and you can't try to meet somewhere in the middle either. Gear and stats are crutches that keep you from making interesting characters but anyone who writes a background for their character is a prima-donna who needs to be slapped down.

I can sort of make sense of Shadzar there on the following line.

[*]In Skills & Powers, you either build for a story-game or you break the fucking game. Like, S&P characters are wildly out of line with the monsters of the time if you try to optimise for monster-killing ability, and the difference between optimising and not is impossible to play with.
[*]So the only people allowed to use S&P where basket-weavers. In 1996, the people using character-building tools from GURPS or said revised 2nd edition hate-crime books where all story-telling anti-gamist people. You know, there's a dragon, so you have tea and negotiate and making the DM feel good about your characterisation is how you win.

[*]Shadzar has never read 3e as a game tool, and can't see it as a game tool, because he is blinded by long-scarred butt-hurt from '96 about basket-weaving story-gamers using similar complex character-building tools.

Man that's a lot of dashes. Anyway.

[*]So, in disbelieving 3e can be used to be a hard-core gamist (even though it totally can), he in turn assumes character-building tools are only for basket-weavers, people who don't face fair rules-based challenges.

When, really, 3e is superb at supporting fair, rules-based challenges, presented by an iron-hearted DM, and a bit crap about punishing people for being basket-weavers in the slightest, in ways that AD&D never was in either edition.

Which Shadzar with totally disagree with, in some loose tangental way focusing on a side point up there somewhere, but might be right anyway.

Desdan_Mervolam wrote:I don't know what the fuck Shadzar wants from a game.

This is what Shadzar wants from a game. I'm not even being ironic here. If you have more control over your character than what's shown in this story, then you're a dirty powergamer more interested on character building than on roleplaying magical adventures.

Red Archon wrote:

shadzar wrote: 1. the game was made about adventures rather than single combats. these combats together for a campaign that give adventure more than just one battle then move to the next.

From what I can glean from that, are you suggesting that post 3.0 games do not have campaigns? If so, where the fuck would you get that idea from?

i am saying that post S&P people focused and put more importance on their character and ignored thee were other people playing with characters of their own, and forgot they were playing a game. either they want to tell their mini-novella about their own Drizzt-clone, or they are trying to build a swiss-army-knife character to "win", and not play out an adventure.

WotC has placed this concept into the games design that the singular player's character has such importance. 3.x with WBL/CR/DC/ECL/feats/skills/etc is too focused on creating characters as such is 4th and DDN, because it is build of the d20 system; and it breeds the idea that the character is the thing you are playing, rather than a game.

Again, Punpun as i have learned is a thought exercise, but do NOT tell me that people didnt use it as a CharOp tool to try to make Munchkins or tell stories with D&D as if they were Conan to begin with. Frex, superheros to start such as in 4th.

the "build" of the character is and has been for what seems the majority of players and the recent design philosophy, MORE important than the game itself.

consider what 3.0 tried to do. it tried to make the rules more clear, so where did all that other info go about PLAYING the game, rather than adjudicating rules or rules to adjudicate? then got removed or LOST in the mountains of stats and modifiers to this and that. so either add a few hunder pages of feats and skills and new rules subsystems like the new save system, or just cut those bits of information about it being a game and how to design or play adventures. hell 4th edition previews "just kill stuff and take its shit, dont traipse through faerie rings and talk to little people" and you can see on Youtube that same fucking moron James Wyatt trying to metagame the entire time in the livestream DDN playtest they did even right from the start, wherein the other player reminds him "we arent together you will have to find out later when we regroup!" when the design team doesnt understand what the game is about or how it should be played, you are going to have bad design.

