Geriatric Grumbling

[Ourph]

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.

That's a very mature attitude.

 

[Orius]

Just to add my opinion on points that have been raised so far:

Publishers don't need to add "maturity" to the rules. I agree such "maturity" usually involves excessive, sex, violence, profantiy, and/or angst. And these excesses make the game seem adolescent, not/ mature. People complain D&D is bland and flavorless, because it's just rules. Well, yeah, it's ALWAYS been that way. It's the DM's place to decide how to add the rules toa game world.

Alignment doesn't need to be dumped. I've said it before: hostility to alignment usually seems to come from players who've had DM's stomping on the character's toes because of alignment: "You can't do that, it's against your alignment." No matter that the rules don't support that interpretation these days, but betweeen alignment stomping and bad alignment interpretation during the 2e days (*cough Chaotic Stupid), it's not surprising many people don't like it. Alignment in a mature game should be played maturely.

Evil should not be stupid or incompetant. Evil should be unrepentingly evil. Evil should be willing to commit atrocities simply because they can, and not worry at all about the consequences. Evil should get corrupted by power without feeling any guilt or compunctions about it.

And good isn't simply some sappy, PC, overly tolerant pacifistic view either. I remember the recent threat about PCs who hesitated to kill the tarrasque because or moral considerations. Silly. Good recognizes the threat posed by the realistically evil, and stands up to it, because they feel they have to. It can either be a sense of responsibility brought on by lawfulness, or a burning desire to right wrongs of a more chaotic personality. Good sees that evil preys upon the weak, and they stand up to champion them. Good stants as the shining ray of light ever ready to combat the darkness that evil threatens.

Yeah, there are shade of gray as well. You've got people who are apathetic, either because they don't feel the threat of evil, or because evil is so powerful that the become demoralized. Or maybe they live out in the boonies, far from the battlegrounds of good and evil, and are more concerned about everyday survival. But I don't see that absolute good and evil have to be thrown out just to make room for the gray.

 

[Wombat]

I don't think the "shades of grey" attitude necessarily precludes GOOD and EVIL (or for that matter LAW and CHAOS) -- these are merely the extremes of the spectrum.

On the other hand, I think very few individuals, including PCs, can really be said to fall to these extremes. Most people in fantasy worlds (as in real life) would be pretty much Neutral if we were to be fair about it, with moderate leanings one way or another.

The greatest problem here is that alignment tries to do two very different things simultaneously -- on the one hand it defines absolutes (Lawful Good, a plane and creatures aligned thereto, the gods thereof, etc.) while on the other hand it defines tendencies in characters (well, most of the time you follow the societal norms, so you are Lawful, even though you fall down on this 1 time out of three).

I think Monte Cook's Book of Hallowed Might does the best job of both keeping alignment and showing its gradiations. Rather than having stark absolutes, there are ranges within the alignment structure -- this serves both the camp of those who wish to keep alignment and those who wish a bit more moral ambiguity.

 

[Drifter Bob]

Defending DnD...changing DnD

I see how this discussion has shifted into the traditional "is 3E better than 1E" fight that all such reform threads seem to get to eventually on all DnD discussion lists everywhere. This is not my intention, and I think we should avoid falling into this trap.

As gamers and DnD players, we are understandably defensive. We are used to defending DnD to all kinds of disaproving outsiders (the thread on being 'saved' from DnD was fascinating) on the one hand, and now that 3E exists, which, like it or not, is a quantum leap of an improvement over 2E, we don't want to risk seeing the game get messed up.

Unfortunately this leads to a very conservative streak among a lot of DnD players who tend to stick to canonical support of the rules 'as-is' even if many of them use their own house rule mods and have for years. There is a sort of panicked tendancy of "don't take away my nice game!" which may go back to the first time your parents tried to take it away in childhood!

The point is though, the game is going to to change and evolve. There are things which need to be improved. We are for the most part a 'family' here, we all like DnD, just because some of us see certain problems, does not mean we want to reject the game outright or want to ruin it.

Groups like ENworld have a lot of influence on game designers. I know this for a fact, I'm friends with a few of them. WOTC is going to come out with a 4E. Too 'conservative' an approach could lead to the kind of stagnation we eventually saw in 1E just as easily as too 'reckless' an approach could lead to a horrible distortion even worse than 2E. We owe it to ourselves and the gaming community to rationally discuss how the game is evolving and identify how we would like it to improve. I guarantee WOTC does take this into consideration. A big part of their success with 3E / 3.5E is because they listened to the complaints about the earlier rules systems, and implemented them, taking the opposite attitute to the old TSR. I mean, I can remember everyone wanting things like skills going way back to the early 80's when we used to see them in other games...

