The fragmentation of the D&D community... was it inevitable?

[shadzar]

Now we have online errata, message boards where the actual designers are gracious enough to offer their insights, etc. That availability of access to authority changes the way people think about the game and how it should be run.

Which could be a big source for fragmentation as well, since no two games are alike, each group uses various material in their own games, and the newest decision made in a Dragon/Dungeon/DDi/etc doesn't mean that it is used or even seen by all.

One of the reasons an old rule existed that wasn't written in most of the books, but transferring a character from one game to another requires DM approval of it or its parts, to make sure the character fit into the game without causing disruption. Self-fragmentation based on ability to choose what parts of the material you want to use as opposed to a MUCH smaller set of material in which everyone uses the same things like a board game.

So it is the nature of a customizable game, to fragment itself as people customize it to their own tastes.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Which could be a big source for fragmentation as well, since no two games are alike, each group uses various material in their own games, and the newest decision made in a Dragon/Dungeon/DDi/etc doesn't mean that it is used or even seen by all.

One of the reasons an old rule existed that wasn't written in most of the books, but transferring a character from one game to another requires DM approval of it or its parts, to make sure the character fit into the game without causing disruption. Self-fragmentation based on ability to choose what parts of the material you want to use as opposed to a MUCH smaller set of material in which everyone uses the same things like a board game.

So it is the nature of a customizable game, to fragment itself as people customize it to their own tastes.

This I can agree with, but not in a good light. Having to learn a new binder full of house rules every time I had a new DM or a new game was not a fun or positive experience.

 

[M.L. Martin]

This I can agree with, but not in a good light. Having to learn a new binder full of house rules every time I had a new DM or a new game was not a fun or positive experience.

Perhaps not, but it may be an inevitability. Trying to correct this issue was one of the purposes behind AD&D--1st Edition--if I understand it correctly. The idea of everyone playing a unified game was the goal of AD&D, of 3E and the d20 license, and probably of 4E as well. How well each one of those attempts worked . . . well, I'd argue that the only difference between the binder of house rules and the d20 days is that those house rules now get published in d20 supplements. 4E actually appears to have corrected the issue by making it just too convenient to submit to the RAW Hivemind or just give up and move on to other games altogether.

(2nd Edition was a somewhat different animal, where they took the steps towards making the game almost a 'metasystem' where one started from a standard base and then added and modified rules to taste. I'd love to see that approach tried with 20 years' further experience in game design behind it.)

 

[shadzar]

Perhaps not, but it may be an inevitability. Trying to correct this issue was one of the purposes behind AD&D--1st Edition--if I understand it correctly. The idea of everyone playing a unified game was the goal of AD&D, of 3E and the d20 license, and probably of 4E as well. How well each one of those attempts worked . . .

None of them could have worked beyond the first, because after the first attempt at unification, if you try again another way, you are only causing more fragmentation with each new instance of attempts at unification.

So now rather than a clean break, you have a compound fracture; and that can almost never be mended.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Which could be a big source for fragmentation as well, since no two games are alike, each group uses various material in their own games, and the newest decision made in a Dragon/Dungeon/DDi/etc doesn't mean that it is used or even seen by all.

Sure!

How many threads have you seen someone point out that rule or interpretation Z was supported in this book or by that designer or by CustServ...only to have someone else point out that source (whichever it is) has problems.

To which I think, "Of course it does- every source does!"

 

[GreyLord]

Well excuse the hell out of me for trying to help, I could have done nothing and let you look through your poorly organized collection starting with issue 1 and read every article until you got to issue 96 to find it, but hell not a thanks for saving you any time at all.

You wanted to dispute it, and even failed to read the post after the one you quoted and still asked for a source AFTER one source had already been given. Maybe try doing a little of your own research next time, cause I surely won't use my copy of the archive to aid in any way, so start digging through all those issue by hand from now on!



EDIT: in the future anyone wanting to look articles up in issues of Dragon print magazine, may wish to use this link The DragonDex - A complete index to Dragon Magazine. Sorry took me a while to find it since it had been a while that anyone new needed it.

