The game police, they live inside of my head

[Arashi Ravenblade]

I always liked uniform game groups. One of the reasons I hated playing older edition of D&D was because everyone i knew who played an older version had a multitude of houserules different from the last group.
IN 3e I have found that because the rules are so tigh nit that I can play in virtually any group and have my character work. Ive only met one person to change 3e so much that I refused to play his game, incidently it was my sisters fiancee'. Im not saying more dont exist, but in my experience it seems to be alot less than older games.
I see whats being said about a new edition then. If they get rid of bards and you want to play one, good luck trying to find a DM that allows a house made one. And if they introduce one later, what if the DM is core books only?

 

[Jhaelen]

Well, I for once am glad the times of an overabundance of house rules are a thing of the past.

Imho, ideally, you should be able to join a new group of players and be able to play with them knowing their rules will largely be the same as the ones in your last group.

And: I prefer to play games where I know all the rules.

 

[Storm Raven]

GURPS doesn't work at all for me at it assumes the DM understands how all skills work and the players don't necessarily need to. All that learning is waved... which isn't bad in a modern setting. In fact, it's pretty much a necessity. But in D&D, the challenge is all on the Players.

I've played GURPS. I've played D&D. But I can't for the life of me figure out what you are saying here about either system. Let me put it this way: your assessment of GURPS seems to me to be so far distanced from my experience of playing and GMing the system that I wonder if we occupy the same reality, or if you are from some alternate timeline where GURPS is a radically different game from the system found on this timeline.

I also can't figure out how this supposed flaw of GURPS doesn't mesh with your purported preferred play style - if the GM is expected to know the rules of the skills and the players are not, how is that a problem if you prefer to play with the players not knowing the rules at all?

 

[Jer]

Jer,
Yeah, that is one style. We use character sheets as they are good to have. Most of what is on them are the notes and equipment lists (more notes really) of the Players. HP, AC, Weapon Damage, Ability Scores, and the like are the simple numerical representations players can use as a good approximation of what their character is and can do. That is D&D to me. No need to keep it all behind the screen.

I've got to ask - how do you play third edition D&D this way? What you're describing is actually a lot like how I run B/X D&D games (since the statistics are so - well - minimal in that game), but 3e combat alone is sooo fiddly - with so many feats that affect how this happens and how that happens - not to mention the impact of all of the numbers that Skills bring to the game - it just seems like 3e would be rules overkill and the combat system would be horribly clunky for that playstyle to me. (I've toyed with the idea of creating a "B/X version" of 3e with a simplified combat system, streamlined feats, etc to be able to use that playstyle with a slightly more modern set of rules, but that's something on my long to do list that will perhaps be moved to creating a simplified version of 4e...)

Not to get off topic, but my concern with Sorcerer, as I understand it, is the players can alter the world by controlling how it behaves. Story emulation over simulation. That's metagame thinking in my mind and not necessary for creating cool stories. It's more of a round robin, campfire, story telling game where everyone gets to add their part rather than a hypothetically "lived" event that is a story when talked about afterward. The focus is on challenging and improving the Players rather than the narrative quality of their actions.

To swing a bit off topic: Sorcerer is DEFINITELY not for anyone of a simulationist bent - if you want numbers on your sheet that represent how well you swing a sword, or how strong you are Sorcerer will not be for you. But it's certainly not set up as a round robin story telling game either - there's still a GM who is running a scenario, and players still tell the GM what actions they want to take and what they want to have happen when they succeed. There's less of "I swing my sword at the barbarian" and more of "I want to best the barbarian champion to impress the crowd" going on - and conflicts usually get resolved with a single die roll, rather than trying to simulate every sword swing. It certainly isn't for everyone - especially if reading "this is how this game SHOULD be played" or "this is what GOOD fantasy is" type lectures in your game books annoys you (see also almost anything produced by White Wolf circa mid-90's).

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

It strikes me as odd one would use such a non-simulation-oriented game for such a simulation-heavy playstyle. I mean, Hit Points are such an abstraction that a successful attack roll might, but does not always, indicate that your weapon actually struck home. Wouldn't something like GURPS, HERO, or even Heroquest (the RPG) work better for such an approach?

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

I also can't figure out how this supposed flaw of GURPS doesn't mesh with your purported preferred play style - if the GM is expected to know the rules of the skills and the players are not, how is that a problem if you prefer to play with the players not knowing the rules at all?

My understanding of his message appears to be that the players should have to acquire that knowledge through playing, rather than that knowledge being unnecessary for them.

 

[Gundark]

You have people living in your head? They have medication for that

 

[howandwhy99]

If I can ban wizards, so can everyone else.

Oh yeah, no dwarven wizards. But that's not really what I was getting at. But how easy is it for 3e DMs to play low magic item games? Or remove skills? Or feats? Or custom design spell lists so the players don't know them? Same with Magic Items.

The game assumes a lot, and I for one am glad they are smoothing out level advancement so monsters are actually combat-ready from the MM for more than a few levels.

The work involved to play the game as one used to can simply become too arduous as new rulesets move away from one's style.

 

[howandwhy99]

I do find it impressive that your first sentence and your second sentence contradict so directly. You begin by asserting a uniformity of playstyles, then immediately retreat to asserting merely a finite multitude of playstyles, while demanding infinite.

I'm not sure whether you are serious here. Is your argument that uniformity means absolute sameness? And that I am contradicting myself by suggesting playstyles are conforming to styles that actually function under the current ruleset? If so, for clarity, I'm using the 'conforming to a pattern' definition vs. 'unvaried sameness'.

