Geriatric Grumbling

[Evilhalfling]

Well Im 30 and have been with D&D since the 1st ed Unearthed Arcana.
Munkinism is a definate problem with 3.x D&D, while I like the clear rules its hard to tell players not to take improved disarm with a spiked chain, or persuade the barbarian that his people dont use greatswords.
I dont remember anywhere near the tweaking in old eds.

As for mature themes, Im probably a PG 13 DM, with both sex and torture off camera, while I strive to maintain a realistic, logical world whenever possible. I use mostly the same playing style for other games, abandoning a game of vampire that was heavily descriptive and had strong sexual themes.

I don't think 3.x interferes with a realistic depiction of the world, but too much of a concentraion on rules can ruin the play. IE never had a sucessful champions game, the min/maxing was so prevalent Char. development was a non-issue.
My best one shots are always soap opras - each character should be made with secrets, and they are frequently related to each other. (to keep them from open violence) Soap Operas are masters of personality driven stories, and Buffy the Vampire slayer did a great job of mixing genres. Would that my campaigns could be written that well.

 

[Laman Stahros]

Define Mature?!?!?

How do you define mature so that everyone can agree on that definition? In the end, that is what has to be done first, then you can decide if what your working with IS mature or not. Personally, I have no complaints about the maturity level of the guidelines in the books (NO, they are not rules, that's what rule 0 is all about.) because I have a definition of what is and is not mature and that is where I run my games from (YMMV).

 

[Mark]

Been playing since 1974, I'm a fan of Deadwood, and the games I run have always had that dark side to them, though I tend to keep the language fairly clean and try not to be so graphic that the players feel uncomfortable playing (though keeping them uncomfortable as characters is a must, IMO). It always seems to boil down to knowing your audience, and I believe that D&D as it currently exists allows for that flexibility (and always has, IMO).

 

[Buttercup]

I think D&D is fine as it is; there's certainly room for all flavors and styles within its framework, and I think flavor/style ultimately should be dealt wth at the campaign setting level, not at the core rules level. Now, if you ask me should there be a grimmer/grittier/more-shades-of-gray campaign setting and I'll say "sure, that sounds like fun." Oh, and as per the poll I'm 30+.

What he said. Fine as is, gritty campaign setting would be cool, and I'm over 30.

 

[Stormfalcon]

While this is obviously good advice, the whole point of the thread is "Would you like to see a more mature D&D, either as the only choice or as a separate choice". As easy as you make it sound "modify(ing) or ditch(ing) whatever it is that isn't working" isn't really that simple for a lot of people.

If I were to go through and modify or ditch everything in 3e that doesn't work for me, I'd basically be rewriting the entire game (ditch feats, ditch skills, ditch or change most of the combat options, drastically alter most of the classes, etc.). That's a lot of work. It also makes 99% of the supplements for D&D/D20 on the market absolutely useless for me except as a source of ideas/inspiration.

Fortunately, I have a game that's perfect for my tastes in B/X D&D. Unfortunately (both for me and for the RPG publishing community) I have a lot of money I'd LIKE to spend on RPG stuff, but nothing to spend it on that would be particularly useful to me. So it would be very nice to see an in print game that catered to a taste for low rules overhead, high adventure gaming.

Again, whether you want to call such a game "mature" or not is up to you.

If you find yourself rewriting the entire game to suit the needs of you and your players, then you're playing the wrong game entirely and should find a different one to use. Apparently you have, and that's great. True, you wouldn't be using adventures and other support material straight up, but to be honest, I don't think a GM truly worth his or her salt would use the stuff straight up anyway, at least not outside tournament or RPGA play.

I do tend to limit my use of such materials as merely inspirations and mix-and-match to my devious rat-bastard heart's content. I can't be entirely sure that players haven't been peeking into the adventures or not, so I assume that they have and throw in as many curves as I can. True, it involves work beforehand to get the disparate elements to work at times, but oftentimes I find it well worth the effort, and it makes the adventures and other material still worth picking up.

However, we're going even further astray at this point. We have an honest difference in opinions and viewpoints. I honestly do not see the rules contributing or detracting from a game's maturity level. It may contribute or detract from a particular genre that it's supposed to be portraying, but not the maturity level. That's entirely up to the setting and campaign used, the proverbial fluff. Of course, that's my viewpoint of the matter and we seem to be in disagreement there.

