Sure, it's reasonable for players to be aware of things like falling damage and how much they can get away with in the game. I have no problems with the rules encouraging cinematic gaming, or players using their knowledge of the mechanics to make decisions.

What I really was ranting about was the tendency to see everything in game terms...I still get players who get freaked out when I refuse to tell them what class the mysterious stranger is, or pissed off when the monster doesn't follow the MM script.

And there's nothing worse than putting the cart before the horse by trying to extrapolate from the rules to the setting, rather than seeing the rules as an imperfect tool to present the world of myth and imagination. J Arcane said it perfectly:

Quote from: J ArcaneTo put it bluntly:  The moment anyone starts talking about "dungeon ecologies" or the societal effect of D&D magic, I want to smack the crap out of them.

Quote from: The_ShadowWhat I really was ranting about was the tendency to see everything in game terms...I still get players who get freaked out when I refuse to tell them what class the mysterious stranger is, or pissed off when the monster doesn't follow the MM script.

:haw:

Well, that's honestly mixing two thing AFAIAC. I'm all about "expressing things in game terms to get the point across." If I want the player to know that a gas is making their character feel sick, "you feel sick" is not as good (or at least, not as significant) as "you feel sick; -2 to all actions." That's things their senses would tell them.

But NPCs don't have a neon sign over their head with class, level, and HP, so if it doesn't affect their character and they don't have a way of knowing... too bad.

This threads adresses several only loosely dependent topics, so I have to split my post a bit to talk about them precisely if I want to avoid to create addleheaded mess.

Rule loyality:
I'm totally in favour of that. Either stick to the rules as written, or come up with reliable house-rules, but avoid that shit of constantly fudging and situationally ignoring rules.
First, it's additional work. When I game I just want to have fun and simply use the system - not write my own on the fly.
Moreover, rules are the fundament of play. Steady rules create a fair and evaluable playground that doesn't change on the base of what's up on the moment, so players can plan what they do, what their chances are and what their rights and obligations are. Fuzzy rules instead leave the group in the state of insecurity and unreliablity, what at best is confusing and a constant source of unassertiveness, and at worst can degenerate to a GM show à la WoD.

Of course, there may be situations where rules are unclear, or it isn't sure which rules apply (think about breaking a chain in a system where no rules for damage against objects are - is it now a simple strength check, a melee attack against a on the spot made-up "enemy" only defined by AC and hitpoints or something else?), but the lesser they appear, the more fun GMing and playing is to me.

Setting modeling by rules:
This doesn't happen on my gaming table. Sure, such stuff as "what would happen if dragon hoards affected inflation?" and "how would permanent telecinetic spells cast on turbines affect power generation?" can be a fun out-of-game topic, similar to alternative history discussion, but I never tried to shoehorn a setting into a rules-set and to follow every implication and corollary. Instead, I view rules just as the stuff that defines solely what happens on the actual game table and don't think about how, for instance, the weekly excavated dragon hoards would affect price stability.

Stay in the box and use only the official extrensions without making your own:
This is something I can't stand, too. From the very first day I GMed I've always created and included my own stuff (be it monsters, artifacts, power groups, fashion trends or anything else), and I haven't stopped it yet.
Therefore, I prefer open and vague settings that give me room to do my own thing, especially love rules that help me to create my own stuff (like the monster creation rules in Mazes&Minotaurs), and can't stand exclusivity to what's officially written, metaplot and other continuity porn crap.

A lot of gamers are gear-heads. If they can't point to a clear rule in a book or assign a number value to something, they get anxious.

Quote from: HaffrungA lot of gamers are gear-heads. If they can't point to a clear rule in a book or assign a number value to something, they get anxious.

This gets at the whole thing about, What kind of Player is this?  Some Players are there for the story, and aren't there to Win encounters in a points sense.   They like to Win because it propels the story forward and they feel their Character has achieved something notable In The World.

Other Players are there to Score Points and Win the Encounter so they can Up Levels and Get Stuff.   They don't really care much about whateverthehell the story is and they let you know that by ignoring it completely.

Is one kind of Player better than the other?  Nooo... but it very much makes a difference to the GM, because GMs divide up the same exact way.   The upshot is that if you are a Story-Focused GM playing with Players who are Points-Focused, then you are going to find it frustrating, and vice verse.

The key, I think, is for GMs to match up with the Players who have the same focus as they do.   Then you have a shot at fun, on either side of the spectrum.

... oh and of course there are those who like both.

- Mark

If you cannot suspend your disbelief such that it encompasses the rules of the game, perhaps you're not playing the right game?

Hey as I sort of said in another forum's thread - my favorite game system's rules tends to give me a cuddle and a hug. It also takes turns who is the 'bottom' and who is the 'top'.

 Any setting, any genre - thats how I like my game systems.  Friendly,... flexible,....even submissive at times,...willing to put on costumes and mix-up genres..... Game System that knows that I, the GM have the power...


