TheRPGSite

I'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.

This leads to taking the game rules – and we’re pretty much talking D&D here – and extrapolating from them to create a setting. In other words, asking what would result from a world where D&D’s magic exists (not D&D-style magic, but magic as seen in the actual minutiae of the rules), and then trying to model it. So you have Ptolus, promoted as the most complete and logical extension of 3e’s mechanics to a setting. Or you have an idea like Earthdawn’s explicit inclusion of levels (as “Circles”)  in the game world. 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. No longer is your group’s (hopefully) rich imagination running wild, barely checked by the modicum of structure brought by the rules, but instead your imagination is in thrall to the system. And that system was in itself an imperfect attempt to model a hodge-podge of fantasy tropes. So instead of going to the wells of fantasy, whether they be myth, movie or fiction, all you get is retreads of D&Disms, like low-quality photocopies of copies.  Bye bye, sense of wonder, bye bye unique settings, bye bye changing the rules to accommodate your ideas, because you have turned your brain off with the idea that “this is what the game works like. This is what the system promotes. Deal with it or play another game.” So you have self-perpetuating ideas like “D&D is about killing monsters and taking their stuff.” Well, maybe, if you want it to be. I can see that the rules encourage that. But when I got into the hobby I wan’t inspired by the coolness of D&Disms. It was the (perhaps naïve) visions of magic, mystery, action and fun that merely used the rules as a framework that got me hooked, amd which I still strive for in my games.

Is 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.

Dude, it's because System Does Matter (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/system_does_matter.html)...

Or something.

I happen to agree with you.

I dunno.  I don't tend to let the rules drive things too much, because I tend to ignore or forget rules willy nilly.  I have a very carefree attitude towards game system generally, and think it's just flat the best way to handle any game.

What more annoys me is this current tendency to overanalyze the hell out of things, which you kind of hint at, but don't quite go after at the same angle.  To 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.

There's this tendency among modern fantasy fans to basically treat fantasy like it's sci-fi, and it pisses me the fuck off.  It's not just limited to D&D, or even to gaming, it's bloody everywhere.

Shut up!  It's fantasy!  It's fairy tales and legends, it's magic and myth, it's broad strokes and simple concepts.  It's brain candy.  This overanalytical shit just saps all the magic out of it.

Enix needs to translate Dragon Quest 5 for the States finally, and let these people see a good simple fantasy story once again.

It's a sort of tinkering we see in actual science. In the scientific method, what happens is that you come up with a theory to explain the reality. One of the ways to test that theory is to build it into a computer model, play it out, and see if what comes out ends up resembling reality. If it does, great! If not, time to change the model.

Now, if you know "alternate history" at all, "what if the Nazis won WWII?" and all that, you'll know that people like to think about not only, "does this model/theory produce something like reality?" but, "if we have a different model, what does it come out like?"

So I think your questions about following the rules precisely and seeing what comes out of it, it's the same sort of thing. It's just playing around to see how it comes out.

I think also that many people fear uncertainty. Dice uncertainty they can handle, but not knowing the "physics" of the universe, that's a different thing. And that's funny, because looking back at the beginning of our hobby, my AD&D DMG tells me that if the players don't know all the rules, they'll have more of a "sense of wonder".

But then, it depends on what you're after in a game session. If you're after a "sense of wonder", then you'll be comfortable not knowing all the rules. But if you want to "win" by killing things and taking their stuff, then you'll want to know all the rules. So that either all the game rules must be knowable to you, or they should resemble what you think "reality" is.

As for me, I think the rules are just a tool to help us with the roleplaying. If the tool's not suited for the purpose, well then I'll get another tool. The tool has no innate value, it's only useful to me because of what it can help me craft. I master the game, the game does not master me.

Quote from: joewolzDude, it's because System Does Matter (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/system_does_matter.html)...

Or something.

I happen to agree with you.

 Naw, anti-matter enigines just get you to the System, star system that is.

 What ?

 Oops, sorry wrong game.

- Ed C.

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.

