Dungeons and Dragons is the best role playing system for crpg's

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DrSpike


I actually like history, and I also think games like Civ are a great way to teach some broad historical facts to children (and the more ignorant adults ).

But when someone responds to a well argued point on balance from someone who understands the game that they are wrong because it just isn't realistic I want to beat them over the head with a very large stick. Repeatedly.

Just curious - was that a civ2 or a civ3 discussion?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by child of Thor
Elite2+3 are the best games because they model space in a realistic way.

More realistic, you mean.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Just curious - was that a civ2 or a civ3 discussion?

It's mostly come up in Civ3 discussions, though has happened with other games as well.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DrSpike


It's mostly come up in Civ3 discussions, though has happened with other games as well.

were you around for the civ specific units - good or bad - debate?

[DrSpike]

Quite possibly. There were lots of debates, so I can't remember for sure.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DrSpike
Quite possibly. There were lots of debates, so I can't remember for sure.

guess which side I took. It might surprise you.

[Nostromo]

In DnD i never understood why Plate was a better armour class than Chainmail for stopping arrows?

Probably just a simplification, for gameplay's sake. Concerning armor, I never understood why you need a skill to wear armor.

[Dis]

yeah it should require strenght, and it should lower dexterity. Though this is modelled by the low dexterity bonus of platemail.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


guess which side I took. It might surprise you.

Well given that any answer other than 'good' is indefensible I'd hope that's the way you answered.

[LDiCesare]

From my point of view, D&D/D20 isabout the worst role playing system ever. That's because all other systems came after it and wouldn't have sold a copy hadn't they been better omehow. Still, the settings and simplicity of D&D make it popular.
My main gripe with Kotor (apart from performance issues related to hardware) was that it used the D20 system, effectively meaning it's almost impossible to specialize your character. Groups of characters in Baldur's Gate 2 always end up looking the same, with the same abilities. I much preferred a system like Arcanum's, which was class-less, but where it was not possible to build up every skill or spell. You chose your profession without being restricted somehow from the start. The D20 ability to change class is good but still far from the flexibility of a system like RuneQuest or all other Chaosium games, whose skill system was very simple.

[Dis]

bah, see my argument about about flexibility.

characters in BG2 were not the same!

If anything, D&D provides very unique types of characters.

where as games like Morrowind all the characters end up the same- despite the flexibility. Tell me which is better?

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by LDiCesare

My main gripe with Kotor (apart from performance issues related to hardware) was that it used the D20 system, effectively meaning it's almost impossible to specialize your character.

KotOR had some scope for specialisation, but used a simplified version of the Aurora engine. The full Aurora engine used in d20 system games like NWN has even more flexibility. If you think the scope for specialisation in this engine is limited you need to play through again.

And as for the performance issues, you seem to have those on almost every game you mention on these forums. Time to look at other explanations than the game?

[LDiCesare]

Arcanum provides for unique characters. Morrowind totally lacks dialogues.
BG2 has very similar groups, even if the characters are different. To start with, the PC will always have the max possible number of followers even if he chose to have Charisma of 3. You could add up all the different kinds of characters you wanted, you always ended up doing the single thing D&D can model: Fight. I tried the game with radically different PCs, trying to pick different NPCs in the group, and it always felt the same. There were no diplomacy aspects in these games because diplomacy is not handled by the D&D rules (D20 slightly better than 2nd ed here). Thievery wasn't much of an option either for most of the main quests. So you did end up with fighting machines. In Arcanum, you can play the whole game as a diplomat, with only one place where you need some muscle (which a diplomact can get by hiring a dumb half ogre), or you can sneak your way through the game. Because the system lets you do so.
Your argument about flexibility doesn't take into account the fact that Morrowind lets you become excellent in everything, whereas Arcanum doesn't even though it is flexible.

[Dis]

that is a failure of the game of BG2 in itself, not of the D&D system.

Games such as Fallout2 are more flexible because they do allow you to play a diplomat character.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Dissident
If anything, D&D provides very unique types of characters.

Not true, because in AD&D you have classes. The only way to have more variety of characters is to provide more classes. Contrast this to classless RPG systems such as DragonQuest or Champions. They are far better at creating a broad spectrum of characters.