2nd Edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons is

[jeffb]

Dec 14, 2021 22:59:54 GMT -6 tombowings said:

Dec 14, 2021 0:14:37 GMT -6 aramis said:

Joe teaches Fred to play. Fred moves, finds new group supposedly playing the same game, lead by Sam. Sam and Joe picked different interpretations and opetions right along most of the options/open-to-interpretation points... and Fred finds he knows nothing at all about the game Sam's running... the odds of Fred continung thhe hobby just dropped radically, and may seriously negatively impact his views of either-/both-of Sam and Joe.

I've been on all three sides of that coin...

You have just described my ideal world. Every referee runs a completely different game. Setting down at Dan's table is a completely foreign experience from Gabby's. If Dan's and Gabby's tables suck, you can always try Hannah's. Or you can start your own and run a game that perfectly adheres to your unique sensibilities.

One of the things I did with my son and his friends, from the very beginning, was to tell them that every table will be different. I run certain types of games and use/ don't use certain rules because that's what I like (of course I was open to changing style/rules/system if the group really had an issue with something that was killing fun). And I told them that if in HS they start playing games with other kids, or playing with family, things are likely to be different. And if ever they decide to run their own games they will play the game "their way" too.

I guess I was blessed in the way I learned how to play and with the group I had. I'd absolutely hate it if everyone ran the same game with the same rules all the time. That is killing the mojo of what an RPG is. The only case I find that beneficial for is tournament/RPGA play.

[aramis]

Dec 14, 2021 22:59:54 GMT -6 tombowings said:

Dec 14, 2021 0:14:37 GMT -6 aramis said:

Joe teaches Fred to play. Fred moves, finds new group supposedly playing the same game, lead by Sam. Sam and Joe picked different interpretations and opetions right along most of the options/open-to-interpretation points... and Fred finds he knows nothing at all about the game Sam's running... the odds of Fred continung thhe hobby just dropped radically, and may seriously negatively impact his views of either-/both-of Sam and Joe.

I've been on all three sides of that coin...

You have just described my ideal world. Every referee runs a completely different game. Setting down at Dan's table is a completely foreign experience from Gabby's. If Dan's and Gabby's tables suck, you can always try Hannah's. Or you can start your own and run a game that perfectly adheres to your unique sensibilities.

It's a nightmare world for most of the people I game with. The WORST POSSIBLE THING that can happen for the industry.

And, while it was the dominant mode expressed in the rules, D&D didn't, and IMO, couldn't, go mainstream. And why Free Kriegspiel couldn't, either.

[tombowings]

Dec 17, 2021 17:17:59 GMT -6 aramis said:

It's a nightmare world for most of the people I game with. The WORST POSSIBLE THING that can happen for the industry.

And, while it was the dominant mode expressed in the rules, D&D didn't, and IMO, couldn't, go mainstream. And why Free Kriegspiel couldn't, either.

Why would they consider games individually personalized to their down desires a nightmare?

As for the gaming industry and D&D going mainstream, I have zero interest in either.

[verhaden]

I'm currently reading The Oxford Guide to Card Games by David Parlett. Here a few excerpts from the chapter "Hoyle on troubled waters"

In sum, the rules of a game normally consist in its definitive rules (how the game is supposed to go) plus its associated laws (how to ensure that it does). In the world of play, such rules are of the essence--'The rules of a game are absolutely binding and allow no doubt', as Huizinga puts it. That this reflects an everyday perception is demonstrated by the apparent appeal of any book labelled 'Official Rules', and by the steady stream of letters to authors and card manufacturers seeking clarification or arbitration on tricky points that have given rise to problems over the card-table. Players might reasonably be expected to discuss and agree their own remedies in such matters, and probably many do--though how many is an open question, since we only ever hear of those who seek guidance from a supposed external authority.

Such everyday perception is further supported by the fact that such universally accepted definitive rules do exist for a handful of formal games like Chess and Contract Bridge. Bridge, however, is exceptional. Card games, for the most part, are not played formally, and few are governed by universally accepted official rules. The most popular card games are best described as folk games, being played with greater or lesser degrees of variation from place to place--so, if you move from place to place, you might be ready to acquaint yourself with local rules before becoming too involved. This applies even to such well-established traditional games as Crib and Solo, for which there may appear to exist a standard set of rules coincident with that perpetuated in all the gamebooks. Close examination of the books concerned will usually throw up differences of detail as between themselves (except where one has cribbed entirely from another author) and even more, as between their bookish theory and actual practice. The latter differences arise because living games evolve, whereas gamebook writers generally do not, many remaining unaware that evolution is a fact of card-game life. Books on card games therefore date rapidly, in part if not in whole.