You may avoid this point if you wish, but my own suspension of disbelief goes out the window when I'm playing D&D, my 10th level warrior is cornered on a 4 store balcony, and I have to pretend that the idea of falling scares the shit out of me, when it's mathematically impossible that he could die from 4d6 damage.
 
The rules model the way players approach to certain situations, like combat. We're playing a psychic spies campaign (2nd season of the campaign) using the WoD ruleset, and my players have taken a more cautious stance due to the changes in ruleset. So yeah, rules are the physics of the world.

I rather like that fantasy increasingly has an attitude similiar to proper science fiction, because then you actually get good speculative fiction as a result of the process.

When the Mystara setting was re-branded and sold for 2nd ed AD&D rather than classic D&D, it didn't really work. The setting was more or less the same (dumbed down rather to make it an 'introductory setting'), and the ideas were similar... But the system was different, and that did impact on what characters (NPCs and PCs) could do, and how they interracted with their world. I don't think that system should dictate setting, but I think its naive to assume that the two are independent of each other.

If the rules ruin part of how you see your setting, then you have to change one or the other. Generally, if its not an important rule, I'd change that. If I have to change something central to the game then that setting is wrong for the game, I'd think about playing a different game with that setting; I might make a fundamental rule change instead, I might not.

Our group's imagination still runs wild. We still have magic, mystery, action and fun. We have it all within the framework of DnD's "setting". We forget spells as we cast them, we leap off tall buildings without getting hurt, we laugh in the face of 87 goblins with hand crossbows.  We enjoy it because we enjoy it. It suits our tastes and goals. NOT because we're "lazy" or "buttoned-down left-brain types who feel threatened by the unknown and uncodified" (which, frankly, is insulting a little). We (thankfully IMO) are still perfectly capable of suspending our disbelief in the face of these "problems" and enjoy the rich worlds our DMs bring to life for us while still using DnD's particular style of fantasy. Comparing this to all ya'alls seeming difficulty getting past what you see as problems with DnD I'm starting to wonder just who has the richer imagination here, to be honest.

All of this is not to say we don't enjoy other games. Actually, my favorite game to run myself is True20, but I'm also trying Savage Worlds very soon. There's been many other games I've played and enjoyed as well, that just doesn't stop me from playing and enjoying DnD too.

Quote from: ImperatorYou may avoid this point if you wish, but my own suspension of disbelief goes out the window when I'm playing D&D, my 10th level warrior is cornered on a 4 store balcony, and I have to pretend that the idea of falling scares the shit out of me, when it's mathematically impossible that he could die from 4d6 damage.
 
The rules model the way players approach to certain situations, like combat. We're playing a psychic spies campaign (2nd season of the campaign) using the WoD ruleset, and my players have taken a more cautious stance due to the changes in ruleset. So yeah, rules are the physics of the world.

This is simple. A 10th level warrior feels no fear, and in any case, he'll probably just land in a passing hay-wagon or a pile of trash or whatever. This guy confidently faces down hordes of enemies and stares down dragons. He's not afraid of being on a balcony. He's an adventurer.

Quote from: Abyssal MawThis is simple. A 10th level warrior feels no fear, and in any case, he'll probably just land in a passing hay-wagon or a pile of trash or whatever. This guy confidently faces down hordes of enemies and stares down dragons. He's not afraid of being on a balcony. He's an adventurer.

Oh, and I'm totally cool with that - I have nothing against ablative hitpoints or whatever. What I'm against is pretending that the physics rules are other; my PC is a badass and he knows it. I frown upon the people who look down on me because my PCs act according to the rules of the game, instead the "real world" physics.

Eh, I tend to forget rules, make them up, and bend them to make things work on a regular basis.  As a GM, I also cheat. :D  To me rules are a nice framework, so you don't get all handwavey and Junior Thespian Camp on me, but that's about it.  I bend 'em to fit the setting/mood/attitude we need.  But I also think it's fun to use random charts and tables.

My Mantra:

"Use the rules; don't let the rules use you."

Which is to say that the rules are there for a reason. It gives you answers to questions. It gives the setting some grounding and feel of consistency and gives the players some expectations that they can feel safe to build on. It provides a fair baseline to the social contract about how the game is going to be run.