Actually, had no one given a source, I probably would have done what I do to munchkins who try to pull off stuff that bends the rules (like the Drow Ranger/druid/Wizard kind of bends the actual rules of 1e even) and don't provide me a source...it's like the made it up.

I think actually, you shouldn't be mad at me since what people wasn't the posted wasn't actually a source at all...AND I DID go and shuffle through my Dragon magazines to find the actual source...

So...in truth...I DID go and shuffle through the magazines and gave people the benefit of the doubt. I could have gone and simply read what it said (which may have been why someone didn't really want to give the actual source...one could be seen as bending that source to their own ideas by some technicalities...once again...I gave the benefit of the doubt) in Dragon #100 and said...hey that really doesn't back up that much at all...and in fact infers that without bending the rules the character is actually not legit...

But don't worry, I have played with some rather Munchkin players in 3.X (though normally they are FAR more helpful in showing what the resources of where a certain rule for their build or charater comes from)...I didn't normally have to deal with this from characters of older editions though. I can be pretty lax...but if someone brought something to the table without being able to show me the source...it's basically considered made up and not allowed.

No one ever had to learn a bunch of houserules for the games I DM'd overall. IN fact much of the stuff was hidden information, so knowing what a monster was like in the MM might not actually be all that useful in a fight. What your character knew and what YOU know out of game were two different things...and as long as one knew their own character...they pretty much knew the rules they needed. That of course relies that you actually KNEW about your character, and what they could or could not do...as well as their limits.

I don't think I've ever met someone that had a character concept or idea from Dragon that couldn't state the exact issue it was from (at the least, some had page and paragraph down) as they would need to refer to it from time to time if I had questions...or someone else in the group had questions (ESPECIALLY IF ONE OF THE OTHER PLAYERS suspected someone was going munchkin for no other reason than to be munchkin...so not even me).

Other editions DID have conversion guides by the way. The standing rule for 1e to 2e was actually a grandfather clause in which you could convert characters almost exactly as they were between editions. The official conversion guide for BECMI to AD&D I think was in the Rules compendium, and the conversion guide for boot Hill games I believe was found in the 1e DMG starting on page 112 (and later in the same section a conversion to Gamma World).

So, sorry to be a downer, it's just a little pet peeve when someone tells you one thing as if it's fact...when in fact it's not.

(Sort of like someone telling you a recipe for great chili is found in this Good Housekeeping cookbook, but when you look it's only a reference to a recipe with NO recipe to be found...kind of hard to make the chili then...and you still have to find the recipe.

or even better, getting directions to their house only to find that you end up in the middle of nowhere, and their house isn't anywhere in sight...perhaps they didn't want you to find the house in the first place?)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

This I can agree with, but not in a good light. Having to learn a new binder full of house rules every time I had a new DM or a new game was not a fun or positive experience.

Yeah, ditto.

But unfortunately, its the nature of the beast. Almost nobody houserules boardgames until they lose the actual rules. RPGs, OTOH, are as prone to houserules as Border Collies are to OCD.

Because its not just the alterations to extant rules, its the inclusions, bans and ignores as well. No RPG is perfect, and anyone who has played a game for a while has had some kind of epiphany about how they can "improve" the game.

For 3.X, I tend to run things wide open, allowing stuff from all kinds of 3PP stuff...if you show it to me first. But that still means that someone coming into the game is going to be missing things if they don't look at some of my favorite sources, like AU/AE, BotR, Midnight 2Ed, etc.

About the purest game I run is HERO. I don't bar any power unless its not campaign appropriate. But I do keep an eagle eye on Disads, and I do insist on looking at PCs before play, if for no other reason than to see that everything is kosher. I have no doubt, though, that someone may eventually come up with a combo I'll just say "nope" to.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Yeah, ditto.

But unfortunately, its the nature of the beast. Almost nobody houserules boardgames until they lose the actual rules. RPGs, OTOH, are as prone to houserules as Border Collies are to OCD.

Well, I have seen Monopoly and Risk with a lot of 'house understandings' about how to play.

