Storminator
First Post
That really depends on the extent of the toolkit, doesn't it? If, instead of "a hammer, some nails, a saw and some wood," I give you "the entire contents of Home Depot," we'll expect far more radically different results.
PS
Why do we have such different experiences?
- Thread starter Hussar
- Start date
That really depends on the extent of the toolkit, doesn't it? If, instead of "a hammer, some nails, a saw and some wood," I give you "the entire contents of Home Depot," we'll expect far more radically different results.
PS
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
I don't know, sometimes I think that even these make a difference in how you percieve your game. "What, martial & melee focused characters suck against spellcasters, but my Crusader can do so many things...!" while the other side wonders "Crusader? Book of Nine Swords you count in?). Similar example might be variant rules of Unearthed Arcana.
Even here you find different opinions. Some people want the "implied" setting of D&D and find it very important. When the setting is changed, they miss the old ones. Other never cared much about the implied setting and did whatever they wanted, and so a change to the implied setting is meaningless to them.
Tell me why to hate 4th edition D&D | BoardGameGeek Forums
I wish I could claim credit for that guy's insight in paragraphs three and four. I can't, he thought of it first, but it does jive with my experience.
I wish I could claim credit for that guy's insight in paragraphs three and four. I can't, he thought of it first, but it does jive with my experience.
Imaro
Legend
Hmmm. I don't know about you, or that poster but both copies of the D&D Rules Cyclopedia I have... contain rules for way more than just combat in them.
Rel
Liquid Awesome
A thought just came to me that much of the difference in experience with any RPG can be summed up in one word: Cooperation.
Think about it for a second. You don't hear people talk about vastly different experiences (on the scale we're talking about) with Monopoly or Scrabble or Chess. Now obviously part of that equation is the simplicity of the rules. Tic Tac Toe is only every going to have so much variety in terms of play experience.
But why are the rules so complex? Because of what you are attempting to model. And part of that model is the assumption that the GM is trying to provide a fun and exciting experience for the players. This point was driven home to me recently when my friends and I were playing the Descent boardgame.
I was playing the Overlord, who controls the dungeon and tries to thwart the adventurers. They were playing the Heroes trying to complete the scenario. I ruthlessly crushed them in two consecutive games. I did some creative, nasty tactics that, combined with a few sub-optimal choices and a bit of bad luck, resulted in them having virtually no hope of success. Afterwards, one of them seemed frustrated and commented that it would have "been more fun if I'd given them a chance". He was expecting that I'd play the game like I GM where I make sure that the PC's have a (relatively good) chance for victory.
But that's not the point of competitive games. The point is to win. And that fact tends to "center" them. I try and beat you and you try and beat me. And thus we find the valleys in playstyle and rules interpretation where our expectation and competition meet. It cuts away that which is extraneous and inefficient in the pursuit of victory.
As Dave Barry says, "That's a generalization and, as is always the case when I generalize, I don't care." But I think you get my point.
When we play a game cooperatively we open things up to go in all sorts of directions. And that is wonderful. It's why I love RPGs because the opportunity to linger over the witty banter with some NPC is there that you won't find in any boardgame. And yet some groups would be bored to tears by that. The opportunity is there to portray a gritty struggle against starvation and the elements. And yet some groups say, "I don't want to be tracking RATIONS! I want to battle DRAGONS!" And there are as many permutations between those extremes as there are groups that play the game. There always will be and that's just the nature of the awesome beast.
Think about it for a second. You don't hear people talk about vastly different experiences (on the scale we're talking about) with Monopoly or Scrabble or Chess. Now obviously part of that equation is the simplicity of the rules. Tic Tac Toe is only every going to have so much variety in terms of play experience.
But why are the rules so complex? Because of what you are attempting to model. And part of that model is the assumption that the GM is trying to provide a fun and exciting experience for the players. This point was driven home to me recently when my friends and I were playing the Descent boardgame.
I was playing the Overlord, who controls the dungeon and tries to thwart the adventurers. They were playing the Heroes trying to complete the scenario. I ruthlessly crushed them in two consecutive games. I did some creative, nasty tactics that, combined with a few sub-optimal choices and a bit of bad luck, resulted in them having virtually no hope of success. Afterwards, one of them seemed frustrated and commented that it would have "been more fun if I'd given them a chance". He was expecting that I'd play the game like I GM where I make sure that the PC's have a (relatively good) chance for victory.
But that's not the point of competitive games. The point is to win. And that fact tends to "center" them. I try and beat you and you try and beat me. And thus we find the valleys in playstyle and rules interpretation where our expectation and competition meet. It cuts away that which is extraneous and inefficient in the pursuit of victory.
As Dave Barry says, "That's a generalization and, as is always the case when I generalize, I don't care." But I think you get my point.