But when the rules don't define a situation well, or lead you to a conclusion that is not fun or cool for your game, don't be afraid to go beyond the rules.

I include in this admonition the GMs authority to say "no" to new rules material that just doesn't fit and to rules combos that are just loophole seeking.

Because sometimes limits are actually liberating?

Shadow, I tend to agree with you but I've never let the rules tell me what the world physics are.  They may determine the contours of magic since that is totally made up, but the classic falling off a cliff, no way.

The old 4 story fall is no big deal but I still remember once when face with a 100' cliff you could still just jump off.  The DM (this is 1e) wanted us to try all sorts of things to get down or past it.  Since he was by-the-book kind if guy our toughest fighter could have actually just jumped and likely survived no problem even with the requisite system shock roll.  We didn't do this as it would have killed the fun for us the players.  But it was fun to rile the DM up.

There are many ways to deal with this, but I've long ago decided to take the rules for what they are, focused on battles, magic and character progression with abstractions built in for ease of play.  If something is too wonky for the group, ignore/house-rule it.  

I guess a part of your view is that people are want too much to take the rules of a game as a physics text.  When this goes too far, it destroys my suspension of disbelief.  

It also can render meaningless that old school approach to challenging players, if the world behaves too differently than what we expereince in real life (excepting magic of course) then how can one use their powers of deduction and induction to strategize and solve problems?  When logical consequences are replaced with dogma does it come down to guess the DMs mind or learn the worlds physics?  Invariably I've seen the "game world's physics" approach devolve into there is one set of rules for the DM and one set for the players.  That is, it's inconsistent DM fiat/railroad time.

I prefer the DM set a stage where our wits and life experience might help not hurt.

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.

:D

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." :D

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 (http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=125997&page=1&pp=50) . . .

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 (http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=125997&page=1&pp=50) . . .

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 (http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/magic/magicandsociety.html) about extrapolating RPG magic systems.  However, I also wrote Breaking Out of Scientific Magic Systems (http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/magic/antiscience.html) 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.

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 (http://odd74.proboards76.com/index.cgi), 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 (http://odd74.proboards76.com/index.cgi), 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.

Sure, but it still makes no sense.

"I prefer system A, whose rules I don't know, to system B, whose rules I don't know."

It's sort of like a woman closing her eyes as she walks into a party, and then saying that the guy on her left is better-looking than the guy on her right. How would she know?

Okay, so a player wants to have an uniformed opinion, fair enough. But why would they expect that the GM should respect that opinion?

Quote from: Kyle AaronSure, but it still makes no sense.

"I prefer system A, whose rules I don't know, to system B, whose rules I don't know."

It's sort of like a woman closing her eyes as she walks into a party, and then saying that the guy on her left is better-looking than the guy on her right. How would she know?

Okay, so a player wants to have an uniformed opinion, fair enough. But why would they expect that the GM should respect that opinion?

Overall, your right, of course.  You should check out your options before you decide.   My point is that in order to do so requires a much greater time commitment for an RPG than glancing at the guy next to you at a party.  And that's the rub.   The time commitment... plus the other points.   But the time commitment to learning new systems is big.   And there's the Player reaction as well, which I think is also a big factor.   Well, anyway, that's just my take on it.

Quote from: VBWyrdeBut 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:

I believe that if 3rd ed hadn't been called D&D, it would have died an early death. Three 'core' rulebooks of 300 or more pages each? Ain't a good introduction to gaming. Or to D&D.

Huh, somehow my reply was lost.

Quote from: XantherGreat post this, as well as your prior one.  

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

Thanks, and it's coming out okay. It helps that we have a common enthusiasm for a given set of motifs/tropes going in--basically, Lieberesque S&S with a dollop of EC comics two-fistedness-cum-horror. The GMs (it's a rotating GM game, highly episodic, currently on 2nd episode) have generally ratified or rolled dice for whatever we come up with. The main issue has been the use of d20 vs. characteristic checks--something I'd not seen in original or Advanced D&D before, but apparently part of Basic. Given that you tend to have around a 50% chance or better this way, it makes first-level thief skills look even gimpier as "empowering tools".

