Reducing Options to Increase Fun

[nedjer]

It sure is!

It's possible, though, that some people think the chance too high for some things, which ought to be unlikely but not impossible. Some people might even think that some things should not require a toss at all.

The basic distinction of old D&D from other games was that it was a game of endless possibilities. With an ordinary board game or card game, or the most formal sort of miniatures game, there is no need for someone to take the "GM" job.

Does the GM stop making rulings with a more complicated RPG rules set? That has not been my experience, except to the extent that the game has in practice been reduced to a board game.

You may recognise a difference between an RPG that was made up of a few booklets and an RPG that's longer than War and Peace. You may recognise a difference between a game packed with imagination, exploration, collaboration and investigation, and a game packed with three hour long combats. You may even recognise that what makes RPGs different from other games are options and open-ended play.

Nevertheless, you'll be told these are differences of style, not substance. And that another product or a reshuffling of 1000s of rules will reinstate what has been lost

 

[ExploderWizard]

You may recognise a difference between an RPG that was made up of a few booklets and an RPG that's longer than War and Peace. You may recognise a difference between a game packed with imagination, exploration, collaboration and investigation, and a game packed with three hour long combats. You may even recognise that what makes RPGs different from other games are options and open-ended play.

Nevertheless, you'll be told these are differences of style, not substance. And that another product or a reshuffling of 1000s of rules will reinstate what has been lost

What has been lost?

Nothing has been lost. I would say instead that there are some who have never found certain things and are unlikely to do so now or in the future.

 

[nedjer]

What has been lost?

Nothing has been lost. I would say instead that there are some who have never found certain things and are unlikely to do so now or in the future.

When three hour combats 'run' a game, what's lost is easy access to the hobby, access to the hobby for those interested in exploration, shared narratives, investigation, . . . the difference between RPGs and fixed narrative formats, independent thinking, a couple of million players . . .

Those who've never found certain things can hardly do so when they're not encouraged to do so.

 

[ExploderWizard]

When three hour combats 'run' a game, what's lost is easy access to the hobby, access to the hobby for those interested in exploration, shared narratives, investigation, . . . the difference between RPGs and fixed narrative formats, independent thinking, a couple of million players . . .

Those who've never found certain things can hardly do so when they're not encouraged to do so.

Combat only 'runs' a game to the degree that those participating want it to.

Easy access to the hobby? In this day and age it's never been easier. There is more completely free and simple games available than ever.

Those interested in 'this stuff' rather than 'that stuff', well everyone has different interests and will gravitate towards activities that interest them.
People interested in tabletop RPG's will find what they want.

Encouragement? Hobbies are driven by desire. If you want to encourage people to explore certain types games then go for it. Run those games and get the word out about how easy it is to get completely free gaming material legally online. In the end, people are still going to pursue what they want.

 

[nedjer]

Combat only 'runs' a game to the degree that those participating want it to.

Easy access to the hobby? In this day and age it's never been easier. There is more completely free and simple games available than ever.

Those interested in 'this stuff' rather than 'that stuff', well everyone has different interests and will gravitate towards activities that interest them.
People interested in tabletop RPG's will find what they want.

Encouragement? Hobbies are driven by desire. If you want to encourage people to explore certain types games then go for it. Run those games and get the word out about how easy it is to get completely free gaming material legally online. In the end, people are still going to pursue what they want.

'Nevertheless, you'll be told these are differences of style, not substance.'

Running a combat with rules that make combat lengthy, elaborate and arithmetical is not the same as running a game with rules that make combat shorter and more considered. Unless you chop out the elaborate stuff, in which case it becomes a different game?

Access is down to a good deal more than availability on shop shelves. Otherwise, large companies wouldn't have marketing budgets, because they wouldn't make a difference?

Your confidence in personal agency is an interesting romantic notion, but in practice we are all influenced by, and our gameplay shaped, by 'the hobby' as a whole.

 

[Hussar]

Therefore, we've got to have a written rule for every damned thing.

"Oh, no!" Hussar is certain to protest. "I mean only for the things that I am inclined to argue over!"
/snip

Ok, one last time.

No, you do not have to have a written rule for everything. BUT, once the DM in a rules absent system makes a ruling, YOU NOW HAVE A RULE FOR RESOLUTION.

Unless, of course, you make up an entirely new rule each and every time the same sort of situation comes up.

So, what difference does it make if you start with the rules, or develop the rules through play? At the end of the day, YOU STILL HAVE RULES.

As far as preventing the DM from adjusting difficulty, I never said that...

Sigh. Y'know what, this is pointless and getting us nowhere.

Feel free to have the last word.

 

[ExploderWizard]

'Nevertheless, you'll be told these are differences of style, not substance.'

I couldn't care less about what I am told. I have been playing since 1980 and I know from experience that there are differences of actual substance between the various editions of the game.

Your confidence in personal agency is an interesting romantic notion, but in practice we are all influenced by, and our gameplay shaped, by 'the hobby' as a whole.

What do you mean by 'we are all'?

I play what feel like playing. I know there are old games that I enjoy and have access to whenever I want. There are also new games sitting on the shelf that I am still waiting for the opportunity to try. After giving them a good go, they will either return to the shelf or get used a great deal more depending upon my enjoyment of them.

This has nothing to do with what the rest of 'the hobby' happens to be doing.

 

[nedjer]

I couldn't care less about what I am told. I have been playing since 1980 and I know from experience that there are differences of actual substance between the various editions of the game.



What do you mean by 'we are all'?

I play what feel like playing. I know there are old games that I enjoy and have access to whenever I want. There are also new games sitting on the shelf that I am still waiting for the opportunity to try. After giving them a good go, they will either return to the shelf or get used a great deal more depending upon my enjoyment of them.

This has nothing to do with what the rest of 'the hobby' happens to be doing.

Lost me a bit initially, as I thought you were proposing that players run the game and that players find their own ways in, i.e. the nature of the rules doesn't shape play. But you now seem to be saying differences in the rules are substantial, i.e. do act on play

Then you appear to go back to 'I' (aka players) run the game?

I'm sticking where I was: a whole mass of factors feed into our belief that 'I' decide how play is run and whether or not it's enjoyable. For instance, if someone's new to a group a lot of their 'enjoyment' is going to be shaped by the group's approach to new players, the group's choice of rule set and the way those rules are interpreted by the group.

 

[Ariosto]

So, what difference does it make ...

You have been told, more than once.

Until you demonstrate that you have paid attention to the answer, and actually have some substantively new question, I think that is enough.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I'm sticking where I was: a whole mass of factors feed into our belief that 'I' decide how play is run and whether or not it's enjoyable. For instance, if someone's new to a group a lot of their 'enjoyment' is going to be shaped by the group's approach to new players, the group's choice of rule set and the way those rules are interpreted by the group.

You are correct in your assessment. This has not changed since 1974.