And remember the only psionic PCs were the ones that randomly rolled for it!
What was it 92 or higher on percentile.....
One did not choose psionics, the die roll granted it!
"I'm going to be a psionost"
"Settle down and roll the dice"
It was of course optional.......
If you had a score of 16 or more in Int, Wis, or Chr the chance is 1%, modified upward if any of these three scores is above 16. Each point of intelligence (above 16) is +2 1/2%; each of wisdom is +1 1/2%; each of charisma is worth +1/2%. Double it if you are a Duergar. Then drop any fractions. Gary what were you smoking? ;)
Then the psionics made a random return in DarkSun....
I had a half-giant ranger that got psionics!!!!
Got players choice on that table and picked
All defense modes!Are there any people interested in a 1.0 2.0 pbp on here? That might be a good place for some "geriatric" crotchety DMs to retire to for some tomfoolery!
Would have to unshelve some books, but I still have them!
Everyone in Dark Sun had at least a wild talent. That was always the problem with random not leveled psionics. sometimes you get the equivalent to detect magic, sometimes you get teleport.
Lots of great points made by people. Let me add to the grognard thread...
I've been playing since about 1984 (give or take a year). I've played Basic Dungeons and Dragons, Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, AD&D 2nd Edition, Dungeons and Dragons 3rd edition, Dungeons and Dragons 3.5 edition, Dungeons and Dragons 4e, and Pathfinder. This grognard's opinion is that the rules actually got better with each sucessive edition (except 4e). That said, I STILL houserule stuff, cherry picking things from 3.0 and 3.5 for my own Pathfinder game, as well as a few of my own ideas.
Yes, I have a rules-lawyer at my table. No, I (usually) don't mind the rules-lawyering. It is occasionally useful when I've forgotten something.
As to the OP's question, I believe rules-lawyering has been around for a long time. PERHAPS it is more common now, but that may only be because the game community is larger now than when I started, and therefore there are by default more rules-lawyers now than when I started.
I know for certain there were rules-lawyers in 2nd edition. I even have a memory of an instance when I rules-lawyered my DM in AD&D, using his own made-up house rule. I'm not proud of it, but I was also a pre-teen at the time, so perhaps that had something to do with it.
Heck, Rules-lawyers in all probability pre-date roleplaying, although I can't personally attest to it. I'm sure its come up in a boardgame or minatures game. For example, How many people put money on "Free Parking" in Monopoly, whenever they have to pay a fine? It's probably the most common "unofficial rule" for the game. So common, I actually believed it WAS a rule, until a rules-lawyer pointed out that it wasn't. Indeed, newer versions of Monopoly specifically state that you don't put money on "Free Parking".
So, I think that your perception of rules-lawyers has changed, rather than the existance of that type of player. They have probably been around since games were invented.
This is the perpetual issue that we struggle with today. I have made this comment on other threads and I will state it again here, ultimately you should ask yourself, as a player and a Dungeon Master, “What am I doing when I play D&D (re Pathfinder et al)?” Am I playing against the other players? Against the Dungeon Master? Is it a game of Players versus Dungeon Master to see who can out smart the other? Or are you playing the game to play the game. Is the Dungeon Master challenging the Characters (and not the Players)? Are the Players overcoming the dangers of the game world environment, its monsters, tricks, and Traps (or are they overcoming the Dungeon Master’s ability too challenge them at all)?
Emphasis mine.
I think this is really hitting the nail on the head. Are we here to listen to the dms story. Are we here to tell a bunch of individual stories? Are we here to roll some dice and kick some butt? Are we here to see how rediculous our combinations of character/monster options can be? Whatever the answer is for you, being concious of it and of the answer for everyone else at the table can reall help your game.
Sometimes dms forget that their players may just like kicking in doors and killing monsters, (or whatever it is they want), while players sometimes forget that the dm really cares about his story, npc's and world (or whatever it is they want). Being reminded of what everyone wants out of the game is really a good idea. I think i will try to ask this question more at my table.
This is the perpetual issue that we struggle with today. I have made this comment on other threads and I will state it again here, ultimately you should ask yourself, as a player and a Dungeon Master, “What am I doing when I play D&D (re Pathfinder et al)?” Am I playing against the other players? Against the Dungeon Master? Is it a game of Players versus Dungeon Master to see who can out smart the other? Or are you playing the game to play the game. Is the Dungeon Master challenging the Characters (and not the Players)? Are the Players overcoming the dangers of the game world environment, its monsters, tricks, and Traps (or are they overcoming the Dungeon Master’s ability too challenge them at all)?Emphasis mine.
I think this is really hitting the nail on the head. Are we here to listen to the dms story. Are we here to tell a bunch of individual stories? Are we here to roll some dice and kick some butt? Are we here to see how rediculous our combinations of character/monster options can be? Whatever the answer is for you, being concious of it and of the answer for everyone else at the table can reall help your game.
Sometimes dms forget that their players may just like kicking in doors and killing monsters, (or whatever it is they want), while players sometimes forget that the dm really cares about his story, npc's and world (or whatever it is they want). Being reminded of what everyone wants out of the game is really a good idea. I think i will try to ask this question more at my table.
Bingo. It's all good. Problems arise when there is a mismatch of preferences and those problems can be overcome with good communication. Even in the old days there were different styles of play. Ever partipate in one of the old Master Class RPGA tournaments? You'd think you were in an acting class as people routinely forgot there was even a point to the adventure as they emoted and played their characters to the hilt. At the other extreme there have always been groups or individuals who minimized the roleplaying in order to squeeze in as much combat as possible. I used to have a guy who literally napped in the corner until we came to combat and then rolled his dice with gusto until the last baddie was gone. As long as we're all having fun, who cares?
