The power of D&D is the power of dreams and imagination, and rules for both!

[Edena_of_Neith]

What is more powerful than the will to dream?
The power of people to dream has built the world. It has put men and women on the moon, probes on Mars, sent Voyager out of the solar system. It built the steam engine, erected skyscrapers and superhighways, encircled the globe in telecommunications. It has seen Olympic records created and ever broken, as ever more stupendous feats of athletic prowess have been achieved.
And all this, really, is a very poor and weak description of the human aptitude to dream. An eloquent writer like Tolkien could put it into proper perspective: it is almost beyond imagination in it's power and it's grandeur.

We dream as kids. We dream as adolescents. But something rotten happens when we grow up: society tries to crush our ability to dream.
Society tells us we are naught but this, or that, and only within these limitations can we exist (such is the nature of society, for good or bad.)

At the core of Dungeons and Dragons, when it first evolved out of miniature wargames, was the integration of our will to dream with a miniatures game.
Driven by the willingness, the drive to dream, boys and girls grew up playing D&D, and made it into the great roleplaying game it became, made it a household name. The power of dreams was behind D&D, and that power was tremendous.

When we grew up, the world of adulthood came crashing in, and for many of us, there simply wasn't *time* to play anymore. And many quit the hobby.
For many, many others, other dreams took over. Instead of dreaming of slaying monsters and achieving glory, we dreamed of wives and husbands and good education and good jobs. We spent our energy on that. The hobby lost many, many more people.
And for some of us, we lost the ability to dream (we forget how to fly, as it were) and the game just wasn't fun anymore. Some of us stopped playing because of it.

For some of us, it was for other reasons that we left the Hobby. For some of us, it was a mixture of all of the reasons given.

Our children, the new generation, could have filled the gap. They, like us, dreamed, and they would have done as we had done.
But computer games had evolved, and continued to evolve. The internet rose, and internet games rose.
Also, D&D had to compete with Magic the Gathering, that card game that took the Hobby by storm, and with many other card games.

Also, D&D had a set of basic etiquettes, protocols, that did not please all of us. Other gaming companies stepped into this void, to satisfy those who would dream, but would dream in slightly different ways. Thus, we saw White Wolf and it's games, and other competitors to D&D.

-

With all that said, Dungeons and Dragons faced an enemy that it could not win against. An enemy that had been there from the beginning, an enemy insidious, powerful, extremely destructive, and concealed.
That enemy was itself.

Have you ever noticed that in Chess, a rigid etiquette is followed? There is a rigid set of rules, and a rigid set of behavioral etiquette as well. This is seen in chess tournaments. I would note that Chess is a very popular game, was popular before D&D arose, and is still popular today.
So, what does this have to do with D&D and it's nemesis ... itself?

Dungeons and Dragons is based upon dreams, and dreams are based upon the imagination.
But the imagination must have a stable set of rules upon which to base itself. Daydreaming is fine, but if you wish to imagine defeating a dragon and taking it's riches, and finding fulfillment in that fantasy, you need a platform from which to launch your imagination and find that fulfillment.
If there is no stable platform, the imagination is compromised, and it is harder to find fulfillment ... and that is just the beginning.

Dungeons and Dragons, in it's first incarnations, tried to create that stable platform. It was realized that such a stable platform was needed. It was in the 1E Dungeon Master's Guide. The creators of the game understood the need ... and the danger of the platform falling apart.
However, at the same time - in 1E - the DM and players were encouraged to alter the rules, and to break the rules, to modify the situation anyway they saw fit.

Now, this is a *crucial* point.
The DM and players were encouraged to modified and break the rules *as they pleased.*
They were not encouraged to modify and break the rules only for truly good reasons, with a ready understanding of the danger of changing the rules. No, that was not the situation.
They were encouraged to change the rules as they saw fit, frivolously, and the danger of doing this, of institutionalizing this thinking, was not properly presented to the players of that time (perhaps it would have been futile to present it so, to the teenaged players of that time anyways, since breaking and modifying rules, revolting, in rebellion, was what we were all about.)

In any case, the idea that rules existed to be changed, and that rules existed to be broken, became institutionalized. It became the norm, the accepted standard, and not the exception.

At first, this institution was relatively harmless. Was a level limit of 7th level ok, or should it be 8th level? Should everyone start with random hit points, or should they have maximum hit points? Should alignments be rigid or loosely defined? A lot of friendly discussions, philosophical discussions, and other discourse occurred, in Dragon Magazine and elsewhere, as Gamers discussed and pondered upon such things during the course of play.
Those discussions, those friendly conversations, didn't stay friendly or amical in the end. They turned unfriendly. Slowly, over a course of years, discussion turned to argument, and argument to denouncement, and denoucement to anger, and anger to hatred.

It ceased to be ok for that group to play in their own way, as well as in ours. It became that the other group was welcome to play in their way, so long as they stayed away from us, and didn't try their lousy play in our game.
Later, it became that we wanted nothing to do with that other group at all, because they were just lousy gamers.
Later yet, it became that we wanted nothing to do with that other group at all, because they were lousy people.

(Remember how, many years ago, people fought and flamed over whether Spell Penetration should be +2 or +1, ala 3.0 or 3.5? Personal insults and anger roared like eager flames on ENWorld and the other messageboards?)

The D&D community balkanized into a thousand groups, each convinced it was right and everyone else was wrong, more time was spent arguing, fighting, and denoucing that playing, and unless you toed the line in your group, you were out of your group.

How does all of the above relate to the imagination?
Well ... it killed it, that's how it relates.
When people grew fearful they would be assaulted, insulted, thrown out of groups, denounced and shunned, because they dared to imagine, they stopped imagining. They had no stable platform to imagine from, because every DM and player set their own rules and changed them on a whim, and they dared not imagine because a culture of intolerance had replaced the culture of dreams that created D&D back when it all started.

