|
However, that statement about 1e/2e is COMPLETELY true and one of my greatest laments about newer editions. All "fluff" has been tossed aside in favor of math ... I, for one, do NOT favor the shift. I still play my games my way, and run things with my rulings ... I've had happy players for the most part. I do NOT attribute this to freakin' game-math, though. I attribute it to my ability to run the game as a GM and it's very much BECAUSE I read all that "fluff" the newer generation denegrates at every opportunity.
Amen! Math and character builds do not an exciting game make...the imagination of the DM and players creates that...
I think part of the issue now is that some players and DMs play the game sort of like they are playing a MMO - DM buys a canned adventure or rolls random encounters, players show up, kill things, and have fun. Its all about the rollplay, math, and power ups. Great, fantastic, glad it works for you, carry on! :)
I prefer to run a game that focuses on story, backgrounds, cohesive character development, and player immersion. Yes there are some fierce math filled battles, but only to support the rest of the game. If a rollplay warrior in my world wants to take a level of barbarian to get an extra 10' speed for his character, great, except I expect him to come up with a good storyline basis for why his character suddenly wants to rage and live a primitive life for a while. It has to be more than about adding another ability or power combo and more about what is going on in the mind of the character, otherwise its numbers on paper.
I also do not like the concept that a player gets to "co-develop" the game as a DM with me. I put an enormous amount of my personal time into creating a world that caters to the players concepts and hooks, as well as will present exciting adventures. I certainly don't want someone telling me for example, that I have to create a world where necromancers are widely accepted because he wants to play one, despite the fact that I have spent days and weeks developing the cultures of the campaign. If the player is heavily invested in their character and puts the time and energy into the storyline and such, then I have no problem creating a solution that works for both of our desires.
On the flip side, I know from experience that being a player in a campaign where you are stalemated and thwarted by the DM, because he does not like your character build, style of play, etc is frustrating. Its the main reason I DM, because at least then, I know the game I am involved in will be one I enjoy.
What's all this about fluff? It's FLAVOR makes the crunch worthwhile. Delicious, savory, sweet, and sour FLAVOR.
|
|
It's been around since the inception of the game, but I would say that the over-codification of 3.0 was a major factor in its increase and a bit of entitlement that went with it.
In basic, 1st or 2nd ed if a player told you he should have X +1 item at this level, and Y amount of gold per level/per encounter you would laugh at him. Sure there were some suggestions but nothing compared with the 13.3 encounters to gain a level, wealth expectations per level, treasure per encounter, etc, these were all 3.0 inventions. When you support these as expectations, you are then supporting the sense of entitlement - players now had hard references on what they should get, how creature’s abilities should work within certain limitations, the fairness of creature or encounter design at CR and so on.
+1.
The idea that there weren't splat books before 3.0 is erronious. In fact to me it seemed most of the 3.0/3.5 expansion was just rewriting the old Completes and applying them to over-simplified rules.
I honestly think a lot was lost in the stream-lining and over-simplification of the rules. Sure now it can reach a wider audience, but the more people you get involved the more codification you need, and the more conflict there will be. Especially once online rules forums are constructed.
I personally miss the 'kit' approach to customizing classes. You set aside a concept you list what you take away from the original class and list what they gain in its place. It seemed much easier for a DM to digest. They could take a quick look at the kit and say, "Uhm, that doesn't look like a fair trade, how about this?".
Then again it has been a decade since I played 2e, maybe I am remembering wrong.
Actually I agree with this. It became very easy as a DM/GM to give a "yay" or "nay" to something. Even monster races as players....much much easier than today's set up, imho.
The funny part was, in most of the "Complete Whatever" series, the vast majority of the kits were rather weak, I thought. Great for fluff, but ultimately pretty tame. I would say that in my games that I ran, 90% of the kits were a-ok for me, because I felt they self nerfed. Even so, if a player wanted to throw down with one, more power to him.
KITS! GD I miss Kits.
My question is: When did the player gain as much power over the game as they seem to have today?
For the record, I started in 1983 with the "Red Box".
I think this happened when the focus of the game turned to the mechanics of the rules instead of the story. In my experience, this was happening in the later 2E days for sure but sky rocketed with the release of 3E. In particular, the inclusion of skills and feats, which brought builds and mechanics for everything that we used to just role-play, and the focus on miniatures combat and the host of rules that came along with that, did a number on the interactive story telling that we all used to do way back in 1E.
For me, while I think as a mechanical system 3.X is more honed, the actual gameplay of 1E was far, far better. Why? Less rules means more interactive storytelling and interactive storytelling is what tabletop games are best at.
My question is: When did the player gain as much power over the game as they seem to have today?For the record, I started in 1983 with the "Red Box".For me, while I think as a mechanical system 3.X is more honed, the actual gameplay of 1E was far, far better. Why? Less rules means more interactive storytelling and interactive storytelling is what tabletop games are best at.
this is what I think I have been trying to put into words for years and have not been able to do so.
I think older gamers have a blind spot about the unbalanced nature of the traditional core classes, because older games didn't level the PCs up as fast.
While there may have been a subconscious niggling in the back of their minds, that high-level spells had some crazy effects, they never got to see them in play.
Hence the blank stares, and the cries of "What do you mean, the Wizard/Cleric/Druid need nerfing? I never had a problem with them in my games, in 20 years!".
