Am I doing 5e wrong!

[2D8HP]

Judging by many posts on the 5e Forum, I have been playing and more importantly DM'ing/GM'ing/Refereing RPG's mostly wrong since I started in the hobby over 35 years ago, as there seems to be an effort to adhere to RAW that simply has never occured to me.
My game philosophy has been rather loose and another poster on another thread wrote it better then I have

In the novel Glory Road, Heinlein had his character Rufo say:
"Any social organization does well enough if it isn’t rigid. The framework doesn’t matter as long as there is enough looseness to permit that one man in a multitude to display his genius. Most so-called social scientists seem to think that organization is everything. It is almost nothing—except when it is a straitjacket. It is the incidence of heroes that counts, not the pattern of zeros."
Change "social organization" to "game system," and you have Heinlein's Law of RPGs.
My RPG backround:
I started probably in 1978 with the "bluebook" Holmes authored Basic Dungeons and Dragons box set, which is probably the only RPG that I really ever tried to use strictly, completely and exclusively as written, I can still remember that I felt the need to read the less then 50 page rulebook three times over before I felt "I got it". Sometime in 6th grade I was reading the "bluebook" in class, when a classmate noticed and invited me to game at his house, where his older brother was the DM, which was the first RPG that I played. The "Edition" played was oD&D (the LBB's) plus the TSR supplements, plus, the AD&D "Monster Manual" plus, the "Arduin Grimoires", and "All the Worlds Monsters". The primary rule was "of cool", and "whatever seems to work". I looked over the LBB's (and soon bought them myself) and while I was enchanted by them, I also pretty much found the RAW so incomprehensible that there was no way I could play them straight, and when I re-read them last year that was still my impression. Getting the "Chainmail" game (which was supposed to be used as well) sometime in the 80's did not change my mind, as it still required what I assume was a base knowledge of 1960's wargames that I lacked.
I soon got the AD&D PHB, and then the DMG, and by the mid 80's I had many more RPG's (and still keep buying them, much to the detriment of my storage needs).
While I would study the rules when I wasn't actually playing, after character creation, I would almost never crack open the rule books in play, beyond a couple of charts as DM/GM. And when a PC would attempt a task, as often as not as DM/GM, I would improvise a percentage chance of success, and have the player roll dice to see "if it worked". And mixing rules/setting "fluff" from other "editions" and games has often been used.
I have never played "online" and when I have gone to conventions (DUNDRACON typically) It has always been as a player, and the only "rules" that I was concerned with, was how many hit points my PC's had left!
I have been using 5e the same way I used "Basic","oD&D, 1e AD&D, and other RPG's. But in reading the 5e forums an adherence to RAW that I simply haven't done (and with my current lack of memorization abilities am probably incapable of!), seems required, leading me to believe I've playing contrary to the way the game is mostly played.
Have I?

[Regitnui]

Are you and your table having fun?

If the answer is yes, then you're playing 5e and every other RPG right.

[Hrugner]

Adherence to the rules lets players know what they're in for without necessarily knowing the DM, and it allows for more consistent play. It's certainly a good starting point. But, if you don't need a strict rules set for in world consistency, then you don't need them. Personally, I like having the strict rules set and just use a base system if I don't want to use all the rules. Playing "d20" and making on the spot judgements works well enough, though a character sheet with a list of things your character has done in the past is an unwieldy character sheet.

[Anonymouswizard]

In general there is no way to do an RPG 'wrong'. There might be doing an RPG 'improperly', which I'd define as going against it's spirit (for example, wacky-comedy Dark Heresy), but even that's not wrong, I had great fun running wacky Dark Heresy and Shadowrun games, although both were still relatively lethal they weren't as serious or dramatic as the game writers intended. The basic rule is 'if the group isn't having fun, you're doing it wrong'.

To give an example, a lot of times I've seen on here 'you shouldn't use D&D for noncombat games'. Although I do agree with the statement (for 3e and onwards anyway), and in fact don't run D&D anymore precisely because of that, I've played in more roleplay focused games using D&D and enjoyed it, so the games weren't 'doing D&D wrong'.

EDIT: while I apply the rules as rigorously as I can, I also play fairly lose and won't stop for more than a minute to look something up, and have a tendency to keep things relatively consistent even without them. This is the standard around here, although my younger brother would really be happier running a 'freeform traits' game and one person can't even be bothered to read the rulebook before running a game (he's dyslexic, but when you have the book for a month and can't work out experience, and I can turn to the page and learn it in 30 seconds don't expect any sympathy*). It really depends on who you are.

* I also dislike him for throwing my investigative character into a combat game with no warning (although I should have twigged that almost everyone else made a combat character), after vetoing a character that would have fit the tone of the game much better (an Anglican Priest with prophetic visions and great strength), for deny the PCs access to any sort of powers and then using powers to literally overpower his zombies (for that matter, he let them escape before my character could get research despite it making no physical sense). My character did eventually become known as the badass scientist who went out of his way to experiment on zombies (I learnt more in two days than the military had in six months, through use of the scientific method and asking simple questions), but that might have been what caused him to end the game early.

[Coffee_Dragon]

It's useful to have shared assumptions and points of reference when talking on the internets across tables and social contexts. It's not necessarily indicative of what goes on at our own respective (real or virtual) tables.

[JoeJ]

Outside organized play, RAW is mostly useful for arguing on the internet. What's important is RAF - Rules As Fun (with "fun" defined by the participants of a particular table). I've been playing about as long as you, and I don't think I've ever been in a game that didn't have some house rules that made it unique. Even when I've gone to game conventions there always seems to have been some special convention rules that applied.

[Temperjoke]

Just... don't use the forums as a guide for what you are doing right or wrong... if you and your players are having fun, does it really matter what a bunch of stereotypes on an internet forum think? (Myself included in that sweeping generalization)

[Kurald Galain]

But in reading the 5e forums an adherence to RAW that I simply haven't done (and with my current lack of memorization abilities am probably incapable of!), seems required,

That would be a vocal minority. Don't worry about them.

[Foxhound438]

strict adherence to RAW is common as a rule of thumb because it's kind of hard to assume what house rules everyone on a forum uses. Moreover, it's kind of ****y to expect a new player at your table to accept that a certain thing they built their character to do isn't allowed via house rule, since they were assumably using the rules as stated in the book when they built their character.

[Kish]

But in reading the 5e forums an adherence to RAW that I simply haven't done (and with my current lack of memorization abilities am probably incapable of!), seems required, leading me to believe I've playing contrary to the way the game is mostly played.
Have I?
Forum debates on game rules have about as much to do with actual games as SCA battles have to do with actual mortal swordfights. Don't sweat it (if you actually are. Actually, if you aren't sweating it continue to not sweat it).

[mgshamster]

That would be a vocal minority. Don't worry about them.

It's also a somewhat new vocal minority, popping up heavily in the 5e forums about 2-3 weeks ago.

Before that, people were discussing variant rules, potential house rules, whether certain house rules were even needed, character concepts, idea for GMs, different builds. Then a certain crowd showed up and started insisting on RAW while also criticizing people for coming up with ideas to solve issues when they're forced to stick to RAW.

[Segev]

Because we don't have a single Word-of-God DM for the forums, all we have to go by are the RAW and, where they can be divined, a sense of what the RAW are trying to achieve (which is far more important in 5e than 3e, by philosophical design). Generally speaking, if somebody says, "I am (house)ruling it this way; what are the consequences?" the boards will say, "Oh, okay, so this is for your table. In that case, we see it going like this..." or "...here's some advice on how you might tweak that..." or "...I'd suggest doing it this way instead."

We get into the knock-down, drag-out RAW discussions because we want an agreed-upon baseline, and (while I can't speak for anybody else) I get annoyed when people try to inject their personal house rules and claim they are the strict RAW, because it both starts distorting the baseline away from what the book actually says and because it begins to make it necessary to know the "consensus house rules" of the forum to be able to discuss the rules.

[Knaight]

Before that, people were discussing variant rules, potential house rules, whether certain house rules were even needed, character concepts, idea for GMs, different builds. Then a certain crowd showed up and started insisting on RAW while also criticizing people for coming up with ideas to solve issues when they're forced to stick to RAW.

We still are, and strict adherence to RAW still isn't seen as all that valuable by the vast majority of people here.

With that said, that Heinlein quote is completely ridiculous for a number of reasons.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Because we don't have a single Word-of-God DM for the forums, all we have to go by are the RAW and, where they can be divined, a sense of what the RAW are trying to achieve (which is far more important in 5e than 3e, by philosophical design). Generally speaking, if somebody says, "I am (house)ruling it this way; what are the consequences?" the boards will say, "Oh, okay, so this is for your table. In that case, we see it going like this..." or "...here's some advice on how you might tweak that..." or "...I'd suggest doing it this way instead."

We get into the knock-down, drag-out RAW discussions because we want an agreed-upon baseline, and (while I can't speak for anybody else) I get annoyed when people try to inject their personal house rules and claim they are the strict RAW, because it both starts distorting the baseline away from what the book actually says and because it begins to make it necessary to know the "consensus house rules" of the forum to be able to discuss the rules.
I think this is a pretty good summary of things.

As for the more general question? I'd say that yes, it's possible to play a SYSTEM wrong. If you change a large majority of the rules, you're quiet literally playing the "wrong" game-- you're playing D&D Mine instead of D&D Next.

But.

That doesn't mean you're playing the GAME wrong. If your version of the system works at your table, if everyone is having fun, that's what matters. That's the Only thing that matters. Play the game you want to play, and don't worry if the internet wouldn't call it D&D.

[Gastronomie]

People here only speak based on RAW because speaking based on houserules in a forum (where different people play with different houserules) results in meaningless confusion.

Houserules are actually a good thing for the game if the players feel it's necessary or makes the game more fun. If you want strict rules you should just play Final Fantasy or something.

[Elbeyon]

Because we don't have a single Word-of-God DM for the forums, all we have to go by are the RAW and, where they can be divined, a sense of what the RAW are trying to achieve (which is far more important in 5e than 3e, by philosophical design). Generally speaking, if somebody says, "I am (house)ruling it this way; what are the consequences?" the boards will say, "Oh, okay, so this is for your table. In that case, we see it going like this..." or "...here's some advice on how you might tweak that..." or "...I'd suggest doing it this way instead."

We get into the knock-down, drag-out RAW discussions because we want an agreed-upon baseline, and (while I can't speak for anybody else) I get annoyed when people try to inject their personal house rules and claim they are the strict RAW, because it both starts distorting the baseline away from what the book actually says and because it begins to make it necessary to know the "consensus house rules" of the forum to be able to discuss the rules.That's the way I see it. (House)ruling and what not is perfectly acceptable and even encouraged.

Twisting RAW into something that it's not is disingenuous. If something doesn't work change it, but don't try to pond that (house)ruling off as RAW.

[MBControl]

No, you're doing 5e just fine.

The first poster after you had it right. If at the end of the session, everybody had fun, you win.

If you watch the PAX games, with Chris Perkins as DM, widely regarded one of the best DMs in the world, you can see that he plays things loose, using the rules to rein in the action when needed, and bending rules (frequently) to reward entertaining game play. Use the rules to fit the story, not the other way around. As it has been described in the past, RPing games are an exercise in a interactive, and co-operative story telling.

