The Bastardization of the Game: Edition Purity versus Edition Innovation

[Darrin Drader]

First to answer the question - I've mixed and matched rules from one edition to another since I was first introduced to D&D. At first I literally didn't know any better, but later on it was just a matter of thinking that one book might handle something better than the system native to the ruleset I was playing. Or, maybe there was no ruleset at all and I just needed some rules to cover it.

Now to Jack7, I think you write with a distinctive voice. There is merit in the critique that sometimes hard to get through a wall of text, so it would help to break it up into smaller bite sized chunks, if nothing else. On the other hand, I don't agree with the notion that the thesis needs to appear in the opening lines of an essay. In fact, as someone who is back in school finishing my degree right now, and has finished the English - Professional Writing major, the one misconception that many academics have (not to mention lay-people) is that the thesis statement must appear at the front. It doesn't. If the essay is well structured, you can put it at the very end if you'd like.

I've run up against this a couple times and it's irritating. I turned in a History paper, which was graded by a History department TA and I was given a crappy grade (incidentally, so did half the class, which is why the prof made everyone resubmit and then he graded them himself. Amazing how quickly my paper suddenly became an A paper, but I digress). One of the critiques was that my thesis statement didn't appear until the second paragraph. I thought that was an interesting reason to shoot mark me down a full ten percent, so I printed the paper, out and took it to my Professional Writing Professor/advisor and asked him to look it over and give me an honest appraisal since he not only is an acknowledged expert on writing and has direct and personal experience with the subject I was writing on. I'm not going to claim that he gave it a perfect score, but he did say it was quite good. Then I showed him the graded version and he laughed until his eyes watered. Then he shook his head and said something about the History department and asked me if I wanted him to make a call to the department head. I declined the offer because I chose to fight my own battle, and I got an A not only on that paper, but in that class. This does, however, underscore the point that often times someone who is advanced in their art is graded down by people who are in fact less educated. Most of the rules they teach you in English 101 can and should be broken in certain circumstances; the obvious exception being the importance of citation.

 

[jdrakeh]

Anything but pure. In fact, I can't think of any RPG that I've run or played in exactly as written. There were always houserules or different interpretations of the unclear RAW and so on.

 

[Ariosto]

I think it pretty much goes with the territory, as a heritage from the war-game roots, that RPGers like to cook up their own rules. As with historical "simulations", we are dealing not merely in abstract games but in depictions of imagined situations -- of worlds living by rules of their own that we merely approximate.

Still, D&D has always (and increasingly in the AD&D era) seemed to me a sort of world in itself. Trying to reshape it into an accurate model of a particular fictional milieu, or even into strict conformance with the stereotyped definition of some limited genre of literature, does not seem to me very worthwhile. One can draw inspiration from such prototypes, but much is likely in the process to be transformed in harmony with the game's integrity -- something that perhaps cannot be isolated and quantified but makes a holistic impression one may respect.

 

[Ariosto]

Chivalry & Sorcery was for its time astoundingly laden with "chrome", and even the release a couple of years later of Gygax's monumental Dungeon Masters Guide could not topple it from its throne. To use the whole rules set proved too cumbersome for my taste, but its take on medieval-flavored fantasy has remained to this day part of my FRP "bits box". From economics to demonology, it is chock full of ideas one might wish to borrow.

Greg Stafford's Pendragon is a much more streamlined system that also treats many matters medieval. Perhaps uniquely among RPGs, it has a "dynastic" scope and strong emphasis on internal psychological (as well as interpersonal) conflicts. The rules for Traits and Passions (derived from systems originally developed for playing Gloranthan Dragonewts) are among the modular gems easily grafted onto other games.

Mentzer's "BECMI" edition of D&D is also rich in interesting treatments of various topics. Just for example, I find the War Machine rules often handy for military affairs.

RuneQuest and its heirs (especially Call of Cthulhu) not only furthered development of the "skill-based" (rather than class-based) game, but offered elegant approaches to many questions (in particular of physical action). For all that they combine into a coherent "system", they are for the most part very modular. The treatment of spirits is one aspect that stands out to me, along with the magic in CoC and Stormbringer.

I can see an RQ influence in 3E D&D, another buffet of mechanical techniques.

Fringeworthy, and Tri-Tac's other games, seemed to have a rule for nearly everything. Many of those (most memorably the hit-location tables) were overly complex, but others can be useful if one should desire more detail on a given topic. Adaptation to D&D is remarkably easy in most cases.

 

[Jack7]

Now to Jack7, I think you write with a distinctive voice. There is merit in the critique that sometimes hard to get through a wall of text, so it would help to break it up into smaller bite sized chunks, if nothing else. On the other hand, I don't agree with the notion that the thesis needs to appear in the opening lines of an essay. In fact, as someone who is back in school finishing my degree right now, and has finished the English - Professional Writing major, the one misconception that many academics have (not to mention lay-people) is that the thesis statement must appear at the front. It doesn't. If the essay is well structured, you can put it at the very end if you'd like.