My point is, we should be able to discuss weaknesses or flaws in the game and the idea of making it better without triggering this panicked reactionary debate which polarizes people into reformist and conservative camps. We should be able to have constructive discussions of how to fix things and make improvements.

To get back to the point of this thread, a lot of us feel that there are aspects of the current rules system wihch are tending to push the game in a certain direction, a more juvenile, politically correct, video game like direction. Ourph, curmeudgeonly as he is, did a good job of pointing out some of the specific ways this happens. Just citing rule 0 or pointing out that people can have house rules is kind of a cop out. Ourph made a good point about suppliments, and the original inspiration for this thread was a person who contacted me by email, an old school 1E player who wanted to start or join a 3E game, but who was extremely frustrated by the very prevalant and exxagerated juvenile, 'munchkin' playing style of the many groups and individuals he contacted. This confirmed for me a feeling I've had for a long time. I think it is something worthy of serious consideration: can the rules effect the 'culture' of the game, and if so, what can we do about it.

DB

 

[Mark]

This confirmed for me a feeling I've had for a long time. I think it is something worthy of serious consideration: can the rules effect the 'culture' of the game, and if so, what can we do about it.

Please detail, specifically, how you think it is the rules that are influencing the culture of the game.

 

[Drifter Bob]

Please detail, specifically, how you think it is the rules that are influencing the culture of the game.

I think Oourph gave a good general example with this post from earlier in the thread:

IMO the rules DO make a difference in the maturity level of the game. More rules takes power out of the hands of the DM and the players. It discourages imagination and creativity by channeling thought into certain pre-determined modes. A mature game assumes maturity in the players. A mature ruleset provides a framework for challenge resolution without overburdening itself with the minutiae of each individual situation. A mature ruleset encourages maturity in its players by expecting it from the beginning.

The problem with the current incarnation of D&D (in my crotchety old grumbling opinion) is that it has a very very strong framework for challenge resolution but ruins the simplicity and elegance of this sytem by including numerous situations and options that modify the simple base system sixteen ways from Sunday. This seems to have been a response to the immature gamer who either can't use the simple framework fairly and consistently or who can't trust someone else to use the simple framework fairly and consistently. Immaturity demands that codified rules take the place of good judgement because immature players are generally more worried about winning and/or getting screwed over than they are about having fun.

He also had a good more specific point about how the lack of bluff skill affected the outcome of an encounter he ran, which I think was an excellent specific example.

Someone else mentioned how giving more ways to award experience points for things other than fights or trap de-activation might be a good idea.

The interpretation of alignment and alignment detection spells were also mentioned...

These are just a few points. Ultimately, I can't mathematically prove that there is a problem in the rules which is leading to a problem with the way people are playing, it is a subjective opinion. But I have definately seen many examples of this in my life, and several people have mentioned similar experiences to me. I got two emails today about this in fact from two totally unrelated people.

I would add to Ourphs observations my own experience that players well versed in the 3.X rules seem to generally approach the game as more of a contest between players and DM than I ever experienced in the old day. Even though I know Gary Gygax is often accused of encouraging this vice himself with a lot of his killer DM dungeon crawls, even at that extreme the tone seemed to be different. In the last year and a half that I have been back into DnD, and playing 3.0 and now 3.5, I have met more players with this sort of competetive, almost hostile approach toward the game than I ever did before. It has led me to be much more careful about who I let into my campaign because I don't want to play with people like that. It even partially cost me a friendship with one guy! I do feel the rules have led to this phenomenon.

DB

 

[Mark]

I've noticed the opposite effect. With the greater definition of the rules I've seen players less worried about how things will be adjudicated and more free to roleplay their characters.

Oourph's general example only convinces me of his own situation and my own experience constrasts his. The "Bluff" example is something that I, as DM, would have simply handled by taking a moment to remind the players that they can use the skill without ranks, with their own modifiers, and with whatever circumstance bonus I might be applying based on the situation and how they roleplay. In my experience, if players are misinterpreting the rules, the DM needs to explain things a bit more and then jump back into the game. No big deal.

