Arguments in favor of magic item wishlists.

[Username17]

BTW, "Greyhawking" for those not interested in looking it up like I did, is what it sounds like based on the context here. Loot all the things.

I am pretty sure that Greyhawking does not refer to looting all the vendor trash and selling it, but instead refers specifically to the act of looting your own corpse.

IE: You are a party of four level 10s and the assorted gear. One of you dies. A new character shows up with or without gear. In either case, the party or the new individual immediately loots the dead party member, thus having incredible wealths.

You're wrong.

Greyhawking refers to stripping the scenery of everything not nailed down and then taking crowbars to all the valuables that are in order to sell them. It is a thing that happened because RPGA started laying down the assumption that the players got all available treasure, so if you didn't take literally everything, you were behind the curve.

-Username17

[ishy]

I notice that then discussions never seem to touch on player crafted items. If players have some ability to craft the items they absolutely need. It seems like you could totally have a system where you chose between using a stronger item that was randomly generated or crafting a weaker item that's tailored to your own personal abilities.

Crafting is just an implementation of using X currency to do wish lists.
That X currency can be anything from gold pieces to metagame currency.

[Bihlbo]

I notice that then discussions never seem to touch on player crafted items. If players have some ability to craft the items they absolutely need. It seems like you could totally have a system where you chose between using a stronger item that was randomly generated or crafting a weaker item that's tailored to your own personal abilities.

Crafting is just an implementation of using X currency to do wish lists.
That X currency can be anything from gold pieces to metagame currency.

If the player crafts it, the only "wish" part of the process is the downtime required to do the work. As in, "Hey Kevin, we've been in a dungeon, running from baddies, hunting for food, lost in the etherial plane, and working from dawn to dusk to establish a town without a break for 4 levels now... are we ever going to get downtime? I have class features that allow me to make items, but that requires downtime."*

If a wish list is anything from a "list of terrorist demands" to "feedback for the GM on things you think are cool," then crafting is "terrorists buying groceries" or "things you think are cool that the GM doesn't need to care about." Very different things.

* - This exact thing happened to me. We got a week, then it was 3 more levels of non-stop activity.

[Drolyt]

no you found the root of YOUR problems and many like you.

Right, I've been playing D&D "wrong" for the past decade.

i dont consider anything WotC has done to be D&D, so if that is all you hav played then yes you have been playing D&D wrong. Mars can put the PAYDAY candy bar logo on a turd, but it will not be a Payday candy bar. (see Caddyshack). their right to use the name D&D doesnt not grant them that everyone will agree they have used it correctly, only that they are the only ones legally allowed to use the name.

My god. I apologize, but I now understand why everyone talks about you the way they do. I probably shouldn't feed the troll, but here I go. 3rd edition was my first TTRPG. I have played AD&D (and Basic) a bit (a lot if you count video games based on the ruleset) and found it inferior to 3rd edition almost across the board. So yeah, if AD&D is the only real D&D (which is bullshit, 3e is a natural evolution of 2e + Player's Option) then D&D is an outdated and largely inferior product. Unfortunately the same cannot be said of 3e, even though it is no longer supported there is no natural successor.

[name_here]

This happens to everyone after arguing with shadzar a few times.

[shadzar]

BTW, "Greyhawking" for those not interested in looking it up like I did, is what it sounds like based on the context here. Loot all the things.

Unless I'm mistaken it's based on the idea that every item has a value, and the way to get rich is to be a party of Katamari Damacy-like powergamers, relying on the basic assumption that complicated, realistic economies are really hard to make for an rpg therefore every shop just buys everything you have. Like playing Skyrim with an unlimited carrying capacity. Greyhawking is a great example of metagaming wealth at the expense of roleplaying or making an attempt at realism, or as Shadzar would put it, "Playing your Drizzt clone instead of bartering a limitless griffon." Because you know, he didn't understand where he was or what had been said before he started typing.