Back in the day... wow, that takes me back. I started role-playing in 1979, my Dad had learned from some of his army buddies and they played AD&D and Arduin and sandtable war-games. My brother and I were enamored of this mysterious realm of skeletons, goblins, wizards, dwarves and elves, and begged our father to teach us to play. So he gave us a dog-eared copy of the Player's Handbook and an orange set of plastic polyhedrons (the kind with crayon rubbed on them to fill in the numbers) and we were soon hooked.
When we couldn't play with Dad, we soon made friends in school or at camp and taught them to play the game. I had received my first DMG for Christmas and had thus earned the dubious title of Dungeon Master. This became a habit among my friends and I was soon typecast as the regular DM for whatever group we happened to play with... I seldom got to play and had to bribe my brother with hefty gifts of handpainted, badly sculpted Grenadier miniatures to convince him to step behind the screen to give me a chance to be a player now n' then. At any rate, all that time as DM, I learned to improvise and could throw out the results of tables and die rolls on the spot... without consulting a manual, I could tell you what a 13th level Fighter needed to save vs. polymorph, the system shock percentile of a 14 constitution score, what a half-elf thief needed to roll to successfully Climb Walls at 4th level, and likely results of Treasure Types A thru Z (S was the one with the potions, remember?).
Despite knowing instinctively which book and what page number held the answer to any given question, I tended to play quick on my feet. If a player wanted to do something, I'd let him describe it and then do it... if it seemed easy, he made it. If it seemed hard, I'd let him roll something. These rulings were seldom questioned, no matter who the audience was and I don't remember anyone ever really having any issue with them. In fact the only argument that consistently came up was when was I going to allow psionics in my game - the answer then was as true as it is now: Never.
I don't really know what changed... players DO argue more now than I remember them ever doing before, probably because there ARE rules for almost anything players want to try. Things ran smoother then too... I could run a game with nine players and we'd do an entire level of the Temple of Elemental Evil in one night... now I can barely get 3 combats done in an entire Sunday afternoon with a party of four players. The games then were fun, fast and footloose... lots of seat-of-your-pants GM'ing. Nowadays, there is a rule and a method for doing everything, and although I like the clarity of the rules, and feats, and skills and whatnot, it seems to slow down the game more than it used to.
I liked my old games. I like my new games. They are both entirely fun, but for entirely different reasons. The genre is the same and we use the same dice (except for the 12-sider, poor lonely sucker) but aside from that, the game has changed so much that it's really not the same game anymore. Still fun, but very very different. My daughter plays with her friends now, my little 3rd-generation gamer, and she'd be baffled if I asked her to figure out her THACO or actually roll 3d6 for her stats or that the stylish armor n' shield combo she wore gave her an armor class of negative 3. The old days are fond memories for me, but a mystery for her.
Back in my day...
Anyhow, being in my early 30s means I'm not anywhere near as old-school as some people. Still, I felt a desire to share the most extreme "you can only do what's in the rules" moment I've ever seen.
I was running the first session of a 3.5 game I had spent a year working on. It was a bit over-sized with 8 players, but with the battlemap and everything, even combat was going quickly.
Until the third combat of the night, where the party encountered a gargoyle. At one point, the gargoyle hovered over a pc to attack. To represent that it was above and "off to one side", I placed the gargoyle mini on the corner of the PCs square. The idea was that he was 4 feet above and 3 feet to one side of the pc. (5 feet away on the diagonal.)
Immediately, I had shouts of "What square is he on?" and "He can't be there!" and "How can I calculate ranges to him?!" I seriously thought one of the player's heads was going to explode. The ruling of "I placed him, If he's in your range, I'll know it." and "I'm the DM, and I don't see why he has to be dead center on the square." fell on deaf ears.
On the plus side, the 5 players who stayed had a much better time. I still cannot comprehend how placing a figure on the corner of a square could cause so much problems. The last time I had an RPG where monsters had to move on a grid, it used 8-bit graphics.
|
Sometimes dms forget that their players may just like kicking in doors and killing monsters, (or whatever it is they want), while players sometimes forget that the dm really cares about his story, npc's and world (or whatever it is they want). Being reminded of what everyone wants out of the game is really a good idea. I think i will try to ask this question more at my table.
+1
Knowing which players like combat, RPing, puzzles, etc, and making sure you cater to all of them in your game is important. One of my current players completely cannot roleplay, I mean he cannot speak in first person as his character, like, ever. I made the mistake of putting him in a required roleplay situation before I realized this issue - I thought his head was going to explode once when he had to RP talking to a dragon, played by me. But he loves combat, comes early to every game, really gets into developing the mechanics of his character, and has a great time socially with all the other players. So, I use the mechanical faction rules of Pathfinder to handle his interaction with his church (hes a cleric), instead of advancing his standing through RPing, church politics, etc. and we are both happy. I leave the RPing challenges to the bard, who falls asleep during combats, etc..
As far as players, its really hard on a DM when the players don't engage with the world and get involved. I much prefer to develop aspects of the world that I KNOW players are interested in, we both end up happy that way.
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...
Yes - exactly this *is* my point.
And the over-generalizations are much more akin to "hyperbole" and it was intentional to draw emphasis and really draw out those it most aptly describes (at least - my thoughts are there. I'm surprised the Prof popped out for it, though. I'm generally 99% on point with his comments most places).
