Poll . You hate or love D&D rules ?

[Walks with the Snails]

Dual-wielding does suck, as it should. They really screwed up Rangers, I think, just to make Drizzt fanboys happy. I think you get half your strength bonus in your off-hand besides the penalties. For fighting two-handed, you get 1 1/2 your strength bonus. Not to mention magical shields can be pretty nice. You can also use all your feats for better things than specializing in a somewhat questionable fighting style.

Overall, I guess I have nice memories of AD&D because that was my first PnP experience. There were also some pretty nice campaign settings like Ravenloft and Dark Sun. So overall, I like it. The translation to computer really doesn't work, though. It was meant to be pretty fast-paced and simple to use (I've suffered through Rolemaster enough to realize this ), but a computer can do so many complicated calculations quickly that the simplified mechanics really aren't necessary. Not to mention trying to cram its turn-based rules into real-time as is the typical case really screws things up. I haven't used 3e in PnP, just looked over the rules. Some things aren't bad, but it does unfortunately cater to the power-gamer crowd pretty heavily. Even magic items, once requiring quests and often over a year of creation times for the best items can now be churned out by characters quite easily. It's pretty obvious the system was made for hack and slash and racking up experience and gold, with roleplaying a distant second.

 

[Section8]

What's to stop players RPing in combat? I've always seen D&D combat as a fairly simple platform upon which to build RP. The combat itself isn't fun for me, it's what goes on during the combat. Failed rolls, critical misses and the like are actually fun in PnP D&D because the other players can laugh at the fuckup. Generally CRPGs make critical failures or failed saving throws pretty painful, because they're based entirely too much on efficient combat.

I find that RPing outside of combat in D&D can become tiresome for some players. It's usually one character interacting with an NPC, meanwhile the other players are twiddling their thumbs. It definitely has it's place, but don't discount the RPing opportunities during combat.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

It was meant to be pretty fast-paced and simple to use (I've suffered through Rolemaster enough to realize this ), but a computer can do so many complicated calculations quickly that the simplified mechanics really aren't necessary. Not to mention trying to cram its turn-based rules into real-time as is the typical case really screws things up.

I wholeheartedly agree here. Just about everything in D&D is fine for PnP, but there's a large number of things that don't translate well to CRPGs.

I think the magic system is probably the big thing that doesn't translate well. Mages in D&D start off incredibly weak. 1-4 hit points, one spell. Great! They can also only use this spell once a day. This is perfect for PnP, because you've got the weaking who may be useful later on aspect to set up meaningful experiences.

CRPGs though, especially the AD&D ones, are nothing but combat for the most part. Throw in real time, and you've got a class that's basically useless at the beginning. Not only that, but one that HAS to be extremely well protected because they can be killed by a scratch.

The rest thing is largely an annoyance as well. All the CRPGs with D&D have had issues with rest flaking. Do you force a player to sleep at an inn, thus meaning long trips to and from where the player is to that inn? Do you make it so the player can rest anywhere and if so, what are the restrictions on it? Mana, frankly, beats this system hands down.

Then there's the issues with alignment in CRPGs. Often times, there's absolutely no outlet for an evil character, yet none of the D&D CRPGs have ever just not let you chose evil. All D&D CRPGs are focused on you being the noble hero that saves the day, often because it's the right thing to do.

Of course, some D&D games have allowed shifting alignment, which is neat. However, most don't, and most don't even care. You pick the alignment, and it's meaningless. It's even funny that in some games, like IWD2, evil is HARSHLY punished to the point of making the game unplayble beyond that. When you point it out to the fan boys that it's wrong to make it like this, that say something silly like, "Chaotic Evil doesn't mean stupid!"

Also, D&D CRPGs have never done a Paladin well, mainly because of the above. Paladins can lie, cheat, and steal, because CRPGs never handle their oaths well.

I haven't used 3e in PnP, just looked over the rules. Some things aren't bad, but it does unfortunately cater to the power-gamer crowd pretty heavily. Even magic items, once requiring quests and often over a year of creation times for the best items can now be churned out by characters quite easily. It's pretty obvious the system was made for hack and slash and racking up experience and gold, with roleplaying a distant second.

