QuoteGood rules provide a common point of reference that everyone can build upon.

Huh? Outside of D&D, most players don´t even own a single book for playing the game.

Quote from: architect.zeroCan one build "fun" into the rules?  I think there's a flaw in that question.  I don't think designers are trying to build in fun, or be fun tyrants.  I think they're trying to smooth out or eliminate points of contention to create a less inflammatory baseline for sub-optimal groups to use.  Less inter-player warfare at the table = more actual gaming.  More gaming, watered down or not, is better for most people than no gaming at all.

I think the designers at WotC have picked the style of play that most of the market for D&D books and miniatures have most fun with - detailed tactical combat with lots of PC customization - and focused the system on those aspects of play. They're modelling the game on MMORPGs, Warhammer, and other purely tactical combat games. Those sorts of games need to be tightly codified and mathematically balanced.

While this makes number-crunchers and combo-optimizers happy, it neglects the less popular (and profitable) styles of play that rely more on improvisation and customization. And the more they refine the mechanics of D&D and make them interdependent and balanced, the more difficult it is to house rule the game.

As someone who loves all sorts of boardgames, from hex and counter wargames to euro games like Puerto Rico, I can see the appeal of a tightly defined, rationalized, balanced game system. You certainly wouldn't want people improvising and making up custom rules for Puerto Rico or Tigris and Euphrates. The mathematical interdependencies wouldn't hold up to tinkering.

Thing is, I play D&D for entirely different reasons than I play Paths of Glory or El Grande. If I want to challenge my analytical side in a conflict game, I'll play a wargame. If I want social gaming with a highly polished system, I'll play a euro game.  

No doubt the people who have always played D&D as a pure tactical powergame will be well served by a further rationalization and codification of the game. Statisticians can do a lot to make a game tense and balanced. I know exactly what the WotC designers mean when they talk about finding the 'sweet spot'. Just look at euro games: it's no coincidence that the most accomplished designer has a PhD in mathematics. I think Reiner Knizia is a fucking genius. But I would never play an RPG designed by him.

By refining D&D into a pure tactical powergame, the people at WotC have lost me as a consumer. I'll play boardgames to get that kind of experience with a lot less overhead, and use more suitable RPGs (and other editions of D&D) to get my improvisational, rules-light, immersive fantasy gaming kicks.

Quote from: SettembriniHuh? Outside of D&D, most players don´t even own a single book for playing the game.

Too true, says the publisher of non-D&D games!

-clash

Hi!
  Well, I think your take on this is an over simplification. Sure, D&D might be getting some of the corners rounded off for "safety" reasons, but there are still plenty of hard, pointy games out there.
  I don't think it is right or fair to judge an entire hobby based on one game. It would be like judging all model-makers on train enthusiasts.
  Apparently you guys don't "get into" MMOs ever, because the guys that play those are power gamers and number crunchers. They want more choice not less. Even in overly simple MMOs like WoW, there are people who do massive amounts of math just to find the right combo of weapons and armor. That is to say, these guys find the crunch even if there is none.
  So, maybe we should back off of the generalities and look at specific games.
  The way I see it, wotc is damned if they do, damned if they don't. If they just try to streamline the crunch they already have, then they get called highway robbers for releasing 3.6. If they simplify in the direction of OD&D, then they are dumming it down for the masses. If they try and mix and match, then we get complaints that its a mixed message, etc.
  Ultimately, the new version will come out, and just like the previous version, some people will like it, some people will hate it and the industry will adjust.

Quote from: jgantsYou're lucky.  I, however, have had to listen to a 3 hour argument over the "Wall of Force" spell. [...]

In a perfect world, I could just slap said players upside the head and boot them out of the group.  In the real world, the politics of the group prevent me from getting rid of them without destroying the entire group.

As GM, you have three useful options.

• "While your character bemoans the state of the universe... what are the rest of you doing?"
• "While you're engaged in the metaphysical discussion about the nature of the universe, a team of ninjas appears."
• "Shut the fuck up and roll the dice."

Adjust to fit the group and situation, eg ninjas may be "the boss walks in and asks why you're lazing about yapping", and "shut the fuck up" may be "why don't you two talking go for a walk and buy us all pizza, and discuss it on the way?"

There are some great replies here; thanks. In particular, I'd like to reply to a few:

Quote from: RPGPunditHowever, I don't know if I agree with your solution, which is essentially "drop out".

