# Dungeons and Dragons



## pynkwolfboi (Aug 28, 2009)

Anyone a Dungeons and Dragons player? I don't know if this could be posted in this discussion, but I thought so since this is just games, and not types of games in general.

In my personal opinion, the new D&D 4.0 sux, I usually go with 3.0 or 3.5.

Here is a question though, I am trying to look for the infamous "Book of Erotic Fantasy", does anyone know where I can get it?


----------



## KrazFabbit (Aug 28, 2009)

I used to play it a good bit, but haven't done much lately.

And I agree, 4e is pretty terrible, 3.5 is pretty much the best addition I've played.

As for the BOEF, you could check online. Just so you know that, while it is kinda interesting, it's nothing all that great.


----------



## Huntress (Aug 28, 2009)

I actually like 4th edition. But to each their own, I have the BOEF and its pretty cool mainly for when their are sexual encounters between party members and each other or NPCs.


----------



## CryoScales (Aug 28, 2009)

I think it depends on what DM you have. As most DMs I have are really good at 4th edition.


----------



## Ragnarok-Cookies (Aug 28, 2009)

D&D is pretty fun, but I hate it when people get supah serious about a game.


----------



## Huntress (Aug 28, 2009)

CryoScales said:


> I think it depends on what DM you have. As most DMs I have are really good at 4th edition.



Exactly. A good DM with experience and skill can make any game fun, whether its 3rd, 3.5 or 4th or whatever. They even have anthro races that you can play right from the start without any extra books and whatnot.


----------



## CryoScales (Aug 28, 2009)

Huntress said:


> Exactly. A good DM with experience and skill can make any game fun, whether its 3rd, 3.5 or 4th or whatever. They even have anthro races that you can play right from the start without any extra books and whatnot.



Bare in mind, you can also homebrew races and classes


----------



## Ozriel (Aug 28, 2009)

D&D 4.0 are for those "Special kids" who want things a little bit easier.


----------



## CryoScales (Aug 28, 2009)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> D&D 4.0 are for those "Special kids" who want things a little bit easier.



4.0 isn't about extremely complicated gameplay. If you want complicated gameplay get a DM with a fetish for puzzles. 4.0 is more about roleplaying and story


----------



## Huntress (Aug 28, 2009)

4.0 can get very complicated again its all about the DM and the players involved, just like any other game. Though I will say that my group did more roleplaying in 4th then we did in 3.5.


----------



## Ozriel (Aug 28, 2009)

CryoScales said:


> 4.0 isn't about extremely complicated gameplay. If you want complicated gameplay get a DM with a fetish for puzzles. 4.0 is more about roleplaying and story



I know.
I just hate the game mechanics for 4.0.


----------



## Kipple (Aug 28, 2009)

The BoEF represents all that is wrong with fantasy and the people who like it.

But if we're going to be serious, the edition is about as important as the text editor you use. 4e does a lot of things faster, so I tend to use that. The only problem is that the system is heavily abstracted and doesn't write a lot of things in for players looking for something more simulationist.

Right now, I'm running a campaign set in an arctic wasteland and a slightly higher tech-level - rigs, drills, geothermal power, harpoon guns. The party is racing through a range of intelligent glaciers (and the yeti-like orcs that worship them) to beat an oil baron to Black Ice, a newly discovered oil field.


----------



## Huntress (Aug 28, 2009)

I think that 4th edition actually simplifies everything for everyone. I actually played my first Cleric because of how they worked out the abilities in the game. I know my friend is also enjoying how as a mage his spells are so much easier now to use and even customize his spell book a bit easier then in 3rd and 3.5 edition.


----------



## Kaamos (Aug 28, 2009)

I used to play, but my group split up when most of us went to college or military service. We were on 3.5, but we got the 4.0 books just for fun.


----------



## HectorRamstein (Aug 28, 2009)

lol ya...i go with 3.5


----------



## Vikar (Aug 29, 2009)

I play quite a bit, as well as other games. Currently playing Shadowrun, Star Wars Dark Heresy and 3.5.


----------



## Huntress (Aug 29, 2009)

My friends and I are now talking about running a Furry DnD 3.5 game, using a Furry World my friend created for us to play in. As well as working out what each furry would get in relations to stat modification because of species.


----------



## Taernost (Aug 29, 2009)

I feel so old now; not one person has even mentioned 2nd edition here.

