Iron Heroes threaten my GM style of low magic items...

[Bastoche]

I'm not sure how you can argue that 2e is simulationist when 2e assumes that the DM fudges die rolls. I can see the arguement that GURPS is simulationist, but not 2e. Narrativist, sure, but not simulationist. Far too many elements in 2e are arbitrary and make little sense even in the context of the setting.

Dice fudging is not necessarily non-simulationist. However to clearly answer your question, I would have to take a better look at the rules. I'm pretty sure it's not narrativist at all.

Having tried to run games similar to this using 3.5 rules and running upside the wall that is 3.5 mechanics, I can say that a political, non-combat game set in FR without any house rules would be an abysmal failure. Well house ruled, sure, it can work very, very well. But, as a RAW game? Not likely. 3.5 mechanics just aren't set up to run this type of game very well.

That's exactly what I was saying earlier. We are currently playing such a campaign and since we hit level 8 or so (we are now level 12) it's a disaster. The story and campaign itself is great but each session we have about a 1 hour argument because of the system. 3E for politics is a mess because of the underemphasis on skills, the overpowerfulness of spells at higher levels and the sheer dependance on magic items. One would expect the rogue to be the best fitted for such a game. Not so. The rogue and the monk does the job in combat (which doesn't happen too often) and out of combat, the divination, transportation, etc spells of the wizard and cleric does ALL the job. Frustrating and shallow IMO.

 

[LostSoul]

I could see a high-level diplomacy game in D&D being played out like a tactical spell-casting/diplomacy match. See who can get the most information out of the other guys (via a whole bunch of spells, and diplomacy) and then apply it to the relevant situation first.

It would be hard for me to design an adventure like that. What's the CR of discovering the King's Hidden Secret?

 

[InzeladunMaster]

I have had similar experiences with 3E DnD. I tried the low-magic thing and it didn't work, so I just played it RAW and felt a bit disappointed at the uselessness of skills and the incredible power of magic.

I have since switched to Conan the Roleplaying Game and it works wonderfully, even at high levels. Skills have become paramount to survival, which is what I was looking for.

I am not saying Conan is necessarily the answer for everyone wanting a "low-magic" game, but that I agree with the comments that state that if you want a different type of game, you should play a different game - or else you will be doing a lot of never-ending tweaking. There are a lot of options out there.

 

[Odhanan]

IRT Bastoche - For me D&D is:

"A party of adventurers assemble to seek fame and fortune. They leave civilization for a location of extreme danger. They fight monsters and overcome obstacles and acquire new abilities and items of power. Afterwards they return to civilization and sell the phat loot. Next week, they do it all over again."

That's what it's all about, since OD&D up to this day (for instance, the difference with Iron Heroes is with "and aquire new abilities and items of power" ). That's this core story that binds every single incarnation of the game together and what I, -I-, understand when someone tells me "D&D".

What I didn't like in your comments is the way you assume people don't know better. You have your own conception of what D&D may be, or rather what this or that edition of the game does, and you assume these are right. For me, playing RPGs is the same thing as playing guitar (I do both as well) or drawing or painting or acting... actually, it may use bits of all these activities together. Like you, I played most of D&D's incarnations, and far from only D&D when it comes to RPG. Again, what annoys me is the way you assume people don't know, or rather that you know better than anyone else.

You say people are free to disagree, but imply they would be wrong anyway. Well, let me disagree, then.

I'm down with Bastoche on the argument here. However, instead of saying "D&D is this", I'd say that D&D (3.x) has been designed with a specific type of game play in mind.

Let's be clear: I do agree on this.

 

[Bastoche]

IRT Bastoche - For me D&D is:

"A party of adventurers assemble to seek fame and fortune. They leave civilization for a location of extreme danger. They fight monsters and overcome obstacles and acquire new abilities and items of power. Afterwards they return to civilization and sell the phat loot. Next week, they do it all over again."

That's what it's all about, since OD&D up to this day (for instance, the difference with Iron Heroes is with "and aquire new abilities and items of power" ). That's this core story that binds every single incarnation of the game together and what I, -I-, understand when someone tells me "D&D".