When we play a game cooperatively we open things up to go in all sorts of directions. And that is wonderful. It's why I love RPGs because the opportunity to linger over the witty banter with some NPC is there that you won't find in any boardgame. And yet some groups would be bored to tears by that. The opportunity is there to portray a gritty struggle against starvation and the elements. And yet some groups say, "I don't want to be tracking RATIONS! I want to battle DRAGONS!" And there are as many permutations between those extremes as there are groups that play the game. There always will be and that's just the nature of the awesome beast.
Hussar
Legend
Good points all.
Just to add another to the pot - how long do your campaigns last? I think this will have a huge effect as well. I used to move around a lot, so my campaigns generally only lasted about a year at best, and rarely had the same faces in the groups afterwards. Other people have multi-year campaigns playing with people who have been playing together for years and years. That's radically going to shift how you approach the rules.
Just to add another to the pot - how long do your campaigns last? I think this will have a huge effect as well. I used to move around a lot, so my campaigns generally only lasted about a year at best, and rarely had the same faces in the groups afterwards. Other people have multi-year campaigns playing with people who have been playing together for years and years. That's radically going to shift how you approach the rules.
Because we are human. We have biases, and our biases color our experiences.
Because we like different things. If you like something, you'll overlook (or not acknowledge) its short comings. If you hate it, then it'll stick out like a pimple every time you're exposed to it.
Because we bring different expectations to the table.
Because we like different things. If you like something, you'll overlook (or not acknowledge) its short comings. If you hate it, then it'll stick out like a pimple every time you're exposed to it.
Because we bring different expectations to the table.
Last edited:
Vegepygmy
First Post
Great thread so far. One thing I don't think has been fully acknowledged yet, though, is that this supposed "rules standardization" is largely an illusion. Sure, on Internet messageboards we may discuss RAW, but in reality almost nobody is playing with the same set of rules as anybody else. And even when they think they're playing it RAW, I don't know how many times I've come across people online who don't understand how, say, line of effect works for spells. They'll tell you how "broken" spellcasters are, and give you an example of their brokenness that clearly shows they aren't following the rules correctly, and are amazed when it is pointed out to them that the "problem with 3e" they've been having for the last 5 years or so is entirely their own fault. (This is not to say that 3e is perfect; just that many of the problems people have complained about are a result of their own misunderstandings.)
Anyway, the point is this: I think that one major reason why we all have such different experiences is that we are all playing the game by different rules, whether we realize it or not.
Remathilis
Legend
I think a lot of the difference comes from the DM's personal bias. Let me give you two examples of DMs who run by the Rules as Written (as in, no house rules).
DM #1 likes epic stories. He has personal bias against certain classes, so his game unconsciously rewards certain types of PCs (fighters, wizards) while utterly ignoring others (rogues, druids). His game might also feature racial bias (elves get a lot of detail, gnomes are mostly forgotten). His games feature powerful world-shaking villains, lots of secret "forbidden lore" stuff, and isn't as focused on combat and dungeons as epic heroism.
DM #2 is a dungeon-delver. His world doesn't feature a lot of development, just a city, a dungeons, and maybe a plot-hook. He doesn't have a PC bias; in fact his PCs are the weird LA'd templated types like half-celestials and half-dragons. He favors large, impressive magic items rather than dinky smaller treasure (but still keeps it to within the wealth guidelines).
Both DMs are using the RAW, but neither game the same because the first DM perfers a classic Tolkien high-fantasy motif of epic heroes vs. vile villains and the latter prefers classic dungeon & tomb robbing for kewl toys and uber-powerz. Neither is wrong, but they feel like totally different game and after a few levels begin to play very different.
DM #1 likes epic stories. He has personal bias against certain classes, so his game unconsciously rewards certain types of PCs (fighters, wizards) while utterly ignoring others (rogues, druids). His game might also feature racial bias (elves get a lot of detail, gnomes are mostly forgotten). His games feature powerful world-shaking villains, lots of secret "forbidden lore" stuff, and isn't as focused on combat and dungeons as epic heroism.
DM #2 is a dungeon-delver. His world doesn't feature a lot of development, just a city, a dungeons, and maybe a plot-hook. He doesn't have a PC bias; in fact his PCs are the weird LA'd templated types like half-celestials and half-dragons. He favors large, impressive magic items rather than dinky smaller treasure (but still keeps it to within the wealth guidelines).
Both DMs are using the RAW, but neither game the same because the first DM perfers a classic Tolkien high-fantasy motif of epic heroes vs. vile villains and the latter prefers classic dungeon & tomb robbing for kewl toys and uber-powerz. Neither is wrong, but they feel like totally different game and after a few levels begin to play very different.
MichaelSomething
Legend
Another thing to consider is that there are so many things that can change the tone and type of game your playing. The frist two posts contain 5 seperate factors. With those 5 factors alone, you can create at least a dozen different games.
Similar Threads
