Can getting what you want ruin your fun?

[GreyLord]

I don't think the problem was the lifting of restrictions, but that it was the lifting of restrictions on players...NOT on the game itself.

The restrictions of previous editions were not restrictions on the DM per se...the DM could waive or houserule the restrictions to whatever they felt should be in place instead.

The restrictions were there so the players didn't feel as if the DM were obligated to cater to their every whim or desire.

The lifting of restrictions made it so unless you had a GOOD group of players...OR became an ironfisted DM...you suddenly got a group of monsters and villains who were trying to pretend to be the heroes of a story...rather than heroes being the heroes. You got players who would change classes at a drop of a penny, and think 5 halves made one whole. Entire craziness ensued.

The lifting of restrictions made it more difficult for the DM because poor players thought the DM was obligated to accept anything in print.

So lifting on restrictions for players ironically kind of actually meant more restrictions on poorer groups and DMs...whilst better groups reacted better.

Overall, I think the lifting of restrictions was a poor choice in some instances simply because (at least on some forums) it brought out a preponderance of poor players (players who thought imagination was using rules to play monsters and such...many times to a ridiculous degree). Monsters can be fun once in a while...but when monsters become the norm...it sort of loses it's charm.

On the otherhand, happily I've only run into this entire I want to be a monster with ten different classes craziness twice in the entire time I've played less restricted editions...whilst most of the groups I've played with used more or less common sense in what was or wasn't allowed. AKA, they actually adhered to the idea that the DM is able to use the rule 0.

 

[steenan]

I have learned that my gaming needs and wishes are not compatible. I want many different things that quite often do not work well together. Fortunately, this does not mean I have to be frustrated and play games I don't like. It just means I need to play many different games. Discovering it made me a happy gamer.

If someone tried to create a game that satisfied all my wishes, they would end up with an awful mess or a super-complicated generic system that wouldn't really offer anything without a lot of customization. I definitely wouldn't but such a game and probably wouldn't play it even if offered for free.

For example, I like flexibility in character creation and development. I also like strong, interesting and mechanically supported character archetypes. Both are fun, but go in opposite directions - and compromises between them (like D&D multiclassing) usually has flaws of both and advantages of none.

Other such pairs are: tactical combat vs. rules-light game; focus on setting exploration vs. focus on character development; playing in genre vs. playing in consistent, believable setting; immersion vs. meta-rules etc.

I think I'm not the only person in such situation. And when there is a lot of people with divergent needs that are not aware of the divergence, it's easy to create a poor game by listening to them and giving them what they want.
That's one of the reasons why I applaud creators of 4e, even though I don't like the game too much. They created an rpg based on a consistent vision and goal, a game that does some things really well. In my eyes, it's better than creating a game that tries to be everything to everyone and fails.

 

[Jhaelen]

If all of your wishes were granted, many of your dreams would be destroyed