That's what I love about this game, and if it changed, I wouldn't play anymore.

[NewDM]

If you know the history of D&D then yes you are doing it wrong. A few house rules to complement the rules of the game are fine, but when you start ruling left and right about everything and bypassing large chunks of the rules, you really aren't playing D&D at all. You are playing your own customized game that is based loosely on D&D.

Is this wrong? No. As long as you are having fun. Where it becomes a problem is when you assume your (or your DMs) massive swath of house rules 'is' D&D. Then go posting about it on forums and arguing RAW with people that aren't in the books, or assuming that everyone follows your house rules. Then its a problem.

As others have said, the rules are a base line assumption that all players of D&D have in common. Once you deviate from them with house rules you no longer have things in common with other groups of players.


That would be a vocal minority. Don't worry about them.

Where is your unbiased professionally administered population study to go along with that sweeping generalization? I'm interested in seeing the results of that thing.:smallamused:


It's also a somewhat new vocal minority, popping up heavily in the 5e forums about 2-3 weeks ago.

The new is wearing off of 5e. The cracks are showing. It was inevitable. You can look at every edition and see this happen.

Basically people were excited that 5e would 'feel' like D&D again, unfortunately that means all the problems with earlier editions started popping up again, because those things are what gives D&D its feel.


Before that, people were discussing variant rules, potential house rules, whether certain house rules were even needed, character concepts, idea for GMs, different builds. Then a certain crowd showed up and started insisting on RAW while also criticizing people for coming up with ideas to solve issues when they're forced to stick to RAW.

Yes, they were. Then they were exposed to high level play, either through reading the high level rules, reading a thread about high level play, or experiencing it themselves. Once that happened those people started seeing the flaws inherent in this edition of D&D.

[JNAProductions]

Yes, they were. Then they were exposed to high level play, either through reading the high level rules, reading a thread about high level play, or experiencing it themselves. Once that happened those people started seeing the flaws inherent in this edition of D&D.

I've played high levels and DMed high levels. There have not been issues for me.

The same can be said for pretty much the majority of posters here.

[busterswd]

I've played high levels and DMed high levels. There have not been issues for me.

The same can be said for pretty much the majority of posters here.

Yep, this. The system functions fine at higher levels. Some of the capstones are poorly thought out, but that's probably my biggest complaint, and one that you will very rarely run into.

[Toadkiller]

It's the Internet. There's a lot of arguing in general.

But yeah, like the first responder said if all are having fun it's cool. Ran a game for my kids last night. Totally allowed an interaction to work for them that RAW probably had no chance. Cause it was clever, they came up with it on their own, and it allowed me to play a character with a silly voice being goofy and making them laugh.

Good times. There was a perfunctory die roll, just for formality and to buy me a few seconds to write the script in my head for the NPCs.

Honestly a lot of the time if I ask for a perception or insight check I'm simply buying time to ponder a response for something I didn't expect.

Oh, and I also suddenly subtracted some hit points from a bad guy; cause the fight was running long and the neighbor kid needed to go home. Such a rule breaker!

[Zman]

You aren't playing 5e wrong if it is working for you and your group.

Many here start with RAW as a baseline and make changes to it. Personally, I make changes to fix issues that arise, i.e. Balance or feel. {scrubbed}

Ignore those who are telling you that you are having the wrong kind of fun.

[NewDM]

I've played high levels and DMed high levels. There have not been issues for me.

The same can be said for pretty much the majority of posters here.

Where's your forum wide poll that was administered by a neutral 3rd party? No? Yeah. don't use sweeping generalizations to try to make a point. It just doesn't work.


Yep, this. The system functions fine at higher levels. Some of the capstones are poorly thought out, but that's probably my biggest complaint, and one that you will very rarely run into.

There are a lot of issues that come up the higher level you get with caster and non-caster disparity being one of the most noticeable.


{scrubbed}

Please stop. {scrubbed} Remember attack the facts not the poster as per the forum rules.

You are in fact playing it wrong, but you can do that and have plenty of fun.

I don't believe I have an 'infallible' understanding of RAW. I frequently get shown rules that are different than I believe the game is run. I simply admit I'm wrong and move on {scrubbed}

I don't belittle others in any way shape or form. If others believe this then they are reading waaay too much into my posts that isn't there.

I don't have a superiority complex. I simply use facts, logic, and statistics to back up my view points. {scrubbed}

No one in this thread said the OP was having the wrong kind of fun.

{scrubbed}

[Regitnui]

If you know the history of D&D then yes you are doing it wrong.

Is this wrong? No.

Go home, NewDM. You're starting to contradict yourself in the same post.

Read the rest of the thread. Nobody else regards RAW as much as a Holy Gospel as you apparently do. Everyone here (read the thread before you ask for a survey like a robot) plays RAF, which is really more the gospel you want. Your logic is flip-flopping, you ignore anyone who criticizes you, and your "plot pretzel" thing is never ever going to be anything more than an annoyance for everyone else. Your constant complaints that something is broken, then calling anyone else's attempt to address it a Narrative Croissant™ is really starting to wear thin. It's like you have no real original thoughts to bring to the table, just an overwhelming desire to be right all the time.

Here's the only rule that matters:

It's a game, have fun, but don't be a jerk.

Yes. It's possible to play the system wrong, but D&D is robust enough that it doesn't matter if you flip coins instead of rolling d20s, or tell people beforehand simulacrum cheese is banned, or challenge the players with BBEGs who actually prepare to face the party in a climactic showdown. A game made by professionals, playtested by the community, and in constant reciprocal development needs more than one person who feels a little ignored and disappointed to be 'broken'

You wanted 4e with faster combat. Sorry, you didn't get that.

You wanted a game where everything has comprehensive and unambiguous RAW. Sorry, you're not going to get that.

You want a community of people who agree with you that 5e is as broken as 3.5e and are already making Pathfinder5.5 that will satisfy you and cater to your tastes. I'm sorry, but you're not going to find that here.

Now go ahead and report me for criticizing you. If the mods find something here worthy of suspending me, let them. All this needed to be said. Of course, you'll pick and choose what part of this post you actually read, finding deadly insults and paper tigers for you to shoot like you're a great debating mind, but everyone else, who read this whole post, will see more truth here than you'll let yourself accept. They said that the rigid adherence to RAW is a vocal minority. They're quite right. You're it.

To everyone else: Sorry for derailing this thread for another of my rants. I will now stay on topic.

[JakOfAllTirades]

You realize Heinlein was just as opinionated as everyone on this forum, right?

(Including myself.)

[Kurald Galain]

Where is your unbiased professionally administered population study to go along with that sweeping generalization? I'm interested in seeing the results of that thing.:smallamused:
Here you go,

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/self_description.png

[krugaan]

Jesus, is NewDM in here too?

As most people said in here, fun is the goal, and if you're aren't having fun, you are failing. Everything else is success.

And, yes, arguing on the forums is fun intellectual exercise, but 99% of the time it will have no relevance whatsoever on actual gameplay.

The remaining 1% can easily be solved with a bit of patience, charity, and kicking problem players out of the table and getting new ones.

[Blue Lantern]

Judging by many posts on the 5e Forum, I have been playing and more importantly DM'ing/GM'ing/Refereing RPG's mostly wrong since I started in the hobby over 35 years ago, as there seems to be an effort to adhere to RAW that simply has never occured to me.
My game philosophy has been rather loose and another poster on another thread wrote it better then I have

My RPG backround:
I started probably in 1978 with the "bluebook" Holmes authored Basic Dungeons and Dragons box set, which is probably the only RPG that I really ever tried to use strictly, completely and exclusively as written, I can still remember that I felt the need to read the less then 50 page rulebook three times over before I felt "I got it". Sometime in 6th grade I was reading the "bluebook" in class, when a classmate noticed and invited me to game at his house, where his older brother was the DM, which was the first RPG that I played. The "Edition" played was oD&D (the LBB's) plus the TSR supplements, plus, the AD&D "Monster Manual" plus, the "Arduin Grimoires", and "All the Worlds Monsters". The primary rule was "of cool", and "whatever seems to work". I looked over the LBB's (and soon bought them myself) and while I was enchanted by them, I also pretty much found the RAW so incomprehensible that there was no way I could play them straight, and when I re-read them last year that was still my impression. Getting the "Chainmail" game (which was supposed to be used as well) sometime in the 80's did not change my mind, as it still required what I assume was a base knowledge of 1960's wargames that I lacked.
I soon got the AD&D PHB, and then the DMG, and by the mid 80's I had many more RPG's (and still keep buying them, much to the detriment of my storage needs).
While I would study the rules when I wasn't actually playing, after character creation, I would almost never crack open the rule books in play, beyond a couple of charts as DM/GM. And when a PC would attempt a task, as often as not as DM/GM, I would improvise a percentage chance of success, and have the player roll dice to see "if it worked". And mixing rules/setting "fluff" from other "editions" and games has often been used.
I have never played "online" and when I have gone to conventions (DUNDRACON typically) It has always been as a player, and the only "rules" that I was concerned with, was how many hit points my PC's had left!
I have been using 5e the same way I used "Basic","oD&D, 1e AD&D, and other RPG's. But in reading the 5e forums an adherence to RAW that I simply haven't done (and with my current lack of memorization abilities am probably incapable of!), seems required, leading me to believe I've playing contrary to the way the game is mostly played.
Have I?

So you are playing the game the way the creator meant it to be played.
Good for you and keep going, have fun and don't worry about internet whiners.

[NewDM]

Here you go,

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/self_description.png


Jesus, is NewDM in here too?

As most people said in here, fun is the goal, and if you're aren't having fun, you are failing. Everything else is success.

And, yes, arguing on the forums is fun intellectual exercise, but 99% of the time it will have no relevance whatsoever on actual gameplay.

The remaining 1% can easily be solved with a bit of patience, charity, and kicking problem players out of the table and getting new ones.

Man, what is Krugaan here too?

People need to stop with the insults.

[Anonymouswizard]

Where's your forum wide poll that was administered by a neutral 3rd party? No? Yeah. don't use sweeping generalizations to try to make a point. It just doesn't work.

First off, different people interpret balance differently. I personally don't consider 5e truly balanced at high levels, but I'd say it hits around the industry standard of balance, and isn't so unbalanced as to be broken.

Also, even though it sounds weird, imbalance isn't necessarily bad. It's inevitable no matter what you do, but when designing a game competently it causes the game to feel more varied than without it.


There are a lot of issues that come up the higher level you get with caster and non-caster disparity being one of the most noticeable.

Please list these issues for me, what I see is that casters actually begin to fall slightly behind, but can still punch up. But then again I haven't played high levels.


Please stop. Your insults are not helping and in fact can be seen as trolling since it is repeated. Remember attack the facts not the poster as per the forum rules.

What facts? Your posts in this thread so far have been filled with opinions.


You are in fact playing it wrong, but you can do that and have plenty of fun.

