Game Mechanics small start versus all in

[JoeGKushner]

On the ole Grongnardia blog, GROGNARDIA: Why Not AD&D? , he notes "Were I to play AD&D, it would be "AD&D minus," which is to say I'd be excising many elements from the published rules and would have to make a point of telling my players what parts of the game I wouldn't be using." and further, "Yet, I can't deny that, from my own perspective anyway, playing a "plus" game is conceptually simpler than a "minus" game, since there's no confusion in reading about class X or spell Y in the Players Handbook, getting all excited about it, and then being told by the referee, "Sorry, I don't use X and Y in my games." One of the reasons I've been so down about supplements is that I feel they often create expectations in the minds of players that put undue pressure on the referee to accommodate them. Certainly the mere existence of a new class, spell, or magic item doesn't put a gun to a referee's head, but I know from experience that many players nevertheless assume that, if it's in an official game book, it ought to be in the game too. I have very reasonable players and yet I still wish to avoid that."

I agree with this to a point.

I think that the Dummies book is actually a much easier 'core' to swallow. Four classes, four races, and a lot less 'expansionism' that comes with the whole book.

Contrast that to the new editorial for Dungeon, "All kinds of D&D books are aimed squarely at players. Just as I urge you to pilfer campaign ideas from other sources, you should also incite your players to pull ideas from core rulebooks, power sourcebooks, and campaign player's guides. Encourage them to explore and use what's out there." and "A campaign world that evolves to include new game elements is much more fun and interesting to players than one that doesn't allow this or that. The trick is to get your players to do some of the heavy lifting, to make them the instigators when it comes to expanding the depth and breadth of the campaign."

To me that seems a little like "hey, we gotta sell this stuff so make sure your players can use all of it!" Don't get me wrong, there should be a lot of variety in the game. For example, I'm using 4e but running 3/2/1st ed Forgotten Realms bits. The Dragonborn are allowed and are mercenaries that were summoned to fight in the Orc Gate War in Mulhorandi thousands of years ago and have spread out and are reknown for their martial ways.

I found it a little ironic that on a similiar matter when discussing Dragonmarks that the writer of the core, Keith, talks about using "meta" methods of well, assassinating characters that take something that they can take according to the game rules but the GM doesn't really want them to have or that go against the grain of the setting. "The ECG highlights that a PC who develops an out of house mark might be the first member of his race in history to do so, and that the houses could very well decide that extermination is the proper response. So MECHANICALLY marks are available to everyone. But if your campaign is set in Eberron, it's something a player will want to discuss with the DM. It's something that CAN create many interesting stories, if it's what the PC and DM want - but it's certainly within the DM's rights to hold people to the houses (whether with an iron hand or with the "Do what you want, but remember what happened to the Line of Vol... do you really want your entire family to be targeted for extermination to prevent your unnatural mark from spreading?" approach).
"

Wouldn't it just be easier to avoid that in the first place? "Yeah, you can have that..." (GM goes to folder and pulls out 36th level strikers and promptly kills that character.)

What's your opinion as a game master and as a player?

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

Are we talking D&D specifically, or RPGs in general?

If the core is restricted that sets up an expectation on how people play the game because to go beyond the core they have to exert themselves (either by spending more money on a supplement or by making their own). This is fine if you want to encourage a certain style of play (or encourage house-ruling). But if not a game's applicability to different kinds of concepts and play-styles shouldn't be sacrificed.

 

[scourger]

I generally find that less is more, both as a player and as a DM; but especially as a DM. I am just fine with a core game, and even that is more than I really want to run anymore. Savage Worlds and D&D minis are examples of about as much complexity as I need in the rules in order to tell the cool story.

 

[Cadfan]

I rarely find that this creates actual problems in actual games. So I tend to allow pretty much anything people ask for.

I suppose I might feel otherwise if I had a group of players that regularly asked for really weird stuff. But I don't. I also tend not to find stuff "weird" unless its really, really weird, and I'm not one of those DMs who cringes inside whenever someone buys an expansion book. So going into things with a generally positive attitude and having players who don't intentionally screw with me means that I rarely have to worry about these things.

 

[Ariosto]

I think the really big difficulty arises when a player spends $30 on a supplement and then brings it to the table. Is everyone (including the DM) going to be dependent on that player? Is the cost of entry going to be raised for anyone who wants to be on an equal footing?

If one is utterly indiscriminate, then that may get taken as an invitation to rules-lawyering.

If you're taking a PHB as a starting point, then I think the way to handle exceptions is to make them clear before players join the campaign. I would not worry about going into DMG material, except in cases (which might arise in 1st edition AD&D) in which it contradicts what's in the players' book.

Hardly anyone in my experience used all the bells and whistles in AD&D. I have over the years shifted to a greater appreciation for weapon-versus-armor modifiers (although I am not sure I will use the standard table in my next game) -- and, at the same time, to finding weapon proficiencies something I can do without.

Perhaps especially when one has played for many years, deciding what not to include can be as much a part of creating a fresh campaign as deciding what to add or modify.

