It's a GM tool, why would it inform player expectations?  Just wondering about the reasoning behind your statement, SB.

Quote from: Peregrin;402478It's a GM tool, why would it inform player expectations?  Just wondering about the reasoning behind your statement, SB.

Players read the books, too.

EDIT:  Sorry, it's been a rough couple of days.  I was more making a statement about the 'rules don't matter' tone.  Which is complete nonsense, really.  It's fairly obvious to those of us with a good deal of experience in gaming, much the same as many of us would have a pretty good feel for adjusting the prices in Monopoly.  It's hardly intuitive for people new to the hobby, however.  So, when you have a section of the rules devoted to an xp budget or treasure parcels, the players are going to expect the GM to stick to that.

Wait. Because it's somehow illogical to assume that a GM searching for tools and guidelines in a "DM Guide" will follow said advice, and thus be influenced by them?

Color me confused. :confused:

The last time I read it, it also recommended mixing up the difficulty of encounters to keep things from becoming stale.

I see it like how AD&D gives you tons of randomized charts and spends a lot of time explaining how you should use wandering monsters, but there's also a blurb that suggests that wandering monsters shouldn't be used all the time.  The people who don't know what they're doing or who don't read the entire chapter might use wandering monsters all the time because that's what the book gives them, and it's quick and easy, but in application wandering monsters are just a tool that you can disregard when you feel like it.

Quote from: StormBringer;402480EDIT:  Sorry, it's been a rough couple of days.  I was more making a statement about the 'rules don't matter' tone.  Which is complete nonsense, really.  It's fairly obvious to those of us with a good deal of experience in gaming, much the same as many of us would have a pretty good feel for adjusting the prices in Monopoly.  It's hardly intuitive for people new to the hobby, however.  So, when you have a section of the rules devoted to an xp budget or treasure parcels, the players are going to expect the GM to stick to that.

The rules do matter - but these aren't rules. They're guidelines, and they are explicity explained as guidelines in the DMG.

Quote from: StormBringer;402480Players read the books, too.

"Player expectations" are not the same as "expected hard and fast rules".

Every game/player I know knows the rules are guidelines, not The Ten Commandments.

While balanced encounters are are great guiding principle, GMs can, and will, go outside that to challenge players.

Quote from: Peregrin;402485...but there's also a blurb that suggests that wandering monsters shouldn't be used all the time.

There's also a blurb about how AD&D encounters should be matched to the PCs capabilities. And weren't the wandering monster tables organized by roughly how capable the monsters were? You don't really see Elder Red Dragon on the first level table...

Seanchai

Quote from: Peregrin;402485The last time I read it, it also recommended mixing up the difficulty of encounters to keep things from becoming stale.

Well this was in 3rd ed also, of course, but people generally completely forgot about that part as soon as the discussion about whatever was "fair" and "unfair", as far as running a game was concerned, was popping up on a message boards.

You know it as well as I do, Peregrin: there is what the book says, and what the book rules, and what the players get from it all, which are all different things. Point in case, and this has been the case since AD&D at the very least, a lot of people playing D&D actually use the charts and rules while having only cursorily read the advice, the actual text surrounding said charts and rules. Cue combats in First Ed AD&D using the To-Hit charts and none of the text surrounding them, which was EXTREMELY common IME at the time. Same thing with 3rd ed and CRs/ELs, (or Prestige Classes and how they were meant to be used!). Same thing with 4E and encounter budgets, treasure parcels and what-have-you.

Some (many, I'd say) people take the rules as set in stone, regardless of what the book actually says around them. It's just lame, and stupid, but that's a simple fact, IMO.

Now, the real question we should be asking ourselves then is how a game book can change this behavior. Or whether it can change this behavior at all. Whatever the case may be, the silver bullet hasn't been found for the past thirty years. I'm kind of doubtful it's gonna be found any time soon, to be honest.

Quote from: Seanchai;402490There's also a blurb about how AD&D encounters should be matched to the PCs capabilities. And weren't the wandering monster tables organized by roughly how capable the monsters were? You don't really see Elder Red Dragon on the first level table...

Seanchai

It's interesting (I've brought that up to when this war raged on and on two years ago, ah, has it been that long?)

