Can you play the game wrong/incorrectly?

[The Shaman]

Wrong? Sure - as people have noted, there are mechanical mistakes that would qualify as wrong.

But I don't think that's what Quasqueton meant.

I think some gamers are better at playing than others, in the same way that some people are better at chess than others - two lousy chess players may have a good time chasing each others' pieces around the board, but it doesn't make them grandmasters. A player who can create mechanically sound characters, roleplay them well, and work well with the other players and their characters is a better player than another player who can only manage one of those three aspects of the game.

 

[Quasqueton]

A: “The DM always wins the fights in the game because he has access to all the monsters in the Monster Manual. Our PCs have to retreat or die in most of the fights we have. The only time we get xp is when we manage to kill some of the fodder blocking for the main monster. It’s not fair. The DM will always win the fights, and we will never gain a level.”

B: “We’ve made our DM stay fair by pointing out that he has to use the CR to party level chart in the DMG. Since he can’t use a monster much higher than our average party level but a few times (like 5%), and most fights have to be at or below our party level, our game is much more fun.”

C: “It takes us about an hour per round to play out combat. Half the players are mentally wandering away from the game because it takes so long. Sometimes our whole game session is just playing out one battle of maybe 5 rounds. This sucks.”

D: “It takes us about an hour per round to play out combat. It is very cool to figure out the exact best maneuver and action to kick the monsters’ butts. We have calculators for figuring the best option for Power Attack, and we use plastic templates for deciding on placement for area-of-effect spells. Everyone helps everyone else with planning actions, and we’re all loving the tactical details.”

E: “We gain a level every game session, and have at times gained two levels in a session. Getting more powerful every game session is really cool, but our campaigns end too quickly when we reach 20th level in just a few months.”

F: “The DM gives us xp after we finish an adventure. It’s sometimes very tough to survive, especially at the end of the adventure, against the more powerful enemies, but we manage to overcome. It is a great feeling when we finish an adventure and get to level up. I love this game.”

G: “So I told the DM I wanted to convince the guards to let me go in the temple. I rolled my Diplomacy check, got a 32, and they let me in. When the priests saw me, I told the DM I wanted to trick them into thinking I was a new acolyte. I rolled my Bluff check, got an 18, and they didn’t believe me. So I told the DM I wanted to threaten them if they didn’t let me go. I rolled my Intimidate check, got a 12, so they attacked me. This is a stupid game.”

H: “My 3rd-level paladin has a holy greatsword, celestial armor, a helm of brilliance, and an instant fortress. I’ve also got a bunch of +4 ability items. The magic items my character has are more important than his natural attributes, and my paladin is just a bunch of stats instead of a hero.”

I: “I killed a balor last night and made it to 2nd level! I also got his vorpal sword! This game rocks!”

Assuming all participants (including the DM) in the above games are of the same opinion as the speaker, are any of the above groups playing the game wrong? Does the “fun quotient” of the above feelings affect the rightness/wrongness of their game playing?

Quasqueton

 

[Quasqueton]

If someone is playing in such a way that they are not enjoying the game, and they complain about it, are you “right” to tell them they are playing the game wrong?

If someone is playing by breaking/ignoring many of the basic rules of the game, but they rave about the fun, are you “right” to point out they are playing the game wrong?

Is it ever "right" (acceptable/correct) to tell someone they are playing the game wrong? Or is it always "wrong" (impolite/out-of-bounds) to tell someone they are playing the game wrong?

Quasqueton

 

[Umbran]

I think they're the same thing.

I do not.

You see, if you intend to play D&D, and you pick up a baseball bat and walk up to the plate, I have no problems telling you "wait, that's wrong". If, however, you intend to play something that's indistinguishible from D&D, and you pick up a deck of cards, I'm not going to say a darned thing.

"Wrongness" depends upon the goal.

