I like the cause and effect that rules provide. Life is unclear enough. I do not want it in my game rules. I enjoy roleplaying and if I can do that and have the GM not tell me to roll that is fine, but when it gets time to fight. I want to know the Rules Of Engagement.


I am competative, without set boundries I feel like a boat in the middle of the ocean. What is the point if I never see land. Vicroty or Defeat, Life or Death, Success or Failure.


QM

Quote from: VBWyrdeI 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.

Maybe OG has some more insights on this, but I don't think this really captures it. AD&D was allegedly created by GG so he could have sole ownership of the design, but I think it's also clear that there was something else at work...something that really goes back as far as the first D&D supplement, Greyhawk. Namely, as people played, they wanted more rules either as a way of avoiding having to make an arbitrary (or difficult) decision, or as a way of "empowering" characters--letting them do things which they wouldn't otherwise be able to do. (Which is basically the same thing.)

There are some other reasons too--basically the same ones that led to the explosion of complexity in wargames--an interest in detail, sometimes understood as such, sometimes mistakenly seen as necessary for realism.

Quote from: TheQuestionManI like the cause and effect that rules provide. Life is unclear enough. I do not want it in my game rules.

And this is why I've always said that players like complicated rules systems because it gives them the illusion of control over what happens in the adventure.

Not that players have any control anyway, but they like to feel they have.

That illusion is very important to some of us.


"Life is not about having the right answers. Its about having the right questions."


QM

Quote from: Kyle AaronNot that players have any control anyway, but they like to feel they have.

Of course they have control.  They always have the ability to walk away from the game table.  Everyone in the group at least has that.

Quote from: Elliot WilenMaybe OG has some more insights on this, but I don't think this really captures it. AD&D was allegedly created by GG so he could have sole ownership of the design, but I think it's also clear that there was something else at work...something that really goes back as far as the first D&D supplement, Greyhawk. Namely, as people played, they wanted more rules either as a way of avoiding having to make an arbitrary (or difficult) decision, or as a way of "empowering" characters--letting them do things which they wouldn't otherwise be able to do. (Which is basically the same thing.)

There are some other reasons too--basically the same ones that led to the explosion of complexity in wargames--an interest in detail, sometimes understood as such, sometimes mistakenly seen as necessary for realism.

Yeah I think you're right, that is part of it.   Seems like a combination of both actually.   OG is saying that in the old days the idea was to have few rules and, as he says, "Just PLAY".   But the problem with that is when you have situations where it's hard to figure out what mechanics you should use to do something unanticipated, for example swimming across a half frozen river.   When I wrote "flaws and omissions", the omissions include all those rules that had to be created on the fly because they weren't covered by the original game system.   In the old days we would just fudge it, and maybe make up a rule, like "Well, your Dexterity is +2, so I'll give Rocknar a 30% chance to make it across the river...".  So in some sense you could say there was a need for more explicit rules.  Another reason why is because some GMs, in those situations, took advantage and 'cheated', or when the outcome didn't go the way the Player wanted then there was a fuss because the rule wasn't clearly defined.   On the other side of the push was the business model which encourages more rules.   So the upshot is that there has been a big rules proliferation.   In my opinion, though, what TSR (or GG) never did (and why should he have, given the business model?) was think:  How can we simplify this so that we have fewer rules that cover more ground, rather than more and more charts and rules?    That line of thinking was completely alien to the business model, and so it never happened.   And the result is that we have huge rules systems that GMs and Players are now heavily invested in.   No one wants to throw away years of work at getting those rules down because once you know them and can work with them it becomes a technical brag.   This also encourages, as a side effect, a focus on game crunch and those who are into crunch gravitate toward the crunchy bits.   And so in total, to answer OG's question of why things are this way, I think these are at least some of the main factors.

- Mark

Right, see at the moment I've begun playing in a Basic D&D game, and we've run into some of this. (I've also been reading the Original D&D Discussion Forums, which have opened up my eyes in some respects.

