Do it yourself gaming

[Umbran]

Sometimes I begin to wonder if perhaps gamers are starting to get a little lazy.

In the olden days of 1st and 2nd edition D&D, the game (and all rpgs, really) were a house-rules fest. If you didn't like a thing, you changed it yourself. Nobody seriously thought that the publisher was responsible for making changes for you. New editions simply didn't come out that fast. Even if a company were so inclined, the technology to gather and compile player opinions simply wasn't there.

The internet, of course, has changed that. Now WotC has an e-mail address to take and answer your questions. They have their own message boards. They read other message boards, and they have chats, and the like. Perhaps they get a decent handle on the pulse of gaming, and they can make changes to suit. We've seen it in the numberous erratas, in FAQs galore. We can see this in the 3.5E, most strongly with Bards and Rangers, and changes in spells.

But perhaps that's not the best of all possible worlds. Sometimes I see this leading to a sense of entitlement - We don't like X, so they should change it.

Don't get me wrong - as I see it the majority is still of the "I don't like it, so I'll play it differently" camp. There's loads of good products out there to help you play things diffeently than in the core rules. But still, I hear this undercurrent - "The Core Rules are stupid. The Core Rules are wrong. It shouldn't be this way in the Core rules. It would be better if the Core Rules were different."

Or maybe it's just an "in five feet of snow, uphill both ways" reaction on my part as an older gamer who hasn't fully abandoned old thoughts on how things should be done...

So, the question for discussion is this: At what point do you say, "I'd like to run the game differently.", and at what point do you say, "The rules should be written differently"? Thoughts?

 

[BiggusGeekus@Work]

I think computer gaming has done a great deal in this regard that is underrated. For instance, they have an adventure. Now they have to make it so your druid can get through it as well as someone else's fighter (to say nothing of a bard).

So the differences in character class are more relevant since the release of Bauldur's Gate than they were in the 1988 - 1994 era.

 

[Zappo]

For me, all rules are optional. Don't like it, don't use it, and all of that. The rules have the objective of making the game consistant; however, consistancy isn't the only factor for fun, so the rules sometimes may be changed or ignored.

Where is the "the rules should be changed" line? For me, when I see a rule that most people ignore, alter, or at least complain about, that's when it should be changed. Example: Harm. If everyone has to change a rule, there's no point in having it in the first place.

 

[Ranger REG]

So, the question for discussion is this: At what point do you say, "I'd like to run the game differently.", and at what point do you say, "The rules should be written differently"? Thoughts?

Well, I can safely answer the latter question by saying: "Whenever the publisher wishes to revise, update, or added new material to the ruleset. Even if it is too late, I will continue to lobby for my suggestion and opinion until the final product hit the store."

Having said that, I answer the former question by saying: "I will look over the final product, and after playing with them in my group, will I decide if I like certain mechanics or simply drop them in favor of houserules. As a customer, I will still offer feedback on what I like in the final product and what I don't like, in hope that the publisher would continue to improve their product in the future."

 

[Henry]

Also, remember the increased amount of gamer interactions that were not available "back in the day." The Internet as I have said before has increased the amount of idea trafficking between gamer and designer, and between gamers. Now, we have hundreds or thousands of people to bounce ideas off of, whereas most gamers had their five or six friends to do so. This breeds two things:

1) Designers get more feedback now, and gamers know this, and contribute their opinions accordingly. We all think our house rules are best for us; naturally, some will likely think their house rules are best for everybody. So if I can get Andy Collins to listen to my house rules on spring-loaded sword-wrist-blades, I'm going to give it a shot.

2) With more supported material comes the dependency on that support. It's no more prevalent in RPG's than it is in other hobbies or fields. Many years ago, the absence of specialist doctors caused every general practicioner to be an expert, or to try to be one; now, GP's will likely send you to a specialist if you have something more than a cold or the flu. Some people can't live without their Palm Pilots, and need a computer technician when it goes down; meanwhile, for the rest of the populace, "tech support" is buying a new pen to go with their little black address books. With more bells and whistles, and greater support, comes the RELIANCE on the support.

 

[mikey6990]

This is the way I see it. If I have to modify the game so much that I need to either a) provide a mikey's handbook for new players of a size similar to the current books or b) hold a mikey's game seminar for prospective players, then it is time I start looking at other game systems.

Game writers don't owe me the perfect system. If I find a system that runs well, isn't cost prohibitive to play for all, and is fun to play, I take a look.

That is the great 3.5 debate for me. I like some of the changes in 3.5 (already had some as house rules), but not all of them. I can either take 3.0 and add what I like to make it mine, or I can get 3.5 and delete what I don't like to make it mine.

Hmmm, one is free since I own the books. One costs money. Both take work. I'll leave it as an exercise for the audience as to which I choose.

Our group is even considering dropping 3E and going to another system that has fewer 'requirements' (ie rules for everything and constant lookups). I know we can just take out or redo what we don't want but that leads me to the above discussion about lengthy modifications.

So I guess I fall into the 'run the game a different way' camp. The only reason to care about rewriting the core rules for me is it makes it easier to assimilate new players since they already know these new rules.


Mike