Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="BluSponge" data-source="post: 2388447" data-attributes="member: 916">Maybe.  But if the shoe fits.  (As to your players, I don't know them, so for all I know they are super-geniuses who plot world domination between coke breaks.)[snip]That's all well and good -- the interests of the players should be taken into consideration when choosing the game.  Of course, if I was a big Hero fan, and all my players were happy (even Rob, though he doesn't want to deal with magic), I probably would have kept playing it.  But that's neither here nor there.(And, BTW, YOU weren't limiting his options by playing HERO, ROB was limiting his options because HE didn't want to invest the time to grok the magic rules.  Don't take up the blame for the decisions of other people.)[snip again]I'd say its an apples and oranges argument.  Sure, player preference has to be a consideration when choosing the game to play (as does the DM's preference -- I notice you didn't switch to GURPS or Rolemaster when you dropped HERO).  however, there is a big difference (IMHO) between players who have difficulty grasping the mechanics of the system and feeling intimidated by wide open spaces.The original poster said he players never tried to grapple, bull-rush, or trip before 3e.  Understandable, since two of these are tactical options with specific sub-system rules.  But my point is, they could have done this before -- particularly in a rules lite game -- without need of these subsystems.  Here you have a clear example of the playing to the rules as opposed to the situation.  It also goes back to the hamstringing example I mentioned.  3e, does not have called shots, so in order to perform a specific action like hamstringing, you need a feat (by the book, anyway).  Now, with a game system with less rule-constriction, the players and GM are free to get out of this mindset.  That's what I was getting at with the outside-of-the-box comment.  It's not to say they are playing wrong (and I didn't say they had, which was why I was surprised by your earlier post), only that the limits on their actions are completely artifical and that doesn't speak to any strength of DnD, or any other game system for that matter.  I would say, however, that it is a weakness of DnD that it encourages that kind of play.  My evidence for that is mostly anecdotal, granted, but I've seen it more often than not.So are people.   <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devious.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":]" title="Devious    :]" data-shortname=":]" /> No, really, you are right.  Certainly if the players don't "get" the game, it may be best to switch gears and try something else.  I have a couple of games on my shelf I'd love to run, but I just don't have the right crowd of players.  However I've also found that the GM sets the example for play in his game.  If players are playing to the rules, its a fair bet the GM is too.  The best way to get them out of the box is to burn it down, stomp on it, and sell them fragments as souvenirs.    <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> Tom</blockquote>

Verification