The game police, they live inside of my head

[hong]

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.

If I can ban dying, so can everyone else.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

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.

I don't find this to be so.. I have HRs for replacing or changing combat actions, spells, grappling, hit points, conditions... well, pretty much everything. I have found 3E easier to create a rule and predict the impact on the rest of the system. Many of my HR's nowadays get refined through the boards here before they even see playtime. In 2E, HR results were much more a guesstimate, and often had to be refined in playtest... occasionally resulting in horrible outcomes for the enjoyment of the game.

I much prefer a tightly nit, understandable system that I can trade pieces out of like a giant set of lego's...and that I can walk into a new game with a good idea of what to expect.

I don't forsee 4E straying far from 3E in this regard, the system will probably use similar systme balances, but with 30 levels will have more granularity. This makes the lego blocks smaller and easier to build into a wider variety of game styles.

YMMV, of course.

HowandWhy99.. You missed the point of my previous post. I just couldn't find the right words to for the diametricly opposed comments of minimizing OOC thought and suggesting the *player* learn that the character might have an unknown penalty when he missed on a 14 but other players hit on a 14
OOC indeed.

IMHO the character should know that the supposedly cursed sword drew the attack off-line, and a DM's comment along the lines of 'You swing mightly, in true form that your sensai would be proud of.. but for some reason your sword seemed to glance off his bare skin...'
*that* would be IC

I agree with TwinBahamut in that knowing the rules and roleplaying are two seperate deals. IME, knowing the rules makes it easier to submerge into the game.

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

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.

Hey, fair enough - Heroquest is the only one of those I'd ever play because the rules really aren't 'rules' (if you drop Gloranthan magic) so much as a way to resolve conflicts. Any conflicts.

And I'd swear that thing about D&D being Sim is flat out wrong and contradicted directly in the books (though it MIGHT be a thread somewhere) but I'd have to find it.

Got it. Page 9 of your 1e DMG (you DO have a 1e DMG around somewhere, right? ):

A few brief words are necessary to insure that the reader has actually obtained a game form which he or she desires. Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best defined as the realism-simulation school and the other as the game school. AD&D is assuredly on adherent of the latter school. It does not stress any realism (in the author’s opinion an absurd effort at best considering the topic!). It does little to attempt to simulate anything either. ADVANCED DUNGEONS 8 DRAGONS is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek to use imagination and creativity. This is not to say that where it does not interfere with the flow of the game that the highest degree of realism hasn‘t been attempted, but neither is a serious approach to play discouraged. In all cases, however, the reader should understand that AD&D is designed to be an amusing and diverting pastime, something which can fill a few hours or consume endless days, as the participants desire, but in no case something to be token too seriously. For fun, excitement, and captivating fantasy, AD&D is unsurpassed. As a realistic simulation of things from the realm of make-believe, or even as a reflection of medieval or ancient warfare or culture or society, it can be deemed only a dismal failure. Readers who seek the latter must search elsewhere. Those who desire to create and populate imaginary worlds with larger-than-life heroes and villains, who seek relaxation with a fascinating game, and who generally believe games should be fun, not work, will hopefully find this system to their taste.

I'm pretty Sim myself (with a bit of the other nonsense categories thrown in), so it's not like I'm trying to beat you down, just correcting what I was -sure- was a misconception. Use the books how you like, dawg, but the game is what it is.

 

[howandwhy99]

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.

I'm saying Rule-Think is a major issue with 3rd edition and I'd rather it not be such a hurdle in future designs.

Our group has played for over two years without needing to refer to the rules and it has been very, very fun. That's my experience. I'm not trying to disprove any assertion on your part. I've played many RPGs and I prefer this style over any other.

Also, I think this is a side issue, but if someone make fun of another person, then that's on them. And if you chose to play in a game that was in a style you found "unfun", that's nothing on the DM. Perhaps he or she wasn't clear enough beforehand?

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.

Actually the majority of the group plays both games. I run 3.5 and it is a vastly different experience. The players refer to the rulebooks literally dozens of times in game. Again, in the game I play in, we've never had to refer to them as Players.

It's got nothing to do with the quality of the group. We could accept 8-year-olds and they would get it and be playing in a matter of minutes. I would never try that in the game I DM.

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.

Yeah, after checking out Breath of Fire, I think D&D could handle it no problem. After reading all your examples though, I still don't understand why you believe the totality of published material for a game, heck, all games, can somehow be wider in scope than one's own imagination? Inspirational sources existed for the game before the rules even did. And all these unique to D&D creatures and spells came from someone's imagination, didn't they? Why not rely on one's own? I don't limit my choices to rulebooks.

Group genre mix ups? I mentioned my "Care Bear" house rule above, but it more of a polite social rule.