Stop stating this like it's an absolute fact. Also, the wording is very bad, it's actually the opposite, he's playing 5e right if anything, as the game wasn't intended for strict adherence to the rules but for DMs to tweak them to fit the setting and story.


I don't believe I have an 'infallible' understanding of RAW. I frequently get shown rules that are different than I believe the game is run. I simply admit I'm wrong and move on, unlike some here.

Really? You seem to be claiming the very opposite thing on this page. Can you please explain how you aren't claiming to have a perfect understanding of RAW? Because your first post implies that belief.


I don't have a superiority complex. I simply use facts, logic, and statistics to back up my view points. I know that is foreign to most people who run almost solely on their emotions.

I have not seen you give a single statistic or piece of logic in this thread. Of your facts, some are true but some are presented in a way that supports one interpretation over several other ones. Some of us are in fact very logical, which means your posts downright confuse me. Please do not insult people by implying that their view is not as objective as yours, because with tabletop gaming it is very hard to argue something without going into either personal experiences (which are subjective) or theorycrafting (which does not always reflect what happens at the table). However, I don't spend a lot of time on this subforum, so I don't really have a handle on how your posts generally are, so can you please clearly explain the logic and evidence you are using? Thank you.

EDIT: NewDM, you have been insulted maybe once or twice in this thread, and not really in any serious way, more of a 'we're tired of this' way. Can you please stop blowing things out of proportion, I am trying very hard to understand you here.

[Regitnui]

Man, what is Krugaan here too?

People need to stop with the insults.

Perhaps you need to stop with the coming in and forcing Narrative Bagels™ up every thread you think they'll fit.

[krugaan]

Perhaps you need to stop with the coming in and forcing Narrative Bagels™ up every thread you think they'll fit.

Sounds like a job for the Plot Proctologisttm!

[Blue Lantern]

And another thread hits the dust.

WARNING SIGN FOR THE WANDERING FORUMER

From this post onward the thread is headed toward endless discussion pertaining Plot FoodTM, Rules grammatical analysis, strawman boxing and common sense manslaughter.

Continued reading my procure headache (from trying to wrap your head over bizzare twists of logic), concussions (from falling from your chair laughing) and suspension of disbelief breaching (toward the concept of human race having reason).

PROCEDE AT YOUR OWN RISK

[krugaan]

And another thread hits the dust.

WARNING SIGN FOR THE WANDERING FORUMER

From this post onward the thread is headed toward endless discussion pertaining Plot FoodTM, Rules grammatical analysis, strawman boxing and common sense manslaughter.

Continued reading my procure headache (from trying to wrap your head over bizzare twists of logic), concussions (from falling from your chair laughing) and suspension of disbelief breaching (toward the concept of human race having reason).

PROCEDE AT YOUR OWN RISK

This should honestly be a warning in a lot of threads, and I'm not just talking about ones with NewDM.

other symptoms may include:

- redness of palms and face
- increased blood pressure
- thoughts of suicide and/or murder
- broken keyboards / monitors / mice / fists

[Blue Lantern]

This should honestly be a warning in a lot of threads, and I'm not just talking about ones with NewDM.

other symptoms may include:

- redness of palms and face
- increased blood pressure
- thoughts of suicide and/or murder
- broken keyboards / monitors / mice / fists

True, that seems to be par on course with internet discussion, there is always that one post (often made someone in a very specific group of people) that turn an honest and interesting discussion into an endless arguing and bickering with no value left.

[krugaan]

True, that seems to be par on course with internet discussion, there is always that one post (often made someone in a very specific group of people) that turn an honest and interesting discussion into an endless arguing and bickering with no value left.

Yes. That's when i resort to humor; hopefully at least someone smiles.

[Blue Lantern]

Yes. That's when i resort to humor; hopefully at least someone smiles.

Pretty much.
I usually give it at the most two post with good faith arguing, in the small hope things go back into track, then I go with sarcasm/bad jokes/ignore mode.

PS- In case anyone missed the irony we are in fact derailing a thread with a discussion on how thread gets derailed.

[Gort]

But in reading the 5e forums an adherence to RAW that I simply haven't done (and with my current lack of memorization abilities am probably incapable of!), seems required, leading me to believe I've playing contrary to the way the game is mostly played.
Have I?

Nope. I like to know what the RAW ruling is, to keep things as consistent as possible. But also so I can clearly articulate to my players when I am making a house rule.

Nobody really agrees completely about RAW anyway. Even the designers get it wrong and are inconsistent some times.

RAW changes over time with errata.

Large parts of the system are deliberately left vague. GM interpretation is just another facet of play, and good for fun and variety.


Gort

[Dimcair]

Shortest answer: Don't ask yourself, don't ask us, ask your players.

If even one of your players is constantly bummed because he/she/it expected outcome X in situation Y because Rule Z says so and then it doesn't?

Yes A)
No B)


That sucks hard, at least for me it does, because I may be invested into the well being of myself my character myself, excuse me. (yes, this is quite intentional). It ruins immersion (just like theater of the mind, imo) as i need to phrase every action i take or might take as a question first. I could go on but you can figure out yourself why it might suck.

You are doing just fine, don't let other wackos tell you what you should do. Reading this forum can be fun, but I think it is safe to say that your tabletop experience will suffer in the long and or short run. It may also improve, but I'd argue that DMs gain more positive insights here than players.

[Theoboldi]

Yes. That's when i resort to humor; hopefully at least someone smiles.

To be honest, you are part of the problem. Your humor only serves to escalate things further once a thread starts going badly.

[krugaan]

To be honest, you are part of the problem. Your humor only serves to escalate things further once a thread starts going badly.

Once it's gone, it's gone. It only gets to that point once all meaningful discussion is done; i'd never derail a thread that's going well.

[ProphetSword]

Yes, you're playing it wrong. For other tables and other people. For your own table, you're doing it right.

[Coffee_Dragon]

In the midst of all the "hell yeah screw the rules" and saying this is a valid way of playing, I think it can also be pointed out that any edition D&D is a pretty odd choice of system in the first place for doing this. Why sit down with a finely grained, one might say overwrought system and then take pride in not actually using it when there are systems that try to facilitate this style of play directly with higher-level abstractions?

[Temperjoke]

In the midst of all the "hell yeah screw the rules" and saying this is a valid way of playing, I think it can also be pointed out that any edition D&D is a pretty odd choice of system in the first place for doing this. Why sit down with a finely grained, one might say overwrought system and then take pride in not actually using it when there are systems that try to facilitate this style of play directly with higher-level abstractions?

I don't think it's "hell yeah screw the rules" necessarily, I think it's more "don't sweat the small details". Which tends to make things more enjoyable than a 3 hour argument on whether you can do something because the rules don't specify that you can't do a particular thing.

[Zman]

{scrubbed}

[Temperjoke]

Firstly, feel free to report me, I have no problem receiving an infraction for calling out an Internet bully and attempting to keep the forums from being perpetually trolled by you. I'm sick of every thread I open filled with your gibberish and then watching each thread devolve due to your posts.

In fact, you did say the OP was playing the game wrong, the implication being that it was wrong... Maybe I just misunderstood literally the first sentence of your first post where you said he was "doing it wrong."

Accusing me of trolling is cute, when you are spamming multiple threads with your incompetent RAW arguments, and each time someone points out how you are wrong, you generally ignore it or worse double down on a failed logic thread. I know a lot of people are waiting for your response to the multitude of issues and points that have been made to counter your arguments or claims. I know I'm still waiting on your evidence that a Wizard is as good as a Fighter or Barbarian at Fightering in levels 1-4.

You attempt to use facts, logic, and statistics, but your understanding of the game and the complex interactions is so infantile you fail to understand how pointless many of your "statistics" are, how the things you attempt to argue are worthless or of little value i.e. Focusing on a tree and missing the forest, or how your particular interpretation of the rules is not universal and often times a minority opinion or erroneous interpretation. Given the plethora of problems with your far from unbiased analysis, you keep touting its impartiality and infallibility. It is quite tiresome.

*picks up a microphone*

Excuse me, but I think you dropped this.

[Regitnui]

I don't think it's "hell yeah screw the rules" necessarily, I think it's more "don't sweat the small details". Which tends to make things more enjoyable than a 3 hour argument on whether you can do something because the rules don't specify that you can't do a particular thing.

That's pretty much it. Other games have more complex rules for social and roleplaying, but 5e has taken D&D's usual stance on the subject; "Skill checks and role-playing cover it"; and codified it with the Inspiration mechanic.

[Finieous]

With that said, that Heinlein quote is completely ridiculous for a number of reasons.

Presumably this view evolved after his career as a naval officer during his anarchist period. :smallbiggrin:

[Roughishguy86]

I don't think i have ever played a RAW game in my life. not since playing AD&D with my parents and there friends when i was 11. RAW is only really useful when arguing on the internet. And establishing a baseline to figure out what you want to be able to do with the system.

[Typewriter]

I've had to largely ignore gaming forums because of the disconnect that I feel exists between board (RAW) discussions and how the game is actually played. I understand why RAW is used as a focal point for discussion - neutral ground - but it tends to make conversations very one-sided. I DMed 3.5 and then PF for nearly 10 years and found that monks were among the most useful characters and casters were terrible. The book of nine swords was so OP that it completely broke balance. When I tried to ask for help online people wouldn't respond to the problems I was having - they would talk about how those problems didn't exist because I was wrong. I understand that, if played correctly, a wizard breaks the game completely. Do you understand that of the ~30 arcane casters from ~11 players over the last 10 years the most impressive thing any of them has done is a well placed fireball?

[Segev]

I've had to largely ignore gaming forums because of the disconnect that I feel exists between board (RAW) discussions and how the game is actually played. I understand why RAW is used as a focal point for discussion - neutral ground - but it tends to make conversations very one-sided. I DMed 3.5 and then PF for nearly 10 years and found that monks were among the most useful characters and casters were terrible. The book of nine swords was so OP that it completely broke balance. When I tried to ask for help online people wouldn't respond to the problems I was having - they would talk about how those problems didn't exist because I was wrong. I understand that, if played correctly, a wizard breaks the game completely. Do you understand that of the ~30 arcane casters from ~11 players over the last 10 years the most impressive thing any of them has done is a well placed fireball?

I'm sorry to hear people didn't heed that you were specifically experiencing problems, and told you you weren't. While it is likely that the problems don't exist in general, anything can happen at a specific table, and the correct thing to do then is help the person asking for help to figure out what is causing the issues and give advice on how to rectify them. This may be as simple as pointing out how to use the existing rules to fix the issues, or it may require suggesting house rules or adjustments to the same.

[YCombinator]

Nope, you're doing this forum wrong.

The prevailing opinion of almost everyone I've talked to on this forum is deeply seated in the idea that the goal of the game is to have fun, roleplaying aspects are strongly emphasized over mechanical aspects, and the rules are just there as good guidelines but when it comes down to it home brew and house rules are always a possibility.

You definitely do have lots of folks trying to minimax a character, or abide by the rules as written or rules as intended just to see what they can do. For example role up a specific fictional character using only the PHB and WotC published materials. That's all good fun as well but the idea that this is a flexible game of role playing.

