Back in the day...

[diaglo]

Oh well, it started out as such an interesting thread. But now it's going into the realm of Edition Wars with absurd examples.

Quasqueton

it was in the realm of Edition Wars from the initial post.

i know i disagree with Gary. and MerricB pretty much stated his disagreements too.

 

[Desdichado]

Nonsense. Ignoring the psychological aspect of the game put forth by the format and tone of the rules system is very much shortsighted.

Nonsense. Being bound by the rules as presented, and thinking that there is no deviation from them is being shortsighted.

I'd say that in my experience, players are more likely to default to their preferred play style regardless of system. If you want a more fast and loose game, you're better off trying to find players who prefer that type of gameplay then to try and find some mythical perfect system. Same for any other type of game style you prefer.

In keeping with the interview posted above, I find it interesting that Gary is referring to the changing audience being a driving force behind the rules changes. I think that's still the case; 3rd edition is finally catching up to where the roleplaying market had been moving for some time, in a lot of ways, which is why folks like me came back to D&D after having left it to play other games for years. At the same time, though, it still works marvellously well at "ye olde fashyoned D&D" type of gaming with it's back to the dungeon approach.

In fact, the flexibility of the current system to be used in so many types of play styles is, arguably, the best adaption to the audience yet devised in the line.

 

[francisca]

Lots of folks say this, but it is incorrect. Nowadays, the DM may rely on the system. But there's no "must". If you wing it away from the printed rules, there's no police force that's going to come and repossess your books, no fine will be levied, no headsman will come to you door.

No police force, just certain types of players.

The folks in my group give me a lot of leeway as a DM. They don't worry about such things as whether or not all of the skill points I assign to an NPC add up. They seem to be comfortable with trusting me to provide them with an adventure that is challenging and fun, without feeling a need to "check the math". Took me a while to realize that they did in fact trust me with the system. Once I did, I started having a lot more fun as a 3E DM. But until then, I spent a lot of time during game prep worrying about balance. We still have game days where we spend too much time in-game, scratching our heads about what modifiers stack, etc.., but all in all, we're playing 3E how we want, without fear of an Inquisition.

However, I've witnessed other groups where the number crunchers sit and calculate every move made by NPCs/Monsters and then gripe about the CRs and make claims like "there's no way that Rogue was between 4th and 6th level, he was way too hard of a challenge, you screwed us." I feel sorry for those DMs, unless they really are trying to screw the players.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I seem to remember that AD&D introduced one of the books with frightening text that said something along the lines of "deviating from any of these rules will spoil your game" (can't look up the exact quote at the moment I'm afraid).

3e was in stark contrast to that since it positively *encourages* DMs to tweak the rules to suit their own game (merely warning that it is a good idea to think through the ramifications of changes you make).

I found the encouragement to not be rigidly bound by the rules a breath of fresh air in 3e (although, rebel that I am, I happily ignored all the AD&D dire warnings with no ill effects )

It *is* interesting to see the interview about the shift to AD&D and compare it with the shift to 3e though. I wonder what it might tell us about a 4e should it ever arise

Cheers

 

[cildarith]

I feel sorry for those DMs, unless they really are trying to screw the players.

With players like that, who can blame them for trying!

 

[troy812]

No police force, just certain types of players.
However, I've witnessed other groups where the number crunchers sit and calculate every move made by NPCs/Monsters and then gripe about the CRs and make claims like "there's no way that Rogue was between 4th and 6th level, he was way too hard of a challenge, you screwed us." I feel sorry for those DMs, unless they really are trying to screw the players.

But in a way, If the DM wants to screw the players, he can. It is within his or her rights! Perhaps his “screwing” actually fits into a greater story plan…
If I had players like that at my game, I would just quit playing.
And to a great extent I think that is what has happened to a lot of RPG players out there. They have just quit.

Perhaps the big problem isn’t, this player or that player, but rather… game systems. Back in the day… there were games for number crunchers (Rolemaster), and games for roleplayers (Diecless RPGing) and everythng in between (AD&D). People just found the game that suited their styles. Now we just have the d20 system. An it has to try to be all to everyone because... We gamers are justtoo lazy to develop a new system! ...or even look at other systems!

 

[Arnwyn]

Nonsense. Being bound by the rules as presented, and thinking that there is no deviation from them is being shortsighted.

I'd say that in my experience, players are more likely to default to their preferred play style regardless of system. If you want a more fast and loose game, you're better off trying to find players who prefer that type of gameplay then to try and find some mythical perfect system. Same for any other type of game style you prefer.

I absolutely agree with you. It's called "the other end of the spectrum". 'Being bound by the rules as presented, and thinking that there is no deviation from them' is most definitely being shortsighted as well. But saying that ignoring the psychological influence from the format of the rules as presented as being shortsighted is nonsense? A laughable suggestion. It has been made quite clear from many posts at ENWorld, rpgnet, and elsewhere that rulesets can influence how the game is played and how the players and DMs act (as destructive, shortsighted, and silly the results can sometimes become). It is ultimately the gameplayers' problem, of course... but the influence is there.

As always, there is a middle ground for best results...

 

[Desdichado]

this player [/i]or that player, but rather… game systems. Back in the day… there were games for number crunchers (Rolemaster), and games for roleplayers (Diecless RPGing) and everythng in between (AD&D). People just found the game that suited their styles. Now we just have the d20 system. An it has to try to be all to everyone because... We gamers are justtoo lazy to develop a new system! ...or even look at other systems!

You do realize, I hope, that there are as many game systems now as ever before. Go to a place like rpg.net and you'll realize that they are also still being played quite a bit.

 

[Desdichado]

I absolutely agree with you. It's called "the other end of the spectrum". 'Being bound by the rules as presented, and thinking that there is no deviation from them' is most definitely being shortsighted as well. But saying that ignoring the psychological influence from the format of the rules as presented as being shortsighted is nonsense? A laughable suggestion. It has been made quite clear from many posts at ENWorld, rpgnet, and elsewhere that rulesets can influence how the game is played and how the players and DMs act (as destructive, shortsighted, and silly the results can sometimes become). It is ultimately the gameplayers' problem, of course... but the influence is there.

As always, there is a middle ground for best results...

Well, I wasn't really calling your position nonsense, I was mostly just copying your format.

Although a position at either end of the spectrum likely is at least somewhat nonsense to a great many people. And the fact that I'm at one end of the spectrum (relatively speaking) means that the other end will look like nonsense to me.

Also, I disagree with your thesis; I think that the psychological affect is extremely limited. I've played, for example, D&D, d20 Star Wars and d20 Call of Cthulhu, and the result was very different in play style between those three games, despite the fact that the majority of the rules were the same.

 

[troy812]

You do realize, I hope, that there are as many game systems now as ever before. Go to a place like rpg.net and you'll realize that they are also still being played quite a bit.

Go to most gamestores, they are still 90% D&D, and 9% other d20.
Why is that? I don't think the system is that strong.