Why is realism "lame"?

[Umbran]

That is, frankly, completely irrelevant when you're discussing a manufactured game. The manufactured game is what it is regardless what your table likes.

If you're using the term "manufactured game" how I understand it - D&D hasn't ever been a manufactured game.

If the game were written with strict rules, and run exactly as written, then yes, you'd be correct. If, in essence, the game was tic-tac-toe, and in an individual campaign, there were no choices for the GM in how he went about things, you'd be correct. An upshot of this is that the game experience would be unequivocal. Everyone would have the same experience of play. But that's clearly not what we see in practice. D&D is not tic-tac-toe, or even monopoly or chess, with single-style-results in play.

We can bring out the Gygax quotes of how the GM is allowed to ignore the rules, if you like. But even without that, and without blatant homebrew rules, the GM always has choices. The rules have always been littered with things that are optional, advice for the GM on how to *vary* the game to fit the needs of his or her players. The game has thus always been, to a significant extent, hand-tailored, rather than manufactured.

Does the GM go with a "wish list" for magic items, or does he drop them instead randomly, or by his own design. Does the GM use Skill Challenges, and if so, how often? How are adventures structured (because exactly how "encounter" and "daily" powers play out depends on how much time passes during a given adventure). Does the GM use masses of weaker monsters, or focus more on big boss monsters, or does he run an entirely human-centric campaign without "monsters" at all? Are XP handed out only for killing monsters, or does the GM reserve some for handing out for Role Play, or achieving success through methods other than combat - or does the GM eschew XP altogether! If the game has save-or-die effects, does the GM use them, or not? Is the GM using one of the 3e action point variants? Psionics?

These, and many, many more things, are all choices that can impact the feel of the game. Add in Rule 0 and outright homebrewing on top of that, and "manufactured" no longer really applies.

Your table probably already knows what it likes, what it wants to try, etc. That's a non-issue.

Even if you know what you want to try, doesn't mean you know how to try it. If someone has never before cooked pasta, they probably want to discuss what goes on in the kitchen before trying to make their own Italian cuisine.

The people who saw the innovation and modern game design strategy as a good thing in 4E don't want to effectively take a step backwards into a game which doesn't come as a completed product, which requires you to modify and tweak the rules in order to be functional in a meaningful way, and which allows for character power imbalance right from the get-go.

As noted above, even working within the rules, every table has already experienced this tweaking - the DM makes decisions, implicitly or explicitly, in how the game is run. Anyone who thinks they're going to get a version of D&D that is like Monopoly, with no choices in implementation, are expecting something rather extraordinary in the history of the game. In fact, so long as the GM has the handle on adventure choice and design, the "manufactured game" will never fully be achieved.

But, it can come close - it can (and always has) offered a basic set of defaults. This is how those who want as much "manufactured game" as they can get can play. But, if they then feel that their desires then preclude even the existence of options for others... well, I have to say they're being pretty darned selfish.

 

[CroBob]

That is a quandary. Even if I was brave enough to do it and could get my fellow players to go along with it I don't have the income to play another system for example used Harnmaser goes for around 40.00 brand new over 400.00. Dragon Age is around the same 40.00 range. I am disabled on a fixed income and things are really tight right now. My friends are not willing to shell out for a new system because a lot of them are in the same boat I am they have upside down mortgages, medical expenses, kids in college. We have all heavily invested in DnD over the years.

For some of them I think if the choice came down to either not playing or getting a new system they would choose not playing. Not because they don't enjoy playing but real life things come first.

So I am trying to make things work with what I have.

From the sounds of it, HarnMaster seems like one of those games that does realism a far deal better than D&D, and which I'm using as a higher realism value game against which I'm measuring D&D such that I'm claiming D&D isn't very realistic. If realism is something you value, it seems to me that it's something you really should invest in if ever do get the chance. I've never personally played it, and, frankly don't really have the desire to, but I'm sorry that your issue is monetary. Still, it doesn't seem terribly expensive to at least get HarnPlayer to see what the rules are like. As I said, I simply don't know much about it, except it's pretty "realistic".

Has anyone here played it? If so, is it a decent system besides the realism?

 

[CroBob]

If you're using the term "manufactured game" how I understand it - D&D hasn't ever been a manufactured game.

It would seem I am not. What I meant by "manufactured game" was a game which is made as a product to sell. I was specifying the difference between a game based on it's rules and story and all of it's innate features, from the people who are making it, the actual product you're purchasing, outside of your table. The game itself. The advice that someone should stop worrying about what that product is and worry about what they want at their table is bad advice. Your table already knows what it likes. Probably, anyhow. The trick is making sure what you're buying is what your table wants, or at least doesn't take a lot of modification to get there. The relevant step when discussing this issue is whether or not the game meets your standards. If you don't know what your standards are, then that's not relevant to the discussion.

Even if you know what you want to try, doesn't mean you know how to try it. If someone has never before cooked pasta, they probably want to discuss what goes on in the kitchen before trying to make their own Italian cuisine.

Exactly my sentiment. Well, close, anyhow. My point was more that they already know that they like pasta (or find it worth trying, at any rate), the trick is that they need to figure out how to get it, and to make sure they get the kind of pasta they want.

 

[Bedrockgames]

From the sounds of it, HarnMaster seems like one of those games that does realism a far deal better than D&D, and which I'm using as a higher realism value game against which I'm measuring D&D such that I'm claiming D&D isn't very realistic. If realism is something you value, it seems to me that it's something you really should invest in if ever do get the chance. I've never personally played it, and, frankly don't really have the desire to, but I'm sorry that your issue is monetary. Still, it doesn't seem terribly expensive to at least get HarnPlayer to see what the rules are like. As I said, I simply don't know much about it, except it's pretty "realistic".