That's a problem with players, not editions.
Every single edition has a Rule 0 in some form.
If you can make rulings on the fly for one edition, and you come across something the rules don't cover in another edition, you can just as easily make ruling on the fly. It's not a problem with editions.
IME, it's been with later editions that players have been running around waving the RAW around like it's some holy tome or other.
:shrugs:
There *must* be something about all the codification of things in the later editions that gets that crowd of players all riled up or something.
Just saying ...
Sometimes dms forget that their players may just like kicking in doors and killing monsters, (or whatever it is they want), while players sometimes forget that the dm really cares about his story, npc's and world (or whatever it is they want). Being reminded of what everyone wants out of the game is really a good idea. I think i will try to ask this question more at my table.+1
Knowing which players like combat, RPing, puzzles, etc, and making sure you cater to all of them in your game is important. One of my current players completely cannot roleplay, I mean he cannot speak in first person as his character, like, ever. I made the mistake of putting him in a required roleplay situation before I realized this issue - I thought his head was going to explode once when he had to RP talking to a dragon, played by me. But he loves combat, comes early to every game, really gets into developing the mechanics of his character, and has a great time socially with all the other players. So, I use the mechanical faction rules of Pathfinder to handle his interaction with his church (hes a cleric), instead of advancing his standing through RPing, church politics, etc. and we are both happy. I leave the RPing challenges to the bard, who falls asleep during combats, etc..
As far as players, its really hard on a DM when the players don't engage with the world and get involved. I much prefer to develop aspects of the world that I KNOW players are interested in, we both end up happy that way.
** spoiler omitted **...
We definately have our share of people that like one or the other more in our group. We have one that wants to spend days interacting with every inconcequential npc, and at least 2 that would much rather roll dice then speak (in character). Such is life. Mix it up and we normally have a great game.
And as to your rant, i apologize again for my reaction. It was my fault for trying to post while watching the world cup. I only read half your post and not even in order. I jumped to conclusions, so yea my bad.
As you describe it, it sounds like you made significant efforts to accomodate the players vision, I commend you for that. I actually had a similar problem with a player wanting to play a dread necromancer in an urban campaign. He ended up deciding to play something else.
Honestly I think everything can be rather subjective, depending on your point of view. Yes 1st and 2nd edition was really good, and I have many fond memories of such. I also like 3.0/3.5 for the different options it gave you.
Now such things such as a sword and board fighter gave you more options other than you have a sword and shield. True you could do something with house rules, but if you played at another DM's table your not guarantted to get the same for your custom sword and board guy/gal.
With 3.0/3.5, and moreso with Pathfinder now, you have those options available to you. And yes if you like playing sword and board you didn't have to worry because most of the same rules are being used now. Maybe a little muss and fuss here and there but otherwise fairley smooth transition.
Either way when it all comes down to it is your enjoyment, and that of the players, in the game itself.
I think the funny thing is that you could ALWAYS do everything your imagination allowed, in every edition of every fantasy RPG, even if there were no rules covering exactly what your character wanted to do.
Rules sometimes help people with small imagination have a more varied character, but sometimes it just gets out of control in their mind, as if these small-imagination players assume the rules governing their world begin and end within the code lines of a rulebook.
What I wanted to say is I can have a dual wielding drow ranger in 3.5 with its score of feats and skills, or I could have exactly the same drow doing exactly the same things in 1976's OD&D. Rules do not bend reality. Imaginations defines a fantasy world, not the rules used to codify it.
I have to point out that the edition DOES matter. How rules heavy/light or specific/general an edition is will effect the kinds of players you get. Palladium players and White Wolf players tend to be on the opposite end of the spectrum from each other. Palladium players love specific rules, complex tables, and deadly combat. White Wolf players tend to want more general rules, few if any tables, and more cinematic combat.
In short, different rule sets will attract different players. That makes different editions prone to different challenges. A challenge of the more rule-heavy, rule-specific 3.X series of D&D/PF is the tendency of players to demand the use of optional materials, an adherence to the RAW, etc. Those same complaints would be ludicrous if the game system was written as Spirit of the Century instead.
Quoted for truthiness.
Certain people thrive in certain systems. There are people out there who still play 2nd edition. It's just what they're comfortable with. I've seen people who played 3rd edition and quickly gravitate towards fourth because it was easier to learn and play.
I do agree that more comprehensive rules leads to rules lawyering.
When you have a firm grasp of a worlds (or game systems) physics it develops an expectation. When that expectation isn't filled you question why. Many 2nd ed DM's had complete control of everything. 3rd, 4th and Path don't have that luxury. Players "know" how things are supposed to turn out, so when it doesn't go the way they envisioned some will be pleasantly surprised, but many more it seems are not.
It really comes down to where you stand personally. I don't mind rules lawyering so long as it doesn't slow down the game. Only you can determine what's acceptable in your own game.
I remember someone arguing with me repeatedly that 1st/2nd Ed was "the best" because the DM just "made up the rules" so "players could accomplish whatever they wanted." Meaning that if a player wanted to, say, jump off the table, swing off a chandelier, and kick a bad guy before landing on his head, their DM would make up some random on the spot ability score check for the various attemps.Sorry more rules do not = good game, and less rules do not = bad game.
You still can't do what you described under the 3.5 or PF ruleset.
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."
Ummm...