No, Greyhawking is where idiots like James Wyatt get the idea that the game is only about killing things and taking their stuff. not everyone Greyhawks. 3rd forced kender with the "affinity" rules to Greyhawk certain things that they had an affinity for, but you didnt try to take home every statue to sell. also Gryhawking wasnt always about selling the things, nor gaining power. it was in MANY cases the fact that under the edition where it gained its namesake, people actually had a home or keep or stronghold, so those statues were less expenses rather than treasure gained. jsut through the statue you found in X in your stronghold and make yourself look more powerful and prominent to the peons, peasants ans serfs. hang the goblin orgy tapestry over your banquet table, etc.

the point is that minutia you are talking about is STILL treasure, but never gets put on the WBL or treasure parcels accounting books. and if you DO need kindling and the kobold just disappears, then you are fucked by the DM for not letting you "Greyhawk" the kobold.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised you didn't get it, since you can't read.

no, you can't read dumbass, the previous example given by SOMEONE OTHER THAN ME, was how something like Bees disappear in Diablo i think and treasure becomes a chain shirt or some shit. i dont even remember at this point, but there is no reason bees should turn into a chain short. it has nothing to do with can you get kobold blood from a kobold, but the fact that the kobold would have turned into a vial of kobold blood, and you got NOTHING else that it had. in the case of the bees, you didnt get the bee-stinger if you wanted it, it was taken away form you as an option. THAT is what the example further discusses. maybe you should read what you quote, and in the case you read it from a thread, try reading what THAT person quoted, and if confused backtrack to where the idea came from.

yes, you can get kobold blood from a kobold, but the point is it doesnt make evrey damn thinig else disappear the kobold had. ALL that kobold equipment and the kobold itself is treasure.

See Gulliver's Travels, where his treasure was a Wasp Sting. would have been impossible if the wasp disappeared like an MMO mob and "dropped" a chain shirt instead wouldn't it? hell i KNOW i was under more heavy medication those several days ago when i read that example and i even still remember it. maybe you should refresh your memory of this thread to even know WHAT is being discussed? aka, go back and read the thread to know what examples are being used!

EDIT: forgot this part...

and the ONLY things that CAN be ignored as treasure are what the PLAYERS choose to ignore. a DM has NO right to say, you don't get to eat the kobold it vanishes without reason for it to just so the DM can be a lazy fuck and not do the job of a DM to have records of the proper treasure.

EVERY goddamn thing that can be taken away by the players MUST be generated because you NEVER know when your players may wish to Greyhawk some place, thing, or person. Just because you can't dig up the bush outside Freeport in EQ doesn't mean a D&D game has those limitations and if a player wants the goddamn bush, you have no choice for to fucking detail it out! Welcome to the REAL treasure system in a TTRPG, not this wishlist shit.

[shadzar]

BTW, "Greyhawking" for those not interested in looking it up like I did, is what it sounds like based on the context here. Loot all the things.

I am pretty sure that Greyhawking does not refer to looting all the vendor trash and selling it, but instead refers specifically to the act of looting your own corpse.

IE: You are a party of four level 10s and the assorted gear. One of you dies. A new character shows up with or without gear. In either case, the party or the new individual immediately loots the dead party member, thus having incredible wealths.

no, that is called inheriting. the new PC inherits the possessions of the dead one. or just looting your dead buddy if the gear is split between the party rather than bringing the new PC up to speed or in effect "cloning" the old PC by giving the new one all its old gear.

*ninja'd by Frank... didn't see there was another page until AFTER posting this reply....

[shadzar]

3rd edition was my first TTRPG.

i am so sorry, also sorry thee is no counselor to help you in this case.

I have played AD&D (and Basic) a bit (a lot if you count video games based on the ruleset) and found it inferior to 3rd edition almost across the board.

no, you can NOT count ANY video game based on D&D in any form to represent it. not even a NWN game where the DMi is actually present as opposed to a PW, because the Aurora engine has limitations that are equal to those of MMOs and ALL computer games, that things missing from the coding can NEVER be added to it.