Well, no, you probably didn't. Not when your PCs retired, middle-aged, at level 7.
Ha ha.. yeah that's totally true. The vast (and I mean VAST) majority of my 1E/2E experience was under 12th level. The funny thing is that those levels were (and still are) the so-called "sweet spot" of the game. With the advent of 3.X, now we shoot right through the sweet spot so fast and spend a lot more time in the wacky high levels so the game feels more unbalanced.
Remember also that in 1E/2E characters got a lot of their power and uniqueness from their magic items and not so much from their classes (except for spell casters). Now, there are some standard magic items that every "build" should have and they are much less exciting. The excitement comes from your build.
Math doesn't kill flavor or reduce fluff.
Come on now. You can - and many people do - have both math and fluff wonderfully next to each other.
Maybe some people miss the "days of old" but quite frankly in my eyes 3.x was a huge and wonderful advancement on 2e, and these false comparisons, where a game can only have good rules or good fluff, are insane.
You can have interactive storytelling with ease with mechanics to back it up. With ease. In fact, name a situation where you can't. Just one. Name a single situation.
I think I have to agree with the majority of folks and say it's a condition of everyone at the table owning every friggin splat book that hits the shelves. Heck, one of my players buys ME the books as they come out. Why? In my game, if I don't OWN the book, it's doesn't exist. I think this is where some of the problems, if they even are that, come in with Rules Lawyers, number crunchers and power hunters.
Our Rules Lawyer ( Chuck, you know you are... stop smiling! ) knows that he can bring something up, but once we 'go around' the issue, it stands. Sometimes he is right, other times, not so much. Our Power Gamer, loves Chuck. He is a little instigator, gets poor innocent Chuck to bring up issues for him.
I started way back in the 70s. The Beeg 5 - 0 is coming and many other Gezzers have pointed out the Old School feel of the old days and I think that the nice system that's been hammered out by folks has enhanced my ability to immerse my PCs in the game even more. That and WAY too much time behind the screen! I'm the only sucke..... err, volunteer to be the DM / GM at my games since our other DM / GM moved to California several years ago.
HEck, with all the folks knowing the rules, I think it makes my job a little easier. They all know the rules well enough that if I am having a slow night, they help me keep the pace. It's all good baby!!
Have Fun out there!!
~ W ~
You can have interactive storytelling with ease with mechanics to back it up. With ease. In fact, name a situation where you can't. Just one. Name a single situation.
Math has TAKEN PRECEDENCE over fluff, to the point where most GM's and game comparisons come flat to reliance upon rules.
Now a few situations - one mentioned by a previous poster - a GM that says "no, you can't swing from the chandalier, do a back-flip, and kick the bad-guy in the face ... it's not in the rules."
*What rules in 3.x/Pathfinder would allow for this? The Swashbuckler class was created and specifically given that "broken charge" or whatever ability it has to allow it to charge in a non-straight line ... but that's about it. Prior to this *how* exactly can it be done?
*In 2e, it would have been likely 1 ability check vs. Dexterity (with a mod if the GM wanted to put on into play) to pull THE WHOLE THING off - not joking, either. It's in there that GM's *should* improvise to encourage play, and that when in doubt, more often than not a simple ability check would work fine.
Another situation - stealth. In 3.x stealth is RIDICULOUS!!! Note the various threads that have popped up 'round here JUST to try and pin it down.
*You can't *sneak* up on anyone if they reasonably have you ANYWHERE within 360 degrees of their location. Not in 3.x b/c everyone is fully aware all the time. {buh???}
*You can't *sneak* up to someone while in a group, or use a group for cover {buh???}
*You apparently can't use stealth if it's *daylight* or *bright* light around ... at all {tripple buh???} So, unaware target in front of you, you can NOT stealth behind him and stay in the "blind spot" at all now as there is no such way to avoid 360 degree awareness ... {what - everyone's suddenly beholders now????}
*2e - make your Move Silent % and Hide % to remain unnoticed somehow ... and you stayed this way until YOU dropped out of your condition. No "cover" or "concealment" here, but there was the GM advice of "use your judgement" on most situations and allowing stealth. Ie: you damn well CAN walk right behind someone and they'll never notice - broad daylight, too! {other's might notice, but not your target}
There's plenty of things we can point to that have been "ruined" on account of over-codification. Hell - a lot of them I flatly ignore or downplay in games. :shrugs:
Math has TAKEN PRECEDENCE over fluff, to the point where most GM's and game comparisons come flat to reliance upon rules.
The two are utterly unrelated. One cannot take precedence over the other.
Now a few situations - one mentioned by a previous poster - a GM that says "no, you can't swing from the chandalier, do a back-flip, and kick the bad-guy in the face ... it's not in the rules."
*What rules in 3.x/Pathfinder would allow for this? The Swashbuckler class was created and specifically given that "broken charge" or whatever ability it has to allow it to charge in a non-straight line ... but that's about it. Prior to this *how* exactly can it be done?
*In 2e, it would have been likely 1 ability check vs. Dexterity (with a mod if the GM wanted to put on into play) to pull THE WHOLE THING off - not joking, either. It's in there that GM's *should* improvise to encourage play, and that when in doubt, more often than not a simple ability check would work fine.
What's stopping you from doing that in 3.x? Seriously?
