Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Manchu wrote:I don't see how you can twist this into a personal matter.

I'm just going to go with you not knowing how you came off and leave it at that.

The assumption that all rulesets are in effect equivalent because you will just change them at will to do whatever you need to in the moment. I'm not telling you to stop playing 4E because you don't know what you'e doing and you're insulting me by doing what you're doing. I'm saying, different rules systems are good for different things. The thing that you seem to want to do can be accomplished so much more easily with a game that wasn't designed to do the opposite. And for the last time, I'm not even talking about you personally, despite your insistence to the contrary. This is an abstract discussion and the point I'm arguing against is the "loose framework" style equivocation of all rules.

I never said (or agreed to) the fact that all games are essentially equivalent. I agreed to the fact that they are a loose framework around which we can play our games. Obviously, they are different and those differences matter, but there is a certain amount of wiggle room to make the game work for the individual group. I'm not going to use Vampire to play my D&D games, because that would be too much house ruling. I will use 4E with some modification to play my D&D games because that isn't a big deal. And when you directly respond to my points and say 'you' should probably look for a different game, that looks pretty direct to me.

In English, second person plural and singular are the same. I'm sure this isn't the first time you (singular) have encountered it.

I'm not going to use Vampire to play my D&D games, because that would be too much house ruling.

That sentence partly captures the thing I am criticizing. VtM/tR cannot be "house ruled" into 4E except for just erasing all the Vampire stuff and re-writing 4E. The games do completely different things and their designs are totally informed by those different things. This what I mean about "house ruling" Monopoly into Battleship. The core aspect of 4E is its tactical, balanced combat; that is what it is primarily designed to do (whether or not it always succeeds is another matter). Changing the game to contradict its principal design goals seems to indicate clear dissatisfaction with the game as designed, i.e., its basic tenants need to be changed so that it's more fun. But we don't have to talk 4E compared to VtM/tR. Although 4E shares much more in common with 3E than it does with Vampire, 4E cannot be houseruled to play 3E, either. It's even more claer as to what that would look like: putting down your 4E books and picking up your 3E books. The "house rule" would read as follows: "okay guys, let's play 3E instead of 4E."

Manchu wrote:In English, second person plural and singular are the same. I'm sure this isn't the first time you (singular) have encountered it.

Of course it isn't. Thanks for condescending.
That being said, the way you determine which one you are looking at is context. In the context you were presenting, you looked to be speaking directly to me and my situation.

That sentence partly captures the thing I am cirticizing. VtM/tR cannot be "house ruled" into 4E except for just erasing all the Vampire stuff and re-writing 4E. The games do completely different things and their designs are totally informed by those different things. This what I mean about "house ruling" Monopoly into Battleship.

You're arguing exactly my point. I was saying that you would never do that because game systems are not interchangable. Your earlier point was that I had said they were interchangable. They are not.

The core aspect of 4E is its tactical, balanced combat; that is what it is primarily designed to do (whether or not it always succeeds is another matter). Changing the game to contradict its principal design goals seems to indicate clear dissatisfaction with the game as designed, i.e., it basic tenants need to be changed so that it's more fun. But we don't have to talk 4E compared to VtM/tR. Although 4E shares much more in common with 3E than vampire, 4E cannot be houseruled to play 3E, either. It's even more claer as to what that would look like: putting down your 4E books and picking up your 3E books. The "house rule" would read as follows: "okay guys, let's play 3E instead of 4E."

I think that minor changes to combat (like halving hit points, which coincidentally is what WOTC did when they redid monsters for Monster Vault or letting monsters die early) is not contradicting principal design goals. You're reading WAY too much into it.

Forget the Vampire thing. You are specifically taking something I said out of context to make the wrong point. The Vampire was to prove that I don't think they are interchangable. edit: seriously, go back and read that paragraph. You took the V:tM thing waaay out of context.

Your tactic here seems to be to claim to agree, then actually disagree, then complain when I act as if we don't agree.

