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

[Edena_of_Neith]

The times I have seen problems in the hobby it has been when a lack of (simple everyday) etiquette put rules (or any other aspect of the game) above people. Once people mature enough to put people first, the problems fade away.

As for rules: With any game, the rules are free to be changed by consensus of the participants. It’s done in friendly games of Monopoly. It’s done by chess federations. It’s done by professional sports leagues. I submit that discouraging freedom to change the rules is both unrealistic and not a solution to anything.

We have a philosophical disagreement here. I wish to simply state my side of the philosophy, the point of view.

I believe, as a matter of fundamental philosophy, that the core, the very root source of the power of Dungeon and Dragons, lies in Adolescent Thinking.
This *could* be interpreted as what is known as Immaturity, or be associated with behavior thought of as immature, but it is more complicated than that. Rather than delve into this complexity, I will use the cliche: The imagination and dreams of adolescent boys and girls.
It could also be summarized by this phrase: 'I kill the fire breathing dragon and take his gold!' But that is an oversimplification; many root statements of this sort, comprise the root strength from which arose Dungeons and Dragons.

Thus, my philosophy is that Adolescence is at the heart of D&D's strengths. But of course Adolescence, by it's very nature, will want to tear a game apart. It is a paradox of our Hobby.

I do not believe that most people ever fully 'grow up', as one might put it metaphorically. The Peter Pan in males, the Wendy in females, those remain in us throughout our lives. For some of us, the Peter or Wendy is stronger, for some weaker. For some, the pressing demands of life are more urgent (ala, dying of cancer!) and for some, not as pressing (ala, not dying of cancer!)
The Peter Pan or Wendy in us, that Adolescent, stays with us, and helps us in our dreaming, our imagination (the reality of the adult world tends to want to crush dreams and imagination alike, unfortunately ....)
We also, as adults, with the drives of adults, derive new dreams, new fantasies (what most would call Adult Dreams, Adult Fantasies) and we add those to the mix!
Along with the Maturity that comes with adulthood, we add Adult Dreams and Adult Fantasies, and the Adolescent in us is there also.

All that given ...

Allow me to ... put what I've said into a particular light.
Bear with me, and consider what I would say here.

Imagine that, there are 4 people sitting down at a table somewhere. Right now. Right this instant. And they are discussing D&D. Here is what they have to say, and how they say it.

- Player One (courteously, moderate tone) You know, that 9th level Shapechange spell is really cool. With that spell, my character can become an iron golem, a spectre, or even a lightning bolt, and zoom off to Luna in 2 seconds.
- Player Two (musing, philosophical voice) True, true. Ah, if only my fighter could do thus! And indeed, he would ... if I dual classed him and got him up to 18th level as a wizard!
- Player Three (serious, directed voice) That, within the 1E and 2E rules. You are not considering the 3.5E Gestalt rules. Now, with that system, you could already be playing a character who was both fighter and wizard. You'd have that Shapechange.
- Player Four (questioning voice) Is it realistic, though? A wizard, she must spend all her time as a girl becoming a wizard. A fighter, he must spend all his boyhood becoming a fighter. How could one, do both at once?
- Player One: I wonder the same thing. It seems ... it is difficult for me to imagine that. Yet, it is an option within the 3.5 rulesset. It must presume a different reality. I wonder what that is?
- Player Three: In my opinion, the Gestalt rules assume that an academy trains your character, a special academy, or a special group of people. Such things are common within works of fiction. They grant the character multiple abilities from multiple classes. I think the Gestalt concept reflects this.
- Player Two: There is also 4th edition. Within this rulesset, it is assumed your character is capable of many things, and you do not even need to write them down. You just roll for whatever appropriate challenge, that happens to present itself. The character is a competent person, verily.
- Player Four: Yet even so, there is always a division of labor. Any effort the fighter puts forth in learning wizardry, is effort put forth in wizardry and not learning to be a better fighter! It is a truism. Even could a Multi-Year Time Stop be enacted, and give you 10 free years to practice, and you practiced on wizardry, that would still be time spent on wizardry and not as a fighter!
- Player One: Of course, in such a case you'd need a Potion of Longevity.
- Player Three: Well, an elf might not be as concerned ...
- Player Two: Knowing the drow, they probably would have Potions of Longevity stacked in casks ...
- Player One: Lords help us, if the drow set up Timestop Circles for decades of extra training, then drank those potions ... the drow would know everything!
- Player Four: They would not know everything. They are still bound by the division of labor. Consider what would happen, though, if they spent their normal time training as a fighter and their time within that Circle as a fighter also. A double Gestalt. A fighter/fighter!
- Player One: If I had done that, my character would have twice the spells of an 18th level wizard, and not the single list of spells!
- Player Four: Ah, but then she would not have any fighter abilities.
- Player Two: I'd prefer the double wizard.
- Player Three: Give me the double fighter!