From what I'm reading of what you've posted so far, it seems that you're somehow looking at gamer maturity level and projecting that as game maturity level. The way I see it, it doesn't matter how many or how few rules a game is going to have. A mature player will still be mature, and an immature player is still going to be immature, at least until the immature player grows up and becomes a mature one. However, rules are not going to contribute or detract from that process, since that process is based upon that individual and his or her experiences in life.

As for the matter of material that's strictly for the low-rules crowd, that'll depend on just how big a market there is for it in the first place. I don't doubt that there's a market, as you and others make evident. It's just a question as to whether there's one big enough to be worth publishing for. Then again, with the number of responses to both the poll and the thread stating a preference for the status quo (and I'll admit to being one of those as well), it'll be hard to get writers and publishers to steer away from the easier money.

 

[Ourph]

I do tend to limit my use of such materials as merely inspirations and mix-and-match to my devious rat-bastard heart's content. I can't be entirely sure that players haven't been peeking into the adventures or not, so I assume that they have and throw in as many curves as I can. True, it involves work beforehand to get the disparate elements to work at times, but oftentimes I find it well worth the effort, and it makes the adventures and other material still worth picking up.

I'm not just talking about adventures. In fact, I treat adventures in much the same way you describe. But, for example, Complete Warrior, The Book of Eldritch Might and Draconomicon are essentially useless to me, as a player of B/X D&D (except, as I said, as a source of inspiration).

From what I'm reading of what you've posted so far, it seems that you're somehow looking at gamer maturity level and projecting that as game maturity level. The way I see it, it doesn't matter how many or how few rules a game is going to have. A mature player will still be mature, and an immature player is still going to be immature, at least until the immature player grows up and becomes a mature one. However, rules are not going to contribute or detract from that process, since that process is based upon that individual and his or her experiences in life.

My point is that the rules are providing the experience. If the rules are targeted at immature players (i.e. those who need a rule for every situation because they are unable to make good decisions or unable to trust others to make good decisions) then an immature player's growth can be stunted. If the rules are targeted at mature players (i.e. GM discreation is the norm and players are expected to care more about playing and having fun than whether they are winning or getting screwed over) then there's room for players to grow as they play.

As for the matter of material that's strictly for the low-rules crowd, that'll depend on just how big a market there is for it in the first place. I don't doubt that there's a market, as you and others make evident. It's just a question as to whether there's one big enough to be worth publishing for. Then again, with the number of responses to both the poll and the thread stating a preference for the status quo (and I'll admit to being one of those as well), it'll be hard to get writers and publishers to steer away from the easier money.

It seems to me that a low rules game can always cater to the group that wants a more detailed ruleset by publishing either an expanded rulebook or rules supplements that bring more complexity into the game. In such a system, supplements would be compatible with both rulesets so you'd be selling to both groups instead of just the latter (admittedly larger) one.

Basic D&D / AD&D are a perfect model. I don't know anyone who played either system who didn't use at least some materials published for the other. I like the simplicity of B/X D&D character generation and combat, but regularly use my AD&D books to bring in new monsters, spells, magic items and other various rules. I can do so with little to no modification.

Unfortunately, going from a basic version of a game to an expanded, more complex version and retaining compatibility is much easier than going the other direction and cutting back a complex version while still keeping supplements compatible.

 

[talinthas]

I want D&D to be as accessible as possible. These days, that means aquiesing to the fact that most people's concept of rpg generally involves Final Fantasy. I've taught at least 20 people to play the game, and before i could get them to open up and really roleplay, i had to lead them by the railroaded, hit x to continue, nose. I'm really appreciative that 3.x makes it really easy to teach newbies to play, while still leaving a lot of space for mature (whatever that means) gaming. The rules are not what make a game mature anyway. It's all about the DM and the Players.

 

[diaglo]

The rules are not what make a game mature anyway.

if that is the case for you... you should play OD&D(1974).

 

[Desdichado]

I think the idea that rules heavy games are immature, because only immature players would need rules is elitist and unsupportable. Fie on such accusations!

I also think the idea that d20 is really a rules heavy game is untrue as well.

I've seen mature games that used Rolemaster in all its complexity, and I've seen games that used so few rules that they barely qualified as games at all, and which were played with crazy immaturity.

I simply cannot accept any proposal that the rules contribute in any significant way to the maturity of the game. I can accept that certain people posting on this thread believe that, but it's my opinion that they're dead wrong.

 

[Orius]

18-30, and I think it's fine that way it is. If the group wants D&D to be more mature, then it's the DM's place to inject the maturity into the game.