Got tired

[Uatu]

I am already getting depressed just imagining it!

No need to buy new computers unless the old one breaks down (shouldn't if you take care of it) - or if you want to play the newest games. (I never played the newest games... Still don't. Arrgh.)

[manikus]

That aren't that many new games that come out that interest me. I don't like the MMOs, too many idiots. And, I certainly won't play anything that requires a monthly fee. I'm not into 'action' or 'sports' games. I don't much care for most simulator games (like flight sims, driving sims).

So, how many good(looking) RPGs or strategy games come out a year? If they look really spiffy, I might ask for it for X-mas or as a b-day gift, but typically I play for an hour or so and start thinking, "How can I do this in DC or Neverwinter Nights?" (Not to mention that there are a ton of games I already own that I still enjoy playing.)

[Funky Dynamite]

This is my opinion, and I'm not meaning to upset anybody....
I actually like 3rd Edition, The new rules make things simpler and the Feats streamline thwe game. The single EXP chart for every class made things incredibly simple for me. As far as I remember the rules are not "console-like" in my opinion. I like the Feats, after the years of struggling with the races and classes, to me they're a fresh breath of air. Trying to remember this race has thisd bonus and that class has that bonus in midst of a adventure was a bit nerve racking. Now you can look at your sheet.
I can't talk about 1st Ed because I haven't played it. (Unless you count that one time I was six when I got my tail handed to me by that seven headed blue dragon, but I don't, because that was two kids playing on the bus.) But I have played 2nd a good part of my life. The fact, for example, if you were a elf or a mage you had to be weak, or a fighter had to be Conan the Barbarian I didn't like. That, and the level caps drove me insane. In 3rd you can customize your character, in 2nd in my experience you couldn't really. On the other hand, I much prefer the THAC0 and AC system, it was far less clunky and much more easier to understand. Even now, after playing 3rd a number of years, I -still- don't quite understand the new AC system, I'm still used to seeing that "-10" on my sheet.
What most people don't quite understand is what's in the books are rules, not laws. It is up to the GM how to interpret those rules, if they don't work in the campaign, they should be changed. For instance, I do not use initative. And I have guns in my campaign. Why? Guns fit my campaign, intitative doesn't. I had the luck of having a very good GM during my early years. Great guy, fair, let you get away with murder.... He told actual stories, character development actually went on. A man facing his past, a young Paladin learning everything that is dark is evil. These are but a few things that went on his campaign. I have played the same two characters for close to 20 years. Few people can say that. Modern campaigns are little less than PC slaughter fest, and contests who can stab who in the back before they get it themselves.
As for 4th Ed, I'm with you guys....
What...the....?!
As somebody else said, what? Is it going to be "3rd Ed-esque"? C'mon Wizards, stop thinking like Microsoft and just produce a quality game!

[SilentThief]

Originally Posted by manikus I don't like the MMOs, too many idiots.

ROFL, just like reality!!!

Originally Posted by manikus That aren't that many new games that come out that interest me...So, how many good(looking) RPGs or strategy games come out a year? If they look really spiffy, I might ask for it for X-mas or as a b-day gift, but typically I play for an hour or so and start thinking, "How can I do this in DC or Neverwinter Nights?"

Yeah, I understand this! The time I devote to (Xbox) Morrowind: Elder scrolls 3 has made me desire more from our DC (like the mark and recall spells, you "mark" a place with the first one, then teleport back to the spot with the second). I also compare the way morrowind handles quests(and they do a good job; but I think I'd do better ), and you could do the same thing in DC without any real trouble. The biggest problem I have with any of this style of games is they generally have a quest like this: Go here and get (whatever) item, go there and kill someone. Its really not all that thought out.

As for MMO's, I think that the idea of multiplayer online or over wifi is the way to go. I mean, it would be awesome to do the AOL/Goldbox style neverwinter knights. I understand there are "too many idiots" and thats a problem in general with our world , but it is a little lonely playing FRUA or Goldbox games by myself.

Now as to what I think the "ultimate" style game would be, it'd be multiplayer and feature several user-defined organizations (or guilds) that are in a constant power struggle. These guilds (what we'll call them, even tho they are just a collection of ppl) are set up quests by thier leader/god/whatever sets up these quests. It could be to assassinate a different guilds member(s), get an item from thier possession, or two guilds given the task of getting the same item (even belonging to a 3rd guilds members). The leaders/gods or whatever could be people who are developers (or players who've attained "godhood") and they come up with the types of guilds, the style of clothing, the spells, the items, abilities, and the quests. They's have to have some kind of balance to thier powers so as to not make a type of character too powerful, and yet still have something that is the norm for RPGs is the ability to better your abilities.

SilentThief

[manikus]

I think multi-player is great, I just can't stand MMOs. A DM running 6 to 8 folks through their DC design would be awesome.

As for the edition wars I don't hate 3e. I think it's a fairly straight-forward system that is not without merit. If I'd grown up playing it, I'd be no worse for it. But, (ther is always a but), what I don't like is that WotC/Hasbro took an already existing game which had done pretty well but was starting to look tapped out, and crammed this new ruleset onto it and said "if you want to play it now, you've got to buy everything over again". They should have just made a new game and retired AD&D. Heck, they could have still called it Dungeons & Dragons, just thrown an 'Ultimate' at the beginning and come out with new product lines. Forgotten Realms should have remained 2e and they could have just created a new world setting, such as "Lost Domains" and moved on from there.

[Uatu]

Yes, exactly! 3e can be its own (very different game) from 1e/2e - but changing all the rules and then calling it D&D basically killed all the older materials! If you want to make a new game, you should call it something else...

(But I also just don't agree with many things that 3e did - "feats" sounds corny (and there are too many of them), races/experience points have been unified/equalled, etc... These differences were part of what was fun in the game...)

[SilentThief]

right, and since the characters and races are all made equal, then I suppose 3rd Ed humans live 2000 years?

SilentThief

[manikus]

Humans? The only race I'm familiar with is hudwelgnolings...

[SilentThief]

Originally Posted by manikus I still have a laptop with DOS 5. I bought it in '92 to use for word processing and it still does it just fine.

So you don't need DosBox, after all . Along those lines, what did you mean when you said "you need a front end" for dosbox and goldbox games?

SilentThief

[Uatu]

Well, except for longevity (which doesn't really come into play so much) and physical features and such (That said, I hate 3e halflings - they just look like quarter-sized humans).