-

Now, compare the above conversation, with what would probably happen in a real conversation concerning the subjects discussed, in the atmosphere of intolerance, anger, and hatred that has come into being.
Must I describe that conversation? It would not be pretty. However, I think I shall:

- Player One (courteously, moderate tone) You know, that 9th level Shapechange spell is really cool. With that spell, my character can become an iron golem, a spectre, or even a lightning bolt, and zoom off to Luna in 2 seconds.
- Player Two: I think Shapechange is broken, and I would never allow it in my game.
- Player Three: I will go further. I think you (to Player One) should not use that spell, as it represents a broken game.
- Player Four: I will go even further. I think that the mere fact that you think you can do these things, would use Shapechange to do these things, reflects badly on you.
- Player One (outraged) You have no right to attack me. Who are you, to attack me?
- Player Four (supercilliously) I am someone who actually plays the game, not a munchkin.
- Player Two (ardently) Yeah, only a muchkin plays using Shapechange.
- Player Three (also ardently) I do not agree. Shapechange is fine. The both of you (indicating Two and Four) are jerks.
- Player Two: I am a jerk? Because I express my opinion? I think you are the one being a jerk.
- Player One: I think both of you (indicating two and four) are jerks.
- Player Four: You never knew how to play the game. You were a munchkin from the beginning.
- Player Two: (to Three) You really *are* a jerk.
- Player Three: Frankly, you all are jerks. Especially you (Four.)
- Player Two: (gestures to Three) No, he is a bigger jerk yet.
- Player Three: You're (to Two) the biggest jerk of them all.

(conversation ends, group breaks up.)

What went wrong here?

-

The difference is etiquette.
The first conversation assumes the group is following an etiquette. In *this* case, it is Conversational Etiquette. Ala: We shall have a conversation, and be courteous about it.
The second conversation assumes those involved follow no etiquette. It is ok to insult the others in the conversation. As tempers flare, the conversation collapses into argument, fighting, name-calling, then the group breaks up.

*So, what happened ... to bring the second group to the conclusion that there should be no etiquette in their conversation?*

It happened, because it became that way, over many years, as assumptions on behavioral expectations changed, as improper and discourteous talk became acceptable, as the dysfunctional became the norm ... until finally, no etiquette remained at all.
It is a road that was walked in D&D. And I saw this walk take place. I will give a summary, to show what I mean:

(long ago) - I think fighters should not be stuck with 1 hit point at the start.
- I think fighters should have maximum hit points at the start.
- I think fighter hit points should be altered.
- Should fighters have 20 hit points or 50 hit points?
- I think fighters should have 20 hit points!
- I think fighters should have 50 hit points!
- I think you are wrong, but entitled to your opinion.
- I think you are also wrong, but entitled to your opinion.
- I just think you are wrong.
- I think you are wrong.
- I think you are very wrong.
- I think you are more wrong.
- I think you are so wrong, it is unreasonable.
- I think you are being unreasonable.
- I think that you are unreasonable.
- I think you are very unreasonable.
- I think you are being a jerk.
- I think you are a jerk.
- Well, I think you also are a jerk.
- I think you are a (invective)
- (anger) I think you are a (invective)
- (anger) I think you are a (invective)
- (great anger) I think you are a (severe invective)
- (great anger) I think you are a (severe invective)
- (fury) I think you are a (severe invective)
- (fury) I think you are a (severe invective)
- (hatred) I think you are a (severe invective)
- (hatred) I think you are a (severe invective)
- (hatred) I think you are a (severe invective)
- (hatred) I think you are a (severe invective)

Tired of reading? You should be!
What I have described above, should have been HALTED, dead in it's tracks. It should have gotten as far as 'I think you are also wrong, but entitled to your opinion' and no further.