"Make an Acrobatics check to jump up to and swing on the chandelier as your move action; the DC is eight times the height of the jump required (per pg. 88 of the Core Rulebook for a jump without a 10 ft running start); the check result also determines if you avoid an AoO for moving through threatened or occupied squares (DC is CMD for half-move, CMD +10 for full move, +5 for moving though an occupied square). Then make an unarmed attack for the kick; don't forget to add +1 to the attack roll for higher ground."
The "landing on his head" is assumed to be part of the unarmed attack; the GM could also allow the character to add 1.5 times the character's Str mod to damage.
|
I suppose I'd be considered a "rules lawyer". I, like one of the posters at the beginning, can give you most rules off the top of my head. If I can't, I can usually find it in the rulebook pretty quickly.
That said, if we were ever playing and I quoted the rule, say on a spell, and my DM immediately said "I'm playing it this way"? I'd say "ok" and things would continue fine.
Really and truely
I have limited time to play and have fun so here are a few rules.
These maybe a throwback to the "DM God" take on things, but at the least you don't have to stop the game for the sake of the rules.(contrary to the advice of Einstien)
rule #1 Never ever ever look anything up in game
rule #2 Never let players keep books/pdf's etc to look things up
rule #3 No rules lawyering
rule #4 present your case clearly and shortly
rule #5 Accept the adjudication (in game)Rule #6 Work the adjudication (out of game)
rule #7 Be open to meet individually with any player about any issue in game, out of game.Rules discussions are great for the two people discussing the rule, but WTF does the rest of the group get out of it?
Why does the game have to stop. I give players 30 seconds to find the rule or the game keeps moving. 30 seconds is not to much time to save a player's character due to a DM mistake, and it encourages them to learn the rules also, or at least know where to find them.
[
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.
I dont think house rules are the issue. The issue is mostly "surprise" house rules that only benefit NPC's or at least don't help the players. House rules are ok, but everyone should know about them.
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.
+1 If were allowed to have signatures I would have this one.
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.
Why can't the DM make the world open enough so it won't be an issue. You(general statement) can always have certain parts of the world that are not explored. That way such things are never an issue. Barring _____ for one campaign is one thing, but when you bar it from an entire game world that means it never gets used.
Edit: I am building off Brian's post, so it is really more of something for those of you that have such restrictions to think about than it is for Brian to answer.
My question is: When did the player gain as much power over the game as they seem to have today?
When did the player gain as much power over the game as they seem to have today?
While I can't speak to the days before 1st edition. I can tell you the term 'Rules Lawyer' was in strong usage back in the days of 1st edition. It might be a throw back as far as the roots of RPGs themselves, war-gaming. When it may be vital to your tactics to have a better grasp of the rules than your opponent. I do know that the numerous little case rules set up in 1st edition AD&D allowed them to flourish. As for players having actual power over the game? They always have. In every game since time began. A game is nothing if not a set of social rules. And through history those rules change depending on who sits across the table from one another.
Was it the rise of the internet that caused the shift in gaming?
No. The internet DID expand the player base in a new way however. And with the new ways to play come new social challenges to the way you play.
Or was it the invention of RPG video games that pushed it in that direction?
No. This popularized the RPG industry however. And brought a host of new players itself. A host with whole new ideas on things like character roles and game pacing.
Or was it a result of the introduction of the 3.x games?
No. Actually 3.x was an attempt to reduce the number of 'rules lawyers'. By standardizing resolution methods and eliminating all those specific case rules, they tried to make the game 'lawyer' proof. It failed. The vast new options supplied by the splat books added back in all the complexity they had removed in the first place.
Or maybe was it is the MMO effect that caused this type of style to arise?
No. The MMO effect is the logical extension of the meeting of two great movements: the internet and computer RPGs. It truly opened the games to millions of players by letting you play anytime you wanted with a host of players who also were online at the same time.
In conclusion, as long as a rule exists there will be a rules lawyer trying to use it to his or her advantage.
That said, if we were ever playing and I quoted the rule, say on a spell, and my DM immediately said "I'm playing it this way"? I'd say "ok" and things would continue fine.
The 'always retreat' tactic, is what I call that. There is an old saying: "Ask yourself. Is this the hill I wish to die on?" Sometimes it isn't worth it for your (or anyone else's) enjoyment if you stop play to argue. BUT, sometimes it IS. If most of the players had been using a rule correctly. But for some reason the GM hadn't been. Then it would most certainly be worth halting play. Good etiquette demands that a GM present all rule changes before play. And if his misunderstanding is going to affect the enjoyment of the players. They would do very well to stop play. That way all players can have their voices heard before the GM finalizes his ruling.
Yeah, that's much easier than "roll a dex check."
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."
Ummm..."Make an Acrobatics check to jump up to and swing on the chandelier as your move action; the DC is eight times the height of the jump required (per pg. 88 of the Core Rulebook for a jump without a 10 ft running start); the check result also determines if you avoid an AoO for moving through threatened or occupied squares (DC is CMD for half-move, CMD +10 for full move, +5 for moving though an occupied square). Then make an unarmed attack for the kick; don't forget to add +1 to the attack roll for higher ground."
Easy or complicated isn't the issue. The issue is GM's who don't apply the rules that exist, or even deny that there are rules to cover certain actions and just say "you can't do that."