FRUA also didn't play the same, nor did any of the SSI series, though they were close and would give you a D&D "fix", they were still bound by the limits of a computer to not be able to function a real game of D&D. the example i like to use best is climbing a tree in a forest to see how deep in it you are. this is just not possible in MOST video games. BAulder's gate fails also because it may be built upon a collection of the rules, it fails at being able to be a TTRPG experience since it has still those computer programming limitations, which a DM has not.


i will place you into the unfortunate category of people how came to D&D from video games and were spoiled on them and don;t understand TTRPG roots.

there is a reason you NEVER hear about the EverQuest TTRPG anymore, because people that liked EQ didn't like TTRPGs, and well it translated very shitty as a TTRPG, because they couldn't figure out how to make it as open as it should be since they couldn't limit player actions based on the programming limitations.

So yeah, if AD&D is the only real D&D (which is bullshit, 3e is a natural evolution of 2e + Player's Option) then D&D is an outdated and largely inferior product. Unfortunately the same cannot be said of 3e, even though it is no longer supported there is no natural successor.

is a horse outdated? you are saying that because you want to drive a car, horses should be killed off. that is the equivalent to saying 2nd is outdated. it was NOT an innovation to created S&P not was it a vertical move to reach a higher peak. it was just a fork in the road. funny we still have roads that allow people to go left, and ones that allow people to go right.

i do NOT deny people having a game they like as an option for them as a past-time. i DO deny that people should have the right to kill something that others like in order to take its stuff. like what i did there?

people that wanted that shit that 3.x offers, could have had it in their own game. they didn't need to convert D&D for all into it. this is the REAL edition war. it is practically the same as every religion fighting over Jerusalem. D&D is NOT your Jerusalem or Byzantia. you have no right to take it over and change its name to Constantinople, unless you in turn are willing to have it taken from you and turned into Istanbul!

that is basically what WotC (Rome) did to (A)D&D. invaded Persia (TSR) and renamed its capitol after its current Emperor and changed things needlessly for those who were already there. or in direct correlation to the editions, kicked out EVERYONE that was already there to replace them with Romans (3.x players).

you are wrong Istanbul (Pathfinder) exists!

just dont get confused thinking that PO and 2.5 was in anyway a successor to 2nd, like 1.5 wasnt a successor to first. EVERYONE didn't agree to that, therefore the playebase split at each instance. MORE people agree that 3.5 is the successor to 3.0, but others still prefer 3.0. i user the term successor not as the "next thing" but in the evolution since as in "this would have happened anyway", because DF and MANY other older edition forums and games still exist even though 3.0 came about 13 years ago. so there is ZERO nostalgia, or longing to go back, for those that never left.

your stupidity should be able to be seen even to yourself to think 2nd was inferior, since there exists many places that still prefer it. i guess you would be a suck-up to WotC until the end though and just try to claim "well those people prefer an inferior product", because you are too stupid to see that is is not inferior. it just offers D&D, while 3.0 onwards offers TTMMOs. only those WANTING MMOs would then find a liking for 3.0 onward. to those that don't want a TTMMO, then 3.0 onward is inferior. you cant assign objectivity to personal taste. but you can should your lack of intelligence by claiming personal taste is objective across everyone. cause we only have Vanilla ice cream right since it is the most popular, everyone wanting chocolate jsut has to be fucked and eat vanilla only?

[Drolyt]

people that wanted that shit that 3.x offers, could have had it in their own game. they didn't need to convert D&D for all into it. this is the REAL edition war. it is practically the same as every religion fighting over Jerusalem. D&D is NOT your Jerusalem or Byzantia. you have no right to take it over and change its name to Constantinople, unless you in turn are willing to have it taken from you and turned into Istanbul!

that is basically what WotC (Rome) did to (A)D&D. invaded Persia (TSR) and renamed its capitol after its current Emperor and changed things needlessly for those who were already there. or in direct correlation to the editions, kicked out EVERYONE that was already there to replace them with Romans (3.x players).

you are wrong Istanbul (Pathfinder) exists!

