Players: it's your responsibility to carry a story.

[GregChristopher]

I'm not sure where house rules necessarily need to come into it. The thing about, say, a romance is that it's something that can be handled entirely by judgment calls or, if so inclined, the Charisma checks or skill checks that are entirely part of the game. Similarly, the other 90% of the game isn't necessarily being ignored or discarded. Tenser's Floating Disc may still be cast. Bar fights may break out. There may be a succubus. And I don't think there's a good authority on just how many percentile points of the book I must use before I'm no longer "playing that game" instead of just playing the same game in a very different style.

You can stand on a basketball court and juggle. You are not playing basketball.

I have to say I don't really appreciate the "if you don't play the game in the accepted way, why do you play this game at all instead of going off and playing some other game?" line of questioning. It reads to me a lot like "If you're not going to use beholders in your game, or if you're going to make green dragons breathe fire and be of neutral alignment, why don't you play another game instead of calling your house-ruled game D&D?"

False equivocation. Not using beholders in your game does not affect the fundamental flow, any more than wearing a funny hat. Playing D&D as a romance game DOES affect the fundamental flow in a profound way.

I'm benefiting from judgment calls. I'm not assuming that judgment calls are effortless for everyone, but I do think that every roleplaying game relies on them. A game that doesn't is probably run by a computer.

At a certain point, too many judgement calls becomes cowboys and indians. Thats why we have rules in the first place. To agree on a common basis for play.

 

[Hussar]

Old D&D is not about "running a story" of any sort. Events occur, and afterwards we may tell of them in the form of a romantic comedy, or a cautionary parable, or whatever form of narration we may choose.
/snip

See, this is where I'm having trouble. I just listened to an interview with Tracy Hickman at Fear the Boot. Great interview. Well worth the listen. But, Mr. Hickman started out with OD&D and into AD&D. From the very beginning, he claimed that his games were all about "running a story" that it's the movement away from running a story and towards what he calls minutia, that is the problem with RPG's today.

I think the thing is, even though Gary Gygax and co wrote a fairly specific game, people were subverting that text from the very first day. Players moved away from the very mechanistic approach to a game - you went from the town to the dungeon and then back to the town to rest, then back to the dungeon - that was outlined in the rules almost instantly.

Even reading Mr. Gygax's own words in the Q&A threads shows a distinct push towards story telling in his own games. There were very strong narratives going on - both promoted by the players and by the DM himself.

 

[anest1s]

Behind a bad player,there is a bad DM......which is something I thought after my first attempt to DM

However yeah, its players responsibility to carry a story...even if it isn't the one DM has planned. The DM makes the world, the players make the story. However its true most players will just sit around and do nothing- but thats because they aren't motivated enough (or because thats what they want since there are satisfied atm)

And by motivation I mean positive motivation, not terrorizing them or "hurting" them. Don't give a cookie just to take it back, instead show them the cookie and tell them where its hidden...suddenly they want a cookie, and they go after it


(I don't commend on the ongoing rule-setting-whatever argument, since I think you mostly agree anywayz )

 

[Ariosto]

No, it could be anything. Any friendly contacts, positions, etc. ... Any connections to the setting gained in play are rewards of play.

What I find interesting is that that isn't what I see when I look at my 1e PHB. There are explicit setting rewards (followers, castle) attached to the various levels.

Followers are associated with attainment of "name" level.

Recruitment of henchmen, employment of mercenaries and experts, construction of a castle, and the vast majority of human (or near-human) undertakings, are possible regardless of level.

Why dungeon adventures? I've not really seen a need for dungeons in 4e.

Yes, "Dungeoneering" skill is obviously there for trips to shopping malls. "Dungeons" & Dragons was just a misprint, an unfortunate error that has been the cause of much misunderstanding.

I for one welcome the imminent arrival of Gallerias & Grodiness Fifth Edition!

 

[Ariosto]

From the very beginning, he claimed that his games were all about "running a story"

There is a reason old D&Ders sometimes refer to "the Hickman Revolution".

 

[TarionzCousin]

Players, it's your "responsibility" to play.

Psst.

There is a subliminal message on how to avoid badwrongfun hidden in the color.

 

[Barastrondo]

You can stand on a basketball court and juggle. You are not playing basketball.

This looks more like a "You can play to a set point limit instead of using a time limit. You are not playing basketball" claim to me.

