Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="RFisher" data-source="post: 3738051" data-attributes="member: 3608">I don't know that it matters, but I thought I'd clarify that I didn't mean the talking always came before the rolling.In my experience, you have the &quot;bad DM&quot; &amp; the &quot;not bad DM&quot;. The game with social rules is just as bad under the &quot;bad DM&quot; as the game without social rules. Likewise, the game without social rules is just as good under the &quot;not bad DM&quot; as the game with social rules.I've never seen rules make a &quot;bad DM&quot; better. (Broken record time: Only maturity &amp; experience can do that.) If you have an adequate-or-better DM &amp; mature players, then you don't need rules to make him fair. And the &quot;bad DM&quot; evolves or gets replaced in short order.I'm not convinced it would be a net-gain for the hobby, though.&amp; the truth is, D&amp;D was never a wargame with a thin role-playing veneer. (Although I'd entertain an argument that it did become that with 3e. (^_^)) It was a role-playing game with a thin wargame veneer. Except for the &quot;use Chainmail for combat&quot; in the original set (which hardly anyone used &amp; even those that did didn't for long) you can't seriously compare D&amp;D to honest-to-goodness wargames. Heck, look at that review that the original set got from a wargame perspective. The wargame bits were stripped bare to make room for the role-playing.But the brand of role-playing that it had was not one of mechanics &amp; rules. It was of player negotiation &amp; referee judgement. So, there weren't a lot of role-playing mechanics &amp; rules added, which can make it look like more of a wargame than it was.Your not asking for D&amp;D to become more of a role-playing game. You asking it to have more rules &amp; mechanics governing role-playing.Which is a fair point-of-view.That's something that I've been trying to get away from. I don't want to be the judge of whose role-playing style is good &amp; whose is bad. There's a fine line, however, between the approach &amp; the delivery. I do my best to consider the approach &amp; ignore the delivery.That's exactly the kind of attitude I've been trying to eliminate from my table. For me, this hobby shouldn't be about punishing or judging a player's approach to role-playing. I mean, I know what you're saying, but--I guess--the more I try not to think in those terms, the more the problems you're talking about seem to disappear.Maybe I'm just lucky &amp; it is just because those problems were never there with my current group anyway.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="RFisher, post: 3738051, member: 3608"] I don't know that it matters, but I thought I'd clarify that I didn't mean the talking always came before the rolling. In my experience, you have the "bad DM" & the "not bad DM". The game with social rules is just as bad under the "bad DM" as the game without social rules. Likewise, the game without social rules is just as good under the "not bad DM" as the game with social rules. I've never seen rules make a "bad DM" better. (Broken record time: Only maturity & experience can do that.) If you have an adequate-or-better DM & mature players, then you don't need rules to make him fair. And the "bad DM" evolves or gets replaced in short order. I'm not convinced it would be a net-gain for the hobby, though. & the truth is, D&D was [i]never[/i] a wargame with a thin role-playing veneer. (Although I'd entertain an argument that it did become that with 3e. (^_^)) It was a role-playing game with a thin wargame veneer. Except for the "use Chainmail for combat" in the original set (which hardly anyone used & even those that did didn't for long) you can't seriously compare D&D to honest-to-goodness wargames. Heck, look at that review that the original set got from a wargame perspective. The wargame bits were stripped bare to make room for the role-playing. But the brand of role-playing that it had was not one of mechanics & rules. It was of player negotiation & referee judgement. So, there weren't a lot of role-playing mechanics & rules added, which can make it [i]look[/i] like more of a wargame than it was. Your not asking for D&D to become more of a role-playing game. You asking it to have more rules & mechanics governing role-playing. Which is a fair point-of-view. That's something that I've been trying to get away from. I don't want to be the judge of whose role-playing style is good & whose is bad. There's a fine line, however, between the approach & the delivery. I do my best to consider the approach & ignore the delivery. That's exactly the kind of attitude I've been trying to eliminate from my table. For me, this hobby shouldn't be about punishing or judging a player's approach to role-playing. I mean, I know what you're saying, but--I guess--the more I try not to think in those terms, the more the problems you're talking about seem to disappear. Maybe I'm just lucky & it is just because those problems were never there with my current group anyway. [/QUOTE]

Verification