Mature Gaming- Are we too rules oriented?

[Desdichado]

DNP, you have to have noted BelenUmeria's posting habits to see how the two are entwined. BU has made it clear in other posts in the past that he thinks d20 is too rules heavy, and that many of his problems with either the system or his games have been attributed to that percieved flaw.

In a way, I can see where he's coming from, as there are rules for too many things that should be GM judgement calls in D&D, I believe. There's the danger, for those unusual beings who are anal about every single rule and interpretation thereof every printed, for what he's worrying about to come to pass.

For me, a "mature" gamer is one who can look past the rules for the sake of the game. By playing with mature gamers, I find that rules are often handwaved to a greater or lesser extent and nobody questions or even necessarily notices. Arguing, or being pedantic and nit-picky about rules hardly strikes me as mature behavior, so the problem described seems like it -- by default -- shouldn't interfere with mature gaming.

 

[Dinkeldog]

*snip*
Unfortunately, no set of "rules" can provide this environment. At least, none of the books on the shelf or announced come close to helping people develop a "mature" game. At one point, I worked for a D20 company that was developing books of this type. The books were rules light (less crunch, lots of fluff). However, the material did not generate enough interest for investors and we never got off the ground.

You could always have gone the .pdf route, you know.

I hear a lot of people on the boards talk about a desire for mature material. However, I have not seen much that would classify as "mature." Evil and sex or both areas that could be done in a mature manner. However, the rules for said things focus on game mechanics rather than providing GMs with the tools to run deeper games.

I begin to wonder if "crunch=good" has come to rule the d20 market. Why are we seeking rules to run a deeper game? Laziness perhaps?

No amount of rules will make a game "mature." That has to come from the GMs and players. A necrophiliac spell or a vestal virgin really does not add to the game. Yes, a GM could use the spell or class to add some more flavor to villains, but is that the way to go.

Hmmm. I'd almost argue that no second-hand advice can give people the maturity to handle sensitive subjects. Instead, the ability to handle the subjects comes naturally with experience. To that end, I'd say that the crunchy stuff actually can help someone with the experience, that doesn't have time to come up with necrophiliac spells or vestal virgin prestige classes.

Why do NPCs need classes to define who they are? If you want an evil person, would not motives, desires, goals and attitude be more effective?

The books we need to have produced that would lead to more mature games would and should be more fluff than rules. For instance, a true book of vile darkness would discuss motives, madness, reasons that people choose evil such as bad childhoods etc. A book that would add to mature games would discuss love, marriage, family and child-rearing etc. A "rule" book that would lead to mature games would include fantasy economics, size of cities, how spells affected the way a world runs etc.

Crunch will never satisfy those people looking to have mature DnD games. Only a combination of fluff and group dynamics will lead to a deeper game.

Really, I think only the group dynamics are necessary. Or rather, the fluff can be nice, but the group dynamics are essential. In the meantime, although I haven't picked it up myself, Expeditious Retreat's Magical Medieval Society may help you out with the information on fantasy econ, cities, and the like. Everyone that's read it seems to rave about it.

In the meantime, I seem to recognize a deepseated trend in your posts that you make factual statements based on yourself and want to apply them to everyone everywhere. Honestly, I don't need a book of fluffy stuff--I could incorporate various levels of violence, religion, politics, and sexuality (mature subjects) without needing someone to tell me how. Some mechanics, feats, spells, and other assorted crunchy stuff give me what I need--another mind that approaches the subjects from an angle different from myself..

I know this to be true, yet I still want someone to produce a book that will make this all easier for me.

You said you've already gotten together to produce the book. So there you have it.

 

[Belen]

Psych books are all well and fun, but they do not cover a work where magic is a possibility.

I include crunch, simplely because we're seeing a lot of crunchy rules that are supposed to used in "mature" games, but they really do not help create a mature gaming environment.

And I am only using the BoVD and BoEF stuff as an example because that is pretty much the only examples of "mature" content that I have heard about.

I know, Henry, but I just cannot keep track of ALL the d20 publishers these days. The first year was fine, but I got lost after that.

Dave

 

[Wombat]

I'm always puzzled by the word "mature". I mean, I am 44 years old and people tell me that I am "mature" and "immature" at the oddest times, even relating to my love of rpgs.

Now does "mature" mean "taking responsibility for one's own actions"? or does it mean "it's okay to talk about sex"? or does it mean "we are also reasonable individuals who can all get along and decide matters without subscribing to a set of written rules"? Almost any of these could apply, at one point or another.

