Quote from: jadrax;549750Again, they will play D&D for the logo...

Not me.  I don't buy into the idea that playing the "current edition that bears the trademark/logo" is worth worrying about.  I play what I like the best, and don't give a rip about the logo or what is "current," et cetera.

I think my attitude about this used to be less common, but it seems to be an attitude that is being adopted by more and more people.  Of course, I'm making that statement from pure, unscientific, unsupported gut feeling based on my limited conversations with other gamers and what I've been reading on the Internet, so take it for what it's worth...

Quote from: jadrax;549722One thing I keep reading about 5th edition, and to be fair a few other games, is that the rules are not exciting.

This is what I want from an RPG. I don't want the rules themselves to be so exciting/interesting to manipulate that they take the focus away from the campaign setting and what is going on in the game session. I want my RPG rules to be unobtrusive, boring things that quickly fade into the background so I can concentrate on interacting with the game world via my character.

I don't want rules that I have to think about and interact with a lot as a player as that interferes with interacting with the game world as my character. However, from reading the reactions of some 3e and many 4e players to 5e I get the impression that they want the rules themselves to be interesting/exciting "toys" that players must manipulate to play as they see the fun in the playing with game rules more than in playing with the game world. Creating a set of rules that will satisfy players like me who want the rules to fade into the background AND players who want the rules to be interesting in and of themselves so they can be fun to manipulate in play sounds like an near impossible task.

Yeah, in consideration, Logo was an ill chosen word, I more meant they will want to play D&D because it is D&D. well over half of games at my local club are D&D, and frankly getting buy in for anything else can be a nightmare.

(Although I may be running a new WFRP game and 50% of the players I have never played with before, I am excited!)

Quote from: jadrax;549756(Although I may be running a new WFRP game and 50% of the players I have never played with before, I am excited!)

That's awesome.

Rules shouldn't be meh, but they shouldn't slow down play (hint, ffg).

What they should do is be interesting and evocative, just as the setting itself is. RPG is part game and that shouldn't be ignored. Certainly not in my view.

It depends entirely on the game, which is why i dislike generic rules.

Oddly enough the old Deadlands used to be both evocative and get in its own way.

People used to say that Unknown Armies had amazing madness rules, but they were so overhyped that they became a problem as a result.

QuoteRules shouldn't be meh, but they shouldn't slow down play (hint, ffg).

What they should do is be interesting and evocative, just as the setting itself is. RPG is part game and that shouldn't be ignored. Certainly not in my view.

I can't disagree with this.

I think I get what's being said. Unobtrusive rules. I agree with that. That and I do agree that D&D has a large cultural cache which attracts players. There's a lot of casual RPGers who want to game something familiar. Which probably explains why many older players are wanting 5e to go back to its roots. A lot of more casual players want unobtrusive and familiar rules. Therefore unobtrusive and familiar rules helps more dedicated players find enough new players to fill a table.

Both ideas seem to be a part of the OSR/grognard/etc. argument. And it's an important one. There's something to be said for Scrabble or Chess or Checkers being relatively consistent over the years, along with relatively easy to grok rules. One day D&D may too have this sort of status -- if we hope and pray (and whine) really hard!

How 'bout this? The game should be intuitive enough that a player can simply describe what his character does without knowing the rules and the rules can handle it.

Quote from: Marleycat;549807I can't disagree with this.

Me either. I like the "game" part as much as I do the "role-playing". I need equal parts. If I'm not getting the "role-playing", I may as well play a board game (and I do, quite a bit. I love board games)...if I'm not getting a game, then we're just sitting around, acting out an improv play...which isn't really fun to me at all. But two of my favorite systems are polar opposites on this scale: Unisystem is most famous for "staying out of the way" and Savage Worlds is really hard to ignore in play.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;549856How 'bout this? The game should be intuitive enough that a player can simply describe what his character does without knowing the rules and the rules can handle it.

Agreed. The versions of D&D (and near-D&D) I prefer to play and GM are like this. A player with no knowledge of the rules can play by simply saying what his or her character tries to do in the game world. Better, his or her character can be just as successful as the character of a player who has memorized the rules. (And those players with great knowledge of the rules, can and do normally play by describing what their character is attempting in the game world without needing a lot of rules speak.)

Also, said unfamiliar with the rules player can create a character (who is just as viable as one created by the rules expert) in 10-15 minutes with the help of just about any player who is reasonable familiar with the character creation rules. Rules expertise does not mean "automatically better characters."

I kind of agree.

There's been a huge focus on the "rules" over the past decade, so much that the rules of the game are now synonymous with "the game" for many folks.

Personally I think it has to do with the ever shrinking importance of actual play in most gamers lives.

When the most important part of the game (you know, the game part) is rare or nonexistent it makes sense to fixate on what you DO have, the books.

I think you can observe an inverse relationship between wanking over rules and playing games. It's certainly something I see in my life; the less I'm playing the more I'm "house ruling" and "tweaking" and whining on-line. When I'm playing the rules take their proper seat as a single part of the game, and not the most important.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;549856How 'bout this? The game should be intuitive enough that a player can simply describe what his character does without knowing the rules and the rules can handle it.

I think that's the true differentiator of "story games" from "RP games", if we need one; that the system can cope with actions and situations the author's didn't write explicit rules for. And for that, really all you need is a central core mechanic, that everything else in the book is an example of the application thereof.

I basically agree with the sentiment of the OP.

I don't necessarily want "meh" rules but, like other folks here, I would like  less obtrusive rules.

I'm pretty rules agnostic overall and have had fun with all versions of the game (not to mention other RPGs) until 4e.

With 4e it just felt like the game designers were there in the room with you, jumping up and down and screaming "Look at me! Look at me!".

That I can do without.

Quote from: Ladybird;549887I think that's the true differentiator of "story games" from "RP games", if we need one; that the system can cope with actions and situations the author's didn't write explicit rules for. And for that, really all you need is a central core mechanic, that everything else in the book is an example of the application thereof.

Too-vague rules work great right up until there's a difference of opinion. This is usually handwaved away as "we're all adults here" but what it really translates to is someone got browbeaten by everyone else into toeing the party line.

Which may itself go some way towards explaining the general attitudes of forgites and many on the pendulous purple - that's the only way they know how to play with the other kids.

Rules matter, they give the game structure and feeling, they define the means by which players interact with their shared imaginations. Without rules we may as well be sitting around having a conversation.

The trick with rules is to get them comprehensive enough to deal with most differences of opinion (or make it clear what should probably be the case otherwise), intuitive enough to be easily grasped, and simple enough that you don't need to go referencing every decision.

Speaking only for myself, the setting, characters and players are the glory of the game, the rules simply enable that. How well the rules let me portray and participate in say a three way battle between a flock of griffin riders and two sky galleys so that I feel its really happening, that makes the difference between good and bad rules.

QuoteRules matter, they give the game structure and feeling, they define the means by which players interact with their shared imaginations. Without rules we may as well be sitting around having a conversation.

I agree but the more rules you have the more it caters to rules lawyering and powergaming or the optimization or character creation minigames. Nothing wrong with that playstyle and I do it myself plenty of times but I much prefer a balance of structure and unobtrusiveness.