PDA

View Full Version : [D&D] The Role of the Game Master



Matthew
2008-09-02, 03:07 PM
A contention being bandied about at the moment is that the relationship between game master and players has changed as the years have rolled by, so I thought it might be fun to get some opinions. Here are quotes from various versions of Dungeons & Dragons...

Dungeon Master's Guide AD&D 1e (Ernest Gary Gygax, 1979)


Forward

Is Dungeon Mastering an art or a science? An interesting question!

If you consider the pure creative aspect of starting from scratch, the ”personal touch” of individual flair that goes into preparing and running a unique campaign, or the particular style of moderating a game adventure, then Dungeon Mastering may indeed be thought of as an art.

If you consider the aspect of experimentation, the painstaking effort of reparation and attention to detail, and the continuing search for new ideas and approaches, then Dungeon Mastering is perhaps more like a science - not always exacting in a literal sense, but exacting in terms of what is required to do the job well.

Esoteric questions aside, one thing is for certain - Dungeon Mastering is, above all, a labor of love. It is demanding, timeconsuming, and certainly not a task to be undertaken lightly (the sheer bulk of the book you hold in your hand will tell you that!). But, as all DM’s know, the rewards are great - an endless challenge to the imagination and intellect, an enjoyable pastime to fill many hours with fantastic and often unpredictable happenings, and an opportunity to watch a story unfold and a grand idea to grow and flourish. The imagination knows no bounds, and the possibilities of the game of ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS are just as limitless. Who can say what awaits each player, except a cornucopia of fantasy and heroic adventure? So much is waiting, indeed!

This book holds much in store for you as a DM- it is your primary tool in constructing your own “world”, or milieu. It contains a wealth of material, and combined with the other works of ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS (the MONSTER MANUAL and PLAYERS HANDBOOK) gives you all the information you need to play ADBD. But, as always, one more thing is needed - your imagination. Use the written material as your foundation and inspiration, then explore the creative possibilities you have in your own mind to make your game something special.

Dungeon Mastering itself is no easy undertaking, to be sure. But Dungeon Mastering well is doubly difficult. There are few gamemasters around who are so superb in their conduct of play that they could disdain the opportunity to improve themselves in some way. Fortunately, this work addresses the matter at length, and gives you plenty of suggestions on all aspects of Dungeon Mastering (as well as some of the finer points) in order to help you improve your own efforts. Take heed, and always endeavor to make the game the best it can be - and all that it can be!

Preface

What follows herein is strictly for the eyes of you, the campaign referee. As the creator and ultimate authority in your respective game, this work is written as one Dungeon Master equal to another. Pronouncements there may be, but they are not from "on high" as respects your game. Dictums are given for the sake of the game only, for if ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is to survive and grow, it must have some degree of uniformity, a familiarity of method and procedure from campaign to campaign within the whole. 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.

When you build your campaign you will tailor it to suit your personal tastes. In the heat of play it will slowly evolve into a compound of your personality and those of your better participants, a superior alloy. And as long as your campaign remains viable, it will continue a slow process of change and growth. In this lies a great danger, however. The systems and parameters contained in the whole of ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS are based on a great deal of knowledge, experience gained through discussion, play, testing, questioning, and (hopefully) personal insight.

Limitations, checks, balances, and all the rest are placed into the system in order to assure that what is based thereon will be a superior campaign, a campaign which offers the most interesting play possibilities to the greatest number of participants for the longest period of time possible. You, as referee, will have to devote countless hours of real effort in order to produce just a fledgling campaign, viz. a background for the whole, some small village or town, and a reasoned series of dungeon levels -the lot of which must be suitable for elaboration and expansion on a periodic basis. To obtain real satisfaction from such effort, you must have participants who will make use of your creations: players to learn the wonders and face the perils you have devised for them. If it is all too plain and too easy, the players will quickly lose interest, and your effort will prove to have been in vain. Likewise, if the campaign is too difficult, players will quickly become discouraged and lose interest in a game where they are always the butt; again your labors will have been for naught. These facts are of prime importance, for they underlie many rules.

Naturally, everything possible cannot be included in the whole of this work. As a participant in the game, I would not care to have anyone telling me exactly what must go into a campaign and how it must be handled; if so, why not play some game like chess? As the author I also realize that there are limits to my creativity and imagination. Others will think of things I didn't, and devise things beyond my capability. As an active Dungeon Master I kept a careful watch for things which would tend to complicate matters without improving them, systems devised seemingly to make the game drag for players, rules which lessened the fantastic and unexpected in favor of the mundane and ordinary. As if that were not enough hats to wear, I also wore that of a publisher, watching the work so as to make sure that it did not grow so large as to become unmanageable cost-wise. None of this was compromise, per se, but the process was most certainly a refining of what should logically be presented in the system.

