Back in the day...

[diaglo]

So, it sounds like the system itself is irrevelent, it is the DM that you enjoy and you trust enough to do whatever he wishes, add any rules he wishes on the fly. You are truly blessed. Not all of us are.

it is a two way street.

the players have to trust each other too.

and the referee has to trust the players.

the point was to have fun.

if all of you are having fun... then it is working correctly.

edit: you aren't playing at the referee's wishes. the referee is supposed to be impartial. you are playing at the wishes or whims of your group... referee and players alike.

 

[Aaron L]

it is a two way street.

the players have to trust each other too.

and the referee has to trust the players.

the point was to have fun.

if all of you are having fun... then it is working correctly.

edit: you aren't playing at the referee's wishes. the referee is supposed to be impartial. you are playing at the wishes or whims of your group... referee and players alike.

But what if everyone in the group doesn't agree on the way something should be handled?

 

[Orius]

it is a two way street.

the players have to trust each other too.

and the referee has to trust the players.

the point was to have fun.

if all of you are having fun... then it is working correctly.

edit: you aren't playing at the referee's wishes. the referee is supposed to be impartial. you are playing at the wishes or whims of your group... referee and players alike.

Good point diaglo, but the key there is that the referee is supposed to be impartial. Unfortunately, a lot of referees, especially the ones from back in the day, see the PCs as enemies to be defeated, and that's usually attributed to the wargaming mentality more prevalent in the old days. If you've got a referee who's goal is to TPK all the time, having no rules and all DM calls is NOT going to be fun for the players.

 

[buzz]

If you've got a referee who's goal is to TPK all the time, having no rules and all DM calls is NOT going to be fun for the players.

I'd imagine that, if this is the case, the players are hosed regardless of the system.

 

[Mallus]

But what if everyone in the group doesn't agree on the way something should be handled?

Then some people in the group get angry?

Then some people in the group need to assess how their enjoyment stacks up against the frustration they feel? [and this happens all the time in every RPG campaign I've ever played in.]

Then some people in the group should consider playing the types of games in which the rules aren't filtered through/implemented by a 3rd party referee? In the immortal words of the WOPR: "How about a nice game of chess"?

 

[Aaron L]

So then, like it or lump it?

 

[clockworkjoe]

The thing is that this discussion is largely irrelevant anyway. The people playing OD&D and other earlier versions will keep playing them, since they've all had a chance to look at the new editions and render judgment on them. Conversely, I would say at least 95% of those old schoolers played those games before 3E came out. Any new players will be recruited only by existing old schoolers, as opposed to 3E which gets virtually everyone else coming into the hobby. No new player/DM is going to seek out the older editions without some external prompting.

I remember a study about how views in science changed over time. While it was initially thought that scientists would gradually change their views to adjust for new research, they discovered that the views changed mostly from old scientists retiring or dying and being replaced by younger scientists who simply held different views. This seems to be case in this situation.

 

[MerricB]

I remember a study about how views in science changed over time. While it was initially thought that scientists would gradually change their views to adjust for new research, they discovered that the views changed mostly from old scientists retiring or dying and being replaced by younger scientists who simply held different views. This seems to be case in this situation.

Hehe.

Some people change their views, other hold onto the old ones.

Cheers!

 

[diaglo]

So then, like it or lump it?

most of the time you are gaming with friends.

what's wrong with talking to them?

work out the differences so all involved understand the issues.

if the parties involved can't work out the differences. play something else.

we played many games. many campaigns. many different characters. we had fun.

 

[francisca]

Good point diaglo, but the key there is that the referee is supposed to be impartial. Unfortunately, a lot of referees, especially the ones from back in the day, see the PCs as enemies to be defeated, and that's usually attributed to the wargaming mentality more prevalent in the old days. If you've got a referee who's goal is to TPK all the time, having no rules and all DM calls is NOT going to be fun for the players.

My experience differs greatly. I saw way more Montie Haul types than Killer DMs back in the day.

Killer/Montie DMs are system independent, anyway. Hell, with 3e, it's even easier to be a Killer DM. Simply grab a monster book, flip to the back, select a monster with a CR 2-3x the party level, then drop one on each player.

On the other side of the screen, I've seen more players than DMs initiate the Player/DM adversarial conflict, gleefully hoping to screw over the DM and his grand designs. Again, this is system independent.