Personally, I've mostly played 3rd and 3.5, so maybe that's why I feel most comfortable there and tend to think that's the best version of the game so far, but I can see the appeal of 4th. It really does have a much tighter and more easily measured set of balanced classes and monsters, and it removes so many short-term options while still preserving long-term options (in fact, giving more flexibility with long-term ones) that it promotes ease of play and lowers the barrier for new players, which is great both from a business perspective and also from a player one, since it's rare that anyone ever has _too many _players for a game.

That said, you lose so much customization and the game almost seems intent on hamstringing the DM (dictating how economies should work, giving no rules whatsoever for custom power creation, being set in a poorly-detailed ambiguous world which has gone so far as to rewrite the histories of other worlds to force them to confrom to this new idea, even going so far as to suggest play _without a DM_ as a viable option) that 4th almost feels like a bastard child of the previous versions with no real soul or respect for where it came from and who made it possible (ie, the people who've been playing the game over the years prior to its creation).

Edit to avoid double-posting:



Huntress said:


> My friends and I are now talking about running a Furry DnD 3.5 game, using a Furry World my friend created for us to play in. As well as working out what each furry would get in relations to stat modification because of species.



The 3.0 Savage Species Handbook actually contains dozens of anthro races and a general formula for making your own (though for some reason it chose to penalize Cha as part of that formula; not sure why, honestly), not to mention tons of feats, spells, items, and templates which could be very handy for the sort of thing you're working on. I strongly suggest trying to find a copy of that unless you're really willing to just build all of this from the ground up yourselves.


----------



## Huntress (Aug 29, 2009)

I have that book so I will take a look at it and recommend it to my friend if it is what we are looking for. 

As for what you said about 4th edition I think like any game of any edition it depends on the players and the DM to make the game more fun. The first and most important rule of any game is that the DM is God and therefore can do or say whatever they feel like since they are in complete control. I don't know who would play a game without a proper DM, I don't see that being very fun or lasting for very long. 

All I know is that with just people playing and a third DMing my friends and I were able to still have a fun and rather exciting several game sessions where we fought and killed one youngling Black dragon, then go nearly killed by a youngling green dragon who tried to trick us into a trap. The DM let us do whatever we want and only gave us partial guidence to a general plot which was why my friend and I spent a good ten minutes arguing in character as we were supposed to be heading to the armorsmith to get the Dragon skin we got from the Black dragon turned into some armor. We nearly died about twice in the first 3 sessions but that edge of near death made the game more exciting and I never really experienced that save for when we attempted to run through the World's Largest Dungeon.

Also we had tried and 2nd edition game as well, but the rule nazi in our group made it near unbearable to play with him so the game kind of just fizzled out.


----------



## pynkwolfboi (Aug 29, 2009)

Huntress said:


> I actually like 4th edition. But to each their own, I have the BOEF and its pretty cool mainly for when their are sexual encounters between party members and each other or NPCs.


 
I now have the BOEF on Adobe Library. I am actually trying to see if I can get some furry characters in a 3.5 campaign.... If anyone has read the Brian Jaques Books: Martin the Warrior, Redwall, Mossflower, etc. I would love to get a campaign setting in Mossflower and Mossflower area.


----------



## Digitalpotato (Aug 29, 2009)

I'd play D&D more if the groups around here weren't elitist scrubs or stuck-up-snobs who think their rules are better.

no, it's not because one group chastised me and called me stupid for even looking at a 3rd edition book because they only played 2nd edition and Dark sun or because another group dry-humps Spellcasters Edition (aka 3.5) and it's evident in 90% of their groups. It's because some of htem aren't good people IRL or because they just nitpick the books apart for the single most overpowered builds possible and castigate you for doing stuff your own way. ("You're _NOT_ multiclassing?!?! YOU NOOB!!!!") They also scorn D20 because it's "too simplistic" and at the same time say Urban Arcana is "Too overcomplicated" (which I find fucking hilarious considering it's no more complex than Spellcasters edition to me) 

Then I finally convince the members (The DMs were actually pretty nice, and the one who approved me using characters from Oriental Adventure actually smiled when I said I was using it) that I'm not a weeaboo because I actually want to play a Wu Jen, they say stuff like "wtf kind of taboos are those?! DO STUFF LIKE 'CAN'T WIELD AN EXOTIC WEAPON!' OR 'CAN'T WEAR PLATE ARMOUR!'" and ask why I'm not playing a Shugenja despite there's another sorcerer in the group and no wizard type so why not just get the flexibility. Then I'm called a weeaboo despite that the "Far east" in the DM's personal campaign is only china and the character is clearly chinese. (Yeah how many japanese people do you know with names like Mei Zhen?) The straw that broke the cmale's back was just plane Hypocrisy.... "No using stuff from expansion books because they overcomplicate the game!" and then they crack open Complete Divine and Arcane while another person prestiges into an overpowerd-as-shit class they downloaded from the internet. I liked the DMs and all, they were rather nice people but those stop having fun scrubs just ruined it.


