[4e] So.. is it in there?

Blackleaf · May 30, 2008, 04:54:29 PM

Quote from: SeanchaiDoes that bother you about AD&D, too? Because that sort of stuff is all over that DMG. It says, "Here's the rules. You can disregard the rules. But follow the rules. If you don't follow the rules, you're not playing AD&D."

AD&D is great, but it's not polished. I think that's a big part of it's charm.

I think "Here's the rules. You can disregard the rules. But follow the rules. If you don't follow the rules, you're not playing AD&D." is a fair statement, but it applies to all games. Monopoly could say the same thing.

Seanchai · May 30, 2008, 07:36:13 PM

Quote from: StuartI think "Here's the rules. You can disregard the rules. But follow the rules. If you don't follow the rules, you're not playing AD&D." is a fair statement, but it applies to all games. Monopoly could say the same thing.

Sure. But if that's the case, then 4e isn't special in that regard and there's no need to single it out.

Seanchai

Blackleaf · May 30, 2008, 09:40:11 PM

Quote from: SeanchaiSure. But if that's the case, then 4e isn't special in that regard and there's no need to single it out.

4e is more like other games. (Keep in mind I have no PDF or Book, this is all based on what people post here)

Previous editions of D&D and most other RPGs add a more explicit bit about "Rule Zero".

I'm not knocking 4e for not including it. I wouldn't have. I think there are better ways to setup the rules to get to the same place without making a rule that says you don't have to follow the rules.

Aos · May 31, 2008, 01:17:57 AM

Quote from: EngineI guess I understand: when my friends are watching art house movies, I'm watching action films. Sometimes I read pulp science fiction. I even like Friends. Escapism isn't alien to me; it's just escapism in roleplaying that's strange to me. A random dungeon just doesn't contain enough mental candy for my appetite; I'd spend all my time thinking about how little sense it all made. As I often say, everyone enjoys something different in their games.

.

When I was fourteen we did this a couple of times. It isn't for me, but I can see how some might like it. Beyond that, I like random tables. I like to generate a bunch of random crap and chip away at the parts that I don't like until I get something I do like. I also like making everything from the ground up. Basically, I just like making stuff up, random is just another way to do this.

Seanchai · May 31, 2008, 07:11:32 PM

Quote from: StuartPrevious editions of D&D and most other RPGs add a more explicit bit about "Rule Zero".

I'll determine whether or not it has a Rule 0 when I have the books and can read them for myself. To me, the pro and con quotes seem...incomplete.

Seanchai

KrakaJak · May 31, 2008, 10:32:50 PM

Quote from: EngineOh. Maybe you want to get one, or spend more time reading one, before you say unequivocal things like, "Back on topic, 'Rule 0' is not in the DMG," yeah?

I meant not in front of me(or on my hard drive illegally). I have it in a laydown cart in my back room at work. I read the fucker cover to cover, along with the PHB.

You still haven't provided the rule 0, because it's not in there. I provided the direct quote from the book that is anti-rule 0. Wulfgar has provided better quotes, but those are out of context.

RPGPundit · June 01, 2008, 05:56:55 PM

In many ways, the closest thing to a "rule 0" in the entire manual is the paragraph on "Fun" on p.7; but its explicitly worded in such a way that it in no way serves to empower the GM. Nor does it really explicitly suggest that even the group as a whole can actually change the rules themselves for the sake of fun, though I suppose the inclusion of the "House rules" section later on implicitly authorize that.

RPGPundit

James McMurray · June 01, 2008, 06:19:10 PM

Quote from: RPGPunditIn many ways, the closest thing to a "rule 0" in the entire manual is the paragraph on "Fun" on p.7; but its explicitly worded in such a way that it in no way serves to empower the GM. Nor does it really explicitly suggest that even the group as a whole can actually change the rules themselves for the sake of fun, though I suppose the inclusion of the "House rules" section later on implicitly authorize that.

RPGPundit

Dude, it's been pointed out several times that they come right out and say that the DM is the one that decides what happens when a rule isn't clear, and that the DM has the right to change the rules. What more do you need?

dar · June 01, 2008, 11:36:01 PM

More straws?

The Yann Waters · June 02, 2008, 06:05:19 AM

Quote from: RPGPunditIn many ways, the closest thing to a "rule 0" in the entire manual is the paragraph on "Fun" on p.7; but its explicitly worded in such a way that it in no way serves to empower the GM.

You know, you already pulled this "pity the poor GM" schtick of wilful misreading with the Monarda Law a good long while ago. It's getting a little stale, wouldn't you say?

Warthur · June 02, 2008, 11:15:29 AM

Quote from: RPGPunditThere's no question that 3e was a reaction to 2e. It was fixing up the royal clusterfuck that 2e had become due to the story-based gaming movement.

That's part of what leads me to hope that an eventual 5e will end up being the same with regards to 4e.

Its like the opposite of star trek films.

I think, in fact, that just about every new edition of an RPG which deserves to be called a new edition - ie, anything where there's actual substantial rule changes as opposed to just general tidying up (see the various recent editions of Call of Cthulhu, for example) is a reaction to the game's previous edition. And every RPG out there, aside from OD&D, is to at least a very slight extent a reaction to other RPGs.