I guess I really do prefer simplicity

[Raven Crowking]

Different games have different emphases. Old D&D is pretty squarely focused on adventurers, not tradesmen or scholars. Further, it is chiefly about what the adventurers do. The biography that matters is what happens in play. Within that field, fighting gets special attention in the rules -- but not so much as to make it an especially time-consuming activity. It's not a combat game; it's an adventure game, and fast action in violence allows plenty of time for the development of other aspects.

This is a nice summation, which matches my experience, then & now.


RC

 

[ExploderWizard]

I am arguing that some people don't consider the character complexity a "solitaire game" but rather the means to an end, which in this case is to provide the person with a character sheet that mathematically backs up their character's individuality such that it cannot be unreasonably challenged during play.

In a competitive game I would say that this is not only good, but actually required. For D&D it is simply extra baggage that some enjoy using and others don't.

Terms like "back up" "proof" "challenged" are all indicative of competetive play whether against fellow players (to avoid being outshined), the DM (to survive the harsh realm of rules-lawyerism) or both.

 

[Ariosto]

Tyrlaan, what is your quibble? What is the significance of "house rules"? Why are they "sometimes not valid", and who is the judge? If I call myself "Thaumaturgist Games" or something and put out a book with the OGL in the back, does that make my rules more valid? Does it make them any better?

If you want to play that sub-game of the build, then of course you need the apparatus for it. If you want to get into number-crunching as your mode of play, then you need to know the numbers.

It doesn't have jack to do with the "individuality" of characters. That's not how we "play our roles" in real life!

 

[tyrlaan]

In a competitive game I would say that this is not only good, but actually required. For D&D it is simply extra baggage that some enjoy using and others don't.

Terms like "back up" "proof" "challenged" are all indicative of competetive play whether against fellow players (to avoid being outshined), the DM (to survive the harsh realm of rules-lawyerism) or both.

Yes, exactly yes. For some this is the reality of gaming. While my preference is that it be a cooperative experience, this may not be the preference or experience of others.

Tyrlaan, what is your quibble? What is the significance of "house rules"? Why are they "sometimes not valid", and who is the judge? If I call myself "Thaumaturgist Games" or something and put out a book with the OGL in the back, does that make my rules more valid? Does it make them any better?

If you want to play that sub-game of the build, then of course you need the apparatus for it. If you want to get into number-crunching as your mode of play, then you need to know the numbers.

It doesn't have jack to do with the "individuality" of characters. That's not how we "play our roles" in real life!

Ari, I think you're taking my comments further than their intent. See further EW's comment I've quoted above and my reply. If the above is not the way your game plays, than I'm probably not splitting any hairs about how your game functions.

To address some of your house rule questions:
Firstly the judge, IMO, should be the GM and the players. MY take on gaming is that the GM and the players are cooperating to have a good time. It's an unspoken social contract of sorts. As a result, everyone at the game table should understand and agree with house rules.

Secondly, some people are either not good at, don't have the time to, or dislike for some reason building house rules and would prefer to rely on something with that "official" feel, a.k.a. in a rulebook somewhere.

On your last point, I disagree. It can do exactly what house rules do for individuality. Note I state can, since obviously not all complex rules actually produce anything productive.

I could argue that we do play our roles this way in real life. I'm a project manager. I put that on my resume. It has significant impact on how my chances are to get a new job. It can be "challenged" reasonably by someone calling my previous employer. On the other hand, if I merely stated I was a project manager because the world lacked jobs (oh the joy to dream!) and I just wanted to be one, how do I support it?

But all of that said, it's a silly line of arguing anyway, since we're not really talking about modeling real life in the first place.

 

[Ariosto]

I'm a project manager. I put that on my resume.

Do you assume that, in my game, if your character were a project manager, then that would NOT be on his resume? Why not? That is simply not the difference.

The whole difference is the reduction of everything to a more finite set, one that is rigidly and publicly defined and subject to player manipulation. A consequence is the necessity for players and DMs to deal with the burden both in preparation and in handling time -- because the "value of your investment" in the system depends on its binding me as well.

There's nothing wrong with happening to prefer that. Just don't try to sell some line of baloney about it.

 

[Desdichado]

Tyrlaan, what is your quibble? What is the significance of "house rules"? Why are they "sometimes not valid", and who is the judge? If I call myself "Thaumaturgist Games" or something and put out a book with the OGL in the back, does that make my rules more valid? Does it make them any better?

If you want to play that sub-game of the build, then of course you need the apparatus for it. If you want to get into number-crunching as your mode of play, then you need to know the numbers.

It doesn't have jack to do with the "individuality" of characters. That's not how we "play our roles" in real life!

That's a very vacuous argument. In real life, we all differ quite a bit. The "numbers game" as you (typically) dismissively call it, is a representation of those real life differences. So you're wrong; that is how we play our roles in real life. Or at least, it's a representation of how we do.

In any case, since you claim that you have mechanical support to suggest the differences between, to use two examples from this thread, 1) a howling barbarian from the steppes, and 2) a glib swashbuckler, I'm curious to see you describe what mechanical support exactly you're talking about. How do you give them mechanical individualism?

