You are playing D&D wrong

[Lonely Tylenol]

But I've gotten really tired of joining games where this happens:

Me: "Ok, I've got nothing better to do, I am not allowed to cast spells in this world as it is illegal and there is an NPC in the party who will kill me for doing so. My sorcerer will attack with my bow, then I move backwards to make sure they don't hit me. I can't possibly hit, but maybe I'll roll a natural 20."
DM: "You are doing what? Umm, firing a bow takes the whole round."
Me: "No it doesn't, it's a standard action to fire one shot."
DM: "I'm in the SCA, trust me, I know how long it takes to fire a shot. If you want to draw the arrow and fire with aim, you won't have time left to move during that round."
Me: *sigh* "Ok then, I fire one shot at the enemy then."
DM: "Ok, since you are firing through 5 allies in order to get to the enemy, I will assume there is about a 90% chance that you hit a party member instead of the enemies."
Me: "Umm, actually, the enemy just gets +4 to his ac for cover. It doesn't matter how many people are between me and the enemy. And in 3.5 edition hitting cover has been removed as a standard rule."
DM: "Are you telling me how to run my game? There is NO way I'm giving the enemy only a +4 to his AC with that much cover. Roll to hit."
Me: "Well, I don't want to fire if it means I might hit my party, I only did it because I knew there was no chance of hitting my party members."
DM: "You said you were firing, so go ahead and roll."
Me: "A natural 1, whew. I won't be able to hit anything with that, nevermind a party member."
DM: "A natural 1, eh? That is a critical failure and raises the chance that you'll hit a party member to 100%. Roll your damage, and make it critical as you've managed to crit a party member. Let's see....Gorak the dwarf."
Gorak: "Hey! You hit me with an arrow! I say we attack and kill the traitor behind us!"

Great galloping sons of ether! I've played with those guys too!

(edit)

Actually, the best example of this kind of thing that I remember is the guy who tried to convince me that firing an arrow at point-blank range does less damage than at distance. The reasoning he gave for this was that arrows accelerate for a short while after they leave the bow, and so at very short distances they haven't built up the momentum necessary to do any damage. I stared at him agape.

 

[Gnarlo]

The only wrong way to play D&D is if you only play it with the people chained up in your crawlspace; I find that they are much more at home in a LARP style environment, but I'm generalizing. Give them some pointed sticks, throw in some rats, and watch the role-playing commence.

And never, never make whether they get fed this week contingent on if they can answer the statue's riddle on level three. That's just... wrong.

 

[D+1]

If you people think that because of rule zero, someone can spend two hours covering their DVD player in coleslaw and, because they call it D&D, it therefore is D&D, there's nothing I can say here. But I suspect that you don't actually think this.

I don't.

There must be some point at which the scale of the rule changes cause the game to cease being proper D&D. We can disagree about the location of the point but we surely cannot dispute its existence.

Yes, but then the question is not whether you are playing D&D incorrectly, but whether you are playing D&D at all. There is a difference, slight though it may be.

 

[Hitokiri]

IMHO, there is a wrong way to play D&D, it is to change anything in the books. Beyond that you are not playing D&D. In the same way that if you play Axis and Allies but play with the rules changes suggested on a web site, you are not playing Axis and Allies but a variant.

Any change from the core rules then becomes a D&D variant. I guess my attitude about this comes from having played so many different RPGs. If I wanted to play D&D with a bunch of rules changes, I'd call it Palladium Fantasy or GURPS Fantasy or Hero Fantasy or D&D 2nd Edition, or D&D 1st Edition or Rolemaster or "That game my friend made up when he thought he was a game designer".

In the same vein that 2nd Edition D&D is NOT the same game as 3rd editiion D&D, neither is a game with house rules the same game as D&D 3.5 Edition. Now, you may like the game you've invented better, but it isn't D&D (as it's currently understood).

Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with disliking the D&D rules so much that you want to change them. I, personally, think you are wrong as I love D&D the way it is.

But I've gotten really tired of joining games where this happens:

Me: "Ok, I've got nothing better to do, I am not allowed to cast spells in this world as it is illegal and there is an NPC in the party who will kill me for doing so. My sorcerer will attack with my bow, then I move backwards to make sure they don't hit me. I can't possibly hit, but maybe I'll roll a natural 20."
DM: "You are doing what? Umm, firing a bow takes the whole round."
Me: "No it doesn't, it's a standard action to fire one shot."
DM: "I'm in the SCA, trust me, I know how long it takes to fire a shot. If you want to draw the arrow and fire with aim, you won't have time left to move during that round."
Me: *sigh* "Ok then, I fire one shot at the enemy then."
DM: "Ok, since you are firing through 5 allies in order to get to the enemy, I will assume there is about a 90% chance that you hit a party member instead of the enemies."
Me: "Umm, actually, the enemy just gets +4 to his ac for cover. It doesn't matter how many people are between me and the enemy. And in 3.5 edition hitting cover has been removed as a standard rule."
DM: "Are you telling me how to run my game? There is NO way I'm giving the enemy only a +4 to his AC with that much cover. Roll to hit."
Me: "Well, I don't want to fire if it means I might hit my party, I only did it because I knew there was no chance of hitting my party members."
DM: "You said you were firing, so go ahead and roll."
Me: "A natural 1, whew. I won't be able to hit anything with that, nevermind a party member."
DM: "A natural 1, eh? That is a critical failure and raises the chance that you'll hit a party member to 100%. Roll your damage, and make it critical as you've managed to crit a party member. Let's see....Gorak the dwarf."
Gorak: "Hey! You hit me with an arrow! I say we attack and kill the traitor behind us!"