Wow. Let's tackle this one by one:
1. Istanbul is not in Persia (which is in the Middle-East, modern day Iran). It is in Turkey.
2. At the time of it's founding it was a Greek colony and called Byzantium.
3. The Romans conquered it at the same time as all the other Greek City States.
4. It is true that Constantine renamed it after himself. He also built it up from a little fishing village into the richest city on Earth ("The City of the World's Desire"). Seems like a fair trade.
5. All this happened centuries before the Crusades.
6. The Ottoman Turks conquered the Byzantine Empire (Eastern Roman Empire) centuries after the Crusades. The official name remained Constantinople.
7. Istanbul had been the common Turkish name for the city since before the Ottoman conquest.
8. Constantinople was officially renamed Istanbul with the establishment of the Republic of Turkey.

[Desdan_Mervolam]

3rd forced kender with the "affinity" rules to Greyhawk certain things that they had an affinity for, but you didnt try to take home every statue to sell.

You do realize there was no WotC-developed Dragonlance setting for 3e, right? Margaret Weiss licensed the setting back and put out material on her own 3rd party publisher. Kender were never in 3e offically. Also, I have no idea what these "Affinity" rules you speak of are, I suspect that its a third party rule too.

[deaddmwalking]

So it seems Shad's objection is not that 3.x was released; just that it used the name Dungeons & Dragons.

For myself, it doesn't bother me what shit they release with that name. They can make a Dungeons & Dragons Toilet Paper and it won't have any effect on how I play in my own home.

Hell, D&D Next could steal the GURPS engine and it wouldn't bother me in the least.

Nor would it bother me if they stopped calling D&D 3.x Dungeons and Dragons. They could rename it (retroactively) WotC Pig Shit RPG. I could still play it.

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

[Wiseman]

i will place you into the unfortunate category of people how came to D&D from video games and were spoiled on them and don;t understand TTRPG roots.

Even though I JUST argued against arguing against you, I still find myself drawn back into this.

Is there any reason why it even matters where you got into dnd from. I got introduced to it through M&M and DDO. Is there anything wrong with that?

[Stinktopus]

Is there any reason why it even matters where you got into dnd from. I got introduced to it through M&M and DDO. Is there anything wrong with that?

Because Shad's not complaining about 3rd Edition. Shad's complaining about a cultural shift that he blames on the danged vidja games and women getting the right to vote.

[erik]

Greyhawking refers to stripping the scenery of everything not nailed down and then taking crowbars to all the valuables that are in order to sell them. It is a thing that happened because RPGA started laying down the assumption that the players got all available treasure, so if you didn't take literally everything, you were behind the curve.

This is pretty close.

I played in RPGA Living Greyhawk and people did use the term to refer to taking basically anything we could get our hands on so that we would qualify as having met the requirements for getting full gold from a module. You could never exceed full gold from a mod, but you could get screwed out of getting full gold. So you want to loot as much as you can to make sure you get capped out.

We'd beat some humanoids, we strip em down for their armor, swords, whatever we can grab. If we didn't gut critters to check for loot in their stomachs we might not count as having qualified for getting all the treasure from that mod.

Looting of party-member corpses on the other hand was forbidden/pointless. Rarely it might be allowed just for the course of that adventure (probably had to get the corpse player's permission), and never could you actually keep something from another player. You could borrow items from other players but would have to return them at the end of an adventure always.

Living Greyhawk was extra kooky with wealth by level since if you could contrive to get less XP (item creation, multiclass penalties, etc.) you'd be ahead of the game on gp.

[infected slut princess]

I think people would like each of the following options available in a fantasy RPG:

I. Players would like to find items that suit their character. For example, the bow guy finds an awesome bow or the staff wizard finds an awesome staff.

II. Players would like to find surprising items and then have those items change the way their character fights. Example, character who fights with a sword finds an awesome magic spear, then starts fighting with that instead. Or the staff wizard finds a crazy power gem and starts using that.

III. Players would like to have their characters be 'special' and start with a unique item that powers their character through the game. Example, a guy finds a special suit of armor that is gives him magic spells and a laser sword then he starts going on adventures.

Is it possible for a system to provide each option? Options I and II deal with how items are acquired. Option III is something that would instead be built class features and perhaps be linked to the item acquisition somehow.

[shadzar]

greek, persian.. whatever. the point remains the same... invader comes in and takes someone depriving others from having what they had and changing it on a whim to suit themselves.