(The nerfing of magic was a product of this culture and this thinking, since magic was the epitome of imagination, and it was called unbalancing, and wrong, and banned from the Hobby except in a tightly controlled way. Some of us refused to go along with this banning, and we were beaten down by the loud voice of the majority.)

If there was *any* chance of the young joining in with us, in D&D, *this* was when that chance was lost.
The young desired to dream, to imagine, just as we had. They were the rebels, the gatecrashers, the blow-up-the-setting and get mountains of gold crowd (just as we were.)
The young wanted nothing to do with balance, being told what to do, being told how to think, being told how to imagine, anymore than we did when we fought against the system and our own parents to hold a fun game on a sunny Saturday afternoon.
In other words, we had become the disapproving parents that we had fought against. Why would the young want our game? The young wanted *their* game.

To my endless astonishment, nobody - not TSR or WOTC or anyone else - even mentioned this, ever cited this as a problem, yet it was patently obvious to any observer that this was a problem.
They cited marketing, they cited competition, they cited the internet, they cited all sorts of things, but they never cited that the young were the rebels, and this was their game ... as it had been ours ... and should still have been ours.
Indeed, many in the Hobby explained that they would force the young to fall in line, force the young to do as they were told, force the young to imagine as they were told. Which is absurd, since the young are the young, and will do things their way, not ours.

Yes, there was serious competition. Yes, there were computer games, then the internet, then internet games, and the big internet game known as World of Warcraft. And card games such as Magic. And everything else.
But NONE of these competitors, except for other roleplaying games, strove to attract the imagination. That, is a unique strength of table top roleplaying games. That, is a unique strength of Dungeons and Dragons. NO other game could hope to compete against that, against the unfettered imagination, against the desire to dream.

So what did we do?
We hardened our stance further yet. Dreaming and imagination were disallowed. The game and all things concerning it had to go within strict guidelines that each of us, on our own whims, found satisfying.
When the young and anyone else stated their desire to do it their way, we denounced them ever more harshly, as Gamers and people and human beings.
We reveled in intolerance, anger and hatred were institutionalized, we lashed out blindly and furiously at all who differed in any way with us, we were ready to denounce someone as the lowliest slime in the primordial sea over a +1 or +2.
In that atmosphere, dreams died. Imagination died. And Dungeons and Dragons, died.

-

So, to bring back Dungeons and Dragons, in my opinion, is to correct where we went wrong originally.
Set up the rules. Make the rules, THE RULES. The Rules. Rules to be obeyed. Rules to be followed (ala chess.) Rules there for the obeying, not rules there to be bent or broken ... except in extremis.

Now, you will say: but so many situations exist where a DM must arbitrate things, because the rules are vague.
Very well. Let's establish an etiquette for arbitrating various situations. Such as, once arbitrated, that's how it is. It won't be arbitrated differently in that campaign (hopefully, in that group, ever again, even.)

You will say: magic has infinite possibilities, and setting arbitrary limits, limits the imagination.
I say: wrong. Set the rules. Be CONCISE. Be DETAILED. If a spell requires 10 pages to describe it (even the humble Fireball) then so be it. Because from those rules, those assumptions, the imagination has a platform upon which to work.
If magic must still be arbitrated, which will inevitably happen, then arbitrate it! But once arbitrated, that's how it is, in that campaign (and hopefully, in that group.)

You look at Chess, and you might say: My, you can only do those limited things with those chess pieces. No imagination there!
But in chess, we *know* that the Queen, IS the Queen, and she can move in mighty fashion, and you can do dastardly things with her! Any combination of pieces that you can contrive to win, you use, and if the Queen is handy, all the better!
It may not be imagination, but it is the mind working. In D&D, you can work the mind and the imagination simultaneously.

But you *cannot* work either if the player does not know how the Queen moves. You cannot work mind or imagination if, he dares to say the Queen moves like he heard she moves, and everyone jumps on him or her as someone bad, someone disgraceful, someone subhuman! (ala, all the nasty names Gamers have come up with for each other, none of which should EVER have been invented.)

Go back to the Basic Etiquette, and elaborate on it. Elaborate on it to cover all those situations, cover as many realms of possibility as one could think of, and set an etiquette for adjudicating.
Create an institution of respect for the rules (as they have in Chess.) Institutionalize respect for the rules.
Institutionalize respect for other Gamers.
Institutionalize dignity in play (can you imagine some of the behavior seen in KODT ... or in tables we've suffered through ... in a Chess Tournament?!!)
Institutionalize respect for the game itself.
Institutionalize that rules are to be obeyed, not broken. If they ARE to be broken, it should be for a VERY GOOD reason, and as an exception.

Put an end to the institution that rules can be changed on a whim.
Put an end to the institution that it is ok to attack other Gamers for disagreements (isn't there enough trouble of that kind, outside the game already?)
Put an end to the institution that undignified play is ok (In a Chess Tournament, he or she who argues, insults, derides, or causes trouble is thrown out the door headfirst with no appeal.)

Most of all, respect the imagination. Not Balance ... balance is a concept that translates to fun play, but as you well know it rarely actually translates to anything but suppression of the imagination.)
Respect the right to dream. Center the rules around dreams. Center the rules around the human drive to dream. That's what was originally attempted. That's what should be done again.

In this world of computer and internet games, card games, everything games, ONLY roleplaying games allow the power of dreams, the imagination, to run amok, run wild, assert itself in it's full wonder, imputence, and brutality. Let our Hobby flourish by allowing the imagination and dreams to do all of those things.
Those other games, they cannot hope to compete against that!
Those other games, require no imagination or dreaming, do not allow imagination or dreaming. Only roleplaying does!

