Badwrongfun & unintentional elitism...

[Asmor]

I had an epiphany today... I'm the president of my school's game club, which is specifically dedicated to board and card games. For quite a while, we've had several people that wanted to play D&D, but no one willing to run (I wouldn't run for the twin reasons of wanting to play board games during our meetings, and because I already had too much on my plate RPG wise anyways).

So this year we've had a bumper crop of freshman recruits, and actually had a couple offer to run games.

This has lead to me being in the position of observing games being run by people with varying levels of experience, and varying ideas of what's good and what's not.

By and large, I always find myself biting my tongue. I don't consider myself a very good DM (actually, I consider myself a pretty poor DM but always trying to improve), but I read a lot about DMing online, on sites like this and Roleplaying Tips. I also am pretty well-versed with the rules of D&D and the theory behind various decisions...

As one extremely common (and perhaps controversial) example of the point I'm trying to make (and really, spectacularly failing at making), take the common "natural 1 is a fumble/critical miss/etc." I personally dislike the rule, because it inordinately punishes people who are good at attacking... The more attacks you can make, the more likely you are to screw up. I'm also the only person I know who says "A natural 1 is a miss." and that's that. More common is the DM calling for you to roll a d20 after rolling a natural 1 and then adjudicating based on how well you roll there... Roll low, you might attack an ally, roll high, you may just lose all the rest of your attacks or your next action, depending on the DM's whims.

Other examples of such pet peeves include DMPCs, splitting the party, actively encouraging PC-on-PC combat, not tailoring your adventures to the characters so that everyone has a chance to shine...

Anyways, like I said, I have a point. At least... I thought I did. I seem to have lost it. Oh, right, there it is. My point is, I've been an elitist snob. For all that I've read about how people could improve their games and make it more fun for themselves and for their players, I've completely forgotten the most important thing:

The game is supposed to be fun. As long as the players and DM are enjoying themselves, they're doing absolutely nothing wrong. It might irk me when they play fast and loose with the rules, but I'm the aberration here.

I had the chance to play in a game tonight, because it so happened that only one other person wasn't going to be playing D&D, and as I sat through the combats (which frankly bored me), all I could think was how the DM was doing everything wrong. But the other people were having fun. And you know what, when I just turned off my brain and went with the flow, I started having fun too.

Plus, y'know, I got to cut open an ogre's... "coin purse" and get a solid gold ogre... "coin." (I leave it to you to figure out what I'm not so subtly hinting at). And as ridiculous as that is, how can you not love it?

 

[Hairfoot]

"natural 1 is a fumble/critical miss/etc." I personally dislike the rule, because it inordinately punishes people who are good at attacking... The more attacks you can make, the more likely you are to screw up.

I like verisimilitude, which means acknowledging that fights are confusing, scrappy, luck-dependant tangles, and not choreographed set-pieces with wirework and re-takes.

For that reason, the possibility of a fumble is always present and, yes, the more you swing at an opponent, the more likely you are to jag it. Fumbles are no worse than crits, and, hopefully, encourage players to consider broader options in battle.

 

[WayneLigon]

My point is, I've been an elitist snob. For all that I've read about how people could improve their games and make it more fun for themselves and for their players, I've completely forgotten the most important thing:

The game is supposed to be fun. As long as the players and DM are enjoying themselves, they're doing absolutely nothing wrong. It might irk me when they play fast and loose with the rules, but I'm the aberration here.

I wouldn't say that you're an elitist snob. You see ways people could improve. Let them make mistakes for a time, then run something yourself and subtly correct things. Show them what and why such and such a thing is both correct and more fun for all concerned. I'm sure they are having fun, but with some of the things you're describing, it stays fun only so long as it's new. Once you get yourself whacked by some GM's poor ability to scale encounters more than 3-4 times it ceases to be fun and starts to be frustrating.

It doesn't sound like you're going to turn them into a bunch of ravening rules-lawyers, either, but discusss with them why a certain rule is the way it is. Once they know the rules, they can then break them in better ways, ways that increase everyone's fun.

 

[Asmor]

I like verisimilitude, which means acknowledging that fights are confusing, scrappy, luck-dependant tangles, and not choreographed set-pieces with wirework and re-takes.

For that reason, the possibility of a fumble is always present and, yes, the more you swing at an opponent, the more likely you are to jag it. Fumbles are no worse than crits, and, hopefully, encourage players to consider broader options in battle.

Like I said, it's controversial. There are arguments for and against it, and that's a debate for the house rules forum. Let's just agree to disagree.

I wouldn't say that you're an elitist snob. You see ways people could improve. Let them make mistakes for a time, then run something yourself and subtly correct things. Show them what and why such and such a thing is both correct and more fun for all concerned. I'm sure they are having fun, but with some of the things you're describing, it stays fun only so long as it's new. Once you get yourself whacked by some GM's poor ability to scale encounters more than 3-4 times it ceases to be fun and starts to be frustrating.

