Dungeons and Dragons?

[wilsonwatsonc]

This past year I discovered dungeons and dragons, and I think it's one of the best games ever designed. I absolutely love it, and recently read that apparently INTPs are particularly prone to liking the game. I'm just wondering if all you INTPs play the game as well.

I mean, it tears away all the superfluous gaming graphics and leaves the whole thing up to the imagination. There are no borders to what you can do, other than the laws of physics. It's great. My only caveat is that I have to play with other people.

What do you think?

 

[Jennywocky]

Glad you found the game.

I am an old-timer with D&D. I bought my D&D basic and expert sets probably in 1980, and the 1st edition hardback books within a year or two after that. I had the same feeling -- it was like I was bored with all the "normal" games I had, and when I found AD&D, the world opened up yet again for me.

It not only addressed the magical/fantasy end of things for me, but it was basically a 'system' that I could explore and understand that could translate human beings into a game setting. That was its appeal. I also really like the synergy of the other players, creating a story and experience together.

I still play RPGs, but mostly just Pathfinder (which is like D&D 3.5) and New Worlds of Darkness right now.

Which version of D&D are you playing?

 

[wilsonwatsonc]

We're playing 3.5. I kind of want to play the player's handbook so I can just read it for pleasure when we're not playing. I think being a DM would be the most fun, but I feel I need more experience with the game first.

I do like the synergy of the other players, and of course having other people is what makes the game work as well as it does, but I guess it's just not easy for me to really get into the game the way I want to with other people around. They're not really my friends, just fellow players, so that makes it more difficult. This is mainly why I said I wish I didn't have to play it with other people.

 

[wilsonwatsonc]

buy the player's handbook...oops.

 

[Jennywocky]

We're playing 3.5. I kind of want to play the player's handbook so I can just read it for pleasure when we're not playing. I think being a DM would be the most fun, but I feel I need more experience with the game first.

I do like the synergy of the other players, and of course having other people is what makes the game work as well as it does, but I guess it's just not easy for me to really get into the game the way I want to with other people around. They're not really my friends, just fellow players, so that makes it more difficult. This is mainly why I said I wish I didn't have to play it with other people.

Well, when I first got the game, none of my friends knew about it, and I actually did spend those first few years pretty much just buying books and reading the rules and trying to build the system in my head. (I would make up lots of characters, design modules, do graph paper maps, etc.)

My first "real" D&D campaign as a player did not occur until I went to college, really.

The interactive stuff is more of what I enjoy today, years later.

There's a shift between 3.5 and 4.0. Editions 2.0 through 3.5 were more similar. The 1st edition was pretty much just straight-forward class development, without skills and stuff.

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oOD9U9VQ5Y

 

[kris]

I found myself wanting to try a campaign at least once in my life, but it's proven difficult to actually find a starting point. It's hard enough to get people to sit down for a lengthy board game once in a while never mind consistent D&D sessions. There are groups in the area which play, but their meeting times/ locations are either grossly impractical for me, or they aren't open to newbs.

So, the concept is appealing, but I don't see it happening for me. Really, what appeals most to me over video games (especially those with karma systems) is being able to play chaotic neutral alignment.

 

[Jennywocky]

Freaking chaotic neutral....
Then again, you've got peanut butter.

 

[Lot]

I haven't play in forever. I couldn't find anyone to play with. I was almost thinking of getting a group together on skype to play it. But like most of my plans I'll probably not.

I like DMing. I like constructing a world and having other people play it out.

Salmoneus, that video almost had me on the floor laughing

 

[kris]

Peanut butter and dapper style, apparently.

 

[Redfire]

Why is the neutral good character asking if he is getting paid? It doesn't make sense. I think most people believe lawful good is somehow "more good" than neutral good. Which is stupid. Sometimes there are dilemmas between law and good, like whether to punish an indigent refugee woman that is stealing some bread from a greedy baker, so she can feed her kids (yeah I know, I'm not inspired right now). If I was DM, I would let a lawful good character put her in jail and get away with it, but I would demand a neutral good character help her or change his alignment.