And no one creates or controls my character but me. No quirks or abilities are defined to me but what I work out with the Ref beforehand. And odds are determined through play. My mind doesn't need OOC systems to understand then. I'm only thinking about the in-game world.

As for Refs needing to know the rules and Players relieving that burden, I agree with you. But it also removes an enormous amount of enjoyability to the game when I have to think in rules just so my DM can run the game properly. That a rule problem. Build a better one.

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...

I've not once told people how they should play D&D. I'm simply lamenting the fact that many styles of playing a fun game, my own included, are often marginalized when new editions of games are created. I am hoping for the best, however.

Neither is D&D a rules heavy game. Advanced D&D 1-3 are all rules heavy, but previously there were always "core" rules for those who didn't care for all the designer's house rules (now too called "core").

Also, and I've been very cordial throughout this thread, more than a few times you have have stated to me what I believe or at at least what I truly believe. Please stop attributing to me opinions I do not hold. You are misperceiving me. I am not implying, saying, or believing your style of game or favorite game suck. I am disagree with your opinions including many you state as fact.

 

[howandwhy99]

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.

I think the answer was given by someone other than me.

"3rd edition has some serious problems we just can't house rule away. Let's make 4th."

 

[howandwhy99]

I don't find this to be so.. I have HRs for replacing or changing combat actions, spells, grappling, hit points, conditions... well, pretty much everything. I have found 3E easier to create a rule and predict the impact on the rest of the system. Many of my HR's nowadays get refined through the boards here before they even see playtime. In 2E, HR results were much more a guesstimate, and often had to be refined in playtest... occasionally resulting in horrible outcomes for the enjoyment of the game.

I much prefer a tightly nit, understandable system that I can trade pieces out of like a giant set of lego's...and that I can walk into a new game with a good idea of what to expect.

I don't forsee 4E straying far from 3E in this regard, the system will probably use similar systme balances, but with 30 levels will have more granularity. This makes the lego blocks smaller and easier to build into a wider variety of game styles.

YMMV, of course.

HowandWhy99.. You missed the point of my previous post. I just couldn't find the right words to for the diametrically opposed comments of minimizing OOC thought and suggesting the *player* learn that the character might have an unknown penalty when he missed on a 14 but other players hit on a 14
OOC indeed.

IMHO the character should know that the supposedly cursed sword drew the attack off-line, and a DM's comment along the lines of 'You swing mightly, in true form that your sensai would be proud of.. but for some reason your sword seemed to glance off his bare skin...'
*that* would be IC

That's one way to go. The DM may leave hints in his descriptions. Actually, that's one of the most common methods. But one of the faults the game has had since its inception has been the players attacking a single creature and often determining its' exact AC. You're right, that was a poor example on my part.

I agree with TwinBahamut in that knowing the rules and roleplaying are two seperate deals. IME, knowing the rules makes it easier to submerge into the game.

For me, it's the exact opposite. Thinking about the rules codifies my thinking into what they have predetermined "works". I'd rather believe there were rules for every imaginable thing and then do them. And as the DM I'd make sure each was possible.

Also, you had some really good ideas in the first part of the post I very much agree with. I want an organically created game system, not one so tightly integrated I cannot remove ability bonuses without having to rewrite the game. I very much would prefer a simple core and any number more of modular additions and variants. I've mentioned this in other threads.

 

[howandwhy99]

I'm pretty Sim myself (with a bit of the other nonsense categories thrown in), so it's not like I'm trying to beat you down, just correcting what I was -sure- was a misconception. Use the books how you like, dawg, but the game is what it is.

I remember when that quote began making the messageboard rounds. It should be kept in context though. First, it is referring to ADVANCED D&D and I am not. Even then, AD&D is far, far more rules heavy then would seem to make that quote true right?

That leads me to number two. What other roleplaying games were around in August of '79? Not many right? Now how many could have possibly fit that "realism-simulation school" of "hobby games" to which Gary is referring? Maybe one? two?

It's my firm belief he is referring to hobby games from the late 50's to the early 70's that D&D was a part of and just leaving: wargames. And if you remember how crazy overboard realism-simulation heavy wargames could become, then AD&D can look pretty simple.

Chainmail and D&D are a beer & pretzels games. Everything piled on top of them are the non-core options IMO. They were created by coming up with rules that covered actions players came up with in game. The intention came first, the rule second. That's all I mean. They were there to help the Players live their dream. Now game play mattered too. Maybe even as much, but in my book D&D is primarily a simulation game. Albeit a simple one.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

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).

There most certainly ARE rules in the real world. Pick up a physics book and you have a list of many of them right there. I don't have to KNOW the laws of physics to be affected by them. I can even know the basics of them without ever having learned about them at all.

The idea is that from the time I'm born, I'm learning the "rules" one step at a time. I learn that when I move in the right way I can stand and walk. I know that depending on how I throw something, the further it goes and I know about how good I am at aiming at something when I throw it. I can practice at something and get better at it.