In this case, the example of "swinging from a chandelier and kicking a bad-guy in the face" is a move action using Acrobatics and an unarmed attack. Nothing more, nothing less. A GM who states "there's nothing specifically in the rules about swinging on chandeliers or kicks to the face, therefore I'm not allowing it" is, IMO, missing one of the great strengths of table-top gaming over computer/online gaming: the ability to simulate and resolve a vast range of actions, limited only by the imagination of the participants instead of being constrained to only a few specific action/response groups for each situation.
Yes ... GM's not applying rules and advice *is* the root of the problem in the first place.
Again, I'll point to the 2e sections addressed to the GM's that are *literally* loaded with all kinds of "if it makes it fun for the group, and players, then make it happen with as little fan-fare as possible" as the core resolution of it's suggested mechanic (ie: make a dex check).
Currently, you MUST know all that minutia of detail (that, honest *I* didn't know about before you just mentioned it all - i've just followed my 2e advice and had quick rolls to move the game along right quick. Damned if I calculated a *single* jump DC, or tumble roll either, though - just stuck to standard junk listed w/the skill and move *right* along with speed, and quickness), to slow the game down and calculate out the action involvement in cost, and the DC's, and the separate skill checks, and to hit rolls. That's a LOT of niggling little detail to get in the way of "kewl moves", so, 2e's resolution is superior - just make a quick SINGLE check, and move on.
Granted, if you had some dumb-ass DM that didn't *read* that stuff about 2e's "how to be a GM" then yeah, he may well have stiff armed you and said, "No!" But he was being foolish anyway, and didn't follow the handbook's rules for how to do it "right" in the first place.
And then another 2e GM says "No, you can't do that."
And then the next GM says "Ok, roll a dexterity check to reach it, an intelligence check to know where to grab, and a strength check to hold on."
And then the next GM says "Yeah sure, it works."
And then the next GM says "Roll a percentage die"
And then the nest GM...
Hey isn't it awesome when we don't have a foundation of rules to rely on? No. No it's not.
I started playing with AD&D sometime in the mid 90s (though D&D was not my first RPG) and while it was pretty fun, I loathed that they didn't have solid rules for skills.
What I really dislike about what the modern mindset in gaming seems to be is that (especially on these boards) folks seem to place more merit on having optimized characters than on "fluff", which is in my opinion more important than optimization. Time and time again I hear how horrible a choice Evocation spells are for spellcasters or how such and such build can out DPR such and such build or how class A is inferior to class B, and people devote obscene amounts of time and math "perfecting" their systems/builds/whatever in multitudes of threads. Now I'm sure some of you guys spend just as much time on your backstories and RP, but that's not the general impression I'm left with. I'm left with the impression that DPS, tactics and optimized builds are king, everything else taking a backseat. I really don't want to assume that about the nice folks on these boards, but (imo) there's precedence for that thought.
So to make my own point, rules and "fluff" are just as important... one can't be more important than the other. This isn't a diceless game, but it's not a wargame either.
Just my two cents.
So to make my own point, rules and "fluff" are just as important... one can't be more important than the other. This isn't a diceless game, but it's not a wargame either.
Just my two cents.
And so ... you've lit the powder keg right under the war-gamers and rules-lawyers both. {emphasis mine w/bolding}
Bravo!
*applauds*
@Prof: And ... again, those that made it "not fun" for their group didn't bother to read the DM/GM advice on how to do it "right" in the first place. The litmus test "back in the day" was "are the players at the table enjoying the game" ... so ALL of those things you cited worked PERFECTLY fine for one group, or another, or another according to their own tastes and flavors.
In other words, EVERY group was actively encouraged to create their own house rules to make things work best for them - whatever it took to get to that point - it was cool.
Now ... we've codified how far you can land your urine in a pissing contest if need be.
[sarcasm]Yippee! I won that piss contest! I can pee further than every other Class/RACE combo around at my CR with my +x Pisser of Doom![/sarcasm]
Hey ... isn't it *awesome* when rules are so codified that you're assaulted and derided for making house rules? Totally fun to nit pick every instance of ridiculous minutia and detail to a game!!
{I guess the sarcasm wasn't yet turned off ... }
I started playing with AD&D sometime in the mid 90s (though D&D was not my first RPG) and while it was pretty fun, I loathed that they didn't have solid rules for skills.
What I really dislike about what the modern mindset in gaming seems to be is that (especially on these boards) folks seem to place more merit on having optimized characters than on "fluff", which is in my opinion more important than optimization. Time and time again I hear how horrible a choice Evocation spells are for spellcasters or how such and such build can out DPR such and such build or how class A is inferior to class B, and people devote obscene amounts of time and math "perfecting" their systems/builds/whatever in multitudes of threads. Now I'm sure some of you guys spend just as much time on your backstories and RP, but that's not the general impression I'm left with. I'm left with the impression that DPS, tactics and optimized builds are king, everything else taking a backseat. I really don't want to assume that about the nice folks on these boards, but (imo) there's precedence for that thought.
So to make my own point, rules and "fluff" are just as important... one can't be more important than the other. This isn't a diceless game, but it's not a wargame either.
Just my two cents.
Taking the discussions on these boards to represent the relative value placed on 'fluff' vs 'crunch' is a mistake. There is a reason you see more on these boards about mechanics then on 'fluff' or roleplay. Actually there are a couple.
1. The 'rules' are a shared experience. We all have a copy of the core rules (or the prd). This is primarily mechanical, and we all can share our opinions views etc. A character with a 2 bab +3 str and weapon focus roles a d20 + 6 to hit. We all know this, we all can relate. Roleplaying is not a common experience. I have played in numerous groups and they all rped VERY differently. From setting, tone, or simply what you do when you roleplay, its extremely differnt. So if I ask how do play out my gnome illusionist who has a propensity for pranks, i will get lots of suggestions, but many if not most wont have bearing on my style of roleplay or my group.