Any rule used that is different than the rules in the RAW is 1 example of difference between "100% D&D" and the way most people play D&D. If every rule used is not in the RAW, I think we all agree we're not playing D&D anymore, but something else. How many rules not used as RAW have to exist before one thinks, "This isn't D&D it's something else?" That's what I was reffering to as opinion, while the number of non-RAW rules is quantifiable.

Well, you'd first have to figure out what counts as "a rule". It isn't like they are clearly numbered. Is a single spell or feat one rule, or a collection of rules? Presumably, one could enumerate each and every single rule in two games, and find the difference. Tedious, but at least theoretically possible.

But I'm really left wondering if "degree of difference" as so defined is at all useful. One can change a gret number of rules (say, by making each item in the rulebook weigh one-half pound more) and not have as much impact as by changing one single rule (say, by making to-hit rolls on a d12 rather than a d20).

Thus, I think the question of degree (as naively defined above) is pretty useless. Degree of change in terms of gameplay is meaningful, but subjective (as you'd effectively already noted).

 

[tylerthehobo]

I said "no", but I see the points of a lot of folks on this thread. That said, even if the only way you play it is as a kid who reads the monster manual and plays elaborate games of let's pretend (as James Wyatt said he did, in a recent article on the WotC site), I see it as playing a rudimentary form of the game. Yes, you can ruin any game by being antisocial - whether as constant-TPKing-DM or as a player who rules-lawyers or munchkins themselves into annoyance. That said, it's not playing "wrong" - it's just not playing "well."

 

[Jdvn1]

Sure. But wrong isn't necessarily bad.

 

[I'm A Banana]

A: You're playing it wrong if you're not enjoying yourself. Life's too short to waste being frustrated at D&D. Since everyone feels this way, something that might help is if your DM follows the actual rules for designing encounters that your party can handle as layed out in the DMG.

B: Sounds like everyone's having fun, you're doing it right and by the book. There's a reason we pay other people to design our games for us, and this is an example of why.

C: If no one's liking it, you're not doing it right. Try breaking some of the rules, or just willfully ignoring them. It might be good to try an abstract combat system, like X, so that you get less bogged down in tactics.

D: Sweet. Continue to rock on. Not really my style, but as long as you make the game fun for you guys, what does my style matter? It doesn't.

E: You're a little off. You might want to talk to your DM about slowing it down a little bit, maybe offering you more treasure instead of another level here and there, letting you get used to your powers before you rocket off the charts.

F: Good show, glad you feel like you really earn everything you put into it.

G: Since nobody liked that, you may want to try ignoring the rolls and just talking it out, or having the DM assign circumstance bonuses based on how well you act out the scene. Or, if it's important for you to succeed, talk to the DM about how challenging his opponents were, maybe he was using something a bit too tough for an easy victory.

H: Everyone thinks this way, so have the DM look at the table for Wealth Per Level again. Then he can hold off until you need more treasure, giving you a chance to get used to your amazing gear for now! And don't be surprised if the combats are a bit tougher because of it.

I: Congrats! Glad you like the game. Next maybe you can kill Zeus!
-----------

IMHO, role-playing right is role-playing to have fun, even if you don't adhere to the rules. The D&D rules are there to try and help you have fun, and most of the time, they work really well like that. Sometimes, they don't, and that's why we have Rule Zero. Which basically means that D&D is whatever the heck you decide you're going to make it, d12s for attack and all. You could take GURPS Technomancer out of the package, call it D&D, and be correct because of Rule Zero.

Of course, I'd probably ask you why you don't just say you're playing GURPS. I can never tell you you're not playing D&D, though.

 

[Starman]

But I voted 'Yes' because you CAN play the game wrong. You can play it with real swords and stab the other players, killing those whose characters die. This is always wrong.

But what if they are having fun?

 

[Rystil Arden]

But what if they are having fun?

It is still always wrong

 

[Nonlethal Force]

But what if they are having fun?

Did you by any chance ever play D&D at college and get into trouble for roaming the steets of Pittsburg dressed up as your characters beating RL people up with swords and staves?

Kidding, of course. As I know you were.