Why do D&D players put such an emphasis on rules and tactics?

[Hussar]

Yeah, as a BECMI (and sometime 2e) player, I'd say we went more with the story-telling/role-playing than with tactical side of things. Sure, there were plenty of power-gamers and hack-and-slash players back then (and by the way, both tended to be frowned upon by RPG magazines) but there was nothing like the level of tactical obsession that is around today. AD&D was criticised for being rule-bound even back then, and there was nothing like the dissection of the rules going on by players.

All the character optimisation talk may simply be a function of the Internet, or an result of the play style from 3.0 onwards, or a result of the type of players attracted to the modern game, or a combination of all three - I'm not sure. While it's true most of us didn't have the Internet back then in order to discuss such things, it's worth noting that today's BECMI forums are not full of character optimisation talk.

There is a pretty simple explanation for that. It's virtually impossible to optimise an AD&D character. You have virtually no choices to make after you've created the character - everything is pretty much dictated to you at level up. I mean, what choices can you make after 1st level for any given character? It's not like you have any mechanics supporting the ability to optimise characters.

So, yeah, it does make sense that you'd get a lot more optimisation talk in a 3e forum than a BECMI one.

 

[Grainger]

There is a pretty simple explanation for that. It's virtually impossible to optimise an AD&D character. You have virtually no choices to make after you've created the character - everything is pretty much dictated to you at level up. I mean, what choices can you make after 1st level for any given character? It's not like you have any mechanics supporting the ability to optimise characters.

So, yeah, it does make sense that you'd get a lot more optimisation talk in a 3e forum than a BECMI one.

Good point! I did see a player claim to have "amazingly" rolled 18/00 strength (the DM had asked us to roll up characters before the game); it was very lucky (hmmmm), because his character build was a Fighter who throws darts. I forget the details, but he could throw several darts (I think he had a high DEX too) and do masses of damage per round at level 1. The party didn't need the rest of us in it: he mowed down everything we met.

So it did go on.

This wasn't my usual group, and it was an alien playing style to me; my network of friends had several groups in it, and except (possibly) for one player, everyone enjoyed playing characters and problem solving, rather than gaming the system.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I’m not claiming some sort of superiority in all this - I’m just a gamer like everyone else here - but what gives?

I'm going to chime in with those who have replied with 'The interweb gives.' For better or for worse*, any game or edition published by WotC is going to be dissected by countless fans, and then discussed on the forums. It happened with 3e, it happened with 4e, it's already happening with 5e, and I'm certain that it would've happened with the earlier editions, had easy net access existed at the time. It's just a fact of the interwebbed world.

Anecdotally though, most D&Ders I've played 3e and 4e with are no more interested in rules than they were during the 2e era. They don't peruse D&D message boards, they don't have strong opinions about old school vs. new school or narrative play vs. whatever-play or balance vs. immersion; heck, most don't even understand that barmy cant! Most D&Ders just want to play a game and have fun with their friends.

*Personally, I think that rules discussion is for the better. Even if I don't care about all of the details, discussion is a good thing!

 

[Grainger]

I'm going to chime in with those who have replied with 'The interweb gives.' For better or for worse*, any game or edition published by WotC is going to be dissected by countless fans, and then discussed on the forums. It happened with 3e, it happened with 4e, it's already happening with 5e, and I'm certain that it would've happened with the earlier editions, had easy net access existed at the time. It's just a fact of the interwebbed world.

Anecdotally though, most D&Ders I've played 3e and 4e with are no more interested in rules than they were during the 2e era. They don't peruse D&D message boards, they don't have strong opinions about old school vs. new school or narrative play vs. whatever-play or balance vs. immersion; heck, most don't even understand that barmy cant! Most D&Ders just want to play a game and have fun with their friends.

*Personally, I think that rules discussion is for the better. Even if I don't care about all of the details, discussion is a good thing!

Yeah, you're probably right. I find your second paragraph heartening really. While it's great to discuss rules if you're into that sort of thing, it's nice to hear that lots of players just get on with enjoying the game.

 

[pemerton]

Being awesome as manipulation is not something that can be emulated the same way as being awesome at swordfighting.

What is your evidence for this? A fortnight ago I GMed a session of Burning Wheel. There was one combat and two episodes of haggling. The resolution (opposed dice pools with a few bells and whistles) was the same in each case.