Instead, that last line: '(hatred) I think you are a (severe invective) ' has been ringing in my abused ears for more than the last 10 years, with ever more force, ever more utterly vitrolic sincerity, ever more frightening vehemence, ever more finality.

Etiquette. Etiquette stops that chain above. Etiquette, is needed. Etiquette, protects the game and DM and players all. Etiquette, respect for certain customs and traditions and formalities - a point understood well in Chess - is at the core of the Hobby.

How to discuss Shapechange courteously? Etiquette.
How to discuss Spell Penetration 3.0 or 3.5 courteously? Etiquette.
How to discuss whether or not to use Chromatic Orb courteously? Etiquette.
How to discuss the difference between fighters and wizards courteously? Etiquette!
How to discuss the difference between editions courteously? Etiquette!
How to have fun in the game? Etiquette!
How to have fun in any edition of the game? Etiquette!

What have they got that we do not got?!

Etiquette.

 

[Wyrmshadows]

Interesting topic Edena.

Just thought to add that.


Wyrmshadows

 

[No Name]

Edema, I think you're seeing something that isn't there. Correlation != causation. Maybe people are becoming more confrontational and less imaginative, but I wouldn't blame D&D. Sounds like the 80s witch hunts all over again. IMO, D&D has only gotten better with age. It's more mainstream now (although not much more, and it's probably due to familiarity - just because it's been around for so long). Wizards is trying to reach a larger audience, and seem to be doing a good job from my perspective.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

Edema, I think you're seeing something that isn't there. Correlation != causation. Maybe people are becoming more confrontational and less imaginative, but I wouldn't blame D&D. Sounds like the 80s witch hunts all over again. IMO, D&D has only gotten better with age. It's more mainstream now (although not much more, and it's probably due to familiarity - just because it's been around for so long). Wizards is trying to reach a larger audience, and seem to be doing a good job from my perspective.

Oh, I don't blame D&D. I merely attribute the problem to an incompleteness in the initial core rules.
I would very much agree that D&D is getting better. Now, we need to put in that core etiquette, too!
I hope WOTC succeeds. Really do.

I say: Rules are to be obeyed. Rules are there to protect the participants. Rules allow for creativity and imagination. Rules even allow for changes in rules, within the rules!

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

Edema, I think you're seeing something that isn't there. Correlation != causation. Maybe people are becoming more confrontational and less imaginative, but I wouldn't blame D&D. Sounds like the 80s witch hunts all over again. IMO, D&D has only gotten better with age. It's more mainstream now (although not much more, and it's probably due to familiarity - just because it's been around for so long). Wizards is trying to reach a larger audience, and seem to be doing a good job from my perspective.

Oh, I don't blame D&D. I merely attribute the problem to an incompleteness in the initial core rules.
I would very much agree that D&D is getting better. Now, we need to put in that core etiquette, too!
I hope WOTC succeeds. Really do.

I say: Rules are to be obeyed. Rules are there to protect the participants. Rules allow for creativity and imagination. Rules even allow for changes in rules, within the rules! An institution of respect for the rules, should be a fundamental part of Dungeon and Dragon's core etiquette.

 

[No Name]

By their very nature, rules have to be incomplete. There's no way to predict every possible situation. Rules need to be general, and then interpreted for specific situations as they arise. Otherwise, you get bogged down in the details.

Also, institutionalizing something that's so informal is ill advised. D&D is intended to be a game played among friends. Setting boundaries is good (like disallowing a certain class or certain splatbook(s) in your campaign), but the players should be able to do whatever they want inside of those boundaries. Play with the right people (ie friends) and etiquette will mostly take care of itself. Overly strict rules and etiquette edge too close to browbeating. I wouldn't enjoy a game like that.