There's a master table where you roll for what level table. So for example, on the 1st level of a dungeon, I think it's (d20) 1-16 Dungeon Level I, 17-19 Dungeon Level II, and 20 Dungeon level III

Those dungeon level tables are stratified AND include a footnote about how many monsters should appear per encounter. It's definitely a rudimentary CR system.

Quote from: Benoist;402491Now, the real question we should be asking ourselves then is how a game book can change this behavior.

Well, Burning Wheel uses a very in-your-face tone sometimes when explaining how procedures work, but most people didn't take too kindly to that.

Also, the design philosophy behind 3e was "give the players the system, but don't tell them what to do with it."  A lot of people did like that, but then you miss out on all the sage advice on how to actually conduct a campaign (a la AD&D), and end up with a boring, clerical work that is easily abused by rules-lawyers.

Personally, I prefer a more conversational and insightful type of guide that gives lots of advice from personal experiences, but that's just me.

Quote from: Hackmastergeneral;402488"Player expectations" are not the same as "expected hard and fast rules".

Every game/player I know knows the rules are guidelines, not The Ten Commandments.

While balanced encounters are are great guiding principle, GMs can, and will, go outside that to challenge players.

But we know a different kind of gamer.  For every one of us, there are ten out there that get huffy because their treasure parcel wasn't filled this level.

Quote from: Fifth Element;402487The rules do matter - but these aren't rules. They're guidelines, and they are explicity explained as guidelines in the DMG.

Quote from: Benoist;402491Well this was in 3rd ed also, of course, but people generally completely forgot about that part as soon as the discussion about whatever was "fair" and "unfair", as far as running a game was concerned, was popping up on a message boards.

You know it as well as I do, Peregrin: there is what the book says, and what the book rules, and what the players get from it all, which are all different things. Point in case, and this has been the case since AD&D at the very least, a lot of people playing D&D actually use the charts and rules while having only cursorily read the advice, the actual text surrounding said charts and rules. Cue combats in First Ed AD&D using the To-Hit charts and none of the text surrounding them, which was EXTREMELY common IME at the time. Same thing with 3rd ed and CRs/ELs, (or Prestige Classes and how they were meant to be used!). Same thing with 4E and encounter budgets, treasure parcels and what-have-you.

Some (many, I'd say) people take the rules as set in stone, regardless of what the book actually says around them. It's just lame, and stupid, but that's a simple fact, IMO.

Now, the real question we should be asking ourselves then is how a game book can change this behavior. Or whether it can change this behavior at all. Whatever the case may be, the silver bullet hasn't been found for the past thirty years. I'm kind of doubtful it's gonna be found any time soon, to be honest.

My respected colleague from north of the border sums up my opinion nicely here.

A flashing neon sign stating "GUIDELINES AHEAD" won't change the fact that players will virtually demand the rules be used as written, especially when those rules are in their favour.  Not a knock against players, it's just human nature.

We know they are guidelines, and if everyone in the group has the buy-in, they can be endlessly tweaked for maximum enjoyment.  Games really haven't been written that way in years, however.  It's similar to CPUs these days; many are designed to be overclocked, but do you think your grandparents (or some other novice user) would just jump in and start twiddling with BIOS settings?  In some ways, twiddling with the rules can be just as hazardous.

Quote from: Seanchai;402490There's also a blurb about how AD&D encounters should be matched to the PCs capabilities. And weren't the wandering monster tables organized by roughly how capable the monsters were? You don't really see Elder Red Dragon on the first level table...

Seanchai

This is profoundly stupid.  It's a class/level game.  At least come up with a counter-point that isn't rabidly unintelligent.

Quote from: StormBringer;402557My respected colleague from north of the border sums up my opinion nicely here.

You'll have to be more specific...Benoist and I share latitude, if not longitude.

Quote from: StormBringer;402557A flashing neon sign stating "GUIDELINES AHEAD" won't change the fact that players will virtually demand the rules be used as written, especially when those rules are in their favour.  Not a knock against players, it's just human nature.

It is true that some players are like this, but I do tend to assume that I'm playing with reasonable people in any discussion.

Quote from: StormBringer;402558This is profoundly stupid.  It's a class/level game.  At least come up with a counter-point that isn't rabidly unintelligent.

He has something of a point, which is that D&D has always provided guidelines as to the challenge level of monsters they should generally be facing at a given level. Which in turn implies that 3E/4E including such things is not much different than previous editions.

Beyond that, is the above an example of the adult conversation you're pining for?