What I didn't like in your comments is the way you assume people don't know better. You have your own conception of what D&D may be, or rather what this or that edition of the game does, and you assume these are right. For me, playing RPGs is the same thing as playing guitar (I do both as well) or drawing or painting or acting... actually, it may use bits of all these activities together. Like you, I played most of D&D's incarnations, and far from only D&D when it comes to RPG. Again, what annoys me is the way you assume people don't know, or rather that you know better than anyone else.

You say people are free to disagree, but imply they would be wrong anyway. Well, let me disagree, then.

For the record, I agree with your definition. I tend to include the medieval fantasy part to precise it some more but it may be just me. You definition is as precise about "D&D" as I would like it to be.

IMO, what seems like my condescending tone is related to the proliferations of "Playing group problem" threads we see on this board. No such thread ever adress this issue which is a lethal trap IMO. They make suggestions assuming everyone plays like them. The point I want to emphasis is that - in order to have "fun", a group of players has to ensure everyone is around the table knowing what "game" they are to play. Like many peoples rightfully pointed out, using the PHB, DMG and MM 3.5 allow people to play different "games". I think these threads shouldn't be about game tactics but rather "problem diagnosis". This "eureka" that Lost_soul talked of. To use a "rules forum" argument, playing 3.5E RAW assumes a certain campaign type. And playing a different type of campaign makes any if not most if not all RAW arguments pointless.

It took me 8 levels of a 1+ year of campaign played regularly once per week plus readings on the forge to understand that. If my posts can lit some other lights, I will have reached my goal. Identifying each player's creative agenda saves time, troubles and probably event friendships!

 

[Odhanan]

I understand your point much better now, Bastoche. Thanks for clearing everything up!

This "eureka" that Lost_soul talked of. To use a "rules forum" argument, playing 3.5E RAW assumes a certain campaign type. And playing a different type of campaign makes any if not most if not all RAW arguments pointless.

Weird. I see what you mean but for me, back in the day when playing OD&D and/or AD&D it was sort of implied for me. But then, I've never been a huge advocate of RAW. I hinted at my conception of D&D/RPGs (running, playing and/or designing them) as a craft(s), or a metacraft using bits of other crafts, or both and more. For me, the rules of game always have been tips as to "how to run the game as we (the game's designers) think it's supposed to be played". After you come up with houserules and whatnot, with the idea that things are presented and organized in a rulebook/rules system in some way that's supposed to make sense. So you can modify things by looking at how the system works carefully.

Bottom line, I think most of the RAW arguments ought to be much shorter than they are on most D&D fora, because there should be this assumption that people aren't playing exactly the same game. This is the nature of RPGs to empower players and GMs as co-designers of the game. What you get with a rulebook is the tool to achieve the finished product (game sessions), never the finished product itself.

 

[Bastoche]

Weird. I see what you mean but for me, back in the day when playing OD&D and/or AD&D it was sort of implied for me. But then, I've never been a huge advocate of RAW. I hinted at my conception of D&D/RPGs (running, playing and/or designing them) as a craft(s), or a metacraft using bits of other crafts, or both and more. For me, the rules of game always have been tips as to "how to run the game as we (the game's designers) think it's supposed to be played". After you come up with houserules and whatnot, with the idea that things are presented and organized in a rulebook/rules system in some way that's supposed to make sense. So you can modify things by looking at how the system works carefully.

IMO and from what I gather in the opinion of folks over there at the forge, the reason is because OD&D and AD&D was, to put in simply, so flawed in it's final stage that house ruling was mandatory, the norm. Then every "healty" group of players (players with the same creative agenda) changed the game to their liking. The problem then was that as soon as you played with another group, there was a VERY high chance that "thier" D&D was much different then "yours". Problems could occur there. 3E changed that by being the first functional version of D&D because it was created with a specific creative agenda in mind. If you play raw the "kick in the door" campaign style, you never encounter any problems. If you use the more consistent 3E rule set with your old O-AD&D habits, you're probably fine too.

