|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Oct 8, 2024 5:50:01 GMT -6
Interesting factoid about the origin of the term itself, I did not know that. I looked it up: "0. CHECK WITH YOUR DUNGEON MASTER Your Dungeon Master (DM) may have house rules or campaign standards that vary from the standard rules." This seems wholly in line with how the game has been played from the outset, with Gygax' expectation that AD&D be played strictly by the book, the only real exception to this. I must admit, I am confused at how you interpret rule 0. How is it you think rule zero has been applied by modern gamers after " 2e DMG had inverted the game's purpose of design"? I think your definition of system mastery is stretched to a point beyond what most would agree on as a suitable definition. Or me at any rate. Claiming "roleplaying = system mastery" is a definition that obfuscates a lot of conversation about the dynamics between rules and role-playing. That is interesting. The rule zero quote itself sounds agreeable. I think what happened in the D20 era was it came to mean something different. An authority for hand waving in play, a very contentious practice in the 80s. Second edition D&D took a strategy game hidden behind a screen, the definition of an RPG, and made the "inside out game" hobby (hidden rules and "map") improved by turning it "right side out" (rules and setting in of front the screen, the game intention to be story following, and not individual score accomplishment). Two things role-playing has absolutely nothing to do with in the RPG hobby: 1. storytelling (or narrative theory) and 2. performing a fictional character. These things didn't really exist outside White Wolf's isolated community (which were told in the early 90s they weren't part of the RPG hobby). I am trying to tell you the actual definition of "role-playing" for the hobby, the definition the world used from the 40s to the 70s, not obfuscated it for you. Just the opposite. |
|
|
|
Post by b9anders on Oct 8, 2024 6:17:46 GMT -6
from the 40s to 70s? Aren't you describing a phenomenon essentially predating RPGs (FKRs)? I think I am more inclined to take my cues from 1974+.
Also, a propos of nothing else in this discussion - f**k WW and their weird insular affectations.
I would argue that RPGs, from 1974 and onwards, most definitely contained elements of both story-telling and performance. The degree to which it had this, and how pervasive it was, is a matter of debate. And certainly, an argument can be made for making a clear distinction between how the early games were played and later "story telling games". But I struggle to see no element of this in RPGs.
|
|
|
|
Post by b9anders on Oct 8, 2024 6:24:00 GMT -6
Interesting factoid about the origin of the term itself, I did not know that. I looked it up: "0. CHECK WITH YOUR DUNGEON MASTER Your Dungeon Master (DM) may have house rules or campaign standards that vary from the standard rules." That is interesting. The rule zero quote itself sounds agreeable. I think what happened in the D20 era was it came to mean something different. An authority for hand waving in play, a very contentious practice in the 80s. In my experience this was equally, if not more, contentious from 3e onwards (especially 3.5 and 4e), where Rules-As-Written became a far more normative creed than was the case during 2e. Some have cited organised play as a driver for it, but imo the profitability of "system mastery" (by this, I mean intricate knowledge of the rules in order to maximize synergies, primarily in the charop mini-game and combat) that 3e encouraged investment in meant that players came to expect a more rigid adherence to the rules in order to be able to utilize said mastery. |
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Oct 8, 2024 6:39:42 GMT -6
from the 40s to 70s? Aren't you describing a phenomenon essentially predating RPGs (FKRs)? I think I am more inclined to take my cues from 1974+. Also, a propos of nothing else in this discussion - f**k WW and their weird insular affectations. I would argue that RPGs, from 1974 and onwards, most definitely contained elements of both story-telling and performance. The degree to which it had this, and how pervasive it was, is a matter of debate. And certainly, an argument can be made for making a clear distinction between how the early games were played and later "story telling games". But I struggle to see no element of this in RPGs. I'm describing the definition "role playing" created in 1920 by a Vienna Circle sociologist who believed he had discovered a phenomena, not invented one. A term which later was misused in WWII and he later denied was his work, but by which it popularly became known to millions in the mid-20th century. That very era, and the military community specifically, in which Gary was grasping for an accurate term define this new game. A term which has since changed its definition and come to stab the design in the back. But I think this line is veering far off topic. |
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Oct 8, 2024 6:49:59 GMT -6