I don't know how you missed it but read a little closer. Every crazy idea I've seen here is generally met with "Will it be fun? Who cares about the rules." more than "That's not in the DMG, so you can't play that way."

[Demonslayer666]

I agree with most others here that if you are having fun, you aren't doing it wrong.

D&D simply allows you to apply mechanics to your story, but it's your story. If you want a character to automatically succeed, you just say it happens, you don't have to roll a skill check every single time simply because the there are rules for skill checks. That's the beauty of role playing games with a game master.

I like playing by rules as written, and I also DM that way so my players know what to expect and aren't surprised with on the fly rule changes. There's nothing more annoying than having a the DM say "it doesn't work like that in my game" the first time you use an ability. Well, why didn't you say that before we started playing? I would never have taken that had I known. :P

[Sigreid]

You'd be doing 5e wrong if you took this forum as anything beyond opinions to maybe consider. Books even say it's your game and you should make the play yours.

[KorvinStarmast]

Judging by many posts on the 5e Forum, I have been playing and more importantly DM'ing/GM'ing/Refereing RPG's mostly wrong since I started in the hobby over 35 years ago, as there seems to be an effort to adhere to RAW that simply has never occured to me.
My game philosophy has been rather loose and another poster on another thread wrote it better then I have

You're right, they're wrong. It's that simple.

If you know the history of D&D then yes you are doing it wrong. I guess you really don't get it. He actually lived the history of D&D at the table. If you read his OP again, you might detect a mild trace of sarcasm. Maybe. :smallwink:

[Knaight]

So you are playing the game the way the creator meant it to be played.
Good for you and keep going, have fun and don't worry about internet whiners.

It's the way a creator meant to be played. It also contradicts the way another creator meant it to be played, and that's just the original big two. Looking at the more recent ones, you get yet more views.

However, the odds of any of these people being in your group are vanishingly small, so their opinion is worth approximately nothing for your home game.

[Dreadfull]

Please stop. Your insults are not helping and in fact can be seen as trolling since it is repeated. Remember attack the facts not the poster as per the forum rules.

You are in fact playing it wrong, but you can do that and have plenty of fun.

I don't believe I have an 'infallible' understanding of RAW. I frequently get shown rules that are different than I believe the game is run. I simply admit I'm wrong and move on, unlike some here.

I don't belittle others in any way shape or form. If others believe this then they are reading waaay too much into my posts that isn't there.

I don't have a superiority complex. I simply use facts, logic, and statistics to back up my view points. I know that is foreign to most people who run almost solely on their emotions.

No one in this thread said the OP was having the wrong kind of fun.

Just stop before a mod notices the forum rules you are breaking.

so this is not attacking people but their posts? I see clearly aimend comments in there that are definently not as nice or as high above emotions as you are trying to let us believe with the post in question.


On topic though. I freeform a lot as DM and have been doing so in a lot of my campaigns. i try to hold to RAW as much as possible but this is simply not always do-able (for instance when one of my players just doesnt know the rules well enough to use his character abilities i dont want to waste 10 minutes looking up). But thankfully the 5e version is very predictable in most kinds of rolls and seems pretty liniar in most progressions so making an on the fly decision doesnt always ahve that "feel" to it that its quick and dirty. So having fun and keeping the game progressing are way more important than the base rules. You are not playing D&D wrong but it would probably not hurt when you try and stick to the rules as much as possible without letting it become obsessive.

[NewDM]

You're right, they're wrong. It's that simple.
I guess you really don't get it. He actually lived the history of D&D at the table. If you read his OP again, you might detect a mild trace of sarcasm. Maybe. :smallwink:

The early editions of D&D Don't allow for house rules. So in that sense when he played them he was doing it wrong. Later editions (3.x+) inserted rule 0 that said the DM can do whatever they want. From that point on, he wasn't playing it wrong.


so this is not attacking people but their posts? I see clearly aimend comments in there that are definently not as nice or as high above emotions as you are trying to let us believe with the post in question.


On topic though. I freeform a lot as DM and have been doing so in a lot of my campaigns. i try to hold to RAW as much as possible but this is simply not always do-able (for instance when one of my players just doesnt know the rules well enough to use his character abilities i dont want to waste 10 minutes looking up). But thankfully the 5e version is very predictable in most kinds of rolls and seems pretty liniar in most progressions so making an on the fly decision doesnt always ahve that "feel" to it that its quick and dirty. So having fun and keeping the game progressing are way more important than the base rules. You are not playing D&D wrong but it would probably not hurt when you try and stick to the rules as much as possible without letting it become obsessive.

Unfortunately the powers above have indicated not to respond to posts such as this, so I won't.

[kaoskonfety]

As someone who started long before there was an internet to tell me I was doing it wrong: You are not doing it wrong. Do not listen to the internet, this way lies madness. Also if the internet is to believed every illness you ever have will be cancer.

I'm pretty much in the original posters camp: I read the rules well outside of play, but looking up rules during the game is a waste of everyones time. If its important (such as a technicality on someones class features) I make an 'in the moment call' while calling out this is what I'm doing, usually in the players favour, and we look it up after.

The only time we regularly crack the tomes mid-play is when someone hasn't documented their spells or features well enough to use them (you know who you are - you'd thin k after 20 odd years they'ed learn)

[Kurald Galain]

The early editions of D&D Don't allow for house rules.

I have no idea where you got this from, but documents with long lists of houserules for 1E were common back when the internet still ran off XMosaic...

[NewDM]

I have no idea where you got this from, but documents with long lists of houserules for 1E were common back when the internet still ran off XMosaic...

Yes, but the actual rules of the game did not say house rules were ok to use. They read more like war game manuals.

[kaoskonfety]

The early editions of D&D Don't allow for house rules. So in that sense when he played them he was doing it wrong. Later editions (3.x+) inserted rule 0 that said the DM can do whatever they want. From that point on, he wasn't playing it wrong.


"didn't allow for houserules"?

what? How did you play without house rules? Did you actually run the game exactly as presented in Gygaxes wandering, mildly condescending, prose? 1hp/1 spell wizards and all?

That is some dedication.

Is this one of those "the rule that the DM can do what they please is not expressly spelled out so they clearly are not allowed to" arguments? Cause if so you are going to make be break out my 1st edition DMG and read the STD and Struck by Lightning tables and laugh out loud for a bit... and for this I thank you... been too long since I dusted that off

[comk59]

Yes, but the actual rules of the game did not say house rules were ok to use. They read more like war game manuals.

I regularly play war games, and those require houserules all the time.

[NewDM]

I regularly play war games, and those require houserules all the time.

Back when D&D was new, they almost never used house rules. They were more like military exercises requiring precise execution to work properly.


"didn't allow for houserules"?

what? How did you play without house rules? Did you actually run the game exactly as presented in Gygaxes wandering, mildly condescending, prose? 1hp/1 spell wizards and all?

That is some dedication.

Is this one of those "the rule that the DM can do what they please is not expressly spelled out so they clearly are not allowed to" arguments? Cause if so you are going to make be break out my 1st edition DMG and read the STD and Struck by Lightning tables and laugh out loud for a bit... and for this I thank you... been too long since I dusted that off

I didn't say they didn't NEED house rules. I just said you weren't supposed to use them. Almost everyone did use house rules because the game was otherwise nearly unplayable to the point that it was a pre-cursor to the Dark Souls series of games. Just leaving your bed in the morning was a risky proposition.

[Kurald Galain]

Yes, but the actual rules of the game did not say house rules were ok to use. They read more like war game manuals.

Again, I have no idea where you're getting that from, but the layout and chapter division and even the spells and magical items lists haven't changed much ever since 1E. And Rule Zero obviously predates 3E as well.

[mgshamster]

From the 1e DMG's introduction, "The game is the thing, and certain rules can be distorted or disregarded altogether in favor of play."

From the 2e DMG's introduction, "In short, follow the rules as they are written if doing so improves your game. But by the same token, break the rules only if doing so improves your game."

[Finieous]

The early editions of D&D Don't allow for house rules.

Gary Gygax had house rules for OD&D. http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/3898/roleplaying-games/gary-gygaxs-house-rules-for-odd

But there's also clear evidence that he wasn't entirely happy with not only the game's allowance for house rules, but actually reliance on them. In The Dragon #26, he wrote:



Because D&D allowed such freedom, because the work itself said so, because the initial batch of DMs were so imaginative and creative, because the rules wre incomplete, vague and often ambiguous, D&D has turned into a non-game. That is, there is so much variation between the way the game is played from region to region, state to state, area to area, and even from group to group within a metropolitan district, there is no continuity and little agreement as to just what the game is and how best to play it. Without destroying the imagination and individual creativity which go into a campaign, AD&D rectifies the shortcomings of D&D. There are few grey areas in AD&D, and there will be no question in the mind of participants as to what the game is and is all about. There is form and structure to AD&D, and any variation of these integral portions of the game will obviously make it something else.


This was in 1979, and it's hard to tell at this remove whether Gary was really and truly sick of house rules or was pimping AD&D, or a little of both. In any case, we went on to house rule AD&D as much as ever, and Gary left us this Afterword in the DMG:



AFTERWORD
IT IS THE SPIRIT OF THE GAME, NOT THE LETTER OF THE RULES, WHICH IS IMPORTANT. NEVER HOLD TO THE LETTER WRITTEN, NOR ALLOW SOME BARRACKS ROOM LAWYER TO FORCE QUOTATIONS FROM THE RULE BOOK UPON YOU, IF IT GOES AGAINST THE OBVIOUS INTENT OF THE GAME. AS YOU HEW THE LINE WITH RESPECT TO CONFORMITY TO MAJOR SYSTEMS AND UNIFORMITY OF PLAY IN GENERAL, ALSO BE CERTAIN THE GAME IS MASTERED BY YOU AND NOT BY YOUR PLAYERS. WITHIN THE BROAD PARAMETERS GIVEN IN THE ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS VOLUMES, YOU ARE CREATOR AND FINAL ARBITER. BY ORDERING THINGS AS THEY SHOULD BE, THE GAME AS A WHOLE FIRST, YOUR CAMPAIGN NEXT, AND YOUR PARTICIPANTS THEREAFTER, YOU WILL BE PLAYING ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS AS IT WAS MEANT TO BE. MAY YOU FIND AS MUCH PLEASURE IN SO DOING AS THE REST OF US DO!

[Kurald Galain]

From the 1e DMG's introduction, "The game is the thing, and certain rules can be distorted or disregarded altogether in favor of play."

From the 2e DMG's introduction, "In short, follow the rules as they are written if doing so improves your game. But by the same token, break the rules only if doing so improves your game."


Gary Gygax had house rules for OD&D. http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/3898/roleplaying-games/gary-gygaxs-house-rules-for-odd

But there's also clear evidence that he wasn't entirely happy with not only the game's allowance for house rules, but actually reliance on them. In The Dragon #26, he wrote:

This was in 1979, and it's hard to tell at this remove whether Gary was really and truly sick of house rules or was pimping AD&D, or a little of both. In any case, we went on to house rule AD&D as much as ever, and Gary left us this Afterword in the DMG:

Thank you.

Myth: BUSTED.

[smcmike]

That was .... thorough.

