Cheating, Action Points, and Second Wind

[marune]

If all it takes to change the style of the game one way or the other is to mod the XP rules, then surely D&D can't be that far off?

The reward system is important because it's the engine. However, if you only change that component, others will get in the way.

For example, both for sim or nar play, levels don't really make sense.

 

[Professor Phobos]

Continuum.

 

[marune]

Maybe it's time to say again that the idea that started this discussion about "what D&D is" is that the main explanation for cheating is players or DM wanting something else of D&D than a good-old fantasy gamist RPG.

IMHO, adding Actions Points won't help, because it will help those people get rid of some of the symptoms without having a real cure.

In a gamist perspective however, Actions Points are fun because they can give a little boon after some loosy rolls.

 

[Raloc]

I still don't think Rule 0 (being in the rules) constitutes cheating. By definition, if it's in the rules, it can't be cheating.

 

[marune]

I still don't think Rule 0 (being in the rules) constitutes cheating. By definition, if it's in the rules, it can't be cheating.

Rule 0 is as stupid in D&D than in Monopoly.

Of course you can change any damn game if all the people around the table agree to it, don't need to write it down anywhere.

You only need to remember that this "changed game" hasn't been tested and that the average player doesn't have the knowlege & experience of the original designer -> YMMV.

 

[Professor Phobos]

But D&D is a fundamentally different kind of game than Monopoly. So are all RPGs.

Man, the original D&D would have eaten you alive. There were barely rules for anything back then. GMs were making stuff up left and right! House ruling wasn't just something you could do, it was something you were expected and encouraged to do.

 

[marune]

But D&D is a fundamentally different kind of game than Monopoly. So are all RPGs.

Yeah, RPG have an imagined shared space, board games don't.

Man, the original D&D would have eaten you alive. There were barely rules for anything back then. GMs were making stuff up left and right! House ruling wasn't just something you could do, it was something you were expected and encouraged to do.

I would say that DMs were probably making too many rules, mainly "simulationist" kind of rules that aren't needed at all in D&D (think "what happens if while I'm wearing X, Y spell is cast on me while Z is affecting me").

Since I started under 2E, I can't say how many relevant rules/guidelines were missing back at this time.

 

[Professor Phobos]

I would say that DMs were probably making too many rules, mainly "simulationist" kind of rules that aren't needed at all in D&D (think "what happens if while I'm wearing X, Y spell is cast on me while Z is affecting me").

Since I started under 2E, I can't say how many relevant rules/guidelines were missing back at this time.

Look, dude, I like the Forge as much as the next guy, but you have to remember the Narrative/Simulation/Gamist tracks are meant to be continuums, not mutually exclusive paradigms. Most games will have a mixture of them except the absolutely razor-focused indie games. D&D is not exclusively "Gamist" and even if it was, Gamism does not demand rigid restrictions on GM discretion.

As far as I can tell, the "GM is as rigidly bound by the rules as the players" idea is recent, a quirk of 3.x's exceptional number of rules for things and how awesome Burning Empires is. No other game to my knowledge would establish a set of treasure and encounter tables that GMs were bound to obey. In fact, I somehow doubt the 3e DMG's don't have words like "Suggestion" and "Guideline" and "Optional" there.

How is a GM supposed to build his world if he's rigidly bound to, say, the Demographics rules in the DMG? How could I make a wasteland of scattered settlements and ruined cities if I'm obligated to have a certain number of priests or a certain number of magic item stores per square mile?

That's just silly.

EDIT: And it's definitely not gamism, since Gamism in many ways harkens back to the beginning of the hobby, and I distinctly remember world building being encouraged, the DM's word being final, everything being subject to his alteration and discretion...

 

[marune]

Look, dude, I like the Forge as much as the next guy, but you have to remember the Narrative/Simulation/Gamist tracks are meant to be continuums, not mutually exclusive paradigms. Most games will have a mixture of them except the absolutely razor-focused indie games. D&D is not exclusively "Gamist" and even if it was, Gamism does not demand rigid restrictions on GM discretion.

I always said that D&D is a somewhat incoherent gamist/sim game. (4e seems to be more gamist focused)

I'm well aware that gamism can be done "on the fly" without any restrictions.

My last post only said that the idea of coming up with a ton of stuff to rule out every possible thing that could happen in the fantasy world is a bad sim habit.

 

[marune]

As far as I can tell, the "GM is as rigidly bound by the rules as the players" idea is recent, a quirk of 3.x's exceptional number of rules for things and how awesome Burning Empires is. No other game to my knowledge would establish a set of treasure and encounter tables that GMs were bound to obey. In fact, I somehow doubt the 3e DMG's don't have words like "Suggestion" and "Guideline" and "Optional" there.

I'm also well aware that they are named wealth guidelines, however, the fact that the CR system is built according to these guidelines make them de facto more than vague suggestions.

How is a GM supposed to build his world if he's rigidly bound to, say, the Demographics rules in the DMG? How could I make a wasteland of scattered settlements and ruined cities if I'm obligated to have a certain number of priests or a certain number of magic item stores per square mile?

The only gamist relevant impact the Demographics rules have is the acessibility of good and services (done by NPCs), including loot selling.

Again, since the CR system is built around the idea that the PCs will have access to these services/goods...

Of course it would be easy to ignore them and find another way to be sure the PCs have the appropriate stuff for their level.

If that's not enough, you could ditch the CR entirely and do all the work yourself to estimate the challenge of the different monsters, given the fact that the PCs doesn't folllow the wealth guidelines. YMMV.

Edit : BTW, you can have world-building and gamism, in fact I think that D&D with it's detailled settings is a good game to have an high-exploration gamist play.