And of course the primary activity of
Castles & Crusades fans is to be not Pro-C&C, but anti-3e. In other words, they crop up and throw out their two cents about how the game "should be." Since the intro to that game's player's handbook contains some of this derogatory language about the "current edition," it's clear that C&C's creators feel that bashing 3e is necessary to sell C&C. So it's not surprising that its supporters adopt this stance. Then they cite, as a source, Gary Gygax, who is on record as saying that 3e is not the game "he invented," and that it lacks the "elegance" of his creation. Mr. Gygax is entitled to his opinion, and certainly the first part of the statement is true (that 3e is not the game Gary invented anymore).
So the C&C proselytizers show up, screaming about how C&C is "better" than 3e, and even make statements like "rules-heavy games are intended to appeal to children. IME, Real Gamers (TM) like deep-immersion storytelling and only need a minimal amount of rules."
I could easily counter that with the following statement: if you think the D&D rules are too complicated, you have a bad memory and/or you can't do math. However, that is obviously just being pejorative and childish. Personally, I don't need a game system to tell me how to roleplay. What I would like it to do is provide an appropriate conflict-resolution system for the situations that arise. Ideally, that resolution system will provide logical, believable, and consistent rulings. Let me repharse that: the SYSTEM (if correctly followed) will provide logical and consistent rulings. Obviously, some situations are going to be "outside" the system. But ideally, that should not be the case the majority of the time. If you're constantly encountering a situation the specifics of which are not covered by the system, you either make up a rule that becomes part of your game (adding another rule to your game) or you handwave it differently every time and your game isn't consistent. If you have a very good memory and can make up a rule for every situation that arises, and recall that rule the next time the same situation arises, you're a walking rulebook...or a professional game designer.
Gygax, for the record, may very well be one of the few people in this latter category. By contrast, most DMs, despite their opinion of themselves, are not.
Can't we as gamers just accept that some people prefer "rules-heavier" and that others prefer "rules-lighter" without applying value judgements?
Ace said:
I am also of the opinion that younger gamers (12 to say 24 maybe) want and need more rules. Not only do they often have (in case of the kids anyway) less social maturity and dispute resolution skills the type of game they need is different
Younger kids want and need conflict resolution driven games like most D&D -- kick in the door-- kill the critter-- take stuff -- power up-- repeat is nearly an ideal set up for them. They also often have more time to play and prep so the rules help them
Gamers as their tastes change often find this model less satisfactory.
Older gamers in particular (30+ ) often have less time or interest in the mechanical set up of games and many are able to handle a more complex social contract.
I guess not.
Is a complex social contract that produces cooperative storytelling a game? Or is it interactive theater?
I would argue that a good DM and their, presumably, intelligent players learn the rules and don't have to keep looking things up. This DM ad-hoccing can be accomplished without a new game system. Of course, that wouldn't give people any incentive to buy books from Troll Lord Games. Seriously, other than its pseudo-THAC0 skill system and its very elegant saving throw system (which I hope D&D adopts), what does C&C ADD to the d20 experience?
Just curious.
EDITED: Ace, that would be the text I just quoted.