2. Most of us dont need help with fluff. Most of us can write a backstory just fine on our own. And for the most part, beyond 'do you think this is cool' how much input do you really want on your back story?
3. There is very little debate in fluff. The most popular threads are debates. Where opposing view points present arguments. There is lots of debate on which is a the 'better' character build. For fluff? Pretty much everyone says, thats pretty cool and you move on. There is not much arguing in fluff, which means it doesnt make good forum fodder. Those threads drop off really quickly and thus make for less of the 'forum' experience. I have seen some, but they disappear fast.
4. Mechanics are easier to discuss in a forum. Lets face it, a character background, or worse a setting/adventure idea is alot of writing. You will still do it, but fewer people will want to read 20 pages on your cool new world that you are building then your new character build, or how feat x combines awesome with class feature y. My character backstories are usually 4-6 typed pages. I would very rarely expect people to read all that in a forum post. The longest mechanical post is a homebrew class, which takes up usually 2 typed pages where most of 1 is the chart. Its just impractical to post and discuss 'fluff' stuff here on the boards compared to crunch.
5. Fluff is a creative challenge, optimization/mechanics is a logical/mathimatical challenge. Why does this matter? Simple, people like sharing/working together with logical challenges. Fewer people like collaborative creative challenges. Logical challenges are generally made easier with collaboration. More minds working the same mechanical cogs usually gets the job done faster. On the other hand, collaboration can stifle creativity because of conflicting ideas, different tastes, etc. Its harder to work together or to share the creative idea that is flavor/roleplay then it is to share the logical idea that is mechanics.
hmmm thats all i got for now. But seriously dont think that the discussion here on these boards is indicative of how much emphasis is put on roleplay in the groups these board members occupy.
|
Hey isn't it awesome when we don't have a foundation of rules to rely on? No. No it's not.
But you can NOT cover every possible scenario with rules. I don't care if you have a million 320 pages rulebooks, all of them completely filled with crunch, someone WILL find a situation that those rules don't cover.
In my less than humble opinion, the demonizing of DM fiat and the over-reliance on increasingly over-codified rulesets is NOT good for the game.
|
|
I personally miss the 'kit' approach to customizing classes.
I agree completely. Kits were seen in 2e as a little bit of bloat in their time. But compared to the "new" way of doing things... What I mean is;
- I need a fighter who rides a horse = NEW class + associated abilities etc.
- I need a fighter who can fight from a boat = NEW class + associated abilities etc.
- Repeat Ad Nauseam
On reflection "kits" were a good way to add variety to the core classes without adding more class rules that both add more work for the DM and increase the probability of unbalancing the game (class vs class).
After having a look over Al Qadim it's a great example of Kits being used to make core classes very different in feel without adding too much extra rules to the DM's plate. Ok Sha'ir does add rules :p
Back to what the OP was saying - I DM'ed also exclusively because I liked RAW, house rules annoyed me, and it seemed possible at least under 2e to not need to stray from RAW to play enjoyable imaginative memorable adventures.
DMing in 3.5e always felt like as a DM I was being sieged by the PC's and there latest "death combo" to kill my critters in 1 round.
My grumbling old 2 cents (NOT adjusted for inflation),
S.
Hey isn't it awesome when we don't have a foundation of rules to rely on? No. No it's not.
But you can NOT cover every possible scenario with rules. I don't care if you have a million 320 pages rulebooks, all of them completely filled with crunch, someone WILL find a situation that those rules don't cover.
In my less than humble opinion, the demonizing of DM fiat and the over-reliance on increasingly over-codified rulesets is NOT good for the game.
Not every possible scenario, no. But throwing your hands in the air and saying "let the GM make the call for anything except the most basic of mechanics" is not necessarily a great solution, either. See the examples above.
Much of what you consider "over-reliance on increasingly over-codified rulesets" grew out of decades of feedback from the gamer community. GM fiat, in and of itself, is not being "demonized." However arbitrary and inconsistent GM fiat, as pointed out by ProfessorCirno, is "NOT good for the game," as well. And yes, just as there are GMs that rely too much on what is and isn't explicitly in the rules, there are GMs who just make decisions based on their whim at that moment and never give the players any way to predict what they can or can't do. I've personally seen it happen where the same action by the same character in the same session was automatically allowed one time, required a check another, and was declared impossible a third time under exactly the same circumstances, depending on what the GM thought was "dramatic."
If nothing else, a robust, scalable ruleset can allow a better translation of concept into system mechanics, rather than relying solely on GM fiat. Hence, more races, classes/class variants, and weapon specialization were introduced in the 1st Ed Unearthed Arcana, Oriental Adventures introduced even more races, classes/class variants, non-weapon proficiencies, and martial arts rules (IMO, one of the best treatments of martial arts in any edition of D&D), non-weapon proficiencies received an upgrade and expansion with the Dungeoneer's and Wilderness Survival Guides, etc. All of this was driven by the demand of the gaming community for an "official" way to translate "fluff" into "crunch."
|
|
But throwing your hands in the air and saying "let the GM make the call for anything except the most basic of mechanics" is not necessarily a great solution, either. See the examples above.