In my experience this was equally, if not more, contentious from 3e onwards (especially 3.5 and 4e), where Rules-As-Written became a far more normative creed than was the case during 2e. Some have cited organised play as a driver for it, but imo the profitability of "system mastery" (by this, I mean intricate knowledge of the rules in order to maximize synergies, primarily in the charop mini-game and combat) that 3e encouraged investment in meant that players came to expect a more rigid adherence to the rules in order to be able to utilize said mastery. CharOp in our group has become the 3e game. The actual game having become so little balanced after character creation they've taken to enjoying gameplay where it was bounded. (When I point out that all the dice rolling in AD&D was intended to remove choice making from the character creation process they can't quite conceive of it. It's funny, because it's called character creation for that generative die roll reason.) When the game was designed for challenging balances during gameplay, not minmaxing character creation, it was choices in game that were heavily maximized to ensure outcomes. DMs could have House Rules, and run the game they wish to, but players expected consistent application of the rules (rules they didn't even know but in application) for just this over-the-top hypergaming reason. EDIT: This is me saying system mastery is d20's term for what gaming was for D&D. It's just the system mistakenly was put in front of the screen and known to the players. And having the RPGA being a den of rules quoting unmentionables is simply to live up to their reputation in the 80s. |
|
|
|
Post by b9anders on Oct 8, 2024 7:19:30 GMT -6
When the game was designed for challenging balances during gameplay, not minmaxing character creation, it was choices in game that were heavily maximized to ensure outcomes. DMs could have House Rules, and run the game they wish to, but players expected consistent application of the rules (rules they didn't even know but in application) for just this over-the-top hypergaming reason. Can you unpack this somehow, maybe with some examples? I am tasting a whiff of your meaning, but I can't say I truly get what you're getting at. |
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Oct 8, 2024 8:04:19 GMT -6
When the game was designed for challenging balances during gameplay, not minmaxing character creation, it was choices in game that were heavily maximized to ensure outcomes. DMs could have House Rules, and run the game they wish to, but players expected consistent application of the rules (rules they didn't even know but in application) for just this over-the-top hypergaming reason. Can you unpack this somehow, maybe with some examples? I am tasting a whiff of your meaning, but I can't say I truly get what you're getting at. Perhaps the worst thing The Forge did was to deny the entirety of 20th century RPGs as bad games. The most baseline practice of playing RPGs was derided as "gaming the fiction", a foolhardy attempt to guess future outcomes in an improv game. A practice the author later called brain damage suffered by the entire community. (The other half. Not the 90s storyteller community). All of this as opposed to what RPGs actually do. Which is hide a strategic simulation behind a screen which is then described for the players imaginings so they can do just that: game it. Study it, Speculate about it. Test it. Manipulate it. And all the other elements of basic game culture and practice which existed for centuries prior to narrative theory supplanting game theory. (Which incredulously he flat out denied ever existed) What is min-maxing choices in the game? The most basic game act. Taking actions in the imaginary world which were supposed by players to gain them advantage or diminish disadvantage. Though never really knowing. To change the situation entirely or at least at least gain them better odds if chance was a factor. This means DMs are on the hook for consistent rule application during the construction of the campaign world (map design), the elements in it (components), and recognizable behaviors (rule following) which lead to current events (starting arrangement). Not to mention future outcomes drawn from application of all the same rules. Whether predefined with singular outcomes or random diversity. All of this rewards gaming the world. Just as you would expect a community of hard-nosed, long play, complicated game aficionados would fall head over heels for. |
|
|
|
Post by b9anders on Oct 28, 2024 9:47:57 GMT -6
I wanted to respond to this but never got around to it.
I like your presentation of gaming the world. I think what threw me about your posts is your equation of system, role and game mastery.
I tend to perceive the first two as fundamentally distinct (What I call the 'world of fiction' and the 'world of rule mechanics') and the game is the outcome of the blending of the two. Though switching terms like 'min-maxing' from system considerations to game considerations is a nice twist.