In fact: I believe if we had to put alignments on real life people, the vast majority would be neutral, myself included. It's the same for fictional worlds. It always surprises me how my friends find excuses not to help people in adventures. "How is it my fault?". That's a prototypical neutral reaction. So if you want to play a good character, then show it.

Playing an evil one is way easier though, and much more fun.

 

[Jennywocky]

Why is the neutral good character asking if he is getting paid? It doesn't make sense. I think most people believe lawful good is somehow "more good" than neutral good. Which is stupid. Sometimes there are dilemmas between law and good, like whether to punish an indigent refugee woman that is stealing some bread from a greedy baker, so she can feed her kids (yeah I know, I'm not inspired right now). If I was DM, I would let a lawful good character put her in jail and get away with it, but I would demand a neutral good character help her or change his alignment.

The caption referred to it as "type abuse." And yeah, I've heard people in game who are NG do that kind of stuff -- they chose Neutral Good so they could be more selective about who they helped. And if they really want freedom to do what they want regardless of outcome, they'll pick CG. People get confused over "order/chaos" vs "good/evil". Anyway, the whole thing was about how players abuse the alignment system, not whether it made rational sense.

In fact: I believe if we had to put alignments on real life people, the vast majority would be neutral, myself included. It's the same for fictional worlds. It always surprises me how my friends find excuses not to help people in adventures. "How is it my fault?". That's a prototypical neutral reaction. So if you want to play a good character, then show it.

I don't know if I agree the vast majority of people are Neutral, although I do agree that most people in a big world are happy focusing on their own stuff and tend to ignore crimes/problems outside their personal range because they're more focused on their own issues. Also, within that microcosm of their own issues, people are rarely Neutral. Finally, every day in my culture I am watching people try to impose their own values on others who have no relation to them or bearing on their lives, because they think their values are 'good' and other people's values are not. If people were really Neutral within the United States, the gay marriage and abortion issues would likely diminish greatly or even go away, among others.

Playing an evil one is way easier though, and much more fun.

TBH, evil itself can be rather boring. It's all rather predictable.

i suppose it can be fun if you're playing someone CUNNING regardless of alignment, but when selfishness becomes too extreme, it's predictable, vapid, and not very challenging.

 

[Redfire]

The caption referred to it as "type abuse." And yeah, I've heard people in game who are NG do that kind of stuff -- they chose Neutral Good so they could be more selective about who they helped. And if they really want freedom to do what they want regardless of outcome, they'll pick CG. People get confused over "order/chaos" vs "good/evil". Anyway, the whole thing was about how players abuse the alignment system, not whether it made rational sense.

Right, but they are completely misusing it then. If you want freedom choose chaotic neutral or neutral. Otherwise you should strive to be good.

I don't know if I agree the vast majority of people are Neutral, although I do agree that most people in a big world are happy focusing on their own stuff and tend to ignore crimes/problems outside their personal range because they're more focused on their own issues. Also, within that microcosm of their own issues, people are rarely Neutral. Finally, every day in my culture I am watching people try to impose their own values on others who have no relation to them or bearing on their lives, because they think their values are 'good' and other people's values are not. If people were really Neutral within the United States, the gay marriage and abortion issues would likely diminish greatly or even go away, among others.

You are right here. But I'd say that your alignment is determined by what you do, not by what you say. And most people just don't do anything unless it affects their lives directly.

What would most people do if they saw a guy being beaten? Nothing. Most people just aren't willing to risk their own lives/health to help another person. It depends though: I just thought that I did once tell a couple of kids to fuck off, when I saw them bullying another one. But that's because I was confident I could beat the shit out of them if it came to that. I wouldn't do that with adults though, as I don't have the same confidence. So I guess my alignment would be "good if it's not too much trouble" :P

This is of course overthinking though, the system is meant to be simplistic and that's ok.

TBH, evil itself can be rather boring. It's all rather predictable.

i suppose it can be fun if you're playing someone CUNNING regardless of alignment, but when selfishness becomes too extreme, it's predictable, vapid, and not very challenging.