I see this all the time, and not just for 3.x. I see it for 4e, too. And know what? I GURAN-DAMN-TEE the same thing was said for 2e. Why do people have this bizarro thought process where it's ok to houserule in one game, but NEVER in the other. There's no statement in any D&D books that proclaims you are never allowed to rule on the spot or make up rulings for players doing things.
Do you know what's stopping you from doing this in 3.x? You are. Your lack of desire to do it is what's stopping you, and NOTHING ELSE.
And your stealth rule issues has zero things to do with either math of fluff. Come to think of it, this first example had nothing to do with it either.
Rules don't make the game fun.
+1
|
All this talk about power creep is hilarious, because - at least in 3.5 - the power creep and newer and newer base classes were arguably more balanced then the Core classes.I think older gamers have a blind spot about the unbalanced nature of the traditional core classes, because older games didn't level the PCs up as fast.
While there may have been a subconscious niggling in the back of their minds, that high-level spells had some crazy effects, they never got to see them in play.
Hence the blank stares, and the cries of "What do you mean, the Wizard/Cleric/Druid need nerfing? I never had a problem with them in my games, in 20 years!".
Well, no, you probably didn't. Not when your PCs retired, middle-aged, at level 7.
No, it never occurred to us because that hyper powerful spell was cast by someone rooted in place (whether flying invisibly while casting through a projected image or not) and could be disrupted with a hard stare. No tumbling around casting while doing a half gainer off a dragon's nose.
And clerics sucked back then. Period.
Magic was magical, but it was a hell of a lot harder to cast.
Back in my day, we had non-weapon proficiencies, and we liked em!
Now get the hell off my lawn!
little whippersnappers
As others mentioned, RAW was often vague and/or contradictory "in the old days." The very reason much more of D&D has become codified over the years was to clarify the once-vague.
As for "the GM is king"--I think the difference there is not the game system, but the experience of the gamers in question.
When you're a newb, and you're only just learning how to play your character, you're more likely to trust the GM at face value.
When you become more experienced, try new characters, or perhaps have decided to GM a session or campaign yourself, you get a whole new perspective on the rules. All of a sudden you begin to trust your perspective as much if not more than other GMs. You begin to argue your POV more with your GM not because of the game system you're using, but because of your own experiences.
It doesn't matter if your first game was 1st edition or 4th edition or Big Eyes Small Mouth or West End Star Wars; you'll likely remember that game as when "the GM was king" but only because of what you yourself was like as a player back then.
I've seen some absolutely wanky rules debates over 1st and 2nd Edition Rules, and I've seen people accept the GM's word without question in 3.x. The edition doesn't matter, and in this particular area, I doubt it ever will.
I think the way the Internet has played into D&D and other game discussion is simply that it is much easier than before to discuss alternate points of view. A gaming group in 1982 who had a rules debate only had each other to sort it out at least on the short term, before the issue was perhaps covered in Dungeon magazine or if someone wrote a letter to TSR. Now someone can check online to see if someone else brought it up pretty easily and see what suggested made-calls are to be. Sure, on one hand, this leads to a lot of arguments and re-interpretations, but on the other hand, it probably ultimately clarifies issues that doesn't have to go unsorted or house ruled.
Heh, I remember reading an article (it might have...
What about this fellow player of mine which assumed a frost brand sword has a +6 bonus against all non-nomadic creatures? It's tricky if you don't have the DMG in front of you but if rougly said "+3/+6 against fire using/dwelling creatures". This friend of mine (eh) assumed the frost brand had a +3 bonus against fire creatures AND a +6 bonus against all creatures that DWELL.
Come on beat this.Same player using a psion in Dark Sun 2e, he assumed his character could metamorphose into a ROC (he misread the word "rock").
What about the vorpal blades... githyanki swords in the Fiend Folio were desrcribed as "fully vorpal" - the official interpretation at the time was that any hit by such a sword would behead the target, unless it missed. Even with a natural "2".
And we can go on and on... :)
Actually, the games I participated in routinely went into the high teens. I think one of the best things about 2e was the weighted lvl progression. I remember the highest campaign I was ever in was epic level. My cleric was 24th level and the next highest character was only 20, mostly because they all multi-classed and clerics had the second fastest progression after the thief. We had a Fighter/Mage/Cleric that was 18th. Everyone talks about how Fighter/Mages or Bladesingers were so uber in 2e but the thing they forget is unless they fudged the numbers on exp they were generally at least a level behind any single class character, often more. We always created our characters together so if someone was going multi-class almost everyone would do some kind of multi-classing in order to even the progression, unless they were playing a mage which had the slowest progression anyway.
Rules are not perfect, and sometimes they require houserules. That doesnt mean rules are wrongbad fun. And like ProfessorCirno said, it is possible to have both flavor and math. I like both. I like a well developed character with motivations and an emotional story, AND i like an ordered system that requires far fewer judgement calls on the part of the dm to make the game work.
