Can you play the game wrong/incorrectly?

Can you play D&D wrong?

  • Yes

    Votes: 91 47.6%
  • No

    Votes: 69 36.1%
  • Other/Maybe

    Votes: 31 16.2%

Nonlethal Force said:
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.

Dammit! They're on to me. Time to get out the armor and weapons, dust them off, and take care of a few witnesses.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Fun. If you are having fun then you are doing it right.

Having read the thread now... :) Your way of playing may not agree with others ways. and may get you in trouble with the police. :\
 
Last edited:

Umbran said:
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.

I was resonding to this quote of yours
perhaps we need to differentiate between "You are playing D&D wrong" from "What you are playing is no longer recognizable as D&D".
I think you made a leap from "no longer recognizible" to "indistinguishable." I was never arguing that which is indistinguishable from D&D isn't D&D. I was saying that if something was once distinguishable as D&D, but no longer is, that something is no longer D&D and if one persists in calling it D&D I will say, "You're playing it wrong, then."

If one says, "I intend to play something indistinguable from D&D" and then they proceed to play Poker, I'd say they were playing D&D wrong. Just like if someone said, "I intend to play D&D" and then they play Vampire. I'd say they were playing D&D wrong. To me, D&D is a particular rules-set for role-playing. It is a rules-set designed for customibility at individual tables, but customized rules are not defacto D&D due to the unpredictable effects of rules change. The only specific set of rules that is 100% D&D are those which have been labled as such by the owners of the trademark.

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).

"Degree of difference" is subjective because one has to decide which rules are more important than other rules, yes, as well as how much change can a rules sustain before it itself should be considered important enough to morph the game. However, one can indicate differences and such indications are the only way to determine how different from the RAW the current game is.

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).

There is no other method of telling the difference between two games unless one actually compares those difference. How important each difference is until something is considered something else is always subjective based upon individual opinions.

An analogy: You have two Monopoly games. You rule-by-rule change one game and leave the other rules-set alone. At what point does your game cease to be alike the original enough so that perhaps we should think of a different name beside "Monopoly?" I don't know when, (mostly just because there is no set rule-change parameters forcing you to consistantly change rule, thus increasing my inability to predetermine the effect of rules changes) but I know that at some point, I'll start saying, "That's not Monopoly. That's something else."

Roll, 2d5 for movement, ok that's close enough to be Monopoly, I'll let is slide. Roll 1d1: nope, not Monopoly. Or at least "Monopoly being played wrong."

And Dammit, Umbran, don't use phrases like (naively defined above). Think of a better way of saying what you mean that isn't calling me names. Saying something is "pretty useless" may inadvertantly be a personal attack, but saying it's "naively" pretty useless is more-than-likely designed to be. Especially since you're a moderator and must get sick of this same quasi-defensible defacto-name-calling crap all the time. I'm talking with you, not against you: I'm not trying to tear down you or your reasoning, I'm trying to show you mine. We have differring opinions maybe? I'm not so sure, but either way don't be snarky, it pisses me off and reinforces the decision that posting is becoming more and more useless.


joe b.
 
Last edited:

You know you're playing it WRONG if the following house rules apply:

1) Rule #1: You do not TALK about FIGHT CLUB.

2) Keep track of how many hp damage you do to monsters. The sum of that is your score. If a spellcaster buffs you for that combat, they get 20% of your score for that combat.

3) Anybody who gets hit in combat has to take a shot.

4) Anybody who gets knocked below 0 hp has to take off an article of clothing.

5) Whoever kills the boss at the end of the level gets to be DM next time.

6) Anybody who rolls a one has to roll on the limb loss table...and yes, ALL appendenges are fair game.

7) All players must bring a date of the opposite gender, but they can be any age and a close relative is acceptable.

8) If your character dies, you get poked in the eye with a pointy stick.

9) If you try to kill the DM's character, Mary Sue, you get poked in the eye with a pointy stick.

10) Attempting to bribe the DM is unacceptable unless you meet the minimum cover.

11) There will be no blood letting at the table unless you bring enough to share.

12) Furry costumes must cover at least 25% of your body.

13) Firearms must be properly checked at the door unless you are the DM.

14) Participants larger than 36 inches in width must bring their own cushion. Your date counts as a cushion.

15) Snack foods must be shared before they are eaten unless they contain alcohol.

16) Any participant who fails to bathe no earlier than 24 hours prior to the game will be hosed down in the basement. There is no running water in the basement. Use your imagination.

17) Sharpening dice is not allowed at the table.

18) Proper dice rolling technique requires use of a sling when rolling to confirm a critical hit.

19) Anybody singing any song suitable for line dancing will be summarily beheaded. Those caught singing the Macarena will instead be slowly crushed between the largest players present.

20) You must share your date with the DM if asked in character by "Zippy the Gnome."
 

ForceUser said:
Short answer--no. Long answer--yes, you can play the game "wrong" for me, in such a way that I won't want to play with you. But this is more about personality conflict than game mechanics.

But... but... it was all *my* fault his PC almost drowned!! (lol)
 


Agent Oracle said:
Sure!
-Using pewter minis as slingshot ammunition.
Not a problem, I've been playing since 1981 so my miniatures are still made of lead!


Seriously though, I agree that playing the game right or wrong is a matter of group concensus. The players and DM need to conform the the norms of the group in regards to rules/tone/behavior and then play it in that context. As for whether using or not using a rule/book/suppliment is right or wrong that's purely a matter of group opinion.
 

SIGH! :(

This thread is just ASKING for fights and flaming ... but it's better pretty good so far. It could get a lot worse.

I am also assuming everyone is on the same page regarding the types of games that are being referred to as wrong.

I think there are two things involved here.

The first is the "objective" side of things, which presupposes an absolute. It would be REAL hard to articulate an objective standard for this. It's a game after all - not something which falls into the "no discussion" area of the boards in here.

But then there is another level of things, a "subjective" side of things. And many gamers (though not all) have common experiences, reference points and the like (both intellectually and - which is even more interesting to me - and "experiential" or "feeling-based") which they could refer to, whether fully articulated or not and whether consciously or not.

For some players the subjective experiences they have can (on rare occasions) dovetail into a "bigger" picture of things, and even get "pulled into" the "objective" side of things as they perceive it ... I am leaving out the proposition whether or no this is actually objectively true or no as that is not to the point for the moment. For them I could see why they might have a stance from which to say whether people game in a right or wrong way. But I don't think many people here in enworld are that sort.

What other "objective" standard is there to rest on to define what is a right way or a wrong way? The ruleset in the (or a particular) game? That has been brought up. The experiential result of the gaming in general? That has been brought up too. But ... opinions to the contrary have also been brought up opposing these "standards" - some in earnest from personal experience, some perhaps to fan the flames.

On a personal level I would say that there are "wrong" ways to game, and I would refer to the commonly agreed printed rulesets as general guidelines and commonly agreed upon experiences of many that make the game most satisfying or pleasurable or fulfilling.

But I would be very reticent to try and nail it down to actual articulations. I don't know if such a standard can be articulated and applied in all settings (perhaps it could ... I don't know) but I know that oftenb what makes a gaming group unique from others is these unspoken (or even spoken) personal, subjective standards.

And further, I would suggest that many (though not all of us) have had simliar general experiences with gaming and agree upon many aspects of the rulesets as they are presented in the books.
 



Remove ads

Top