Why D&D is like pr0n

[Desdichado]

Am I understanding the OPs message correctly? Most gamers are rules-light roleplayers? If so, where the hell are they and how can I get them in my group?

No, the OPs message is that most people claim to be rules-light roleplayers, but like women and jocks everywhere, they are actually liars.

Either that or they are too stupid to understand their own preferences.

As messages go... it's a bit dubious, to say the least.

 

[olshanski]

I know that a lot of people spend more time on the message boards when they are not playing, and when they are playing a lot, they spend less time on the message boards.

There is no conclusive evidence that someone with a 10,000 post count plays any more D&D than someone with a 250 post count.

Someone who plays RP heavy games probably doesn't need to discuss rules, because in D&D, 95% of the rules are designed to adjudicate combat.

 

[MarkB]

He said a game element.For example setting construction. You assume that the OP/the thread itself will be automatically against rollplaying. Which proves that either you replied in a great haste, or that you actually expect every thread to be about roleplaying

Nope, he said to go to thread A and claim that its topic got in the way and wasted time, then go to thread B and claim that its topic was something wonderful and artistic.

Ok in fact I just wanted to say that you make it look extream, while it is not. A simple post trying to prove that d&d needs less roleplaying and therefore the DM should account for more battle and less rp, would be both on topic and relevant yet ignored or criticized (with a negative meaning, if there can be).

In a thread about setting building, it's reasonable to assume that the people reading and contributing to the thread are interested in setting building. Coming into that thread purely to espouse an opinion that everyone there is wasting their time would not be on-topic, it would be thread-crapping.

And in any case, the reverse is just as true - drop into a thread devoted to character optimisation and claim that optimising characters is a waste of time and detracts from the pursuit of making characters with rounded and believable backstories would get a negative response, whilst joining such a thread to compliment the posters for finding new and unusual character-build synergies would receive a positive one.

I'm just saying, going into any thread and telling everyone that they're wasting their time is going to get a negative response regardless of subject matter.

 

[Rel]

I like porn.

 

[Oryan77]

The phrase "The rules shouldn't get in the way of the roleplaying" was fairly common amongst the circle I used to game with about ten years ago. And I heard the exact same phrase from someone at a party about a month ago.

Back then, do you think they actually were playing rules-light or where they just saying that? Just wondering if maybe they never actually were since you notice that they definitely aren't these days.

No, the OPs message is that most people claim to be rules-light roleplayers, but like women and jocks everywhere, they are actually liars.

Ok, if that's what he's saying, then I guess I completely agree with that. I've heard gamers claim all kinds of things, then you game with them and it's the exact opposite.

 

[jasin]

No, the OPs message is that most people claim to be rules-light roleplayers, but like women and jocks everywhere, they are actually liars.

Either that or they are too stupid to understand their own preferences.

As messages go... it's a bit dubious, to say the least.

I don't think that claiming that people don't understand their own preferences very well is dubious at all.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Back then, do you think they actually were playing rules-light or where they just saying that? Just wondering if maybe they never actually were since you notice that they definitely aren't these days.

That's a good question. I'm not up on what they are doing now but some of the systems they used were not rules-lite, and some were. One GM, Will, liked Champions, which is about as rules heavy as it gets. It seems like a terrible fit for his style, and to a large extent I think it was, but he said he liked the way it allowed all characters to be individuals. This is true, Champions is very strong on being able to differentiate between characters mechanically. Will was, and is, a great believer in individualism.

Those ten-year-ago guys, to some degree I think they were in denial about how much they liked rules. And about how gamist they were at times. Some of them could get quite competitive, and yet if you asked them what being a player was all about they'd say it was 100% roleplaying your character. Nothing to do with trying to win. And yet, they would try to win! So you get this dichotomy that I think Clip has noticed.

I believe that I'm a middle-of-the-road guy about most rpg issues. My attitude toward many features of rpgs is pretty ambivalent, I can see advantages and disadvantages. I certainly have a love/hate relationship with the rules. I like a bit of gamism, a bit of worldbuilding, a bit of sandbox, a lot of genre faithfulness, a fair bit of in character acting (but I don't like getting all White Wolf pretentious about it). But I think all of these can get out of hand if taken too far, and one always has to remember that the people playing come before the game. I like to think I'm fairly clear-sighted about my middle-brow gaming tastes and don't make out my style to be more worthy than it is.

You get so many people saying their game is amazing because it's a total sandbox, or a very tough gamist challenge or because they never break character and so on and so forth and I get quite suspicious, and I think perhaps their games are more similar to my middle-of-the-road game than is being made out. I remember those ten-year-ago guys whose games were not the same as they claimed. They were good games, mind, but they were not as advertised. How much easier it is to make claims on the interweb when no one has access to your actual game.

 

[Umbran]

I don't think that claiming that people don't understand their own preferences very well is dubious at all.

Unless you can clearly demonstrate the ability to read minds over the Internet (in which case, you probably want to go talk to The Amazing Randi), claiming on these forums that you know someone else's preferences better than they do themselves is quite dubious.

And, you can't claim they don't know their own preferences well if you can't claim to know their preferences at least as well as they do.

 

[Herschel]

I tried to be a rules-light DM when I started playing 3e. All I kept dealing with were players being rules-lawyers and questioning my every move. So I don't DM like that anymore because even my current players will look up rules rather than just let me do my thing.

Yep. This is why I ditched 3E and went back to running my 1E/2E hybrid.

The worst thing was when I tried incorporating a more rules-heavy approach they asked why I didn't let them do all the cool things I used to any more.

 

[Desdichado]

I don't think that claiming that people don't understand their own preferences very well is dubious at all.

...

Well, OK, fair enough. But that's not the entirety of his claim; he's also claiming that regardless of what gamers tell you, he's got the real answer here.

That's the part that's most dubious.

And, I'm a little bit sad that nobody got my subtle KenM reference. Either that or someone did, but I'm just a feedback junkie.