I agree that the VtM comparison was poor, which is why I dismissed it in my post. When I hear "let's disregard the balance of 4E for the sake of narrative," logic and experience compel me to ask "why not just play 3E?"

Also we are not talking about halving hit points:

pretre wrote: I also have a tendency to wing it a bit more than most and if players have basically won the combat, suddenly the badguys start dying in cinematic ways everytime they swing a sword.

pretre wrote:What I am saying is that at a certain point in the combat it becomes a foregone conclusion. At that point, a lot of non-minions tend to end up bloodied really quick and then end up dead even quicker. Basically, I cheat to make the combat less of a drag.

pretre wrote:In any system, there is often the point in the combat where an opponent that can't or won't surrender is outmatched and the combat is a foregone conclusion. This is especially true if your party likes the 'cut off the head of the snake' approach. You can hack away at hit points for those remaining badguys or you can speed things up a bit.

We're talking about disregarding the rules on an arbitrary basis (what you called, quite correctly, cheating) for the sake of having fun.

Manchu wrote:Your tactic here seems to be to claim to agree, then actually disagree, then complain when I act as if we don't agree.

That's not at all what I'm doing. You are taking me out of context (intentionally or not). For example, I never said that the VtM comparison was poor, so agreeing with that is silly. I said that you took it out of context and ran with it.

When I hear "let's disregard the balance of 4E for the sake of narrative," logic and experience compel me to ask "why not just play 3E?"

When I played 3E, I would make minor changes to the game for the sake of narrative as well. No reason to go back to that, if I enjoy the balance of 4E more.

Also we are not talking about halving hit points:

pretre wrote: I also have a tendency to wing it a bit more than most and if players have basically won the combat, suddenly the badguys start dying in cinematic ways everytime they swing a sword.

pretre wrote:What I am saying is that at a certain point in the combat it becomes a foregone conclusion. At that point, a lot of non-minions tend to end up bloodied really quick and then end up dead even quicker. Basically, I cheat to make the combat less of a drag.

pretre wrote:In any system, there is often the point in the combat where an opponent that can't or won't surrender is outmatched and the combat is a foregone conclusion. This is especially true if your party likes the 'cut off the head of the snake' approach. You can hack away at hit points for those remaining badguys or you can speed things up a bit.

We're talking about disregarding the rules on an arbitrary basis (what you called, quite correctly, cheating) for the sake of having fun.

Nothing about my disregard is arbitrary. It is quite calculated as to what I am doing. I am ending a combat when it is a foregone conclusion to the player's advantage. Why is that such an affront to your perceptions of 4E? I did the same thing in 3E and many other systems. It isn't cheating, I was wrong when I called it that. I regret saying it was cheating because you are focused on that word to such a great extent that it is annoying. It is manipulating the game in order to have a better result for the players. D&D (and many RPGs) are collaborative systems. If the whittling away of hit points for non-essential bad guys serves no purpose for the story, the players or the game and it will make them enjoy the game more, why not have the badguys drop a little faster?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Why are you so focused on forcing me to play 3E, btw? You seem hell-bent to convince me that I would be happier playing 3E instead of 4E when I have clearly told you that I enjoy 4E more (even if it is modified) than I enjoyed 3E (modified and straight).

Why are you focused on me forcing you to do anything when we both know that is impossible?

Also, I meant "arbitrary" as opposed to "systematic." Collaborative gameplay does not sanction "manipulating the gameplay." That is something made up by certain players. There's a huge debate on the issue, centered around whether a DM should "fudge" the dice.

Forcing is, of course, a turn of phrase. Cajoling, badgering, trying to convince me that I should just play 3E.

And why is manipulation for a better result and collaboration exclusive? DM fudging is exactly what I'm talking about and, in my opinion, is perfectly okay.

pretre wrote:DM fudging is exactly what I'm talking about and, in my opinion, is perfectly okay.