Returning again to the framework aspect of ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, what is aimed at is a "universe" into which similar campaigns and parallel worlds can be placed. With certain uniformity of systems and "laws", players will be able to move from one campaign to another and know at least the elemental principles which govern the new milieu, for all milieux will have certain (but not necessarily the same) laws in common. Character races and classes will be nearly the same. Character ability scores will have the identical meaning - or nearly so. Magic spells will function in a certain manner regardless of which world the player is functioning in. Magic devices will certainly vary, but their principles will be similar. This uniformity will help not only players, it will enable DMs to carry on a meaningful dialogue and exchange of useful information. It might also eventually lead to grand tournaments wherein persons from any part of the U.S., or the world for that matter, can compete for accolades.

The danger of a mutable system is that you or your players will go too far in some undesirable direction and end up with a short-lived campaign. Participants will always be pushing for a game which allows them to become strong and powerful far too quickly. Each will attempt to take the game out of your hands and mold it to his or her own ends. To satisfy this natural desire is to issue a death warrant to a campaign, for it will either be a one-player affair or the players will desert en masse for something more challenging and equitable. Similarly, you must avoid the tendency to drift into areas foreign to the game as a whole. Such campaigns become so strange as to be no longer "AD&D". They are isolated and will usually wither. Variation and difference are desirable, but both should be kept within the boundaries of the overall system. Imaginative and creative addition can most certainly be included; that is why nebulous areas have been built into the game. Keep such individuality in perspective by developing a unique and detailed world based on the rules of ADVANCED D&D. No two campaigns will ever be the same, but all will have the common ground necessary to maintaining the whole as a viable entity about which you and your players can communicate with the many thousands of others who also find swords & sorcery role playing gaming as an amusing and enjoyable pastime.

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. Peeping players there will undoubtedly be, but they are simply lessening their own enjoyment of the game by taking away some of the sense of wonder that otherwise arises from a game which has rules hidden from participants. It is in your interests, and in theirs, to discourage possession of this book by players. If any of your participants do read herein, it is suggested that you assess them a heavy fee for consulting "sages" and other sources of information not normally attainable by the inhabitants of your milieu. If they express knowledge which could only be garnered by consulting these pages, a magic item or two can be taken as payment - insufficient, but perhaps it will tend to discourage such actions.

I sincerely hope that you find this new system to your taste and enjoy it. The material is herein, but only you can construct the masterpiece from it, your personal campaign which will bring hundreds of hours of fun and excitement to many eager players. Masterful dungeoning to you!


Dungeon Master's Guide, AD&D 2e (David Cook, 1989)


Introduction

You are one of a very special group of people: AD&D® game Dungeon Masters. Your job is not an easy one. It requires wit, imagination, and the ability to think and act extemporaneously. A really good Dungeon Master is essential to a good game.

The Dungeon Master Guide is reserved for Dungeon Masters. Discourage players from reading this book, and certainly don't let players consult it during the game. As long as the players don't know exactly what's in the Dungeon Master Guide, they'll always wonder what you know that they don't. It doesn't matter whether you have secret information; even if you don't, as long as the players think you do, their sense of mystery and uncertainty is maintained.

Also, this book contains essential rules that are not discussed in the Player's Handbook. Some of these rules the players will learn quickly during play—special combat situations, the costs of hiring NPCs, etc. Others, however, cover more esoteric or mysterious situations, such as the nature of artifacts and other magical items. This information is in the Dungeon Master Guide so the DM can control the players' (and hence the characters') access to certain bits of knowledge. In a fantasy world, as in this world, information is power. What the characters don't know can hurt them (or lead them on a merry chase to nowhere). While the players aren't your enemies, they aren't your allies, either, and you aren't obligated to give anything away for nothing. If characters go hunting wererats without doing any research beforehand, feel free to throw lots of curves their way. Reward those characters who take the time to do some checking.

Besides rules, you'll find a large portion of this book devoted to discussions of the principles behind the rules. Along with this are examinations of the pros and cons of changing the rules to fit your campaign. The purpose of this book, after all, is to better prepare you for your role as game moderator
and referee. The better you understand the game, the better equipped you'll be to handle unforeseen developments and unusual circumstances.

