The core mechanic -- am I doing it wrong?

[Sammael]

I very much agree with Monte on that account. In fact, one of the basic things I tell my new players is pretty much the same thing: don't worry about the rules; try to envisage what your character would do in a given situation and let me know what you want to do. I'll wrap it up in game mechanics and let you know if your action is feasible or not.

I've observed from years of DMing that players who have a deep knowledge of the rules often end up constrained by that knowledge in that they rarely improvise or try to use their skills/powers creatively. This is not always true, but I've learned that it applies in most cases.

I do my best to help those players re-open their potential by pointing out some out-of-the-box possibilities (both during play and after the sessions), but I haven't been too successful on that account. Some players seem to want to be constrained by the rules; I guess improvisation is out of their comfort zone. And you know what? That's fine too. I can handle both at the same table.

 

[Mepher]

Your post made me sad. The DM is like an Xbox? An Xbox with a really really bad Crpg in it no less. You do understand that the DM is a player as well don't you? The storyteller plays D&D with you. They do not just take a bunch of time out of their week prepping for game day so they can be your character sheet's math co-processor once a week. It is a storytelling collaboration where you do not have to have a rule for everything. You have a player playing with you who gave up being one of the heroes in the story your group is making to play the bad guys and everybody else the players meet to make the story more real for everyone.I have been Dming games for just over 20 years and the information on any given players toon sheet is never as important to me the contributions they make to the game from the stuff in their heads. I have also never felt at anytime I was running a game that I was not a player in that game as well.

I kinda had the same reaction. The idea that the DM is there just to number crunch really made me want to cry. I was never able to enjoy anything past 2E because they just kept adding rules. I bought 3E & 4E but didn't like the fact that there was a rule for everything and real creativity flew out the door.

I remember groups back in the late 80s with a bunch of us sitting around my living room sprawled out on the couch, lazy boy, ottoman, rolling dice on coffee tables, end tables, etc. No battle mat, no rules lawyers. The DM told the story and the players were the characters in his story. They dictated where the story went but he set the tone. If you wanted to do something off the wall there was no rule for it, the DM decided how to handle it. Combat encounters could be resolved in minutes, negotiations were done by roleplaying rather than roll playing. Its sad that the newest generations of gamers only know numbers games. I hope the re-release of 1E and the potential of 5E might show the 3.5E-4E crowd how the game was originally played.

 

[Oni]

I do not enjoy playing in a game with people constantly trying to come up with strange and imaginative and showy things to do. A little bit is entertaining. A lot of improv just slows the combat down or drags out the conversation with the NPC.

Then what on earth should they be doing? How do you want the bulk of your game time filled?

 

[Piratecat]

I do not enjoy playing in a game with people constantly trying to come up with strange and imaginative and showy things to do. A little bit is entertaining. A lot of improv just slows the combat down or drags out the conversation with the NPC.

Man. You would hate, hate, hate my games.

 

[hanez]

I do not enjoy playing in a game with people constantly trying to come up with strange and imaginative and showy things to do. A little bit is entertaining. A lot of improv just slows the combat down or drags out the conversation with the NPC.

I was thinking he would have hated my favorite character Babo Madballs the Gnome Jester. Babo had a pet rock "Bill" whom I painted, and brought to every session. Babo would often ask Bill what he should do next, he'd use Bill as a weapon (even if he only caused 1 damage), Babo would sometimes throw Bill into random portals and then run screaming "Im sorry Bill Ill never leave you again!!!!! NEVER!!!" Babo was often the first one to run into danger... well second if you count Bill going in first.

Babo was fun, lol, even my coplayers ended up liking him after a while. And my DM, who orignally found my antics frustrating, learned to work with me to find out how a Jester can be effective. I was part of the story too, and I didn't want to play the standard combatant in that campaign. Even in 3e where I played him, I tended to see the rules squashing this type of play completely out. By 4e, the rules pretty much said in no uncertain terms that a character like this was not acceptable. My hopes for 5e is that while this wont be a standard type of character, the rules will be open enough to the possibility of a RANGE of characters, with ranges of effectiveness in a variety of situations.

 

[DMKastmaria]

I was thinking he would have hated my favorite character Babo Madballs the Gnome Jester. Babo had a pet rock "Bill" whom I painted, and brought to every session. Babo would often ask Bill what he should do next, he'd use Bill as a weapon (even if he only caused 1 damage), Babo would sometimes throw Bill into random portals and then run screaming "Im sorry Bill Ill never leave you again!!!!! NEVER!!!" Babo was often the first one to run into danger... well second if you count Bill going in first.

