Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mercule" data-source="post: 5969892" data-attributes="member: 5100">A learned by someone handing me a halfling character sheet and running me through a module (no clue what, anymore) at a summer day-camp at the local YMCA. I picked up the red box and started trying to figure things out. Then summer ended, and the only way I could keep playing is by teaching friends (i.e. DMing). I was wholly unprepared, but it I was the only thing enabling a game, so I made due. I'm sure I've broken, ignored, or botched every rule at least once. Here's what I learned, though: It's a game that doesn't have enough rules to handle everything a player might try to do. Any game that does have enough rules to handle every action is too complex to try to use. Any game that limits players to only the printed rules and the uses for a given ability is too stunting to bother with. The most critical enabler of a fun game is a GM who can operate well outside the rules (or without having to look up every rule, even if it's not quite right). The two most damaging elements of a bad game are 1) an insecure GM who feels the need to make sure the players don't get off too easy or to force the players to recognize who's &quot;in charge&quot; and 2) insecure players who require slavish adherence to the minutiae of the rules or who demand &quot;silly&quot; rules be altered, but only when it helps them (i.e. undermine that critical enabler, above).Beyond the above, I agree that a good first adventure is probably a huge benefit. For both 3e and 4e, I felt the systems were different enough from what went before that I ran the introductory module to get used to it (that, and I was very short for time, at that point). My group ended up hating 4e. While I was pretty sure it was largely because of the quality of the adventure, the ship had sailed and 4e was dead to us.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mercule, post: 5969892, member: 5100"] A learned by someone handing me a halfling character sheet and running me through a module (no clue what, anymore) at a summer day-camp at the local YMCA. I picked up the red box and started trying to figure things out. Then summer ended, and the only way I could keep playing is by teaching friends (i.e. DMing). I was wholly unprepared, but it I was the only thing enabling a game, so I made due. I'm sure I've broken, ignored, or botched every rule at least once. Here's what I learned, though: It's a game that doesn't have enough rules to handle everything a player might try to do. Any game that [u]does[/u] have enough rules to handle every action is too complex to try to use. Any game that limits players to only the printed rules and the uses for a given ability is too stunting to bother with. The most critical enabler of a fun game is a GM who can operate well outside the rules (or without having to look up every rule, even if it's not quite right). The two most damaging elements of a bad game are 1) an insecure GM who feels the need to make sure the players don't get off too easy or to force the players to recognize who's "in charge" and 2) insecure players who require slavish adherence to the minutiae of the rules or who demand "silly" rules be altered, but only when it helps them (i.e. undermine that critical enabler, above). Beyond the above, I agree that a good first adventure is probably a huge benefit. For both 3e and 4e, I felt the systems were different enough from what went before that I ran the introductory module to get used to it (that, and I was very short for time, at that point). My group ended up hating 4e. While I was pretty sure it was largely because of the quality of the adventure, the ship had sailed and 4e was dead to us. [/QUOTE]

Verification