Well, that is the heart of it after all rather than all this "forcing me to play 3E" nonsense. The only point I can see to fudging dice is tricking players into thinking something that they wouldn't think is fun is actually fun. If "one" doesn't think risking results on dice rolling is fun then "one" should play a game without dice or with less of an emphasis on dice.

Again, you are missing the point. The only fudging I am talking about (an that you have been railing against) is the time when the fight is basically over but still has mechanical bits to finish.

Ex: you're fighting the big necromancer and his 10 skeletons and 2 ghouls. The necro and skews are down and the ghouls are at full and completely unable to inflict meaningful harm on the players. We can either play it out fully where it takes 2 rounds for the party to burn through their hps or their next couple of attacks are particularly effective and we move on to the next part of the story. You basically minionize the unimportant actors in te scene.

I'm not saying wholesale fudging. I'm saying speed up one of the dull parts of combat for the players enjoyment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And if you don't want to be accused of telling me to play 3e than stop sayin things like you might as well just play 3e instead of doing stuff in your 4e game.

I hate the Internet.
I should be working on report cards but here I am, reading this thread. *sigh* At least it was entertaining.

Sorry for interrupting. Carry on.

And if you don't want to be accused of telling me to play 3e than stop sayin things like you might as well just play 3e instead of doing stuff in your 4e game.

No because it remains a valid abstract point. Basically, just because you want the point to stand for nonsense (me somehow trying or even wanting to control your life) doesn't actually make it nonsense. I could not give a single feth what you do in your games except inasmuch as I am posting on this game forum to talk about games. What you do in your games is as far as I am concerned nothing other than a point in a discussion.

pretre wrote:The only fudging I am talking about (an that you have been railing against) is the time when the fight is basically over but still has mechanical bits to finish.

The same principal as fudging dice applies. You correctly identified this before your last post. The "cinematic quality" you are trying to achieve is something outside of the rules. There are games that posit that the gameplay is indeed something that happens outside of and "next to" the rules, where the rules are only guidelines that inform the gameplay in a manner that is external to the gameplay itself. Fourth Edition is not such a game any more than Monopoly or Battleship of Warhammer 40k. The collaborative interpretation of RPGs like D&D, which is not the only interpretation (that should be obvious given the dichotomy of PCs and DM), is not a built-in "un rule" that sanctions dispensing with other rules. This is an unfortunate artifact of RPG design history, culminating in WW's imperialistic "golden rule." Strangely enough, some people have fun by actually playing the rules. After years of "do whatever you want" slogans found in the beginning of every RPG you can buy, RPGers have forgotten that RPGs are games and games are discrete sets of rules.

Manchu wrote:In English, second person plural and singular are the same. I'm sure this isn't the first time you (singular) have encountered it.

True, but when one wishes to speak about a hypothetical other or others, one can use the term 'one' rather than 'you' to avoid inference of another person in the discussion that they are under attack. It might make one sound a little pretentious, due to it's popular misuse by posh idiots, but it does help in this situation.

On this subject, correct me if I'm wrong here Manchu, but they way you speak about rules it makes it sound to me that you are fairly opposed to house-ruling full stop. Would it be fair to say that you are more likely to play a game without adjusting the rules at all, and seek an alternate rule system if you disagree with some of the design choices made in said system? Or is that an over-simplification of what you're saying here?

I am generally quite wary of house rules, yes. But I think that is a different issue. House rules are still rules, after all. My real objection, at least as far as certain games are concerned, is an arbitrary attitude about rules. I think I have mentioned it on Dakka before, but I see RPGs as falling more or less into two categories. On the one hand, there are interpretive games where rules inform the gameplay as guidelines but remain external to the game themselves. On the other hand, there are determinative games where the gameplay consists of applying the rules. To the extent that one refuses to apply the rules (cheating, manipulation, whatever you want to call it) of a deterministic game, one simply refuses to play that game.