On a sidenote, can I ask who is the cited Forge author in question?
|
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Oct 29, 2024 7:43:24 GMT -6
I wanted to respond to this but never got around to it. I like your presentation of gaming the world. I think what threw me about your posts is your equation of system, role and game mastery. I tend to perceive the first two as fundamentally distinct (What I call the 'world of fiction' and the 'world of rule mechanics') and the game is the outcome of the blending of the two. Though switching terms like 'min-maxing' from system considerations to game considerations is a nice twist. On a sidenote, can I ask who is the cited Forge author in question? MinMaxing is about character optimization, something forbidden and randomized for at least 20 years. No system with authorship rights which results in "fiction" should be confused with an RPG, most of all not D&D. Clearly RPGs are games not ever about making stories or expressing characters. In D&D the "world" is a manifestation of the system hidden behind the screen. You can rightly say 99% of all D&D rules are DM-Only known rules to perform this task. Did you participate a lot at the Forge? Your question about who the author was boggles my mind. We must be so far apart we're talking at the air at this point. |
|
Parzival
Level 6 Magician
Is a little Stir Crazy this year...
Posts: 399
|
Post by Parzival on Oct 30, 2024 9:05:37 GMT -6
I think this discussion has gotten overly emphatic on a point which is almost entirely esoteric. An RPG can be whatever the players of it wish it to be— it can emphasize tactics or roleplay or story or probability or any mix of any of these (and more). D&D certainly does this, even in its early forms. As it evolved, it began to embrace that idea of “make of this what you will” which allows for emphasis on imagination, or on tactical combat, or on character “improvement.” Interestingly, it is all but impossible to min/max a PC in OD&D (or even Holmes) as you are expected to take what the dice give you. But also in OD&D and B* the actual stats have limited function in play, so maximizing any given stat provides minimal good in the long run. Largely it’s of benefit only at low levels, where the middling boost to HP and combat capabilities has more impact than higher levels where a hit point here or there is of marginal effect.
But even so, there’s very little structure to min/max in the entire Classic line. It’s only when you arrive at 1e, 2e, and the WotC rule bomb era that it becomes possible to develop a character in such detail by trading this value for that value. Indeed, “min/max” is more of a thing in wargames (like Warhammer/WH40K) than in D&D. There’s little to min, and not all that much to max. Initially, equipment is the most “cost” driven commodity, but fairly soon that element becomes replaced by the randomness of found magic treasure, over which the players have absolutely no control. You can’t “min/max” your fighter into the possession of a flametongue, +2. The DM giveth and the DM taketh away. There’s just no “point system” in the game around which the player can “do the math” to create a power structure in his PC. The game doesn’t work that way or play that way.
And I assert that’s by design. The original game was adventure-centric, not character-centric, and that’s true whether one is playing a tactical exercise or a story-maker campaign. Either way, you started with what the game gave you, and used your imagination, cleverness, and resourcefulness to advance the experience. In all forms, it’s really a game about imagined exploration— you enter the unknown and see what you find. That’s D&D.
|
|
|
|
Post by b9anders on Nov 5, 2024 5:10:56 GMT -6
I wanted to respond to this but never got around to it. I like your presentation of gaming the world. I think what threw me about your posts is your equation of system, role and game mastery. I tend to perceive the first two as fundamentally distinct (What I call the 'world of fiction' and the 'world of rule mechanics') and the game is the outcome of the blending of the two. Though switching terms like 'min-maxing' from system considerations to game considerations is a nice twist. On a sidenote, can I ask who is the cited Forge author in question? MinMaxing is about character optimization, something forbidden and randomized for at least 20 years. No system with authorship rights which results in "fiction" should be confused with an RPG, most of all not D&D. Clearly RPGs are games not ever about making stories or expressing characters. In D&D the "world" is a manifestation of the system hidden behind the screen. You can rightly say 99% of all D&D rules are DM-Only known rules to perform this task. Did you participate a lot at the Forge? Your question about who the author was boggles my mind. We must be so far apart we're talking at the air at this point. I don't think we are as far apart as it seems to you, but I do think our vocabulary differs. When I say "fiction", I mean the shared imaginal space inhabited by the player characters where natural language is employed ("I search the nook for any knobs or indents that might indicate a secret door"). As opposed to "system", a codified language of mechanics accessible to the players (to some extent) but inaccessible to the player character (Hit points, dice rolls, etc.). I don't associate this to storytelling, or characterization, etc. I am firmly in the camp that "story" amounts to the tales one may tell about one's exploits afterwards and character expression and such a wholly optional layer. I never participated in the Forge and have only occasionally glanced at it years after it shut down. Hence the question. |
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Nov 5, 2024 12:32:34 GMT -6
Read Ron Edward's treatises on RPGs from the turn of the millennium. These contain conclusions never held before by the hobby and language and concepts never used before but commonplace since.