One of the principles guiding this project from the very beginning, and which is expressed throughout this book, is this: The DM has the primary responsibility for the success of his campaign, and he must take an active hand in guiding it. That is an important concept. If you are skimming through this introduction, slow down and read it again. It is crucial you understand what you are getting into.

The DM's "active hand" extends even to the rules. Many decisions about your campaign can be made by only one person: you. Tailor your campaign to fit your own style and the style of your players.

You will find a lot of information in this book, but you won't find pat answers to all your questions and easy solutions for all your game problems. What you will find instead is a discussion of various problems and numerous triggers intended to guide you through a thoughtful analysis of situations that pertain to your campaign.

The rules to the AD&D 2nd Edition game are balanced and easy to use. No role-playing game we know of has been playtested more heavily than this one. But that doesn't mean it's perfect. What we consider to be right may be unbalanced or anachronistic in your campaign. The only thing that can make
the AD&D game "right'' for all players is the intelligent application of DM discretion.

A perfect example of this is the limit placed on experience levels for demihumans. A lot of people complained that these limits were too low. We agreed, and we raised the limits. The new limits were tested, examined, and adjusted until we decided they were right. But you may be one of the few people who prefer the older, lower limits. Or you may think there should be no limits. In the chapter on character classes, you'll find a discussion of this topic that considers the pros and cons of level limits. We don't ask you to blindly accept every limit we've established. But we do ask that before you make any changes you read this chapter and carefully consider what you are about to do. If, after weighing the evidence, you decide that a change is justified in your game, by all means make the change.

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.

The Fine Art of Being a DM

Being a good Dungeon Master involves a lot more than knowing the rules. It calls for quick wit, theatrical flair, and a good sense of dramatic timing— among other things. Most of us can claim these attributes to some degree, but there's always room for improvement.

Fortunately, skills like these can be learned and improved with practice. There are hundreds of tricks, shortcuts, and simple principles that can make you a better, more dramatic, and more creative game master.

But you won't find them in the Dungeon Master Guide. This is a reference book for running the AD&D game. We tried to minimize material that doesn't pertain to the immediate conduct of the game. If you are interested in reading more about this aspect of refereeing, we refer you to Dragon® Magazine, published monthly by TSR, Inc. Dragon Magazine is devoted to role-playing in general and the AD&D game in particular. For more than 16 years, Dragon Magazine has published articles on every facet of role-playing. It is invaluable for DMs and players.

If you have never played a role-playing game before but are eager to learn, our advice from the Player's Handbook is still the best: Find a group of people who already play the game and join them for a few sessions. If that is impractical, the best alternative is to get a copy of the Introduction to Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Game. It covers all the basics of fantasy role-playing with the AD&D game, but in a much simpler presentation which teaches as you play. It includes several introductory role-playing adventures. These will show you what goes on during the game and give you step-by-step instructions on how to set up and run a game with your friends.


Dungeon Master's Guide, 3e (Monte Cook, 2003)*


The Dungeon Master

We’ve distilled our knowledge of the D&D® game into the material that follows. Whether you need to know how to design an adventure, a campaign, or an entire game world, the material in this book can, and will, help you.

You’re a member of a select group. Truly, not everyone has the creativity and the dedication to be a DM. Dungeon Mastering (DMing) can be challenging, but it’s not a chore. You’re the lucky one out of your entire circle of friends who play the game. The real fun is in your hands. As you flip through the Monster Manual or look at published adventures on a store shelf, you get to decide what the player characters (PCs) take on next. You get to build a whole world, as well as design and play all its nonplayer characters (NPCs).

It’s good to be the DM.

The DM defines the game. A good DM results in a good game. Since you control the pacing, and the types of adventures and encounters, the whole tenor of the game is in your hands. It’s fun, but it’s a big responsibility. If you’re the sort of person who likes to provide the fun for your friends, or to come up with new ideas, then you’re an ideal candidate for DM.

Once your group has a Dungeon Master, however, that doesn’t mean that you can’t switch around. Some DMs like to take a turn at being a player, and many players eventually want to try their hand at DMing.


Dungeon Master's Guide 4e (James Wyatt, 2008)


How to Be a DM

Most games have a winner and a loser, but the Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game is fundamentally a cooperative game. The Dungeon Master (DM) plays the roles of the antagonists in the adventure, but the DM isn’t playing against the player characters (PCs). Although the DM represents all the PCs’ opponents and adversaries—monsters, nonplayer characters (NPCs), traps, and the like—he or she doesn’t want the player characters to fail any more than the other players do. The players all cooperate to achieve success for their characters. The DM’s goal is to make success taste its sweetest by presenting challenges that are just hard enough that the other players have to work to overcome them, but not so hard that they leave all the characters dead.