Why does everyone assume evil means only looting and burning? Littlefinger is evil. Is he predictable and vapid? As you say, he is cunning, but also extremely selfish. On the other hand, Ned Stark is extremely predictable. And boring.

I also don't think being evil is less challenging. If anything, it's more challenging. Operating within the law is easy, you have less enemies. And even if you break the law, most people will be on your side, since most people support good characters.

Being evil just gives you more possibilities. e.g: a neutral evil wizard who is after knowledge and power can do absolutely anything to get it. A neutral good mage is completely restricted.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

We're playing 3.5. I kind of want to play the player's handbook so I can just read it for pleasure when we're not playing. I think being a DM would be the most fun, but I feel I need more experience with the game first.

I do like the synergy of the other players, and of course having other people is what makes the game work as well as it does, but I guess it's just not easy for me to really get into the game the way I want to with other people around. They're not really my friends, just fellow players, so that makes it more difficult. This is mainly why I said I wish I didn't have to play it with other people.

The point of this and other RPG games is to be with other people around.

I made my first more serious friends playing DnD, when I started around the age of 12. If you are socially awkward or maybe you just didn't have opportunities to meet with people regularly, then it's your chance to find some dedicated relationships.

This game is great when DMing and it sucks not to have the people to play with you, because playing mind games with yourself tends to be inferior to the experience that other imaginations can provide, if you haven't already found this out.

When I started, I also wanted to read as much of the rules and handbooks as it was fascinating, then I saw flaws and imbalances in those and used it to my advantage, then I simply created my own rpg systems and rules for my players.

Right, but they are completely misusing it then. If you want freedom choose chaotic neutral or neutral. Otherwise you should strive to be good.

I would argue that good/evil and chaotic/lawful axis in DnD were design flaws and the idea that you are restricted to act in a certain way is just beating the purpose of playing dynamic characters.

I decided to ignore all the characters that the players selected, unless they were clerics or paladins and they had to upkeep a code of honour or other rules. Most of the players will behave like psychopaths when you compare their abuses to their character while they are still fresh to the game.

I replaced the character with the reputation and sanity system, which was much better for interacting with my players and allowing them to act freely but also to harm themselves.

 

[Redfire]

I would argue that good/evil and chaotic/lawful axis in DnD were design flaws and the idea that you are restricted to act in a certain way is just beating the purpose of playing dynamic characters.

I decided to ignore all the characters that the players selected, unless they were clerics or paladins and they had to upkeep a code of honour or other rules. Most of the players will behave like psychopaths when you compare their abuses to their character while they are still fresh to the game.

I replaced the character with the reputation and sanity system, which was much better for interacting with my players and allowing them to act freely but also to harm themselves.

You are right. But when I play without alignments, all my characters end up behaving similarly. I have to make an effort to play different ones, and thinking about how the character is supposed to behave helps me.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

You are right. But when I play without alignments, all my characters end up behaving similarly. I have to make an effort to play different ones, and thinking about how the character is supposed to behave helps me.

Yes, but it is not about alignments. I have seen my players with this problem and it begins at the character creation imo.

I usually ask my players to create a history of their character, which includes some basic information like locations and knowns/fellows etc. but also their motivations, some major undertakings that led them to become lets say, a priest, or an assasin.

I don't know if you have ever tried this, but there are some basic guidelines or maybe you can introduce it to your circles, it tends to enhance the experience.

As a gm I used the stories and information from that character background in quests and as incentives, so it really linked together during the campaign.

With this, they usually have a clearer picture of what they did go through and what is their aim, also for the more self-restrictive, it is good to write a personal code of conduct as a reminder, but with experience, you can really get into a role that is convenient for you and more or less stick to it and improvise.

 

[Jennywocky]

Why does everyone assume evil means only looting and burning? Littlefinger is evil. Is he predictable and vapid? As you say, he is cunning, but also extremely selfish. On the other hand, Ned Stark is extremely predictable. And boring.

Did you really think through my post? I stated this already.