 

[Ariosto]

How do you give them mechanical individualism?

However needed! It's not an abstract affair but a situational one, and it's nothing with which the player need be concerned. If you want to howl, then howl; swash your buckler if you have one.

That's the difference. Prefer whichever you prefer; there's no need to "justify" it with absurd claims.

So you're wrong; that is how we play our roles in real life.

Maybe you do, so you can demonstrate. All the people of whom I have heard walk and talk, look and listen, love and fight, without consulting a list of "stats" at each step.

 

[Ariosto]

The "numbers game" as you (typically) dismissively call it, is a representation of those real life differences.

I don't recall having used that phrase at all, and I am certainly not dismissive of the rules-heavier game any more than someone who prefers it instead is dismissive of the rules-lighter game. The game of builds, and the game of manipulating abstract factors (rather than perceived phenomena) in encounters, is a fine kind of game.

It is one I often enjoy, more (but not exclusively) in war games. Appreciating it -- or any one of many other possible features -- in some RPGs does not make it incumbent upon me to want it in every RPG. I do not find my D&D game improved by the addition, any more than I would consider my RuneQuest game better for dumping skill ratings or adding a character-class system.

I am not in quest of a "Platonic ideal system" at all, much less bent on forcing D&D into such a mold.

Frisbees, hula hoops and roller skates are dandy. In my opinion, the lack of them does not impoverish the game of baseball.

The representation, the mechanical model, of the imagined world is no more necessarily something with which to encumber players than is the program code of a computer game. If you prefer to play by typing and compiling, then have your fun. What's the bug up your butt about other people preferring just to play their "first person shooter" in the first person, by just pointing and shooting?

 

[tyrlaan]

There's nothing wrong with happening to prefer that. Just don't try to sell some line of baloney about it.

Allow me to reiterate that I am trying to make a point about a style of play. I have not dubbed any method of playing badwrongfun. I have not said anything about your style of play other than to suggest it may be different than what I am talking about. If I have somewhere slighted you, by all means point it out to me because I'm just not seeing it.

Do you assume that, in my game, if your character were a project manager, then that would NOT be on his resume? Why not? That is simply not the difference.

To perhaps drive home my point, I assume little about your game. I don't play in your game, so all I know is what you state here. I have no knowledge of where you would define the cut-off between that which is considered necessary on the real-life "character sheet" vs. that which is considered unnecessary baggage.

Telling me "of course you'd have project manager on your character sheet" doesn't counter my argument because you're just missing or dodging the point. Would my example be better served if I stated that underneath project manager I had listed examples of successful projects managed? Ones that could be "challenged" by a call to my former employer. Would they be on a character sheet in your game?

If we're to have a meaningful conversation about this we have to start on the same wavelength, which means a better handle on what you'd consider relevant to the character sheet of real life.

From your reply to Hobo:

However needed! It's not an abstract affair but a situational one, and it's nothing with which the player need be concerned. If you want to howl, then howl; swash your buckler if you have one.

That's the difference. Prefer whichever you prefer; there's no need to "justify" it with absurd claims.

One, could you provide situational examples? To be honest, I'm just not following your comments here and examples would be helpful for me to understand where you're coming from.

Two, can you explain what absurd claims you're referring to?

A final comment with regards to the below quote:

The representation, the mechanical model, of the imagined world is no more necessarily something with which to encumber players than is the program code of a computer game. If you prefer to play by typing and compiling, then have your fun. What's the bug up your butt about other people preferring just to play their "first person shooter" in the first person, by just pointing and shooting?

I'm not sure we're even arguing the same topic as each other. By what you wrote above, it reads to me as you're suggesting a game can be as complex as it wants to be as long as the player can just sit down and say "I do X" and "X" happens (or Y or Z depending on factors of course). In other words, the GM must be a master of all complexity the game contains and the player can merely attend and purely roleplay all their actions. The GM rolls the dice, figures out the modifiers, holds the character sheets, etc. Am I understanding you correctly?

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

However needed! It's not an abstract affair but a situational one, and it's nothing with which the player need be concerned. If you want to howl, then howl; swash your buckler if you have one.

Let's try this again: How do you give those two characters mechanical individualism. Can the howling barbarian mechanically do anything that the swashbuckler can't do, and vice versa? They can both howl, they can both pick up a buckler and swash it, whatever that means -- great, I can create as much individuality playing WoW characters.

What matters is what happens when the barbarian and the swashbuckler want to do something beyond everyday rudimentary tasks like howling and rattling a buckler. For example, does the barbarian have a +5 bonus to, or any extra ability related to, climb stuff as he did as a child? Or does he need to roll a 10 to climb a rocky wall just like the swashbuckler? When the two characters are on a ship and pitched battle begins, does the swashbuckler have a +5 bonus to, or any extra ability related to, keeping his footing on the rolling deck/in the rigging like his player says he has experience with? Or does he have to roll a 15 to avoid loose cargo just like the barbarian does?

In my fave edition, characters can be actually different in more than just description, and it doesn't require vague and unspecified 'house rule' hand waves. And that's why I say that OD&D (or whatever it was) is more limited than 4e/3e.