At the table, having fun is the most important goal—more important than the characters’ success in an adventure. It’s just as vital for everyone at the
table to cooperate toward making the game fun for everyone as it is for the player characters to cooperate within the adventure.

The Dungeon Master

One player has a special role in a D&D game. The Dungeon Master controls the pace of the story and referees the action along the way. You can’t play a game of D&D without a DM.

What Does the DM Do?: The Dungeon Master has many hats to wear in the course of a game session. The DM is the rules moderator, the narrator, a player of many different characters, and the primary creator of the game’s world, the campaign, and the adventure.

Who Should Be the DM?: Who should be the Dungeon Master for your gaming group? Whoever wants to be! The person who has the most drive to pull
a group together and start up a game often ends up being the DM by default, but that doesn’t have to be the case.

Dungeon Masters Can Partner, Trade Off, or Change: The role of Dungeon Master doesn’t have to be a singular, ongoing, campaign-long appointment.
Many successful gaming groups switch DMs from time to time. Either they take turns running campaigns, switching DM duty every few months, or they take turns running adventures and switch every few weeks.


Dungeon Master's Guide AD&D 1e (Ernest Gary Gygax, 1979)


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 8 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!


Right, I'm off...

* The text for the 3e DMG is actually from the 3.5 DMG, which I understand to have been re edited without the consultation of the primary author. The text is more or less the same as the introduction in the 3e DMG. What was omitted is the following paragraph:



Let's start with the biggest secret of all: the key to dungeon mastering (Don't tell anybody, okay?). The secret is that you're in charge. This is not the telling-everybody-what-to-do sort of in charge. Rather you get to decide how your player group is going to play the game, when and where the adventures take place, and what happens. You get to decide how the rules work, which rules to use, and how strictly to adhere to them. that kind of in charge.

Some of it appears in bits and pieces in the 3.5 DMG, but it's an interesting omission.

arguskos
2008-09-02, 03:15 PM
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. *snip* MAY YOU FIND AS MUCH PLEASURE IN SO DOING AS THE REST OF US DO!
I think that this quote says everything I hold most dear about D&D.

It is the spirit of the game that is vital and most important, nothing else. Honestly... I can't think of anything more to say.

I feel that perhaps, many players (and I say this from personal experience, in real games, not online) have lost sight of this idea, that the game is just that, a game, and that we too often feel the need to say, "but the rules say X, so my X-based idea works!" I think that saying something like that detracts from the joy of just making stuff up with friends and using dice to represent our imaginations in a consistent world.

Of course, I'm also a closet romantic who thinks the whole world has lost sight of some basic principles, so what do I know? :smallwink:

-argus

AKA_Bait
2008-09-02, 03:16 PM
Could you identify which is from which version? I have only skimmed them (I'm in the office) but I'd like to give them a close read.

valadil
2008-09-02, 03:19 PM
The GM is rules referee. How much influence on the rules the players have depends on the game, but the GM does have final say.

The GM runs the world. Every entity in the world is under the GM's control, aside from the player characters.

The GM is also host and entertainer. And this is where opinions will start to differ as we argue over how best to entertain. I fall on the side of the director/storyteller. Others would rather have a rules evaluator. As long as the players are prioritized first, I really don't think it matters if the game favors mechanics or story.

valadil
2008-09-02, 03:21 PM
I think that this quote says everything I hold most dear about D&D.

It is the spirit of the game that is vital and most important, nothing else. Honestly... I can't think of anything more to say.

I feel that perhaps, many players (and I say this from personal experience, in real games, not online) have lost sight of this idea, that the game is just that, a game, and that we too often feel the need to say, "but the rules say X, so my X-based idea works!" I think that saying something like that detracts from the joy of just making stuff up with friends and using dice to represent our imaginations in a consistent world.

Of course, I'm also a closet romantic who thinks the whole world has lost sight of some basic principles, so what do I know? :smallwink:

-argus

I agree wholeheartedly and wish I had this handy a couple years ago. I got into a very heated debate on another forum (D&D Online's general discussion if memory serves) with another player who argued that the spirit of the game was some BS that people who didn't get the rules used to shield themselves.