Me, I prefer to keep making an ass of myself and making a point of taking everyone involved with the ruining of my game and making their lives a living hell.

I think this is practically a different matter. Although I have more or less "dropped out" from the consumer part of gaming - last year, my purchases amounted to a few OSRIC/generic old school modules, Monsters of Myth (also for OSRIC), Encounter Critical material and a subscription to James Mishler's promising C&C Wilderlands line - I haven't given up on debate either; the goings of the larger game industry still interest me and I figured I still care too much to stop. But this part only makes for an entertaining diversion, while my actual gaming is 95% of my own make: I made the ruleset (well, it is a "C&C meets d20 meets sword&sorcery" thing, so not totally original), I made the world and I made all of the adventures - I used a few monsters from Monsters of Myth and wanted to run a published adventure module but in the end didn't.

There is the illusion of no free time and no creativity, but I believe both of these to be minor hurdles. Even with a job and the rest, most people can manage to keep a good campaign going; we just have to shake off the urge to accumulate books we will never use, or even read (is is just me, or are most game books totally boring?) It doesn't have to be the world's most ambitious campaign; in practice, the sense of ownership and involvement makes even those more entertaining than something you buy from the store.

But then you are already practicing most of this, so who am I to lecture further?

Haffrung, you give new generations too little credit. It was never a majority who were interested in creative games. Maybe you are making the same error I used to be making - e.g. mentally classifying all kids with a certain sort of behaviour as "potential game geeks". One example is playing computer games - a typical gamer identifier once, a mass phenomenon today. I propose that the people who are interested in games are still out there, you just can't recognise them because you (I presume) don't socialise with that generation too much. It gives me hope that it seems lots are into that Harry Potterish pseudo-gaming thing - the game industry doesn't get to them, and I am not sure they should, but they seem to exist.

HinterWelt (and dindenver), I was mostly talking about the "core" game industry, and especially Wizards of the Coast (and what Wizards does, most of the rest follows). Some of you outliers should not be lumped with the big ones - although of course you have to recognise that being the morsels you are, this unfortunately doesn't amount to much. I am not against talented amateurs self-publishing, or small publishers - in fact, I totally encourage them, and think that they play an useful role even for gamers like me. On another game forum, someone used the phrase "creativity aid, not creativity replacement", and I think this encapsulates what publishers should be focusing on... which again, some of you seem to do.

Finally, to conclude: I will commit a faux pas and say that the Forge community of all things had a good point early on about Doing it Yourself and creator ownership before they buried it under theory and delusions of grandeur.

I think it's partly because the original D&D rules were so unclear and incomplete that the DIY tradition got ensconced so strongly early.

I think if you give young people a fun way to play make believe together they'll pick it up. D&D was that at one time, some RPGs remain that for others, sooner or later something RPG-like will hit big again. People like playing make-believe, competing through make-believe, adjudicating social status through make-believe, telling stories through make-believe, yada yada. Right now they're doing it more without our games than with them, but something rpg-like will come back sooner or later.

In the meantime, I'm with Melan, the commercial RPG world can go its way and I'll go mine.

Quote from: CalithenaIn the meantime, I'm with Melan, the commercial RPG world can go its way and I'll go mine.

QFT.  having re-connected with my old gaming group over the past year or so, and seeing them happily playing the same games (ME, deadlands classic, WFRP 1e, etc.) i feel no need to chase down the newest editions of anything (now, even trav, but i haven't ruled out BRP yet  ).

to paraphrase, "it's about having fun, stupid!"    (election-time joke)

i'll chase down some old stuff, look into the smaller press stuff for idea material & reference books.  but the new "look ma, no consequences!" stuff coming out?  fuck that, with a pointy stick.

Quote from: CalithenaI think it's partly because the original D&D rules were so unclear and incomplete that the DIY tradition got ensconced so strongly early.

Actually, the original rules were incomplete and sketchy because the DIY tradition was already ensconced in both the Blackmoor and Greyhawk groups.  It was a deliberate choice.

Unclear... well, that's more about writing ability.

Quote from: CalithenaIn the meantime, I'm with Melan, the commercial RPG world can go its way and I'll go mine.

I'm pretty much heading that way.  Besides the 4e threads here, the only big shiny game I'm following at this point is Star Wars Saga Edition.  My other three game projects are out of print (OD&D), musty old reprints (Classic Trav), and strictly small time (Encounter Critical).