The Mirrorball Man
Aventurier
The object of the game is to have a near-life experience. Really.
What's the object of the game?
- Thread starter candidus_cogitens
- Start date
Mac Callum
First Post
The purpose of D&D is to have fun, but the purpose of the XP/CR/THAC0 rules is to provide structure, and to manage expectations.
D&D is like any other game. Take baseball. We play baseball because it's fun, but that doesn't mean we play without rules. Otherwise it would easier to get home by just running directly to third and then back. I mean, why bother with first and second? That, like, takes twice as long! Duh!
Really what the rules are in baseball or soccer are unimportant, just so long as everyone agrees. In fact, making up the rules to competetive sports is much easier than the rules to an RPG because both sides must live by them, and therefore everything is automatically "balanced." The rules apply to everyone equally, and there are no options.
In RPGs the whole set-up is much more complicated. 1) Everyone is on the same side (in theory) and 2) You choose which particular rules apply to you. You can choose the Dwarf/Fighter rule-set, or the Elven/Wizard rule-set, or any other hundred combinations. Therefore, to be fair between the players who are all on the same side, we must make sure all of these choices are valid and "balanced."
What is balanced? Why do we make home rules to make things balanced? Consider my "home rule" for baseball when I was a kid: Brian must bat lefty. When Brian batted righty it wasn't much fun for the rest of us, because, well, we were D&D dorks who sucked at baseball. Some people might say we "nerfed" Brian's batting ability, but we what really did was make the game more fun. We still had the basic structure of baseball, and we all had the expectation that we would be able to contribute something to the team effort.
The CR/XP/whatever rules are a starting point, like the basic rules of baseball or any other game. Even "Tag, you're it" and "house" have rules. It may be a sign of maturation to say "Hey, let's change things!" - but it may not. 1) You may not be really ready to change the rules because you don't fully undertand them and 2) some people like to play the game as is, and changing the rules makes it less fun for them.
So yeah, the purpose of D&D is to have fun, but the purpose of the rules is to allow playing D&D to be fun. Whether you use all of the rules in the book, or some of your own, is irrelevant. It's just nice that WotC did a lot of the heavy lifting and has given you a place to start from.
Mac Callum
D&D is like any other game. Take baseball. We play baseball because it's fun, but that doesn't mean we play without rules. Otherwise it would easier to get home by just running directly to third and then back. I mean, why bother with first and second? That, like, takes twice as long! Duh!
Really what the rules are in baseball or soccer are unimportant, just so long as everyone agrees. In fact, making up the rules to competetive sports is much easier than the rules to an RPG because both sides must live by them, and therefore everything is automatically "balanced." The rules apply to everyone equally, and there are no options.
In RPGs the whole set-up is much more complicated. 1) Everyone is on the same side (in theory) and 2) You choose which particular rules apply to you. You can choose the Dwarf/Fighter rule-set, or the Elven/Wizard rule-set, or any other hundred combinations. Therefore, to be fair between the players who are all on the same side, we must make sure all of these choices are valid and "balanced."
What is balanced? Why do we make home rules to make things balanced? Consider my "home rule" for baseball when I was a kid: Brian must bat lefty. When Brian batted righty it wasn't much fun for the rest of us, because, well, we were D&D dorks who sucked at baseball. Some people might say we "nerfed" Brian's batting ability, but we what really did was make the game more fun. We still had the basic structure of baseball, and we all had the expectation that we would be able to contribute something to the team effort.
The CR/XP/whatever rules are a starting point, like the basic rules of baseball or any other game. Even "Tag, you're it" and "house" have rules. It may be a sign of maturation to say "Hey, let's change things!" - but it may not. 1) You may not be really ready to change the rules because you don't fully undertand them and 2) some people like to play the game as is, and changing the rules makes it less fun for them.
So yeah, the purpose of D&D is to have fun, but the purpose of the rules is to allow playing D&D to be fun. Whether you use all of the rules in the book, or some of your own, is irrelevant. It's just nice that WotC did a lot of the heavy lifting and has given you a place to start from.