Let's try again. There are always the young, and the young will always dream and imagination (hopefully, we older people can still do that too!) There will never be an end to dreaming and imagination.
If Dungeons and Dragons can seize upon this, profit from it, there will never be an end to Dungeons and Dragons!

Yours Sincerely
Edena_of_Neith

 

[Wild Gazebo]

Water is wet.
Fish live in water.
Therefore fish are water.

 

[Remathilis]

(The nerfing of magic was a product of this culture and this thinking, since magic was the epitome of imagination, and it was called unbalancing, and wrong, and banned from the Hobby except in a tightly controlled way. Some of us refused to go along with this banning, and we were beaten down by the loud voice of the majority.)

So, this is a long-winded way of saying: "How DARE fourth edition condense everything into a power that fits on a note card!"?

I have to heartily disagree with your basic premise: game-balance does NOT kill imagination. Nor does rules that are internally consistent, or classes that have equal value along all levels of play, or simple resolution mechanics. These don't kill imagination, they (as you said) stabilize it for everyone.

See, in my humble opinion, the only imagination "unbalanced" rules created was "how can I manipulate X rules to my advantage?" Classically, this meant finding spell-combos (Timestop + Delayed Blast Fireball or Shapechange: choker + quicken spell = three spells a round + move action) or later, feat/class/prestige class combos. I guess you can look at those and say "that's creative" but often times it took things that weren't broken on their own and made them so good, they ruined the fun of others.

Similarly, classic canards like "Wizards should be the most important class, they're WIZARDS!" is hogwash. Wizard is a character option, just like fighter, rogue or barbarian. It should be equally viable at low levels, and equally useful at high levels. The same should be said for rogues/thieves, elves, humans, clerics, fighters, and ANY OTHER CHARACTER CREATION CONCEPT. If knowing your dwarven fighter has built in obsolesces or that humans only come into their own if you have a game where you reach 15th level, you are punishing me for wanting to use my imagination. If I imagine my PC a burly dwarven shocktrooper with axe cleaving skulls, I don't want to find out at level 12 I've maxed out my ability to improve (but that's ok, the human mage I defended for 11 levels can kill anything, even me, in a thought). That's the rules dictating to me my imagination.

Lastly, nothing helps my imagination grow like rules that allow me an opportunity to do things! A simplified resolution mechanic that allows DMs flexibility to adjudicate whatever a PC wishes to try is a godsend. No having to go step-by-step through grapple rules to throw a guy out a window. No awkward punching/wrestling table in a barfight! No "Why can the thief climb the mountainside, but not me?" logic. It frees my imagination and when I don't worry about the rules, I can run wild.

Sorry Edena, but your argument (colorful that it is) is a bit too clever. Imagination (like life) finds a way to play in almost any condition, be it GI Joe, Barbie, LEGOS, WoW RP servers, or D&D.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

So, this is a long-winded way of saying: "How DARE fourth edition condense everything into a power that fits on a note card!"?

Ah, no. This is not an Editions War Thread.
Edition Wars Threads are not allowed on ENWorld, as per the Rules.

This thread has nothing to do with editions of D&D. This thread is about the fundamental roots of D&D, and why I think D&D is having some trouble currently based on those fundamental roots.

I have to heartily disagree with your basic premise: game-balance does NOT kill imagination.

Well, ok, I was not specific enough. I was really describing a mentality behind Balance, not so much Balance per se. All editions of D&D had Balance ... they had a Balance of Imbalances. And they still do. In my opinion, all roleplaying games have this Balance of Imbalances.
By 'Balance' I was specifically referring to efforts to suppress the imagination, to denounce the imagination. You might ask: why would I allude to such things? Because I have seen this suppress take place, both in person and indirectly. I cannot fathom why people feel threatened by the imagination of other people, yet there it is ... I've seen it happen, over and over and over. So, they do what they can to convince the other player to suppress his or her imagination. (I am not an expert on human nature.)

So, I am not saying that Balance destroys the game. I'm saying efforts to suppress the imagination destroy the game. And, for reasons I do not understand, some people feel threatened by imagination and try to suppress it, and I've seen example after exhausting example of this happen for myself.

Nor does rules that are internally consistent, or classes that have equal value along all levels of play, or simple resolution mechanics. These don't kill imagination, they (as you said) stabilize it for everyone.

Hey, each to their own. I cannot disagree with you here! I agree!
But it's a funny thing. You know ... as in ... one player might prefer a D&D type roleplaying game, and one a White Wolf Vampire the Masquerade type of roleplaying game. Each to their own.
One person might want, to use the cliche, a world where wizards Rule. Another might want a game where fighters Rule. Heh. LOL. What to do?

I said we need a stable set of rules, yet here I am saying everyone is different, and wants a different game.
Sorta like a lot of people like Chess, but everyone wants to play it using a different set of rules! (That's the analogy!)

A difficult problem to solve ... if you want to maintain an institution of respect for the rules, I think. (That is, how can people respect Chess and it's single set of rules, if everyone plays their own version of Chess?!)
The best answer I have is to establish an Institution of Rules Variants, where there is This Type of Setting, and That Type of Setting, to satisfy the needs of different players (along with their Own Type of Setting.)
Thus, the Arcane Age, Greyhawk, Dark Sun, Maztica, Ravenloft, Kalamar, Mystara, Hollow World, Monte Cook's Setting, AL-QADIM, Oriental Adventures ... heck, pick your edition of D&D, too ... OD&D, 1E, 2E (and variants), 3.0, 3.5, 4th edition, 3rd party (Arcana Unearthed comes to mind here) ... I guess all these choices represent a kind of institutionalization of variations in the rules, to satisfy the needs of different players who want different kinds of games.

