Two Types of Players

[James Maliszewski]

I have begun to realize that, broadly speaking, there are two types of D&D players and they have radically different perspectives on the game. Their interactions over the years explain a lot about D&D's history and development.

One type takes D&D's meta-setting constraints as foundational, indeed as the pillars upon which all D&D games are built. The other type takes those same constraints as intrusive boundaries that stand in the way of their playing the kind of game they want.

Obviously, the boundaries are blurred somewhat and any of us who tinker and house rule, as OD&D pretty much demands, are willing to push the limits of the game as written to some extent. However, the difference I see between the first and second types of players goes beyond that. The second type isn't just house ruling the way fighting men work or creating a new class to fill a gap, for example, because they simply don't like the idea of character classes or, alternately, see character classes as mere professions rather than archetypes. They see D&D as unnecessarily restrictive right down to its foundational principles and try mightily to change those principles to things more amenable to what they want.

In the past, I understood why the second type stuck with D&D: there were very alternatives. If you wanted fantasy gaming, you had D&D and not much else. Nowadays? This isn't the case -- far from it! Even way back when, there were other options and yet these players still stuck with D&D. I've frankly never understood this. If the kind of fantasy you like is not the kind of fantasy D&D emulates and encourages, why beat your head against a brick wall and try to "fix" it?

[Finarvyn]

I've seen this "fix" effect happen a lot in game systems over the years, and I suspect that you are correct in that the best thing would be to find a different game entirely rather than try to staple addendum sectons onto an existing game.

I think that is in part what motivated WotC to abandon the earlier D&D model and evolve into 3E (and, I suppose also 4E when it comes out). These systems are more complex, which is somehow percieved as providing more options.

It's unfortunate that the differing philosophies can't agree in the middle somehow, because I think that forms the basis of the "roll vs. role" arguments which seem to be more name-calling than actual discussion of game philosophy.

Just a thought.

[makofan]

We played Dragonquest to get around the "class" concept. Not a better game, just different. The key is, we enjoyed D&D for what it was, and when it wasn't what we wanted, we played something else. Thething is, at last count I have GM'd about 30 rules systems, but we always come back to D&D

[James Maliszewski]

admin said:

I think that is in part what motivated WotC to abandon the earlier D&D model and evolve into 3E (and, I suppose also 4E when it comes out). These systems are more complex, which is somehow percieved as providing more options.

Over the years, D&D has increasingly become what some people call a "player's game," which is to say that its rules and presentation are geared more toward providing options to players than to GMs. This trend is an old one in D&D, though, probably starting formally with Supplement I (thieves being the big touchstone) but it was simply one approach among many until about late 2E, when it became canonized. The history of the game since then is largely one built around "more options = good."

It's unfortunate that the differing philosophies can't agree in the middle somehow, because I think that forms the basis of the "roll vs. role" arguments which seem to be more name-calling than actual discussion of game philosophy.

Very much agreed. I honestly think that OD&D provides the best basis for "detente" between the two philosophies. The rules as written are vague enough in places to encourage negotiation between players and referee so as to find a "sweet spot" most conducive to their preferred styles of play. As the game has become more codified over the years, there's less space for that kind of give and take, which is unfortunate. Strange as it is to consider, what D&D really needs at this stage is more OD&D influences, not less.

[Finarvyn]

jamesm said:

Over the years, D&D has increasingly become what some people call a "player's game," which is to say that its rules and presentation are geared more toward providing options to players than to GMs.

Amen. My biggest complaint with 3E isn't playing the game -- I've been in several games of 3E and thought they were a tad rules heavy but fun enough. The complaint I have is from the other side of the GM screen, because every encounter seemed to consume so much time.

For example, if a PC can do a thing I would expect that some of the monsters could do that thing as well. This means that in order to be totally fair, monster stat-blocks should resemble a character sheet. I simply don't have the time or interest to stat out every monster template that I might need, let alone the villians who should be put together with full character options.

I find that for OD&D, I can represent a monster in terms of a couple key numbers -- hit dice (which gives HP and attack bonus), # of attacks, damage per attack, AC. (Sometimes I include movement, but typically I assume that I can "fake it" through that part if needed.) Now THAT's a stat-block!

[crimhthanthegreat]

Encounters should not consume huge amounts of time. One of the jobs of the ref is to keep the game moving. I figure that playing out a melee round should take about 1 minute real time per 6 PCs or 6 henchmen. Of course, I can completely trust my players not to fudge a roll.

[serendipity]

crimhthanthegreat said:

I figure that playing out a melee round should take about 1 minute real time per 6 PCs or 6 henchmen.