I've run up against this a couple times and it's irritating. I turned in a History paper, which was graded by a History department TA and I was given a crappy grade (incidentally, so did half the class, which is why the prof made everyone resubmit and then he graded them himself. Amazing how quickly my paper suddenly became an A paper, but I digress). One of the critiques was that my thesis statement didn't appear until the second paragraph. I thought that was an interesting reason to shoot mark me down a full ten percent, so I printed the paper, out and took it to my Professional Writing Professor/advisor and asked him to look it over and give me an honest appraisal since he not only is an acknowledged expert on writing and has direct and personal experience with the subject I was writing on. I'm not going to claim that he gave it a perfect score, but he did say it was quite good. Then I showed him the graded version and he laughed until his eyes watered. Then he shook his head and said something about the History department and asked me if I wanted him to make a call to the department head. I declined the offer because I chose to fight my own battle, and I got an A not only on that paper, but in that class. This does, however, underscore the point that often times someone who is advanced in their art is graded down by people who are in fact less educated. Most of the rules they teach you in English 101 can and should be broken in certain circumstances; the obvious exception being the importance of citation.

Yeah DD, that kinda thing happens a lot in writing. And in academia. It'll happen to ya again, I'm pretty durn sure.

I started putting the synopsis at the beginning of some of my pieces, by the way, because someone (I wish I could remember who but I'm pretty sure she was female) suggested that those who don't like to read an entire, long piece on the internet might just like a skeletal briefing, so to speak. Me personally, I've never understood the idea of reading something just in part, as you're practically guaranteeing that you'll misunderstand what you're reading. Or at best only partially understand it. But with attention spans on the internet limited, and with people on sites like this using the internet basically for entertainment purposes (and I use this site for both purposes of creative entertainment, what I write, as well as consumptive, what I read or analyze), I thought it was a pretty good idea. I mean I'm not gonna analyze an entertainment essay like I would a theory paper or an Intel briefing.

Nevertheless, as a matter of habit, and I guess this is both my personal training and my professional background, I try not to comment on anything unless I've read the entire thing and think I have a pretty good handle on it. If I don't have a sure understanding then I say, "if I'm reading you right," (or "reading you write," sorry, couldn't resist the pun) or so forth, but that's my scientific training. Don't gather partial facts, and don't comment unless you're pretty sure you got it, and if you don't just ask to verify the point. And if you misunderstand then just say, "okay, now I gotcha, I misunderstood before."

I think a lot of slap fights could be avoided on the internet, or the web, by a simple good old fashioned habit of careful reading and re-reading. Of course, then maybe the internet wouldn't be the high-flying, very exciting, alley-way ambush it so often degenerates into. I remember the old days when all we ever talked about were university projects, routing processes, phreaking, and grant requests. And gals of course. Now look at it. It's all grown up. You can fight about green tea, video games, twittering, and hobgoblins. Sometimes it all makes me laugh.

of the unclear RAW and so on.

That's a good point, technically speaking.
It's hard to communicate a thing so clearly everyone gets it in the exact same way as the writer intended (assuming he understood all the possible variations of what he was implying). Words limit (and to a certain extent, delimit) as well as impose, or they would never be misunderstood.

One can draw inspiration from such prototypes, but much is likely in the process to be transformed in harmony with the game's integrity -- something that perhaps cannot be isolated and quantified but makes a holistic impression one may respect.

I like the way you talk. It reminds me of someone I know.
Anywho, I follow what you're pointing at.
Later folks.

 

[Jack7]

By the way, come to think of it, about the wall of text idea.

I'm not sure how these peices show on screen for you guys, but when I write and post them, I break them up into paragraphs. Are you guys saying they don't show as divided by paragraph, you want more space between paragraphs, or that you want shorter paragraphs? Or is it hard to read because the fonts are too small and the spacing too narrow? Or is it the pieces are too long for your tastes?

It's just a technical point but I'm not sure how some of you guys are seeing walls of texts, or even defining walls of text, unless it's one of those things. If it's something else then just say so.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I see discrete paragraphs...but your initial post takes up 1/3 of a page. It may not sound like much, but that is a lot of stuff to go through online in one go.

With that much text, you might want to boldface, italicize, numerate or bullet point certain portions of the text.

You might also try to economize your thoughts a bit more.

Or perhaps you might put discrete points in separate posts.

 

[BryonD]

My game systems are far from pure.

A given campaign can be very particular, but the limitations are purely for fit to the game at hand. Good rules from any system that make the fit even better are always welcome.