It's the best answer we've come up with, I think. And it's getting better all the time, as it were, as more and more settings exist, and more and more editions of the game, and more and more variants of the game (they may not all be instantly available at a bookstore, but there are all there online on the world's Biggest Bookstore of Them All.)

I really don't have a better answer. Obviously, you cannot treat D&D like Chess, straight out. It won't work because people want variation. It's not an easy situation, and I do not pretend to say it is.

Yet ... the reality that a player needs a concrete set of rules, on which to base his or her imagination, remains. There it is. And he or she doesn't need other players bashing him or her because he or she wants to dream, wants to imagine.
If we can do nothing else, we should institutionalize the idea that, with dreaming and the imagination, anything goes. And work the rules around that core principle ... somehow.

See, in my humble opinion, the only imagination "unbalanced" rules created was "how can I manipulate X rules to my advantage?" Classically, this meant finding spell-combos (Timestop + Delayed Blast Fireball or Shapechange: choker + quicken spell = three spells a round + move action) or later, feat/class/prestige class combos. I guess you can look at those and say "that's creative" but often times it took things that weren't broken on their own and made them so good, they ruined the fun of others.

I would say two things about this.

1. The young do not care. They are, initially, going to plunder the system for all it's worth (if they are anything like we were, they will.) 40th level characters? Yes. Min-Maxing to the ultimate? Yes. Conquering the world? Yes. 1 billion gold pieces? Yes. Defeating the Gods? Yes. Doing what they want simply because they want to and can? Yes. Heh. LOL. (Cheers to the young!)

2. I think 1E D&D should have been slightly different. It was founded on the Conan type principle of The World Is Harsh, Fight or Die, Conquer or Be Conquered, Triumph and Vanquish, and so on and on.
But 1E was also specifically designed so that characters were *not* self-sufficient. They had to rely on each other for survival. So, we had the fighter, the wizard, the cleric, the rogue, and each had special skills nobody else had.
The concept behind 3.5E gestalt, removed this, and postulated that a single character could be far more self sufficient, having two classes as one (and if a gestalt character multiclassed, he or she could have all the basic needed skills for survival.)
Unfortunately, the gestalt concept came at the very end of 3.5, in an optional book at that, and never had any time to become established.

Why not have such a system as that, where anyone can attempt to acquire all the skills ala gestalt? And the only limitation, is how hard the player tries to acquire power? (D&D is really, heavily, about acquiring power ...)

Heh, so then ANY player could, ultimately, have the ability to use that 'how can I manipulate X rules to my advantage? Classically, this meant finding spell-combos (Timestop + Delayed Blast Fireball or Shapechange: choker + quicken spell = three spells a round + move action'
And each player can try to outdo the others, in being more disastrouly, wickedly, nastily creative in trashing the DM's monsters and scenarios alike!

In short, everyone gets a chance to get all the Good Stuff, at all levels.

Similarly, classic canards like "Wizards should be the most important class, they're WIZARDS!" is hogwash. Wizard is a character option, just like fighter, rogue or barbarian. It should be equally viable at low levels, and equally useful at high levels. The same should be said for rogues/thieves, elves, humans, clerics, fighters, and ANY OTHER CHARACTER CREATION CONCEPT.

Again, each to their own.
I like the classic concept of the single class wizard, but I'd rather see the clever character try to have his or her cake, and eat it too.
For example, a lot of people played elven fighter/wizards. After years of watching the rules be stretched over that, and having seen things since ...
... I would say: Heck, just let EVERYONE be EVERYTHING, make it Gestalt (so a standard 2 class character has all 4 of the basic classes, and a 3 classes character basically has it all) and carry on.

But that's up to each DM and player, as it should be. Again, it's about Variants. Conan was a single classed Barbarian. John Carter was a single classed Fighter. Merlin was a Druid or a Wizard depending on interpretation. Thoth-Amon was a Wizard.

(muses)

We need a Rules Etiquette that covers situations where the characters are single classed (and not self sufficient) and multiclassed and self-sufficient, and everything in-between.
A tall order, but there it is.

If knowing your dwarven fighter has built in obsolesces or that humans only come into their own if you have a game where you reach 15th level, you are punishing me for wanting to use my imagination. If I imagine my PC a burly dwarven shocktrooper with axe cleaving skulls, I don't want to find out at level 12 I've maxed out my ability to improve (but that's ok, the human mage I defended for 11 levels can kill anything, even me, in a thought). That's the rules dictating to me my imagination.

That was a rule in 1E, which I disagreed with (as did everyone else.)
It sorta assumes that only humans dream. The other races - elves, dwarves, halflings - don't dream very well, don't want or crave great insight, great skill, great accomplishment ... and thus never get to high level ... or, have lost the ability to get to high level.
I wouldn't go with that. Heck, just let the demihumans have the goods also. Humans will stand shine out (an age problem? Magical Longevity will fix that! A fighter with no magical longevity? Use the gestalt rules, or let him or her contact a wizard WITH longevity magic! Or ... just rule humans live a long time (the average life expectancy on Barsoom was 1,000 years ...)

In short, the so called Racial Advantage Thing was, in my opinion, overblown. Level limits weren't needed. Not even with the infamous drow. Just my opinion. If we build a new core infrastructure, leave that out.

Lastly, nothing helps my imagination grow like rules that allow me an opportunity to do things!

Yes. Yes! YES. Did I say Yes? YES!!!
We are on the same wavelength here! Rules. RULES! Rules that allow you to DO things. I like it. Cheers to you, sir.

A simplified resolution mechanic that allows DMs flexibility to adjudicate whatever a PC wishes to try is a godsend. No having to go step-by-step through grapple rules to throw a guy out a window.

