Yes, people really do have fun with all that stuff.

Rpg books - and battle maps, and miniatures, and rulers and protractors - are just a bunch of guidelines and tools for how to tell your tall stories, and give you a fair excuse to roll lots of dice and eat cheetos. To make your games more fun, talk to your group.

If you did not have fun dong this stuff, talk to your GM. Finish up your plea with as Conan said, "And if you do not listen, then to hell with you!"

For D&D we run with the entire tactical ruleset. We use a battlemat & miniatures. We don't use blast templates because you can just count squares for those. In other words: same as McMurray, probably.

I suspect that the reason you didn't have fun with the highly tactical game, might be because you felt.. overwhelmed? Around a highly tactical rules-savvy group of players this can easily happen. The example you gave: "the Gm suggested a better move for my guy" is a pretty good indicator of this.

What actually happened there? I think (from my limited perspective of being a third-person) that he was trying to help you learn better tactical options and how not to stumble into AoOs and simply bad tactical choices (like stepping into a reach-flank voluntarily, or getting caught out in the middle of a circle of enemies).

In other words, he was looking to help you learn how to play the game, no matter how you played it before.

Tell me if any of this sounds familiar:

"You can get to there (indicates square), but you'll get an Attack of opportunity from this guy" (indicates another mini)."

"You can't get there safely without having to tumble.. do you have tumble?"

"You can cast your spell, but it would be better if you moved 5' back and cast. What's your concentration skill like?"

"You could fire another crossbow bolt, but since you're right next to that guy, you might be better off dropping it and drawing your melee weapon."

"You can move there.. Are you sure you want to do that? This cuts you off from the fighter and the cleric, and your AC is kinda low..."

or even

"You could move there and attack.. but if you take this square instead you could flank with the rogue, which will give you a +2, and when the rogues turn comes up he'll get to use sneak attack."

I really think he was trying to show you the way the standard way the game is now played.

Quote from: James J SkachYou know, I went back and read that first line again.  I have to tell you - that's damn close to Forge-speak.  "Can they really be having fun?"  And then you follow up with the rules-heavy versus normal-fun...man...do you need a link to The Forge?

No, but thanks!

It's funny, just yesterday I ran into an old D&D buddy who plays D&D 3.x with another group (my guys play Basic or C&C). His description of the play style of his group sounds exactly like the group the OP played with.

My buddy told me how his DM showed him the spreadsheets he's working on, showing the probabilty to hit and damage range with every combination of class, feat, and tactical option in the rules set. He's also assigning numeric values to the various skill and feat selection combos available to PCs, to determine ideal choices. My buddy then commented that a mutual player between our two groups is known among the other group for choosing sub-optimal options and tactics. By the tone of his voice, I could tell this was regarded as a serious deficiency in our friend's play.

I should note that I almost joined this group as a player when my own group was on a long hiatus a couple years ago. Now I'm glad I didn't. I'm sure the 7th-level PC I made up using their group's enormously complex point-buy system would have been seriously underpowered for their number-crunching style of play.

And before anyone assumes my group is a bunch of amateur-theatre storytellers, I'll disabuse you of that notion. We play a zero-homework, low-overhead, rules-light game of dungeon-bashing and low cunning chicanery. No elaborate PC backgrounds, not setting books to learn, no long speeches in character. Just simple, fast-paced adventure with few rules look-ups.

So I'm conscious of just how different my group's style of play is from the norm. That's why I'm a classic beer 'n pretzels gamer who plays only with his close friends - the odds of finding a group in my city who plays rules-light, background light, non-heroic sword and sorcery gaming is vanishingly small. So I'll play with my buddies or, as is the case these days, I won't play at all.

Quote from: HaffrungAnd before anyone assumes my group is a bunch of amateur-theatre storytellers, I'll disabuse you of that notion. We play a zero-homework, low-overhead, rules-light game of dungeon-bashing and low cunning chicanery.

This is a good point for those who try to dichotomize everything.  Not everything that is not the current mainstream is Forge driven.  In fact, very little of it is.  Rules density has always been a dimension that players varied on.  That's why some people preferred basic D&D over AD&D.  
 
I think rules lightish is actually the more traditional way to play.  70's D&D had so few coherent rules that making things up as you go was required at times.

In ye olden days, GoOrange's was the more typical style of play in D&D. As time marched forward into the future with unquestionable accuracy in attaining the optimum, the balance shifted. A lot. This is the reason for the groups still playing older forms of D&D despite the fact that the rules are much better designed, and for the existence of rulesets like True20, C&C, and even our own humble but lovable FtA!.

Game groups who prefer D&D 3.x and above are far more likely to be like GoOrange's new group rather than like the older groups, because fans of D&D 3.x like it that way. Fans of the less game/rule oriented style generally play older versions of the D&D/AD&D game, or one of the new old skool games, because they like it that way.