 

[Wild Gazebo]

It confuses me how you seem to chronicle the respect for others as a branch from the respect of rules. Aren’t rules an implication of humanities lack of respect for others?
I fail to see how a further regimentation of game-play could improve what is inherently social circumstance.

I worry about individuals that seem to think the genesis of an argument is the reason for varying types of malfeasant behavior.

It seems to me the next logical step in your thinking would be enforcement? Should there be gaming police to facilitate player versus dungeon master relations? Perhaps a judge and jury to illuminate the rules of the ever increasing codification of our ‘gamist’ social structure?

Alright…that’s a bit silly.

But, again, I really fail to see any real connection in your said experiences with your listed theory.

 

[JesterOC]

I have two nephews that are just now starting to play D&D (4e). Both were interested in playing because of familiarity of the name, but neither had any friends who played.

Both have played computer RPGs before, and all of their friends do to. They also play 1st person shooters and RTS's.

MMO's and other online games have MUCH more abusive players than have ever been seen in a D&D forum. Racial, gender, and sexual orientation slurs and curses are far more common in the other computer games (less so in MMOs with subscriptions but very very common in games like Counter-Strike where I hear someone spouting pure hate at least once a week when I played.)

So since these computer games have a more abusive culture we can't point to that as the root cause of roleplaying games decline. What you have to do is see where they are different, and the biggest difference is that D&D is hard to schedule.

The biggest problem with all role playing games is the huge amount of contigous hours one must devote to the game to have the most amount of fun. Also the logistics alone to get 6 people together for 4-6 hours at a given time is pretty is pretty tough.

Remember that they have school, and perhaps music lessons, and more homework than we had at that age. It is a lot easier to go online for an hour or two from the comfort of their own homes and play a MMO than get together for D&D.

I think it is fair to say that if asked what type of game is easier to schedule, everyone can agree computer or console games win hands down.

And if you want to talk about player hate, and abuse the computer games have the market cornered on that one too (in real time, and often using voice chat).


This is where I think DDI's virtual table may just help boost playing of D&D. Which is why I really want them to finish it and get it working so they can get my $10 a month (Yearly subscription of course).

JesterOC

 

[Ginnel]

Your post confuses me, because I just don't see these problems, this may well have something to do with the fact that I'm 26 and have only been roleplaying since I was 19.

This vitriol people let loose over differing playstyles is not because the rules aren't detailed enough, you could try and describe everything possible in the most minute detail and have rules for stuff not thought of and people will still attack it and be in conflict, this is because of anominity on the internet, and the fact that people like to be correct, some people more so that others.

Part of the problem with getting new people into this Hobby is part of the problem why Cricket is relatively low in popularity compared to Football, now there is a ton of difference between the marketing of both sports and how it is portrayed in the media, but it also comes down to the simple fact that its much easier to pick up a football and have a kick about than it is to organise people to get together with all the right equipment for a quick game of cricket.

D&D requires someone to work at the DM role, it needs space, it needs a multitude of players usually the same ones week in week out, it needs a number of physical products (dice, books, paper, pencils) then there's also problems of time commitment needed before even being able to play (in DM prep/player set up) and then needed for the play sessions themselves, social acceptability of the hobby, marketing and promotion of it with all of these I can clearly see why this hobby isn't the most popular in the world.

Can it grow in popularity sure, will a hard coded defined ettiqutte and a longer list of rules help? I can't see how this will help.


Your use of the word ettiquette also confuses, when it seems what you actually mean is politeness and respect, something any civilised human being should have.

On dreaming and peter and wendy, hmm, my imagination and my ability to roleplay have increased with time and the better games I have played in have always been ran by an older person (around 4-20 years older) I can't say I've become more adolescent as I've got older.

Its clear that you care passionately about the hobby and have had some bad experiences as well, but I don't think you can attribute your experience to the hobby itself, myself and other posters have stated that the problems you have mentioned don't exist for us, but I can see how these problems may develop from people I know who have conflicting personalities.

 

[el-remmen]

Dungeons & Dragons is dead! Long live Dungeons & Dragons!