I'm not exactly sure when it happened, but at some point RPG publishers started telling players to disregard rules "that were not fun." Can you imagine reading such a statement in the rulebooks for the D&D boardgames? This assumption that rules might be contrary to fun is absurd. Rules are what make games fun (not to mention games) in the first place by making gameplay fair. In the 70s and 80s, there used to be RPG tournament play -- a concept which barely makes sense to us anymore so ensconced are we in the WW "golden rule" mentality. But that mentality does not make any sense when applied to determinitive games.

In the DCC RPG, there is a rule about "character funnelling" -- the process of each player starting off with four 0-level PCs and throwing them into high mortality situations. The idea is to acount for both randomness and player agency in character creation. The book recommends that the system be used exactly as written. On the Goodman Games forum, I read people posting about how this was a flaw, that players should be able to make characters however they want to. What an arrogant attitude. The publisher, designers, and playtesters made this suggestion in the context of "golden rule" imperialism because the character funnel works best as written; not (as pretre insists for the last few pages about me) to control the lives of people sitting around their games.

RPGers tend to think that RPGs are a special sort of game where the rules are secondary. This is true, in some cases. (And of course, if you simply insist on cheating, it can be true in any case!) But most modern RPGs are not privileged in this way, at least not in terms of their design. They were designed to work as a discrete system and, especially in the case of games like 4E, the balance has already been tuned. "Hacking" the game needs to be done with precision if at all, not on a case-by-case basis. And one last time for the disclaimer: I am talking about a general attitude toward rules of determinitive games; not about anyone's particular playstyle.

The difference is the goal. For a boardgame or a tabletop minis game, the 'fun' is generally a product of competition. There's subsidiary inputs and fun-producers like hobby aspects and such, but in general board games have a pretty defined beginning, end, and victory conditions.

For RPGs, the fun is a product of the experience. There is no true 'winning' and while many games have a level of conflict between players and the GM, it's a rigged contest... The GM has an overwhelming advantage int hat they can create new threats, are the primary adjudicator for rules, etc. Bad GMs abuse this, good GMs make any use of their privileges almost seem to fade into the background (so players feel challenged).

This is the "collaborative not competitive" red herring. Again, look to the D&D boardgames. They are basically streamlined 4E combats plus tile laying. There is no PvP aspect and no DM. You could run 4E combat like this, too, if 4E provided stricter rules for monster movement/goals (they kind of already provide "softer" ones, in the tactics section of the MM entries). In 4E combat, the DM does not need to be a "rules adjudicator" because the rules are tight enough not to require more adjudication than players interested in fair play could require. Keep in mind that 4E combat also has a defined beginning, end, and victory conditions. The "no true win" excuse simply doesn't apply here.

I have never seen a book actively say to disregard a rule if it is 'not fun.' To be honest, I'd be quite shocked by that. I'm assuming that WW stands for White Wolf - I played a lot of VtM when I was younger but never ran it, so I've not come across it. I'm not saying you're lying or anything, it's just not something I've really seen. Only example I can think of is 40K's 'Most Important Rule.' I would agree, hands down, that it's not good to just ignore a rule if it isn't fun.

But. I don't think that a game is intractable. An RPG is different from a board game, no matter how close the similarities can be. The key element of this, to me, is that an RPG is a simulationist experience whereas a board game focusses primarily on the game itself, where there'll often be high levels of abstraction for the benefit of gameplay. Some RPGs are closer to this than others - 4E is an example of a carefully balanced and (in my opinion) well realised blend of tactical miniatures combat and RPG that delivers a combat experience that isn't too far removed from a board game. The neat way it blends into the new board games is testiment to that. Other RPGs are more about simulation - I would argue that the rules intensive 3E and its children are examples of a heavily simulationist RPG.

With these more simulationist systems, the game will always, always become less about balanced tactical play and more about representing a world in which the play exists. This leads to a more unbalanced game. The more rules you add, the more likely you will end up creating some form of imbalance. This, for me, is reason one for removing or changing rules in a system.