what the game needs isnt "back to the dungeon" cause 2nd had plenty of that, but dungeon didnt mean under a castle or caverns in a mountain side, it just showed a "dungeon" was a locale where you had similar functions. a house could be a "dungeon" as it wasnt just open area like a plains. city streets could be a dungeon. no, the problem is the game needs to get "back to the adventure". YOUR character you play is 1/5 or so of ALL playing and has that little importance. it should be important to YOU, but not the other players at your table, and NOT to every Tom Harry Dick around the world. i dont mean mountains of settings need to return like DDN cause they jsut is too much crap and half of them were just bad or like Planescape, didnt even belong in D&D as i mentioned somewhere about "mass combat" it requires altering the characters so much in order to do that "high-level" or "epic-level" it is like Frank Menzter said you have to throw out D&D and pretty much play another game to get to be able to do that such as in Immortals.

there is jsut so much ni recent PHBs about how to make a character, they are no longer player HANDBOOK, but character design instruction books. they need to be more involved in how to play together, not how to interact with the mechanics of the other party members. that is the shit the DM has to deal with, the player should be coming up with ideas they want to try, not selecting off their shopping list which ability to use.

this is why it dumbfounds me that DMW and other people could not play: Jack the human fighter owning a hammer (carried) and loincloth (being worn), and that being the only information they have as far as "rules" are concerned. but as i am saying, they forgot how to play D&D, and only want to build character is why. people forgot what D&D wa for and need to ALL get back to the basics of the adventure; players, DMs, and designers alike.

shadzar wrote: this is why it dumbfounds me that DMW and other people could not play: Jack the human fighter owning a hammer (carried) and loincloth (being worn), and that being the only information they have as far as "rules" are concerned. but as i am saying, they forgot how to play D&D, and only want to build character is why. people forgot what D&D wa for and need to ALL get back to the basics of the adventure; players, DMs, and designers alike.

It's not 'could not play'. It is 'chooses not to play'. Jack with a hammer doesn't sound particularly interesting. Now, I could probably build an interesting character off of that, but since I'm basically starting from nothing, I don't feel a need to constrain myself to that particular setup. So I don't.

Despite your protestations to the contrary, I'm pretty convinced that you use tokens and not characters.

When I play Monopoly, I ascribe a personality to my token. It doesn't mean the game doesn't play exactly the same whether I'm the dog or the race car.

shadzar wrote: this is why it dumbfounds me that DMW and other people could not play: Jack the human fighter owning a hammer (carried) and loincloth (being worn), and that being the only information they have as far as "rules" are concerned.

LOL. Jack the fighter with a hammer and loincloth... that sounds fucking stupid. No one would play a game like that unless they were a slobbering retard. Your darling 2e was more robust than that. What the fuck is wrong with you?

infected slut princess wrote:What the fuck is wrong with you?

I know that's a rhetorical question, but the actual answer is "2nd Edition AD&D".

2e is honestly shadzar's answer to everything evar! Also, it did strange Lovecraftian mind-waqrping things to every single one of the gamers who clung to it for much time aftet the advent of 3e D&D.

For years now I have been interpreting "2e is my favorite edition of D&D" as "I belong on your ignore list", and I cannot possibly stress strongly enough how much I think the general populace should as well.

I have no idea what kind of a state of mental instability caused me to a) read a shad post and b) respond to one. I think I may do too much drugs.

Josh_Kablack wrote:For years now I have been interpreting "2e is my favorite edition of D&D" as "I belong on your ignore list", and I cannot possibly stress strongly enough how much I think the general populace should as well.

Is that an explicit que to shill my Our Favorite Edition is 2E... thread like I do about every 8 months or so?

Because it looks like one.

deaddmwalking wrote:

shadzar wrote: this is why it dumbfounds me that DMW and other people could not play: Jack the human fighter owning a hammer (carried) and loincloth (being worn), and that being the only information they have as far as "rules" are concerned. but as i am saying, they forgot how to play D&D, and only want to build character is why. people forgot what D&D was for and need to ALL get back to the basics of the adventure; players, DMs, and designers alike.

