You are playing D&D wrong

[ElectricDevil]

What defines playing D&D? Is it the dungeon crawl? Is it simply playing through an adventure?

I play in a somewhere different online forum for D&D. Part "chat RP" to explore characters' lives between Quests/Adventures. A new player who's only played D&D to 'go through quests' will snuff their nose up when they see that no group sticks to one 'party' and will start yelling "You're not playing D&D!" As if D&D weren't a malleable entity of a game.

To some, it's not. I find it surprising that there are articles written by some of WotC's writers will tell you that if you take out certain elements, you're no longer playing D&D, but some claptrap game you created. As though something were wrong with that.

"Oh, excuse me, I thought you played D&D."
"We do. Just not how you're used to."

 

[Turanil]

Playing D&D wrong? Two times I met gamers who in my respectable (not humble) opinion played it wrong:

1) 15 or 17 years ago I was appaled at a group of players who had added three different rpg together. (Something like adding AD&D + rollmaster + Runequest together, despite dice rolled, etc. are not the same and cannot therefore be coherent in all this mish-mash). I found that utter crap and idiovy and didn't want to play with them again.

2) Recently a player of mine wanted to turn from player to DM but barely knew the rules beyond his sorcerer. He didn't prepare the adventures, was bad at improvisation, and made up the rules minutes after minutes, not taking into account our characters' abilities. Something like: Player: "How can this happen? I have a feat protecting me of this!"; DM: "the goblin has a counter-feat".

 

[ZSutherland]

As a group, is there a bad or wrong way to play D&D, no probably not. If you play the game as a group and are having a good time, you're doing just fine. If you're playing as a group and are all equally bored stiff/nauseated by it, then you may be playing wrong but you'll probably stop playing.

However, yes absolutely there are wrong ways to play/run D&D from both the player's and DM's chair with any particular group.

Players

1) If your playing your character in such a way that it marginalizes or ruins the fun of the other players, you're playing D&D wrong for the group you're with. This obviously includes behaviour that unnecessarily disrupts the game, like attacking the other PCs w/o provocation, insulting NPCs from which the group needs assistance, and whatnot. However, it also includes behaviour that simply runs counter to the rest of the groups style of play. Playing a weepy, goth bard who insists on sitting around the common room all the time writing bad poetry while the rest of the group wants to go explore the ruined temple is just as bad as playing the half-orc barbarian whose answer to all of life's problems is "Kill it" in a game based on social interactions and political intrigue. Both character concepts have their place in some games and some groups, but failing to fall in with the group you're playing with or finding another is the wrong way to play D&D. It destroys everyone's enjoyment of the game, including yours.

2) Forgetting/failing to realize/not caring that the DM is a player, too. That his or her fun is just as important as that of anyone else at the table, and that he or she probably put a lot more work into the game than anyone else. If one/some/all of the players deprive the DM of his or her fun, they'll quicklky find the have no DM.

DMs

1) Similar to #1 for players, running a game that's far out of line with what your players want to do is the wrong way to DM. Thrusting your players into CotSQ when they want to engage in deep character development and backstory is bad, as is surrounding your PCs with intrigue and mystery when what they want is a cathartic, weekend kill-fest to escape the pressures of the week.

2) Showing favoritism to a player, whether this is in the form of extra rewards not actually earned, too much focus on one PC w/o the consent of the rest of the players, or breaking rules for one player while enforcing them on everyone else is the wrong way to DM. It breeds resentment.

3) Being inconsitent with your own rules. Rule 0 reigns supreme, and you should feel free to tweak the rules for your game as you see fit. However, you need to be consistent with it. If a given spell is unavailable for your players or works differently than described in the original source, that spell should be unavailable for all your NPCs or function with your revised description for everyone. Inconsistency confuses and frustrates the players by making them unsure of the probable results of their actions. They become less inclinded to take risks and it can often seem blatantly unfair.

Flame on,
Z

 

[fusangite]

Playing D&D correctly is not simply everyone having fun. If a significant portion of the rules are suspended or misapplied, these people are playing an RPG, using Hollywood script language, "based on" or "inspited by" D&D. Enjoying oneself while using the D&D rule books is not always "playing D&D."

So, if someone is playing D&D wrong and enjoying it, my response is not "It's not for me to tell you that you're playing D&D wrong because obviously you're enjoying it;" rather it's going to be more like, "Glad you're enjoying D&D, despite playing it wrong."

Yes. Every campaign has a certain amount of house ruling but if the house ruling results in a game sufficiently dissimilar to the game described in the rules, then, yes, people are playing D&D wrong.

The only reason I use the D20/D&D rules is because they make me compatible with the largest number of gaming groups, individual players and RPG publications. For me, playing D&D correctly entails maintaining a basic level of compatibility with the other D&D players out there.

