The game police, they live inside of my head

[howandwhy99]

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.

This would be a problem if the players were required to know all the rules. I'd like to do away with PHBs.

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?

I agree. Take that point to an entire style of play, perhaps the one you play under currently, and have the game change so much it is just too hard to work with any more. 1AD&D and 2AD&D players are not using 3e for their own reasons. They like their old games.

I'd like to stick with the new one, but still be able to run it as I prefer. If it was just making a Bard class, I wouldn't have ranted above.

 

[howandwhy99]

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?

Christmas Ape explains this well, above.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

i don't mean to thread crap, but if 1e followed the type of play some people feel 3.5 or 4e does not cover, shoulden't the course of action be obvious? What i really dislike is when i go to play a 3.5 game, and the dm has alternated the game to be just like 1e or 2e, and has used the lure of 3.5 as a false pretense to get me to play. If they wanted to play 1e, that should have been stated from the beginning

I'm sure their are still many people that play older versions of d&d. It might be harder to find players, but all you need to do is find the right click and i'm sure you guys will be swamped with players. I know thier are plenty of older players just itching to play 1e.

I'm sure their will come a day when i will will feel left behind due to assumptions of the game. I have two choices at that point. Stick with the games i have been playing, or accept the presumptions of the new game and deal with it.

Their is the third options of course to change the presumptions of the newer game, but i should make it clear to the players that i am not using the games imbeded presumptions.

anyway, i hope you guys find the type of game your looking for and a group to anjoy it with.

 

[howandwhy99]

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...)

I run 3.5 and play OD&D. So yeah, it may be a little confusing. My 3.5 is House ruled, but not extensively as the players need to rely on the rules so much. I've toned down knowledge skills and run it player-driven even with the adventure path.

The players prefer a 3.5 and an OD&D game, so I run my without extensive changes. You're right that feats and skills would mostly need to be removed. As well as many fiddly class abilities. The legal tract-like spell descriptions and many of their components need to be removed as well. So things are simply too big to change easily with 3e, but it could work if it were published with variable options for each component. Like multiple versions of a single spell. Or class. Or magic items. etc.

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).

I hear ya. I'm not one who wants to barter for making my preference in a story actually be what that story becomes. There are game elements to it, I'm sure. It's just not satisfying for me to think up a cool story and be restrained in what elements are allowed because of arbitrary rules. Why not just jointly write a short story? It can be far more satisfying.

 

[howandwhy99]

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?

D&D is and was simulationist. It isn't a heavy style, but a rules light version that allowed new rules to be added. Advanced made certain of these "core". The games you mention contain rules that are far too "in your face" for me to play enjoyable. I don't want to play the rules. I want to play the game as it is imagined by those at the table.

In truth, I'd put myself in the Gamist camp, if we're using Forge-speak. I'm all about the challenge. I just don't want to be hindered by the rules when discerning and striving to win.

 

[howandwhy99]

anyway, i hope you guys find the type of game your looking for and a group to anjoy it with.

That's not a threadcrap. That's helpful advice.

My rant is somewhat about not wanting to be left high and dry with a game no one really plays because new editions keep making it harder and harder. My current Ref waited 7 years.

(and yes, I certainly would tell players I've changed the game)

 

[Moon-Lancer]

That's not a threadcrap. That's helpful advice.

My rant is somewhat about not wanting to be left high and dry with a game no one really plays because new editions keep making it harder and harder. My current Ref waited 7 years.

(and yes, I certainly would tell players I've changed the game)

ref?

anyway, i hope 4e is able to bring the older and newer gamers together at the same game table. That would be my goal with 4e, along with the goals wizards has already stated.

 

[TwinBahamut]

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.

You seem to be misinterpreting my point...

I never once said that requiring the rules in essential to thinking in character. I think that knowing the rules and staying in character are completely independant variables. Someone can know all the rules and stay in character, another can know all the rules and will never stay in character, and others will not know the rules and still always break character.

My point is that the condition of not knowing the rules is not fun, completely independant of whether or not there is roleplaying.