----------



## CryoScales (Aug 29, 2009)

Taernost said:


> I feel so old now; not one person has even mentioned 2nd edition here.



I play Second and First edition if I REALLY want to play DnD in a hurry. As both of them don't take very long to create characters. But the both of them are very simplistic in parts, but overcomplicated in others.


----------



## Coolcat33333 (Aug 30, 2009)

I actually play it in RP form online,

if more people did it this way, I might be willing to try a furry campaign.


----------



## aftershok (Aug 30, 2009)

thank the gods ,, someone said  1st edition..ADnD  2nd..  etc.. LOL,, Got to love all them dice,,  hehehe..   I actually did not like 3rd as much,,   
btw,, a great TTRP is Cyberpunk..  what a blast..


----------



## gray_foxor (Aug 30, 2009)

I playedbit for the first time with my friend and he said it was a freeform rpg thing. I wanna be a ninja but NOOOO it's against the rules, bawwww, etc. Then I wanna pack of wolves to help me fight but I can't have that either. So I end up with some crappy rogue were-wolf thing. And I'm not allowed to kill people. This was the last straw. I never played again.

BTW it was edition 4.


----------



## CryoScales (Aug 30, 2009)

gray_foxor said:


> I playedbit for the first time with my friend and he said it was a freeform rpg thing. I wanna be a ninja but NOOOO it's against the rules, bawwww, etc. Then I wanna pack of wolves to help me fight but I can't have that either. So I end up with some crappy rogue were-wolf thing. And I'm not allowed to kill people. This was the last straw. I never played again.
> 
> BTW it was edition 4.



In that case it's not so much the game's fault. It's the DM's. Since your DM could pretty much start you out as a god if he liked


----------



## aftershok (Aug 30, 2009)

gray_foxor said:


> I playedbit for the first time with my friend and he said it was a freeform rpg thing. I wanna be a ninja but NOOOO it's against the rules, bawwww, etc. Then I wanna pack of wolves to help me fight but I can't have that either. So I end up with some crappy rogue were-wolf thing. And I'm not allowed to kill people. This was the last straw. I never played again.
> 
> BTW it was edition 4.


How the hell were not allowed to kill ppl,,  what a horrible,, DM,,   making you such an alignment, when killing ppl is what you want..


----------



## gray_foxor (Aug 30, 2009)

CryoScales said:


> In that case it's not so much the game's fault. It's the DM's. Since your DM could pretty much start you out as a god if he liked



Fuck him! I declare a military coup.


----------



## Axelfox (Aug 30, 2009)

Well i remember 2nd edition and i don't understand why TSR/WOTC shafted DragonLance.


----------



## Digitalpotato (Aug 30, 2009)

gray_foxor said:


> I playedbit for the first time with my friend and he said it was a freeform rpg thing. I wanna be a ninja but NOOOO it's against the rules, bawwww, etc. Then I wanna pack of wolves to help me fight but I can't have that either. So I end up with some crappy rogue were-wolf thing. And I'm not allowed to kill people. This was the last straw. I never played again.
> 
> BTW it was edition 4.



That's the DM's fault, not exactly the game rules. The DM is allowed to bend or even screw the rules all s/he wants. (I've heard of campaigns where people are actually _encouraged_ to do stuff like slaughter entire towns of gnomes for the purpose of them being gnomes.)

See D&D Shares a flaw with MMOGs and other games that are only online (Like TF2 or Counter-Strike) and you're dependent almost entirely on other people. But with D&D and other Tabletop games it can be even moooore fubared by other people because you can go into one group that you find out has just completely screwed the rules or join another group that is full of nazis that don't allow you to do anything. (Such as the groups out here that kept tryign to peer-pressure me into making a Wu Jen's taboos with no effort. :/ dude "Can't introduce herself to men" is lax enough.)


----------



## Huntress (Aug 30, 2009)

That's why playing with the same people over and over again is important. As a group you all know how each other work and what class they will probably play in order to balance out the party. Makes the game more enjoyable overall, as well as of course a good and competent DM.


----------



## Kommodore (Aug 30, 2009)

Well I got into DnD a very short time ago with my buddies just before they left for college. We played quite a bit before the Exodus, but now everyone is gone and I am pretty sadface about it. We have plans to meet up during the various brakes which will be good, but there will be long dry spells inbetween - especially considering that there is no DnD group in the college I am at and I'll be damned If I had to make one myself. 