The New Bruceski
2008-09-02, 03:31 PM
Could you identify which is from which version? I have only skimmed them (I'm in the office) but I'd like to give them a close read.

Seconded. I think I know the order, but the Afterword looks to be from AD&D, so would be out of place for scanning. I think it works where it is, but that means the sections should be labeled.

arguskos
2008-09-02, 03:31 PM
I agree wholeheartedly and wish I had this handy a couple years ago. I got into a very heated debate on another forum (D&D Online's general discussion if memory serves) with another player who argued that the spirit of the game was some BS that people who didn't get the rules used to shield themselves.
That quote is from the mouth of Gygax himself, in the back of one of the AD&D DMG's (one of the two I own, I forget). It's a great line, one that I love a lot, and I'm glad Matthew quoted it here (if he didn't, I was going to).

Also, I find it amazing that someone really argued that the soul of the game was bull**** for non-rules junkies. That's... damn, that's amazing. I think such arguments would have been impossible before 3e, since when I played AD&D, I never fought with anyone over rules. It was sorta implicit that the DM was simply correct, no matter what the book said, since he and only he could make the judgments for the situation at hand.

EDIT:

Seconded. I think I know the order, but the Afterword looks to be from AD&D, so would be out of place for scanning. I think it works where it is, but that means the sections should be labeled.
I think they are all from AD&D, save maybe that last one, which I think is 3e. Just my guess though.

-argus

hamlet
2008-09-02, 03:56 PM
EDIT:

I think they are all from AD&D, save maybe that last one, which I think is 3e. Just my guess though.

-argus

I believe they go in order of publication, starting at the AD&D 1e level. Though that might be OD&D . . .

Matthew
2008-09-02, 04:11 PM
Could you identify which is from which version? I have only skimmed them (I'm in the office) but I'd like to give them a close read.

Your wish is my command. :smallbiggrin:

I also added a paragraph at the bottom that was omitted from the 3.5 version of the DMG.

arguskos
2008-09-02, 04:20 PM
Thanks for that addition Matthew, I didn't know there was something removed.

I find it interesting that up until AD&D, special mention is made that the spirit of the rules is what matters, and that the DM is the man in charge, not the players or rulebook. Then, this mention gets removed/de-emphasized for 3e (and downright removed entirely for 4e), right as much of the D&D community begins to feel a fundamental shift in playstyle and player perspective about the game. Notably, 3e also (for many reasons) was the rise of optimization as we know it (since though I don't doubt it existed for 1e and 2e, I don't know much about it, and hear even less).

I'm not drawing any conclusions here, but I find this an interesting coincidence.

-argus

Mushroom Ninja
2008-09-02, 04:27 PM
I think that the role of the dungeon master is to work with the other players to make the game as much fun for everyone as possible.

Swordguy
2008-09-02, 04:30 PM
Yet again, we're faced with something that 1e and 2e got right, and 3e and 4e screwed up.

Funny, judging by recent threads, GMs should be down on their hands and knees thanking the players who deign to play in their game, and the hours of extra work that being a GM involves is a fair - nay, cheap! - price to pay for the reward of having ungrateful, whiny players who do nothing but complain that they aren't getting to fulfill their power fantasies quickly enough.

I don't know when or why this paradigm shift in player/GM relations occurred, but I'll be dammed if I'll give in to it.

EDIT: This post has nothing - not a thing, I tell you! - to do with the player who called about two hours ago and threatened to go find another campaign to play in, since we hadn't leveled up in three sessions. :smallfurious:

nagora
2008-09-02, 05:26 PM
Just back from Hellboy II and going to bed; loads of work in the morning and continuing work on my novel's synopsis in the afternoon followed by more work and then gaming. So, to cut it short: I agree with everything the 1e DMG said!

Seriously, that's a lot of reading and thinking. We've covered a lot of ground in the last few days on the general topic of "how do you play D&D?" and I think a lot of people have made interesting points.

In closing: Africa is a land of contrasts.