Quote from: Elliot WilenThe main issue has been the use of d20 vs. characteristic checks--something I'd not seen in original or Advanced D&D before, but apparently part of Basic. Given that you tend to have around a 50% chance or better this way, it makes first-level thief skills look even gimpier as "empowering tools".

That sort of appeared in basic, in that basic acquired a skill system that was then incorporated into the Rules Cyclopedia. Roll d20, get under the attribute associated with that skill. That wasn't ever the standard way of handling thief skills however; that system was more of a way of adding background, fleshing out a character, it didn't handle core class based abilities.

Quote from: VBWyrdeIn 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.

But of course, someone could make the argument that D&D is only king of the hill because of the way its rules were designed. Perhaps if TSR went into "Simplify Mode" back in the late 70's/early 80's it would have lost ground to the growing number of RPGs that were competing for the new and growing gaming market. If there were no Advanced D&D, then I would have easily moved from Basic straight to something with more meat on it, like Traveller, Champions, Aftermath or Rolemaster.

Of course, we are both just imposing our own preferences on the rest of the world... the perfect internet forum conceit and we are both guilty of it. :)

However, I will say that I think the fact that we are over 30 years into this experiment lends at least a tiny bit of credence to my opinion. If there were truly "many more millions" of gamers waiting for the right game, then someone would have found them already. If the RPG industry was already "stifled" by the giant AD&D machine, then Milton Bradley or Parker Brothers would have certainly picked up the slack.

In any case, always nice to discuss these issues with you,

Quote from: VBWyrdeThis 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 don't blame WotC. All geek hobbies are vulnerable to the tyranny of the hardcores. As soon as market starts to slide for whatever reason, the hardcores become a bigger part of that smaller pie. With their enthusiasm and committment, they dominate the fan community, the design community, and all the online forums. So the product becomes tailored towards the hardcores. This drives even more casuals and potential new players away, making the hardcores an even larger portion of the remaining market. And so on. You end up with really small niche hobbies dominated by the tastes of a small cadre of hardcore fanboys.

As OG and others explained several times, rules got more complicated and settings more intricate because that is what people wanted,
 to TSR's initial surprise.

Gygax and co. thought people would use those rules as a baseline for making shit up. But instead, people wanted to read made-up shit. So, supply was created.

Re. attitude to rules, I could get used to the invisible-rules attitude. Even to the extent Cali suggested here a while back, where you describe your actions and the GM does the combat rolls based on that.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityAs OG and others explained several times, rules got more complicated and settings more intricate because that is what people wanted,
 to TSR's initial surprise.

Gygax and co. thought people would use those rules as a baseline for making shit up. But instead, people wanted to read made-up shit. So, supply was created.

Re. attitude to rules, I could get used to the invisible-rules attitude. Even to the extent Cali suggested here a while back, where you describe your actions and the GM does the combat rolls based on that.

Oh my.  That's how I always GM'd it.  My rational is that I didn't want Players focusing on the numbers (this is going back to 1978 when I started GMing), but on their Characters instead.   So I hardly showed numbers, but rely on scene descriptions.  Odd, though... my Players seemed to be very comfortable with that.   I would occassionally let the Player roll the dice, but even then I don't usually give them a breakdown of math involved.   It all seems so much smoother and easier this way ... did I miss something in GM Training School?  :raise:

Quote from: VBWyrdeSo I hardly showed numbers, but rely on scene descriptions.  Odd, though... my Players seemed to be very comfortable with that.   I would occassionally let the Player roll the dice, but even then I don't usually give them a breakdown of math involved.   It all seems so much smoother and easier this way ... did I miss something in GM Training School?  :raise:

That's exactly the way we've always played. My players, with one or two exceptions, can't be arsed with the numbers and rules crunch. They simply tell me what their PCs do, and I handle the rest. Of course, they can roll their own d20 to hit and d6 for damage, but all the system numbers are invisible to them.