Yes, all of these things happened (or at least things very close to them). Is this D&D anymore? The amount of DMs I've run into in which the rules of their game are whichever ones they remember at the session, so you never know which ones will apply. I've ran into at least 3 DMs who basically said "no questioning my rulings, no looking up rules at the table, it slows down the game." So, each time you did something from the rules, it wasn't so much a house rule but a matter of "do they remember this rule or will they make something up to replace it this session?"

Wow, that's bad. I played under one GM that did that, and about the time he was telling me "Roll for dmg" I got up, tossed my character in the trash, and left without a word. AS far as I'm concerned, that's about the biggest insult you can give a GM as a player.

There are NO wrong ways to play IMHO. It's all a matter of making sure the GMs expectation and Players expectations are in line enough that they will have fun. Some GM's I've considered absolutely horrible have had a devoted core group of players that will join in on any campaign they run. It's not really a matter of their being bad GMs (or in the case where Im the GM and someone is being a "bad" player), but just a matter of playing stlye varying.

 

[DragonLancer]

I'm gonna be the dissenting voice in this thread, due to my personal view.

If you are powergaming/twinking/rollplaying/ruleslawyering/munchkining/delete as appropriate* then IMO you are playing the game wrong.

You can play the game wrong.

 

[RFisher]

I don't know that I can tell you how to play D&D wrong, but I can tell you how to know when you're playing wrong.

As a player: If your PCs are always killed by other PCs, you're likely doing something wrong.

As a DM: If your players keep quitting, you're likely doing something wrong.

I also think everyone should always give an aspect of the game that they tend not to use a chance sometime. Nothing would be in the game if there wasn't somebody who found that element fun. You can be surprised that you enjoy something you didn't think you would once you give it a fair chance.

There is a point at which the game you're playing is different enough from D&D that it can't be called D&D. Each of us, however, have a different idea about which point is that point.

 

[fusangite]

I don't.Yes, but then the question is not whether you are playing D&D incorrectly, but whether you are playing D&D at all. There is a difference, slight though it may be.

Well, I don't see this difference beyond terminological hair-splitting. Is there any meaningful operational or practical difference between these two things? If so, what is it?

 

[Dyne]

I know this was posted several pages back, but bear with me.

What if they called it "smelting zinc"? Would we calmly say "those people over there are smelting zinc" because to do otherwise would interfere with their fun?

Yes. D&D is supposed to be fun. But the fact that something is supposed to be fun doesn't mean that one shouldn't bother to define it. Indeed, let me make the case that if we do not place any boundaries on what constitutes D&D, there will be less fun to go around.

I have no idea what you meant for the first part. And I believe it is actually in the rules that a DM can alter the rules to whatever he wants. If a DM were to house-rule the thing to death, then fine if that makes it more enjoyable for him and his group. And, by the rules, he is correct to do so. And it is still D&D.

I don't see how it's so necessary to place definite boundaries on D&D. I can't imagine how it would make things more fun. Placing definite boundaries on it defeats the spirit of 3rd edition, which is choices. This is the reason that there are a crap-load of supplement books out there with mostly a bunch of PrC's, feats, and spells.

I personally think that WotC has gone overboard with the supplements, but that seems to be how they want the game to be played, and how the majority of gamers want to play it.

 

[fusangite]

I have no idea what you meant for the first part. And I believe it is actually in the rules that DM can alter the rules to whatever he wants. If a DM were to house-rule the thing to death, then fine if that makes it more enjoyable for him and his group. And, by the rules, he is correct to do so. And it is still D&D.

Perhaps you didn't catch my next post. My argument is that at some practical level, the game does cease being D&D if too many changes are made to the rules. As I said a few posts back, rule zero (shorthand for the specific declaration that the DM is authorized the change the rules) does not mean that covering your DVD player with coleslaw is playing D&D just because you say it is. At some point, and we're free to debate where that point is, you have stopped playing the game properly -- or at all.

I don't see how it's so necessary to place definite boundaries on D&D. I can't imagine how it would make things more fun.

When people create new gaming groups or switch gaming groups, it does make a big difference. If you have reviewed this thread, you have read stories about people not having fun because GMs misinterpreted or took too many liberties with the rules.

Placing definite boundaries on it defeats the spirit of 3rd edition, which is choices. This is the reason that there are a crap-load of supplement books out there with mostly a bunch of PrC's, feats, and spells.

On the contrary, 3rd edition makes itself flexible so that people who want to play reasonable game variants can do so within the envelope of the rules. The spirit of 3E is to create a flexible structure so that people do not need to go outside of the published rules in order to do interesting, new and exciting things -- one can just buy a WOTC or third party supplement to do whatever it is that they want.

 

[Dyne]

When people create new gaming groups or switch gaming groups, it does make a big difference. If you have reviewed this thread, you have read stories about people not having fun because GMs misinterpreted or took too many liberties with the rules.

That was the whole point. If everyone is having fun, then it's fine. If a GM is a complete idiot and/or jerk, that has nothing to do with the style of the game: he's just a moron of a GM.

As I said a few posts back, rule zero (shorthand for the specific declaration that the DM is authorized the change the rules) does not mean that covering your DVD player with coleslaw is playing D&D just because you say it is.

That's pretty ridiculous. Such a person would have serious mental problems, and needs to get some serious help.

On the contrary, 3rd edition makes itself flexible so that people who want to play reasonable game variants can do so within the envelope of the rules. The spirit of 3E is to create a flexible structure so that people do not need to go outside of the published rules in order to do interesting, new and exciting things -- one can just buy a WOTC or third party supplement to do whatever it is that they want.

Or they can make it up themselves.