[mgshamster]

"Barracks room lawyer" is a term that has always made me giggle a bit.

[NewDM]

Thank you.

Myth: BUSTED.

I like how you leave out the part that talks about not having to house rule in AD&D.

In reality it was a kind of rivalry between two different major developers where they constantly contradicted each other, one saying no house rules should be used and the other saying house rules should be used if it makes more sense than the actual rules.

[mgshamster]

I like how you leave out the part that talks about not having to house rule in AD&D.

In reality it was a kind of rivalry between two different major developers where they constantly contradicted each other, one saying no house rules should be used and the other saying house rules should be used if it makes more sense than the actual rules.

By "leave out the part" are you talking about the automatic quote removal in the GitP programming? Or are you claiming that he's ignoring the snippet from a magazine in favor of what's written in the actual DMG?

Or are you talking about a different quote altogether that you haven't bothered to post yet?

[Regitnui]

Gary Gygax had house rules for OD&D. http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/3898/roleplaying-games/gary-gygaxs-house-rules-for-odd

But there's also clear evidence that he wasn't entirely happy with not only the game's allowance for house rules, but actually reliance on them. In The Dragon #26, he wrote:

This was in 1979, and it's hard to tell at this remove whether Gary was really and truly sick of house rules or was pimping AD&D, or a little of both. In any case, we went on to house rule AD&D as much as ever, and Gary left us this Afterword in the DMG:


Thank you.

Myth: BUSTED.


I like how you leave out the part that talks about not having to house rule in AD&D.

In reality it was a kind of rivalry between two different major developers where they constantly contradicted each other, one saying no house rules should be used and the other saying house rules should be used if it makes more sense than the actual rules.

What? :smallconfused:

Those were both Gary Gygax. I'm trying to see your logic, but I really can't. How do two quotes by the same person prove a "rivalry between two different major developers"? Especially since they go unnamed in your story. Are you allergic to being disproved?

[Finieous]

I like how you leave out the part that talks about not having to house rule in AD&D.


The quoted passage suggests Gygax hoped AD&D would provide a more solid foundation for a game that wouldn't need house rules. It does not support your contention that "early D&D" didn't allow house rules. If anything, Gygax seems to have hoped that original D&D would continue to be the vehicle for rampant house ruling, experimentation, and customization. Again, from The Dragon:



The D&D game will always be with us, and that is a good thing. The D&D system allows the highly talented, individualistic, and imaginative hobbyist a vehicle for devising an adventure game form which is tailored to him or her and his or her group. One can take great liberties with the game and not be questioned.




In reality it was a kind of rivalry between two different major developers where they constantly contradicted each other, one saying no house rules should be used and the other saying house rules should be used if it makes more sense than the actual rules.

I really don't know where you get this. I'm not even sure what "two major developers" you're talking about. Gygax and Arneson? Gygax and Holmes? Moldvay and Cook? Mentzer? There was a lot of parallel development of D&D happening in the late 70s and early 80s, in the various simultaneously published versions of the game, in Dragon, in fanzines, etc. Some of this work actually grew out of house rules or was explicitly the development of house rules, but none of it, as far as I recall, demanded that no house rules be used.

[NewDM]

The accepted answer to this question: http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/2089/what-are-the-differences-between-holmes-moldvay-and-mentzer-dd gives the big overview of the rivalry.

"Holmes presents the game as rules to be followed. Moldvay presents the game as guidelines to be considered." quote from the link above.

[smcmike]

The accepted answer to this question: http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/2089/what-are-the-differences-between-holmes-moldvay-and-mentzer-dd gives the big overview of the rivalry.

"Holmes presents the game as rules to be followed. Moldvay presents the game as guidelines to be considered." quote from the link above.

This is a nice history, but it doesn't support your assertion that all editions prior to 3.x did not allow house rules. Still, interesting, since I know very little about the early development of the game.

[Blue Lantern]

I've got to say, as derails go, this is a most interesting one.

[mgshamster]

The accepted answer to this question: http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/2089/what-are-the-differences-between-holmes-moldvay-and-mentzer-dd gives the big overview of the rivalry.

"Holmes presents the game as rules to be followed. Moldvay presents the game as guidelines to be considered." quote from the link above.

Your entire evidence for that whole history of early D&D didn't allow for house rules is a single line on a blog doing historical comparisons of the early editions that states (without evidence) that one of the multiple authors and publishers wanted the rules to be followed?

[Regitnui]

Your entire evidence for that whole history of early D&D didn't allow for house rules is a single line on a blog doing historical comparisons of the early editions that states (without evidence) that one of the multiple authors and publishers wanted the rules to be followed?

I've formed opinions on less. I'm usually opened to correction though, and that doesn't make house rules wrong in any edition, just a nice but of history from before the game rules were codified.

[NewDM]

It may not have been 'all' editions, however the 1E DMG has this to say:

"ADVANCED D&D is more than a framework around which individual DMs construct their respective milieux, it is above all a set of boundaries for all of the "worlds" devised by referees everywhere. These boundaries are broad and spacious, and there are numerous areas where they are so vague and amorphous as to make them nearly nonexistent, but they are there nonetheless."

Which indicates RAW is meant to be followed.

OD&D, 2E, 3.x, and 5e all say house rule whatever you want.

[mgshamster]

I've formed opinions on less. I'm usually opened to correction though, and that doesn't make house rules wrong in any edition, just a nice but of history from before the game rules were codified.

Oh, don't get me wrong; it is a nice bit of history. I'm willing to believe it's accurate, only because there doesn't seem to be any reason for it not to be and they do provide some citations.

However, the statement in question was not one of the statements that came with a citation; it was simply stated.

[Finieous]

The accepted answer to this question: http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/2089/what-are-the-differences-between-holmes-moldvay-and-mentzer-dd gives the big overview of the rivalry.

"Holmes presents the game as rules to be followed. Moldvay presents the game as guidelines to be considered." quote from the link above.

Dr. Holmes was hired to edit OD&D into a form more accessible to new players. Moldvay and Cook were tasked with creating a new edition of D&D. Notably, neither was original D&D, so neither should be used to support a contention that "original D&D didn't allow house rules." I've never seen any evidence for a "rivalry" between Holmes and Moldvay.

Stepping back to original D&D, there were big differences in the way Gygax and Arneson ran OD&D. Here's what Gygax had to say about it in A&E in 1975:



Dave and I disagree on how to handle any number of things, and both of our campaigns differ from the "rules" found in DandD. If the time ever comes when all aspects of fantasy are covered and the vast majority of its players agree on how the game should be played, DandD will have become staid and boring indeed. Sorry, but I don't believe that there is anything desirable in having various campaigns playing similarly to one another. DandD is supposed to offer a challenge to the imagination and to do so in many ways. Perhaps the most important is in regard to what the probabilities of a given situation are. If players know what all of the monster parameters are, what can be expected in a given situation, exactly what will happen to them if they perform thus and so, most of the charm of the game is gone. Frankly, the reason I enjoy playing in Dave Arneson's campaign is that I do not know his treatments of monsters and suchlike, so I must keep thinking and reasoning in order to "survive". Now, for example, if I made a proclamation from on high which suited Mr. Johnstone, it would certainly be quite unacceptable to hundreds or even thousands of other players. My answer is, and has always been, if you don't like the way I do it, change the bloody rules to suit yourself and your players. DandD enthusiasts are far too individualistic and imaginative a bunch to be in agreement, and I certainly refuse to play god for them -- except as a referee in my own campaign where they jolly well better toe the mark.



It may not have been 'all' editions, however the 1E DMG has this to say:

"ADVANCED D&D is more than a framework around which individual DMs construct their respective milieux, it is above all a set of boundaries for all of the "worlds" devised by referees everywhere. These boundaries are broad and spacious, and there are numerous areas where they are so vague and amorphous as to make them nearly nonexistent, but they are there nonetheless."

Which indicates RAW is meant to be followed.


How you get from "broad and spacious boundaries," then mix in the quote I posted from the DMG, to get "RAW is meant to be followed" I have no idea.

[mgshamster]

It may not have been 'all' editions, however the 1E DMG has this to say:

"ADVANCED D&D is more than a framework around which individual DMs construct their respective milieux, it is above all a set of boundaries for all of the "worlds" devised by referees everywhere. These boundaries are broad and spacious, and there are numerous areas where they are so vague and amorphous as to make them nearly nonexistent, but they are there nonetheless."

Which indicates RAW is meant to be followed.

OD&D, 2E, 3.x, and 5e all say house rule whatever you want.

I don't think you can pick and choose a quote that says the book is a framework while ignoring the quotes which says to cut out rules as necessary.

From the introduction:

"Read how and why the system is as it is, follow the parameters, and then cut portions as needed to maintain excitement." It then goes on to explain how and why you can cut out portions of the game you don't like to improve the quality of the game.

[NewDM]

I don't think you can pick and choose a quote that says the book is a framework while ignoring the quotes which says to cut out rules as necessary.

From the introduction:

"Read how and why the system is as it is, follow the parameters, and then cut portions as needed to maintain excitement." It then goes on to explain how and why you can cut out portions of the game you don't like to improve the quality of the game.

The above paragraph would actually be a rule and if it gives details its not even a broad rule.

[mgshamster]

The above paragraph would actually be a rule and if it gives details its not even a broad rule.

Since it's the introduction, it's before the rules. A "pre-rule," if you will. One that occurs before the other rules. You might even call it Rule 0.


Later editions (3.x+) inserted rule 0 that said the DM can do whatever they want.

[Regitnui]

It may not have been 'all' editions, however the 1E DMG has this to say:

"ADVANCED D&D is more than a framework around which individual DMs construct their respective milieux, it is above all a set of boundaries for all of the "worlds" devised by referees everywhere. These boundaries are broad and spacious, and there are numerous areas where they are so vague and amorphous as to make them nearly nonexistent, but they are there nonetheless."

Which indicates RAW is meant to be followed.

OD&D, 2E, 3.x, and 5e all say house rule whatever you want.

Actually, I draw the opposite conclusion. That says to me that there's plenty of room within the game prescribed by the rules for my game, which doesn't pressure me to follow strict RAW. So rule 0 and house rules were allowed in the game from the beginning. Appropriate, when you consider that the game was originally just a bunch of house rules.

[JoeJ]

To the OP:

Does the game you play feature a Dragon sitting on a pile of treasure, in a Dungeon? Can someone play a Wizard with a magic wand, or a warrior in armor, wielding a longbow?

[Scots Dragon]

To the OP:

Does the game you play feature a Dragon sitting on a pile of treasure, in a Dungeon? Can someone play a Wizard with a magic wand, or a warrior in armor, wielding a longbow?
Hell, one of the features of D&D is that the wizard doesn't even technically need a magic wand. They have their own spells.

[KorvinStarmast]

@narsil
He was referring to a picture on a box that held the Holmes game. I still have it.


This is a nice history, but it doesn't support your assertion that all editions prior to 3.x did not allow house rules. Nothing can, because house rules were the habit, not the exception, in the early going.

NewDM is Dead Wrong.

Back when D&D was new, they almost never used house rules. They were more like military exercises requiring precise execution to work properly.
Dead Wrong Twice.