True. But the pendulum has swung too far in favour of the PC's dictating based on rules what can and can't happen in my mind. 3.xe was the first edition I had a player point out that my Evil Wizard couldn't possibly do "whatever it was" because his level/class would allow that 'feat'. My response of course was "what feat?" (DM fiat Wizard = no feats, just things I wanted him to do). The Player's Handbook did indeed indicate that my Evil Wizard couldn't, but I pointed out my book The DM's Guide didn't seem to point out any such rule restrictions...
(1) Players have rules and I agree they need to be internally consistent or at least differences understandable.
(2) DM's have guidelines where the only restrictions are in the name of keeping the game entertaining for the PC's.
S.
But throwing your hands in the air and saying "let the GM make the call for anything except the most basic of mechanics" is not necessarily a great solution, either. See the examples above.True. But the pendulum has swung too far in favour of the PC's dictating based on rules what can and can't happen in my mind. 3.xe was the first edition I had a player point out that my Evil Wizard couldn't possibly do "whatever it was" because his level/class would allow that 'feat'. My response of course was "what feat?" (DM fiat Wizard = no feats, just things I wanted him to do). The Player's Handbook did indeed indicate that my Evil Wizard couldn't, but I pointed out my book The DM's Guide didn't seem to point out any such rule restrictions...
(1) Players have rules and I agree they need to be internally consistent or at least differences understandable.
(2) DM's have guidelines where the only restrictions are in the name of keeping the game entertaining for the PC's.
S.
+1 on your 2 points!
Especially the DM part as, with more and more codification of rules, the implication seems to be less and less ability on the DM's front to *make* things happen.
As for the previous examples of inconsistency - those were different rule-calls by different DM's at different people's tables ... ie: DIFFERENT groups streaming THEIR line of play for THEM.
How, might I ask, is the way that Bob, the neighbor and his gaming group that play in Denver, CO matter to Chuck and his group in Springfield, MA matter?
* Both groups are run by different GM's (Bob and Chuck respectively)
* Both groups have different play styles
* Bob and Chuck are "old school" and have read and taken to heart all the DM advice about how to cater/mod the game to the player's tastes
*Bob and Chuck both have extensively house-ruled the game to THEIR group of players and their campaigns
Now, of COURSE there's always the possibility of a bad GM - it just happens. Mostly, because they're NOT following the "old school" advice of the game and on some level look at it like PC's vs. GM or something. Or they're pointedly ignoring the desires and drives of their players. To this, I again point out, they're not doing the job right on account of NOT following the guidelines on *how* to GM in the first place.
For the GM's that are doing it right, and their groups are having plenty of fun w/their house rules in place - what gives anyone the right to accuse them of "bad, wrong fun" in the first place?
Reliance and insistence upon RAW above all else is asinine and inhibiting of the true designs of ANY game - to have fun with a group of friends. The *best* GM's understand this, and have already made numerous system adjustments through either instinct or observation to cater their games to their group of PC's. Otherwise ... they will probably find they don't have a group of PC's to GM for ...
I suppose I'd be considered a "rules lawyer". I, like one of the posters at the beginning, can give you most rules off the top of my head. If I can't, I can usually find it in the rulebook pretty quickly.
That said, if we were ever playing and I quoted the rule, say on a spell, and my DM immediately said "I'm playing it this way"? I'd say "ok" and things would continue fine.
Welcome to play in most people's games any time, in my opinion, with that attitude. That doesn't make you a rules lawyer, by my definition, just a guy who knows the rules.
I dont think house rules are the issue. The issue is mostly "surprise" house rules that only benefit NPC's or at least don't help the players. House rules are ok, but everyone should know about them.[
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.
I think what you are getting at is DMs who seem to be confusing their role, and are acting as adversaries of their party, so thus bend the rules against the players in unexpected and unwelcome fashion. That's one of the easiest and most common DM fallacies. I address that up front with my players. I'm there to facilitate the play and move the story along, and my main goal is to let everybody have fun, including myself. I play the role of the bad guys, as I play the role of all NPCs, but I am not the enemy and I'm not playing "against" them. I actually want them to be challenged, but to overcome those challenges and succeed, as that is usually what is most fun.
Occasionally, you have to make up house rules on the fly when the PCs come up with some plan of action that isn't foreseen by the rules, or which the rules don't address well. I'm rarely dictatorial when that happens, though. I usually confer quickly with the two players at the table who also act as DMs sometimes, and we come to consensus.
But you can NOT cover every possible scenario with rules.
That doesn't mean that the rules shouldn't cover anything. Neither extreme is desirable.
In my less than humble opinion, the demonizing of DM fiat and the over-reliance on increasingly over-codified rulesets is NOT good for the game.
On the other hand, the glorifying of GM fiat and gagging of players is not good for the game, either.
It's a fact that you just can't defend one extreme by saying that the opposite extreme is bad, too. Extremes are too rarely the right solution for that to work. Unless you have a position of power you can use to enforce your demands upon the other, you will have to live with compromises.
In this case, it's bad to have thousands of pages worth of rules that try to govern just everything, because sooner or later, you'll hit the "event horizon" of feasible rules detail, and everything beyond that is just added complexity without pay-off; it's also bad to have a GM who is reduced to NPC slave or something like this.
On the other hand, it's also bad to have no rules at all, because it all too often leads to endless debates about interpretations and personal opinion, and if the rules don't provide an inkling about the difficulty of your desired action, expectations will often be flat out wrong - it's not fun to think something is easy to find out that you have just killed yourself with an impossible task. In the same vain, just having the GM make up everything as he goes along isn't satisfactory for the players, either. They will be degraded to PC slaves who have to read the lines the GM feeds them.