When you hit one of those moments, like crossing a half-frozen stream, it's not covered by the rules. But neither is walking up a hill...no matter how steep. Cue in the reader's mind a tight shot of an adventurer carrying a sack of loot up a slope. As the adventurer walks along, the slope becomes steeper and steeper. When, exactly does it move from being an action you don't even think twice about, to one where you start casting about for mechanics to resolve success/failure? So, back to the stream, the GM has a wide variety of options in the absence of written rules. a) Assume that what isn't explicitly forbidden is implicitly permitted. b) Assume what isn't explicitly permitted is implicitly forbidden. c) Make up a mechanic. d) Make up a pure judgment based on imagining.

And under (c) and (d), the methods of mechanic-creation and pure judgment can vary wildly: especially with judgment: does the GM decide based on what seems "coolest"? "Fairest"/"most realistic"? Is there an assumption/presumption that the players are going to help enforce the continuity, verisimilitude, and "coolness" by limiting their proposals? Etc.

Fact is, I think any of these solutions can & did work, but prewritten rules take the burden off, especially if a praxis hasn't been established yet.

Quote from: The_ShadowSo you have Ptolus, promoted as the most complete and logical extension of 3e's mechanics to a setting...There goes the final thread of my suspension of disbelief. Uh, what exactly is fun about these ideas?...To me, it is getting it completely backwards.

I don't know if Ptolus is the best example for your argument. It isn't really an extension of 3e's mechanics - it was one of the main test-bed's for 3e's mechanics. You might say 3e was an extension of Ptolus, at least in part (the part that Monte Cook personally designed and tested). So in this case the setting and mechanics go hand-in-hand - 3e's rules are the limits to Ptolus' existence because that's exactly how and why either was made. I don't mean that this should limit anyone in what they want to do with Ptolus. It's just that the relationship between Ptolus and 3e is unique.

Quote from: Elliot WilenWhen you hit one of those moments, like crossing a half-frozen stream, it's not covered by the rules. But neither is walking up a hill...no matter how steep. Cue in the reader's mind a tight shot of an adventurer carrying a sack of loot up a slope. As the adventurer walks along, the slope becomes steeper and steeper. When, exactly does it move from being an action you don't even think twice about, to one where you start casting about for mechanics to resolve success/failure? So, back to the stream, the GM has a wide variety of options in the absence of written rules. a) Assume that what isn't explicitly forbidden is implicitly permitted. b) Assume what isn't explicitly permitted is implicitly forbidden. c) Make up a mechanic. d) Make up a pure judgment based on imagining.

And under (c) and (d), the methods of mechanic-creation and pure judgment can vary wildly: especially with judgment: does the GM decide based on what seems "coolest"? "Fairest"/"most realistic"? Is there an assumption/presumption that the players are going to help enforce the continuity, verisimilitude, and "coolness" by limiting their proposals? Etc.

Great post, Elliot.  Thanks.  IMHO, there's a great way to talk about games, game groups, perferences, compatibilities, etc. buried in here.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkOf course they have control.  They always have the ability to walk away from the game table.  Everyone in the group at least has that.

That's what you think, but... you had to travel to other countries to get away from my game table, didn't you? :haw:

Seriously, though, going from many of the stories I hear - from gamers in person - about how terrible their current campaigns are, or how many years they spent in some campaign or group they hated, I think that some people actually don't have the ability to walk away from the game table.

Maybe some people's willpower is so low that the only way they can walk away is with a critical success on their roll.

Quote from: VBWyrde...   And the result is that we have huge rules systems that GMs and Players are now heavily invested in.   No one wants to throw away years of work at getting those rules down because once you know them and can work with them it becomes a technical brag.   ....

- Mark[/QUOTE

I agree with your overall take on this, I'm quoting the last bit because I've seen it many times on the internet where someone says "I want to play x because I know x and don't want to learn another system."  Thus this perceived or real difficulty to learn soemthing else or to foresake your large investment in one system, creates a barrier to change, and thus helps maintain market share.

Quote from: Elliot WilenRight, see at the moment I've begun playing in a Basic D&D game, and we've run into some of this. (I've also been reading the Original D&D Discussion Forums, which have opened up my eyes in some respects.

When you hit one of those moments, like crossing a half-frozen stream, it's not covered by the rules. But neither is walking up a hill...no matter how steep. Cue in the reader's mind a tight shot of an adventurer carrying a sack of loot up a slope. As the adventurer walks along, the slope becomes steeper and steeper. When, exactly does it move from being an action you don't even think twice about, to one where you start casting about for mechanics to resolve success/failure? So, back to the stream, the GM has a wide variety of options in the absence of written rules. a) Assume that what isn't explicitly forbidden is implicitly permitted. b) Assume what isn't explicitly permitted is implicitly forbidden. c) Make up a mechanic. d) Make up a pure judgment based on imagining.