 

[Thanee]

Well, do you think there is a wrong way to play D&D?

Nope, there is no wrong way to play D&D.

You might play D&D not in the way the designers intended it, but that isn't "wrong" in that sense.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Keeper of Secrets]

I guess you could not play by the rules as intended which would be wrong but no WotC official will bust into your home to stop you.

But making posts about your character killing all the gods and enslaving the world in your underground salt mines (so please send all your character sheets to them) will likely get you teased mercilessly on said forums.

 

[TracerBullet42]

I guess you could not play by the rules as intended which would be wrong but no WotC official will bust into your home to stop you.

Be careful...they may be listening...

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I think most of the "you're playing D&D wrong" comments come out of situations in which people have differences of opinion over the "official" interpretation of the RAW. The official reading defines how the "standard" game of D&D should go. So if one person says, "according to the rules, all x are y," and a second person says, "no, we've always played with rules such that all x are z," the first person might come back and say, "well that's a nice house rule, but according to the rules, that's not correct."

So then the second person responds with, "no, we play the game as it's written. You're the one with house rules." And it becomes an argument over who's playing the game "wrong" because both sides believe that they're playing it "right," and refuse to allow that their interpretation is either:
1. one of several interpretations that can be read out of the rules as written
2. a misreading of the rules or house rule

Most of the problems come from 1, but there's also a lot of 2 going on around here. But the reason why it turns into a "you're playing wrong" kind of situation is because each side thinks they're playing right, but their styles are mutually exclusive and they both want to be acknowledged as the "official" way to play.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

IMHO, there is a wrong way to play D&D, it is to change anything in the books. Beyond that you are not playing D&D. In the same way that if you play Axis and Allies but play with the rules changes suggested on a web site, you are not playing Axis and Allies but a variant.

Any change from the core rules then becomes a D&D variant. I guess my attitude about this comes from having played so many different RPGs. If I wanted to play D&D with a bunch of rules changes, I'd call it Palladium Fantasy or GURPS Fantasy or Hero Fantasy or D&D 2nd Edition, or D&D 1st Edition or Rolemaster or "That game my friend made up when he thought he was a game designer".

In the same vein that 2nd Edition D&D is NOT the same game as 3rd editiion D&D, neither is a game with house rules the same game as D&D 3.5 Edition. Now, you may like the game you've invented better, but it isn't D&D (as it's currently understood).

Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with disliking the D&D rules so much that you want to change them. I, personally, think you are wrong as I love D&D the way it is.

But I've gotten really tired of joining games where this happens:

Me: "Ok, I've got nothing better to do, I am not allowed to cast spells in this world as it is illegal and there is an NPC in the party who will kill me for doing so. My sorcerer will attack with my bow, then I move backwards to make sure they don't hit me. I can't possibly hit, but maybe I'll roll a natural 20."
DM: "You are doing what? Umm, firing a bow takes the whole round."
Me: "No it doesn't, it's a standard action to fire one shot."
DM: "I'm in the SCA, trust me, I know how long it takes to fire a shot. If you want to draw the arrow and fire with aim, you won't have time left to move during that round."
Me: *sigh* "Ok then, I fire one shot at the enemy then."
DM: "Ok, since you are firing through 5 allies in order to get to the enemy, I will assume there is about a 90% chance that you hit a party member instead of the enemies."
Me: "Umm, actually, the enemy just gets +4 to his ac for cover. It doesn't matter how many people are between me and the enemy. And in 3.5 edition hitting cover has been removed as a standard rule."
DM: "Are you telling me how to run my game? There is NO way I'm giving the enemy only a +4 to his AC with that much cover. Roll to hit."
Me: "Well, I don't want to fire if it means I might hit my party, I only did it because I knew there was no chance of hitting my party members."
DM: "You said you were firing, so go ahead and roll."
Me: "A natural 1, whew. I won't be able to hit anything with that, nevermind a party member."
DM: "A natural 1, eh? That is a critical failure and raises the chance that you'll hit a party member to 100%. Roll your damage, and make it critical as you've managed to crit a party member. Let's see....Gorak the dwarf."
Gorak: "Hey! You hit me with an arrow! I say we attack and kill the traitor behind us!"

Yes, all of these things happened (or at least things very close to them). Is this D&D anymore? The amount of DMs I've run into in which the rules of their game are whichever ones they remember at the session, so you never know which ones will apply. I've ran into at least 3 DMs who basically said "no questioning my rulings, no looking up rules at the table, it slows down the game." So, each time you did something from the rules, it wasn't so much a house rule but a matter of "do they remember this rule or will they make something up to replace it this session?"

 

[diaglo]

it isn't that most people are playing D&D wrong. it is that they aren't playing D&D at all.

OD&D(1974) is the only true game. All the other editions are just poor imitations of the real thing.