perception of OD&D/AD&D as random deathtraps

[Raven Crowking]

Empirical evidence suggests to me that bad DMs suck no matter what ruleset they use.

Seconded.

 

[SavageRobby]

Empirical evidence suggests to me that bad DMs suck no matter what ruleset they use.

Seconded.

Thirded.

 

[SavageRobby]

Good design softens the blow of a bad DM. Written rules for task resolution lead to less arbitray decisions by the referee.

And here's an additional thought: perhaps you should just considering game more with good DMs, rather than constantly whinging about the bad ones?

Consider the many pewling posts here by bitter grognards bemoaning the loss of their unquestionable authority.

Its too bad that is how you see it, although I suspect this is more colored by your agenda than any real facts. The loss is not of unquestioned authority, the loss is of the flexibility and spontaneity. The more rules that exist governing what you can do, by extension, means there are more rules telling you what you can't do. As a "bitter grognard" I like games without that straitjacket - not because of rampant powermongering on my part as you would call it, but because the freedom that comes with finding ways to let players do fun, expected things (that your precious mounds of task resolution rules were clearly forbid) enhances a simple concept that you might be familiar with called "fun".

 

[Counterspin]

Task resolution rules are good because they allow the player to know what his odds are ahead of time, particularly with physical skills. You know what kind of surface you can climb, you know about how far you can jump. The resolution system doesn't prevent GMs from stepping in and saying "because it's cool I'll allow it." I played a very enjoyable game under 3.5 where the GM offered us bonuses for neat stunts because he wanted them to be the norm. Task resolution rules need not prevent stunts, but they are useful because they trivialize the resolution of more mundane tasks, streamlining play.

 

[SavageRobby]

Task resolution rules are good because they allow the player to know what his odds are ahead of time, particularly with physical skills. You know what kind of surface you can climb, you know about how far you can jump. The resolution system doesn't prevent GMs from stepping in and saying "because it's cool I'll allow it."

Isn't that simply an example of DM fiat? Or otherwise stated, are you saying that its okay if the DM breaks the rules, only if its in the character's favor?

 

[Gentlegamer]

I've often seen this posited here at ENWorld. I have yet to see any evidence that it is so. On the other hand I have had plenty of experiences with bad DMs running 3e games and they were just as bad as the bad experiences I had with 1e DMs. Empirical evidence suggests to me that bad DMs suck no matter what ruleset they use.

That would be anecdotal evidence, but I agree.

 

[Ourph]

That would be anecdotal evidence, but I agree.

Well, it's anecdotal to you, from my perspective, it's empirical.

(Especially since it really only takes one observation to disprove the claim that good rulesets compensate for bad DMs)

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Empirical evidence suggests to me that bad DMs suck no matter what ruleset they use.

Care to link your sources?

Good rules help shape the game. A well written rule set can help overcome some hurdles that are player based. Placing less power in the hands of one player results in them having a less harmful impact on the game as a whole.
Unless you tryuly believe that rules dont matter. In which case go nuts with World of Cynnibar.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

And here's an additional thought: perhaps you should just considering game more with good DMs, rather than constantly whinging about the bad ones?

I do. Namely myself. That doesnt change my experiences, or the fact that I regard many viewpoints of DM's here cringe worthy for the health of the game as a whole.

Its too bad that is how you see it, although I suspect this is more colored by your agenda than any real facts. The loss is not of unquestioned authority, the loss is of the flexibility and spontaneity. The more rules that exist governing what you can do, by extension, means there are more rules telling you what you can't do.

Not particularly. In 3e, you CAN trip something. The rules are spelled out, you know, more or less what to expect, etc. There are guidelines for certain things, which you can extrapolate to other actions. You have an idea of the baseline, rather than something pulled out of the DM's ass (and heavily biased on whether or not he wants it to succeed). In 1e, you might, if the DM was feeling charitable, and you washed his car. Again, its too much authority in one person's hands.

 

[thedungeondelver]

In 1e, you might, if the DM was feeling charitable, and you washed his car.

Can you please start dealing in facts instead of nonreality? Can you support this assertion in the least?