Tormsskull
2008-09-02, 05:37 PM
lol. This thread so far reminds me of two sides of a war. Each is waiting for the other to make a move. Well, I'm impatient and known for making the first move, I suppose, so here it is:

The paradigm changed when TSR was purchased by WotC (3rd edition).

arguskos
2008-09-02, 05:40 PM
lol. This thread so far reminds me of two sides of a war. Each is waiting for the other to make a move. Well, I'm impatient and known for making the first move, I suppose, so here it is:

The paradigm changed when TSR was purchased by WotC (3rd edition).
I've already insinuated as much, since the evidence given is in favor of that view. See below:

I find it interesting that up until AD&D, special mention is made that the spirit of the rules is what matters, and that the DM is the man in charge, not the players or rulebook. Then, this mention gets removed/de-emphasized for 3e (and downright removed entirely for 4e), right as much of the D&D community begins to feel a fundamental shift in playstyle and player perspective about the game. Notably, 3e also (for many reasons) was the rise of optimization as we know it (since though I don't doubt it existed for 1e and 2e, I don't know much about it, and hear even less).

-argus

Tormsskull
2008-09-02, 05:45 PM
I've already insinuated as much, since the evidence given is in favor of that view. See below:


Insinuation is like having Partial Cover versus Flame attacks. Sometimes you just gotta jump out in the open :smalltongue:

arguskos
2008-09-02, 05:46 PM
Heh, but cover doesn't apply against Fireball spells. :smalltongue:

-argus

Prometheus
2008-09-02, 06:55 PM
I was all prepared to insert some witty rant about how "Apparently WotC doesn't think Gary Gygax would mind his grave being spit on since he's dead." but actually I think the various editions seem to convey the same ideas, and it would be reading too much into it to say otherwise. </opinion>

Charity
2008-09-02, 07:07 PM
OK... that looks like a mornings worth of reading right there matt...I'll just say; I hope you had those in pdf already Matt or you have just spent far too long typing that prose in...

Mike_G
2008-09-02, 07:24 PM
Yet again, we're faced with something that 1e and 2e got right, and 3e and 4e screwed up.

Funny, judging by recent threads, GMs should be down on their hands and knees thanking the players who deign to play in their game, and the hours of extra work that being a GM involves is a fair - nay, cheap! - price to pay for the reward of having ungrateful, whiny players who do nothing but complain that they aren't getting to fulfill their power fantasies quickly enough.

I don't know when or why this paradigm shift in player/GM relations occurred, but I'll be dammed if I'll give in to it.


I haven't seen a change at all in actual play, but my group is a bunch of old 1e veterans, and one new player who still thinks the AD&D rules may as well be written in Farsi for all the sense they make.

We play the way we always have, we just like consistent rules. The DM is still allowed -- nay encouraged -- to stab any player in the eye who tries to argue that they can hide behind an invisible tower shield.

Seriously, I'll stab them and then make sweet love to the wound. That'll teach 'em to be a rules lawyer.



EDIT: This post has nothing - not a thing, I tell you! - to do with the player who called about two hours ago and threatened to go find another campaign to play in, since we hadn't leveled up in three sessions. :smallfurious:

You're well rid of him.

UglyPanda
2008-09-02, 07:29 PM
While the rulebooks have changed, I'm not sure it really has any effect on people. I've had DMs for 3.x who've insisted they're always right, DMs who would allow anything to happen if they were shown the right splatbook page, DMs who didn't know the rules and insisted anything they couldn't remember was the same as 2.0, and DMs who just played everything fast and loose without regard for rules.
What is the spirit of the game, anyway? All I keep seeing is that the spirit of the game is not the spirit of the rules. I just play to have fun and relax, is that the supposed spirit? Or is the spirit simply the course of events the DM is trying to pull off?

To the people who think that players are acting worse and feeling more entitled: You're on the internet. Everyone acts worse and feels more entitled.

Matthew
2008-09-02, 07:30 PM
OK... that looks like a mornings worth of reading right there matt...I'll just say; I hope you had those in pdf already Matt or you have just spent far too long typing that prose in...

When ampersands are occasionally rendered as "8" or "B" you know it was a copy and paste job... That said, I had to write out some of it.

EvilElitest
2008-09-02, 07:35 PM
i liked the final quote a lot, the DM is running the game, and his word is what matters.
from
EE

Raum
2008-09-02, 07:43 PM
A contention being bandied about at the moment is that the relationship between game master and players has changed as the years have rolled by, so I thought it might be fun to get some opinions. Here are quotes from various versions of Dungeons & Dragons...Between "game masters and players" or between "Dungeon Masters and players of D&D"? Or perhaps even just a publishers' / authors' view of D&D players. That's all the text really shows.

I'd be curious to see whether any such relationship change in D&D is related to a wider trend in the industry or solely symptomatic of D&D. I'm also curious as to how often it was really played with such a player / DM dichotomy. Most of the people I gamed with also GMed something. Made it harder to draw a hard line between roles when we crossed it from one game to another.

