Something 3E and 4E lost (that 2E had)

[Garmorn]

I'll give you "creative", but not necessarily "intelligent".

Ok, I agree with that.

So how does this all tie together?

I don't thinks people are going put more work into an RPG then they enjoy. So how much of an impact will having a 2 to 5 pages worth of 'make an house rule in the DMG and/or MM make? I don't think much. Now what I think really would help is a book on how to use house rules to make their world unique would have a greater impact if it was marketed that way to both players and DM'S. It does not even have to say how to make the house rules but show examples of simple things like renaming character classes will have an impact, to creating and using unbalanced classes can be used in a stable long running group.

 

[BryonD]

Why do you assume gamers overall are "very creative and intelligent people"? I'm sure some are. Probably in about the same proportions as the population overall.

My experience is that creativity and intelligence are present amongst gamers in numbers far greater than proportion to the overall population would imply. This in no way implies that boring and/or dumb as rocks people are not also well represented.

 

[TikkchikFenTikktikk]

OK, I can buy that if there was a way to port new classes and such into Insider, particularly Character Builder.

I'm sorry. Really, I was intent on reading this whole thread. I was going to take every post into consideration before I jumped in.

But, seriously.

At this point it becomes clear that your problem isn't with the fourth edition of Dungeons and Dragons. Instead, your problem is with Wizards of the Coast's digital tools (shock, horror, how could that be) and/or with the fact you haven't yet grokked how **fantastic** 4E is for customizing every damn thing and yet still being able to play anything "official".

If the points I've made haven't been made several times before in the pages I've skipped, I will lose faith in Enworld's community.

 

[Desdichado]

My experience is that creativity and intelligence are present amongst gamers in numbers far greater than proportion to the overall population would imply. This in no way implies that boring and/or dumb as rocks people are not also well represented.

My experience is that gamers are normal folks, and probably follow the same distribution patterns as every one else. It's also my experience that gamers frequently believe that their skillsets acquired through gaming make them better (on average) than everyone else at math, or creativity or something, but I don't know if that's true. Anyone with any hobby at all is creative and is willing to put work into their creative endeavor.

:shrug:

 

[BryonD]

My experience is that gamers are normal folks, and probably follow the same distribution patterns as every one else. It's also my experience that gamers frequently believe that their skillsets acquired through gaming make them better (on average) than everyone else at math, or creativity or something, but I don't know if that's true. Anyone with any hobby at all is creative and is willing to put work into their creative endeavor.

:shrug:

Agreed :shrug:

I don't think that gaming significantly leads to being better at math. Sure, if you do a lot of arithmetic, you can get better at doing it quickly. And gaming could constitute "practice", but beyond trivial stuff like that, no, skill sets "acquired through gaming" don't make people better at math or more creative.

I think roleplaying can certainly help with communication skills. But that has nothing to do with intelligence in any highly direct sense. And besides, you can get the same benefit form roleplaying outside of the "gaming" environment. So that is neither an intelligence thing nor a gaming thing.

I know gaming has supported my vocabulary. (I saw a word of the day on my way in to work just today. Is was Umbra. It means shadow. I chuckled.)
But still, not really a big deal.

But, I am convinced that intelligent people are disproportionately likely to be interested in gaming in the first place. Gamers are not remotely a perfectly representative cross section of people as a whole. And quite of few of the differentiators are negative. But some are positive.

 

[Garmorn]

My experience is that gamers are normal folks, and probably follow the same distribution patterns as every one else. It's also my experience that gamers frequently believe that their skillsets acquired through gaming make them better (on average) than everyone else at math, or creativity or something, but I don't know if that's true. Anyone with any hobby at all is creative and is willing to put work into their creative endeavor.

:shrug:

For the most part RPG's require more than average so attracts that type of person. Just like sport attracts those who are best suited to play them.

I will never enjoy playing tackle foot ball for example. I at my best weigh in at 135 lbs (~61 kilos) and am 5' 8" (~1.7 meters) means I just don't do well.

Saying that this makes RPG player better then other is like saying being a soccer player makes you better then a triathoner.

There is a pattern here to the debate. It is like a football player being told no we don't need a clock, or a grid surface to do sports, by the way where are the swim trunks and baskets. Or where do you keep the donkeys when your not playing baseball? (Donkey base ball is just weird to watch.)

 

[celloshane]

First my experience is not with just a few DM's. Now to your point about difference between campaign worlds. For most DM's the story, the background ect is what does it. A good DM makes the rules fade mostly into the background (No one can make the go away)

The drift that I got is that the OP wanted a system that encourges the DM's to make up rules on the fly, not worry about the long term affects on the game, ect. What you are talking about to me is completely different.

One more point. Lots of what I post will need several run througs before I can figure out alot of what you mean. It is a generational gap thing I think. All of you are just Kids.

I hope what I wrote didn't come across as dismissive of your experiences, that wasn't what I intended. You may be right, I might not be talking about the exact same concept as the OP. I don't get the impression that he wants to make rules at random, but maybe I don't have a clear understanding of what other people are talking about. Maybe it would be helpful if someone else gave some examples, even if it's an example of something you did in a previous edition.

 

[Garmorn]

I hope what I wrote didn't come across as dismissive of your experiences, that wasn't what I intended. You may be right, I might not be talking about the exact same concept as the OP. I don't get the impression that he wants to make rules at random, but maybe I don't have a clear understanding of wht other people talking about. Maybe it would be helpful if some other gave some examples, even if it's an example of something you did in a previous edition.

Ok, I thinks for me at least I will try to give examples of what I originally thought the thread was about.

The OP seems to me to have been talking about the DM's being encourage to make rule changes on the fly and while having the ability not to have to worry about balance. The a simple example for 1st or 2nd ed would be the combat use of the phiar (sp?) of endless water, or I grab a rope and swing into action. Or for any: I want to knock over enemy X and the land on the center table.

You seem to be talking about the deliberate changing of rules to fit your world. Simple samples: changing of racial abilities, and limits. Changing spells levels and effects.

I don't think I am doing any better of fulling understanding what others are saying the you. Probably worst.