His 90s website was an "agenda" website. If you didn't agree with the destruction of the divided hobby and the recreation of the RPGs into something new, he didn't want you posting there. Pay attention to all the elements of "bad" game design for a list of everything that defines the cardinal characteristics of RPGs before the storyteller community was formed in 1990.
RPGs are the conception and celebration of everything as gaming, everything before gaming culture was erased into narrative culture.
|
|
aramis
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 197 
|
Post by aramis on Nov 9, 2024 0:24:11 GMT -6
The problem with "don't be a dick" is that some folks just can't help being dicks. I've left groups where most of the members were dicks. In my experience, unfortunately, that has been the norm rather than the exception. And yes, some folks think a DM is a dick for not letting them get away with murder. The DM has to be a dick sometimes, but he shouldn't abuse his authority. "Tough but fair" is part of the job requirement for a DM. Tough but fair is axiomatically not being a dick. The original approach by Dave Arneson was "Change it to make it your own"... but Gygax later implies "change it so your players don't know it." To be honest, based upon everything of his I've read, I'd never want to play a game under Gygax. His advice, for better or worse, was the source of many a hostile GM. I think some of his advice was an intentional sabotage of TSR... Mathematically, there can be no Rule Zero. Computing, subset of math, normally numbers the first element in arrays and lists as element 0. Likewise, addressing starts at address 0. On the 6502 and 8080, the address space is $0000 to $FFFF (0 to 65535 in decimal). So there can be. I think there was a time when the Rule 0 / First Rule / Golden Rule / Whatever was something more like, "By the way, if the game isn't doing what you want, or doesn't address something you want to address, feel free to change any or all of it." Another one common from the 90s was, "If the dice say something that will ruin the experience, ignore them." I hated that advice in the day. If the dice CAN ruin the experience, don't roll them. Think BEFORE rolling, rather than after. Feels a LOT more fair that way. The purpose of Rule 0 was not to nerf the dice, it was to allow people to tweak the system to their needs, most especially before play begins. But far too many use it as a reason to roll first and think later. Many more use it injudiciously for a variety of reasons. As for rules lawyers... They've been in RPGing since 1981... probably longer, but I can personally attest to 1981. I've been one since then. I accept houserules, but d**nit, I want to know the rules of the game I'm playing. Always have. Hell, I was rules-lawyering my grandmother in 1975... Playing Sorry!, she'd hide the Sorry! cards from the deck used for movement. It's a different game without them. (I've liked most Parchisi variants; Sorry!, Aggrivation, Trouble, and even more traditional versions... but I always clarify which we're playing before setting up, because each has some differences. (as I write this, I've seen WotC's MTG advert featuring the cat thrice.) And as for roll-vs-role: since 1981 I've always required a roll to back up the verbosity, because if I didn't, Cha got dump-statted. (The group I started with used 4d6k3, roll all 6 then place.) So I used the roll to keep the player's outcomes true to the ability scores, but often modded it for quality (but not quantity) of the argument. I did that under the guise of Rule 0 GM authority. |
|
aramis
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 197
|
Post by aramis on Nov 9, 2024 0:31:37 GMT -6
Read Ron Edward's treatises on RPGs from the turn of the millennium. These contain conclusions never held before by the hobby and language and concepts never used before but commonplace since. His 90s website was an "agenda" website. If you didn't agree with the destruction of the divided hobby and the recreation of the RPGs into something new, he didn't want you posting there. Pay attention to all the elements of "bad" game design for a list of everything that defines the cardinal characteristics of RPGs before the storyteller community was formed in 1990. RPGs are the conception and celebration of everything as gaming, everything before gaming culture was erased into narrative culture. Note: is 99 approach to terminology was very different from his 2004 versions, and further different from his 2008 versions... He also tried to tell me I didn't really want what I stated I wanted. And yet, I was happily getting what I wanted from several games that don't fit Ron's Agendas. He does write some interesting games, tho. his original manuscript, "System Matters" is one of the most astute bits of game theory written... but he failed one step shy of brilliance: he failed to realize the GNS positions are not 3 separate incompatible agendas, but spaces on a continuum, and that players might actually want to be in those spaces between. The longer he was working on studying bats, the more deranged his rants seemed on the Forge, and the more the terminology twisted. |
|
Parzival
Level 6 Magician
Is a little Stir Crazy this year...