Since I played Chainmail, OD&D, Holmes, and AD&D 1e A Lot -- Moldvay/Mentzer, 2e a bit -- I actually know how they worked and where folks used to fill in the blanks. {scrubbed}

1. In the 1st edition of AD&D, the DMG explicitly encourages DMs to house rule. E G Gygax brings this up time and again in his various expositions in that tome.

2. The foundation for house rules as the norm were laid In The Beginning.
See Wilderness and Underworld Adventures, TSR, 1974, Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson, Volume 3 of OD&D, page 36. Italics and bolds added by me to spell it out more clearly.


AFTERWARD:
There are unquestionably areas which have been glossed over. While we deeply regret the necessity, space requires that we put in the essentials only, and the
trimming will oftimes have to be added by the referee and his players.

We have attempted to furnish an ample framework, and building should be both easy and fun. In this light, we urge you to refrain from writing for rule interpretations or the like unless you are absolutely at a loss, for everything herein is fantastic, and the best way is to decide how you would like it to be, and then make it just that way!

On the other hand, we are not loath to answer your questions, but why have us do any more of your imagining for you? Write to us and tell about your additions, ideas, and what have you. We could always do with a bit of improvement in our refereeing

[2D8HP]

To the OP:

Does the game you play feature a Dragon sitting on a pile of treasure,to in a Dungeon? Can someone play a Wizard with a magic wand, or a warrior in armor, wielding a longbow?
JoeJ,
As a matter of fact yes, how did you guess? :smallwink:
What an evocative scene you just described.
I can almost picture it.
I wonder what inspired you? :smallbiggrin:
WHATEVER THE RULES I WANT TO PLAY THAT GAME!

From the 1977 Holmes "Basic" rules, I miss:
Being able to know all the rules. How enchanting the box illustration looked.

-SNIP-
All that said, if the game features a Dragon sitting on a pile of treasure, in a Dungeon and you play a Wizard with a magic wand, or a warrior in armor, wielding a longbow, just like the picture on the box I picked up in 1978, whatever the edition, I want to play that game!

[Sigreid]

I like how you leave out the part that talks about not having to house rule in AD&D.

In reality it was a kind of rivalry between two different major developers where they constantly contradicted each other, one saying no house rules should be used and the other saying house rules should be used if it makes more sense than the actual rules.

You don't have to house rule in any game. Not even 5e. Some house rules may make the game fun for your table, but you can play it just fine out of the box.

[JoeJ]

JoeJ,
As a matter of fact yes, how did you guess? :smallwink:

Just lucky. :smalltongue:
It sounds like you're doing it right, though.


What an evocative scene you just described.
I can almost picture it.
I wonder what inspired you? :smallbiggrin:
WHATEVER THE RULES I WANT TO PLAY THAT GAME!


Amazing coincidence, hunh?

[krugaan]

You don't have to house rule in any game. Not even 5e. Some house rules may make the game fun for your table, but you can play it just fine out of the box.

THE BOX KEEPS US SAFE!

THE GREAT LID SHIELDS US FROM ALL HARM!

It's cardboardy might is truth, all unbelievers shall be slain.

[2D8HP]

O. K. I had planned to write a serious response to all the great posts in this thread, and while I still hope to, first:

THE BOX KEEPS US SAFE!

THE GREAT LID SHIELDS US FROM ALL HARM!

It's cardboardy might is truth, all unbelievers shall be slain.
Oh my sweet lord, how much I want both a poster and a T-Shirt with this quote and an image of the "Basic" Set box cover!
IT MUST BE MINE!

[NewDM]

You don't have to house rule in any game. Not even 5e. Some house rules may make the game fun for your table, but you can play it just fine out of the box.

So you've never actually read the earlier editions I take it? (You could have played them, but not actually read through all the rules). In several of the earlier editions the rules were so strict and difficult that player routinely died multiple times per sessions (their characters too :smallsmile:). For instance there was an X% chance that listening to a door would give a new home to some brain rot grubs, which would drive you mad and kill you with no save or a very hard save. If you too 30 damage from a single source you had to make a special save (called a system shock save) or flat out die. Most monsters from 10th level and up would regularly deal that kind of damage. Different editions had different massive damage thresholds, but in general if you got hit by a giant or a dragon you were gone.

House ruling was done by almost everyone, that doesn't mean it was allowed by the rules. I've already shown where they tell you not to go outside the rules in at least one book. The problem here is people are using multiple definitions of house rules.

House Rules - A rule created by a DM/Player that contradicts a rule already in play.

DM Fiat - A choice by a DM withing established rules that does not contradict a rule.

The quote I posted above clearly says there are boundaries (rules), but that DMs can work within those boundaries to make a unique world (DM Fiat).

[Regitnui]

House ruling was done by almost everyone, that doesn't mean it was allowed by the rules. I've already shown where they tell you not to go outside the rules in at least one book. The problem here is people are using multiple definitions of house rules.

House Rules - A rule created by a DM/Player that contradicts a rule already in play.

DM Fiat - A choice by a DM withing established rules that does not contradict a rule.

The quote I posted above clearly says there are boundaries (rules), but that DMs can work within those boundaries to make a unique world (DM Fiat).

And what about the quotes the other people posted where the original creators encouraged house ruling and adding on to the game? We get it, NewDM, you don't like house rules, but don't try to prove that playing with or creating them is wrong, because it clearly isn't.

[krugaan]

House Rules - A rule created by a DM/Player that contradicts a rule already in play.

DM Fiat - A choice by a DM withing established rules that does not contradict a rule.

The quote I posted above clearly says there are boundaries (rules), but that DMs can work within those boundaries to make a unique world (DM Fiat).

I fail to see how DM Fiat is in anyway different than a house rule, because players can't make house rules.

You're redefining on the fly.

[JoeJ]

I fail to see how DM Fiat is in anyway different than a house rule, because players can't make house rules.

You're redefining on the fly.

If I'm understanding him correctly, it's something like this:

House rule - orcs can climb on walls and ceilings like giant spiders.
DM fiat - there are orcs in the dungeon your character is about to enter.

[krugaan]

If I'm understanding him correctly, it's something like this:

House rule - orcs can climb on walls and ceilings like giant spiders.
DM fiat - there are orcs in the dungeon your character is about to enter.

Thats ... what?

That sounds like everything a DM does is DM fiat. Which is true, because, he's the DM. Dungeons and Dragons runs on DM fiat.

[JoeJ]

Thats ... what?

That sounds like everything a DM does is DM fiat. Which is true, because, he's the DM. Dungeons and Dragons runs on DM fiat.

Yes it does. That is, however, how I would parse what NewDM wrote. I will leave it to him to clarify if that was what he meant.

[Regitnui]

Yes it does. That is, however, how I would parse what NewDM wrote. I will leave it to him to clarify if that was what he meant.

It isn't, of course. He'll be along to explain how we all misunderstood shortly.

This is how I see it;
DM fiat is something that the DM declares to be true; I.e. that the BBEG's lair has private sanctum cast on it, which prevents any form of scrying. That's the main engine of what makes the game run.

A house rule is an alternative or supplemental rule that all at the table agree on to solve a problem. A ruling made to keep game flow going, checked and corrected during a break or after a session is DM fiat. Say that the table decides that spells don't trigger AoOs. That's a house rule.

[krugaan]

It isn't, of course. He'll be along to explain how we all misunderstood shortly.

This is how I see it;
DM fiat is something that the DM declares to be true; I.e. that the BBEG's lair has private sanctum cast on it, which prevents any form of scrying. That's the main engine of what makes the game run.

A house rule is an alternative or supplemental rule that all at the table agree on to solve a problem. A ruling made to keep game flow going, checked and corrected during a break or after a session is DM fiat. Say that the table decides that spells don't trigger AoOs. That's a house rule.

That's how basically everyone sees it.

[Kurald Galain]

DM fiat is something that the DM declares to be true; I.e. that the BBEG's lair has private sanctum cast on it, which prevents any form of scrying. That's the main engine of what makes the game run.
Although it's not fiat if this is a pre-written adventure where the description of the BBEG's lair includes this spell.

[Finieous]

Dude will not stop arguing no matter how often and how demonstrably he's proven wrong. His tenacious commitment to error is admirable, in its way.

[Ace Jackson]

Although it's not fiat if this is a pre-written adventure where the description of the BBEG's lair includes this spell.

Isn't that just fiat moved by a single degree of separation from the DM? The author of the adventure said it was so, so it was so. So long as the DM did not veto it with his own fiat anyway. What is the point of distinction in your eyes?

[Demonslayer666]

@NewDM you are wrong. All editions have rouse rules because DM.

You must. The DM cannot interpret every situation strictly from the rules. The rules would have to be infinite because it is not a board game in a defined finite space with finite moves (e.g. Talisman, or a computer game like WoW). DMs have to say how everything works that isn't covered in the rules, otherwise you get the "you can't do that because it's not in the rules" syndrome.

I want to carve a Z in his tunic. Sorry, not in the rules. :smalleek:

[Knaight]

@NewDM you are wrong. All editions have rouse rules because DM.

You must. The DM cannot interpret every situation strictly from the rules. The rules would have to be infinite because it is not a board game in a defined finite space with finite moves (e.g. Talisman, or a computer game like WoW). DMs have to say how everything works that isn't covered in the rules, otherwise you get the "you can't do that because it's not in the rules" syndrome.

I want to carve a Z in his tunic. Sorry, not in the rules. :smalleek:

If the rules have a set of general instructions for covering edge cases (which they generally do), that's not house ruling. That's just DM adjudication, where they are using rules that require the DM to make decisions.

[Kurald Galain]

Isn't that just fiat moved by a single degree of separation from the DM? The author of the adventure said it was so, so it was so. So long as the DM did not veto it with his own fiat anyway. What is the point of distinction in your eyes?

In my view, there is a distinction between (a) it was decided in advance by the DM or adventure writer that an NPC had such-and-such abilities or countermeasures, and (b) the players try something unexpected and the DM decides on the spot that it doesn't work.

[Ace Jackson]

In my view, there is a distinction between (a) it was decided in advance by the DM or adventure writer that an NPC had such-and-such abilities or countermeasures, and (b) the players try something unexpected and the DM decides on the spot that it doesn't work.

That's fair. Thanks for the clarification.

[Demonslayer666]

If the rules have a set of general instructions for covering edge cases (which they generally do), that's not house ruling. That's just DM adjudication, where they are using rules that require the DM to make decisions.

Then you define house rule differently than I do.

When one DM will rule it works one way, and another will rule it works differently, that is a house rule to me.

[Knaight]

Then you define house rule differently than I do.

When one DM will rule it works one way, and another will rule it works differently, that is a house rule to me.

By your definition, huge numbers of games don't have rules so much as rule creation guidelines, almost all of which are called rules.

[busterswd]

In my games:
House rule: 20s on an ability check will be a critical success. (Note: players don't get to roll on things that are literally impossible)

DM Adjucation: Since there isn't cover, the beholder is capable of following a specific player with its central eye, even if they move around.

DM Fiat: "You discover the annoying shopkeeper's house is made of Timbercil, the wood that won't burn. Stop trying to steal 25 GP worth of stuff by smoking him out of his house."

