I agree with Valiant about "playing blind". It seems to work for a lot of players learning the game -- they don't need to know how things work mechanically, just how to play their guy, as more experienced players and the DM warn them about AOO, explain the double move concept, show them which dice to roll, etc.
As a DM, I've taught a lot of friends the game . . . this seems the only practical way to do, rather than handling somebody the PHB and saying go memorize it. It was also works well with "returnees" coming from AD&D to 3.*e. For the one player coming from WOW, it didn't work out, but I think it was also a "speed of the game" issue for her.
But anyhow, I think this whole argument comes down to two different views on D&D.
- View 1: The hippy view. D&D is a total immersion experience. The rules are not as important as the feel being right. The DM inventing new rules that feel right is fine. If a DM says "no plate mail in my campaign", it's not a big deal. I played in an AD&D game with no metal at all -- that was interesting, not handicapping, because the game is about having fun and "exploring the world", not winning and following rules. In this view, the DM & players are cooperative, a band making a song, not playing against each other. It's not "cheating" for the DM to have different rules or riff on new ideas as he's going along. And win or lose, live or die, isn't necessarily the point -- it's having fun playing together with your friends that counts. For players, it's character and story driven, and rules guide or are fitted to character concepts, not something that's min-maxed to make the most efficient build. In this world, a character might wear bronze armor (even though the stats are weaker) because they're a visitor from a bronze-age culture, and they like ancient Greek stuff.
- View 2: The engineer view. D&D is a game, which means it's based on rules, which must be followed like a software program. If the rules are not followed precisely and known in advance to all participants, the game is wonky and the referee is cheating. The role of the DM is not author or creator, but central processing unit, which is given direct input, makes calculations, and generates the appropriate outputs with no unwanted "creative accounting". Like any game, the point of playing D&D is to win. Both in the PvDM sense of defeating all the monsters and getting their stuff, and in the PvP of leveling up fastest and having the best (most efficient) "build". In this world, a character would only wear bronze armor if they knew there were rust monsters about.
I think both views exist in all editions, but the 1st view is likely more common with old schoolers, and the 2nd view is more common with people who grew up with computer versions of RPG's.
I'm very much of the 1st view . . .
As a DM, I've taught a lot of friends the game . . . this seems the only practical way to do, rather than handling somebody the PHB and saying go memorize it. It was also works well with "returnees" coming from AD&D to 3.*e. For the one player coming from WOW, it didn't work out, but I think it was also a "speed of the game" issue for her.
But anyhow, I think this whole argument comes down to two different views on D&D.
- View 1: The hippy view. D&D is a total immersion experience. The rules are not as important as the feel being right. The DM inventing new rules that feel right is fine. If a DM says "no plate mail in my campaign", it's not a big deal. I played in an AD&D game with no metal at all -- that was interesting, not handicapping, because the game is about having fun and "exploring the world", not winning and following rules. In this view, the DM & players are cooperative, a band making a song, not playing against each other. It's not "cheating" for the DM to have different rules or riff on new ideas as he's going along. And win or lose, live or die, isn't necessarily the point -- it's having fun playing together with your friends that counts. For players, it's character and story driven, and rules guide or are fitted to character concepts, not something that's min-maxed to make the most efficient build. In this world, a character might wear bronze armor (even though the stats are weaker) because they're a visitor from a bronze-age culture, and they like ancient Greek stuff.
- View 2: The engineer view. D&D is a game, which means it's based on rules, which must be followed like a software program. If the rules are not followed precisely and known in advance to all participants, the game is wonky and the referee is cheating. The role of the DM is not author or creator, but central processing unit, which is given direct input, makes calculations, and generates the appropriate outputs with no unwanted "creative accounting". Like any game, the point of playing D&D is to win. Both in the PvDM sense of defeating all the monsters and getting their stuff, and in the PvP of leveling up fastest and having the best (most efficient) "build". In this world, a character would only wear bronze armor if they knew there were rust monsters about.
I think both views exist in all editions, but the 1st view is likely more common with old schoolers, and the 2nd view is more common with people who grew up with computer versions of RPG's.
I'm very much of the 1st view . . .