But you are right.

One thing I found amusing in the 3.5 era was how many people wre shouting 'RAW' from the rooftops, and saying RAW was the only way to do 3.5.

But in Renton, the designers of the 3.5 ere houseruling the hell out of games they were playing at lunch in WOTC.

I always found the difference amusing.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Well, I have seen Monopoly and Risk with a lot of 'house understandings' about how to play.

I played a lot of games of HRed Monopoly because of lost rules. The first set I ever played on had only the board and pieces: the box & rules were lost before I was born.

The only HRed Risk game I was in was one in which I designed a new board to challenge some veteran players. Same number of countries, but arranged differently.

 

[shadzar]

Well, I have seen Monopoly and Risk with a lot of 'house understandings' about how to play.

But you are right.

One thing I found amusing in the 3.5 era was how many people wre shouting 'RAW' from the rooftops, and saying RAW was the only way to do 3.5.

But in Renton, the designers of the 3.5 ere houseruling the hell out of games they were playing at lunch in WOTC.

I always found the difference amusing.

I dont see why it would be amusing. When makign the game with a group of designer, they all will have different tastes and like different things. If several are writing the same book, not all things will be based on a single players method of play, but for the whole to be able to be played in different ways such that the 3rd edition DMG designers could each play in different ways, but be VERY similar games because they use MOST of the same atuff that they agree on. Then eahc of them takes that DMG and still plays it differently than what is written and was decided for the game.

Which is why I never understood "RAW" as even the book (1st edition DMG) written and designed MOSTLY by Gary has that quote in it that someone has in their signature.

AFTERWORD
IT IS THE SPIRIT OF THE GAME, NOT THE LETTER OF THE RULES, WHICH IS IMPORTANT. NEVER HOLD TO THE LETTER WRITTEN, NOR ALLOW SOME BARRACKS ROOM LAWYER TO FORCE QUOTATIONS FROM THE RULE BOOK UPON YOU, IF IT GOES AGAINST THE OBVIOUS INTENT OF THE GAME. AS YOU HEW THE LINE WITH RESPECT TO CONFORMITY TO MAJOR SYSTEMS AND UNIFORMITY OF PLAY IN GENERAL, ALSO BE CERTAIN THE GAME IS MASTERED BY YOU AND NOT BY YOUR PLAYERS. WITHIN THE BROAD PARAMETERS GIVEN IN THE ADVANCED DUNGEONS 8 DRAGONS VOLUMES, YOU ARE CREATOR AND FINAL ARBITER. BY ORDERING THINGS AS THEY SHOULD BE, THE GAME AS A WHOLE FIRST, YOUR CAMPAIGN NEXT, AND YOUR PARTICIPANTS THEREAFTER, YOU WILL BE PLAYING ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS AS IT WAS MEANT TO BE. MAY YOU FIND AS MUCH PLEASURE IN SO DOING AS THE REST OF US DO!​

Then again echoed in the DMG of 2nd edition and 2nd edition revised's forewards.

At conventions, in letters, and over the phone I'm often asked for the instant answer to a fine point of the game rules. More often than not, I come back with a question--what do you feel is right? And the people asking the questions discover that not only can they create an answer, but that their answer is as good as anyone else's. The rules are only guidelines.

So nobody but a vocal group of players, aka "barracks room lawyers", thinks the game should only be played by what is written in the book.

It would be a fallacy to think anyone was ever playing the game the same way, not saying you are succumbing to that fallacy, but some/many do for some reason.

Funniest yet, is that the "RAW" argument comes from a set of books also wherein the DMG tells you (DM) to make your own decisions, but remain consistent in them when something comes up. Which would have to include places where the books contradict themselves.

4th I think tells you to do the same with its infamous PAGE 42.

So where did this "RAW" crowd come from that obviously and for decades missed reading a part of what was written in the books, and one of the most important books nonetheless?



Just curious how you found that amusing and furthering the discussion with trying to figure out where the "RAW" people came from that obviously caused even MORE fragmentation.