OT: D&D and multi-classing.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Hmm...typically, barbarians have generations of lore in songs and stories. I don't see that in D&D.

One difference between Tolkien and D&D is that in Tolkiens world, magic is a natural result of certain places (the well that Frodo looked into), emotions (That guys sword telling him that it would gladly drink his blood), the will (like the making of the rings) or a natural extension of that persons being (Tom, Gandalph, Aragorns ability to heal with Kingsfoil).

In D&D, magic is something you study and twist to your own ends. Emotion plays no part. It's mechanistic.

In both cases, anybody can do magic or interact with it. But in Tolkien's world, it's, well not mechanical.

[ June 19, 2004, 04:27: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

Well, yes.

D&D isn't about sophisticated role-playing or collaborative story-telling. It's about bashing stuff.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

True, true.

[Fyron]

Only if you play with a group that doesn't do sophisticated roleplaying and collaborative storytelling... If you play with the right group, D&D is most certainly about such things. If you play with a group that just wants to hack'n'slash, that is what you get.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

True, but the actual format is tilted towards hack'n'slash. From the hordes of beings with a definite alignment that are there primarily for you to slaughter without a thought if their alignment is one your character doesn't like because after all they can't change to the lack of a description area on the character sheet, D&D is more supportive of hack'n'slash.

It's not a matter of can't, it's a matter of format. 6 adventure's on the begginers adventure box and only one of them involves diplomacy. And that's at swordpoint, once you've defeated him, if you feel like it.

[ June 19, 2004, 21:42: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

[Fyron]

Storytellers usually write their own campaigns and adventures... Also, the beginners adventures are supposed to help you learn the rules. The DM can modify them to include more diplomacy if he wishes to easily. Good DMs just use published adventures as a starting point for their own adventures, or as sources of ideas. Additionally, hack'n'slash adventures are easier to write and to play. They sell better, usually. A sad but true fact.

Descriptions and such go on pages of lined paper, not on the actual character sheet. There is no room for it there, and what is the point of printing out or photocopying pages of blank lines?

The rule books are meant to provide the basic platform from which to build the stories of your adventures. There are numerous campaign settings you can purchase that have lots of backstory type stuff in them, with much more detailed info on various races, rather than a listing of stats. Do you want the monster manual to be 8,000 pages long, or to just have a dozen creatures in it?

It is a game. In order to play a game, you need rules. This is what the core rulebooks (and supplemental ones) are. They provide the framework. They are not meant to provide endless stories to roleplay.

[ June 19, 2004, 21:55: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[narf poit chez BOOM]

I didn't say that you can't have deep roleplaying in D&D, I'm saying that the setting and published material is more encouraging of hack'n'slash. After all, a beginning DM is less likely to modify the rules.

It seems more likely that, when starting RP'ing with D&D, that one will start with hack'n'slash and begin roleplaying from there than start roleplaying and add action elements.