I like working out the mechanical side of my character to be interesting and complex. I also work out a back story, come up with a personality and do my best to bring that character out at the table. Neither precludes the other. Emphasizing one or the other does not implicately make my game better. It depends on what you and your group like. Some people here need to get the stick out of their behinds and realize the things they like dont make their games better then other peoples.
redcelt32, your hypocrisy is mystifying. You admit that you do not like the behavior you are advocating when you are playing, so instead you prefer to dm so no one can do it to you. You say you want to emphasize story and character, but when a player want to incorparate his character idea into your world that is clearly an imposition. It smacks of a controlling dm who has ego issues. And I am very glad you are not my dm.
redcelt32, your hypocrisy is mystifying. You admit that you do not like the behavior you are advocating when you are playing, so instead you prefer to dm so no one can do it to you. You say you want to emphasize story and character, but when a player want to incorparate his character idea into your world that is clearly an imposition. It smacks of a controlling dm who has ego issues. And I am very glad you are not my dm.
Wow, I didn't get that at all from his post...
If the player is heavily invested in their character and puts the time and energy into the storyline and such, then I have no problem creating a solution that works for both of our desires.
On the flip side, I know from experience that being a player in a campaign where you are stalemated and thwarted by the DM, because he does not like your character build, style of play, etc is frustrating. Its the main reason I DM, because at least then, I know the game I am involved in will be one I enjoy.
Isn't he saying that he'll work with players and create a solution that works for them both AND that he rejects DM's who don't offer a degree of compromise for interesting character builds? That degree of compromise is something he clearly admits he offers up in the game he runs - therefore making it enjoyable. At least, this is how I read his post.
redcelt32, your hypocrisy is mystifying. You admit that you do not like the behavior you are advocating when you are playing, so instead you prefer to dm so no one can do it to you. You say you want to emphasize story and character, but when a player want to incorparate his character idea into your world that is clearly an imposition. It smacks of a controlling dm who has ego issues. And I am very glad you are not my dm.Wow, I didn't get that at all from his post...
Isn't he saying that he'll work with players and create a solution that works for them both AND that he rejects DM's who don't offer a degree of compromise for interesting character builds? That degree of compromise is something he clearly admits he offers up in the game he runs - therefore making it enjoyable. At least, this is how I read his post.If the player is heavily invested in their character and puts the time and energy into the storyline and such, then I have no problem creating a solution that works for both of our desires.
On the flip side, I know from experience that being a player in a campaign where you are stalemated and thwarted by the DM, because he does not like your character build, style of play, etc is frustrating. Its the main reason I DM, because at least then, I know the game I am involved in will be one I enjoy.
Hmmm, in hindsight, you might be right, the first sentance stuck more with me then the last in that paragraph. I think i made a mistake in reading it, my apologies to redcelt32 for likely misreading his post.
I think the ability to work on the fly in regards to rules is why I prefer systems like GURPS, where every action is based on the same skill roll mechanic(combat, roleplay, spells, etc) and is fairly straight forward once you learn the system. But I do like how classes were setup for 1E, in regards to wizard power and/or hit points, fighter saves, etc. But after GURPS, and 3.5, I need a skill mechanic even if I was to go back to 1E, as oriental adventures still holds a place dear to my heart. I could probably throw feats out the window, unless they were presented more along the line of a advantage, with an associated disadvantage, to flesh out a character, versus mechanical gain.
|
I think it's a bit telling that in the GameMastery Guide thread, the major complain that has been leveled against that book is that it doesn't have as much "crunch" as it has "fluff". I myself am pleased with the book, and it met my expectations...a book that provides ADVICE on how to run a game.
I'm actually hoping that when Pathfinder ver 2.0 comes out, it will actually look back to be a bit more old-school. May be a vain hope, but I can dream.
I guess what I really want is PFRPG with a half-OSRIC template applied.
|
|
How about rewording it as;
I also do not like the concept that a player gets to "co-develop" the game as a DM with me
I don't think there's anything wrong with being upfront about what sort of game you're aiming for, and recruiting players who want to play that genre.
To use a Supers example (to avoid playing favourites between anyone here), if the group wants to play 'heroic crusaders', then they don't want a player bringing Rorschach to the table, or The Punisher.
And vice versa; a 'street-level' game won't survive the insertion of a flying alien in a day-glo cape. And that's regardless of the respective power levels; they could all be the same point-buy, and it would still be jarring.
There's nothing wrong with saying "That's not the sort of game we're playing", and asking for a rethink. It's far more honest in the long run, than trying to hammer the square peg into the round hole, and everyone hating the results.
You don't have to fall out over it; take it in turns to play both genres, and/or help the player find a nearby group that are playing the type of game he wants.
I have a rather unique experince to share.
I picked up D&D books when I was very young (late 80's). I entered junior high with no friends, low self esteem and was social awkward (still got that going against me). One of the many bullies who would always pick on me found out I had D&D books and basically forced me to DM for he and his friends. I couldn't use a DM screen because they wanted to check my rolls (to be sure I wasn't cheating) and at first I could only use monsters in the monster manual. A couple of them had DMed for the group in the past, but they wanted to play since they viewed DMing as a burden.
After awhile I developed a reputation for running good games (not much of an accolade considering the competition), but it certainly helped my self esteem. Eventually I was allowed to make up monsters and magic items for the players and gained a fair amount of freedom running the games. I had gained their trust.
This group of power gamers would usually only play the same characters for a couple sessions before getting bored. We also had a very large pool of players and the roster would change almost daily. I had nothing even resembling a campaign since no one wanted to play a game if all the players from the previous session weren't there. It was a chaotic mess, but I dealt with it because I had no friends.