- Ed C.

Quote from: KoltarHey as I sort of said in another forum's thread - my favorite game system's rules tends to give me a cuddle and a hug. It also takes turns who is the 'bottom' and who is the 'top'.

 Any setting, any genre - thats how I like my game systems.  Friendly,... flexible,....even submissive at times,...willing to put on costumes and mix-up genres..... Game System that knows that I, the GM have the power...


- Ed C.

May I be the first to say, "Your Kink is not OK."

I have noticed this tendency, and it puzzles me.

Now, understand that I drifted out of gaming about 1985 and only recently drifted back in.

Also, I was one of Gary Gygax' original gaming group back in Lake Geneva.

I still have my first handwritten notes that became D&D Brown Box.  It's not much more than hit charts and monster and treasure notes.

Heck, Brown Box D&D isn't much more than hit charts and monster and treasure descriptions.

All else, the GM decided.  The whole idea was to make the rules as minimalistic as possible, and just PLAY.

The biggest change I've noticed is that some people now want a rule for EVERYTHING.  I just don't get that.

Interestingly, wargaming has gone this way too... the huge megacomplex games are sitting side by side with new versions of very light games.  Interestingly, I see no evidence at all that more rules make for a "more realistic" game at the end of the day.


....AAAAAand I just realized I no longer have any idea where I was going with all this.  Bugger.

QuoteAlso, I was one of Gary Gygax' original gaming group back in Lake Geneva.

And you just can't help but bring it up as often as possible, can you?

Has anyone ever asked Mr. Gygax if this is actually true?  He does post over at ENWorld . . .

Quote from: J ArcaneAnd you just can't help but bring it up as often as possible, can you?

Has anyone ever asked Mr. Gygax if this is actually true?  He does post over at ENWorld . . .

Is this a joke, or are you ragging my ass?

1)  I'm new to this site.  I assumed that there are people here who don't know me.

2)  Check away.  Please.  By all means.

Not that I discourage anyone from verifying it on their own, but Old Geezer is legit in my book.  I have his real name from a reliable source (though I don't think OG really hides his true identity that much, I'm pretty sure I've seen him use it a least once on Dragonsfoot) and that name is listed among the playtesters from the wayback days of D&D.

Quote from: The_ShadowI'm not talking especially about houserules. I'm referring to the idea I have often seen espoused, that the rules of the game comprise the laws of physics, as it were, for the game world.

Quote from: The_ShadowIs this rules-uber-alles attitude due to laziness? Is it because most gamers are buttoned-down left-brain types who feel threatened by the unknown and uncodified, and want everything in black and white as the Rules, Canon etc.?

As usual, there's a simple answer: because it's fun, at least sometimes for some people.  

I enjoy extrapolations like alternate histories or alternate cultures -- i.e. what kind of world would you have if the rulers were immortal, say, or a world where men were only 1/20 of the population.  Yes, they involve logic, but there is also a lot of creativity to them.  Not everything has to fit in little boxes of "fantasy" (with no logic) or "science fiction" (with only hard science).  Even in hard SF, there is a lot of creativity.  

Creatively extrapolating can be fun.  

It's not the only sort of fun, but no one claimed it was.  For example, I have an essay Magic and Society about extrapolating RPG magic systems.  However, I also wrote Breaking Out of Scientific Magic Systems about making things different from most RPG rules.  Both approaches can be fun.

Quote from: Old GeezerAll else, the GM decided.  The whole idea was to make the rules as minimalistic as possible, and just PLAY.

The biggest change I've noticed is that some people now want a rule for EVERYTHING.  I just don't get that.

I think this is due to the original business model for TSR.   They were in the business of publishing rules books, and consequently the complexity grew and grew and people felt that was the direction things were *supposed* to take.   So the psychology got built in - more complexity is good.   New rules books are good.   New game versions are good.  And given the flaws and omissions in the original rules, all of this was true - upgrades were good/necessary.   However, my feeling is that instead of seeking to simplify and streamline, the business model encouraged expansion and greater complexity.   That's my take on it, anyway.  

- Mark

Quote from: The_ShadowIs this rules-uber-alles attitude due to laziness? Is it because most gamers are buttoned-down left-brain types who feel threatened by the unknown and uncodified, and want everything in black and white as the Rules, Canon etc.?

But as to why gamers do tend to be that type, which I feel as a generalisation is fairly accurate, well, that's another rant.

Grognard out.

It's only "rules uber alles" if you let it be.  I do admit there are many (in the vast spectrum of games, not just D&D) who follow the rules to a T, and want a house rule for every possible situation.  Myself, I'm happy with basic rules that cover the usual situations that you would find yourself in.  Anything wierd or special happens, and well, we'll wing it if need be.  At least, from my experience.  I don't really see it as a trend, it's not an accurate generalization.  But then, my experience is limited to three gaming groups, and several cons over the years.