I tend to be pretty flippant about rules in my games; I keep to the absolute basics, but throw out many specifics if the flow of the story is going well with my particular group. This is also a reason we don't use battleboards and miniatures very often. OTOH there are a lot of rules I don't throw out. Again, a lot of this is dependent on the situation.

If I am less interested in rules, why do I play something as rules-intensive as D&D? Quite simply because I had a hard time mustering general interest in Over the Edge and Nobilis (or, for that matter, in Ars Magica, which can also get pretty rules intenstive if you let it). It is easy to get people to join in D&D because it is such a "brand name". Now I am slowly corrupting my players into the idea that other games are okay.

But rules are neither "good" nor "bad". I have played in rules-intenstive games where I have had a lot of fun and rules-lite sessions that were run poorly. Some people like my style of play; others loath it. Those who don't like it tend to leave pretty quickly and find other games that pay stricter attention to the rules. Those who do like it are more than welcome to stay. That is good, both for them and for me.

Personally, I think that is pretty "mature" attitude.

 

[Default Name Player]

DNP, you have to have noted BelenUmeria's posting habits to see how the two are entwined. BU has made it clear in other posts in the past that he thinks d20 is too rules heavy, and that many of his problems with either the system or his games have been attributed to the rules-heavy problem.

Ah, thanks for some of the background Joshua . I was scratching my head reading his initial post in this thread, and wondering if I somehow missed the connection between some of the paragraphs.

 

[Desdichado]

If I am less interested in rules, why do I play something as rules-intensive as D&D? Quite simply because I had a hard time mustering general interest in Over the Edge and Nobilis (or, for that matter, in Ars Magica, which can also get pretty rules intenstive if you let it). It is easy to get people to join in D&D because it is such a "brand name". Now I am slowly corrupting my players into the idea that other games are okay.

See, I play it because with familiarity, the rules become increasingly transparent. Also, because d20 is flexible and you can make an assumption about what the rule should be and 95% of the time, you'll be right.

 

[Belen]

Hmm...people are analyzing my previous posts now. Not sure if I am glad that people remember me or worried about whether I come off as an idiot or not.

Actually, it is just easier to relate things to myself or throw out personal experiences when making an argument. I do fully write my own material, including the fluff that I was discussing in my previous messages.

Rules can be good too, but I routinely break them in my games. Ie. Having spell effects or the like without providing a rules explanation. ("No, I am not going to tell you why or how the magical wall that keeps the bad guys in works. Just suspend your disbelief darn it.")

Of course, you have to be sure not to go overboard. And not to use such things against the players. It becomes too Deux Ex, then the players don't trust you and the game ends about that point.

Personally, I am not against rules or even an advocate of rules light systems. I just think that rules should cover some things and leave other things up to the GM. A book of guidelines for RP encounters and a book that help GMs flesh out their NPCs and worlds would be nice. Instead of a vestal virgin PrC, just create a religion that includes such and be happy.

Show it, don't tell it as they say in writing class.

This primarily helps new GMs. It took me years to develop all the skills I needed to do it on my own. It would be nice for younger/ newer players to not have to go through the same process.

 

[Desdichado]

Yeah, but the presence of rules for things that should be "shown, not told" doesn't invalidate anyone's "maturity" in relation to gaming. Sometimes you want there to be a mechanical consideration for such things as vestal virgins. Sometimes you don't need that at all.

That doesn't mean I have to say that the presence of such a class is cramping my style in any way. More options is always a good thing, even if you're going to ignore 99% of the options available. But that just means the 1% that you do want to use are there for you.

Also, don't assume that everyone is on the same development path you went through in regards to gaming. Although I'm sure you're very happy where you are, other people are very happy to not be where you are. Your way of doing things isn't necessarily "mature", it's just your way of doing things -- i.e., the one best suited to your personality and taste.

 

[Belen]

Josh,

I love d20 and do not mind the rules. I am just an advocate of not adding more rules to quantify every situation.

Eventually we will have die rolls to see if you love your kid, or a will save to see if you cheat on your wife, rather than letting a character RP it.

And people will still say, "it helps less social people do things that they could not do in real life."

Isn't the point of DnD to do things that you cannot do in real life?

Dave

 

[Henry]

I know, Henry, but I just cannot keep track of ALL the d20 publishers these days. The first year was fine, but I got lost after that.

It's true that the proliferation of d20 products are difficult to keep up with - In which case, I would suggest you might want to check out the above books I mentioned, if you are in need of works covering these topics. If they fit the bill you are looking for, then you would know what to recommend to others who have the same difficulty finding products covering them.

My point was that these subjects ARE covered in the above RPG products, without a lot of rules "crunch," and some of them quite well. Or is it your specific point that WotC doesn't cover these subjects officially?