Another issue that arrives with these kinds of systems is that they end up being very hard and fast with their simulation of the world. When you have rules for everything, it leads to a great time sink of consultation as the GM has to either have an encyclopaedic knowledge of the system, or be constantly looking things up. If you ignore the rules for, say, lifting heavy things and just eyeball a strength check to see if a group of PCs can successfully open a portcullis are you cheating here? Is it wrong to drop these rules and let things move more slowly but more in keep with the system? I would say not. Unless you are keeping the movement of your PCs on a very tight rein, you're going to get situations like that come up fairly frequently, and nobody enjoys sitting and watching their GM look up a rule.

So, whilst I agree with you that arbitrarily dropping rules and ignoring them when convenient is a bad thing to do, I do not think it is applicable across the board. Not all games are carefully balanced for every scenario, and not all games are meant to be. It's no disrespect to the designers when I re-write the way a system I otherwise enjoy works - it's merely meant to turn the game into the ideal system for my players and my games.

The Golden Rule is in all the WW core books.

Remember that in the end there is only one real rule in any game in the Storyteller series: There are no rules. You should fashion the game into whatever you need it to be - if the rules get in your way, then ignore or change them. The true complexity and beauty of the real world can not be captured by rules; it takes storytelling and imagination to do that. These rules are designed to be guidelines, and you are free to use, abuse, ignore and change them as you wish. Players take note: the Storyteller is the final arbiter of any rules question.

You can find similar principles announced at the beginning of almost all RPGs published since, even including 4E D&D. It's like an apology for the rules. "Sorry we have all these rules -- you should just do whatever you feel is best." Ugh. Why would I have bothered to spend money on this game if not to play it? The golden rule apology has become the game design equivalent of political correctness, with designers blandly lying to gamers that anyone can be a good designer "for their group." Notice that the golden rule addresses your simulationist point, that the rules cannot capture the "complexity and beauty of the real world" -- which is kind of stupid considering that vampires and werewolves don't fething exist in the real world anyway -- as a justification of arbitrary application. The more I think about it, the more I think that this "golden rule" mentality was part of the punk attitude of early White Wolf. But now it has become mainstreamed into something meaningless that has actually hurt people's understanding of RPGs.

As to "applying it across the board," I've been pretty clear about the difference between what I call interpretive and determinative games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

htj wrote:Is it wrong to drop these rules and let things move more slowly but more in keep with the system?

I'm sorry but "is it wrong?" is the wrong question. There was some discussion over on the WW boards, very relevant here, about the golden rule which is instructive about the way it is often (mis)applied:

The Golden Rule is a fundamental part of gaming that doesn't actually need to be brought up as often as it is. It's already your game, you can already do whatever you want with it. I see it as patronizing to go on about it at any length, unless you're talking abstract theory and design.

Defending any argument one makes with the Golden Rule is usually disingenuous. Of course you can do whatever you want in your game, but if that's the basis for what you have to say to other people then all you really want to do is talk about your character. It is vanishingly rare that anyone invoking the Golden Rule is actually being told that they, personally, can't do a thing in their game.

The Golden Rule presents largely the same problem when it is used as an answer to a question.

When someone responds to "That's dumb" or "That's not what the published books say" with what is fundamentally "Well, I can do whatever I want," it reminds me of something. It reminds me of people who get told their ideas are dumb and then respond with some saw about freedom of speech. Someone who thinks your idea is dumb has just as much freedom of speech as you do.

The root of the problem, however, lies not with misapplication of the Golden Rule. It lies with how stupid people are in general. If someone tells you your idea is dumb, you feel assaulted. They're trying to steal your fun. So, instead of some guy just telling you what he thinks, this person is an Intruder, here to take your game away.

Manchu wrote:From the perspective of play, 4E is hardly streamlined. If anything, it's just a much, much deeper tactical experience. But that depth shows in terms of how long combats take. By comparison, theater-of-the-mind combat in AD&D was lightning fast.