Yes, it does. This has been reflected in the 3E CRPGs as well, which the exception of item making.

I think the funniest thing about 3E though is that it has a level cap. Why? So they can release another set of rules for what happens beyond level 20, just like the Infinity Engine games did.

 

[Sheriff_Fatman]

Alignment seems one of the lamest aspects of D&D in general. It always has, really. At its best it is a one-size-fits-noone indicator of moral/ethical stance. At its worst it is used as a poor substitute for a persona (just as class is) or an irrational restriction on behaviour.

 

[chrisbeddoes]

I aggree with S-F

Alignment sucks in D&D

It really sucks..

Perhaps if certain spells were maked as good and others as evil and if you were very good or very evil those spells could gain in power.Mayby then aligment would mean something.
But as it stands now Alignment is a big joke.

The fallout system much much better. Godly compared to D&D

 

[Rosh]

Well, alignments are okay in D&D P&P. They do give a bit of a guideline for the player to keep to. If there was more taken into play with that, then it would perhaps press the player (and character) into playing more into the archetypical alignments.

BioWare's "Reputation system" was...gah, it defies description. To sum it up, it was a load of bullshit. A paladin could get better prices at the Thieve's Guild in BG2 than a thief with lower Reputation.

Then, how about the random travel encounters where you had NO chance of winning? Imoen and a fighter were often no match for the bandits you'd encounter when you were on your way to that Inn. Hell, the critters in the first areas were sometimes a challenge enough, and if you played as a mage...

Another point of crappy design where D&D is translated to CRPGs is where you double in power from level 1 and 2, in the case of most classes. Most other CRPGs have it where you gradually go up, like in Fallout and Arcanum. D&D, in the P&P realm, you often have a series of small adventures to build yourself up in knowedge from the greenie up. Often I find low-level play a bit fun because of this reason. In CRPGs, you're either reloading or very lucky.

That is another flaw that has been present in most modern D&D CRPGs, in that the lower levels are farming time, building up obscene amounts of exp to get to a higher level, and the game is often balanced for those steep steps. The lower levels are less about learning who and what the character is, very little character development (and often the character is just a mirror of the player), and more about doing some weak quests to get to level 2. In P&P that is played well, the game is consistently a learning experience for the characters. It's meant to be both educational for them and fun for the player without worrying too much about tough battles.

That's why Planescape: Torment was good, and seems to be a fluke. It's the best of the Inbred Engine games, because it doesn't force H&S and munchkinism like the others do. It does leave that open a bit if people want to play a bit H&S, but it also allows a person to explore the characters and the setting more than the other IE games combined.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Well, alignments are okay in D&D P&P. They do give a bit of a guideline for the player to keep to. If there was more taken into play with that, then it would perhaps press the player (and character) into playing more into the archetypical alignments.

They're basically guidelines on how they plan to roleplay, right. However, very few CRPGs even allow you to play Chaotic Evil, so why bother even including that as an alignment choice since the story often spells out how you are to play the game.

BioWare's "Reputation system" was...gah, it defies description. To sum it up, it was a load of bullshit. A paladin could get better prices at the Thieve's Guild in BG2 than a thief with lower Reputation.

Right. There's already alignment, so why tack something on that does the same thing, gauging your actions?

Another point of crappy design where D&D is translated to CRPGs is where you double in power from level 1 and 2, in the case of most classes. Most other CRPGs have it where you gradually go up, like in Fallout and Arcanum. D&D, in the P&P realm, you often have a series of small adventures to build yourself up in knowedge from the greenie up. Often I find low-level play a bit fun because of this reason. In CRPGs, you're either reloading or very lucky.

3E is pretty bad about this since characters in 3E just get insanely powerful so quickly. Every few levels, you can raise an attribute as well, and 18 is no longer the "limit". Factor in feats, like Great Cleave in addition to getting multiple attacks per round, and you've got a seriously overpowered tank of a fighter.

That is another flaw that has been present in most modern D&D CRPGs, in that the lower levels are farming time, building up obscene amounts of exp to get to a higher level, and the game is often balanced for those steep steps.

This is especially the case in 3E, see above.

