Geriatric Grumbling

[diaglo]

...on the one hand, and now that 3E exists, which, like it or not, is a quantum leap of an improvement over 2E

that is your opinion. i find the opposite to be true.

OD&D > ADnD = BECMI D&D > 2edADnD > 2000ed

 

[Drifter Bob]

that is your opinion. i find the opposite to be true.

OD&D > ADnD = BECMI D&D > 2edADnD > 2000ed

You actually think 2e is better?

DB

 

[Desdichado]

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.

Isn't that how most DMs do it anyway? The sample DCs were great, because it gave folks an idea of what to expect.

I agree, it probably would have made much more sense to put that in the DMG rather than the PHB, but it certainly hasn't had any impact on the way my game is played.

In fact, it could very easily be argued that by stating that, they are assuming that players are mature enough to have that information and not abuse it. YMMV.

 

[Desdichado]

You actually think 2e is better?

Sometimes diaglo is best ignored.

 

[Desdichado]

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".

Maybe. There's a lot of other interpretations of that as well, and your data doesn't support causality of the results you have. A lot of folks here, for instance, have specifically stated that the rules don't drive maturity into the game, and so don't want rules changed to be "more mature", whatever that may mean exactly.

Also, the publishing climate, specifically the d20 and OGL movement, eliminates the need for massive changes to the rules in order to get the the flavor any particular group may want. I voted that I like D&D as is, but it's not true that I actually play D&D as is; I've removed whole modular sections and replaced them with other systems or rules that I've pirated from d20 publishers or Unearthed Arcana. I've got a different magic system, almost completely different sets of classes and races, lots of miscellaneous rules that change some basic ways things work, etc.

But I don't have the conceit that my game is "more mature" than anyone elses. It just matches my tastes better. Or rather, I think my game is mature, but not because of the rules.

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.

I think that's too nebulous a concept to really discuss authoritatively, for one thing. I also think that the "D&D culture" is more influenced by external factors than internal ones. In other words, the prevalence of CRPGs and the cross-pollination of folks who play those, who play mini wargames, who play CCGs, etc. are driving the changes in culture moreso than the rules themselves.

A great example is the White Wolf push about ten or so years ago. When Vampire and all the other Monster: the Gerund books first came out, they "encouraged" a much more roleplaying focused, narrative style game, but it wasn't because of the rules. It was because of the flavor, the fluff, and the new converts to RPing that they courted with their imagery and pretentiousness.

WW was good for the hobby, but looking back at those games now, I'm surprised how rules light they aren't and how the rules actually do nothing to really encourage the "Storytelling" paradigm any more than D&D rules did.

In fact, even though the 2e AD&D rules remained more or less as they were, 2e is also famous as following the same trend with the "story-driven" modules and other products, like non-dungeoncrawl friendly settings.

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.

Embarrased in front of whom? Their artsy-fartsy FUDGE player friends or something?

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)

The opposite is no better; "just RP it" means the real-life charismatic types always end up being the charismatic characters regardless of what their character sheet says. To me, its important to not only RP the personal interaction, but also require a roll. It adds more tension to the moment, as well as making sure that the characters actually behave somewhat as their stats and such show them to be.
T

hat 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.

I've never heard that. I think Monte Cook has specifically said that the rules grew in response to getting new gamers into the fold, though, and giving more guidance to new DMs on how to handle more situations. But experience and maturity are not the same thing.

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.

I think your biggest fallacy throughout this thread is that there is some relationship between game complexity and gamer maturity.

 

[trollwad]

Sometimes diaglo is best ignored.

You cant ignore diaglo. Hes a genius, it says it in his tagline...


ps plus diaglo balances out the guys who want to play 1/2 ogres with deuems and improved trip

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

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".

That's an interesting and faux-polite way of saying, "I am going to disregard all opinions that differ from mine. Thanks for playing."

As for the 25% - So, a meaningful proportion of the "hard core" audience has a gripe. Big deal. We're probably about 5% of the total audience, and a non-representative sample at that. Not a number on which to base any useful projections, IMO.

In any case, with no defensive notions, I stand by my assertion that the rules themselves are maturity neutral. Saying otherwise is like saying a gun has a moral position on its use. Mechanics are inherently neutral. With the possible exception of summonable paladin mounts. Someone was hopped up on Pixie Sticks when that one came down the pike.