That is because past a point people did the same thing every action. I hit it with my sword...I hit it with my sword...I hit it with my sword. So that saves time, but I find that the 4E combat setup stops a lot of the "Where is opponent X? Where am I?" confusion that happened all the time before. Combats really only take a long time if the players aren't prepared for their actions. There are mutiple ways of dealing with that: 1) Make everyone script at the beginning of each round or 2) Give time limits and if people continually start thinking about their actions at the beginning of their actions then they start getting fewer of them as they don't have the time to figure it out then.

Skriker

I don't think the length of combat is a problem when I play 4E. When I want a deep tactical experience, I use 4E. When I don't want combat to be as important or take up as much time, I use a different system.

I think you're fundamentally missing the point of the golden rule. (Oh and 40k, of course, has a version of this rule.)

It isn't an apology for the rules. Maybe in your experience the group isn't the best designer for their experience, but that isn't true for all groups. The Golden Rule is there to sanction players and DMs to do what they want in their own home. I completely agree that it is silly to have it, since they were of course free to do that before anyways and making it a rule makes it on par with 'Roll Initiative', but it doesn't make the concept any less valid.

Do I think we need to have a rule for it? No. Should that concept still exist and be a valid idea? Absolutely. Is it the solution for everything? No.

Does it have anything to do with how I play my game? Not really. I play my game however I want whether the game has a Golden Rule or not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:I don't think the length of combat is a problem when I play 4E. When I want a deep tactical experience, I use 4E. When I don't want combat to be as important or take up as much time, I use a different system.

I am happy that it isn't a problem when you play 4E. For myself (and by some other responses, some others in this thread), some combats have a tendency to drag at the end.

We get your point. You think if we don't like long tactically deep combats we should go play another system. So noted. We don't happen to agree.

Long, tactically deep combats do not have to be boring. I enjoy long, tactically deep combats. But, like skriker said, when it gets down to the last 2 goblins and you're just swinging away for 2 full rounds, that isn't tactically deep, that's just long.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I think that it is important to note that some groups don't have the option to swap between systems on the whim of what kind of experience they are looking for.

If you are an established group that has put a lot of money into say 4E, you aren't going to jump ship over to say Pathfinder because you are looking for a more pathfindery experience for one game. That's a big investment just to play one campaign.

pretre wrote:We get your point.

Who is this royal "we"? Anyway, I get your point, too. You want to do whatever you want to do in your group. That was a nonsequitur when you first said it and remains a nonsequitur now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pretre wrote:That's a big investment just to play one campaign.

Not really. All you need is a core rulebook, which costs less than $40 on Amazon. And it's available free online anyway. Presumably, you already have the dice, miniatures, mats, etc from playing 4E. Furthermore, most folks who have 4E already have books from 3E or PF or both.

Manchu wrote:Notice that the golden rule addresses your simulationist point, that the rules cannot capture the "complexity and beauty of the real world" -- which is kind of stupid considering that vampires and werewolves don't fething exist in the real world anyway -- as a justification of arbitrary application. The more I think about it, the more I think that this "golden rule" mentality was part of the punk attitude of early White Wolf. But now it has become mainstreamed into something meaningless that has actually hurt people's understanding of RPGs.

Screw the real world, I'm talking about representation of the fantasy world. I've never been a huge fan of WW's, let's face it, wishy washy attitude to rules, but I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to throw this golden rule concept in there. No, it should not be used as a get out of jail free card, but as pretre says above, it's important to allow a group the flexibility of changing a system to apply more to their own enjoyment of the game. If that requires a rule that allows a GM to point to it when a rules lawyer in the group starts railing against a spot decision, then so be it.

As to "applying it across the board," I've been pretty clear about the difference between what I call interpretive and determinative games.

You have, and I apologise as that phrasing was overly sweeping. In my head, I was thinking of determinative games exclusively at that point. They're not all perfect, and some could use a good house-ruling.