-clash

I have to say - umm - then I was in the minority.  I can't ever recall playing a game where we didn't use minis to some extent or another. That could be killed-off brain cells in the intervening years - there was enough abuse for that.

I also can't recall playing AD&D in a way that different from a game of Living Greyhawk 3.5 - honestly.  Now, the level of specificity might be different (as the title of the OP seems to hint at), but the fact is that play was still ruled by minis, a "battle mat" of some sort, and deployment of just about every tactical rule available - including homebrew! And no matter how much detail there is in 3.5, it's actually a bit easier, IMHO, because at the heart it's all d20. Can you remember initiative, weapon speed, AC/to-hit, move silently, etc. - all essentially little rule system unto themselves. So the level of detail was, again IMHO, just as naughty - you were just trading one kind of complexity for another.

Perhaps this is all about false dichotomy when we should be talking about sliding scales - but I blame that on the original post title talking about overdoing details (which can be overwhelming as AM points out) while the original post itself seemed more of a rant against any sort of crunch in favor of the "rule-light" fad that all you kids are doing nowadays :what:

I have never, ever, used minis in any kind of a regular presence in my RPGs.

Which makes it ironic that my own FtA! is quite minis-and-mat friendly from what I've been told.

RPGPundit

Wow, great responses from (almost) everyone! It's interesting to see that there really are a lot of people out there who are really digging the tactical aspect of the game.

Myself, I enjoy it to a point, but find in some circumstances that it can slow things down unnecessarily. I'm definitely not a full-fledged story gamer, I like a mix of RP and combat (with tactics and not just straight dice rolling). I think in my experience last night, we spent way too much time with random encounters (that didn't really add to the plot) and we had at least two "fast and loose" players with a particularly "by the book GM".

Really, I understand different strokes for different folks, but sometimes it is a little startling to realize how different tastes can be even in a particular niche hobby. Don't take any of my criticisms or rantings too seriously, consider them simply good natured jibes.

One contributing factor in all of this is that I've been playing a lot of Savage Worlds lately, and switching back to D&D definitely brings a different style along with it.

Quote from: NicephorusI think I get the idea.  If it's not the focus of an action, you don't need the detailed version of the rules.  Suppose a character is trying to grab and hold someone running by.  You could invoke the grappling rules, or just make up a quick substitute like DC15 dex check.  But that doesn't mean you would never use the grappling rules for something like a wrestling match..

Yeah, this is what I was talking about. I consider a lot of the more finicky rules "optional" and use them when it really adds something to the encounter, especially when playing with newer players or those who aren't as familiar with D&D as they are with other games.

Quote from: cmagounJust this week, I was watching a game in which the GM laid out the miniatures for what was meant to be the awesome, climactic combat of the module. Two and a half mind-numbing hours later and everyone left unsatisfied and bored. I don't necessarily think this is an issue with tactical rules, or with a specific game, but often with the way the GMs (and players) approach the combat portion of the game.

You know what, I think this is really the crux of the matter. It's not the rules themselves, but their execution by the players and GMs. If everyone is familiar with the rules and understands each other's styles, even heavy tactical games can work smoothly and be fun.

One part where there can still be problems is what each person considers "common sense" and wants to handwave. Where one person a line of sight on the map and says fine and where another notices the smallest fraction of an occupied square crossing the LOS and bringing it up.

Last night was basically a disconnect between GM and 2 out of the four players. We just weren't on the same page regarding expectations and execution.

Quote from: cmagounNow, this does bring up an interesting point: do the children of a more "tactically complete" D&D have trouble adjudicating out of the box than those of us that grew up without the hexes and minis?

Interesting idea. I think it's just a matter of what you've become accustomed to. I had a bit of a hard time thinking in terms of AoO and 5 foot steps. I'll bet if you threw that GM into one of my Savage Worlds games, he would have become equally frustrated with my lack of maps to scale and my various "approximations". I'm sure we could both come around in time.

Quote from: estarThe same for using battlemats and minis. There is a tradeoff between detailed setups and quick play. Over the years I gathered a variety of props, and organized my minis in such a way I am able to layout a encounter within a minute. About the same amount of time to verbal describe it and far less confusing. (Which is the point of doing battlemats in the first place).

Remember this whole dichotomy arises because of RPGs origins in wargames. As the hobby grew beyond its original wargame roots the appeal of rules light systems grew as well with non-wargamers becoming a dominant part of the market. However there is a ton of old and new grognards (thanks to rule heavy stuff like Magic the Gathering) who keep the flame of the rules are king alive.

Two very good points. Firstly, setting up a quick battlemat with minis may actually save time compared to repeatedly trying to describe where the orc is in relation to the overturned table.