Our rounds don't go quite so quickly. Our pauses in the action tend to be connected to extremely vital issues such as parents checking on kids, players getting pizza and soda refills, or the DM's wife getting a back massage in between turns. And then occasionally our chronicler is a bit slow recording events. Oh, wait. That's me....

[Deleted]

I'm in the middle about this one. I've tried a few of different fantasy R.P.G.'s (Ars Magica, DragonQuest, RuneQuest, & M.E.R.P.), & I just never seem to enjoy them as much as D&D. It's not that they're not good games, it's just that I like the D&D game mechanics. Since it's the system I began my hobby with, it's the one I feel the most comfortable with. I can tinker & warp the game as much as I want. However, I can empathize with jamesm's posts; there are now a slew of fantasy R.P.G.'s out there. If D&D doesn't strike your fancy, you've got plenty of other choices.

[dwayanu]

An awkward effect of "D20 System" is the tendency toward homogenization. I note that Gary Gygax approached the fantasy theme quite differently among D&D, AD&D, Dangerous Journeys and Lejendary Adventures.

More particularly, D20 Traveller is just the latest in a series of markedly different rules-sets addressing themes that originated in the seminal "little black books."

Acknowledging differences does not necessarily mean excluding one as inferior to another. Variety can be a fun part of the hobby. I for instance am not inclined to remake Call of Cthulhu or RuneQuest in the image of D&D, or vice-versa. Each is on its own terms a masterpiece.

On the other hand, OD&D provides a pretty flexible framework around which one can build a wide variety of games; consider the examples of Metamorphosis Alpha, Empire of the Petal Throne, Arduin, AD&D, Gamma World, Villains & Vigilantes and TSR's short-lived Buck Rogers RPG.

[simrion]

I can't help but think the game as envisioned by later TSR and now WoTC has trended towards removing the DM from the picture (if I'm not mistaken some of the hype around pending 4E is the ability to find and play with a DM on line or with no DM at all.) OD&D lends itself to easier DMing with many of the descisions made "off the cuff," the Players are essentially sharing in the DM's vision of the world and how it works. Nothing is totally tied down with the exception of the basic and necessary mechanics of the game (which are simple to remember and to use.) The later editions with all the "splat" and more concrete/definded rules tied the DM down. I suspect this reduced the number of DMs willing to invest the time and effort into learning and using the rules to create the campaign world they wanted.

[badger2305]

jamesm said:

One type takes D&D's meta-setting constraints as foundational, indeed as the pillars upon which all D&D games are built. The other type takes those same constraints as intrusive boundaries that stand in the way of their playing the kind of game they want.

(snip)

In the past, I understood why the second type stuck with D&D: there were very (FEW) alternatives. If you wanted fantasy gaming, you had D&D and not much else. Nowadays? This isn't the case -- far from it! Even way back when, there were other options and yet these players still stuck with D&D. I've frankly never understood this. If the kind of fantasy you like is not the kind of fantasy D&D emulates and encourages, why beat your head against a brick wall and try to "fix" it?

I'm not sure which category I fit in, James. :)

The reason why I tinker with the rules, to the point of doing something not unlike Labryrinth Lords or similar, is because that's what we did, back oh-so-long-ago. Like a number of backyard mechanics all the way up to custom auto design engineers, taking the original framework and transforming it into something that was cool is part of the fun. Starting from scratch, or using an entirely different engine - these are both different creative endeavors of invention. "Fixing it" is part of getting under the hood, and really getting your hands dirty working on things. Listening to the dealership tell you that you should never take your car anywhere except to an approved mechanic was for wusses. And being told that this might "mess up your car" was simply so much propaganda to keep you buying the brand label, when you knew you could do better on your own.

If, in the end, you decided to get that J79 powerplant from that wrecked F-16 and see if it would fit in the back of your VW, well, eventually you might decide you needed an entirely different car. But you wouldn't KNOW that unless you tried fixing the original in the first place. :):):)

[crimhthanthegreat]

jamesm said:

The other type takes those same constraints as intrusive boundaries that stand in the way of their playing the kind of game they want.

The second type isn't just house ruling the way fighting men work or creating a new class to fill a gap, for example, because they simply don't like the idea of character classes or, alternately, see character classes as mere professions rather than archetypes. They see D&D as unnecessarily restrictive right down to its foundational principles and try mightily to change those principles to things more amenable to what they want.

I came back and read this again and I realized that if someone said (that last sentence) this to me in person I could only have a blank look on my face as the immediate reaction. That sentence brings nothing to mind at all. Restrictive? Give me a clue as to where the second type could be coming from, I confess I just don't get the second type at all. And I love to tinker under the hood.