LOL.
There was Algebra, then Calculus, then Psionics (understandable only by the illithid!), then the 1E Grapple Rules (understandable only by the Krell.)
Give me simplicity.
I roll to hit at -4. I hit! That means a successful grapple! (or something simple like that.)

You are *so* right. In most conflicts we see in popular fiction and on TV, those involved grapple, tumble, punch, and otherwise barge around, crash around, fall, wrestle, and otherwise do lots of things other than 'formal fencing with weapons'.
Can you imagine an ogre who insists on only 'formally fencing with weapons'? LOL. That ogre will, indeed, try to squash you with his club, but he will also stomp on you, fall on you, squeeze on you, kick you, run you down, and ... play a one-sided Rugby game with your poor PC?
Or, at least, that is how I imagine it. I would think others would too.

No awkward punching/wrestling table in a barfight! No "Why can the thief climb the mountainside, but not me?" logic. It frees my imagination and when I don't worry about the rules, I can run wild.

LOL. Again, total agreement.
And, again, I advocate the Gestalt concept, based on your thief example.
If the fighter wants to climb a mountain, let him. If the wizard wants to try, let her. Etc., etc., etc.. Why should a character be restricted to just one set of actions?
Let each player and his or her character attempt to get All the Good Stuff! (I go much further on this thinking that you do, but in the basic principles of the matter we agree totally.)

Sorry Edena, but your argument (colorful that it is) is a bit too clever. Imagination (like life) finds a way to play in almost any condition, be it GI Joe, Barbie, LEGOS, WoW RP servers, or D&D.

[/QUOTE]

(considers)

My argument is that ...
Hmmm ... the core rules were incomplete, really. Some of the original rules I did not agree with, and many others did not agree with.
We were right to change those rules. Make up new ones. Get the supplements. Go to new editions. Whatever it took, to have fun.

Where we went wrong, was when we started disrespecting the rules so badly, that the very idea of fundamental rules became increasingly meaningless. What we wanted, was the only thing that mattered.
THAT IN ITSELF wasn't so bad of a thing, really. BY ITSELF, the disrespect for rules was not the problem. IT IS WHAT IT LED TO, that became the problem.

What it led to was the concept that the rules used by OTHER players, were somehow 'inferior' to the rules used by US.
Somehow, OUR version of the rules and the game, was 'superior' to the rules and version played by THOSE OTHER players.

Again, at first, this was a minor aside, not a major issue. It was merely - at the time - a reason for philosophical debate, discussion, the occasional argument, and so on. It took up some pages of Dragon Magazine, people read and formed opinions, and so on.

But, over the years, these attitudes hardened into intolerance. Intolerance became institutionalized. By institutionalized, I mean it became the predominent mindset, the way in which everyone started thinking.
Conversations became arguments, philosophical debate became vitrolic putdowns, people started looking down on each other, people started with the name-calling, feelings got hurt, and a downward spiral began.

I will repeat that, many years ago, this downward spiral led to people ready to kill each other over whether Spell Penetration should be +2 (3.0) or +1 (3.5) I witnessed the Flame Wars here and elsewhere.
This kind of institutionized anger, now turned to hatred, just vented and vented, and the downward spiral just went on and on.

Heck, an alternate forum even got created, so people could blow off steam, and that alternate forum was the old Nutkinland, and is now Circys Maximus.
There, the differences between Gamers turned into vitrolic blood and guts, and remains that way to this day.

And where did it all begin?
It all began with the seemingly harmless idea that rules had no meaning, because you had to change them to suit people's tastes, because in a game of imagination everything was possible.
I'm saying that yes, the rules need to be changeable, BUT respect for the rules is also needed ... and somehow this must be institutionalized, so that what has happened, never happens again.

Consider Chess players. They can be cranky at times. They can be very competitive, and certainly very emotional.
But you *do not see* chess players ready to kill each other over whether a bishop moves diagonally or vertically, whether a rook should move like a bishop, or whether the queen should be nerfed because she is too powerful a piece.
And that is because, the rules in Chess are respected as an institution.

There is a game called Knightmare Chess, a favorite of mine (but which horrifies the Chess players I know.)
In this game, you play cards, and the cards change the rules of Chess, one change of the rules per card!
Thus, you might have a King, or two Kings, or your King might automatically be able to get out of Checkmate, or he might even be able to swap places with another piece ... or even join the other side!! (in which case, you'd *better* have a second King, because your side is sorta beaten when your King defects to the other side ... lol ...)

But even Knightmare Chess, with all it's uproar, frivolity, and chaos, has a basic etiquette, a set of rules. Even the variants of Knightmare Chess have the etiquette and the rules.
And we who play Knightmare Chess respect the rules, and are not ready to have a Flame War because a card pronounces that my queen (or the other person's) joins the other side.

Now, why can't we do this in D&D?
Since when was all this racket of the last 20 years really necessary?
So in 3.0, Spell Penetration gives a +2. In 3.5, it gives a +1. In MY game, it gives a +4! In 4E, it doesn't exist.
And so? What of it? It's fine with me. It should not be a problem with anyone.

You spoke of the player with the 'how can I manipulate X rules to my advantage? Classically, this meant finding spell-combos (Timestop + Delayed Blast Fireball or Shapechange: choker + quicken spell = three spells a round + move action'
Well, yeah, some players are going to play like that (certainly, ALL Chess players have such a mentality. And why shouldn't player characters? They want to survive, and succeed!)
Some players won't.
Each to their own.
Why make a fuss about it?