False equivocation. Not using beholders in your game does not affect the fundamental flow, any more than wearing a funny hat. Playing D&D as a romance game DOES affect the fundamental flow in a profound way.

All due respect, but I find them quite equivalent claims. If a D&D game involves group play, combat, puzzle-solving, even resource management in the form of money, magic and experience, and yet the characters' motivations are romance-based and the setting is more romantic in theme, the fundamental flow is not affected in a profound way. It's affected in a minimal way at best, no more profound than the difference between a party picking serious in-character names and personae and the difference between a party comprised of "Piggly Wiggly," "Kevin J. Ambrosius Ninja III," and "Sir Loin of the Twelve Ounces."

There are ways to play D&D as a romance game that do affect "the fundamental flow," yes. But not all of them do. The most famous romantic play in history is full of swordfights. A tremendous number of gamers look at The Princess Bride as relevant to, even worthy of emulation in gaming. The only flow that could be disrupted by any interpretation of "romance game" would have to be so narrow and restrictive that it really describes a personal table style more than "the game." And that's little different than a personal table style that mandates beholders.

At a certain point, too many judgement calls becomes cowboys and indians. Thats why we have rules in the first place. To agree on a common basis for play.

Now I'm a believer, but I'm not a fundamentalist. Rules are there to provide consistent and impartial judgment when it's necessary. Everything else can be summed up with Old Geezer's oft-quoted description of the old, old Lake Geneva playstyle: "We made up some [excrement] we thought was cool."

I guess the spirit of that guideline got lost in translation along the way when more people taught themselves to roleplay out of books instead of learning from other people. And tournament play may have changed things when it emerged, since you had the social dynamic of playing with strangers crop up more often. But honestly, if you're playing with friends and making up crap you think is cool? That is the heart of the game. Everything else is just barracks-room lawyering.

 

[Ariosto]

I guess the spirit of that guideline got lost in translation along the way when more people taught themselves to roleplay out of books instead of learning from other people.

A lot of stuff got pretty warped. Looking at the AD&D and later Basic books with some "mental lenses" to filter out the understanding I brought when I actually encountered them, I can see the muddle. I think it would be worse going straight to the Advanced volumes, which many people did.

 

[GregChristopher]

All due respect, but I find them quite equivalent claims. If a D&D game involves group play, combat, puzzle-solving, even resource management in the form of money, magic and experience, and yet the characters' motivations are romance-based and the setting is more romantic in theme, the fundamental flow is not affected in a profound way. It's affected in a minimal way at best, no more profound than the difference between a party picking serious in-character names and personae and the difference between a party comprised of "Piggly Wiggly," "Kevin J. Ambrosius Ninja III," and "Sir Loin of the Twelve Ounces."

There are ways to play D&D as a romance game that do affect "the fundamental flow," yes. But not all of them do. The most famous romantic play in history is full of swordfights. A tremendous number of gamers look at The Princess Bride as relevant to, even worthy of emulation in gaming. The only flow that could be disrupted by any interpretation of "romance game" would have to be so narrow and restrictive that it really describes a personal table style more than "the game." And that's little different than a personal table style that mandates beholders.

D&D has no rules for romance.

I hate to overuse basketball, but neither does basketball. You can have some homebrew basketball game that involves modifications to the rules. You can give 6 points for 3-pointers. Or 10 points per free throw. Or you can play with 10 players. But you are just modifying rules that exist. If you start altering the rules completely, you are playing a different game. Horse, 21, Steal the Bacon, etc. Those games are NOT basketball, even though they use a basketball as the ball. They are different games because they involve totally different rules.

If you play Battletech RPG, then jump in your Mechs to play Classic Battletech, you are switching between two games. The rules of one game marginally intersect with the other, in that you buy a Thor in the RPG and then pilot that Thor in the tabletop combat. But the two games are just radically different. They are seperate games.

By the same token, if you take D&D and start spinning off romantic subplots, you are really using a totally different game (of your own making, based on your judgment) and no longer playing D&D.

I'm not criticizing anyone who chooses to do that. I think it is actually great. I just dont think it is D&D anymore.

 

[GregChristopher]

I guess the spirit of that guideline got lost in translation along the way when more people taught themselves to roleplay out of books instead of learning from other people. And tournament play may have changed things when it emerged, since you had the social dynamic of playing with strangers crop up more often. But honestly, if you're playing with friends and making up crap you think is cool? That is the heart of the game. Everything else is just barracks-room lawyering.

This sounds like True Scotsman to me. Or nostalgia.