Mac Callum
AFGNCAAP
First Post
To crush your enemies, see then driven before you, and hear the lamentations of the women...
But seriously, folks...
I have to agree with everyone here--the key objective is to have fun. Now, what = "fun" in a person's mind can vary between each person at the table. I've seen some players whose idea of fun was to do whatever they wanted, even if it meant disrupting the game & ruining other people's fun. I've seen some players equate "fun" with being the best in-game, outshining everyone else, & being in the center of the spotlight.
For me? Well, I think that "fun" = everyone at the table (DM included) enjoying the game. I think that all of the players should have an important role in the PC group, & shouldn't feel outshined by another player. They should feel their characters are unique, but not by having to resort to using an obscure character race or class in order to achieve that.
For me, game balance is a key element in ensuring fun in a game, because it's a means to ensure a relatively level playing field for all of the players. The severe lack of balance in some games (like Rifts, to use a personal example) did ruin the fun for some players, being penalized for taking a race or class that interested them instead of choosing an immensely powerful combo (which is what some others players did).
But seriously, folks...
I have to agree with everyone here--the key objective is to have fun. Now, what = "fun" in a person's mind can vary between each person at the table. I've seen some players whose idea of fun was to do whatever they wanted, even if it meant disrupting the game & ruining other people's fun. I've seen some players equate "fun" with being the best in-game, outshining everyone else, & being in the center of the spotlight.
For me? Well, I think that "fun" = everyone at the table (DM included) enjoying the game. I think that all of the players should have an important role in the PC group, & shouldn't feel outshined by another player. They should feel their characters are unique, but not by having to resort to using an obscure character race or class in order to achieve that.
For me, game balance is a key element in ensuring fun in a game, because it's a means to ensure a relatively level playing field for all of the players. The severe lack of balance in some games (like Rifts, to use a personal example) did ruin the fun for some players, being penalized for taking a race or class that interested them instead of choosing an immensely powerful combo (which is what some others players did).
Wombat
First Post
One of the major reasons I got into D&D (and rpgs in general) is because there are no hard-and-fast winners and losers. Between years of minis gaming and years of AH/SPI gaming, I had seen far too many stupid arguments break out over line-of-site, too many petty tantrums when one side or the other lost, and far too many times of people not speaking to each other over the turn of a game.
RPGs, I have found, engender a greater sense of cooperation. It's not about winning or losing, per se, but about developing a group, working towards a larger goal, and telling a whopping good story while you are at it. Certainly there are ways to measure success and certainly many campaigns have a "point" to them (a specific goal to reach or suchlike), but in the end gaming is about social interaction, cooperation, ad lib theatre, and storytelling far more than it is about winning, losing, or a specific set of rules.
What is the object of D&D? To have fun. To build a world. To tell tales best rehashed over a good mug of ale or a decent red wine by the fireside.
And about building friendships.
RPGs, I have found, engender a greater sense of cooperation. It's not about winning or losing, per se, but about developing a group, working towards a larger goal, and telling a whopping good story while you are at it. Certainly there are ways to measure success and certainly many campaigns have a "point" to them (a specific goal to reach or suchlike), but in the end gaming is about social interaction, cooperation, ad lib theatre, and storytelling far more than it is about winning, losing, or a specific set of rules.
What is the object of D&D? To have fun. To build a world. To tell tales best rehashed over a good mug of ale or a decent red wine by the fireside.
And about building friendships.
Altalazar
First Post
The purpose of the game is to have fun. What that means really varies by the person. Some like to role play. Some like to hack and slash. Some like to get powerful. Some like all three. Some see character development in terms of story, others in terms of level, others in terms of both.
If it wasn't fun, we wouldn't play. That's the difference between a game and a job.
If it wasn't fun, we wouldn't play. That's the difference between a game and a job.