I know approximately how heavy rock is and how much of it I can pick up based on my previous experience. I know that when I get cut I bleed and that getting cut by some things or in some places hurts me more.

All of those are "rules". Whether I think of them as "That can has an ac of 9 and I have +8 to hit and a rock has a range increment of 10 feet so I know I can hit the can with a thrown rock at 10 feet 95% of the time" or "I know I can hit that can over there almost every time with these rocks since I've practiced with them" is fairly irrelevant. One is just rules speak for the same thing.

The real difference comes down to consistency and speed. If I put a draw a small can on a table on the battlemat and put down my miniature 10 feet away from it then without any input from the DM whatsoever I can assess my chances of hitting it. I know that Diminutive objects get a bonus to their ac for being small. I know that inanimate objects aren't moving so have a Dex of 0, making a medium sized object AC 5 to hit. So I know that the can is around AC 9, so I can figure out (at least close) my chance to hit. That math is fairly easy for me, so I can do it in a second or two and make up my mind if I want to throw that rock or not.

The other way requires me to think "Would my character be good at throwing rocks? I think so, he probably spent his days sitting by the lake and throwing rocks at the logs in the lake." So, then I need to ask the DM "How far away is the can?" The DM tells me "Not too far, around 10 ft." I think "10 feet? Well, with how much practice I've had, that should be a piece of cake." The DM is thinking "I remember trying to throw rocks when I was a kid. It's HARD, I could never hit anything with them no matter how hard I tried. At 10 feet, it's likely there's only a 10% chance that he could possibly hit it." So I make the roll, get a 17 and the DM tells me "You miss". I get completely baffled because in MY mind that was easy.

The character starts with the ability to cast magic, but neither they nor the player knows "the rules of how magic truly works".

Err...why not? What if I want to play a game where I'm a powerful archmage? Would I still not know the "rules of how magic works"? Why do all games require I start completely incapable of knowing what my own abilities do? Why would I cast a spell not knowing if it might blow me up instead of what I wanted it to do?

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.

So what would be the point of casting Detect Magic if I have no idea what the colors mean? Also, where did I learn magic from? Did the person who taught me ever figure out what the colors meant? If so, what did he say when I asked him? How long has magic been around? If it's passed down from person to person did ANY of the people who cast it since the beginning of time ever figure out what the colors meant?

If I was told any of this information while I was learning magic, could you tell me what it is now so I can write it down in a list to remind me for later? Maybe I'll even compile a book of all the information my character knows from his time before the campaign begins. Then, as I discover new magic and I cast it and see how it works, I'll write the results in the book for later as well. Maybe I'll call it a Player's Handbook. That sounds like a good name for it.

It's got nothing to do with the quality of the group. We could accept 8-year-olds and they would get it and be playing in a matter of minutes. I would never try that in the game I DM.

Sure, they'd understand the CONCEPT easily. It's the most basic form for make believe that almost everyone does when they are kids. However, how well it WORKS is dependent on the quality of the group.

You would have no fun with me as one of your players. I would be constantly asking you questions about things that you are POSITIVE are common sense and that I should know. This is because, in my experience, relying on everyone having the same assumptions never works.

For instance, one person will think that a wooden building takes 30 seconds to burn down entirely and another one will think it takes 12 hours because neither of them have actually sat and watched a building burn down. So they each go to the only points of reference they have. Player A thinks of that movie he watched where someone had to run out of the building really quickly to avoid the whole place coming down on him. Player B remembers a movie on fire fighters that had them walking through a building for a couple of hours looking for the point of origin. Each one is convinced that they are the one that is right. It is extremely important to the character's life if the roof came down and crushed him before the rest of the group could get there or not.

This is why we have rules. So, when there aren't any, I'd spend all the time in the game asking questions like the above ones on magic.

 

[IceFractal]

The thing about the players not knowing any of the rules, is that it's only appropriate if the characters are just beginning their training (in D&D terms, not even level 1 yet). For a novice mage who just learned to cast cantrips, not knowing what the "orange aura" means makes sense. For an experienced Wizard who's finished his training and has a few journeys under his belt, it makes no sense, it'd be like an astronomer referring to the moon as "that big glowing thing that's there most nights".

 

[Blackwind]

I always thought D&D was Retro Stupid.




Although, it became less so with 3E and now with Mearls and co in charge, probably even less Stupid with 4E. Will that be a good thing or a bad thing? I don't know.

In all seriousness, though, I think D&D is primarily Gamist. Thing is, the designers have often given gamers mixed messages about how the game is supposed to be played. Especially in 2E. A lot of DMs back then were trying to use D&D to run Simulationist games -- myself included. Not that that's bad either, there just might be more effective systems for that kind of thing.