Also, you seem to be trying to pass the blame for me not having fun on to the others players, not the DM, but I assure you, there is as much blame on the DM's shoulders as on anyone else in those situations.

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.

I suspect that you just happen to have a good group that likes a certain playstyle... The reason things work for you is because of the group, not because you hide the rules. You seem to think that the group is good because you hide the rules, but I don't imagine that is the case at all, and you have a mistaken impression of what is the cause and what is the effect.

I am willing to bet that if your group did know all the rules, things would not change much for you.

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).

Let me use an example to illustrate my point... When I read Complete Arcane, the Warlock class jumped out at me as an interesting class to play. I had never played something like that before, so for the first time I ended up playing a chaotic neutral Changeling Warlock, something that I had never previously considered before, and not something I would have thought of independantly.

As another example, I stumbled across the Expanded Psionic Handbook race called the Elan, and it inspired me to play a Psychic Warrior. However, because of some discussion on the WotC boards, a few odd power and feat choices, and some discussion with my DM, I created a very interesting and unique character who I never would have thought of on my own.

Both characters were something I created on my own, and had a lot of fun with, even though I never would have thought of them in a group situation where I had no access to the rules. The ideas I would use if I were "using my creativity and playing my dreams" would probably be less original, and there is no guarantee that they would be any more fun. In fact, I don't think it is possible that my experience would have been more fun that way.

In fact, a major problem with me creating things without knowing the rules is that my main sources of inspiration do not mesh with the rules of D&D very well. I would probably force my DM to invent something totally new just to keep up with my ideas. I mean, D&D probably can't handle a character inspired by the Breath of Fire videogames... And as a DM, I can't imagine being able to do so myself. An added problem with the ideal of everyone playing what they dream is the issue of genre and player expectations, which can get complicated when there are several players.

To rephrase and elaborate a little...

For players, knowing the rules gives them more direct control over their character and their character's fate. If the DM creates the character, than the player only has indirect control. I think having direct control is more fun, and helps the player more thoroughly define the character's quirks and abilities. It also helps eliminate the problem of the player and DM having different ideas about how powerful a particular ability would be, which is a major source of not fun.

For DMs, having the players know the rules is a serious removal of burden. If the DM is the only one who knows the rules, all the difficulties of building and managing characters is his responsibility, and that burden is just added onto all the other responsibilities of the DM. Also, the DM is charged with playing designer and inventing a lot of rules which have to stay balanced when compared to the core rules. This is also an added burden.

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.

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.

Regardless of how the game was originally created, it is not the way many people find it to be fun. I would never play in or run such a game.

The reason that many people are dumbstruck is that you are advocating that people play a rules-heavy game in a no-rules style, which many find odd and inefficient. It also occurs because you are either trying to convince us that this is the one and only "good" playstyle, or that something is wrong with either us as gamers or the rules of D&D. At least, you are coming across as such.

Regardless, I disagree that "uniformiy of rules leads to uniformity of playstyle", but I do think that uniformity of playstyle leads to uniformity of playstyle (obviously enough), and based on your own distaste for uniformity of playstyle, I wonder why you are arguing against styles other than your own so much...

 

[hong]

Oh yeah, no dwarven wizards.

And human wizards.

And human paladins.

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.

Ask not how easy it is for "3E DMs". Ask how easy it is for YOU.

And the answer is, if I can ban wizards, so can everyone else.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Ask not how easy it is for "3E DMs". Ask how easy it is for YOU.

And the answer is, if I can ban wizards, so can everyone else.

Removing a character class as an option for player characters is not the same as removing skills, feats, tactical combat, high magic, etc. for the 3e DM.

The wizard class is a potential choice among several classes in the system, removing it at the beginning has little effect on the game system itself, just the setting in which the game will take place.

The other rules subsystems have no other "in system" choices available causing major work for any DM that wishes an alternative.

The systemization and tight-knit structure of the game system leaves very little "rules space" for DMs to make such changes without almost wholly rewriting the system itself.

Quite different than simply disallowing this or that class/race.