It's not 'could not play'. It is 'chooses not to play'. Jack with a hammer doesn't sound particularly interesting. Now, I could probably build an interesting character off of that, but since I'm basically starting from nothing, I don't feel a need to constrain myself to that particular setup. So I don't.

you are literally the one that chose jack with a hammer. i just gave him a loincloth so he isnt running around nude.

http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=335566#335566

deaddmwalking wrote:Play Jack with a hammer is not as interesting as playing Jack - wandering the west with a sledgehammer proving that human mettle is more enduring than any machine.

you still fail to understand that the shit listed on the sheet is not ALL there is, it is just the "mechanics". but you still never can understand that. you need a mechanic to add this personality you put in above. NOBODY said that Jack couldn't have that personality, you just wrongfully assume that. because you still wont listen to the example being given.

i still believe you would be unable to play due to a lack of competence. you put so much into the mechanics of this and that you can't even see how you ALREADY gave Jack a personality in YOUR example, but then continue to claim it would be interesting, when you already made it interesting for you. you are not but a twat.

it really is that simple. you took the dimple info from example B long ago and already gave it a personality that interests you, then turn around and say it wouldn't be interesting. you are lying. the only thing you want is a way to Munchkin your way into the game with the mechanics.

infected slut princess wrote:

shadzar wrote: this is why it dumbfounds me that DMW and other people could not play: Jack the human fighter owning a hammer (carried) and loincloth (being worn), and that being the only information they have as far as "rules" are concerned.

LOL. Jack the fighter with a hammer and loincloth... that sounds fucking stupid.

it is what DDMW chose so blame him for it sounding stupid.

seriously are people that stupid to not be able to understand the original components of that earlier question? it had 2 parts, A and B. if you weren't confident in your ability to read, then you should have asked more questions about them. so ask now since it seems you ahve to be handheld not only in playing where your babysitter DM pampers you, but in having a conversation too.

which parts of A and B do you people NOT understand? we know DDMW doesn't understand either because he continues to fuck up what a pre-gen is from part A.

A Pre-Gen is a character I didn't make myself. I understand that.

I've explained that I could (with some effort) try to make an interesting character with a pre-gen as long as the mechanics don't begin to contradict the personality I'm developing. In the case of random/carelessly considered decisions, the likelihood of hitting a mechanical attribute that doesn't match with the character personality I'm developing is extremely high. Even in 2nd edition with Non-Weapon Proficiencies.

My wandering jungle-boy character is poorly served by a 'sailor' NWP.

To avoid that situation completely, I'd either have to play a system with virtually no mechanics (which I don't find interesting) or I'd have to make a character myself with a view of choosing details that support the character vision I have.

I 'could' play anything. I could play a 1-hp dirt farmer trying to grow turnips in a hostile world. But I don't want to. I play D&D to go on adventures and experience heroic fantasy.

You agree that what character you are matters. We simply disagree on the degree. You're (apparently) happy with any random race/class combination as long as you can go adventuring (but you don't want to play a dirt farmer whose sole goal is to grow a bumper crop), but I think that the character matters more.

Because I don't view characters are completely interchangeable pieces (tokens), I experience the game differently depending on what my character is like. This includes personality (which if I may stress - I believe is reflected in mechanical choices) and mechanical choices. I could play the game with a character that I don't enjoy playing, but why would I?

The game is better (subjective term) when players have characters they enjoy and go on adventures they enjoy.

ok. as long as you DO understand now, which you did NOT indicate int he beginning, that a pre-gen does NOT have a defined personality or motives for adventuring, then we got THAT out of the way. but the thing is even with the "sailor" NWP, it means little except what stupid skill or whatever it offers. you can't claim you came from the jungle no, but you can say he left sailing to be a jungle boy. you lsoe some backstory to be able to get into the game.

like the DL pregens, you dont have to be the hopeless wandering homeless bum that is Tanis in the books, unless YOU and YOUR DM agree that is what will happen a you play through DLCs. it is YOUR Tanis from that point on after you have been given its quick stats.

background lost yes, but future is what YOU make of it as the player.