And under (c) and (d), the methods of mechanic-creation and pure judgment can vary wildly: especially with judgment: does the GM decide based on what seems "coolest"? "Fairest"/"most realistic"? Is there an assumption/presumption that the players are going to help enforce the continuity, verisimilitude, and "coolness" by limiting their proposals? Etc.

Fact is, I think any of these solutions can & did work, but prewritten rules take the burden off, especially if a praxis hasn't been established yet.

Great post this, as well as your prior one.  

So how are you coming out on this in your Basic D&D game?

Quote from: XantherThus this perceived or real difficulty to learn soemthing else or to foresake your large investment in one system, creates a barrier to change, and thus helps maintain market share.

One thing that makes me scratch my head is just how many of the people who are insistent on playing System X don't actually know its rules very well at all.

If you know them back-to-front and still love 'em and don't want to change, then I can make sense of that. But if you can't even be arsed learning the system you say you love, then... surely you can't love it that much?

Or perhaps it's simply, "Mate, I am so lazy I can't even be bothered learning a system I love, and you expect me to make the effort to get to know a system I might dislike?" Maybe it's not really about system at all, it's just about lazy gamers. They're not the rulebook's bitch, they're just lazy.

QuoteI agree with your overall take on this, I'm quoting the last bit because I've seen it many times on the internet where someone says "I want to play x because I know x and don't want to learn another system."  Thus this perceived or real difficulty to learn soemthing else or to foresake your large investment in one system, creates a barrier to change, and thus helps maintain market share.

Indeed.  It may even form part of, or be the basis of, the marketing strategy.  This is great for the game maker.   But is it great for the game?   Personally, I've never thought so.   In fact, could we roll back time and reset TSR to "Simplify Mode" rather than "Complicate Mode" we might today have a very much larger market share overall for RPGs than we do today.  After all, though D&D is the king of the hill, in the grand scheme of things, the hill itself remains quite small.   Who knows how many more people might have adopted the game had they done so?   My guess is very many more millions.  My feeling is that what they gained in sustainability they lost in expansion because the gravitational force of the complex rules is simultaneously a pretty major barrier for those who might otherwise pick the game up.   I recall how easy it was to pick up D&D ed 1, and how exciting it was because of those three little magical parchment-paper bound booklets.   But were I to encounter the full blown e3 today as a first time potential GM ... I tend to think I would have balked because I'm not really *that* geeky.   I'm just geeky enough to have loved e1, and even then, mostly because it pointed the way for me to do my own thing.  :cool:

Quote from: Kyle AaronOne thing that makes me scratch my head is just how many of the people who are insistent on playing System X don't actually know its rules very well at all.

If you know them back-to-front and still love 'em and don't want to change, then I can make sense of that. But if you can't even be arsed learning the system you say you love, then... surely you can't love it that much?

Or perhaps it's simply, "Mate, I am so lazy I can't even be bothered learning a system I love, and you expect me to make the effort to get to know a system I might dislike?" Maybe it's not really about system at all, it's just about lazy gamers. They're not the rulebook's bitch, they're just lazy.

I was with you in the first part, but I don't think it's laziness really. I think its simply that the rules are, after all, complex.  And if you're going to spend time learning them so you can RPG with your buddies, but not spend the amount of time on it required to learn them all (I mean how many books are we talking about really at this point?) I wouldn't call it laziness if they don't learn them all... It's just actually daunting.   And the fact that they don't want to pick up a totally different set of rules to learn when they didn't even have the wherewithal to learn the first set very well... to me that just follows logically.   If you only have so much time, and you've already invested in learning lets say 80% of a given rules system over the course of several years... AND you can still brag that you know the rules (not compared to a real expert, maybe, but certainly to your even less ardent friends)... well, you're going to just not really feel a great incentive to switch.  Especially if you've run enough campaigns so that your players have substantial characters that they would not be happy to lose so that everyone can start over again.   ... oh yeah, that's probably another reason GMs may not lightly switch.  Their players might kill them.