The lower levels are less about learning who and what the character is, very little character development (and often the character is just a mirror of the player), and more about doing some weak quests to get to level 2. In P&P that is played well, the game is consistently a learning experience for the characters. It's meant to be both educational for them and fun for the player without worrying too much about tough battles.

Well, the problem is that most D&D CRPGs seem to be more brand name based sales than content based sales. They have the BIG NAME there on the box, they don't have to make it good. The sad part is that most D&D CRPGs have no idea what quality role playing is, so they just gobble up the combat free for all.

That's why Planescape: Torment was good, and seems to be a fluke. It's the best of the Inbred Engine games, because it doesn't force H&S and munchkinism like the others do. It does leave that open a bit if people want to play a bit H&S, but it also allows a person to explore the characters and the setting more than the other IE games combined.

I agree. I think the main problem with PS:T is also profit margain. PS:T sold fairly well. Even Feargus said it sold better than most people think. However, the problem lies in that you can make a shitty D&D CRPG quickly and rake in the same number of sales. Why spend the time and money making a good CRPG when you can make a poor one faster and cheaper, and get the same results? Or in the case of Baldur's Gate, better sales?

 

[Rosh]

They're basically guidelines on how they plan to roleplay, right. However, very few CRPGs even allow you to play Chaotic Evil, so why bother even including that as an alignment choice since the story often spells out how you are to play the game.

Very true. It's kind of odd to have evil alignments and perhaps even evil cleric deity selection (in the case of BG2 I think), without being able to play any other way than "Noble Guy".

BioWare's "Reputation system" was...gah, it defies description. To sum it up, it was a load of bullshit. A paladin could get better prices at the Thieve's Guild in BG2 than a thief with lower Reputation.

Right. There's already alignment, so why tack something on that does the same thing, gauging your actions?

And which wasn't even done right in the first place, given the example above. Most people deviate in order to try and do something better, but in this case, it's more of a "What the hell were they thinking?"

3E is pretty bad about this since characters in 3E just get insanely powerful so quickly. Every few levels, you can raise an attribute as well, and 18 is no longer the "limit". Factor in feats, like Great Cleave in addition to getting multiple attacks per round, and you've got a seriously overpowered tank of a fighter.

I'm not too familiar with 3E, but I've heard from many sources that it's almost tailored for munchkinism and those who don't want to really RP the lower level areas. Which is really a shame since the lower levels are the most fun.

Well, the problem is that most D&D CRPGs seem to be more brand name based sales than content based sales. They have the BIG NAME there on the box, they don't have to make it good. The sad part is that most D&D CRPGs have no idea what quality role playing is, so they just gobble up the combat free for all.

Agreed, and it's a shame. Most of the time these games aren't even halfway creative.
It's like the developers have been trying to crawl up Bob Salvatore's backside, borrowing mostly from his works for trendy material. IWD could hardly be considered original, and Baldur's Gate 1/2 pretty much the same. They already were in settings that have been done to death, with a little schtick thrown in. Relative creativity, except for PS:T, under 10%.

I agree. I think the main problem with PS:T is also profit margain. PS:T sold fairly well. Even Feargus said it sold better than most people think. However, the problem lies in that you can make a shitty D&D CRPG quickly and rake in the same number of sales. Why spend the time and money making a good CRPG when you can make a poor one faster and cheaper, and get the same results? Or in the case of Baldur's Gate, better sales?

There you run into the problem of diminishing return of development. If you keep shoveling half-assed stuff out, then it's going to catch up to you. Not so many IE fanboys around as there once were, and some have gotten a little jaded for a number of reasons. Games that had effort visibly put in last a while. A morass of half-assed games often just goes into a rut as the player who has played through them will go through and see one or two things of note, and then perhaps get more jaded as it seems a bit more the same. If it's nothing spectacular, then it's not going to catch the fanbase's imagination as much. Comparatively, the difference between the Fallout fanbase and the IWD fanbase is quite visible. IWD is likely going to be dropped off as some forgotten toy in lieu of another game, while Fallout has kept a fanbase going strong for over 5 years, even discounting a crappy spin-off.

With some of the half-assed parts of IWD2, I think that's put the final nail into the IE to make it unmarketable for anything of the same calibre. If they put something special into a game using the IE, perhaps they might be able to get more, but perhaps not. Something I've noticed, and which BIS couldn't really fix easily, pathfinding is a major sore point for IWD2 players.