Babo was fun, lol, even my coplayers ended up liking him after a while. And my DM, who orignally found my antics frustrating, learned to work with me to find out how a Jester can be effective. I was part of the story too, and I didn't want to play the standard combatant in that campaign. Even in 3e where I played him, I tended to see the rules squashing this type of play completely out. By 4e, the rules pretty much said in no uncertain terms that a character like this was not acceptable. My hopes for 5e is that while this wont be a standard type of character, the rules will be open enough to the possibility of a RANGE of characters, with ranges of effectiveness in a variety of situations.

That's Awesome!

 

[Tallifer]

I was thinking he would have hated my favorite character Babo Madballs the Gnome Jester. Babo had a pet rock "Bill" whom I painted, and brought to every session. Babo would often ask Bill what he should do next, he'd use Bill as a weapon (even if he only caused 1 damage), Babo would sometimes throw Bill into random portals and then run screaming "Im sorry Bill Ill never leave you again!!!!! NEVER!!!" Babo was often the first one to run into danger... well second if you count Bill going in first.

Babo was fun, lol, even my coplayers ended up liking him after a while. And my DM, who orignally found my antics frustrating, learned to work with me to find out how a Jester can be effective. I was part of the story too, and I didn't want to play the standard combatant in that campaign. Even in 3e where I played him, I tended to see the rules squashing this type of play completely out. By 4e, the rules pretty much said in no uncertain terms that a character like this was not acceptable. My hopes for 5e is that while this wont be a standard type of character, the rules will be open enough to the possibility of a RANGE of characters, with ranges of effectiveness in a variety of situations.

I applaud your imagination and I am very glad that your group enjoyed this sort of thing. I just had to chime in that such is not entertaining for me, because it seemed that most of this thread's arguments operate under the assumption that the best system caters to this style of play.

I think this is why I have dim hopes for reunification under any edition. Better for us to each find the edition best suited for us.

HOWEVER there is no way anyone can objectively say that the Fourth Edition limited comedic or dramatic play, because when I played the Fourth Edition, it was not uncommon to see at least one player doing bizarre things in the middle of a combat or a parley. There is no system limit to a player's fertile imagination (unfortunately sometimes).

 

[LostSoul]

I think I might want it to be a little different. I want to say "I do X" and the DM responds. That is, I want the rules to be so clear on what I can do that I don't need the DM to tell me what happens when I try; my character sheet and the dice do that.

Any big drawbacks to this approach? I mean sure you get surprised once in a while, but is Monte saying you should just say "I cast Charm Person" and the DM determines everything about how that plays out?

The big drawback is that anything you want to do must be covered by the rules. Those rules can't be open-ended; they need to determine what you can do and what you can't and the mechanics for getting there. If they are open-ended, someone has to decide how it works, and then you're right back to "I tell the DM I do this and he responds."

 

[JamesonCourage]

I wrote this in the Running a Game section of my RPG on rules lawyering:

So, the question is, why will some people easily accept a rule in the book, but not a decision made by GM fiat?

That's a good question, and I'll do my best to address it. Many people rely on the rules as a form of support, be it player or GM.

As a player, it lets me know what I can reliably do. If I know that attacking requires me to roll a base attack + Strength roll, and I need to hit their armor class, then I can plan around that. I can attempt to attain a higher Strength, or a higher base attack, or a masterwork weapon, or feats that boost my roll. It lets me know how I can craft my character to play out the way I want it to. For example, if I had in mind a character who is this huge brute that hits people with a giant axe, I probably envision a high Strength character, possibly with a high Constitution. Now, if I found out (through a house rule) that Dexterity is the attribute that covers whether or not I can hit someone, than my concept changes to include a high Dexterity, so I can make use of my giant axe. These written rules give players a strong starting point when determining the mechanical manifestation of the concept of their character. If their mechanical character does not match their conceptual character very much, than they often find themselves distanced from the character, losing that special connection, immersion, or whatever it is that makes that character special and spark in their mind.

For a GM, having the rules to draw on is incredibly comforting when you are learning. After you have played with the rules for a while, you can see the strengths and weaknesses of the system. Having rules in place allows you to cite them when a player disagrees, even if they think it is a bad rule. Of course, it is true that the more you know about something, the more you can break the rules you were taught at the beginning. So, with more experience, it's much easier to break these rules and have an enjoyable experience, but I think that's a fairly universal rule.

