Quote from: Piestrio;549886I 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.

This is insightful observation, and I think that there is a great deal of truth to it.

If we're talking about less intrusive rules, and intuitive applications of its principles, I'm all for it.

Quote from: Drohem;549911This is insightful observation, and I think that there is a great deal of truth to it.

I think so too.

Quote from: Benoist;549912If we're talking about less intrusive rules, and more intuitive applications of its principles, I'm all for it.

That's what I thought the discussion was, less RAW and more RAI or rules by the spirit of the game.

Quote from: Marleycat;549914That's what I thought the discussion was, less RAW and more RAI or rules by the spirit of the game.

Looks like lots of people thought so too, I just didn't see it that way at the start of the thread. For me, if you give me a set of simple, intuitive rules that fade easily into the background and I can then use to adjudicate the game without thinking much about it, my reaction would be "Awesome!", not "meh".

But whatever. I guess I just focused on the wrong part of the message.

Quote from: jadrax;549730I honestly don't think it matters. I think most people by D&D because its good at allowing them to beat up Beholders with their Holy Avenger while riding a Gold Dragon.

Unless they utterly hate the rules, they could not really care less about them.

While that's probably true of people actually playing the game, RPG forums are populated largely by rules-mongering obsessives who fanatically dissect and dispute game mechanics. And D&D development has become increasingly shaped by RPG forum theorizing; I get the impressions 5E is little more than a cobbled together compromise of mechanics proposed on online forums.

WotC has lost all confidence in their understanding of the D&D market, so they've resorted to getting their ideas from online forums frequented by a small fraction of the D&D players base.

Quote from: Piestrio;549886I 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.

Spot on.

Quote from: Benoist;549915But whatever. I guess I just focused on the wrong part of the message.

I think part of that is that you naturally linked it with your own related post, rather than linking it with a the stuff being posted by fuckwits on some other forums.

To try an give a further example. Monster stat blocks.

What I want from a monster stat block is the stuff about the monster, its abilities, its typical outlook, how hard it is in a fight. This many people would term 'meh'.

What the people who want 'interesting' rules seem to want is a selection of seven or eight powers, which cunningly combine to give you many tactical options and allow you to play the combat as if it was a giant interesting puzzle.

Now, I don't think there is anything wrong with the second one in theory, and yes those rules are more interesting rules. It's just not what I play a fucking Role-playing Game for.

I played 1st, 2nd, and 3rd edition.  I did not play 4th edition.  Everything I heard about it ranged from insulting to uninteresting.  

I'm only on this board because I'm curious about D&D Next - not enough to actually play-test the rules, because I'm of the 'meh' camp.  I don't NEED a new edition of D&D - I'm doing fine with my long established gaming group.  

The newest edition needs to be hot stuff to get people that have been playing their own version (or an older version of the game) to come back and support the hobby.  The more people play the same edition, the easier it is to get a game started - it's a self-feeding cycle.  

So far, I haven't seen anything that would encourage me to take up D&D Next.  It might be better than 4th edition, but it needs to be better than everything that came before in order to make the investment in time, energy and money worthwhile.

Quote from: Marleycat;549909I 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.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favour of rules heavy systems or more rules for their own sake. I can't handle GURPs even though I know it can be stripped down a lot. I'm in favour of compelling rulesets that make sense while striking a balance between simplicity and believability.

Simple and realistic rules, balanced to minimise abuse and lawyering, that's a tough nut to crack.

The other point is one shouldn't be against rules just because they are rules. The hobby cannot exist without rules, it would become something far less interesting. All that remains then are the parameters, and these are the ones that work best for me. There's a strain of deviant who seem to view any rule as a personal affront to their individual expression, these sorts would still be finger painting stick figures on cave walls if left to their own devices. Keep those brushes away maaan, I'm expressing.

QuoteThe other point is one shouldn't be against rules just because they are rules. The hobby cannot exist without rules, it would become something far less interesting. All that remains then are the parameters, and these are the ones that work best for me. There's a strain of deviant who seem to view any rule as a personal affront to their individual expression, these sorts would still be finger painting stick figures on cave walls if left to their own devices. Keep those brushes away maaan, I'm expressing.

That's the storywank crap issue. I just want decent rules with the understanding that the DM is going to use those rules to adjudicate said rules as intended not expressly as written.

Quote from: Marleycat;549958That's the storywank crap issue. I just want decent rules with the understanding that the DM is going to use those rules to adjudicate said rules as intended not expressly as written.

Some might argue that merely moves the areas of contention from the letter to the spirit of the law, which by its nature must be more vague and hence more volatile, in the realm of common sense or other such atypical attributes, otherwise it would be the letter.

I wholeheartedly embrace your sentiments however, in fact I'm not sure we differ at all, except in the minutae of what comprises the most useful sort of ruleset.

Quote from: The Traveller;549975Some might argue that merely moves the areas of contention from the letter to the spirit of the law, which by its nature must be more vague and hence more volatile, in the realm of common sense or other such atypical attributes, otherwise it would be the letter.
 
I wholeheartedly embrace your sentiments however, in fact I'm not sure we differ at all, except in the minutae of what comprises the most useful sort of ruleset.

I don't see any difference of opinion between either of us on this issue from where I sit honestly. Except as you say, in the minutae and that will always happen and can be easily bridged by logical adults willing to work together for a decent solution.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;549948I played 1st, 2nd, and 3rd edition.  I did not play 4th edition.  Everything I heard about it ranged from insulting to uninteresting.  

I'm only on this board because I'm curious about D&D Next - not enough to actually play-test the rules, because I'm of the 'meh' camp.  I don't NEED a new edition of D&D - I'm doing fine with my long established gaming group.  

The newest edition needs to be hot stuff to get people that have been playing their own version (or an older version of the game) to come back and support the hobby.  The more people play the same edition, the easier it is to get a game started - it's a self-feeding cycle.  

So far, I haven't seen anything that would encourage me to take up D&D Next.  It might be better than 4th edition, but it needs to be better than everything that came before in order to make the investment in time, energy and money worthwhile.

I agree. I'm not sure where this "no one really cares about the rules" = $$$ idea is coming from.

If the statement "no one really cares about the rules" is correct, then WotC is stupid to spend any money at all on the game. Their best move would be to take whichever version sold best (3rd?) and simply slap a new cover on it. Anything else would be a suboptimal strategy.

Of course, the reason they don't do that is precisely because most people really do care about the rules (in fact, caring about the rules is how the industry was built in the first place).

Quote from: jgants;550057I agree. I'm not sure where this "no one really cares about the rules" = $$$ idea is coming from.

To be clear, I am not saying no-one cares about the rules. I am saying the more the rules are front and centre the more people that will piss off to the point of not buying anything. The trick is to appease as many people as possible by being broad and bland.