3rd forced kender with the "affinity" rules to Greyhawk certain things that they had an affinity for, but you didnt try to take home every statue to sell.

You do realize there was no WotC-developed Dragonlance setting for 3e, right? Margaret Weiss licensed the setting back and put out material on her own 3rd party publisher. Kender were never in 3e offically. Also, I have no idea what these "Affinity" rules you speak of are, I suspect that its a third party rule too.

nope. in case you didnt notice i care little for 3rd so i dont keep up with that nonsense. i just know kender had some kind of affinity rule in the DL books somewhere. i think its intent was to replace the old kender pockets tables?

Hell, D&D Next could steal the GURPS engine and it wouldn't bother me in the least.

DDN is shaping up to be just that, so my question remains, why do they need to use the D&D name then still?

Is there any reason why it even matters where you got into dnd from. I got introduced to it through M&M and DDO. Is there anything wrong with that?

well yes, yes it does. consider 4th was built and designed based on getting MMO players back to D&D. it was specifically said to use the same terms like "tank" etc to attract those players, and designed to act like it was an MMO.

so it really DOES matter where you came from as the game was likely design by WotC to attract a certain audience. even the Pres of D&D said that D&D had been giving ideas to MMOs, so it should be taking them back into it. and EVERYONE on here loves 4th edition right?

Now i am not sure what all video games were out everywhere in 2000 cause i didn't play them all, but i can tell you for sure the "profession" bit was heavy in EverQuest. tweaking weapons and being able to buy them was all through single player adventure games like Final Fantasy series and its Materia from FF7. i know a few games that greatly expanded the lists of things a character/player could choose from. so i will say 3rd took from video games that were popular and tried to incorporate those elements into D&D to just give it attention.

2nd just went through shoeboxes of receipts and put them organize onto a computer. fixed some problems here or there and tried to appease bible-thumpers by changing some monster names. D&D never really changed.. well it never really stayed the same but that was its shtick. 1st was a redesign and a NEW game. that is right, D&D and AD&D are NOT the same game as WotC would lead many to believe. they are based off the same idea, but a very REAL reason the name was altered.

M&M i am not sure what is, but DDO i assume to be D&D Online: Stormreach?

well i think it uses 3.x rules right?

SSI emulated the concept of D&D combat, but fell short of TTRPGs, so not everyone went from the video games to TTRPG.

so since WotC, YES; it does matter where you came from, cause the odds are they targeted you to bring you in from a specific area. look how often they keep changing the focus of D&D since they have had it,and discard old players to target a new type of player or to follow the new fad.


we all also know that 2nd edition wasnt the same Gary had envisioned and will enver know what he envisioned, and 3rd wasnt what TSR had in the works, cause we know Steve Winter said they wanted to change 2nd more, and WotC had wanted to make even more changes to 3rd. Suppose 4th had been the very change they sought and it was released in 2000, where would D&D be now? the design is just follow trends and fads. and the newest design is always trying to target the most popular new trend or fad.

so why do wishlists exist? something found in MMOs like the epic item quest of EQ. i can only guess WoW has something similar?

i know for a fact the idea of buying magic items in the game came from video games, but Star Ocean, Final Fantasy, Xenogears, etc didn't have any sort of crafting system to let you make ANY item you could imagine, so it had to give you an item shoppe to let you upgrade since "treasure" was more plot related or scripted to be some needed item, and not things that let you have many others ways.

Zelda upgraded you as you went if you found all the magic items, oddly enough like D&D originally did. you got what was placed IF you found it and made do with what you had until you did.

notice the EXTREME similarities in video games and other entertainment with the edition release and design?

[Drolyt]

greek, persian.. whatever. the point remains the same... invader comes in and takes someone depriving others from having what they had and changing it on a whim to suit themselves.

Considering how many people have died fighting for control of Asia Minor this is a rather disrespectful attitude.

nope. in case you didnt notice i care little for 3rd so i dont keep up with that nonsense. i just know kender had some kind of affinity rule in the DL books somewhere. i think its intent was to replace the old kender pockets tables?

Dude, not caring about something is not an excuse for getting all your facts wrong. Or for failing to use proper capitalization and punctuation. Is something wrong with your keyboard?