My one shining moment of glory was when the group one day pulled out their most powerful characters and told me to put them up against a tarrasque. These same players had already defeated it once before under a different DM and wanted to test themselves against me running it. I was kinda honered. I also proceeded to decimate them with it. The kensai with an insane number of attacks went down first IIRC, then the dragonking player and so on. They saw the rolls so they new the vorpal bites were legit. At the end they voted and decided the whole thing was a bad dream. I didn't argue it because it was all democratic, though I didn't get a say.
I have a new, much better group...
I'm speechless- what a weird situation to start off in D&D with.
[
What's stopping you from doing that in 3.x? Seriously?I see this all the time, and not just for 3.x. I see it for 4e, too. And know what? I GURAN-DAMN-TEE the same thing was said for 2e. Why do people have this bizarro thought process where it's ok to houserule in one game, but NEVER in the other. There's no statement in any D&D books that proclaims you are never allowed to rule on the spot or make up rulings for players doing things.
While I think the Speaker is going a bit overboard with generalizations, I think his frustration comes from players, exemplified by many here on these boards, who have memorized the rules, and are absolutely devoted to RAW, much like a religious fundamentalist and the King James Bible. They feel abused whenever the DM houserules or improvises anything, or applies Rule Zero, referring to it as, in terms I've seen widely used here: "DM asshattery", "DM dickery", "DM fiat", etc. They seem to want the DM to be just like another player, bound by all the rules, or at least by the way they themselves interpret them.
As I've said previously, I think the rules have gotten better with every edition, and I've enjoyed them all tremendously. However, a larger part of that enjoyment comes from having a group that agrees that the rules are just the structure on which a good game loosely hangs, and if the DM, who is principally responsible for making that good game happen, needs to play fast and loose with some of the rules or improvise something that isn't in the rules in order to improve the game, he can and will, with everyone's support. I've gotten the strong impression, from reading these boards, that a lot of players don't want their DMs to have that freedom, and that a lot of DMs don't feel they do, and that feeling is, I think more common now than it was in days of old.
In short, its not the rules that are really the problem, its the compatibility of players and DMs. Hopefully there are enough out there who enjoy every play style that everyone can find a game they enjoy. Even better, hopefully most of us can adapt our playstyles to others when necessary and still have fun.
I think it's a bit telling that in the GameMastery Guide thread, the major complain that has been leveled against that book is that it doesn't have as much "crunch" as it has "fluff". I myself am pleased with the book, and it met my expectations...a book that provides ADVICE on how to run a game.
I * love * that * book (at least, from what I see in my friend's copy).
I think it's a bit telling that in the GameMastery Guide thread, the major complain that has been leveled against that book is that it doesn't have as much "crunch" as it has "fluff". I myself am pleased with the book, and it met my expectations...a book that provides ADVICE on how to run a game.
With all due respect, I think you're (let's hope unintentionally) mischaracterizing the "complaints" about the GMG. There has been some mild grumbling from gamers who have read the advice to GMs in the 1e DMG, and the 2e DMG, and the 3e DMG, and the 3.5 DMG II... and don't really feel the need to read it all AGAIN in the GMG. Mind, I am not saying that advice shouldn't be in the GMG, because there will be a good number of players/GMs who haven't read it all before. But nonetheless there are a number of already very experienced GMs who have similar advice in other areas, and don't feel the need to read it again.
The response I've seen to the GMG has been specifically, not "less fluff" but "less ADVICE" in terms of these general things like how to handle problem players, how to set up your gaming table, etc. I think folks have been generally happy with a lot of the "fluff" like how to build a world and how to characterize NPCs and how to detail planes, etc. etc.
I think there are also people who want "MOAR TABLES PLZ"--but look at the tables there--they're things like random character traits for NPCs and names of ships and things. They're actually to help you build a STORY fast, to act as a source of IDEAS--not of rules (and if someone says, "Nope, I rolled an NPC who only talks about grilled cheese sandwiches, he can't help you with anything else," then that person has missed the point of what those tables are there for). And that's what people wanted to see more of. More idea generators and tools to be used in game that largely enhance the campaign's storytelling, not more "rules" with which to burden the players.
Even the more "crunchy" things like hazards and drugs are largely more idea-based (and use already existing rules for diseases, curses, and poisons--basically they're just suggestions for new variations on mechanics that already exist, rather than "new crunch").
And if you think random generation tables are a new thing to Pathfinder/d20 .... uh....
... yeah.
Anyway, my perception is that the main point of contention are the first one or two chapters of the book. Which is general GM advice, and neither fluff nor crunch.
|
|
Math doesn't kill flavor or reduce fluff.
Come on now. You can - and many people do - have both math and fluff wonderfully next to each other.
Maybe some people miss the "days of old" but quite frankly in my eyes 3.x was a huge and wonderful advancement on 2e, and these false comparisons, where a game can only have good rules or good fluff, are insane.
Is this covered by the Stormwind Fallacy?
Or does this have its own header?
Thanks for the responces and glad to know I am not the only 30+ person still playing> ;)
Are you kidding? I turned 41 last week and there are players of the oldschool stuff in their 60's .
Now this is an interesting thread, if a bit maligned. The rules back in the day weren't rules, they were guidelines, back when the world was a bit more DIY than it is now. It was a toolkit.