Posts: 399
|
Post by Parzival on Nov 10, 2024 21:49:04 GMT -6
Mathematically, there can be no Rule Zero. Computing, subset of math, normally numbers the first element in arrays and lists as element 0. Likewise, addressing starts at address 0. On the 6502 and 8080, the address space is $0000 to $FFFF (0 to 65535 in decimal). So there can be. *Shrug* Just because computer designers don’t know that 0 means a null set doesn’t mean they’re right. Of course, such an address is a presumed case of all bits being nil. It works as a placer for information, but it isn’t actually an enumeration of anything. When enumerating objects (or concepts), then it is impossible to count 0 objects— you either have objects or you do not. To have a 0 rule mathematically is to say one has no rules at all. The null set; the set which contains nothing. Rule Zero thus is not mathematical but metaphorical. If one does not have any rules, then one does not have a rule zero, either. Only if one has rules can their be a “Rule Zero,” which is technically a rule whose nature is assumed, but is also based entirely on what set of rules on is discussing. A “Rule Zero” for Monopoly would be different than a “Rule Zero” for chess. Thus, neither is actually a mathematical “Rule Zero” but rather a pre-rule— an assumptive underlay— leaving it as actually a First Rule (as it were), and not a “zero Rule” (which would be the non-existence of a rule). So “Rule Zero” is thus a clever metaphor which simply means an assumed underlying truth relevant to the game being discussed, perhaps not expressed in the text (though D&D does express one), but never the less assumed to be in place. It’s all apropos of nothing (no mathematical pun intended), of course. I’m willing to bet that the reason your grandmother removed the “Sorry” cards from the deck was so that the frickin’ game would come to a frickin’ end before it drove her insane, no matter how much she liked spending time with her grandson. (That’s why we did it. And also why after one draw, Plumpy, Mr. Mint, and Jolly never returned to the deck in Candyland, either. Yegad, that game is interminable!) |
|
aramis
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 197
|
Post by aramis on Nov 11, 2024 2:53:17 GMT -6
Computing, subset of math, normally numbers the first element in arrays and lists as element 0. Likewise, addressing starts at address 0. On the 6502 and 8080, the address space is $0000 to $FFFF (0 to 65535 in decimal). So there can be. *Shrug* Just because computer designers don’t know that 0 means a null set doesn’t mean they’re right. Of course, such an address is a presumed case of all bits being nil. It works as a placer for information, but it isn’t actually an enumeration of anything. When enumerating objects (or concepts), then it is impossible to count 0 objects— you either have objects or you do not. To have a 0 rule mathematically is to say one has no rules at all. The null set; the set which contains nothing. Rule Zero thus is not mathematical but metaphorical. If one does not have any rules, then one does not have a rule zero, either. Only if one has rules can their be a “Rule Zero,” which is technically a rule whose nature is assumed, but is also based entirely on what set of rules on is discussing. A “Rule Zero” for Monopoly would be different than a “Rule Zero” for chess. Thus, neither is actually a mathematical “Rule Zero” but rather a pre-rule— an assumptive underlay— leaving it as actually a First Rule (as it were), and not a “zero Rule” (which would be the non-existence of a rule). So “Rule Zero” is thus a clever metaphor which simply means an assumed underlying truth relevant to the game being discussed, perhaps not expressed in the text (though D&D does express one), but never the less assumed to be in place. It’s all apropos of nothing (no mathematical pun intended), of course. I’m willing to bet that the reason your grandmother removed the “Sorry” cards from the deck was so that the frickin’ game would come to a frickin’ end before it drove her insane, no matter how much she liked spending time with her grandson. (That’s why we did it. And also why after one draw, Plumpy, Mr. Mint, and Jolly never returned to the deck in Candyland, either. Yegad, that game is interminable!) Actually, removing them doesn't much affect play time. She just hated "take that." Or playing to win. I quit playing boardgames of any kind with her over that. When I was 6. As for the numeration of arrays in computing... it's not metaphorical. It's VERY practical. In an array of fixed with entities, the array element's subscript is how many widths past the pointer address do you go to find the element. It's relative to the pointer that tells the OS where to look for the content. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Nov 11, 2024 6:09:26 GMT -6