Zelda upgraded you as you went if you found all the magic items, oddly enough like D&D originally did. you got what was placed IF you found it and made do with what you had until you did.

Every item in a given Zelda game is carefully designed and placed for the best possible game experience. It is precisely the opposite of what you seem to be advocating.

[Josh_Kablack]

Something totally IS wrong with my keyboard. Or maybe I fixed it now. I'm making a post just to test whether the fix worked or if it's gonna keep doing that cursor jump thing midword that gives me inexplicible typos.

Also, I totally got into D&D due to video games. If a friend hadn't given my that 5 1/4" floppy with a pirated copy of Wizardry on it that summer between 4th and 5th grades, I would never have gotten into TTRPGs -- despite having read large chunks of Tolkien, Howard, ER Burroughs, Lieber and Stan Lee the prior summer.

[Bihlbo]

I got into D&D... reluctantly. From playing video games, reading comics and Conan and such, and the other things little boys do I got an interest in the idea of playing pretend while fighting things and getting cool gear. Honestly, I couldn't tell you what the biggest influence was there, but it was the 80's so you can guess if you like. Anyway, I filled a notepad with drawings and stats of weapons and monsters and came up with a way to figure out who won. But I couldn't invent some interest, so I never played that with other people. I didn't know that I made an rpg, or what one was. D&D was something that rotted your brain or whatever, so I even stayed away from the cartoon.

Fast forward to when I was just out of high school and some friends invited me to play some AD&D. Not only did the game look dated and clunky, but the rules were needlessly wordy and complicated. I didn't have a problem understanding THAC0, what I didn't get is why anyone would think it's good. The whole thing was like finding gems in a cow turd - you want to throw away the turd even though something good accidentally ended up there. I had nothing but contempt for it. Worse, the DM threw random "because I say so" things at us that required a die roll, like my reflex save to avoid falling off the cliff to my death, because apparently roads attack you. I wanted my money back and it didn't cost me a thing.

When 3rd edition came out I was just out of college and my little brother had some friends who were playing. I had loads more free time than I knew what to do with, so I joined, expecting the worst. The game was pretty good and the rules didn't insult my intelligence. I played a ranger But if they kept playing after that game I wasn't told.

Then I moved to Seattle and in an effort to make some friends I joined a Yahoo gaming group and met some folks for an rpg. I found out I like gnarly weirdos, and roleplaying games. When I was new I'd do fun stuff like make a ninja for a superhero game, and slice people to ribbons right before enduring a long lecture on why heroes don't slaughter innocents or villains. I made me a Legolas clone without knowing who that was, and didn't understand the snickers. I read some really terrible books on others' recommendations. I played a VtM game and learned that nothing at all can make me ever touch that.... Crap, now I gotta calm down. Dammit but vampires are stupid.

Anyway, I've used the 3rd edition rules to play a big slew of games, but I'm pretty sure that outside of that super bad AD&D game and one or two others I had never played straight D&D until 4th edition came out and my buddies and me wanted to try it out.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Is it possible for a system to provide each option? Options I and II deal with how items are acquired. Option III is something that would instead be built class features and perhaps be linked to the item acquisition somehow.

Not really, no.

Consider 2E D&D: even though you can't really guarantee yourself a +3 full plate whenever you'd like, you can still pretty much rustle up a regular-ass full plate whenever you feel like it. And buying a full plate at level 3 will never be as cool as finding it alongside the road at level 1.

Found items have to be better than what you can unilaterally force into the game. Otherwise you have the 3E D&D system where people recycle anything that doesn't exactly fit their WBL wish list into what they really want -- which defeats the whole point!

But once you introduce the possibility of found items that you can unilaterally force into the game, it falls back into the previous traps.

[OgreBattle]

Consider 2E D&D: even though you can't really guarantee yourself a +3 full plate whenever you'd like, you can still pretty much rustle up a regular-ass full plate whenever you feel like it. And buying a full plate at level 3 will never be as cool as finding it alongside the road at level 1.