Bottom line, I think most of the RAW arguments ought to be much shorter than they are on most D&D fora, because there should be this assumption that people aren't playing exactly the same game. This is the nature of RPGs to empower players and GMs as co-designers of the game. What you get with a rulebook is the tool to achieve the finished product (game sessions), never the finished product itself.

I agree to some extend. However, at the Forge, poeple could give names and define specific RPG concept that makes this whole process a whole lotta easier. Many topics in the house rule section concerns itself mostly with color (genre, like aragorn-like ranger vs PHB ranger, alignement issue, "flashiness" of D&D spells etc) and what I understand to be a "I'm a simulationist player and I'm going to drift 3E heavily" (and lose myself in the process).

Before adressing gaming group problems to any forum, a "frustrated" player should first try to sort if

1) everybody is playing the same game
2) if not, could they ever play the same game
3) is D&D suited to their style.

Most players are "naturally" gamists or narrativists. Learning to play 2E is hard for most people because it's neither. 3E is gamist so that one is relatively easy to pick up. Playing a political combat-less game could be gamists too, but 3E doesn't do it well (IMO and/or without house ruling). That's just one example.

Ron Edwards' "Big Model" should be the first thing adressed by a gaming group before ever starting to play. I'd even say before even choosing a game/rules set.

 

[Zelgar]

Bastoche...

I agree with your final post that whenever there is a problem with the game, you need to communicate with your players. I disagree that you cannot post before the discussion, as many DM's & players have gotten good advice for why they should or shouldn't change their stance on the argument.

IMHO, it appeared to me that you were attacking the posters and not the problem in this forum. Just because a group is not following your ideas of how a D&D game should be run does not make it wrong or violate the rules. In fact, many of the discussions around here are because of problems with following all of the aspects of RAW. D&D/d20 can work in practically every genre of role playing, but it's not a perfect system (and I doubt if there will ever be one). The game has some assumptions, and the more you get away from them, the more work there is for the DM. If the DM does not want or have the time to make the changes needed, there are published materials available (e.g., Conan OGL, IH). He'll have to make a decision to see if the new material is worth the time, effort & $ versus making up his own material.

I've read in many GM/DM sources, it is always easier for a new DM to limit the PC's in one way or another (e.g., magic, magic items, cash). By limiting the PC's, they have fewer options to exploit. Of course, some players may chafe at these limits, but as long as most everyone is having fun, there's no reason to change until the DM feels confortable. Too many games have gone down the drain because the DM has given the PC's too much power. It is always easier to give a little more than to try to take things back from the PC's.

Zelgar

 

[Hussar]

Cool beans. I can really see where you guys are coming from on this. And, truly, thanks a lot for that link to the Forge. There was some really interesting stuff there and I've barely scratched the surface.

Really, I think Bastoche does make a very good point. One of the biggest problems with trying to discuss the game is because people start from such very different stances that conversation becomes difficult, if not outright impossible. In order to discuss a topic in any meaninful way, everyone needs to understand exactly what is being discussed. Trying to solve a narrativist issue with gamist tactics won't generally work.

At least, that's what I'm pulling from this. It's a very good thing to keep in mind.

 

[Aus_Snow]

at the Forge, poeple could give names and define specific RPG concept that makes this whole process a whole lotta easier.

Not just at the Forge, actually. I've read enough of g/n/s theory in times past to a) understand what that's about, and b) see that there's a lot of very similar discussion that occurs elsewhere, on the internet and in real life - generally using different terms, but even so. Also, keep in mind that there are certain paradigms that are favoured there, and that those are not the only ones with any validity to all people.

It seems, Bastoche, that you've had negative experiences in a heavily political D&D 3.5 campaign. I assume it's occurred to you that others may have had better fortune than you in similar situations? Either way, some have.

It's just that when you posted that anecdote, it suddenly put some of your previous claims in something of a different light.

To use a "rules forum" argument, playing 3.5E RAW assumes a certain campaign type.

What on Earth is a "rules forum" argument that isn't a rules argument, particularly when it's not in a "rules forum"? No seriously, what is it?