Create a Core Etiquette in which, if a player wants to play like that, that's ok.
Set it up so the other players can also play like that, so everyone can Get the Goods.
And if the group is not comfortable with that style of play, set up the Etiquette to deal with how it is, they do want to play!
If you have one player who likes THAT way of playing, one player who likes THIS way of playing, and one player that likes THESE ways of playing, and one player who likes THOSE ways of playing, set it up so that everyone gets what they want!

Not an easy thing, I know. Indeed, quite a tall order.
But hey, it's FAR better than the alternative: the THAT player disses the THIS player who disses the THESE player who disses the THOSE player who disses the THAT player who ...

Wouldn't you agree?

Edena_of_Neith

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

Water is wet.
Fish live in water.
Therefore fish are water.

LOL

Truism: D&D should be fun.
Truism: D&D players should have fun.
Truism: D&D should be a fun game.

So, again, what went wrong? I have given my opinion. The rules weren't respected, then people weren't respected, then intolerance got institutionalized, then anger became the norm, then all out war became the norm.
So, what to do next time? Institutionalize respect for the rules, a more serious approach to altering rules, institutionalize respect for other players and other Gamers, apply strict etiquette against dissing and flaming, and ... hopefully ... institutionalize a game which is fun.

When it is a Truism that D&D = Fun, and the young agree with me and are pouring into the Hobby, I will be one happy Gamer.

Edena_of_Neith

 

[silvereyes]

Edith,

I don't believe that it's lack of respect for the rules that causes the arguments. If there was a lack of respect for the rules, then at this stage who would care about a +1 or a +2?

Infact the argument over spell penetration sounds like maybe we as a group have too much respect for the rules... I dunno, since I have very little respect for any rules.

As for the cause of the infighting amongst gamers, I feel it's simply a matter of Gary Gagyx being about 15 years ahead of his time. Since TSR couldn't tell us how to actually play the game, we had to figure it out ourselves. We all came up with different solutions, and we all believe we were right. Since there was no internet, we had no one that could tell us officially what the right way was.

By the time all the gamers meet each other is was too late to change our ways and our minds. Since that time, and the division in gamers, none of the big boys is really ready to write off any of the large divisions of this tiny market, so they keep trying to stick us all in the same game.

Several emotional and insecure individuals later, and the fights are still ongoing...

With the intruduction of White Wolf, even Gary Gagax hasn't had enough pull to get all the RPG gamers going in one direction.

What I think we need is some kind of a leader for the fan base. Untill someone actually takes responsibility for this mess personally, we'll stay divided.

 

[Matt Black]

Um... I don't think there's actually a problem. Different gamers like different styles, hence multiple games and multiple versions of the same game. Some find their imaginations blossom under a rigid rules set, many others find exactly the opposite. Why try shoehorn everyone into the same style?

There is no such thing as a perfect system for all people. Even for all D&D fans. So there will always be arguments. I mean c'mon, it's the internet!

But really, this infighting you talk about... is it really as vicious as you suggest? I mean... "people grew fearful they would be assaulted"???

 

[Foundry of Decay]

Some valid points.

Some not so valid.

Oddly my group and I have absolutely no problems with our imaginations. We all, also, refuse to argue over anything pertaining to rules, or what anyone outside of our gaming circle thinks about how we do things.

So honestly, this has little do do with us.

But you seem to believe the hobby is dying in some way, or at least imagination are becoming mired in the 'chaos of free-form rules'. Unfortunately this will be different from group to group, person to person.

To be perfectly honest, there are societal problems draining the minds of today's youth that have absolutely nothing to do with gaming at all, but that's a much larger, much broader thesis that could be gone into here.

I wish you luck in your quest. We're doing fine on this end though.

 

[JesterOC]

Edna,

While your post is nice and you seem to have thought a lot about this. I think you are wrong about this subject.

The ability to alter a game as you see fit for your gaming group has little to do with the bitterness of the infinite flame wars that erupt here all the time.

I have seen flame wars just as caustic in magic the gathering forums where, the rules are just as strict as chess. I have also seem pretty bad hateful arguments on RTS computer game forums, and those rules are enforced by machines.

The main reason you see this stuff is the nature of anonymity. People will write things to people on forums that they would never say to a person on the street. Mainy because the guy on the street has a chance to inflict bodily injury to the speaker.

When I played D&D in high school we played pretty much RAW, no one I knew had house rules other than for some magic items they invented. But we knew better to assume that those magic items would be accepted if we played a pickup game at a con. We were able to realize that house rules are for the group and core rules was for when we played with strangers.

Also D&D is not the only game that has tons of house rules. The number of varioutions of the Free parking space in Monopoly that I have seen is in the double digits. I have seen people rewrite Axis and Allies to make it "more historically correct"! These house rules don't hurt the games because people know they are "HOUSE" rules.

I agree with the huge amount of research that has been done by wizards to determin what makes people play D&D, what makes them stop playing D&D, and what people want out of D&D.

I don't have any knowledge of what Wizards thinks people want out of D&D but judging from the rules of 4E here is what I think they are betting on.

0) D&D needs to appeal to more people.
1) D&D can't live without DM's so the DM workload had better be minimized as to not intimidate folks for even trying.
2) Every choice that needs to be made should have a meaningful impact on your character.
3) There should be no bad choices that reward rules lawyers over people who just want to 'have fun'
4) Make the available character races the more interesting.

(I added the last one because so far the 2 new players I have introduced to D&D have opted for the Tiefling, and the Dragonborn. So I think they hit that one on the head.)

If 4E can do these things and many more things that I am sure I did not include in the list, then I think D&D is here to stay. If not it is WarCraft from here on.

JesterOC

p.s. The RPGA already has some pretty strict rules that handles most all organized play.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

Edith,

I don't believe that it's lack of respect for the rules that causes the arguments. If there was a lack of respect for the rules, then at this stage who would care about a +1 or a +2?