I disagree. Spending the gold you earned on level 1 and level 2 dungeons to FINALLY get that full plate armor is rewarding in itself

It's like having a summer job and then in Autumn you cash it in for a Playstation One and Final Fantasy 7. You EARNED that shit!

[deaddmwalking]

DDN is shaping up to be just that, so my question remains, why do they need to use the D&D name then still?

This is why I fail to understand you. From our perspective (as players) it shouldn't matter what they use the name for. The rules that have already been released exist and what is released later can't retroactively ruin anything that was released.

So anything new can be judged on its own merits. If it is an improvement, you can play it. If it's not an improvement, you can ignore it or take any elements you think are worthwhile and harvest it for your own game. So, regardless of the name, the more versions available, the better (as long as it doesn't impact your ability to play with a group that agrees to the version of rules you're using).

From the perspective of Hasbro/WotC/TSR or anyone who has the rights to use Dungeons & Dragons, not using it would be pant-on-head retarded.

Developing a brand is much more difficult than capitalizing on an established brand. Since anyone who owns the D&D name is going to be interested in a profit, they should brand as many things with the name they can without eroding any goodwill associated with the brand or diluting it too far.

So Dungeons & Dragons RPGs, boardgames, computer games, etc, are all good things.

There's nobody going to take D&D as it existed in 1988 and make a museum to it. Further, the game doesn't 'need' players. The players 'need' a game. So there's no such thing as 'not being true' to the game. People either have fun or they don't. For players, what they call the game hardly matters, but for the producers, it really makes a difference.

For most of the last 10 years the owners have been trying to run the brand into the ground and here we are still using it as a synonym for generic fantasy RPGs. That's some serious cache.

[MfA]

You're positing a fairly narrow needle to thread, because you have design goals that conflict in rather fundamental ways.

• If magic items are rare, it strains believability that you can get specifically the ones you want.

Leveling is rare (from a world perspective). Just give characters an item experience budget each level they can use to have crafters make their magic items.

It's a bit meta, but shouldn't be too hard to fluff for people who aren't just being contrary.

[shadzar]

Zelda upgraded you as you went if you found all the magic items, oddly enough like D&D originally did. you got what was placed IF you found it and made do with what you had until you did.

Every item in a given Zelda game is carefully designed and placed for the best possible game experience. It is precisely the opposite of what you seem to be advocating.

oh yes, cause running along the cliff placing bombs to try to blow up a single grid-square is offering the best possible play experience. sorry but EVERY square was pretty much just a pixel, and doing that or having to find which bush to burn, etc is nothing more than pixel-bitching. they are just "pixels" that are big enough to paint more than one color

Also, I totally got into D&D due to video games. If a friend hadn't given my that 5 1/4" floppy with a pirated copy of Wizardry on it that summer between 4th and 5th grades, I would never have gotten into TTRPGs -- despite having read large chunks of Tolkien, Howard, ER Burroughs, Lieber and Stan Lee the prior summer.

i had already read Canterbury Tales before ever being allowed to touch an 8" floppy to play Elvira, and it was the adventures in Chaucer that were more what carried into my D&D playing. that and hardy boys and nancy drew books too.

Consider 2E D&D: even though you can't really guarantee yourself a +3 full plate whenever you'd like, you can still pretty much rustle up a regular-ass full plate whenever you feel like it. And buying a full plate at level 3 will never be as cool as finding it alongside the road at level 1.

I disagree. Spending the gold you earned on level 1 and level 2 dungeons to FINALLY get that full plate armor is rewarding in itself

It's like having a summer job and then in Autumn you cash it in for a Playstation One and Final Fantasy 7. You EARNED that shit!

no it isnt. you earned MONEY, that is all. you didnt earn any right to own the game system, you just bought it. no different than someone buying a sandwich from the gas station.

are you really trying to claim some sort of satisfaction in buying something is equal to opening something on christmas morning? why is christmas so special? cause it isnt something you can do every day, like buying... ANYTHING.

DDN is shaping up to be just that, so my question remains, why do they need to use the D&D name then still?