Machu wrote:

htj wrote:Is it wrong to drop these rules to stop things from moving more slowly but more in keep with the system?

I'm sorry but "is it wrong?" is the wrong question.

Manchu wrote:

pretre wrote:We get your point.

Who is this royal "we"? Anyway, I get your point, too. You want to do whatever you want to do in your group. That was a nonsequitur when you first said it and remains a nonsequitur now.

My bad. Appeal to the Commons on my part. I get your point. Way to ignore the rest of the statement though. Also, way to go back to something I wasn't even talking about in my post. We're talking about the Golden Rule now. Wanna actually respond to what I wrote?

pretre wrote:That's a big investment just to play one campaign.

Not really. All you need is a core rulebook, which costs less than $40 on Amazon. And it's available free online anyway. Presumably, you already have the dice, miniatures, mats, etc from playing 4E. Furthermore, most folks who have 4E already have books from 3E or PF or both.

I used PF as an example. And for a game to go forward into a campaign, it is often a lot more than one book. Core rulebook plus books for the players, etc so on. That's a lot more than just $40 on Amazon.

Again, the point is that groups have inertia and that they aren't going to just jump to a new system when they can easily modify the one they are in.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

htj wrote:Fundamentally, what I'm trying to convey is that if you make sweeping reforms to the mechanics of a system, you are not playing the game 'wrong.' You are playing a different game. And this is something that any experienced GM should be able to do.

This I agree with.

pretre wrote:Again, the point is that groups have inertia and that they aren't going to just jump to a new system when they can easily modify the one they are in.

Very true. It's easier to introduce a small change than a big one.

htj wrote:

pretre wrote:Again, the point is that groups have inertia and that they aren't going to just jump to a new system when they can easily modify the one they are in.

Very true. It's easier to introduce a small change than a big one.

Yeah, I mean my friends aren't dumb or lazy, but if I said 'We're going to 3.5 for the next game' there would be some groans. We haven't played 3.5 in years now and they would need to relearn it, dig out the books, etc so on. They see studying up on the system as work (unlike me, who finds it entertaining) for the most part. They want to get together and roll dice. The system is really irrelevant to them as long as it doesn't bog down their experience and they have fun.

htj wrote:Fundamentally, what I'm trying to convey is that if you make sweeping reforms to the mechanics of a system, you are not playing the game 'wrong.' You are playing a different game.

Yep, this is what I have been saying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pretre wrote:Wanna actually respond to what I wrote?

No, because what you wrote makes no sense. "I don't care about the Golden Rule, I do what I want." Um, okay.

pretre wrote:Again, the point is that groups have inertia and that they aren't going to just jump to a new system when they can easily modify the one they are in.

Group inertia is beside the point. It's like saying "bad DMs make for bad games."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

htj wrote:More to the point, people hiding behind the old 'don't tell me how to play my game' defence rather than accepting constructive criticism.

No, the issue isn't with "abusing the golden rule." As the quotation makes clear, the issue is with the golden rule itself. You hit the nail on the head here:

htj wrote:If that requires a rule that allows a GM to point to it when a rules lawyer in the group starts railing against a spot decision, then so be it.

Here you can see the golden rule for what it is: an excuse to arbitrarily dismiss the rules. Some people will use it to make games more fun, some people will use it to beat up on their players. The point is it is a terrible "rule" and its promulgation has been a set back for understanding rules.

Manchu wrote:This is the "collaborative not competitive" red herring. Again, look to the D&D boardgames. They are basically streamlined 4E combats plus tile laying. There is no PvP aspect and no DM. You could run 4E combat like this, too, if 4E provided stricter rules for monster movement/goals (they kind of already provide "softer" ones, in the tactics section of the MM entries). In 4E combat, the DM does not need to be a "rules adjudicator" because the rules are tight enough not to require more adjudication than players interested in fair play could require. Keep in mind that 4E combat also has a defined beginning, end, and victory conditions. The "no true win" excuse simply doesn't apply here.

