Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lord Zardoz" data-source="post: 3932185" data-attributes="member: 704">I have few reasonable answers.1)  Nothing.While 3rd edition did add more refinement to the tactical side of the game, the presence of such rules do not impact the ability of people to play the game while emphasizing story.2)  It depends on who you are playing with.Different people play the game for different reasons.  You are probably not playing with the same people you did when you first played.  On top of that, you are also not the same person you were when you started playing.  The expectations of everyone at the table affects the feel of the game.  It is hard to create a feeling of an serious game when someone at a table keeps  busting out with Monty Python quotes.  It is also hard to ignore the rules when someone at the table puts a significant effort into exploiting the rules to their best advantage.3)  What ever happened to "just playing the game and enjoying the Game ?I do remember when I first played D&D.  For me, I got into the game much differently than you did.  For one, the gateway to D&D for me went through the Dragonlance novels.  I ended up Bootstrapping myself into the game.  I bought the 2nd Edition PHB, then the other books.  My first game experiences were rolling up PC's and having them kill one another.  I ended up running games for my friends.At no time did I find myself trying to ever recreate a particular feel from a Novel or a Movie.  I had not even read Tolkein at that point (and did not until about 9 years later).  But even in my early games, I can recall trying to figure out the tactical side of the game.  Story was important.  But making combat tactically interesting was equally important.  As time passed, the style of game I ran evolved.  One of the big influences was the famous Tuckers Kobolds article.  It drilled into me that I did not need to use the biggest monsters to make a fight challenging.  The other influnce was the 2nd Edition Villains handbook.  I do not generally plan out a story.  I create a Villain.  Than I figure out what that Villain wants to do, and work out hooks to pull the players in.  Then we just see what happens.I have generally found that for the most part, the points of a game that are about story do not really interact much with the rules.  But if one of my players has maxed out Diplomacy, Bluff, and Sense motive, i am not about to screw him over just because it is inconvenient for me to have the players learn that someone they are interacting with is lying.  My adventure might be more interesting story wise if I can capture the players.  But I am not about to kick on a bunch of extra hit points to a bad guy just because a player scored a critical while doing a heavy power attack.  And while I may complain if a player nails a bad guy I want to keep alive with a Hold Person, I am not going to pretend he made the Will save.I am told that I am generally a very good DM by the players I have ran games for.  But I am not about to pretend that I am better at creating compelling fiction than what my players can find in the movies.  When i am playing D&D, I am playing a game, first and foremost.  I am not going to indulge in a personal vanity project where I inflict bad fiction on a captive audience.  I am just going to create a game where I will let my players do anything they can justify with in the rules.Saying that Story First is better than a Rules Heavy / Tactically oriented game is meaningless.  It is like saying Coke is better than Pepsi.  Many will agree.  Many others will disagree.(Also, Pepsi is way better than Coke anyway)END COMMUNICATION</blockquote>

Verification