[Deleted]

crimhthanthegreat said:

jamesm said:

The other type takes those same constraints as intrusive boundaries that stand in the way of their playing the kind of game they want.

The second type isn't just house ruling the way fighting men work or creating a new class to fill a gap, for example, because they simply don't like the idea of character classes or, alternately, see character classes as mere professions rather than archetypes. They see D&D as unnecessarily restrictive right down to its foundational principles and try mightily to change those principles to things more amenable to what they want.

Restrictive? Give me a clue as to where the second type could be coming from, I confess I just don't get the second type at all. And I love to tinker under the hood.

Maybe the second type are the persons who like skills rather than classes. The class system puts together a list of pre-determined abilities, but what if you want to run a sneaky character who can cast spells? No guidelines for it, and in fact the rules don't allow it. That could be interpreted as restrictive.

You are lucky that your players never want to try interesting characters. Must make GM-ing a lot easier. ::)

[crimhthanthegreat]

dilvish said:

crimhthanthegreat said:

Restrictive? Give me a clue as to where the second type could be coming from, I confess I just don't get the second type at all. And I love to tinker under the hood.

Maybe the second type are the persons who like skills rather than classes. The class system puts together a list of pre-determined abilities, but what if you want to run a sneaky character who can cast spells? No guidelines for it, and in fact the rules don't allow it. That could be interpreted as restrictive.

You are lucky that your players never want to try interesting characters. Must make GM-ing a lot easier. ::)

My players do play interesting characters and I have no problem house ruling for whatever they want to try, in 36 years plus they have tried a lot of different things especially the grandchildren of my friends and I. No guidelines in the rules is not a hindrance and neither is the class system. You can define a dozen different types of magic users and since I usually don't use thieves anyway, it makes it easy to make fighters or magic users or even clerics (if you must ;) ) sneaky. I just don't get the restrictive part.

[Deleted]

crimhthanthegreat said:

dilvish said:

My players do play interesting characters and I have no problem house ruling for whatever they want to try, in 36 years plus they have tried a lot of different things especially the grandchildren of my friends and I. No guidelines in the rules is not a hindrance and neither is the class system. You can define a dozen different types of magic users and since I usually don't use thieves anyway, it makes it easy to make fighters or magic users or even clerics (if you must ;)) sneaky. I just don't get the restrictive part.

Hear Hear! I find OD&D to be the most liberating game system I've ever had the pleasure to DM. I can do anything I want, create anything I want, & not have to deal with what I personally call "mechanical tinkering failure" (i.e., tinkering with one rule leads to having to fix another rule, & so on & so forth).

[brumbar]

We played Dragonquest to get around the "class" concept. Not a better game, just different. The key is, we enjoyed D&D for what it was, and when it wasn't what we wanted, we played something else. Thething is, at last count I have GM'd about 30 rules systems, but we always come back to D&D

Having been his player for most of these systems I have to agree tha we have always played some form od D&D including 3rde.

I noticed some one earlier had mentions roling up stats for monsters and npcs for 3rd. I think this is a wonderful thing which keeps me on my toes ( is that really a lowly kobold or a 15lvl sorcerer). There is a shareware npc generator available that does an wonderfull job of this. you tell it what lvl. class and race or do it all randomly.

I am not saying 3rd is better. It is just the system we tend to play most often right now as any options you may want to try have already been fleshed out to a certain degree and with the software available you can get right to gaming in minutes with out having to spend a lot of time deciding on house rules. When you only have a couple of hours a month (or every other month) to get together this is a great adavntage.

Again please don't comdem me for my comments as I definitely enjoy playing OD&D as well when time allows.

[makofan]

I should mention that Brumbar and I are gamers, especially wargamers. So the 3rd edition counts as a tactical exercise for us, akin to Advanced Squad Leader. I still prefer the "winging it" older versions though.

[vladtolenkov]

Having a wild campaign setting is fine. That's just gravy, but the real meat of the game is doing what the system rewards players for.

One reason I now prefer OD&D is that it feels closest to those underlying goals.

And what does OD&D reward players for?

Defeating monsters and traps.

Collecting treasure and magic items.

Anything that gets too far away from that--like say being able to roll up and play the X-men or the crew of the Enterprise is going to run into some limitations. If you can accept that those limitations are just part of the system you'll probably have fun, but I think its those players who CAN'T accept the system's limitations that end up "fighting" the D&D system and then going away unhappy.

What they are doing is really looking for another game.

Nick