Lots of things in your post aramis . While I don’t always agree with what you say, I do appreciate your perspective and the fact that you always think through your positions and I love the ideas that you bring to discussions here. (And at other boards where I bump into you.)  To be honest, based upon everything of his I've read, I'd never want to play a game under Gygax. His advice, for better or worse, was the source of many a hostile GM. I think some of his advice was an intentional sabotage of TSR... The thing is, Gygax was very much a Jekyll-Hyde sort of DM. He was highly creative, loved it when his players tried innovative things, and genuinely made folks love the game. He could also be very vindictive when players got too uppity and/or tried to challenge him. I’ll never forget watching him tear up the character sheet of a player when the character died, and he did so in a sort of gloating manner. That’s the bad part, but it is offset by the good parts. I only got to be at his table a couple of times, and they were more positive than negative. (Basically, if you were a jerk at his table Gary would take pride in beating you into submission. If you were genuine at his table he was genuine back.) The purpose of Rule 0 was not to nerf the dice, it was to allow people to tweak the system to their needs, most especially before play begins. Much truth here, particularly in the pre-AD&D days. The point was that the rules were NOT designed to be all-encompassing, and that a good DM ought to be prepared to adjudicate a situation on the fly and then move on from there. A common theme to my post today is that I think AD&D changed this a lot. As for rules lawyers... They've been in RPGing since 1981... probably longer, but I can personally attest to 1981. I've been one since then. I would place the date in 1979, which I think is when the first AD&D book came out, but realistically there were rules lawyers before that. I think that AD&D was the start of a new philosophy of gaming that every situation OUGHT to be codified somewhere. We had game sessions break to a halt because my friend Mike was sure that he had seen a rule somewhere. I accept houserules, but d**nit, I want to know the rules of the game I'm playing. Always have. And in my mind this is the sundering of my old gaming group in the 1970’s. The early game had rules but players were encouraged to say what they do without knowing exactly how the rules worked. I would estimate that the number of players of my group who owned or had read the rules as somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2. Now, everyone in my current group has a copy of the PH and most own (or have read) the MM and DMG as well even if they don’t actually DM any sessions. Most of my players today believe that knowing the rules equates to good play. I’m torn on whether I like the way the game has gone, and I think a lot of it is philosophy and not just quality of rules. (Also, the Gygax rules were a lot more fun to read. Gary loved his language.) I run into odd situations now in my son's campaigns, as he wants to embrace my philosophy where he can but wants to do it with 5E where the rules are so dense. And I'm not sure he does it in a manner which is internally consistent. That's tough for me, as I want to support him and his DM decisions but at the same time it's hard to have (1) lots of rules, and (2) inconsistent rules at the same time. My brain struggles with that. |
|
aramis
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 197
|
Post by aramis on Nov 11, 2024 12:06:45 GMT -6
Lots of things in your post aramis . While I don’t always agree with what you say, I do appreciate your perspective and the fact that you always think through your positions and I love the ideas that you bring to discussions here. (And at other boards where I bump into you.) To be honest, based upon everything of his I've read, I'd never want to play a game under Gygax. His advice, for better or worse, was the source of many a hostile GM. I think some of his advice was an intentional sabotage of TSR... The thing is, Gygax was very much a Jekyll-Hyde sort of DM. He was highly creative, loved it when his players tried innovative things, and genuinely made folks love the game. He could also be very vindictive when players got too uppity and/or tried to challenge him. I’ll never forget watching him tear up the character sheet of a player when the character died, and he did so in a sort of gloating manner. That’s the bad part, but it is offset by the good parts. Seeing him do that once, I'd never be back. Several reasons - the hostile GM approach is part of it, but also, tearing up the sheet means not having it around for later use as an NPC... a bit of advice from Marc Miller (of Classic Traveller), tho' I can't find the quote right now... And it also is the kind of behavior which fed the Satanic Panic. I've never directly interacted with Gygax; it's always been via reading his words. I have had discussions with Arneson via email. Very nice. The kind of guy who roots for the PCs even as he puts them in grave peril. |
|
Parzival
Level 6 Magician
Is a little Stir Crazy this year...