To avoid that situation completely, I'd either have to play a system with virtually no mechanics

for all intents and purposes this is what part B tries to show. you get NO mechanics, though they are there and YOU chose JAck, hammer, and human. i jsut added fighter since he has a hammer, and loincloth for the previous reason. and THAT is all the mechanics you have. HOW you play him is up to YOU still. nothing says he cannot be a jungle boy. but the common exceptions apply to backstory. you arent some rich fuck with connections int he world to buy everything as that is just being a fucking Munchkin.

what you do in the game will be determined on YOUR actions as you play it. you jsut dont get cluttered by the rules. again the 3.5 games day i played when i told the person to turn the character shet over ansd tell me what was on it. he replied "nothing", and i told him that is what the character is. HE msut be the one to decide how to play and what he wants to do. then he made a few ideas what he would like to do, turned the sheet over and looked to see if he had the EQUIPMENT to make those ideas happen, and with that equipment and the bar/tavern we were in, his idea was possible. the mechanics didnt matter at that point because he understood that it was HIS choices that were more important than what the character sheet had. yes, i know the game day thing had pre-gens but for someone completely new, it is pretty much as much to understand Jack Human Fighter Hammer as it is to get confused by all the numbers and shit and get lost in them and NEVER be able to find the game again.

which i emphasize MANY people end up doing, getting lost in the numbers and forget the game exists.

your comment about giving personality to the racecar in Monopoly shows you dont understand what a token is, and are probably 11 years old, so let us not confuse you further with a term you dont understand and we will stop the mention of tokens henceforth.

You agree that what character you are matters. We simply disagree on the degree. You're (apparently) happy with any random race/class combination as long as you can go adventuring (but you don't want to play a dirt farmer whose sole goal is to grow a bumper crop), but I think that the character matters more.

YOU put too much importance ont he character. that is the entire point of the thread. and you are wrong. i have preferred character ideas at times, but i enjoy D&D, not just being Elf/Wizard. i am able to MAKE any character work to my liking, unless it is a bard, assassin, or psionicists.. those just dont belong in D&D and i wont play with them anywhere near it.

to YOU the character must be Elf/Wizard for you to enjoy it. the only reason possible if that you are more interested in playing your character, than playing the game. the game isnt about making your uber character. you can give ANY character ANY personality you want to, you jsut are too lazy to do so or whatever excuse you have that you must write your mini-novella about your own personal Drizzt-clone so maybe one day someone will scout you and ask you to write a novel about your pet character concept.

it is like Bill Cosby said, you re not really a parent if you have only one child, because if something gets broke you know who did it. if you are unable to play a character you didn't create then you are not really a D&D player, you are a character player.

let us add a part C.

while i dont allow others to play my characters, would you? you put so much work into them and the mechanics, would you want someone else to change their personality and style of interacting?

i doubt you would.

part D:

would you play someone else's character EXACTLY as they would play it and be able to have fun playing D&D, even though it wasn't YOUR character, YOU designed from the ground up and painted every freckle?

again, i doubt you would.

C shows i invest in my character, but it isnt the chargen i invest in, it is the work done DURING play that i invest in.

shadzar wrote:
it is what DDMW chose so blame him for it sounding stupid.

You are dumb, because DDMW said he wouldn't choose to play with that character because it is so lame.

You are the guy arguing that everyone should play characters who are lame. Characters who cannot do anything without blowing the DM. With that in mind, I don't know why you don't sit and fap to Mike Mearls and 5e every night.

You see, you and Mearls share something. You both want the players to have characters who suck so the DM can rape them with fiat at his leisure.

FACT: The ego tripping selfish player is not the guy who wants his character to have cool abilities. It's the fucked up DM like you who hates any ability for a character to do anything. That's why you want characters to be nothing more than a name and an item list on a piece of paper. Yet not even 2e is so pathetically limited and shitty as that. You are incoherent.