Those old games with the "terrible" rules? They are still around. Swords & Wizardry, Labyrinth Lord, Basic Fantasy Roleplaying are just three of these. I run S&W, Labyrinth Lord and Pathfinder. And you know what? My group likes them all and although we are older gamers, we aren't snobbish, nor do we think that any system is better than the other. Pathfinder was a hard sell on my group at first because, in this day and age, you cannot beat the retro-clones for price: free downloads of all the core rules, dozens of bloggers (like myself) providing free add-on material-I do this daily), and in addition, Pathfinder is more complicated and it does take time to learn many more rules, newer editions are not sit down, crack out a character and start playing, it is more complicated than that.
What game is superior? The one that your group has FUN playing, regardless of edition or rules or anything else. Memorable times are the aim, and name, of the game.
How about rewording it as;
I also do not like the concept that a player gets to "co-develop" the game as a DM with meI don't think there's anything wrong with being upfront about what sort of game you're aiming for, and recruiting players who want to play that genre.
To use a Supers example (to avoid playing favourites between anyone here), if the group wants to play 'heroic crusaders', then they don't want a player bringing Rorschach to the table, or The Punisher.
And vice versa; a 'street-level' game won't survive the insertion of a flying alien in a day-glo cape. And that's regardless of the respective power levels; they could all be the same point-buy, and it would still be jarring.There's nothing wrong with saying "That's not the sort of game we're playing", and asking for a rethink. It's far more honest in the long run, than trying to hammer the square peg into the round hole, and everyone hating the results.
You don't have to fall out over it; take it in turns to play both genres, and/or help the player find a nearby group that are playing the type of game he wants.
I think players also have to give some recognition to the fact that the DM is most likely putting a hell of a lot more time into the game than they are, particularly if he is creating an entire campaign world. In this case, I think it is a lot easier and more reasonable to ask a player to change his character concept, than it is to ask the DM to change his entire world to adapt to the desires of one player. Different story if it is consensus of all the players. In that case I can see it being necessary for a DM to adapt. In general, though, if a DM doesn't want PC necoromancers in the world he creates, then there should be no PC necromancers, and the player can come uop with a different concept of the hundreds, if not thousands that are potentially available. The I only want to play if I can play this specific character attitude strikes me as a bit juvenile.
While I think the Speaker is going a bit overboard with generalizations, I think his frustration comes from players, exemplified by many here on these boards, who have memorized the rules, and are absolutely devoted to RAW, much like a religious fundamentalist and the King James Bible. They feel abused whenever the DM houserules or improvises anything, or applies Rule Zero, referring to it as, in terms I've seen widely used here: "DM asshattery", "DM dickery", "DM fiat", etc. They seem to want the DM to be just like another player, bound by all the rules, or at least by the way they themselves interpret them.
Personally I think if a dm wants to change rules im fine by that, I dont think the dm should be bound by RAW. I just think the changes should happen prior to the game, and if it effects the players they should be informed. So a dm doesnt like how detect evil works (the whole insta find bad guys who are trying to hide even at low levels), i get that. Just tell the players the change, write it down and move on. Its when dms change or bypass rules on the fly because a specific circumstance comes up in game the dm doesnt like that I call DM Asshattery. Because it punishes creative thinking, or good tactics. I dislike it when dms try to force the game to go their way or the high way, whether with plot railroading or bypassing rules to subvert player strategies or ideas. I dont care if its written by paizo, a 3rd party publisher, the dm himself or another player doesnt bother me so much as, there is rules.
As I've said previously, I think the rules have gotten better with every edition, and I've enjoyed them all tremendously. However, a larger part of that enjoyment comes from having a group that agrees that the rules are just the structure on which a good game loosely hangs, and if the DM, who is principally responsible for making that good game happen, needs to play fast and loose with some of the rules or improvise something that isn't in the rules in order to improve the game, he can and will, with everyone's support. I've gotten the strong impression, from reading these boards, that a lot of players don't want their DMs to have that freedom, and that a lot of DMs don't feel they do, and that feeling is, I think more common now than it was in days of old.
Well it was alot more common in the old days because there werent rules for things. There were huge gaps in the rules. YOU HAD TO IMPROVISE. Now that for most things (particularly if you count the 3.5 backlibrary) there are rules for just about everything. And sure if you cant find a rule, improvise, or if something comes up unexpected and you dont want to dig through books at the table, improvise. Its when it become deliberate and oppositional that I have a problem with it.
IE
Bad IDEA: there is a flying enemy in an encounter harrassing the party, who is having trouble dealing with it, the wizard casts a spell that makes it impossible to fly on the enemy. The dm decides it doesnt work that way and the enemy is uneffected, because he doesnt want the fight to be made easy.
Good IDEA: a PC or an NPC/monster wants to do something you dont know a rule for (the old swing from the chandelier and stab a guy trick) i have no problem with the dm putting a number in his head and rolling (or having the player roll) some dice. I have no problem with doing that in place for trying to find a skill trick or something to do it in the middle of a session.
In short, its not the rules that are really the problem, its the compatibility of players and DMs. Hopefully there are enough out there who enjoy every play style that everyone can find a game they enjoy. Even better, hopefully most of us can adapt our playstyles to others when necessary and still have fun.
I totally agree. You and I have different preferences. And if you want to say you like it better when the dm does 'xyz' and I like 'ab17' no biggie. Its when people say things like 'X makes the game more fun/better' 'Y reduces the possibility for a good game' as facts instead of preferences that I get up in arms.