I've always found that not knowing the rules of the gameworld reduces speed and strategy, while increasing metagaming. You can't quickly decide what to do because you don't immediately know your options. You can't strategize because you have no idea the chances your decisions will work. And you can't avoid metagaming because you're always asking the DM how good your character thinks his chances are of success. "Does Starlight the Elven Rogue think she can climb a wall of this type without waking the sleeping guard?" is metagame reasoning when you ask it of the DM.

And you can't just declare, "You can trust your character to be able to do what's reasonable." That would work just fine in a low fantasy levelless RPG. In D&D, you have to account for class levels. And what's reasonable for an eighth level rogue? You can't exactly sit back and think about what real life eighth level rogues can accomplish. Its inherently a game construct.

If that's the sort of game you're looking for, you might want to just give up on high fantasy. Find a game where the players all have Indiana Jones level abilities, that can be logically reasoned from first principles by the player. D&D is not and has never been that game.

Well, I've found that rule-thinking removes players from being immersed in their characters. You can always decide what to do as all options are always available. You can always try and track, to forge papers, to cast a spell when you're a fighter, etc. You learn by playing the game, not by reading the rules. (there are no "rules" in the real world either).

Strategies are built upon what you know. It tests the Players ability to think like a person living in the real world (though hypothetical) instead of the Players' knowledge of the rules. It isn't a game where one knows what will happen at any given point and time. But the world is consistent and the reasons can be determined. These are in game reasons as long as the rules are sufficiently simulating what they were designed for.

Fantasy works extraordinarily well for this type of game as characters don't start with vast amounts of knowledge nor have internet amounts of knowledge as a quick resource. As I've played 1AD&D and am now playing a lot of OD&D, I can say that this is exactly how the game can and often was played. Go over to Dragonsfoot and ask there. They should be able to confirm this style as valid and very much D&D.

And it's ten times worse than that when magic gets involved. If I'm playing a character who has spent half his life studying arcane lore I, as his player, ought to have some clue what he can do, and how magic works in your world. Otherwise it's like playing an ancient text based PC game where I'm endlessly trying different synonyms to see if the parser knows one of them.

"I blast him." 'Magic doesn't do that.'
"Uh. Okay.. I levitate a rock into his head?" 'No brute force! Think more fairytale magic.'
"Right. I charm him into being my friend?" 'No messing with free will.'
*sigh* "I turn him into a frog." 'Wrong phase of the moon.'
"I turn him into a newt." 'Okay, but he'll get better.'

The character starts with the ability to cast magic, but neither they nor the player knows "the rules of how magic truly works". There are simply theories. Just like Gods are theories. Are they true? Well, the only way to find out is to keep learning and testing what you think you know.

Also, what magical theories(/Gods) do you start with? Whatever the player prefers.

P - "I cast Detect Magic"
DM - "around the chair appears an orange aura with streaks of cascading darkness or blackness intermittently coming out"
P - "What's that mean?"

The DM knows and the Player/Character has the ability to find out. Same as discovering fireballs expand in small spaces. And that their fire burns. Or that magical electrical bolts bounce. Etc. Etc.

These particulars aren't "the way D&D is". They are houserules made up in Gary's old games. Being in Advanced D&D doesn't make the "the true way". I prefer the ability to make our own designs true without requiring the old hat, known by everyone options. What I call "setting design". This was/is D&D.

 

[howandwhy99]

I can't say I agree with this statement at all... I am not sure you agree either, considering all your claims about how RPGs surpass other games in terms of imaginative quality...

Anyways, I believe that every player should know all the rules of the game, simply because it allows for more creativity on the part of the player, and because it helps the game run a lot faster. Also, from my own experience playing RPGs that I did not know the rules for, it was irritating, and far too often led to the GM telling me how to play the game, and a lot less fun on my part. It felt like the other players who did know the rules tended to treat me like an idiot... Not fun at all.

Perhaps I should have said Conformity? I've never needed to know the rules to think in character. These aren't boardgames, so knowing "the rules" isn't required to act in character. Others making fun of someone who doesn't know the rules seems foolish. Neither do they! They may presume to know what rules the DM is using, but they are not certain. I think you pegged those guys correctly.

Our games run faster than any other RPG I've played as the rules never impede upon our thinking. We think upon what we actually know as both players and characters. In every case that it can be made so, these are equivalent. Creativity is not rule-bound. It happens practically all the time. Where do we want to go? What do we want to do? How do we want to do it? There is also plenty of problem solving with an eye towards thinking outside the box. That's classic D&D. And there are no rules to follow to put stick our thinking into another box.

To explain the creativity matter... Knowing all the options the rules provides for can serve as a source of inspiration, seeding new character concepts and adding to the flavor of the game. Without any sources of inspiration, ideas tend to lead towards the stereotypical, and that is no fun. At least, having character ideas that fluidly mesh with what is supported by the rules is helpful and more fun than the alternative. Who wants to play a character concept that just won't work with the rules of the game?

Are you saying rules are the primary inspirational material for character concepts? My experience is the exact opposite. The rules conform my thinking to what they are designed for. They are confining to my creativity. And while some restriction can lead to new ideas, I'd prefer to have the rules conform to my dreams than vice versa.

As an aside, I do have my own houserule. The "No Care Bears" rule, but it's only so the whole group can actually decline a character concept that no one else really wants to play with during the game (like Rainbow Bright when we're trying to play in the Warhammer world).

It is not like the DM can magically create balanced new rules just because he doesn't let the players know them...

That's a lot of what it is. How do you think all these crazy 1e rules came about? Advanced is just a pile of houserules made core.

Also, I reject the idea that people will just forget about 3E concepts just because they move on to a new edition. I think the constant references back to older editions that are found everywhere here on ENWorld is proof enough.

You know, I think you're right here. But how come so many people are so dumbstruck that what I play is D&D? Or are so positively sure people never played D&D this way? This is no oddball case. In my estimation, this is how the game was originally created.