Tormsskull
2008-09-02, 07:51 PM
Between "game masters and players" or between "Dungeon Masters and players of D&D"?

LOL. Leave it to Raum to expand the scope of the issue. I can't remember a single time you answered a thread in one of the ways elicited by the OP.

"Should we take the car or the bus to get to the stadium?"

"Well, truly, where are we going? Are we really going anywhere? Simply because our physical bodies are changing location doesn't mean we have actually gone anywhere. In truth I would say the stadium should come to us."

Swordguy
2008-09-02, 07:58 PM
Between "game masters and players" or between "Dungeon Masters and players of D&D"?

Well...the thread is titled [D&D], so there's a hint.

All of the works cited are D&D manuals, so there's a hint.

All of the threads that have been leading up to this one have been about D&D, so there's your third hint.



That said, I think D&D is the case study because its such a long-lived game - it's been around long enough that we have data to study. It'd be much harder to find differences in GMing philosophy between, say, L5R 2e (1999) and L5R 3e (2004), simply because the game hasn't had the time to evolve. Therefore, since we know we have a much harder time having this discussion about other games, lets keep it to D&D, shall we?

EvilElitest
2008-09-02, 07:59 PM
Well...the thread is titled [D&D], so there's a hint.

All of the works cited are D&D manuals, so there's a hint.

All of the threads that have been leading up to this one have been about D&D, so there's your third hint.



That said, I think D&D is the case study because its such a long-lived game - it's been around long enough that we have data to study. It'd be much harder to find differences in GMing philosophy between, say, L5R 2e (1999) and L5R 3e (2004), simply because the game hasn't had the time to evolve. Therefore, since we know we have a much harder time having this discussion about other games, lets keep it to D&D, shall we?

can we site other games occasionally?
from
EE

Raum
2008-09-02, 08:16 PM
LOL. Leave it to Raum to expand the scope of the issue. I can't remember a single time you answered a thread in one of the ways elicited by the OP.I don't limit myself to a single game. More to the point, why would I choose from a limited subset of answers when none fit my response? It'd be a boring (and probably politer) forum if all responses were selected from a multiple guess list of pregenerated answers. I do notice you avoided the other question...why is that?


Well...the thread is titled [D&D], so there's a hint.

All of the works cited are D&D manuals, so there's a hint.And yet "game master" is a generic term generally meant to cover more than D&D.


All of the threads that have been leading up to this one have been about D&D, so there's your third hint.Nope, they haven't. Check again. D&D concepts and mechanics have often been used as examples but threads on rule transparency, rule consistency, and result fudging apply to more than one game.


That said, I think D&D is the case study because its such a long-lived game - it's been around long enough that we have data to study. It'd be much harder to find differences in GMing philosophy between, say, L5R 2e (1999) and L5R 3e (2004), simply because the game hasn't had the time to evolve. Therefore, since we know we have a much harder time having this discussion about other games, lets keep it to D&D, shall we?What is there to discuss in that case? Perhaps whether or not play styles actually followed the texts' role assignments, but the role assignments themselves are fairly clear.

Matthew
2008-09-02, 08:18 PM
Between "game masters and players" or between "Dungeon Masters and players of D&D"? Or perhaps even just a publishers' / authors' view of D&D players. That's all the text really shows.

Good question. I went with "Games Master" to highlight the difference between "Mastering the Game" and "Mastering the Rules". I decided to limit this thread to D&D for the moment, as the contention was really about D&D specifically (though obviously D&D is part of a wider trend).



I'd be curious to see whether any such relationship change in D&D is related to a wider trend in the industry or solely symptomatic of D&D. I'm also curious as to how often it was really played with such a player / DM dichotomy. Most of the people I gamed with also GMed something. Made it harder to draw a hard line between roles when we crossed it from one game to another.

Indeed. A broader contention about trends as they appear in the mainstream might be:

80s - More rules, more simulation.
90s - Storytelling, plots, lighter systems
00s - Tighter rules, player mastery

Any discussion is welcome, as far as I am concerned, but the principal contention was with regards to D&D.

Raum
2008-09-02, 08:26 PM
Good question. I went with "Games Master" to highlight the difference between "Mastering the Game" and "Mastering the Rules". I'm not sure I understand why GM highlights the distinction, but I do understand where you're going.


I decided to limit this thread to D&D for the moment, as the contention was really about D&D specifically (though obviously D&D is part of a wider trend). Cool, thanks for the clarification.

