Know what bothers me about d20?: Not very much.

[Psion]

I guess that puts me in the minority, huh?

Not likely. Remember 3e was based on a lot of market surveying and playtesting, perhaps more than any rpg ever. I suspect many major rules rants come from the periphery.

 

[Krieg]

I guess that puts me in the minority, huh?

Not at all, you're just as pugnacious as anyone.

Call me crazy but when I peruse the general forum I don't see anywhere near the number of anti 3.x rules rants that I saw a few years ago.

Where are all the "The Cleric/Dwarves is/are Broken!", "The Orc/Ranger got the shaft!", "Sorcerers/Wizards are under/overpowered compared to Wizards/Sorcerers!", "Harm is twinked!", "Skinny Halflings suxxors" and "Why more munchkin Elves?!" etcetera, etcetera, etcetera that were continously vomited forth?

These days I see far fewer irrational d20 rules rants & far more folks looking to tweak specific areas of the rules to better fit their wants/needs.

 

[scourger]

Awesome. I love the d20 system. I have no desire to run anything else at the moment and little desire to play oher games.

 

[Mr. Lobo]

We've had a few rules discussion conversations and minor conflicts in our games. But we always do our best to discuss what we view as problems and come to a quick decision about what we deem fair and then move on.

Sounds like a decent group you have. Thanks for addressing the point.

 

[Rel]

Sounds like a decent group you have. Thanks for addressing the point.

Not a problem. I think that one of the things that makes our group work (aside from the fact that we're all lifelong friends) is that we don't hold onto our annoyances about the system. If an unexpected rule conflict rears its head then we have a tacit understanding that, unless it involves the possible death of a PC, the GM will make a non-binding snap ruling that does not set a precedent. After the game we'll look into it more carefully, make our cases and let the GM decide the ruling he wants to use for the course of the campaign.

But I see a difference between "rules disputes" and "rules you just don't like". One of the guys in our group is vaguely annoyed by the Vancian magic system. He likes spell points and so forth better. But he understands that this is just a personal gripe with the system and not a major annoyance to everybody else in the group. He therefore does not launch into a new tirade about it every time the Wizard casts a spell. He just embraces it and works with it, deriving his enjoyment of the game from other aspects of it. If, when he gets around to GMing next, he wishes to house rule it to something else then that's his option.

I guess the threads that get me down are never the ones where somebody says, "I didn't like the way that the X part of the system worked so I fixed it to my liking by doing Y. If it bothers you too then I'm happy to share my fix..." What bugs me are the ones where people are saying, "I hate this part of the system and you should too. They'd better fix this in 4E!"

My point is that life is too damn short to play games that don't give you enjoyment. If you dislike something that badly then why the hell are you waiting around for them to fix it in 4E?! Fix it yourself. People here will help you. But don't then complain that you can't get anybody to play using your variant rules because they like the RAW better. Because that's the point where you've just got to understand that your vision of what a good RPG system should be is simply at odds with what most people prefer. So either try and live with something more mainstream, keep hunting for players who are like-minded or take up a new hobby.

Bitching about it endlessly here is not doing you any good and I think it makes you look bad.

 

[Saeviomagy]

He just embraces it and works with it, deriving his enjoyment of the game from other aspects of it. If, when he gets around to GMing next, he wishes to house rule it to something else then that's his option.

If everyone plays towards the goal of fun, then ANY game will be fun. Really. The rules SO don't matter.

You get rules arguements (real rules arguments) when someone isn't playing towards the goal of fun. And usually it just takes one person to blow it. At that point - if the rules are fun, then the problem will go away. If the rules are not fun, you get arguments and rants.

That should be the core mantra of game design. "We want to get rid of unfun".

 

[FireLance]

That should be the core mantra of game design. "We want to get rid of unfun".

Unfortunately, everyone has different ideas of unfun.

For some people, rolling Search checks over and over again just to be sure you've found everything is unfun. For others, the idea that characters can "automatically" find everything that they can find by taking 20 is unfun.

For some people, not being able to buy and sell magic items is unfun. For others, being able to buy and sell magic items is unfun.

For some people, failing a Bluff, Diplomacy or Intimidate check because they are socially inept in real life is unfun. For others, resolving a social situation by rolling dice instead of role-playing is unfun.

For some people, a game session in which the players do nothing but talk to NPCs is unfun. For others, a game session in which the players do nothing but fight monsters is unfun.

The best games happen when people with the same ideas of fun (or who are at least able to tolerate other peoples' ideas of fun, when they are different from their own) play together.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Unfortunately, everyone has different ideas of unfun.

The best games happen when people with the same ideas of fun (or who are at least able to tolerate other peoples' ideas of fun, when they are different from their own) play together.

I'd agree with that - especially the tolerance bit.

However I'm one of those people that think (and generally notice) that people have less fun in a game when they attempt something that seems like a reasonable thing to do, and you tell them "no, you can't do that". I also think it's possible to have rules that cater to that.

 

[FireLance]

However I'm one of those people that think (and generally notice) that people have less fun in a game when they attempt something that seems like a reasonable thing to do, and you tell them "no, you can't do that". I also think it's possible to have rules that cater to that.

Hate to sound like a broken record, but people have different ideas of "reasonable" too, depending on whether they want to simulate historical accuracy, Conan, The Lord of the Rings, The Mummy and The Mummy Returns, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Hero, etc.

Maybe what we should do is have a "realism" factor for campaigns on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 means nothing that couldn't happen in the real world, and 10 means anything goes.