I agree... Except that the D&D board games and the D&D RPG, for me, have different goals.

An 'Encounter' has defined beginning, ending, etc... An RPG is made of many encounters, hopefully with some sort of overarching storyline to connect them. Without this, it's just 'Combat Challenge Campaign' which I've played. It's fun, usually a sign of a novice or burned-out GM.

However, I admit some do prefer more of a 'sandbox' style game (Reference for sandbox being video games like GTAIII where the player can wander freely) These still tend to be different because the GM can apply consequences to the player character's actions. A few games try to provide rules for townsfolk reactions, breaking laws, etc. In general, these are cumbersome. A good GM works with the players to make things make sense in setting and respond in ways that pre-programmed scenarios generally can't.

In 4e, if the players say "OK, we've mostly cleared out the dungeon and have a ton of loot. Can we build a house nearby so we have a place to stash stuff? the GM can say, "Sure!" and use that as an adventure hook (Help the friendly alchemist, who will set you up with a lab... Or, the house is situation over an ancient indian graveyard... Or, the house is on the King's Land. or...)

The board games will likely have no option for this. 'Acquire Real Estate' is not int he game's limited toolbox because it's just not what the designer's felt was necessary. Nor is (for a more 'focused' example) scaling the walls of the evil overlord's castle, or undertaking a journey to research weapons and spells to sue against them.

I don't like house rules much myself, but I do like having unexplained things for GMs to use to make fun stuff with players. I also may not consider some things 'house rules' that some people do. For example, in 4e D&D, would saying "OK, the setting for this game is one where most people fear 'magic' of all sorts, so no classes with the Dive or Arcane power source" be a house rule? To me it's just a setting baseline.

I feel the need to add a disclaimer here: Your way of playing is not wrong. My way is not wrong, either.

I'll have to be honest (Maybe it is just the Friday in me today) and say I have no idea what we're even debating anymore.

Also, there are many 'cooperative' board games, but again as I say above the issue is that things are rigidly defined. Arkham Horror, for example.

They're cooperative and have a definite 'win' condition. I don't consider them RPGs because they're not the same experience.

Some do play RPGs like cooperative boardgames, of course. That's their preferred style, and I'm OK with that, even though I probably wouldn't want tob e in that game. To repeat: Your way of playing is not wrong. My way is not wrong, either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pretre wrote:I'll have to be honest (Maybe it is just the Friday in me today) and say I have no idea what we're even debating anymore.

Me neither, really.

Manchu wrote:

htj wrote:Fundamentally, what I'm trying to convey is that if you make sweeping reforms to the mechanics of a system, you are not playing the game 'wrong.' You are playing a different game.

Yep, this is what I have been saying.

It's come across a lot more like 'don't change the rules, play a different game' to me, to be honest.

Manchu wrote:

htj wrote:More to the point, people hiding behind the old 'don't tell me how to play my game' defence rather than accepting constructive criticism.

No, the issue isn't with "abusing the golden rule." As the quotation makes clear, the issue is with the golden rule itself. You hit the nail on the head here:

htj wrote:If that requires a rule that allows a GM to point to it when a rules lawyer in the group starts railing against a spot decision, then so be it.

Here you can see the golden rule for what it is: an excuse to arbitrarily dismiss the rules. Some people will use it to make games more fun, some people will use it to beat up on their players. The point is it is a terrible "rule" and its promulgation has been a set back for understanding rules.

There are always going to be bad GMs. A GM who adamantly follows the rules without any regard for the enjoyment of the group is just as bad as a GM who arbitrarily alters to rules to the detriment of the group. Calling it a rule is probably a bad idea, that is true. But it's a useful guideline to have. A good GM is the master of the rules, not the servant of them. That's not all it takes, of course, but not everybody should be GMing. A GM who flagrantly waves such 'golden rules' in his players face when they dissent an arbitrary rules adjustment is not bad because of the concept of the 'golden rule.' He's going to be a bad GM either way.