 

[Pierce_Inverarity]

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.

DB

This is also an issue for me, and no, it's not because I'm embarrassed in front of artsy FUDGE playes. I'm embarrassed by much of the artwork, which is juvenile in nature, and makes my in-laws and co-workers look at me funny when they peruse my bookshelves. I can live with it, but I don't like it.

The flavor of the game is sometimes "over the top," that being said, I've run a 3rd edition Ravenloft campaign, that went pretty well and was decidedly more mature (not being able to detect good/evil and powers checks definitely helped). I don't mean mature as in NC-17 mature either, I mean mature as in more complex NPC interactions and less "search, destroy and loot."

The rules mechanics do have parts that seem to be aimed at allowing the acting out of juvenile fantasies. For example; double weapons. These have always struck me as an adolescent fantasy of "wouldn't it be cool if...", but in reality no one could use these weapons without being more of a danger to themselves than to their foes. This is easy to fix though, just disallow double weapons. Most of these mechanical problems can be overcome with house rules, which almost every gaming group adopts.

The problem with well-defined skill resolution (which was needed) is that it has the unintended consequence that too many players use skill rolls in lieu of actual role playing. The reason this was less of a problem 20 years ago, was not only because we didn't have the well-defined rules, but also because most of us came to the game from a steady diet of fantasy fiction, where there weren't any hard and fast mechanics. Now many younger players come to the game with a background less in reading and more from playing computer and console RPG's that already have those mechanics built into them. In order to "win" a CRPG, you have to min/max and take advantage of all the defined rules (and only those rules) because the rules are inherent to the computer simulation.

Don't get me wrong, I think that DnD is great. It's my favorite pastime and I'll be running a DnD 7th edition game in the Shady Hills retirement community. I just want to have a DnD that's perhaps a little more like reality and has artwork that isn't so comic book silly. (please no flames, I love comics too, and being the proud owner of a number of Frank Miller Daredevils, I know very well that comics can be mature and complex too.)

 

[Pierce_Inverarity]

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.

I don't think this is what DB is referring to in regards to "maturity." If he is, you're right, it will make the game less mature.

This reminds me of a conversation I had about the HBO dramas. I was raving about all of them and specifically Deadwood, and a friend said "yea, you gotta love gratuitous sex and violence." Which kind of set me off, because, yes, there is gratuitious sex and violence, but what makes Deadwood (and Carnivale and Sopranos, etc.) good is not merely the sex and violence, but the more complex plot lines, depth of character development and the, oft repeated in this thread, "shades of gray."

So, bringing it back to DnD, I have been trying to figure out the DnD alignment of the principal characters in Deadwood, and I can't do it. None of them stick to any DnD alignment, but all of them show internally consistent behavior.

This would be one of the goals of a more mature DnD. Consistent character development beyond the limited spectrum of good/evil/neutral/chaos/law.

 

[Drifter Bob]

The opposite is no better; "just RP it" means the real-life charismatic types always end up being the charismatic characters regardless of what their character sheet says. To me, its important to not only RP the personal interaction, but also require a roll. It adds more tension to the moment, as well as making sure that the characters actually behave somewhat as their stats and such show them to be.

No, you misunderstand me. In the example of a Bluff (or Diplomacy or Intimidate) attempt, I would award a +4 to -4 to the die roll based on how they worded or at least acted out their statement, but this would be cumulative with whatever bonus they got from their characters skill level and attributes.

In other words, if they had a +8 Bluff bonus, a stellar (or at least enthusiastic) speach might give them as much as a +12 when factored with the role playing bonus I give, wheras a complete lack of any attempt to role play the dialogue would be only a +4.

Also, I don't necessarily award more for the best actor in the group. The key is to make an effort to role play. Even if it's silly, enthusiasm, appropriateness for the character are key factors.



I personally feel that If you don't inject something like this into the mechanics, I think the rules as written do encourage a video game style of handling such verbal interractions, (which amounts to just one small but significant example of how the rules do affect the maturity level of the game.) I have actually seen this happen many times in 3.E DnD games that I've played in as a player or sat in on, and other people have described similar anecdotes to the situation Oourph described. I actually thought it was a commonly known 'bug' in 3.X, if you don't mind the software term.

DB