My friends and I play D&D because we have no real other option. We used to play Minecraft and other collaborative building games as a group, but then one in our group went fully blind. There is a complete lack of good multiplayer computer games for entirely blind players (admittedly that is quite a challenge), but D&D requires only imagination, which all of us still have. Highly recommend if you have friends with vision disabilities.
The unlikely resurgence of Dungeons and Dragons
61–70 of 292 posts
Re: The unlikely resurgence of Dungeons and Dragons
#62We started playing a year ago, it was my first time playing since the mid-80's, and we're doing it all from my old AD&D (first edition) books and modules that I had collected from then. We really like it because as a group of newbies - four of the five players had never played before - it gives us permission to do things that are really fun but we never really would have found time to do before. We've incorporated po…
That sounds like a good time! I've actually had some of the most fun role-playing experiences playing with new players who don't really have a preconceived on what the typical limits of role-playing should be.
For example, we've got one player who decided to try and buy drugs in-game at one of the seedier cities we were stopping at. Fast-forward many sessions later, and she's now a kingpin of sorts with an owl-delivery service and contacts of varying trustworthiness all over the place. It does help to have a very creative DM who likes creating random effects (inhaling ground up flail snail shell turned out to be particularly silly) and teammates who don't get bent out of shape over "less than optimal" play or whatever.
Re: The unlikely resurgence of Dungeons and Dragons
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
FWIW: Pathfinder didn't win because it didn't have the name. The game itself is fine. But there can be only one D&D, and once WotC managed to figure out that the edition upgrade mill was a death trap and released a streamlined 5e, there wasn't much niche left for Pathfinder to fill. Given a "Pathfinder" vs. "D&D" choice, and no overwhelming community consensus either way (the community rejection of the fourth edition…
> FWIW: Pathfinder didn't win because it didn't have the name. The game itself is fine. But there can be only one D&D, and once WotC managed to figure out that the edition upgrade mill was a death trap and released a streamlined 5e, there wasn't much niche left for Pathfinder to fill. 5e was the second D&D edition released after Pathfinder, so I'm not really sure what “edition upgrade mill” you are talking about. > (…
OMG, we're actually having an edition war on HN! D&D really has broken through!
Pathfinder beat 4e to market in a technical sense, but it absolutely exists because WotC announced it was moving away from 3.5e and the OGL with a new edition. Paizo never intended to release it to compete directly with 3.5, and it would have been insane to do so.
Re: The unlikely resurgence of Dungeons and Dragons
#64My interest was rekindled by the Acquisitions Incorporated Podcasts with Chris Perkins and Penny Arcade.
Re: The unlikely resurgence of Dungeons and Dragons
#65I think that D&D is interesting in terms of the contrast with computer roleplaying games. In a way it does a good job of showing both the current strengths and weaknesses of computers. Managing the rules and stats by hand can be fun, but I have seen many recorded sessions where it is obviously a burden that a computer would be perfectly suited for. On the other hand, aspects of D&D like face-to-face interaction and l…
Neverwinter Nights 2 had some solid tools for campaign building that were the closest I've seen to creating a world with scenarios like those you see in DnD. It helps that the game was almost literalally DnD, but still impressive.
I don't think DM'ing is necessarily fun though. Most everyone I know who DMs sometimes, including me, finds it to be pretty stressful and a lot of work. The real value to me, is that a really good DM knows when to break the rules to enhance the game experience, and how to do it without making people angry. They create scenarios that specifically challenge the characters that are playing, not just for combat, but for role-playing purposes. Ie, a Lawful wizard is tempted to steal a scroll that would contain the knowledge he seeks the most, or a cleric who must decide whether to uphold her team's plan to ally with an unscrupulous NPC, or to go rogue in the name of their ethical code and deliver justice to said NPC. Good storytelling and cooperative play is just something that comes very naturally to some people, and having a human in the loop to respond to events in the context of an overarching narrative and party experience is really hard ot beat.
Re: The unlikely resurgence of Dungeons and Dragons
#66What a shame that all this attention goes to D&D. There are so many other good tabletop games with exquisite worldbuilding, languishing for attention... Vampire: The Masquerade, RIFTS (my personal fav)
Re: The unlikely resurgence of Dungeons and Dragons
#675e made great progrsss by stripping down rules and making things more accessible. I think they should do it even further.
The core game is fun, but combat is quite slow, tedious, and, in my opinion, not much of a good role play experience. Nix weapon stats, health, spell slots, etc. Differentiate more heavily on specialties. Ward off fear of death with a system of injuries and what not. Fighting can still be a huge part of the game, but it shouldn’t be the underlying goal of most mechanics.
Re: The unlikely resurgence of Dungeons and Dragons
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
> FWIW: Pathfinder didn't win because it didn't have the name. The game itself is fine. But there can be only one D&D, and once WotC managed to figure out that the edition upgrade mill was a death trap and released a streamlined 5e, there wasn't much niche left for Pathfinder to fill. 5e was the second D&D edition released after Pathfinder, so I'm not really sure what “edition upgrade mill” you are talking about. > (…
OMG, we're actually having an edition war on HN! D&D really has broken through! Pathfinder beat 4e to market in a technical sense, but it absolutely exists because WotC announced it was moving away from 3.5e and the OGL with a new edition. Paizo never intended to release it to compete directly with 3.5, and it would have been insane to do so.
[deleted]
Re: The unlikely resurgence of Dungeons and Dragons
#69My friends and I play D&D because we have no real other option. We used to play Minecraft and other collaborative building games as a group, but then one in our group went fully blind. There is a complete lack of good multiplayer computer games for entirely blind players (admittedly that is quite a challenge), but D&D requires only imagination, which all of us still have. Highly recommend if you have friends with vis…
I haven't done anything but one of the quick D&D campaigns with the prebuilt characters but I am REALLY enjoying gloomhaven as an alternative. I know there's some vision required there but it seems similar to D&D.
Re: The unlikely resurgence of Dungeons and Dragons
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
FWIW: Pathfinder didn't win because it didn't have the name. The game itself is fine. But there can be only one D&D, and once WotC managed to figure out that the edition upgrade mill was a death trap and released a streamlined 5e, there wasn't much niche left for Pathfinder to fill. Given a "Pathfinder" vs. "D&D" choice, and no overwhelming community consensus either way (the community rejection of the fourth edition…
> FWIW: Pathfinder didn't win because it didn't have the name. The game itself is fine. But there can be only one D&D, and once WotC managed to figure out that the edition upgrade mill was a death trap and released a streamlined 5e, there wasn't much niche left for Pathfinder to fill. 5e was the second D&D edition released after Pathfinder, so I'm not really sure what “edition upgrade mill” you are talking about. > (…
Pathfinder's entire market was "people who didn't like 4E and wanted to keep playing [/selling OGL supplements for] for 3.5," and on that basis they were one of the only games to come close to matching D&D's success. (They may actually have outside D&D for a few years; it's hard to be sure because WotC doesn't release those numbers.) It was only 4E's divisiveness that let them find a niche, and they started slipping as soon as WotC released a new edition that fixed most of the things that pissed people off about 4E.