Posts: 399
|
Post by Parzival on Nov 11, 2024 13:44:46 GMT -6
On rules lawyering, I have always interpreted that as the guy who interrupts the good time everyone at the table is having in order to hammer some very esoteric and minutely specific point which he thinks should alter what has just happened, typically in his favor but possibly just against someone else, and starts grabbing different tomes to prove his point, flipping through here and there and reading in loud, emphatic tones from assorted passages across multiple books (or even editions). Meanwhile everybody else is just supposed to sit there and take it while he behaves like a sanctimonious attorney who thinks it’s his role to berate the judge, the jury, and even the bailiff. That guy? He’ll be politely invited to leave, and good riddance. Because that guy has indeed broken Rule Zero— in fact, he’s shattered it. He’s messing up everybody else’s good time, ruining the evening they’ve all set aside for, prepared for, and looked forward to all week (or even longer) just so he can entertain himself with his own pathetic voice. I like to know the rules, too. But if the DM makes a rule which I think is wrong, I will question it only if immediate relief is necessary— but the DM makes the decision, and I live with it, and plan future in game decisions accordingly. If no relief is necessary, I will wait until after play is done when we have the wrap up to bring up the issue. But even then, I will defer to the DM’s preferences. It’s his campaign, not mine. And, yeah, your grandmother may have told you she didn’t like “take that” cards. But she was really just trying to end one of the most interminable games ever published. (I *hate* Sorry. Parcheesi? Great game. Sorry? Torture from the armpit of Beelzebub.)  |
|
aramis
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 197
|
Post by aramis on Nov 11, 2024 19:12:51 GMT -6
I like to know the rules, too. But if the DM makes a rule which I think is wrong, I will question it only if immediate relief is necessary— but the DM makes the decision, and I live with it, and plan future in game decisions accordingly. If no relief is necessary, I will wait until after play is done when we have the wrap up to bring up the issue. But even then, I will defer to the DM’s preferences. In play, I often will ask, "are you intentionally changing that rule?" Several times, the GM was unaware of the official rule. Some times, they're aware. I'll leave it there until later and ask outside of session. A few times, "I wasn't, but now am." And again, leave it until later. If the GM's not stable in their rules approach, I'll leave. I need the rules to be consistent so I can work inside the fiction with confidence in its physics and metaphysics. My character knows more of the game world than I can, and rules are part of how I as a player understand the game world. That's an attitude I flatly reject. If player contributions don't matter, and player expectations don't matter, then there's no reason for them to participate; it's a railroad with a story, one probably better told via a short story on a sharing platform. Last time I played AD&D2e as a player, we, the players, rebelled when the GM demanded that we go on, while all of us were in need of healing, out of spells, and unwilling to push forward. She then invoked my Paladin's god, to which my response was, "Looks like I'm a fighter now." Group rejected continuing in the campaign. Even caused a rift with her SO, who was also playing... and was the one most in need of healing. She had decided she owned the campaign... and we disabused her of that notion. You're accusing me of lying, you realize? You almost certainly never met her. You have no basis for saying anything about her motivations. I suffered her for 30 years, before she pissed me off to the point I quit talking with her until her last year alive... and then she was so demented she didn't even recognize me. Plus, I asked her, so I have her statements. ANd a life of watching her play to lose - vs me, my mother... Sorry was just the most obvious. She'd remove the draw 2's, skips, and wild draw 4's in Uno. As for disliking it, well, it's my favorite parchisi variant, as it allows a bit more skill than most... the slides causing risk management decisions. Card counting allowing more intelligent risk management. it's also left me with a desire to know house rules ahead of play. When I make my cheat sheets (essentially, overly detailed GM screen content), I clearly note for my own sanity what are houseruled. |
|
Parzival
Level 6 Magician
Is a little Stir Crazy this year...