[krugaan]

DM Fiat: "You discover the annoying shopkeeper's house is made of Timbercil, the wood that won't burn. Stop trying to steal 25 GP worth of stuff by smoking him out of his house."

That's how I see DM Fiat. "Because I said so, I don't have to tell you why. You can try find out though."

[busterswd]

That's how I see DM Fiat. "Because I said so, I don't have to tell you why. You can try find out though."

True, but I'll generally inject silliness (Timbercil is a RL brand of glass reinforced wood) into a campaign to make it clear that they're no amount of investigation/player shenanigans are going to override my countermeasures, and that they need to move on. In this case, a player was wasting time trying to case the joint to acquire things the party would likely to be able to scavenge pretty soon, to the point where he was breaking into other neighboring houses and trying to get a good angle to set the guy's house on fire. It was disruptive and a waste of time over something inconsequential, so instead of dealing with the aftermath of a burning village and probably ending the campaign, I joked about the situation and moved on.

I feel like there are rare, but proper times for DM fiat, and when you do exercise it, you don't have to be inscrutable about it. Presenting it as "you can try to find out" indicates that they might have a chance of success on something that was already eating up session time.

[NewDM]

To me DM fiat is when the rules have plenty of leeway in them and one DM will rule one way and another will rule another way. Such as the 5e skill system.

A rough craggy cliff face might be a moderately hard check to one DM and to another it might be a nearly impossible check. Both DMs are perfectly whithin the rules which say to decide for yourself whether the check is easy, moderate, hard, very hard or nearly impossible. This is DM fiat to me.

A house rule would be saying that on a natural 20 attack roll, you get to roll on a critical hit table and possible instantly kill the opponent. This is because it directly contravenes the rules that say a creature only dies when their hit points reach 0 unless otherwise specified in the rules.

[JoeJ]

To me DM fiat is when the rules have plenty of leeway in them and one DM will rule one way and another will rule another way. Such as the 5e skill system.

A rough craggy cliff face might be a moderately hard check to one DM and to another it might be a nearly impossible check. Both DMs are perfectly whithin the rules which say to decide for yourself whether the check is easy, moderate, hard, very hard or nearly impossible. This is DM fiat to me.

A house rule would be saying that on a natural 20 attack roll, you get to roll on a critical hit table and possible instantly kill the opponent. This is because it directly contravenes the rules that say a creature only dies when their hit points reach 0 unless otherwise specified in the rules.

So DM fiat just means fulfilling the normal function of a DM?

[krugaan]

True, but I'll generally inject silliness (Timbercil is a RL brand of glass reinforced wood) into a campaign to make it clear that they're no amount of investigation/player shenanigans are going to override my countermeasures, and that they need to move on. In this case, a player was wasting time trying to case the joint to acquire things the party would likely to be able to scavenge pretty soon, to the point where he was breaking into other neighboring houses and trying to get a good angle to set the guy's house on fire. It was disruptive and a waste of time over something inconsequential, so instead of dealing with the aftermath of a burning village and probably ending the campaign, I joked about the situation and moved on.

I approve of silliness. It helps to combat the ever prevalent threat of self-importance.

[Sigreid]

So you've never actually read the earlier editions I take it? (You could have played them, but not actually read through all the rules). In several of the earlier editions the rules were so strict and difficult that player routinely died multiple times per sessions (their characters too :smallsmile:). For instance there was an X% chance that listening to a door would give a new home to some brain rot grubs, which would drive you mad and kill you with no save or a very hard save. If you too 30 damage from a single source you had to make a special save (called a system shock save) or flat out die. Most monsters from 10th level and up would regularly deal that kind of damage. Different editions had different massive damage thresholds, but in general if you got hit by a giant or a dragon you were gone.

House ruling was done by almost everyone, that doesn't mean it was allowed by the rules. I've already shown where they tell you not to go outside the rules in at least one book. The problem here is people are using multiple definitions of house rules.

House Rules - A rule created by a DM/Player that contradicts a rule already in play.

DM Fiat - A choice by a DM withing established rules that does not contradict a rule.

The quote I posted above clearly says there are boundaries (rules), but that DMs can work within those boundaries to make a unique world (DM Fiat).

Yes, I've read the rules starting back in AD&D. As I said, house rules can improve the game. They are not absolutely necessary.

Edit: when the rules don't specify and the DM makes a call using his or her best judgement, that is not a house rule. That's just part of the game.

[NewDM]

So DM fiat just means fulfilling the normal function of a DM?

Yes, though it can get silly and be detrimental if it breaks verisimilitude, suspension of disbelief, or knocks the players or DM out of the 'role play' and into the 'this is absurd' mentality.

For instance the 5th or 6th time the DM has a BBEG raid your carefully warded and protected safe house 100 feet below the ground that house your clones. While still completely within the rules, kinda stretches my ability to believe as a player.

[krugaan]

Yes, though it can get silly and be detrimental if it breaks verisimilitude, suspension of disbelief, or knocks the players or DM out of the 'role play' and into the 'this is absurd' mentality.

For instance the 5th or 6th time the DM has a BBEG raid your carefully warded and protected safe house 100 feet below the ground that house your clones. While still completely within the rules, kinda stretches my ability to believe as a player.

It's like the Triforce of Dungeon Mastering:

DM FIAT - power
Good judgement - wisdom
Imagination - courage

Then you get sealed in the golden land and yet somehow keep breaking out, gosh darn it.

[NewDM]

It's like the Triforce of Dungeon Mastering:

DM FIAT - power
Good judgement - wisdom
Imagination - courage

Then you get sealed in the golden land and yet somehow keep breaking out, gosh darn it.

It only works if you look in the mirror.

Yes, for the most part I can play with any reasonable dungeon master. I have however encountered a lot of unreasonable dungeon masters that were a result of any single or combination of the following: Didn't know enough science and physics, didn't understand probability math, thought that some things should be possible/impossible that are impossible/possible in real life, and others.

I do play with a bunch of random people on the internet though.

[krugaan]

It only works if you look in the mirror.

Yes, for the most part I can play with any reasonable dungeon master. I have however encountered a lot of unreasonable dungeon masters that were a result of any single or combination of the following: Didn't know enough science and physics, didn't understand probability math, thought that some things should be possible/impossible that are impossible/possible in real life, and others.

I do play with a bunch of random people on the internet though.

Dude, I can't even imagine playing DnD with random people, especially over the internet. The odds of finding the right group makeup and player investment is so low it's like a recipe for disaster.

[NewDM]

Dude, I can't even imagine playing DnD with random people, especially over the internet. The odds of finding the right group makeup and player investment is so low it's like a recipe for disaster.

Really? I have found that about half the people I play with are reasonable. The problem with online games is scheduling, which client to use for video and voice, keeping players, and games generally fall apart.

Then of course you run into players who think D&D is a game where only the best player/character wins and the moment the DM puts them in their place they leave the game. You also run into DMs that beat players over the head with Fiat, until the players leave.

[JoeJ]

For instance the 5th or 6th time the DM has a BBEG raid your carefully warded and protected safe house 100 feet below the ground that house your clones. While still completely within the rules, kinda stretches my ability to believe as a player.

Why? Don't the PCs do exactly the same thing to the BBEG?

[NewDM]

Why? Don't the PCs do exactly the same thing to the BBEG?

Sometimes, other times they meet them on the field of battle. Also depends on the players and the adventure.

The main difference is the players spend days or weeks trying to find, infiltrate, or break into the BBEGs lair/safe house and the DM doesn't do the same. He just says "ya safe house is rekt!"

[JoeJ]

Sometimes, other times they meet them on the field of battle. Also depends on the players and the adventure.

The main difference is the players spend days or weeks trying to find, infiltrate, or break into the BBEGs lair/safe house and the DM doesn't do the same. He just says "ya safe house is rekt!"

No, the characters spent days or weeks. The players spent a couple of hours at most. Similarly, the BBEG spent days or weeks breaking into the PCs lair. And probably accidentally left some important clue behind in the process.

[Knaight]

No, the characters spent days or weeks. The players spent a couple of hours at most. Similarly, the BBEG spent days or weeks breaking into the PCs lair. And probably accidentally left some important clue behind in the process.

The BBEG probably didn't get to that status without making a fair few other enemies, which are likely to redirect focus. The tactic described sounds more like a more minor antagonist with a personal vendetta against the PCs.

Most player groups are pretty good at manufacturing those though, so there's still no issue.

[Finieous]

Dude, I can't even imagine playing DnD with random people, especially over the internet. The odds of finding the right group makeup and player investment is so low it's like a recipe for disaster.

I find it far superior to most of my experiences with traditional gaming groups, the exception being the early 80s when we were all best friends. Since then, starting in college, I'd be friends with one or two of the players, then throw in a few strangers. They were strangers to me, of course, but they usually had their own connections to others in the group, so even if they were an asshat they probably weren't getting booted. And there was always one or two asshats.

On Roll20, (good) campaigns are carefully screened for the right kind of player. This isn't foolproof, but players can also easily be booted out if the screening process fails. So far, I've applied for and was screened and accepted into one campaign as a player. That campaign went a bit more than a year and a half and we've now started the next one. As a DM, I've started one campaign fairly recently. I screened out a bunch of applicants, booted one during character creation (kind of an online Session 0), two flaked, and they've been replaced. So now I have six really good players (a mix of veterans and newbies) and we're headed into Session 5 of a weekly game. So far, one player has missed one session because she overslept. ;)

So IME, online allows you to remove a lot of the social drama from the dynamic and focus on what and who are good for the game. By the time you start the game, the players aren't really "random" anymore, but I haven't found it hard to put together a good group at all. There's a huge player pool. You just have to put in some work to sift through them.

Probably a derail. Sorry. :(

[Knaight]

I find it far superior to most of my experiences with traditional gaming groups, the exception being the early 80s when we were all best friends. Since then, starting in college, I'd be friends with one or two of the players, then throw in a few strangers. They were strangers to me, of course, but they usually had their own connections to others in the group, so even if they were an asshat they probably weren't getting booted. And there was always one or two asshats.

I haven't played D&D over the internet (except once), but I was a member of the Fudge IRC channel for a while, and played a number of games with other people from there. The deepest, most role play intensive games have been with other people from said channel with literally one exception, and even the lighter games from that channel had better role playing than the average I've seen outside of it. I wouldn't be surprised if D&D was similar, once you got through the screening process (which wasn't really necessary in that case as the community was much smaller to begin with).

[krugaan]

I find it far superior to most of my experiences with traditional gaming groups, the exception being the early 80s when we were all best friends. Since then, starting in college, I'd be friends with one or two of the players, then throw in a few strangers. They were strangers to me, of course, but they usually had their own connections to others in the group, so even if they were an asshat they probably weren't getting booted. And there was always one or two asshats.