But my question is, what if you have a situation where a group of say 6 friends has a game. 5 prefer the letter of the law, and 1 prefers the fast and loose method. Is it right for that 1 to impose his style on the rest of the group when its his term to dm? Personally I dont think so. To me the DM is the host of a party. Sure this is your show, but you have a responsibility to your guests(the group) to see everyone having a good time, and not make things all about you. But that is my view for most things in life, so I will readily admit that is fairly skewed.
Thank you Freehold_DM, it was a bizarre set of circumstances to start the game on.
People were different back in the day. We had fewer distractions or we were in school and had fewer responsibilities. Many of us weren't parents or had friends with kids. We were also less sophisticated. Our taste and wants were simpler.
The current generation has learned from us. Now they want more. More understanding, more of something to trust. It's harder for people today to treat anything with reverence, because they tend to get jaded. Some people turn to the rules and put their trust there.
For some, I imagine, this can be a problem. Mostly because not everyone has the same information all the time. I have a friend who won't DM in the Forgotton Realms because of how well versed some people are on the setting. They know more than he does and that makes him uncomfortable. Yes there are solutions to this, but the whole concept shuts him down. Ebberon though, he's a huge fan and as a DM for that setting he's comfortable running things bcause no one can surprise him with anything or contradict his word.
We can never truly relive the past (and many of us don't want to). What can b done, what should be done, is to take the lessons from "back in the day" and apply them to the future.
If you want respect you have to earn it. You want players to not question you? Know your stuff and BE unquestionable.
I still think that all of this depends on the GM. I played with some really mediocre DM's back in 2nd edition, who were very much of the you can't do that it isn't in the rules. And I played with some really great DM's who would just come up with a target number and a roll and say go for it. The big difference I find with 3rd is it doesn't take a great DM to make the game realy fun.
Here’s my own opinion on the matter:
Whenever you put out rules and regulations, you get bureaucrats who enforce those rules and regulations. With 3.x, many of the things that were the sole responsibility of the GM were now the responsibility of the group. And like any group that gets a code of rules, there are people who use/abuse the rules to the point of stupidity. The classic union-thug saying “It’s my job to change the light bulb here. I’ll get you fired if you do it yourself.” Or the employee saying “Making copies isn’t part of my job description.” Or a real estate developer who uses zoning rules to get a neighborhood listed as “blighted” in order to force all the residents out and put up a new strip mall. The rules were in place for a good reason, but people of the bureaucrat mindset have twisted them to something that isn’t supported by common sense.
The exact same things exist as D&D (specifically 3.x) became more codified. Remember the discussion about “discounts” for making magical items specific to alignment and race? How about a recent discussion about what an “area of shadow” means? Who in their right mind would argue that a marble rolling across a floor creates enough shadow for a shadowdancer to use a special ability? Bureaucrats. People who would disrupt the society of the gaming group in order to enforce a quirk of language that game designers missed. “It’s their fault,” the bureaucrat moans, “because they wrote it this way. If they didn’t’ want a shadowdancer to use the shadow created by a marble they should have specified it.”
No, you’re being a jerk, and pray you never end up at my table.
A gaming group is a lot like a benevolent dictatorship. The GMs make the call, and ideally the GM calls are fair, consistent, and create a better story. In an effort to create fairer, more consistent, and even better story, 3.x created a democracy. Democracies can work, but they can also turn into the French Revolution’s Reign of Terror.
GMs (and players) need to remember that it’s a duty to ignore rules that get in the way of a good story. Common sense, “Rule Zero,” and the Rule of Cool gets lost under the weight of:
- a skill system (that may or may not give accurate representations of things like economics),
-a feat system (which tells players ‘to do cool stuff you need a feat’),
-a Challenge Rating system (that too many people slavishly adhere to),
-a Wealth by Level system (that was meant as a tool, nothing more. You don’t use a hammer to change a tire!).
For myself, I will continue to throw the rulebook out the window if it means I get to play a cooler game and tell a better story. No bureaucrats allowed!
I think players also have to give some recognition to the fact that the DM is most likely putting a hell of a lot more time into the game than they are, particularly if he is creating an entire campaign world. In this case, I think it is a lot easier and more reasonable to ask a player to change his character concept, than it is to ask the DM to change his entire world to adapt to the desires of one player. Different story if it is consensus of all the players. In that case I can see it being necessary for a DM to adapt. In general, though, if a DM doesn't want PC necoromancers in the world he creates, then there should be no PC necromancers, and the player can come uop with a different concept of the hundreds, if not thousands that are potentially available. The I only want to play if I can play this specific character attitude strikes me as a bit juvenile.
I would agree for the most part. Players should try to fit their characters to the campaign being run. But while the dm puts in more work, the players still have to play in this world. Some information should be passed back and forth. In a way the players are the dm's clients/customers. Eventually there should be feedback. So while certainly the dm should decide what way necromancy is treated, the prevalence of dwarves etc. He should at the very least discuss this with his players.
An example from my own experience was in a game run by a friend of mine. In his game world, humans and halfings were a slave race. Not just in one region, or among the darker side of the alignment tree. But everywhere. Good gods, officials, paladins, everyone accepted this as a reasonable practice. Any player that wanted to play a human or halfling had to be a freed or escaped slave. They needed to have real or forged documents to be able to enter any civilized society in the entire world.
