The Bastardization of the Game: Edition Purity versus Edition Innovation

[Ed_Laprade]

I voted for option 2 (mix´n match what i find useful) and 3 (OP is far too long to read).

This. I don't think I've ever run an RPG without house rules.

(Please note that its run, not ran. When did that start?)

 

[Desdichado]

Now to be fair, there were several things that stopped me from running 3e until I discovered Unearthed Arcana and the three Green Ronin Master Class books written by Steve Kenson and I still won't run the game above 10-12th level.

The difference is that, for myself, it takes far less work for me to alter 3e to my liking or just grab either True20 or Mutants and Masterminds's Warriors and Warlocks (which also gives me a system for power creation), than it is for me to alter 4e to something I would like.

This describes my position exactly. I've never once played any edition of D&D with very much "purity" because, among other things, I don't actually buy into the core conceit of what the game is supposed to be about. Dungeoncrawling for gold and XP? Blegh. Boring. So right away, I start off "impure." Then, there are mechanical tweaks that I need to make to feel more comfortable with the rules. I always make any game my own; I have a hard time using pre-packaged campaigns (although I do like reading them for material to raid), etc.

I really don't think "edition purity" is a factor in any of these discussions, other than that I have to occasionally explain what I do differently from the default assumptions in order to clarify why a given edition does or does not work for me.

 

[Ourph]

I voted "pure" because I'm not interested in importing mechanics from other sources. I might steal ideas for new powers, rituals or monsters from other sources, but the implementation of those ideas is always through unadulterated 4e base mechanics.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Totally impure and loving it.


edit --- no edition references now.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, the version of 1e that we run and play is about as pure as the driven slush; after getting on for 30 years of modifications it's still quite recognizably D+D but only vaguely recognizable as 1e-based - if you squint hard and look real close. (that said, it's still closer to 1e in its mechanics than either of 3e or 4e are)

I'll steal a good idea from anywhere I can find it. My MU-Ill-Nec types all mechanically function like 3e Sorcerers now, for example...no more spell memorization, yippee...as once I saw how Sorcerers worked I asked myself "why can't all arcane casters work like that?" Bards and Monks in my game are completely powers-based - I originally took this from 3e's feat system a few years back but made *all* the class powers into feats - and I now look like a psychic as these changes predate 4e by a considerable amount of time.

And while some of what we've done is, as (was it Umbran?) suggests, merely moving ideas from one place to another, some of it is/was actual innovation at the time we did it; an example being the powers-based classes noted above.

Lanefan

 

[howandwhy99]

I have to agree with other posters who find the answers orthogonal to each other. Is a pure game one that only includes game modules written specifically for it? Or campaign settings? Most RPG rules are not rules anyways, so I don't see the point in purity for RP guidelines.

 

[wedgeski]

I play relatively pure versions of whatever game I'm DM'ing at the time, more due to precedent than anything else. But, even if I do end up hacking out or stitching in bits from other games, I'll always insist on giving a new game a fair shake with the rules-as-written, because that's simply the only way to know what you might want to change after the fact.

 

[ExploderWizard]

For most games, a mix of whatever works sprinkled into whatever base system is chosen is the norm. Like your salad bar, we take what we want and leave the rest.

 

[ggroy]

I played in one 1E AD&D game where the DM adjudicated everything strictly by the book in a rigid manner, with all the 1E AD&D core and splatbooks being "holy writ".

Not surprisingly, at least one player character died every few game sessions and numerous TPK's happened. So in order to save time, every player just made up a dozen or so player characters in advanced at the very beginning, where we just swapped them in every time our previous character died.

The last time I ran into this rigid DM guy, he was complaining about having a hard time finding any new players for his 1E AD&D game. This didn't surprised me at all. (This guy absolutely refuses to play any 2E, 3E/3.5E, nor any 4E D&D games. He's one of those extremely hardcore 1E AD&D grognards.)

 

[Desdichado]

Writing is what I do for a living. Or, to be more accurate, it's one of the things I do for a living.

A piece like this may take half an hour to write, if that long, then another twenty minutes or so to edit, if that long, usually at a later time.

Something like this is entertaining and fun for me to write. It's an enjoyable diversion from my usual work load.

Nevertheless, I know that in the modern world, especially on the internet, attention spans are short and people are anxious to move on to the next big thing as soon as possible. Someone suggested (I can't recall who, sorry about that, a lady I think) I put up a synopsis or briefing for my longer pieces so people can skim along to the point and get to the next thing, and so I did. Trying to make it habit.

But it doesn't bother me to write things like this. I do it for leisure and distraction.
So I'm sure I'll do more of it.

Well, that's... borderline insulting.

Maybe you're just in the wrong medium. I wouldn't think too much of reading this same screed on a blog, for example. As an opening post on a messageboard, it's an impenetrable wall of text.