Littlefinger is cunning. That is what provides him with any interest. But his selfishness is boring and predictable. Watch ANY movie, and evil itself is rather like an empty shell, it's always the same old schtick driving the bus. The same old self-indulgent, fuck others over shit.

Ned can be boring at times due to his lack of cunning. But I think his goodness was interesting when he sacrificed his honor for his family. I wasn't sure what he would do. Good can transcend itself and surprise people; evil doesn't.

(And yeah, before someone else takes this on yet another tangent, "good and evil" are moral values that can shift in meaning depending on the speaker.)

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

I would say Littlefinger is neutral (dnd wise), he just acts in his own interest, but also can be potentially fond and loyal as far as his personal affairs go.

 

[Jennywocky]

I would say Littlefinger is neutral (dnd wise), he just acts in his own interest, but also can be potentially fond and loyal as far as his personal affairs go.

That's an interesting question. What affairs of his would you consider "personal" and not potentially exploitative? Have we actually seen any relationships he might have that he is vulnerable and lets down his guard within? And how would you know? ANy fondness and loyalty he has shown has eventually been exploited by him to achieve an end.

All we really know is his fixation on Caitlyn to the point of almost dying in a duel years and years ago to win her (he lost), and she ended up marrying Ned (the brother of the guy who beat him). That's the only time i can recall in the entire show where I feel Littlefinger has been honest and open about something that emotionally impacted him. Every other relationship is utilized somehow to fit a plan.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

That's an interesting question. What affairs of his would you consider "personal" and not potentially exploitative? Have we actually seen any relationships he might have that he is vulnerable and lets down his guard within? And how would you know? ANy fondness and loyalty he has shown has eventually been exploited by him to achieve an end.

All we really know is his fixation on Caitlyn to the point of almost dying in a duel years and years ago to win her (he lost), and she ended up marrying Ned (the brother of the guy who beat him). That's the only time i can recall in the entire show where I feel Littlefinger has been honest and open about something that emotionally impacted him. Every other relationship is utilized somehow to fit a plan.

I didn't see the show, but I recently read some books to be more "updated" with the trends.

So he is also very fond of Caitlyns daughter, the one that was supposed to marry Joeffrey and he certainly collaborates and let his guard down with her, or at least it could be interpreted as such.

I wouldn't say that this cannot be viewed in other way, but further developments seem to be leading to this, especially when they escaped from the King's Landing.

Maybe you are just somewhat behind with the plot, but these are the elements that make me think so when it comes to his personality.

I would give him either neutral or neutral evil if we were to push egocentrism or manipulation into that category, but I tend to label evil as harming the enviroment on purpose and acting with malicious intent, rather than protecting your life and well-being, etc.(when it comes to dnd evil/good axis, ofc.)
dnd;
good->others good, self good
neutral->self good, anything goes
evil->others wrong, self good

 

[Redfire]

Did you really think through my post? I stated this already.

Littlefinger is cunning. That is what provides him with any interest. But his selfishness is boring and predictable. Watch ANY movie, and evil itself is rather like an empty shell, it's always the same old schtick driving the bus. The same old self-indulgent, fuck others over shit.

Ned can be boring at times due to his lack of cunning. But I think his goodness was interesting when he sacrificed his honor for his family. I wasn't sure what he would do. Good can transcend itself and surprise people; evil doesn't.

(And yeah, before someone else takes this on yet another tangent, "good and evil" are moral values that can shift in meaning depending on the speaker.)

I understand your view, but I think being evil is no more boring than being good. Both can be boring, both can be interesting. When it's interesting, it can be because of cunning, or because of other reason.
And anecdotally: I had more fun with evil characters. By the way: give me some examples of cunning good characters. I'm having trouble with that. Preferably from GoT. (I'm not saying they don't exist, I just honestly can't think of that many. But I can think of countless cunning evil ones. It may be because they have more of a chance to prove it).

Believe me: Littlefinger is evil by D&D standards. I just don't want to spoil the books. But even in the show, what about killing Dontos just because he MIGHT talk?

The fact that he is attracted to Cat hardly changes anything. I don't think he would die for her, but he would definitely sacrifice his interests to a certain degree to get her. Why? Because he loves her (it's obviously not just sexual attraction, he really does love her). Still, how is that not selfish?