This is why I fail to understand you. From our perspective (as players) it shouldn't matter what they use the name for. The rules that have already been released exist and what is released later can't retroactively ruin anything that was released.

the problem as has been explained before is that someone invite you to a game of "D&D" today and here is what you get:

Store A: 4th edition encounters
Store B: DDN encounters, buy the adventure yourself to run
pemerton from ENWorld: Hero Wars new version by Robin Laws

so it really DOES matter as nobody has any fucking idea what anyone else is talking about because the name has little to no meaning anymore. i mean WotC in NO way shape or form will support ANY TSR edition of the game. they claim DDN will, but DDN encounters are only available as WotC edition rules conversions. the reason is because they don't make D&D anymore, they killed it and took its stuff, and just put the name on ANYTHING and the players have a hard time discussing anything.

Red Box: does this have a meaning? which is it? Menzter D&D or 4th edition?
Rules Cyclopedia? BEMCI compiled or 4th edition online database?
D&D: hell this has no meaning at all since: 3.x was an extension of AD&D as many will note, but it uses the wrong name. Elf is not a class in 3rd is it?

even the term AD&D as a system is used by WotC as a derogatory remark, hence the reason why they stopped using it, though they fail to understand still the two systems were DIFFERENT GAMES. aka DDN cant work if it ties to be:
BD&D
AD&D
3rd
4th

they are 4 totally different and incompatible systems.

you cant mix them all together and them work, so the players SHOULD be fighting for the name to have meaning IF they give a damn about ANY of those editions every being understood.

YOU don't need the name "D&D", but it seems sadly MANY people do. that very reason is why they used it for 3rd, and then again for 4th. WotC is only selling a name. that is why 4th failed, it wasnt D&D. the market (players) have spoken. WotC/HASBRO is only selling people the name for "nostalgia" reason, and the know their games would NOT sell with another name even IF it was exactly 3.5 again because the market fears the unknown. Pathfinder just came out loud and strong with the OGL as its sheild otherwise that name sounds silly for an RPG to be honest. had it not had the OGL and was like say Primal Order, it would have failed or taken off much much slower. though the OGL saved it the death via copyright violation WotC had with the Primal Order game.

You're positing a fairly narrow needle to thread, because you have design goals that conflict in rather fundamental ways.

• If magic items are rare, it strains believability that you can get specifically the ones you want.

Leveling is rare (from a world perspective). Just give characters an item experience budget each level they can use to have crafters make their magic items.

It's a bit meta, but shouldn't be too hard to fluff for people who aren't just being contrary.

who or what says leveling is rare? have you ever played D&D? everybody has a fucking level! for those that don't they are classless levels that are already at their max level: commoner, merchant, noble. everyone else has a level.

the number of people on the world plus the number of items in a D&D system, and the places the character actually go on that world... means the number of permutations to get Magic Item X is infinitesimally small. you are just turning magic items into a deus ex machina. this isnt video games where you MUST get Item X to play further, nor should it be like in 3rd and 4th.

one DM i think i have mentioned before was playing a video game of D&D and tried to write an adventure for it and had no idea how to translate level-grinding into the adventure so just gave free XP to get people up to level for things like scribing scrolls or other stupid shit. those weren't earned, they were forced, the players were railroaded. likewise to some being freely handed Magic Item X is being railroaded because their actions IN THE GAME have no meaning.

how is a wishlsit, even when chosen by the players, not a railroading mechanic? how is it not something that removes player effort from consideration and just spoonfeeding the invalid players?

being railroaded like the video games, Zelda, Baulder's Gate with a incompetent DM, being forced to upgrade your weapon at all... this removes player ability to... play.

[Drolyt]

oh yes, cause running along the cliff placing bombs to try to blow up a single grid-square is offering the best possible play experience. sorry but EVERY square was pretty much just a pixel, and doing that or having to find which bush to burn, etc is nothing more than pixel-bitching. they are just "pixels" that are big enough to paint more than one color.

I have no idea what the hell you just said, but the Zelda series is close to the pinnacle of game design. Everything in a Zelda game is carefully designed to improve the game experience, I mean a history of the Zelda franchise is basically a history of revolutionary UI design in gaming. By comparison AD&D 2e is a thrown together mess.