 

[chrisbeddoes]

Is infinity engine able to be used only for medievil type games ?

Is it possible to make S.F games with it ?

 

[Section8]

It could theoretically be used for any game, provided you want that game to implement an ugly abstraction of D&D rules, butchered to be somewhere between 2E and 3E.

 

[Constipated Craprunner]

WHO?
WHO CALLED PS:T A FANTASY SETTING?!?!

 

[Rosh]

WHO?
WHO CALLED PS:T A FANTASY SETTING?!?!

Probably by everyone with a clue. It doesn't fall into any other category, and while it might not fall into high fantasy of obvious Tolkein roots, it's still a fantasy setting.

 

[Constipated Craprunner]

Obviously.
But CCsomething obviously was reffering to High Fantasy, as you can assume most noobs think the only kind of fantasy is High!

 

[SexExitium]

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Very true. It's kind of odd to have evil alignments and perhaps even evil cleric deity selection (in the case of BG2 I think), without being able to play any other way than "Noble Guy".

Agreed, that makes it all the more humorous. How many evil gods out there wouldn't be disappointed in their priests selling themselves out to fight the wrongs of the world just because there's a little money in it for them?

And which wasn't even done right in the first place, given the example above. Most people deviate in order to try and do something better, but in this case, it's more of a "What the hell were they thinking?"

I think PS:T did it best with their flexible alignment system. NWN could have done this well, but there weren't enough opportunities to be evil, and there were some serious consistancy problems.

In fact, I went from True Neutral to Neutral Good in Chapter 2, and I seriously considered killing some town folk to get my TN status back. Why? Because I didn't feel the need to ask for money up front for doing things... BECAUSE I'M A DRUID! I can't picture druids being greedy.

I'm not too familiar with 3E, but I've heard from many sources that it's almost tailored for munchkinism and those who don't want to really RP the lower level areas. Which is really a shame since the lower levels are the most fun.

Yeah, it's almost like they added all those feats and things with no thought to how powerful characters would be. Fighters get one feat every two levels, so they get insanely powerful.

There you run into the problem of diminishing return of development. If you keep shoveling half-assed stuff out, then it's going to catch up to you. Not so many IE fanboys around as there once were, and some have gotten a little jaded for a number of reasons. Games that had effort visibly put in last a while. A morass of half-assed games often just goes into a rut as the player who has played through them will go through and see one or two things of note, and then perhaps get more jaded as it seems a bit more the same. If it's nothing spectacular, then it's not going to catch the fanbase's imagination as much. Comparatively, the difference between the Fallout fanbase and the IWD fanbase is quite visible. IWD is likely going to be dropped off as some forgotten toy in lieu of another game, while Fallout has kept a fanbase going strong for over 5 years, even discounting a crappy spin-off.

I agree. I also think it's funny that Fallout has enough name recognition for IPLY to name drop it everywhere, but not enough to make a third one. TORN and Lionheart are both examples of dropping Fallout's name.

Interplay's big problem from the mad-1990s to present has been that slippery slope to crapville by releasing shoddy products as well. It's nice to see that trend continues with new management. Then again, I can't think of too many Titus games that were quality titles. Worms would be the only one.

With some of the half-assed parts of IWD2, I think that's put the final nail into the IE to make it unmarketable for anything of the same calibre. If they put something special into a game using the IE, perhaps they might be able to get more, but perhaps not. Something I've noticed, and which BIS couldn't really fix easily, pathfinding is a major sore point for IWD2 players.

I love those reviews.. "The pathfinding is awful.. AWFUL!" Scroll down, "Control - 90%"

 

[Spazmo]

But don't forget that Titus just went out and bought Team 17, so don't credit them with Worms.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

They bought them? I thought it was just a publishing deal. If that's the case, that just sucks. Those guys did great work back in the Amiga days.

Alien Breed was a fantastic little game.. If you had an Amiga, that is.

 

[Spazmo]

Now that you mention it, I'm not sure if they bought Team 17 or not. It would seem like the Titus thing to do, though...

But whether they own or publish Team 17, they deserve no credit for Worms.