Just to mention it: book-Littlefinger is more reserved than show-Littlefinger. For example: he would never openly challenge Cersei ("Knowledge is power" scene).

 

[Jennywocky]

Well, visual media is different than written media. In visual , you really need to SHOW things, and depending on how you're doing things, you don't necessarily see into a character's head. A character on screen who doesn't do things (is more subdued) is more difficult to pull off effectively. The written text is much better suited for passive and internalized characters.

Of course, in comparison, stage is even more "out there" and larger than life, than movies/TV -- the latter where at least you can use framing tricks and zooms and whatever else to hear and see minute details of the character.

IOW, in the TV show, they create scenes that pack more punch into shorter periods of time, versus the book where a page of writing is cheap in comparison and has more time to unfold.

Maybe you are just somewhat behind with the plot, but these are the elements that make me think so when it comes to his personality.

I am up to date with the TV show. So any of my comments are based on whatever's aired to this point.

 

[Redfire]

You are right, yes. It's tricky. But there must be some way. Basically: let the viewers realize he is up to something, but don't make him say it. I still very much like the performance though, but it's just a different character. A less cautious character who likes showing off his cleverness.

 

[wilsonwatsonc]

Yes, but it is not about alignments. I have seen my players with this problem and it begins at the character creation imo.

I usually ask my players to create a history of their character, which includes some basic information like locations and knowns/fellows etc. but also their motivations, some major undertakings that led them to become lets say, a priest, or an assasin.

I don't know if you have ever tried this, but there are some basic guidelines or maybe you can introduce it to your circles, it tends to enhance the experience.

As a gm I used the stories and information from that character background in quests and as incentives, so it really linked together during the campaign.

With this, they usually have a clearer picture of what they did go through and what is their aim, also for the more self-restrictive, it is good to write a personal code of conduct as a reminder, but with experience, you can really get into a role that is convenient for you and more or less stick to it and improvise.

That's exactly what my DM does. It really made the game more interesting, and like your character was really a part of the world. It also helps the alignments make more sense. There are reasons why your character is the way he/she is. Also, my DM makes it so that traumatic events can change the alignment of your character. For example there were two characters that were identical twins. One of them died, so the other (a cleric) became much more jaded afterwards.

I personally really like the alignments. Of course it's going to be somewhat simplistic, but it does keep the game interesting. It makes it so you can't just play the same character every time. And of course, you can always build on the alignment structure. You don't have to limit yourself.

 

[Jennywocky]

There's a range in behavior within alignments, just as there is within MBTI. It's not hard to get some variation.

That being said, I generally play games without alignment systems nowadays.

 

[cool.nanny1]

I been playing d&d 2e 3 years now but we lost our crew because we moved I need to get new players


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Architect]

Necro ...

Discovering a original Red Book D&D set in my garage when I was young was a big moment in my life. "What was this?" It wasn't a novel, it was a manual of some kind. If you haven't seen it the Red Book set is bare bones, I had no idea what this was about. But after a time I finally got it, "ah ha, your create this virtual world and move characters around in it". The concept blew me away, and influenced what I did from there.

I never actually played D&D much due to the difficulties in pulling it together. Too hard to coordinate players and develop a good campaign. Too slow too.

These days I play Lord of the Rings Online as a better substitute. Based on literature (LOTR) it has an incredible story line, and the game has stayed true to that, as much as they could. Otherwise the game is loaded to the gills with quests, deeds, crafting, kindships and so forth. Way better than any D&D campaign I played, the computer handles the mechanics, and you get graphics. I remember painting lead figurines to get some semblance of that in the old day.

Of course there's WoW, Elder Scrolls and variations, for my money I'd just play one of those as you can be a serious game player and still have a life.

 

[Analyzer]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7sW7yF4tM8

 

[Jennywocky]

Well, actually, to be a serious MMO player, you're gonna be raiding and have even less of a life than an avid pen and paper RPG'er. it's the reason I typically do not participate in guilds and raid.

