Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6362958" data-attributes="member: 996">Organized play is nothing new.&nbsp; The RPGA started in the TSR era, and before it, &quot;tournaments&quot; (that were not only organized play, but competative) were common.&nbsp; Conventions (existing wargaming, or new for D&amp;D) started providing D&amp;D games almost immediately.My sense of the rise of RAW in the 3e community is that it had nothing to do with the presentation of the game - which acknowledged the realities of RPG rules with the explicit &quot;Rule 0&quot; and tried to make a virtue of it as Storyteller had done calling it &quot;The Golden Rule&quot; - and the content of the game.&nbsp; 3e was loaded with M:tG-style 'rewards for system mastery' (intentionally so, according to Monty Cook's 'Ivory Tower Roleplaying' article).&nbsp; The invitation to system mastery naturally meant that, once players had acquired some of those 'rewards,' the last thing they wanted was for some spoilsport DM to house-rule them away.&nbsp; Thus the insistence on RAW, not just in organized play (which often deviated from RAW specifically to minimize the disruption caused by overly optimized characters), but everywhere the game was played - and, thus, also the countervailing impetus to 'core only' or 'E6' or similar abuse-limiting campaign strategies of varying efficacy. &nbsp;Can't really provide a clear contrast to LFR, since I never participated in it, but in Encounters the DM was left a sort of 'for the good of the game' escape clause to deviate from the guidelines.&nbsp; Often, at my FLGS, it was to let someone bring in a character not built just with the latest book being pushed, but it could also mean running a scenario at a different level if you got all-experienced players at your table, changing details of the scenario (more or fewer items, modding/deleting/adding an encounter or skill change or changing their order, etc), using your own personal rule tweaks, or whatever.&nbsp; Since Encounters characters almost never officially moved on to something else (there were a couple of seasons that continued a prior one, but that was it), there was no issue with them turning out 'wrong' (wrong level, wrong class/race/build, different/too many/not enough items, etc).Now that Encounters feeds characters into other programs, you can't go starting PCs at a higher level, giving them more/cooler items, or letting them roll stats or anything that would impact things down the line.&nbsp;Than 1e?&nbsp; sure.&nbsp; 3e?&nbsp; I suppose you could make a case, but I've already seen people on the WotC boards get into RAW debates and come up with bizarre interpretations (honestly, willful misinterpretations, IMHO).&nbsp;Closed on an excellent point.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6362958, member: 996"] Organized play is nothing new. The RPGA started in the TSR era, and before it, "tournaments" (that were not only organized play, but competative) were common. Conventions (existing wargaming, or new for D&D) started providing D&D games almost immediately. My sense of the rise of RAW in the 3e community is that it had nothing to do with the presentation of the game - which acknowledged the realities of RPG rules with the explicit "Rule 0" and tried to make a virtue of it as Storyteller had done calling it "The Golden Rule" - and the content of the game. 3e was loaded with M:tG-style 'rewards for system mastery' (intentionally so, according to Monty Cook's 'Ivory Tower Roleplaying' article). The invitation to system mastery naturally meant that, once players had acquired some of those 'rewards,' the last thing they wanted was for some spoilsport DM to house-rule them away. Thus the insistence on RAW, not just in organized play (which often deviated from RAW specifically to minimize the disruption caused by overly optimized characters), but everywhere the game was played - and, thus, also the countervailing impetus to 'core only' or 'E6' or similar abuse-limiting campaign strategies of varying efficacy. Can't really provide a clear contrast to LFR, since I never participated in it, but in Encounters the DM was left a sort of 'for the good of the game' escape clause to deviate from the guidelines. Often, at my FLGS, it was to let someone bring in a character not built just with the latest book being pushed, but it could also mean running a scenario at a different level if you got all-experienced players at your table, changing details of the scenario (more or fewer items, modding/deleting/adding an encounter or skill change or changing their order, etc), using your own personal rule tweaks, or whatever. Since Encounters characters almost never officially moved on to something else (there were a couple of seasons that continued a prior one, but that was it), there was no issue with them turning out 'wrong' (wrong level, wrong class/race/build, different/too many/not enough items, etc). Now that Encounters feeds characters into other programs, you can't go starting PCs at a higher level, giving them more/cooler items, or letting them roll stats or anything that would impact things down the line. Than 1e? sure. 3e? I suppose you could make a case, but I've already seen people on the WotC boards get into RAW debates and come up with bizarre interpretations (honestly, willful misinterpretations, IMHO). Closed on an excellent point. [/QUOTE]

Verification