There's also a significant difference between giving players carte blanche to bring in anything (which might mess with basic milieu assumptions) and treating things on a case-by-case basis. Maybe a single dragon-man, kung fu artist or android can be fitted in, but a bunch would be a problem.

I think too much is sometimes made of the "official" nature of products. There is a natural commercial interest in that, and third-party publishers likewise must appreciate having a cachet attached to their books just for being books. It does not follow that every bit of such material is appropriate for every campaign. There are no drow cavaliers in my world, for what I consider adequate reasons!

 

[amethal]

Hardly anyone in my experience used all the bells and whistles in AD&D. I have over the years shifted to a greater appreciation for weapon-versus-armor modifiers (although I am not sure I will use the standard table in my next game) -- and, at the same time, to finding weapon proficiencies something I can do without.

I'll go a step further and say that no one in my experience used all the rules of 1st edition AD&D, even if you remove everything apart from PH, DMG and MM.

Weapon vs armour, weapon speed factors (including the possibility of an extra attack if you had a much faster weapon), 50% of attacks being called shots to the head, subduing dragons, potion miscibility table, chance to be psionic - there was no sense of deliberately excluding those rules, they were simply ignored as being too much trouble to bother with.

Contrast this with say encumbrance, where we knew how it worked but decided it was too much book keeping. That was a house rule.

 

[Windjammer]

What's your opinion as a game master and as a player?

I loved the way your final question points to a possible divergence, depending on who your ask or in what function (as DM or player) you ask them this question.

I fully concur as a GM with your comment on Grognardia,

The more options presented to the GM, the more... pruning may be necessary to get to what the GM wants to run.

but wanted to say how options presented to the GM need not be options presented to the players. At least not initially. James' blog entry also unequivocally speaks about which options to make available to the players to begin with, not which options are "in the game" per se (where "the game" includes what's available to the DM).

Good observation on the current Dungeon editorial, which goes to the opposite extreme. But you got to see that remark in the context of 4th edition, which does an admirable job of keeping 95% of all options presented to be in a certain mechanical bandwidth (contrast 3.5). I understand that your main concern - e.g. that of including "fringe" races (such as tieflings) in one's D&D from the start - pinpoints something else than the mechanics breadth of options. But that point, I feel, comes down to players understanding the reasons for a DM to exclude certain things in his campaign, such as Eastern monks (see The Gamers II: Dorkness Rising), to bring a special "feel" to his campaign, as is suggested in the 3.0 DMG . (I think the line got cut in the 3.5 DMG.)

So, at the end, the problem isn't that of a ruleset which, on the face of it, presents too many options of players. The problem is players who feel that anything that's in the rulebook ought to be permissible for them. (See again Dorkness Rising, where the player wanting to play a monk against his DM's wishes says "but we're playing 3rd edition, aren't we? I mean, we are playing BY THE RULES or are we not? And monks are... in the PLayer's Handbook!") So it's the problem of players feeling entitled to their material.

In a way, the "everything is core" mentality of 4E makes it harder as a DM to fight that entitlement. It's certainly easier when not everything is core to begin with.

So in the end, I'd simply avise players and their DMs to sit down for a preparatory meeting before kicking off this campaign or that campaign - for everyone to get an idea of what's in store, and what's not, and for these things to be rationalized to each other. If everyone's on the same page, there's no problem, and the journey of getting there can be completely without hassle.

 

[im_robertb]

These are the rules I use when I DM:

3E: Ask for anything you like. I'll look over it, and if the mechanics aren't broken, then I'll approve it.
4E: Use whatever you like. If we find it's broken, we'll fix it.

Both of these are subject to the flavour of my world. For example, I don't have a place for Genasi yet, nor can I think of a reason why one would be in the region we're adventuring in. If a PC asks to play a Genasi, he'll need to help me come up with some ideas.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

My players like all the options.

As a DM I've always felt that the PHB & DMG were a collection of what's potentially out there but not necessarily available. That's how I kept spells rare or unique in 1e/2e ... I just didn't have the scrolls available as treasure and NPCs didn't know it.

Once you start restricting you can do some pretty cool things like make "spell schools". If the PC wants to learn fireball he has to travel to the volcano on the island of Munub-Tan and convince the fire wizards that he is worthy of such knowledge.

It also can remove headaches. If you're having a hard time working the invisibility spell into your campaign world ... pull it. Problem solved.

Same thing for magic items. Everyone may want boots of speed but if there's only three pairs availabile in the game world used by the elite messengers of the Dijin King ... well ... that makes them a little more unique.

But, as I say, my players like all the options.

 

[JoeGKushner]

In terms of spells, that always lead to some humorous bits when new cleric spells were introduced. "So now I can pick these spells eh? I start my prayer with a WFT Tempus? I coudl've really used these a few levels ago but as I know you're awesome and all that, I shall continue to smite mightily in thy name."

Not quite so lame as that but because clerics always prayed for their spells our group have a much more questioning nature as to why those spells weren't known. Sure, it's in a dustry ole book and forgotten by man but did the gods forget to mention it to the priest as they prayed?