For me this was unfathomable, it is difficult for me to accept that there would be race based slavery that would be present in an entire world. In a region, or among a certain group, sure. But everyone including pillars of righteous goodness just didnt sit with me. I expressed this concern to him, and he kind of wrote it off saying this was what he wanted to do with his world.
He also wanted us to be of a good alignment for the most part. Money and power werent going to be real motivators in the game, so wanting to do good for its own sake was pretty important (and usually is in his games). But I basically could not sort out a character that could be both good, and go along with a world wide slavery of a specific race. I above else value personal freedom as a person, and its just incomprehensible to me that a good person would sit by and allow this. I told him my character would likely strive to change the status que on slavery and he resisted it, saying my character would just accept it as the norm as he had never known anything else.
So after some discussion i decided to try not to be disruptive to the campaign and constantly try to start a revolution, but i found another problem as we played. I couldnt get into the character. The world felt foreign and i couldnt immerse myself. My character felt shallow (i was playing a paladin) because i couldnt summon the emotion of righteous fury when the character was willfully ignoring something i as a person see as a grave injustice.
Ok so that was longer then i thought, but what i was trying to get at, is that if you exclude your players opinions and feelings from the creation, development, or evolution of your game world, you may find them less immersed, and less involved then they would have been otherwise.
With regard to your question, I pretty much agree with you. A DM shouldn't try and ram a campaign concept down the throats of his players if they don't like it. A good DM will consult with them a bit about what kind of things they want in a campaign before and during creation, if he wants happy players. My only caveat would be that if a DM has really put his heart and soul into creating something, it might be worth at least giving it a try, even if your initial impression isn't positive.
Personally, I dislike playing evil characters and generally won't run evil campaigns. Just not my fantasy to be the villain, amongst other reasons both preactical and personal, but if one of the other DMs in our group really wants to run one, I'll grin and bear it.
[
For me this was unfathomable, it is difficult for me to accept that there would be race based slavery that would be present in an entire...
I sympathize with you and probably would have felt the same way. In fact, I probably wouldn't have as easily accepted the "you can't try to change the world" ruling from your DM. To me that sounds like he's trying not just to tell you what types of character you can play, but also how to play them. History and fantasy literature are full of just those types of characters who challenge the status quo. Of course, history books are not full of those many more who tried to do so and were squashed like a bug for their troubles. That may have been what he was trying to save you from. But I think a campaign based around ridding the stinking evil of slavery from an entire world would have been, in the classic sense of the word, epic. Too bad he didn't go for it.
I sympathize with you and probably would have felt the same way. In fact, I probably wouldn't have as easily accepted the "you can't try to change the world" ruling from your DM. To me that sounds like he's trying not just to tell you what types of character you can play, but also how to play them. History and fantasy literature are full of just those types of characters who challenge the status quo. Of course, history books are not full of those many more who tried to do so and were squashed like a bug for their troubles. That may have been what he was trying to save you from. But I think a campaign based around ridding the stinking evil of slavery from an entire world would have been, in the classic sense of the word, epic. Too bad he didn't go for it.[
For me this was unfathomable, it is difficult for me to accept that there would be race based slavery that would be present in an entire...
I would have liked it too, but it was pretty clear that it would have done 1 of 2 things. Derail the story completely driving us away from the story arc prepared by the DM completely. Or it would have just gotten my character imprisoned/killed. That was the impression i got from him and why i kind of put it behind me.
What'n the hell's a NWP?!?
What'n the hell's a NWP?!?
Non Weapon Proficiency... :) Examples include: Bowyer/Fletcher, Mountaineering, Blind Fighting.
What'n the hell's a NWP?!?Non Weapon Proficiency... :) Examples include: Bowyer/Fletcher, Mountaineering, Blind Fighting.
Slow down, man. Next you're going to start spouting off about "Secondary skills" and really confuse the old codger. ;)
I started playing in 1978, before 1E.Just for accuracy's sake, the 1e Monster Manual was published in '77 and the Player's Handbook in '78. You started playing about the same time 1e was coming out. The DMG completed the rules set in '79.
I'm as old as the Player's Handbook!!! :-D
What'n the hell's a NWP?!?Non Weapon Proficiency... :) Examples include: Bowyer/Fletcher, Mountaineering, Blind Fighting.
Power manipulation, oh wait that was the NWP that really broke psionics.
|
|
Power manipulation, oh wait that was the NWP that really broke psionics.What'n the hell's a NWP?!?Non Weapon Proficiency... :) Examples include: Bowyer/Fletcher, Mountaineering, Blind Fighting.
Psionics, at least in 1e, were so tacked on and ridiculous, I turned all of my psionic using critters into proto-sorcerers.
Psionics, at least in 1e, were so tacked on and ridiculous, I turned all of my psionic using critters into proto-sorcerers.Power manipulation, oh wait that was the NWP that really broke psionics.What'n the hell's a NWP?!?Non Weapon Proficiency... :) Examples include: Bowyer/Fletcher, Mountaineering, Blind Fighting.
Power Manipulation was 2e either Complete Psionics or Will and the Way. Basically it let you make a proficiency check to get the power score of a power (which usually doubled the damage, or duration, etc).
So instead of needing to roll a 20 to get that you needed to roll a 16 or less to get it. TWP fighting and the right powers and you could get 72 attacks per round or something ridiculous like that.