The only solution that really works is somewhere in between: A solid set of rules that covers everything to some detail and sets a precedent for everything that's not in the books, a system that lets you extrapolate.
Combined with this is the mentality that everyone is doing this to have a great time. Players need to respect the GM, and the effort and resources he puts into running the game and creating (or buying) the adventure paths. They need to respect that, in a pinch, the GM often needs to make quick decisions. They may not always be perfect, but that's something for after the session to discuss.
The GM, on the other hand, must realise that these players didn't show up to play extras in his story. They play their own characters. They want to do things their own way. Sure, some "railroading" will often be involved (there is an overarching story, after all), but dictating every action isn't the right way.
He also needs to realise that the rulings should be fair. He can't use GM fiat to simply shoot down their actions just because he didn't think of them before and they messed up his plans. A good GM needs to roll with that. A good GM needs a good feel for the rules, so he can make good judgement calls when the action leaves the beaten paths.
Sure, a GM can say "This rule will not be in" or "This feat/class/race/whatever is out", but there should be an explanation, and it should be more than "because I said so".
The DMG saying "Don't be a jerk" doesn't cover it. Even if all the GMs in the world are nice, it still leads to nonstop inconsistent rulings, so that the player has no idea how to do any actions.
There's been no demonization of GM fiat. There has been - properly so - demonization of GMs half-assing and ignoring rules left and right and never writing anything down so that players have no idea where they stand.
You keep whinging about needing to look up small rules in the 570 page book, and I don't see it. "Roll acrobatics." That's it. That's the entire rule. How is that difficult? How does that take half an hour of looking? Here's what it takes: "Hey, you have the acrobatics skill. Roll that." Not exactly half an hour of searching.
It's almost as if, when you make extreme strawman arguments, they become radically easy to knock down! :O
Stop making up stupid examples about urinating or having to look through a billion page book when those examples do not and have never existed. Try giving an example that's based in reality next time.
He also needs to realise that the rulings should be fair. He can't use GM fiat to simply shoot down their actions just because he didn't think of them before and they messed up his plans. A good GM needs to roll with that. A good GM needs a good feel for the rules, so he can make good judgement calls when the action leaves the beaten paths.Sure, a GM can say "This rule will not be in" or "This feat/class/race/whatever is out", but there should be an explanation, and it should be more than "because I said so".
I agree mostly. But as long as the GM is fair. I don't feel she needs to explain anything.
Reliance and insistence upon RAW above all else is asinine and inhibiting of the true designs of ANY game - to have fun with a group of friends. The *best* GM's understand this, and have already made numerous system adjustments through either instinct or observation to cater their games to their group of PC's. Otherwise ... they will probably find they don't have a group of PC's to GM for ...
Love this.
I read a blogpost recently about the nature of rules that went something like this:
Competitive games have specific rules.
Cooperative games have general rules.
D&D is a cooperative game. Nobody wins, except that everyone has fun. Baseball doesn't have a GM, it has referees and umpires. These people never interpret rules. There are no questions in checkers, because the game is competitive. The rules cover every scenario.
When one tries to make a cooperative game have competitive rules, things fall apart. As witnessed by ProfessorCirno's insistence that everyone should play with every rules in the Pathfinder Core book, and if they're not they're doing it wrong because, God forbid, a GM might have the audacity to make a call that's inconsistent with a previous call. Sorry, Prof, that's what I take away from your posts.
So, the advent of computer gaming seems to be to blame for some of this, since computer games have specific rules. Even cooperative games, played on a computer, have specific rules that never change. And now we have people who insist that others, who will never play at their table, play by their rules.
Rule Zero: Do what you have to do so that everyone has fun. This rule applies to players and gamemasters.
On the other hand, the glorifying of GM fiat and gagging of players is not good for the game, either.
Hmm .... this just struck me, but I *think* what's mostly being argued about here is the polarization of the above statement.
That IF you use GM Fiat, THEN you gag your players.
IMO, if you go by "old school" then neither of the above is polarized *at all* in play. If anything, you're encouraged to LISTEN to the players and then modify YOUR game as needed. True story, folks!
Now, if *that* is the problem, let me state clearly that I am NOT an "either/or/if/then" GM. I utilize both things at the table and work cooperatively with the players to provide an enjoyable playing experience.
Is there *anyone* out there that does think this is a polarized thing (ie: IF you fiat, THEN you gag your players), speak up - otherwise, there's a whole lot of NOISE about something that we basically agree upon (even if we're stating it differently or coming from different angles).
So, yeah: I use fiat, but I do NOT gag my players - total opposite (again, as advised in the 2e rules about how to be a GM in the first place).
@Doug: Good post and point about cooperative/competitive rules and distinctions.
A lot of this comes down to a simple question: Do you have a good DM that you trust or not?
If you have a good DM and you trust him, then you probably don't have much problem with "DM fiat".
If your DM ain't so great, and you don't trust him, I can fully understand having a problem with DM fiat. I have to admit to playing a couple of games with poor DMs over the years. (Example - one campaign started at first level with our first encounter being in a forest at night and the DM ruling that an army of over 200 orcs was able to sneak up on the ranger and elf on guard duty at the time and get within melee range without them seeing or hearing anything.) The quick and inevitable result was player revolt followed by appointing a new DM.
So my advice, no matter what edition you are playing is: pick your DM well, then get out of the way and let him do his job.