In reality, people want to be characters who are awesome. And if everyone has characters who are awesome, the only one retarded enough to consider that a problem is you. Because you are an RPG caveman living in the stone age.

PhoneLobster's "our favorite edition is 2nd edition" story covers your attitude perfectly. You want impotent, inept characters with no ability to do anything in the game.

Go ahead and complain about Skills & Powers like a whiny little bitch. You are like the Paul Krugman of RPGs -- every argument you make just provides more evidence that the antithesis of your position is correct.

no, you are showing how much Bob you are when playing Monopoly. you MUST be the racecar or will throw a temper tantrum.

people want to play D&D to adventure, again that is what was lost. people want to tell STORIES of characters.

that is what separates D&D that was from Munchkin the WotCing that came out in 2000.

this spoon-fed diaper wearing children throwing tantrums that they don't get their way is EXACTLY the problem with the design now. there are countless other games out there that offered what you want, so WHY did you have to invade D&D with it, just so you could claim you are playing D&D? the permeton moron on ENWorld claims EVERYTHING he/she plays is D&D while not even using ANYTHING from the D&D product lines.

you really are an invasion force or a damn virus/cancer to the game because it must change for you to like it, when D&D doesn't NEED you to like it. you can go find something else to play, D&D doesn't need you. D&D isn't your mummy or daddy there to coddle you cause you wet the bed last night. it does NOT need you, nor the things you try to bring to it.

you can play something else, so WHY do you need it to be called D&D? just to take away D&D from those who DID/DO like it?

considering i call you a virus is not that far off since you named yourself "infected" slut princess.

So... Wait.

Is your position that you shouldn't be allowed to play a character you like. That it is only real D&D if you have to play a character you don't enjoy playing?

Seriously shadazar, you are sounding more and more ridiculous at each turn. How do you not get this? We are going on adventures with characters we enjoy going on adventures with. Do you think Red Hand of Doom, one of the most popular 3e modules, isn't an adventure?

As for why we "took" D&D from you, grow up and stop acting like a whiny baby. You never owned D&D in the first place. D&D is a name for an adventure game. We have a different idea of what constitutes a good adventure game than you. Ours is just as D&D, if not more so. The reason it is more so is because there are more of us that prefer D&D in our way.

Go play Adventuring the Adventure game, where you are only allowed to adventure with characters you don't enjoy adventuring with, instead of D&D, your claim to the name of D&D is not as strong as ours.

shadzar wrote: people want to play D&D to adventure, again that is what was lost. people want to tell STORIES of characters.

No. It's always been that way. People played 2e because they wanted to create cool stories with a fun game. People played 3e because they wanted to create cool stories with a fun game. That's why they played adventures and campaigns in both 2e and 3e and not Battle Arena Tournament with just combat rules.

You are just too much like Mike Mearls to understand that.

you really are an invasion force or a damn virus/cancer to the game because it must change for you to like it, when D&D doesn't NEED you to like it. you can go find something else to play, D&D doesn't need you. D&D isn't your mummy or daddy there to coddle you cause you wet the bed last night. it does NOT need you, nor the things you try to bring to it.

you can play something else, so WHY do you need it to be called D&D? just to take away D&D from those who DID/DO like it?

Here's the thing: When most normal people played 2e, they liked it. And they liked it because they could play the game and create stories with their friends.

And when 3e came out, most normal people thought it made some good improvements to 2e. But the core was the same -- playing the game and creating stories with friends.

Nothing has changed. Despite your claims to know the "true meaning of D&D", you seem to have the worst understanding of D&D out of anyone I have ever seen.

I don't understand why either side of this argument keeps on coming back. Shadzar will always continue to ignore your questions while saying very dumb things, and everyone else will just ask him new questions about the dumb things hr said (which he will then ignore).

You win by letting the thread die. For the love of god let the thread die.

...You Lost Me wrote:You win by letting the thread die. For the love of god let the thread die.

I said let the thread die before it was cool. But now that letting the thread die has sold out, they suck.