Sorry - I think the point was missed...

[Majoru Oakheart]

But the notion that players can "challenge" the DM's interpretation of a world/situation that he/she *created* as "squidgy" is patently absurd IMO.

I think this is the main reason why you continually fail to understand the other side.

You view the world more as a creation, I view it more as a simulation.

The DM says "you are in a world a lot like ours (trees, badgers, houses, people all exist and the physical laws are mostly the same) except sometimes certain things are different (new creatures, and magic that can affect the creatures you already know)."

Therefore, I assume a LOT of things will work the way I expect them to. If a badger walks up to me and starts talking to me, I want to know that this badger is special in someway or there is some magic that allows it to talk. I don't just accept "this badger talks because I say so, and I'm the DM." I'm willing to accept "There's something you don't know, but there IS a reason for it."

However, a lot of DMs know that since their the DM anything they make up is the "right" way, they use this continually. "Don't argue, I'm the DM."

 

[Turjan]

Essentially, all I see here is DMs who are so full of themselves that they believe they never make mistakes or that their players are too dumb to notice the mistakes. Or that they make mistakes, their players notice, but no one cares. I guess there may be a certain type of player out there who says "That villian just managed to break a solid steel block with a wooden club with no magic whatsoever, which makes no sense at all, but the DM said he could and there are no rules saying he can't, and I trust the DM wouldn't just make up something for no good reason."

I'm fine with your interpretation, but I don't see a striking difference between what you said and what I said. It's true that more elaborate rules help the player dealing with unreasonable DM's. I'm not quite sure, though, whether D&D 3.x will help you much with a DM who likes to burn down towns, makes funny sword manoeuvres or breaks steel blocks. Some of these things you mention have to do with common sense, and if a DM lacks common sense, even a 'rules-heavy' game won't help much .

 

[Psion]

You view the world more as a creation, I view it more as a simulation.

The DM says "you are in a world a lot like ours (trees, badgers, houses, people all exist and the physical laws are mostly the same) except sometimes certain things are different (new creatures, and magic that can affect the creatures you already know)."

Therefore, I assume a LOT of things will work the way I expect them to. If a badger walks up to me and starts talking to me, I want to know that this badger is special in someway or there is some magic that allows it to talk. I don't just accept "this badger talks because I say so, and I'm the DM." I'm willing to accept "There's something you don't know, but there IS a reason for it."

This conforms pretty closely to my philosophy.

 

[Turjan]

My use of the term "desparately" was meant in this sense:

"D&D is not enough fun for the time I'm investing. An option pressed on my by the industry is rules lite games, which claim to be more fun because they are less complex. My need to be roleplaying gamer is being directly impacted by my dissatisfaction with D&D's play pattern. Thus, I am heavily vested in this other solution that has been offered."

This person desperately wants a rules lite system to fix the problem they are having with D&D.

Does that clarify, and render my comment non-pejorative for you?

What you are basically saying is that people who play rules-lite games are victims of self-delusion, because they pretend to have fun although they don't have any. The second point you make is that they are victims of false propaganda by competing companies. Sounds convincing :\.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

What you are basically saying is that people who play rules-lite games are victims of self-delusion, because they pretend to have fun although they don't have any. The second point you make is that they are victims of false propaganda by competing companies. Sounds convincing :\.

Well, I understand that you might feel slighted, however I have observed what Ryan says.

A lot of people who play these rules light systems give the same reasons to me over and over again why they do so. "At least I don't have THIS problem that I had with D&D." Most of the time, if I ask them how they deal with the problems *I* personally had with that particular system, they normally say "well, yes, that's a problem, but I don't care, it's better than D&D."

It seems to be more driven by hatred of D&D than it is liking the new system. The most stated reason I was given why people like Vampire is "It isn't full of powergaming, hack and slash D&D players". Which, of course, isn't true. But the people who play it see it that way.

 

[Campbell]

The problem inherent in using language like 'an illusion' to describe the difference between rules heavy games and rules light games is that using words like 'illusion' implies that the difference between both sorts of games is insubstantial. However if the difference was really insubstantial the type of play that results from using differing rulesets would not bear any significant differentiation, and we would most likely not be having this discussion right now.

 

[RyanD]

Again, I get the feeling that you can't discuss this topic without taking shots at other designers or companies, or the gamers that purchase their products.

I will suggest to you that you continue to read motiviation into my comments that are not present.

I have no animus at all towards other designers, other companies, or the gamers that purchase their products. I'm an Adam Smithian economic philosopher. I believe the invisible hand of the market addresses wrongs without the need for top-down solutions, provided the markets are reasonably free and unregulated.

A final thought: some of those lonely data points out there on the edges of your array are the people who are designing and playing the next generation of RPGs specifically because they don't conform to the norm. Outliers are not made up exclusively of those who 'don't get it' - they also include the people who have a new vision and a new take on the hobby. Ignore them at your peril.

One of my favorite aphorisms is this:

"The rational man changes himself to fit the needs of his environment. The irrational man demands that the environment to change in order to fit his needs. Thus, progress is the domain of the irrational man."

I consider myself highly irrational, and salute those who travel a similar path.

 

[fredramsey]

What you are basically saying is that people who play rules-lite games are victims of self-delusion, because they pretend to have fun although they don't have any. The second point you make is that they are victims of false propaganda by competing companies. Sounds convincing :\.

That's the impression I am left with, unfortunately.

I am:

1. Very familiar with D&D 3.5. Ran it extensively. Was good at managing all those fiddly details, bonuses, penalties, etc.

2. Of sound mind. I do not see Rules-Lite goblins whispering madness in my ears and casting Enlarge on my 3.5 rulebooks.

3. Made a conscious choice to begin using my "Complexity-Lite" game of choice. All by myself, I did.

4. Have great fun designing for, and running games with said system. There is actually less arguments now than when I was running 3.5.

5. Combat is still tactical, we still have tactical movement, options, etc. We are not just flipping a coin or using unreasonable DM fiat. Due to the nature of the rules, a simple +2/-2 is often the solution, and since that's the way the rest of the system works, my players don't get into arguments about it.

6. Still chuckle when I read that I am supposedly delusional or "doing it wrong".

7. Am a real and substantial member of the population, not a figment of imagination in the mind of someone who is "desperate".

 

[The Shaman]

"The rational man changes himself to fit the needs of his environment. The irrational man demands that the environment to change in order to fit his needs. Thus, progress is the domain of the irrational man."

I'm a George Bernard Shaw fan, too.

At least in this we can agree.

 

[Rasyr]

"Pressed on me by the industry"? "Claim to be more fun"? "Heavily vested" in other systems out of desperation?

Again, I get the feeling that you can't discuss this topic without taking shots at other designers or companies, or the gamers that purchase their products.

You know, you might be right... Then again, chances are those phrases have as much connection to their actual meaning as the word "desperately" does to the meaning that he is assigning to it.

Then again, I seriously doubt that it is restricted to just this topic. What this goes to show you is that you really, really need to take everything he says with a teaspoon of salt (as opposed to a grain), as it is quite likely filled with just as many "alternative definitions".