As a player, the rules are there for guidance, and as a source of reliable material. You cannot reliably use GM fiat, for even an amazing GM must come up with the mechanical roll for you to use on the fly. You cannot know what the rolling mechanic will be any more than he does. Take, for example, a maneuver to dodge and have two enemies swing at one another. If I wanted to do that, and the maneuver had no mechanics, than I could have no way of knowing that you'd rule it a certain way, for even you have not decided what the ruling is yet (as the situation is only now coming up). However, if it is a set mechanical maneuver, I know I can reliably use that mechanic, and I can temper a character concept by careful use of reliable rules.

As a GM, they are there as a source of incredible guidance, giving you example after example of how the system envisions Dexterity being used, attack rolls being used, Constitution checks being used. The rules help you see the spirit of the game. Rules help indicate the style of game the rules were created for.

When a GM begins to use his granted power to overrule a player, I personally do not immediately buck against it. I'll accept it. If it creates an inconsistent or displeasing game experience, I'll voice my concern, and I'll drop the game if it continues. I will not try to take away that right from the GM, as he has the right to run his game the way he wishes. As a player, I think I should look for someone a little more in line with what I enjoy. Since, really, it's all about enjoyment. And that's the crux of the matter, really. It's about mutual enjoyment, and it's about a consistent gaming world where reliable mechanics are incredibly useful. That's really it. I break or bend rules all the time, and I attempt to do so in a consistent way. Players are expecting consistency in the rules, and the more decisions they can make without direct GM input, the more in control of their own characters they feel.

While I don't think it's necessary to have a ton of rules that define every aspect of the game, I like a ton of rules that deal with a lot of situations. It informs me of how the game works, and allows me to work within that vision and conform to the internal consistency of the game engine. This means that if I go from one group to another, I'll be on the same footing in every game (one reason people love point-buy for stats, even if I greatly prefer rolling).

And, like it says in my above quote, I break or bend rules all the time. I deviate from them (and I wrote the book!). I modify or add to them as it makes sense. I make up new rules when the time calls for it. However, the rules I have in place give players an incredible resource to draw upon when determining actions they want their characters to take, or potential builds for their characters (it's a point-buy system).

On the note of codified rules make actions boring, I think it depends on the rules, and it depends on the group. Two sessions ago, a twenty-five foot tall demon used a club to golf-slap a PC into the hells he had literally just climbed out of, and then positioned himself in such a way that the warrior was stuck next to the crevice leading to the hells. Fearing he would be next, he used the existing mechanics to jump onto the demon, and was clinging onto it when it was finally brought down (at which point he jumped off, and used the mechanics to successfully roll, reducing the fall damage to nothing). At no point did this player feel bored, he only felt empowered and relieved (when it was killed).

Details mechanics are something which I love very much. I have a talent for remembering (and writing) them, and I can use them without referencing the book the majority of the time. However, I can easily understand and accept that it's not universal, and I don't expect (or want) 5e to be as complex as the latest editions right out of the gate.

That doesn't mean, however, that complex rules detract from the game, or that they serve no purpose. They serve a great purpose, in fact, in keeping the game world internally consistent, with clear guidelines for players and GM alike. To that end, I often cling to the concept dearly, even if I do often tweak rules to help maintain a deeper sense of immersion that they already give. As always, play what you like

 

[hanez]

I applaud your imagination and I am very glad that your group enjoyed this sort of thing. I just had to chime in that such is not entertaining for me, because it seemed that most of this thread's arguments operate under the assumption that the best system caters to this style of play.

I think this is why I have dim hopes for reunification under any edition. Better for us to each find the edition best suited for us.

HOWEVER there is no way anyone can objectively say that the Fourth Edition limited comedic or dramatic play, because when I played the Fourth Edition, it was not uncommon to see at least one player doing bizarre things in the middle of a combat or a parley. There is no system limit to a player's fertile imagination (unfortunately sometimes).

Understood. I hope that 5e will be able to support BOTH styles of play, and I consider it somewhat possible. Groups and even adventures shift from time to time, focussing on combat and tactics one minte, and skills and imagination the next. I want a game that supports both.

this is off topic and I hate edition wars, but as for your last comment, It wasnt the dramatic play that was limited, but rather my character who chose non combat options to specialize in, was hard to design in that edition. I preferred illusion, charm, skills and various other unconventional ways to help my group, these options were limited when we started 4e. The dramatic mad gnome wouldnt have made as much sense to me in my mind, if he was doing equivalent combat damage with the rest of the party, I wanted to sacrifice that to gain somewhere else.