Posts: 399
|
Post by Parzival on Nov 12, 2024 12:47:29 GMT -6
I like to know the rules, too. But if the DM makes a rule which I think is wrong, I will question it only if immediate relief is necessary— but the DM makes the decision, and I live with it, and plan future in game decisions accordingly. If no relief is necessary, I will wait until after play is done when we have the wrap up to bring up the issue. But even then, I will defer to the DM’s preferences. In play, I often will ask, "are you intentionally changing that rule?" Several times, the GM was unaware of the official rule. Some times, they're aware. I'll leave it there until later and ask outside of session. A few times, "I wasn't, but now am." And again, leave it until later. If the GM's not stable in their rules approach, I'll leave. I need the rules to be consistent so I can work inside the fiction with confidence in its physics and metaphysics. My character knows more of the game world than I can, and rules are part of how I as a player understand the game world. That's an attitude I flatly reject. If player contributions don't matter, and player expectations don't matter, then there's no reason for them to participate; it's a railroad with a story, one probably better told via a short story on a sharing platform. Last time I played AD&D2e as a player, we, the players, rebelled when the GM demanded that we go on, while all of us were in need of healing, out of spells, and unwilling to push forward. She then invoked my Paladin's god, to which my response was, "Looks like I'm a fighter now." Group rejected continuing in the campaign. Even caused a rift with her SO, who was also playing... and was the one most in need of healing. She had decided she owned the campaign... and we disabused her of that notion. You're accusing me of lying, you realize? You almost certainly never met her. You have no basis for saying anything about her motivations. I suffered her for 30 years, before she pissed me off to the point I quit talking with her until her last year alive... and then she was so demented she didn't even recognize me. Plus, I asked her, so I have her statements. ANd a life of watching her play to lose - vs me, my mother... Sorry was just the most obvious. She'd remove the draw 2's, skips, and wild draw 4's in Uno. As for disliking it, well, it's my favorite parchisi variant, as it allows a bit more skill than most... the slides causing risk management decisions. Card counting allowing more intelligent risk management. it's also left me with a desire to know house rules ahead of play. When I make my cheat sheets (essentially, overly detailed GM screen content), I clearly note for my own sanity what are houseruled. I apologize for offending you— it was not my intent. I was joking about Sorry, which to me is a horrible board game that goes on waaay too long, not about you or your grandmother. It was meant to be a bit of silliness. Hey, *I* did the “hide or bury” the “Sorry” cards with my very young son (6-ish) so the game would end sooner. He either didn’t realize it or didn’t care. But it was about the game, not him. In the same manner, my comment was meant to be lighthearted. A humorous anecdote about adults who find themselves playing a game with kids which is absurdly long— Mousetrap, Sorry, Candyland, Snakes and Ladders (by all that is holy, I never want to play that abomination again), Hi-Ho-Cherry-O… These are games adults play with children because they love the children, not because they actually want to play the game itself. Fortunately, my son moved on to better games, as I suspect did you. And I sympathize with you on the dementia. Of my own grandmothers, one suffered from Alzheimer’s and the other from dementia. Both circumstances were very painful for my family, so I understand what that must have been like for you. Fortunately, I had many memories of many good years with both, and knew that in the end, neither of them were the persons their diseases made of them. As for knowing the rules, I divide board games, which have strict patterns and expectations of action, from role playing games, which offer broad opportunities for imagination and clever ideas which the rules themselves cannot possibly cover. Knowing the rules of chess is paramount if one wants to play it, much less play it well. Knowing the details of an RPG? Not so much. Sometimes the rules of an RPG get in the way of the fun for everyone involved. When they do, one should make a decision to ignore the rules in favor of what one’s group finds enjoyable. And that’s not a railroad— it’s a recognition that the table wants to imagine things in a different way than Gygax and Arneson did. That’s what I mean by “it’s the DM’s campaign.” The DM may be trying to create a setting which has a different feel, tone, or theme than the one expected by the rules as written. That’s what the “change the rules if you need to” idea means. It doesn’t mean “force the players to have no choice in the actions of their characters” which is what makes a game a railroad. A DM should never make rules which take away character agency and player choice during play— I make the exception for expressed setting rules which everyone is informed of, as “There are no elves in this world,” or “you have to tell me what your PC is doing when you search; I don’t do random discovery rolls.” And so forth. |
|
aramis
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 197
|
Post by aramis on Nov 13, 2024 0:36:43 GMT -6
The only times the rules have gotten in my way re having fun is when they're changed on the fly.
I rely upon them to define the setting, to cover those elements that my character would know from instruction, induction, and deduction through their life and training, but which I would not.
Further, I've never seen a clear distinction between boardgames and RPGs, especially not D&D variations. It's a fuzzy spectrum. I've always found players more comfortable with it being somewhere between than pure ToTM, let alone Improv-outside-combat.
Then again, I and most of my players are on the Autism Spectrum or have ADD or ADHD. It strongly reflects in our approaches to rules.
|
|