Secondly, that's a very good point about the wargame origins of RPGs. I never got into wargames personally, which may be why I don't like getting too wrapped up in long combats. Right now Savage Worlds is working at about the right speed for me. Last night's D&D was a little too heavy, Spirit of the Century is too light. I need a middle ground.

Quote from: Kyle AaronYes, people really do have fun with all that stuff.

Yeah, you're right and deep inside I knew that, but I just needed a reminder. I hadn't thought of this ahead of time, but since there really are so many "styles of play" it probably should be discussed beforehand to get some inkling of what to expect.

Quote from: Abyssal MawI really think he was trying to show you the way the standard way the game is now played.

I think that's a fair assessment of a lot of the GMs actions, but there were a few points in time when we said "yes, I realize that isn't the most advantageous move, but I want to do it anyway" and the GM didn't quite get it.

I can deal with the "if you move here instead of there you won't provoke an AoO", and realize they are only there to help. With more than one player in a similar situation, and another D20 veteran still debating the fine points of various moves, it slowed us down considerably last night. (A result of the group, and not necessarily the game).

Again, all in all this thread is very interesting, seeing a lot of differences in style of play. I wonder if last night's GM would gel with some of the posters here, or if he was too far toward one end of the spectrum.

I played a lot, and I mean a lot of AD&D back in the day- and we hardly ever used minis- which is different than never, but, even when we did use them, the tactical rules that governed them were hardly of any consideration at all- they were just there to give everyone an idea of where everything else was- and this is across several groups that I was involved from jr high through college.
I have actually asked myself some of the same qestions as the OP, but the answer seems fairly obvious to me. If it weren't fun, they wouldn't be doing it. That said, it's not for me.

I agree with the sentiments that it isn't a dichotomy but more of a spectrum with many points in between two extremes

To take off on Clash's point, it's nice that there are options for different styles even today. You have Castles and Crusades, FtA, Savage Worlds, D&D, GURPS and HERO, all giving viable options to run fantasy games with different levels of complexity.

Quote from: James J SkachPerhaps this is all about false dichotomy when we should be talking about sliding scales - but I blame that on the original post title talking about overdoing details (which can be overwhelming as AM points out) while the original post itself seemed more of a rant against any sort of crunch in favor of the "rule-light" fad that all you kids are doing nowadays :what:

Well, yeah, that was totally my fault. It was most definitely a rant and not to be taken too seriously.

Quote from: James J SkachI have to say - umm - then I was in the minority.  I can't ever recall playing a game where we didn't use minis to some extent or another. That could be killed-off brain cells in the intervening years - there was enough abuse for that.

I also can't recall playing AD&D in a way that different from a game of Living Greyhawk 3.5 - honestly.  Now, the level of specificity might be different (as the title of the OP seems to hint at), but the fact is that play was still ruled by minis, a "battle mat" of some sort, and deployment of just about every tactical rule available - including homebrew! And no matter how much detail there is in 3.5, it's actually a bit easier, IMHO, because at the heart it's all d20. Can you remember initiative, weapon speed, AC/to-hit, move silently, etc. - all essentially little rule system unto themselves. So the level of detail was, again IMHO, just as naughty - you were just trading one kind of complexity for another.

Perhaps this is all about false dichotomy when we should be talking about sliding scales - but I blame that on the original post title talking about overdoing details (which can be overwhelming as AM points out) while the original post itself seemed more of a rant against any sort of crunch in favor of the "rule-light" fad that all you kids are doing nowadays :what:

Hi James:

I doubt you are misremembering. Lots of people played AD&D and OD&D with minis too. It was definitely a sliding scale. It's just the balance that has changed. I personally never played any RPG with minis for more than a few months total over almost thirty years, but I knew several groups that played that way from the start.

-clash

Quote from: AosI played a lot, and I mean a lot of AD&D back in the day- and we hardly ever used minis- which is different than never, but, even when we did use them, the tactical rules that governed them were hardly of any consideration at all- they were just there to give everyone an idea of where everything else was- and this is across several groups that I was involved from jr high through college.
I have actually asked myself some of the same qestions as the OP, but the answer seems fairly obvious to me. If it weren't fun, they wouldn't be doing it. That said, it's not for me.

Whe I did play with minis, this is the way we used them. I never used them as a GM.

-clash

Quote from: RPGPunditI have never, ever, used minis in any kind of a regular presence in my RPGs.

Which makes it ironic that my own FtA! is quite minis-and-mat friendly from what I've been told.

RPGPundit

It's mat-and-minis-friendly, but not required or even emphasized. That's a big difference, Pundit. Makes it much more to my taste.

-clash

Oh! I should note that I'm an old grognard, who was a wargame maven long before RPGs were invented. I never got into minis games, because a counter is just as good as a mini for me, and a lot less expensive, but they are essentially wargames. Just because one likes wargames/minis games doesn't mean one wants them in one's RPG.

-clash