(very sad look)

At this point, the situation has deteriorated far beyond the situation that existed when the Flame Wars over Spell Penetration, whether it should be +2 or +1, occurred here and elsewhere.
Things were relatively healthy, as it were, back at that time, compared to now. Now it isn't about +2s or +1s. It is about ... well, it is so bad that what it is about, I cannot state on ENWorld - not even in the most gentle terminology I can think of - without breaking ENWorld Rules.
Let's just say that if I were a young person, considering joining our Hobby, joining in a D&D game, and I looked on *any* of the messageboards that relate to D&D, I would almost literally flee for my life from those sites. Actually joining the Hobby would be absolutely out of the question.
It should not be that way, it should not be like this. It once wasn't like this. How do I know that? Because I was around in 1975, 80, 85, 90, 95 ... I was around when the internet took off, around when ENWorld was founded, around to watch it all happen.

You are quite right, though: it's no longer a lack of respect for the rules that is the problem. That was the problem, a very long time ago. That isn't the problem anymore. If only that were merely the problem. If only.

Infact the argument over spell penetration sounds like maybe we as a group have too much respect for the rules... I dunno, since I have very little respect for any rules.

At that time, years ago, there was still ... there was still ... a dialouge concerning the rules. It was vitrolic, violent, filled with anger and with hatred, filled with hurt feelings and a desire to hurt, but a dialouge of ... a dialouge of some crude sort.

As for the cause of the infighting amongst gamers, I feel it's simply a matter of Gary Gagyx being about 15 years ahead of his time. Since TSR couldn't tell us how to actually play the game, we had to figure it out ourselves. We all came up with different solutions, and we all believe we were right. Since there was no internet, we had no one that could tell us officially what the right way was.

Gary Gygax ... may his memory be cherished.
But Gary Gygax was only one man, and he was experimenting with something that had never been done before: a roleplaying game. Yes, games existed prior to Gary, have existed since the beginning, but D&D was something new and different, something experimental.
So yes, his core rules, the rules set forth by TSR, were an incomplete template. I will go farther, and say that - in my opinion, and just my opinion - some of the template didn't work out very well.

So yes, we had to experiment further, we the Gamers. We had to fill in for what was missing. We had to make up a lot of stuff on our own.
Furthermore, a lot of roleplayers were inspired by D&D, but they wanted a different kind of D&D (thus, we saw the advent of Dragonlance, for example.) And they wanted not only additions to the template, but whole new templates.

However, you know as well as I do, that there is no 'right' way to play D&D, and in this D&D is unlike Chess, and the analogy fails.
Everyone did come up with their own way. And *extremely* unfortunately, a lot of Gamers *did* decide their way was the right way ... the only right way. Patently absurd, but there it is; that is what happened.
Once people started deciding their way was the 'right' way and it was ok to put down others for their 'wrong' way, the downward spiral began.

I, however, do not excuse them. There is no excuse for such intolerance. In games like Chess, such intolerance, is not tolerated within the Hobby. It is not allowed or tolerated in many other Games. The fact that it rapidly became ok to flame others for their style of D&D play came as a horrifying new reality and fact for me, and probably for many other people playing. There it was, and we had to deal with it, and it was altogether counterproductive.

It is quite true that TSR did not establish the kind of fundamental etiquette and rules, such as Chess has, to protect those in the Hobby from such behavior. I regret that there was a need for them to do so - there should not have *been* any such need, since we should have policed ourselves.
Nevertheless, no such template or etiquette was provided, TSR eventually collapsed, and long before that happened, the downward spiral was in full force.

If these words of mine are unpleasant to some of those who are viewing this post, note I am not criticizing anyone directly. I am not inferring anyone here is guilty of causing the carnage that came about. I am merely mourning that the carnage *did* come about. (I do not wish to *add* to the carnage. In what has become an Ocean of Blood, I would not slit my throat to add my share of gore to the red sea.)

By the time all the gamers meet each other is was too late to change our ways and our minds. Since that time, and the division in gamers, none of the big boys is really ready to write off any of the large divisions of this tiny market, so they keep trying to stick us all in the same game.

I would simply say that I doubt most of those who played in the Hobby ever had a chance to meet each other. Just my take.
The chaos and carnage I speak of, spread to the 'Big Boys' long before the fall of TSR. It has, obviously, continued since. I have witnessed terrifying examples of it, none of which I will repeat on this messageboard.
Needless to say, if no template for etiquette, no institution to keep Gamers at peace, existed at the beginning, certainly the carnage amongst the 'Big Boys' was not the prelude to a template actually being presented to the players. I appreciate that an attempt was tried, with the launch of 3rd Edition; it is obvious a template for a successful etiquette was attempted then. It, as history has shown, did not succeed, but I would give all due credit to those who made the effort at that time to aid our Hobby in succeeding.
Now, you say, we are a tiny market (what some refer to as a Cottage Industry.) But I still say, and will always say ... in sadness ... that it need not have been so, if what you say is true.

Several emotional and insecure individuals later, and the fights are still ongoing...
With the intruduction of White Wolf, even Gary Gagax hasn't had enough pull to get all the RPG gamers going in one direction.

I do not blame Gary Gygax or White Wolf for what happened. I blame those who insisted on denouncing others, insisted on attacking others, insisted in turning the Hobby into a bloodbath.
The fights are still ongoing? LOL. Yes indeed, they are. Very much so. Like never before, perhaps. There are several crucial Banned Subjects on ENWorld, as Morrus is trying to protect this messageboard from the fighting and the consequences of that fighting.

What I think we need is some kind of a leader for the fan base. Untill someone actually takes responsibility for this mess personally, we'll stay divided.

