Quote from: jibbajibba;536369heheh but you have told me, have you not, that if I change x, y and z i will no longer be playing D&D

Well you can have all the fun in the world "not playing D&D", can't you? That doesn't change the fact that at some point you might modify the game to such an extent as to not actually "play D&D" anymore.

These are not conflicting propositions.

What you do not get to say without being challenged is that "whatever you play" is D&D by virtue of "it being fun." I just played with my dog outside and had fun - is that D&D, then? That's a nonsensical, politically correct bullshit approach to the game that basically renders all discussions about D&D's specificities and play styles throughout editions completely moot, which is a bad thing, IMO.

Quote from: jibbajibba;536369Just yanking your chain bud ....

You can if you want. I just think that equating those two things together is pretty weak thinking.

Quote from: Benoist;536371Well you can have all the fun in the world "not playing D&D", can't you? That doesn't change the fact that at some point you might modify the game to such an extent as to not actually "play D&D" anymore.

These are not conflicting propositions.

What you do not get to say without being challenged is that "whatever you play" is D&D by virtue of "it being fun." I just played with my dog outside and had fun - is that D&D, then? That's a nonsensical, politically correct bullshit approach to the game that basically renders all discussions about D&D's specificities and play styles throughout editions completely moot, which is a bad thing, IMO.

I was going to leave it , what with it being 5:30 on a friday prior to a bank holiday weekend but ....

I believe that

• Replacing demi-human level limits with an xp penalty
• removing the reliance on hirelings
• removing the assasination table
• adding XP for 'plot' resolution and class specific activities
• allowing PCs to create backgrounds i later weave into the plot as hooks
• never going near a dungeon

all allow me to still be playing D&D. What is your take?

Quote from: jibbajibba;536373I was going to leave it , what with it being 5:30 on a friday prior to a bank holiday weekend but ....

I believe that

• Replacing demi-human level limits with an xp penalty
• removing the reliance on hirelings
• removing the assasination table
• adding XP for 'plot' resolution and class specific activities
• allowing PCs to create backgrounds i later weave into the plot as hooks
• never going near a dungeon

all allow me to still be playing D&D. What is your take?

I'll tie it to the topic at hand rather than go on the tangent you're throwing at me alright? (i.e. I don't want to go into the debate of what is and isn't D&D again here. There'll be occasions later I'm sure).

Doing what you propose is, as far as your game table is concerned, perfectly alright. It's playing a role playing game: you are the referee, you make decisions based on what you want from the game, your play style, preferences, the players' (hopefully), etc. (i.e. the alternative mentality to this).

Whether you are in effect playing "D&D" is another matter entirely, which different people with different experiences, backgrounds, levels of understanding of the game will answer differently. You may, or may not, be playing D&D. The fact remains that you are playing a role playing game and playing as the referee in charge of what rules get applied and when, which is a good thing in my book.

Bottom line: these are not conflicting propositions.

Quote from: jibbajibba;536373I believe that

• Replacing demi-human level limits with an xp penalty
• removing the reliance on hirelings
• removing the assasination table
• adding XP for 'plot' resolution and class specific activities
• allowing PCs to create backgrounds i later weave into the plot as hooks
• never going near a dungeon

all allow me to still be playing D&D. What is your take?

IMHO, you'd still be playing D&D. Far more variant versions of D&D were considered D&D back in the 1970s and 1980s.

Quote from: Marleycat;535538Meh, my Viking Hat still fits, fuck'em.

Hahaha, this. ^

Quote from: B.T.;536251Also, teenagers are dicks, so expecting teenage DMs not to be fuckstains is unrealistic.

However, if I design my rules to try and ensure that a GM can't be a fuckstain, I end up with an entire generation of crippled GMs who can't really GM.

If you assume you're always gonna get the lowest common denominator, that's what you'll end up with because any nail that sticks up gets hammered down.  You expect GM's to be mature intelligent human beings, and 90% of the time you'll get the lowest common denominator, but the rest will move the hobby forward.

Quote from: CRKrueger;536398However, if I design my rules to try and ensure that a GM can't be a fuckstain, I end up with an entire generation of crippled GMs who can't really GM.

If you assume you're always gonna get the lowest common denominator, that's what you'll end up with because any nail that sticks up gets hammered down.  You expect GM's to be mature intelligent human beings, and 90% of the time you'll get the lowest common denominator, but the rest will move the hobby forward.

Agreed. I think the 90% result in lowest common denominator GMing is itself WAY over-estimated, btw.

I've known some really sucky, tyranical, immature GMs who could not possibly improve because they were just dicks and that was it. The thing with these people is that IME they were talked about, got reputations in players circles so to speak, and you got to know at least one of them in your gaming communities "Oh wow that guy? That guy is a total prick. Remember when he ran that module for our Rune Lords just so he could kill them all? He's a total douche" (actual real example I remember).

So it's not that they were/are many, but that they were/are more talked about (especially now on forums where you have people posting to bitch about some horrible game they just left because the GM was a douche, which then engenders a snowball effects of ten or more posters each coming up with their own isolated horror stories, which makes it *seem* like it's common, when in fact it's not).

The actual, real percentage of such GMs in the GM population is actually rather low, IMO. Of all my gaming during the past 25 years or so, I could count the actual sucky DMs I know on the fingers of one hand (NB: on a fairly large number of GMs I know and knew - several scores, probably). I could believe there's 1 in 10 maybe, possibly. Even then, I'd think that number might be something of an overstatement.