But yes I play.


----------



## Garrus (Sep 1, 2009)

If anyone's familiar, I started off collecting Warhammer Fantasy's Lizardmen, fell in love with lizardmen in fantasy in general, played Morrowind with my friends and then when we tried DnD my friend who DM'd said, "You seem to love Lizardmen, you want to play as one?"

Furry soon started off somewhere shortly after that for me 

And again if anyone knows Yu-Anti Abominations, well lets say that and the oozemaster class really had an effect on me


----------



## Bandy (Sep 1, 2009)

*I started up with a group of beginners on one of my other sites and we were all getting starting to get the hang of it when our DM disappeared offline. Haven't talked to him in about a year and lost the interest to play. If he did come back though I might try again.
*


----------



## Nezumi7 (Sep 1, 2009)

How'd I miss this topic... ;p

I absolutely <3 D&D. I played it through the majority of my high school and college days. (Nerdcore! Whoo!)

My first few tries at it were kind of dull because most people didn't want to think outside the source books. Anything out of the ordinary was bad outright and I almost gave up until a friend tried to run a game for kicks.

Best. DM. EVER.

Not just because he let us play what we wanted, but he would have great adventures, and great plots that linked together so in such a subtle way that you'd have to be psychic to see it coming. And through him my imagination soared. I made some of my favorite characters of all time, whether it was my gnoll paladin who eventually rebelled against his inherent corrupt order and overthrew it with help, eventually being unanimously declared a cardinal, my orc mage who had maxed out strength and the intelligence of a rock but strove forward to bring the power of the arcane to his clan, or my lizardfolk monk who (with the help of various online resources) was able to craft his own martial arts style which I believe was used in other games by other people playing them.

I had a blast, and would LOVE to play again. Two inhibitors though --

1) I can't stand 4e. Can't. Stand. 4e.
2) NO ONE in my area plays at all. Ever. EVER.

But yeah. One of my best experiences ever ^^


----------



## Vikar (Sep 1, 2009)

Anybody interested in starting up a game over IRC or something? I've been reading through Eclipse Phase, and have found it intriguing. It's also free (legally), and a good read. If not that, Shadowrun is always fun. And it only costs a mere .05% of your metahumanity to get a get a full anthro conversion. 

Link to download Eclipse Phase.


----------



## Ibuuyk (Sep 1, 2009)

Dunno if it counts, but I play D&D: Eye of the Beholder on GBA


----------



## Huntress (Sep 2, 2009)

So far the Furry DnD game that my friends and I are creating is turning out very well, got the species worked out and now all we have to do is create our characters. I am going to be playing a Wolf Warblade, one of my friends is playing a Fox Swashbuckler and I am not too sure about the other two but we got the mechanics worked out and will be using this free Gametable program.

So far everything is running smoothly and we are all excited about it.


----------



## Nezumi7 (Sep 2, 2009)

I'd definitely be interested in an online RP game. The one time I tried though we used AIM.

...it... it didn't end well. XD

I do have lots of ideas that I either wanna revisit or try out. Love reusing older characters in new adventures just to see what happens.

...actually got kicked out of a game once because my gnoll paladin I spoke of earlier wasn't going down the 'evil' path like the DM wanted. Which was upsetting because the overall storyline was good, but tried to shoehorn us into specific roles for some reason >_>

But yeah. I'm looking at Gametable right now and it looks interesting enough to say the least. Combine that with a ventrilo client and I might as well be at a big table with others XD


----------



## Taernost (Sep 2, 2009)

Ibuuyk said:


> Dunno if it counts, but I play D&D: Eye of the Beholder on GBA



I didn't know there was a GBA port of that title; did they port the sequels too (Assault on Myth Drannor and Legend of Darkmoon)? I always wanted to try those out but they weren't on SNES, so I was out of luck.


----------



## Ibuuyk (Sep 2, 2009)

Nope, only Eye of the Beholder reached the consoles, and it sucked bad too


----------



## Taernost (Sep 2, 2009)

Ibuuyk said:


> Nope, only Eye of the Beholder reached the consoles, and it sucked bad too



Heh; this is true, but somehow I still had fun with it, and was willing to see what the sequels were like. Still, there're definitely _way_ better D&D games out there, to be sure.


----------



## Ibuuyk (Sep 2, 2009)

Yea, it sucks, but its still addictive.


----------