Has anyone here played it? If so, is it a decent system besides the realism?

The big drawto Harn is the setting, which is quite well done and detailed. The current system is solid and good for realism but getting people to play it may be tricky. I would think that would be her biggest hurdle. Also, not everyone likes how the game is packaged: it comes in packets with a binder a bit like the old 2E monster manual.

 

[CroBob]

In my mind, a solid modular game will be what your table likes, whatever your table likes. That's one of the big strengths of modularity: the game isn't ONE thing, it's many different things, to many different tables.

It can also be a weakness, though. Yes, it gives many people what they want, but then if you move or otherwise have to find new people in order to game, you might meet people who play the same system, and thus you go to play with them, but then you discover that it's essentially a different game entirely because they use vastly different modules from the ones you like. Making it a different game at different tables just makes it different games, and thus not a single game. A more "strict" set of rules can only be modified so far, and will always be, essentially, the same game. Unless a group takes it upon themselves to change it so severely it's a different game, which is fine, but then that's still not the same game.

It's a problem of identity. If you make something that can be anything, it's nothing. Why would I invest in a game that I need to worry about choosing the proper selections to make it what I want, when I could spend less on a smaller book that contains more options I'm actually interested in, or even just make my own game? An very modular game would essentially be a list of rules you can mix together to make your own game as it is. I definitely see the appeal in that, but then why label it a specific game instead of a mechanic selection book or as a game building tool? I'd even favor that idea. I'm a huge fan of it. But that tool is not a specific game.

*Facepalm* Why didn't I just multiquote?

 

[CroBob]

The current system is solid and good for realism but getting people to play it may be tricky.

Why? Just say "Hey guys, I found a game that looks like a lot of fun, let's make some characters this weekend and see what we think of it." Such a sentence takes very little effort and less than ten seconds.

I would think that would be her biggest hurdle. Also, not everyone likes how the game is packaged: it comes in packets with a binder a bit like the old 2E monster manual.

She actually already said her biggest hurdle is money, which I would classify as the most difficult sort of hurdle to leap. I mean, if you can't afford something, you can't afford it. There's not a whole lot of wiggling out of that. And how it's packaged seems like a very superficial complaint. I mean, think back to early editions of D&D and the layout of those books. Less than ideal. Newer systems are objectively better, with better art, a more intuitive layout, and better indexes. The imperfect rule books of older editions still never impeded me from playing, though. I understand it being a legitimate complaint, but ultimately not a very serious one unless it's just plain terrible to use. I haven't used it such that I could really know.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Why? Just say "Hey guys, I found a game that looks like a lot of fun, let's make some characters this weekend and see what we think of it." Such a sentence takes very little effort and less than ten seconds.

No offense, but the idea that nobody has ever thought of this before is really funny. There's no way you can think it's that easy for other groups when they're saying it's not easy, right?

I mean, my group uses a few different systems (mainly my RPG, occasionally Mutants and Masterminds for one-shots, and rarely D&D 3.5 with old characters for a 2-session game). We're okay with other systems, but yes, we have our preferences. But obviously some people resist new systems. The idea that "let's play something new, it looks cool" will somehow be enough is amusing, when people are explicitly telling you that it's hard to convince some people to do just that. As always, play what you like

 

[CroBob]

I believe it, but I find it strange that everybody in a group of friends or gaming companions are against merely trying a game once. I don't find it likely that the majority of people are needlessly stubborn. If nobody in your group wants to try a new game... well, what's wrong with them? Like if they're planning on playing hearts on Tuesday, what do they do if one guy suggests playing spades instead? I mean, why be a jerk about it?

I also understand not wanting to try a new game if you have an ongoing campaign you're looking forward to, but what if the new game is suggested between campaigns? I'm not advocating trying a new game every week or something, just once in a while. I've never encountered this problem ever. There have been certain, specific denials, or denials based on poor timing, but I've never known anyone who never wanted to play a different game ever. Frankly, I like to think they're the minority of gamers. It also makes sense why some people want D&D to be able to do anything, since they apparently irrationally refuse to play any other game, ever! I mean, are these even real people we're talking about? How could you put up with people who are that stubborn?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Why? Just say "Hey guys, I found a game that looks like a lot of fun, let's make some characters this weekend and see what we think of it." Such a sentence takes very little effort and less than ten seconds.

if you are in a group open to games other than D&D or pathfinder that works. My groupsmostly play other games, so I get to play all kinds of stuff as long as I or someone else is running it. But I also know from talking to other gamers that my experience isnt neccessarily the norm. A lot of groups play one game and getting the to try something else can be quite difficult.

 

[Bedrockgames]

And how it's packaged seems like a very superficial complaint. I mean, think back to early editions of D&D and the layout of those books. Less than ideal. Newer systems are objectively better, with better art, a more intuitive layout, and better indexes. The imperfect rule books of older editions still never impeded me from playing, though. I understand it being a legitimate complaint, but ultimately not a very serious one unless it's just plain terrible to use. I haven't used it such that I could really know.

It might or might not be superficial. In this particular case I think it actually affects use (in both positive and negative ways) but I mentioned it because it is a complaint you hear (particularly from people who order online expecting a boxed set with books and are surprised to see a bunch of loose sheet pages) and felt she should know about it if she is considering making a switch.