At the rate things are going, I must wonder if there will be a 'we' to discuss anything.
And it seriously grieves and infuriates me, that I have to make that statement. I cherish the game, and in my case it really HURTS, to have to watch, what I have watched happen.

(very unhappy, upset look)

Remember when Morrus pleaded for more money to support ENWorld? He commented that advertisers had gone away, donations were down, money was tight ... I'll not quote more details, not wanting to misquote Morrus, but I know the situation was bad.
And that's ENWorld, which is considered THE premier messageboard for our Hobby. If the main messageboard (at least, that's how *I* think of it - others are free to disagree) is in so much trouble, what does that say about things?
I was here shortly after ENWorld came into existence as Eric Noah's 3rd Edition Messageboard. I ran the IRs here. I watched ENWorld grow from a little messageboard into a mighty messageboard, into that premier messageboard.
That meant there was enormous support, and a lot of money (because bandwidth costs a lot of money) to support the board. And now Morrus is reduced to begging? Reduced to hoping for community donations because everything has dried up? On the largest D&D gaming messageboard on the internet?
That's not a real good sign of the times, is it? (Fortunately, there are a LOT OF GOOD PEOPLE on ENWorld, and Morrus received a deluge of support, from what I hear ... I wish to give my personal cheers and salutations to all those who helped Morrus out. Cheers to all of you who are helping keep ENWorld alive and kicking! : ) )

How about Dragon Magazine? *The* Flagship Magazine of the Hobby. There before D&D itself existed! Heck, there as The Dragon, before D&D even existed, much less as it's early incarnation as The Strategic Review!
Gone.

Dungeon Magazine? Gone.
Polyhedron Magazine? I don't know. I think the RPGA privately funds it, but I do not know.
White Dwarf? Long gone, gone over to Warhammer around Issue #80.

-

What do you think, really put an end to these magazines? What do you think *really* caused their demise?

Before you come up with the LONG LIST of ready answers - already discussed in tens or even hundreds of thousands of threads over countless messageboards - I can tell you in one simple sentence: The lack of a Base Etiquette at the Start. Clear and simple.

Without that Base Etiquette, it was ok to change the rules.
Once it was ok to change the rules, it became ok to dis other Gamer's house rules.
Once it was ok to dis other Gamer's house rules, it became ok to dis other Gamers.
Once it was ok to dis other Gamers, it was ok to attack them and denounce them.
And once that was ok, it became ok to denounce Gamers in very vitrolic terms, to call them sub-human, to use invective and terminology of unspeakable nature.
Once that happened, the young had no incentive to join the Hobby. Why would they? Who would want to join a Culture of Anger and Hatred?
Without the Young, there was only the shrinking Older-Hands market. And we steadily shrank - how could we not, with the demands the adult world places upon us - and thus the incoming flow of money shrank as well.
Eventually the money dried up so badly that .... one day Dragon Magazine was gone.

You can, of course, conclude something different (fork to a different thread if you do, and wish to continue it there.)
I just happen to think that, those running the Hobby lost all hope in our Hobby, lost all hope of it remaining as a permanent affair, and this played a crucial role in the decisions they made as a business.

And if things don't change, if the Culture of Anger and Hatred continues, do you really think that Pathfinder and 4E will not walk down the same sad, dark road?
Because the young are *not* going to join an intolerant culture of anger and hatred, where dreams and imagination are crushed, where anyone who dares creativity is smashed into the ground, where the young are viewed with derision (and I've seen every one of these things, in inglorious detail, over and over and over and over again, in game after game, event after event, time after time.)
Without the young, there is no future for D&D. That's a truism. Someone mentioned truisms. Well, that's a truism.

But what happened with Dragon and Dungeon is not complicated. It is simple, clear and simple. (Again, if you disagree, fork to a new thread for discussion.) No young, no D&D. No young, no Dragon or Dungeon. No young, no nothing!

And it all began because - because he was just one man, and those who followed were just ordinary people, and it was all new and experimental - D&D never had the kind of solid Template for Behavior and Rules that one would find in, say, Chess.
Had such a Template existed, had it been observed and followed, I honestly believe Dragon and Dungeon would be around today (in huge circulation, in every bookstore and magazine shop around.)

Back in 1980, I was playing in a game with my father and my brothers. My brother was DM, another brother and father and I were the players.
My father, an engineer, quickly gave up on D&D, stating that 'A game without rules, is no game at all.'
I scoffed at him at that time. I thought our DM was perfectly in the right, changing the rules.
I'm not scoffing now. I know better. I know my father was right.
Soon, there may *be no* D&D game, in a literal sense.

I'll say it one more time: A STRONG TEMPLATE OF ETIQUETTE, RULES, AND BASIS FOR RULES MODIFICATION is needed for Dungeons and Dragons (and for Pathfinder.)
And the Anger, the Hate, the Intolerance, has to go.
The Wonder, the World of Dreams, the World of Imagination, has to return.

If half of ENWorld is ready to let me have it, now, I will understand. I will. I do not expect many to agree with me on most of what I have said. People will form their own opinions, are entitled to their own opinions.

I will just say that, I loved Dungeons and Dragons (in all it's editions), I put my money into that love, I admire and respect those who gave us the game, the magazines, the variants, the books, all of it.
I remember the conventions. I remember the small conventions. I remember the hobby stores dedicated to us. I remember the Gamers at the tables. I remember the wonder, the joy, the fun, the magic.

I am allowed to weep at what has happened. Please trust me, I've done a lot of weeping.

But you cannot stop those who dream, and those who imagine. They will find a way, even in the dark hour of deepest night.
We need to never stop dreaming. As long as we dream, D&D will endure.

Edena_of_Neith