On Roll20, (good) campaigns are carefully screened for the right kind of player. This isn't foolproof, but players can also easily be booted out if the screening process fails. So far, I've applied for and was screened and accepted into one campaign as a player. That campaign went a bit more than a year and a half and we've now started the next one. As a DM, I've started one campaign fairly recently. I screened out a bunch of applicants, booted one during character creation (kind of an online Session 0), two flaked, and they've been replaced. So now I have six really good players (a mix of veterans and newbies) and we're headed into Session 5 of a weekly game. So far, one player has missed one session because she overslept. ;)

So IME, online allows you to remove a lot of the social drama from the dynamic and focus on what and who are good for the game. By the time you start the game, the players aren't really "random" anymore, but I haven't found it hard to put together a good group at all. There's a huge player pool. You just have to put in some work to sift through them.

Probably a derail. Sorry. :(

Yes, that sounds hardly random with the screening and stuff, that's kind of neat. I've only played with friends, so, luckily,I don't have to deal with any asshats except myself.

[JoeJ]

The BBEG probably didn't get to that status without making a fair few other enemies, which are likely to redirect focus. The tactic described sounds more like a more minor antagonist with a personal vendetta against the PCs.

Actually, I think a good way to introduce the final BBEG of a campaign might be for TotallyNotVecna to raid the party's safehouse as part of his plan to eliminate all significant enemies before launching his bid for total universal conquest. A bunch of other extremely powerful NPCs can get killed too, implying that the only reason the PCs are alive at all is that they fortuitously weren't there when their headquarters was attacked.

[NewDM]

O. P. here,
Please derail away. The lessons I'm getting from your posts are great! Besides, it would only be fair as I've recently had a warning from "the Man":smallwink: for "trying to derail a thread with jokes" :smallfrown: (I was under the mistaken impression that D&D and pop culture based jokes were sort of the main purpose of the site, learn from my shame people! ). But I would hardly call your post a derailment at all, no biggie. :smallsmile:

Yeah, I've found that its generally not a good idea to express an opinion here. It might conflict with someone else's opinion and would be considered against the rules because it 'offended' someone, plus you can't really say you are offended because that's an opinion. Overall its probably better not to post anything, that way there is little or no risk of higher powers interfering with the discussion.

Yes, that was a joke.

[2D8HP]

O. P. here
Everybody,
Thanks for all the great posts, I'm learning a lot.
I saw this link, which I found on playgrounder Yora's blog:
http://www.jovianclouds.com/blackmoor/Archive_OLD/rpg2.html
Which fits how I can dimly remember the game was played in the 1970's, and seems to show another example of how integral improvisation was to early DnD (please tell me how much a part of the game improv is now). To paraphrase Mike Mornard "We made some stuff up we thought would be fun".
I don't see why we need to dig up the old rules from storage (which my wife will likely make me sell or throw out, thus preventing my son from getting) in order to play with the same spirit.
Or do the current (FREE!!) RAW somehow inhibit improvisation for those who learn the game based on latter editions?
Until starting up again recently I have played no Dungeons and Dragons since the 1980's and I feared my ignorance of what I missed.
While I well remember how we played D&D in the 1970's and 80's (last week not so much), and my fear was that since (the sad unfortunates who are unlucky enough to be) my players, are depending on me as the "most experienced" in D&D to teach them the game (the poor deluded miserable fools!), that I was passing on habits I learned from a particular time and place (Berkeley, California in the 1970's) that are simply uncommon today, as I now recall that some of the non TSR "supplements" (All the World's Monster's, Arduin, etc.) we used were published locally, and I clearly remember Gygax admonished "West Coast style play" in The Dragon Magazine (at the time I thought it was "Monty Haul" aspects he was against, since I remember him on the same page writing that PC's shouldn't wear Magic Items "like Christmas Trees")

Since as a player, I wouldn't like spending the evening watching the (apparently senile) DM read the rules every few moments, to see if the ruling fits RAW, I do still often improvise what the players need to roll for success, and I sometimes still slip and "remember" rules that aren't true anymore such as asking :thieves to roll percentile".

As to what my players say?
*Ahem*
Since when do the players have any say?! Is that some kind of that newfangeled fancified book learnin'?! When they put on the daddy pants and DM then they can have a say dagnabbit!
Actually now just like then, I can recall very little rules arguements, pizza toppings however can be quite contentious!


So you've never actually read the earlier editions I take it? (You could have House ruling was done by almost everyone, that doesn't mean it was allowed by the rules. I've already shown where they tell you not to go outside the rules in at least one book.
As many posts have mentioned oD&D was quite "free form", 1e AD&D was supposed to be a bit more "set in stone", but I don't remember anyone using all and only RAW.
I was the only one I knew who used the post "Monster Manual" AD&D books (yes even then there was a bit of "edition warring"), and I later balked at "Unearthed Arcana", as (back then) I thought it changed the game too much.
I will point out thought much of the 1e rules the players weren't supposed to know!
Page seven of the 1e DMG
"What follows herein is strictly for the eyes of you, the campaign referee"

On page eight "As this book is the exclusive precinct of the DM, you must view any non-DM player possessing it as something less than worthy of honorable death". Nope I don't think Wotc has anything quite that badass!

You don't have to house rule in any game. Not even 5e. Some house rules may make the game fun for your table, but you can play it just fine out of the box.
Sometimes depending on which box!
I remember thinking that I ran the Holmes "Basic" set by the rules, and I try (and probably fail, given my feeble memory) to run the new "Starter Set" using RAW, but I am certain that in play I simply don't remember all of the PHB!
But the "White Box"? Yes great games were made out of it, but until later supplements came out and clairified things, I doubt that
by today's standards, they would be called the same game!

[old school man]

Outside organized play, RAW is mostly useful for arguing on the internet.

:tongue: Amen brother!




John

[mgshamster]

(please tell me how much a part of the game improv is now).

Improv is a huge part of my games, ever since I started with 2e back in the early 90s (actually started in 1990).

The only time I've ever had a RAW argument at my table was when we played 3.5/PF, where the rules were so comprehensive that we actively tried to follow raw where we could and only improved when we couldn't get a clear answer or just wanted to speed up game (we'd look up a rule later).

But now that 5e is here and the rules are so much lighter and free flowing, improvisation is back and our games are better than ever. No more rules arguments, no more out-of-character bickering (which leaves more time for in-character bickering!), and better games over all. I love that 5e has a built-in attitude that you're supposed to make GM rulings rather than following written rules, and that you're supposed to add to the game as your gaming group see fit. It's a built-in assumption that it will happen.

[keybounce]

To the OP:

Does the game you play feature a Dragon sitting on a pile of treasure, in a Dungeon? Can someone play a Wizard with a magic wand, or a warrior in armor, wielding a longbow?

Why, yes, it does. They can be red, or blue, or green, or yellow.

It's called Gauntlet 2.
Does that mean G2 was AD&D?

(I came here from a sig link. It happens to be the OP of this thread. If I messed up, I'm sorry, but it seemed too good to pass up.)

[BeefGood]

I like RAW for a few reasons:
There's a lot of playtest behind the rules, so I assume that by following the rules, over the long run, my game will be fun, because the rules will help avoid, say, one character getting much more powerful than the others.
I'm not too comfortable with extensive winging it, at least not yet. But it is true that opening up the rulebooks really slows down a session so I would like to improve on this--either improvise more or memorize more of the rules.
Independent of the game session, I actually enjoy thinking about the rules, whether they are clear, contradictory, what have you. This forum is a good opportunity to do that.

[Sigreid]

O. P. here
Everybody,
Thanks for all the great posts, I'm learning a lot.
I saw this link, which I found on playgrounder Yora's blog:
http://www.jovianclouds.com/blackmoor/Archive_OLD/rpg2.html
Which fits how I can dimly remember the game was played in the 1970's, and seems to show another example of how integral improvisation was to early DnD (please tell me how much a part of the game improv is now). To paraphrase Mike Mornard "We made some stuff up we thought would be fun".


Personally whether I am DM or player basically all I do is improv. it's a very sandbox campaign we got going to other than a vague idea of some stuff that's going on in the world there isn't a way to prepare much. I've made up many an adventure essentially on the fly based on the hook the party chose to run with.

[KorvinStarmast]

Dude, I can't even imagine playing DnD with random people, especially over the internet. The odds of finding the right group makeup and player investment is so low it's like a recipe for disaster.
I just joined up with some folks on Roll20. Working fine so far.

[ross]

Back when D&D was new, they almost never used house rules. They were more like military exercises requiring precise execution to work properly.



I didn't say they didn't NEED house rules. I just said you weren't supposed to use them. Almost everyone did use house rules because the game was otherwise nearly unplayable to the point that it was a pre-cursor to the Dark Souls series of games. Just leaving your bed in the morning was a risky proposition.

How is dark souls unplayable?

[Dyndrilliac]

As others have said, there is no right way or wrong way to play. Or more accurately, the right way is whatever provides you and your friends with the most fun.

That being said, there is a strong case to be made for at least trying to stick to the official core rules of the game. Like all social interactions between groups of people, at the heart of the game is the social contract. It reinforces a sense of fair play and a consistently level playing field. It allows new players to join and have a shared written reference for guidance on how things in the game work. Think of your gaming table as a business, and new players like new employees. They need to be trained (taught how to play) before they can make a meaningful contribution. Having a set standard of rules and procedures reduces the time it takes to get the new players up and running, which means less turnover, thus translating into more productivity (which means more game time and thus more fun in the context of a tabletop game).

Imagine trying to organize something like Adventurer's League or convention play without a more-or-less set-in-stone shared reference point. It would be anarchy. This is far less of a problem in private games at home, obviously, but especially for new DMs who may not feel comfortable yet making up rulings spontaneously on the fly having a starting point is crucial. If you've been playing D&D for many years, you don't really need the Dungeon Master's Guide (or any of the rulebooks, for that matter). They aren't intended for the wise old DM. They are geared toward newcomers to the hobby. Like all group recreational activities, D&D is in constant need of injection of new blood in order to be sustainable. Having a well-defined social contract and information/resources available that are applicable to a wide range of gaming tables makes this task much more manageable.

EDIT: Oh wow, I didn't realize this was such an old thread! To be fair, I wasn't the one who necro-posted, so please moderators, have mercy!

[bid]

How is dark souls unplayable?
Thread necromancy for the most inane reason.

Please stay on topic.

[Pex]

If you're not going to follow the rules as written in that sense you're playing the game wrong, but if you and your group are having a good time and know you're not, then you aren't. The players should be clear you aren't following the rules specifically. This is not a reflection on you. It's important for them to know the rules themselves in case they play the game with other people who are following the rules as written. They need to know how to play the game correctly.

Personally, I know my taste and in the hypothetical sense I had the option to be a player in your game I would decline. I have done such a thing when a DM I was playing with decided 5E was not for him, ended the campaign, and created his own system. I wanted to play 5E, and I didn't care for his rules. Also given my reputation I'm not calling you a "tyrannical DM" about this. For your particular taste you need to tinker with the rules, and that's just not my thing. I don't mind house rules. I do mind house rules that need their own Player's Handbook.

That said, barring tyrannical/killer DMing which I will always condemn and again I am not saying you are nor implying or anything, you never need this Forum's permission to do anything. Ask for advice, great. Borrow/steal ideas, wonderful. If you want to do something but the majority of people here would never do it for their game, that's their problem.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Please don't revive threads older than 45 days (since the last post).