 

[Talavar]

Oh, D&D, my arch-nemesis. Why, oh why, is the most common ruleset for CRPGs one that doesn't make sense? Being strong doesn't make you accurate! It may allow you to use heavier weapons, and aid in armor penetration, but not accuracy. Races that live far longer than humans had relatively low level caps. Thac0, and negative AC. Characters that suddenly become twice as tough at 2nd level. The whole magic system, especially the uber-redundant spells. Stereotypes ripped from a cliff-notes version of Lord of the Rings.

I just don't have enough venom for this rule set.

 

[Rosh]

Talavar, I think you forgot the biggest point:

D&D translates extremely poor to a CRPG environment.

 

[Spazmo]

Yeah, because it's designed to use calculations that can be made by a human being on the fly. A CRPG with the full resources of a powerful microprocessor at its disposal ought to use some more complicated rules that take into account a lot more factors. Kind of like how Fallout includes detailes range and lighting rules for combat, whereas AD&D will just slap a renage penalty when you reach a certain distance and another bigger one when you get even farther, and will have normal combat in all lighting condiditon except pitch black, which gives a tremendous -4 to your attack rolls. This is a ridiculous penalty, especially in the Baldur's Gate games where your fighters will usually have a THAC0 of around -6 towards the end of the game.

 

[Rosh]

It's also because it's really messing up the setting, too. I think this is mostly about why Prov hates the mages in D&D< too. Mages get really powerful in D&D CRPGs very fast, because they don't have the study, apprenticeship, and other aspects of magecraft. Ever see what an accomplished mage looks like in those settings? Old, or has been around for a long time due to various things. Apprentices that are a couple of levels, but are still studying for years under another mage, just is kind of funny when the PC was under their level a couple of days previous.

Yet, in D&D CRPGs, a mage goes from really weak to really powerful in a couple of weeks. At that rate, I'm surprised there aren't more gods wandering around Faerun.

D&D and character progression is extremely skewed in the CRPG environment. Even a fighter takes a while to learn their craft.

While the computer can do a lot more calculations, it's missing the DM's touch so it's very clinical and often dry, as outlined above, very skewing of the setting.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

3E is even WORSE about that "Getting powerful quick" thing, too. With Cleave, Great Cleave, and a powerful weapon, you can get three attacks per round, assuming everything is close to you. Combine that with the extra attacks a fighter typically gets, and Attacks of Opportunity combined with the Combat Reflexes feat, you can get an incredible number of attacks every round.

It's sickenning how powerful things get in 3E above level 15. In 1E and 2E, level 15 was moderately powerful. You could still have a decent, non-munchkin campaign at that level.

 

[Ibbz]

Alien Breed was a fantastic little game.. If you had an Amiga, that is.

Tower Assault {PC conversion} was good Probably one of the best arcade games ever released.

 

[Chadeo]

Just wanted to add my comments here

I have played in a PnP d&d game for about the last 10 years (not the same one, just been in one at some point or another for most of that time).

Basically the key to ANY PnP game is the DM. A great DM can make an awesome game, a crappy DM can ruin a game. It does not matter what the "rules" to the game are, a good DM can always respond with a challenge.

I think the 3rd Edition rules are orders of magnitude better than the 2nd edition rules. You can create a vastly more powerful player using them, but at the same time the enemies you fight can easily be vastly more powerful than that. Adding character levels to monster templates is crazy. A smart DM can always create something that can kill of the party if he/she wants to.

Spell casting is so powerful in PnP as well because of the total freedom you have. Divination, shape-changing, illusions, domination, the list goes on and on. Only a human DM could ever hope to run a game that could respond to such a wide range of options.

In a CRPG though with D&D rules, your spells are all combat based. Thus the system completely breaks. You basicly turn your mages into archers with limited ammo but very high dammage.

If you ask me the D&D system (and any other PnP system for that matter) relies on the DM and the imagination of the players. This is why is does not translate well into a computer model.

If you make a hack and slash CRPG with D&D rules it is going to suck compared to a hack and slash game with custom rules (compare BG to Diablo).

However if done right it is possible to convert PnP rules to a computer game. The GURPS rules were the basis for Fallout (as far as I know) and the Rolemaster system is used for a very successful MUD (Gemstone III).