I won't debate anyone's experience, as I am confident that your depth of thought on this (and Oourph's) are valid and true. I will however point out that your poll shows that most others manage to have games at various maturity levels without any trouble, myself included (and I've been doing it for thirty years with all incarnations of the rules). You seem to be suggesting, however, that the best way for yourself and others who cannot manage this with the rules as written is an alternate ruleset that steers players and DMs to play more maturely than the games you have experienced. While this is also perfectly valid as a solution, I have to tell you that I would likely find such a ruleset less flexible. I have a feeling that no matter what the rules try to do in relation to steering the maturity level of the game, what you experience at the table will always be a product of how the rules are applied by the people occupying the chairs.

If either of you ever get up to the Chicago area, let me know in advance and I'll see what I can do about including you in one of my own game sessions.

 

[Ourph]

Hey DB, sorry if I was helping to derail your thread and sorry to anyone else if my previous posts seemed to be insulting to a specific edition or its players. That wasn't really my intention.

To get back on track, I'll submit one thing that I think WotC could do to VASTLY improve the next edition/printing of D&D.

Don't include sample DCs in the Skills section of the Player's Handbook. Describe the skill and what the player can do with it, but leave the sample DCs for the DMG, where they belong.

This is really the province of the DM and ought to be addressed in a "Skills" section of the DMG along with advice on how to set and modify DCs not covered by the examples. I can't even begin to count the number of times I've gotten into conflicts with a player while running 3rd ed (yes, I ran several 3e campaigns for about 3 years before hanging up my 3e DM hat) because I set a DC for a task that differed from what the player expected based on the DCs in the PHB. Even if the player is willing to accept that the DM always sets the DC no matter what the book may say, it still sucks for a player to have certain expectations about what their chances are for success only to learn that they are inaccurate after the fact.

If the numbers were in the DMG instead of the PHB, some of those problems could be avoided and it would send a clear message that setting DCs is ALWAYS the DM's perogative.

 

[Mark]

If the numbers were in the DMG instead of the PHB, some of those problems could be avoided and it would send a clear message that setting DCs is ALWAYS the DM's perogative.

I can see how that might help to avoid conflicts with some players.

 

[Drifter Bob]

The poll shows that something like 25% of hard core DnD fans (which I assume most of the regular posters to Enworld are) would like to see some kind of improvement to the maturity level of the game.

I personally feel that a lot of the people who voted "I like it as it is", were seeing the poll in terms of a vindication of DnD as such, in precisely the defensive mode I described above. The fact that many people who voted for "as is" rules described using house rules themselves reminds me of Gary Gygax using his own house rules while insisting that anyone else who did "wasn't playing dnd".

With all due respect, the implication people in the reformist camp like Oourph and I need to rely on the rules as some sort of crutch strikes me as more defensive counterattacking. That is certainly not my point - I don't need the rules to make my games easier. Like most long-established DM's I use my own house rules and I think Ourph said he did as well. Either way, the issue is more how the overall culture of the game is being effected, in terms of people one meets to play with, and how this all effects the various books and suppliments which are for sale. As the author of one of those, I have a vested interest in this issue.

Third, a lot of people have said that they want a game they don't have to feel embarassed about. The fact that DnD IS intentionaly targeted toward a very young market, in spite of the fact that many players are much older (this poll seems to indicate that!) is itself an aberration. This is reflected in both the flavor (and the art) and the rules mechanics themselves.

Dealing with specifics, the Bluff issue is a good example. I'm ambivalent about these discussoin skills. On the one hand, I'm glad they introduced Bluff, Intimidate, Diplomacy and Sense Motive into the game, it was needed. On the other hand, as implemented, I think it detracts from role playing and encourages a kind of computer game dynamic. The bluff check is just a die roll. What the player actually says does not affect it. In my campaigns it's different. I'll assign a +4 to -4 to any persuasion attempt any player makes, based on what they said, or the manner they said it in. (Even a fairly brusque character can grunt convincingly)

This would, IMO, be a good kind of a mechanic to introduce into the rules. If they are going to be that specific, some mechanics should

That is the ultimate problem. The rules have grown largely in reaction to rules lawyers nerfing loopholes. It has been a kind of crisis management. Therefore, the general trend of rule creep has grown largely to accomodate or deal with the rules lawyer, munchkin type players.

Ultimately, I think a scaled system makes sense, with basic on one end and complex at the other, and on the complex end, the more mature, role playing style should be considered as much as the roll playing munchkin style.

DB