***

...

With this consciousness may go the unconscious belief that everyone in the world plays that game to exactly the same set of absolutely binding rules, but, except for a tiny handful of formal games, it is mistaken. Whether players in Pontefract play the way they do in Pittsburgh or Perpignan, or in Foster's Complete Hoyle of nineteen-umpty-ump, is really unimportant. All that counts to their enjoyment of the game at hand can be summed up in Parlett's Universal Rules of Card Games, which are two in number and read:

1. Everyone at the same table should be following the same rules at the same time.
2. Everyone at the table should know which rules they are supposed to be following.

How they achieve this is up to them. Theoretically, they constitute their own authority, and should agree beforehand on all the details of their rules of play. In practice, problems tend to arise in the middle of a hand, giving rise to disputes upon which it is practically impossible to be both creative and impartial at the same time--though in this connection attention may be drawn to the assertion of Aquarius, in Spanish Card Games (London, 1890);

"[The Spaniards'] way of referring to the dealer to settle every doubtful point or dispute is very marked. A book is never mentioned. The decision of the dealer, right or wrong, settles everything or anything, without a murmur, during outplay. Thus little hitches are readily disposed of, and any game can continue. A dealer can ask for advice or consult with others, but his decision is his own, and must be immediate. Players come in and leave a game with a substitute very suddenly, and agree to anything done for them. The coolness, courtesy and skill of the Spaniard at card games renders him in such things superior to card players of other nations."

***

...

Even so, I think it worth asserting that rules drawn up by any official body should be regarded not as the official rules of the game in question, but as the official rules of the body concerned, be it the International Bridge Federation or the Whist-Drive Committee of the Friends of Village Hall. And they are still only authoritative to the extent that players agree to abide by them.

This really speaks to me, and echos a lot of the sentiment I've read on this board over the years. While I think the health of the industry is important in an abstract sense, I think customization is essential to the spirit of D&D--the sacred cow--and a wonderful callback to the history of games and human culture before Coca Cola.

[jeffb]

And the customization of the game as we have all seen in the earliest years was expected and encouraged.

Then massive success.

It's only when the financial success of games became the #1 driver did we a shift towards rules and official stance from the powers that be. Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% on board with capitalism, just noting how things changed drastically @ TSR when $ become the priority---- lawsuits, new editions to standardize play, tournaments, modules, and the list gets ever deeper.

We've gone off on a tangent, but to circle around- 2E is the last edition where the designers were not on board with the finance folks, and serious compromises were made because of that in the rules. All editions post 2E were developed with a rather complex and detailed business model in mind to make sure people play the game the way each design team wanted you to- it sells more product and rulebooks.

[calstaff]

I agree that with the sale of TSR to WotC the "corporatization" of D&D accelerated exponentially, but I think it began when EGG was pushed out. That, to me, was when the creative side of TSR was pushed aside in order to make room for the profit-driven side.

[aramis]

Dec 18, 2021 0:22:10 GMT -6 tombowings said:

Dec 17, 2021 17:17:59 GMT -6 aramis said:

It's a nightmare world for most of the people I game with. The WORST POSSIBLE THING that can happen for the industry.

And, while it was the dominant mode expressed in the rules, D&D didn't, and IMO, couldn't, go mainstream. And why Free Kriegspiel couldn't, either.

Why would they consider games individually personalized to their down desires a nightmare?

As for the gaming industry and D&D going mainstream, I have zero interest in either.

Being a corporation, TSR was, and WotC is, required to pursue the maximum profit. Which means people like you get shoved aside for the larger slice of the economy.

Wizards, bottom line, only cares about separating people from their money.

For me, consistency means I don't have to reteach experienced players to some variation no one else uses.
It also gives my players a level of mechanical knowledge so that they can understand mechanically what their characters would have learned experientally: how the world works.
It also means that, since I live in a college town, my players can come in and be ready to play sooner.

This doesn't mean I don't houserule - but I do so very little. And I tell new players up front.

[poohgyrr]

In the end, it’s the DMs game, including the rules. Discussion about the game, and reaching some kind of agreement on things, is part of playing.

Change the adventure, whatever. Make it work.