Quote from: Benoist;536402The actual, real percentage of such GMs in the GM population is actually rather low, IMO.

Probably true, they just cast a large shadow.  

I don't know Ben...
There exists a lot of reasons why someone might consider a GM a "bad GM":
1) Difference in play styles
2) New to GM'ing, still picking up the techniques
3) Bad day for the GM
4) Bad day for the player
5) GM is an asshat

I mean, I've had players that were great friends, good players, but medicore GM's.

Quote from: Novastar;536409I don't know Ben...
There exists a lot of reasons why someone might consider a GM a "bad GM":

Sure, but then, some of these reasons are actually not good reasons to call a GM "bad", as far as I'm concerned:

1) Difference in play styles - should have actually asked the GM about his preferences before engaging into the game. You did and he lied or switched on you without your approval? Bad move on his part. He can learn from it and not do it again, or doubles-down on it and then he's bad. You didn't? The fault's on you.

2) New to GM'ing, still picking up the techniques - not a bad GM. Just an inexperienced one. If you can't forgive a starting GM trying to learn the ropes, then the problem's with you, not the GM.

3) Bad day for the GM - not a bad GM. Everyone has bad days.

4) Bad day for the player - not a bad GM. Everyone has bad days.

5) GM is an asshat - bad GM.

Quote from: Novastar;536409I mean, I've had players that were great friends, good players, but medicore GM's.

First mediocrity is different than terminal suckage to me. I was talking about GMs who suck and can't redeem themselves. Now you can be mediocre for a variety of reasons, some of which can be fixed if you want to progress and learn, some of which can't, particularly if your disposition is to dig your heels on your position, not seek feedback from the players, not be willing to work out compromises for everyone to have fun with the game, which then makes you hopeless until you change your mind/approach about this.

A good player that is a mediocre GM is more likely to be able to improve IMO if he is willing to take the criticism and improve, because if he's a good player, that means there's a basis on which to build good GMing skills, as opposed to say someone who totally sucks at everything RPG related because he is, say, a social retard.

Quote from: RandallS;536388IMHO, you'd still be playing D&D. Far more variant versions of D&D were considered D&D back in the 1970s and 1980s.

Indeed but i suspect Ben disagrees with you
He is the d&d equivalent of the Plymouth Brethren though :-)

Quote from: Benoist;536402Agreed. I think the 90% result in lowest common denominator GMing is itself WAY over-estimated, btw.

I've known some really sucky, tyranical, immature GMs who could not possibly improve because they were just dicks and that was it. The thing with these people is that IME they were talked about, got reputations in players circles so to speak, and you got to know at least one of them in your gaming communities "Oh wow that guy? That guy is a total prick. Remember when he ran that module for our Rune Lords just so he could kill them all? He's a total douche" (actual real example I remember).

So it's not that they were/are many, but that they were/are more talked about (especially now on forums where you have people posting to bitch about some horrible game they just left because the GM was a douche, which then engenders a snowball effects of ten or more posters each coming up with their own isolated horror stories, which makes it *seem* like it's common, when in fact it's not).

The actual, real percentage of such GMs in the GM population is actually rather low, IMO. Of all my gaming during the past 25 years or so, I could count the actual sucky DMs I know on the fingers of one hand (NB: on a fairly large number of GMs I know and knew - several scores, probably). I could believe there's 1 in 10 maybe, possibly. Even then, I'd think that number might be something of an overstatement.

I would be willing to believe that 9 out of every 10 people who ever GMed suck at it. The thing is that the vast majority of those 9 will GM exactly once, maybe twice, before giving it up.  Whereas GMs who are great at it will continue to do it over and over again, meaning that they will predominate in frequency because they continue to do the job.  Of course, there's always those problem guys who suck as GMs and yet keep right on doing it...

RPGPundit

Quote from: Benoist;535555I was just thinking, we need some Sommerjon to make this thread more alive with discontent.

Sure thing.

Couple guys who haven't touched 4e since a couple months after it's release wanted to give it another shot for shits and giggles.  So I said sure, lets see what we can do.   I hadn't played 4e in a over a year myself so I went and signed up for the DDI and you know the funny thing,

All of you here saying it's dead and failed and all the other bullshit you spew, it has another 12,000 subscribers since I last subscribed.  I guess thousands of people aren't in the know like you all are.

Quote from: Sommerjon;536717Sure thing.

Couple guys who haven't touched 4e since a couple months after it's release wanted to give it another shot for shits and giggles.  So I said sure, lets see what we can do.   I hadn't played 4e in a over a year myself so I went and signed up for the DDI and you know the funny thing,

All of you here saying it's dead and failed and all the other bullshit you spew, it has another 12,000 subscribers since I last subscribed.  I guess thousands of people aren't in the know like you all are.

Man, the shitstorm that will happen when Wotc converts the DDI to 5e only will be talked about for maybe longer than old school games.  I'm glad I will be alive to watch it live and in person.

Quote from: Marleycat;536726Man, the shitstorm that will happen when Wotc converts the DDI to 5e only will be talked about for maybe longer than old school games.  I'm glad I will be alive to watch it live and in person.

You can tell the survivors, "I was there.  I was there to watch the world burn.  The screams of the forgotten, the reek of rulebooks turning to ash... the horrors...  the horrors!  they can't be unseen!"