If you're just going to be play solo games and not really do organized interaction with other MMO players (which is one of the draws of MMO), I guess there is more flexibility.

 

[Hadoblado]

D&D requires organisation to play, it's very hard to waste your life on because you'll rarely have a group willing to play more than once a week.

Even though I probably enjoy D&D more, I've spent vastly more time on computer games.

 

[Architect]

Well, actually, to be a serious MMO player, you're gonna be raiding and have even less of a life than an avid pen and paper RPG'er. it's the reason I typically do not participate in guilds and raid. If you're just going to be play solo games and not really do organized interaction with other MMO players (which is one of the draws of MMO), I guess there is more flexibility.

Depends on the MMO. I don't play WoW but I understand that is what it's like. LOTRO is quite different, not being a PvP game since that's not in the spirit of Tolkien. There you can easily solo, and joining a Kin just gives you some sociability and backup if you need it for a particular quest.

In LOTRO they're called "instances" (player group against environment) and yes - those can take some time to set up, but not much more than an hour total. Usually we do an ad-hoc group of whoever is on, has the right level and is interested. Yes time is wasted to set up, because somebody or other didn't buy that region or whatever, but its not a big deal usually.

I play with my son so it's easy, we just adventure along on our schedule. I have solo toons too, and can easily level them along without help.

 

[Jennywocky]

Depends on the MMO. I don't play WoW but I understand that is what it's like. LOTRO is quite different, not being a PvP game since that's not in the spirit of Tolkien. There you can easily solo, and joining a Kin just gives you some sociability and backup if you need it for a particular quest.

Ah, got it. LOTRO is one of the major stock fantasy MMOs I haven't played (I've done a number -- EQII, WoW, Matrix Online, Rift, Tera, SWTOR, etc.)

I don't know if WoW incorporated ideas from Rift, but one thing I liked about Rift was the "PUG Raid" concept. There are periodic world/zone events (like, a huge Ancient of some type gets spawned / a story wave is triggered), and instead of having to actively organize a raid to defeat large beasties, you can just walk into proximity of the event and if you agree, you are automatically attached to a random 5-person group, which is then added to the large raid group. So it's basically on-the-fly raid events for solo players. You can bail without people getting on your case, and you'll get stuff once the monster is defeated anyway -- just up to the amount of investment you made in the raid.

I play with my son so it's easy, we just adventure along on our schedule. I have solo toons too, and can easily level them along without help.

It's cool to have kids play, it's fun + a bonding experience.

 

[Architect]

I don't know if WoW incorporated ideas from Rift, but one thing I liked about Rift was the "PUG Raid" concept. There are periodic world/zone events (like, a huge Ancient of some type gets spawned / a story wave is triggered), and instead of having to actively organize a raid to defeat large beasties, you can just walk into proximity of the event and if you agree, you are automatically attached to a random 5-person group, which is then added to the large raid group. So it's basically on-the-fly raid events for solo players. You can bail without people getting on your case, and you'll get stuff once the monster is defeated anyway -- just up to the amount of investment you made in the raid.

That's a smart way to do it. Like I said it's hard and time consuming to organize a Raid. LOTRO has a few - Helegrod in the Misty Mountains is a 12 person instance/raid. Pretty fun but you have to set aside a couple hours as it takes about an hour to get it all organized. It's fully optional (and you have to pay for it) so there's no need to do the instance though.

It's cool to have kids play, it's fun + a bonding experience.

His friends are jealous, none of the other dads play video games with their kids. I wasn't really into it but did it as a father-son thing, now we're dedicated gamers together. I still hate FPS's though.

 

[littleanubis]

I grew up with 3.5 although recently I started playing 5. If anything it has a lot more character balance going for it, which I enjoy when playing in bigger groups, and so far stats can't go over 20. That and humans only get starting feats, but DM has to decide if he/she wants to use them or not.

But yeah I love D&D, it is a good creative outlet for me to focus on when dealing with the same day to day monotonous tasks (like at work). Just go on auto pilot, work, but really ponder D&D to help get through the day.