It doesn't sound like you're going to turn them into a bunch of ravening rules-lawyers, either, but discusss with them why a certain rule is the way it is. Once they know the rules, they can then break them in better ways, ways that increase everyone's fun.

Honestly, I think I just need to step away from D&D entirely. I've got too much invested in it, and the rules are just too important to me, and that clouds my vision a lot. I've just picked up the Savage Worlds Explorer's Edition, and I'm wanting to run a game of that... I really like the 50 Fathoms and Necropolis settings. But I digress...

But I digress. Ultimately, I just think that I've become too wrapped up in trying to make things perfect... All I can see are trees and I've lost sight of the forest.

 

[Particle_Man]

As one extremely common (and perhaps controversial) example of the point I'm trying to make (and really, spectacularly failing at making), take the common "natural 1 is a fumble/critical miss/etc." I personally dislike the rule, because it inordinately punishes people who are good at attacking... The more attacks you can make, the more likely you are to screw up. I'm also the only person I know who says "A natural 1 is a miss." and that's that. More common is the DM calling for you to roll a d20 after rolling a natural 1 and then adjudicating based on how well you roll there... Roll low, you might attack an ally, roll high, you may just lose all the rest of your attacks or your next action, depending on the DM's whims.

I am exactly the same as you here, both in my hatred of fumble rules, and in my solitude in being the only one that hates fumble rules in all of my gaming groups.

Perhaps we should form a support group.

 

[Hairfoot]

Like I said, it's controversial. There are arguments for and against it, and that's a debate for the house rules forum. Let's just agree to disagree.

Oh, it wasn't an attack, but your OP seems to read "I'm not saying some people play the game wrong, but they do."

I'm always happy to debate the ingredients of a good game, but some people will always hold different or opposite opinions, and that's quite legitimate. If others play differently to you, they often have very good reasons. They're not simply being ignorant and missing out on your superior enjoyment of the game.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Plus, y'know, I got to cut open an ogre's... "coin purse" and get a solid gold ogre... "coin." (I leave it to you to figure out what I'm not so subtly hinting at). And as ridiculous as that is, how can you not love it?

 

[Nyaricus]

Isn't... isn't that, like, child porn or something?

But really, I can sympathize with the OP. I've stayed far, far away from my RPG books the last 6 months, because I was getting all hung up on the rules and peeved at the players for... well, just trying to have fun. Unfortunately, the players were very off-topic much of the time, which kinda led me to getting all crapped-up over the game, but a good long hibernation and a new set of fresh gamers is just over the horizon, and I nearly have a group all nailed down and ready to go.

OP, it just kinda sounds like you're getting a bit burnt out over D&D. Maybe you should just chill out and focus on some other aspect of your life right now - if you like music, buy some CDs, start a band or something, if you don't have a SO, try to find one. Personally, I found it to be a great help just to relax and focus on some other important areas of my life. Now, I'm much less stressed-out and I'm ready to get back into gaming. Never felt better, in fact

cheers,
--N

 

[Treebore]

Its not "elitism", its just well developed personal taste.

However, "fun" is the ultimate goal of any game. So if your able to realize your tastes are not the same as those your playing with, and accomodate it, then your the one who is becoming a better gamer.

I have found it is also a good idea to not play just one system. That leads to fixation. Thats when you get lost in the trees and forget that there is a forest.

So I play other games, usually as different as possible. So I like to jump from my C&C/D&D to Shadowrun to Traveller to Mutants and MAsterminds to L5R to Synnibar to HARP to GURPS and back to my C&C/D&D.

It keeps me fresh, keeps me open to alternative ways to look at things, and keeps me constantly aware of the fact that D&D isn't the one and only RPG worth playing.

It also helped me realize that I was "over controlling". I was limiting the gold, the magic, etc... In other words, I was limiting the fun and "coolness". Players want to find the cool stuff, they want to be rich, they want to become powerful, so I give it to them. Slowly so that they stay "hungry", but they get it. Thats why I run games to Epic levels, etc...

They want to fight the vampires, the liches, the dragons, the terrasque, the purple worms, the trolls, the giants, and as many other cool monsters as they can.

So I give it to them, eventually.

So as long as the game is fun and cool, then yeah, your right, they aren't running it wrong. Just not to your exacting tastes. So then the trick is to relax, let go, and allow yourself to have fun with what is in front of you.

 

[wedgeski]

Over the past few years I've tried many more games, and many more groups, than I ever did in the past, specifically to improve myself. What I actually found a lot of the time was that most other DM's seem to do the sorts of things I stopped doing years and years ago... namely the things the OP mentions. If I was worried about my ability to roleplay NPC's, I would suddenly find a DM who had no idea what it even means to have a roleplay encounter; if I was worried about my ability to make fights interesting and dynamic, I would find myself in a game where thirty minutes of silence were punctuated only by calls of "You hit" and "You miss". These games weren't, on the whole, 'bad', and everyone seemed to be having a good time, so they were succeeding on that level, but they opened my eyes to the fact of just how much effort and worry I put into making my game enjoyable for the players. I might not succeed, but at least I try.