reanjr
First Post
MoogleEmpMog said:
I have encountered rules lawyers before as well. But now, the term has lost meaning because it is default. I have also asked a few players to read the 2e PHB. After doing so, their rules-centric playing died down quite a bit. Not exactly a scientific study, but certainly supportive of the idea that it is the book's fault. Experienced players, of course, are not going to be ruined by reading the 3e book, but new players certainly can be. But they can fortunately be "fixed."
I have taught D&D (in three incarnations) to (at rough estimate) 150+ people in my life. I'd say it's approx. a 5:1 ratio male to female. I have taught in many different styles. I have taught experienced D&Ders new editions, I have taught newbies. I have taught World of Darkness players, I have taught those coming from Shadowrun or Palladium. I have taught video game players, I have taught people who never even played board games. I have taught elementary school students, I have taught the middle aged. I have taught old friends, I have taught people I met 2 minutes ago. I have taught with over a dozen totally distinct groups. In my experience, I have found the following, as far as role-playing vs. rules-mongering goes:
Gender: Entirely irrelivent. Women are just as likely to be power gamers as men. Men are just as good at role-playing as women. Only difference I've noted is that women tend to be abit more focused at gaming. They do not get distracted as easily or derail the game with off-topic banter as often.
Age: The older one gets the worse they are at using their imagination and truly setting themselves in their character's shoes. Older people tend to be goal-oriented and this conflicts with the basic premise of a game that can not be won. A lot of middle age people have a hard time understanding the point. I can not judge children properly because I have never attempted to teach a child the rules before I taught them how to role-play. They just wouldn't be able to grasp all the rules in the first place, so I always went the other direction.
Previous experience: World of Darkness players tend to be very well-suited to playing without a thought to the rules behind the game. This makes sense, seeing as World of Darkness is extremely rules light and interpretive. I have not played with enough players of other systems to make a judgement call on them. Previous D&D experience helps players quickly pick up on new rules. They tend to start out very focused on role-playing, but as they are exposed to 3e, they tend to grasp on to the rules just as much as newbies. Newbies are the most moldable. I have always had FAR more success with ANY edition of D&D if the player does NOT own the PHB. That said, the 2e PHB always gave a lot more guidance and stress to role-playing and DM interpretation, so I had better luck with 2e PHB owners than with 3e PHB owners. If an experienced player later picks up the PHB, it shapes them, but not nearly as dramatically as if they had owned the book from the beginning.
Relationship: It is easiest to teach players who I am familiar with from outside of gaming, but not closely attached to. Those people I never knew outside of gaming never come to me to ask a question and they use gaming as social time since it is the only time I see them. Those people I associate with constantly either think that I want to talk about D&D and go over rules 24-7 or they treat gaming as social time.
Previous non-RPG experience: People who play video games tend to immediately look to the rules to make an uber-character. They are quite moldable, though. Those with lots of non-electronic game experience tend to pick up the rules second nature without a thought to them (these are the type of people I can explain game formulas to once and never talk to them again about it). These are the most middle-grounded players. They play as a pass time and enjoy the rules, but do not try to pimp their characters out. They are also the most comfortable with switching genres or settings, switching games, having one's character die, or house rules of the day. They do not get overly attached to a single character or game. These are my favorite (and probably where I'd fall if someone was judging me). Those people who never play games of any kind don't tend to last very long. No conclusions on them other than that.
Initiation: In my experience, this is probably the single most important molding factor in gaming. The initial way the game is explained to them is of the utmost importance and can color their gaming style for years. It's usually pretty obvious which way they are going to go from how they are taught. If you start by giving them a character and explaining the different attributes and abilities, or begin by explaining how the game works so they can make a character, you are creating a rules-monger. If you explain the game as coop story time and slowly introduce rules as needed, you make a middle-ground player. If you explain it as acting and mental and emotional juxtaposition, you create a role-player (who often never even bothers learning the rules and sometimes can not grasp alternate physics). I must note that the method I use to teach someone is often influenced by what I know of them. This may mean that this is not as important as it might seem. But it certainly plays a role. (hehe, it role-plays...)
Rules: The rules of the game (to a certain extent) are irrelevant. 2e, 3e, OD&D, it doesn't matter. What matters is how the rules are presented. The 3e PHB, IMO is a poison. The entire thing needs to rewritten. I don't care if the rules change, that's not what's at issue. It's the presentation. I didn't initially notice it because I already had been role-playing for years. But as I saw people learning from the 3e books, it slowly dawned on me that it was the book's fault. Not age, gender, video games, my teaching style, the rules, etc. The only thing I could find that tied bad players (bad, in my opinion) together was that they read the 3e PHB. Anyone who hadn't just seemed to understand the game in a totally different way. I've even seen it affect me over time. I can't tell you the exact reason it has this effect (surely not a causative one), but I have my hunches. It's written like a rule book. I've read textbooks and programming language manuals that were more entertaining. The 2e PHB (for instance) is written like a guidebook, a narrative in exploring the rules, not dicating them. Does this make the 3e PHB clear? Sure. Does it make it good? Not really. Maybe from a selling standpoint, but not from a gaming one (at least not the game I play). I plan on flipping through the D&D for Dummies book next time I'm at the store to see if it is the missing guidebook to 3e that is so desperately needed.