Tormsskull
2008-09-02, 08:27 PM
I don't limit myself to a single game. More to the point, why would I choose from a limited subset of answers when none fit my response? It'd be a boring (and probably politer) forum if all responses were selected from a multiple guess list of pregenerated answers. I do notice you avoided the other question...why is that?

I was mostly just laughing because everytime I see your name as the last poster, I know I am in for an interesting read. Its never as simple as "Yeah, I agree with that."

And, what question did I avoid?

Raum
2008-09-02, 08:41 PM
And, what question did I avoid?Does the quoted text show the dichotomy as a majority of players played or only in the authors' views?

Beleriphon
2008-09-02, 10:52 PM
Does the quoted text show the dichotomy as a majority of players played or only in the authors' views?

I think it presented the prevailing view of cooperative gameplay like that found in D&D through each time period, and iteration of the DMG.

Thrud
2008-09-02, 11:01 PM
Good question. I went with "Games Master" to highlight the difference between "Mastering the Game" and "Mastering the Rules". I decided to limit this thread to D&D for the moment, as the contention was really about D&D specifically (though obviously D&D is part of a wider trend).


Indeed. A broader contention about trends as they appear in the mainstream might be:

80s - More rules, more simulation.
90s - Storytelling, plots, lighter systems
00s - Tighter rules, player mastery

Any discussion is welcome, as far as I am concerned, but the principal contention was with regards to D&D.

Wow, that's pretty inciteful. Goes a long way to show why the older players really scratch their heads at some of the stuff from newer games. And the fact that the afterword from the 1st ed AD&D book was taken out by WotC is pretty telling.

OneFamiliarFace
2008-09-02, 11:16 PM
...Pronouncements there may be, but they are not from "on high" as respects your game. Dictums are given for the sake of the game only, for if ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is to survive and grow, it must have some degree of uniformity, a familiarity of method and procedure from campaign to campaign within the whole. 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.

While I much prefer the earlier editions of DMing advice and their tendency to mention the vagueness of the rules and greater domain of the DM, I think what Mr. Gygax has said here is the reason for the increased adherence to rules systems. In the last 30 years, I would imagine, we have seen a large increase in mobility and probably a change in where people are going for college, jobs, and even high school. In essence, people move around a lot, and gaming groups change a lot.

From the viewpoint of a company, having more concise rules (and a stricter adherence to said rules) makes the product more desireable for that exact reason. I am half way across the world right now and can find at least two people who have and will play Dungeons and Dragons. I can't find anyone who has even heard of GURPS. (I have both systems here with me for perusing.) I myself have had at least 3 different long-term gaming groups, one of which included 20 people. And between those, I have had other one-offs and random sessions. All of these were made easier by the fact that we all came to the table with an understanding of the basic rules, and any house rules were outlined (shortly) by the DM before the game began.

I don't know that I would want to play pick-up game of GURPS with people I hadn't met before very often, even though when I layed out plans for designing my own system (when I though d20 was the only stuff out there), it pretty closely captured what GURPS is (of course in a much worse and less understandable way). But I can feel pretty confident how the game will go when I sit down at a DnD table.

This can, of course, have problems. If the DM doesn't want the game to go the way everyone expects, then he has suddenly broken an arbitrary pact set up by rules made by people none of them have ever met. And people can get upset about that.

Anyway, skipping to the end, I think that no matter what the game is, the DM's role is the same as the players' role: to try to make sure everyone has fun. How the DM goes about this is an agreement he/she and the players should come to before they start.

Thrud
2008-09-02, 11:39 PM
While I much prefer the earlier editions of DMing advice and their tendency to mention the vagueness of the rules and greater domain of the DM, I think what Mr. Gygax has said here is the reason for the increased adherence to rules systems. In the last 30 years, I would imagine, we have seen a large increase in mobility and probably a change in where people are going for college, jobs, and even high school. In essence, people move around a lot, and gaming groups change a lot.

From the viewpoint of a company, having more concise rules (and a stricter adherence to said rules) makes the product more desireable for that exact reason. I am half way across the world right now and can find at least two people who have and will play Dungeons and Dragons. I can't find anyone who has even heard of GURPS. (I have both systems here with me for perusing.) I myself have had at least 3 different long-term gaming groups, one of which included 20 people. And between those, I have had other one-offs and random sessions. All of these were made easier by the fact that we all came to the table with an understanding of the basic rules, and any house rules were outlined (shortly) by the DM before the game began.

I don't know that I would want to play pick-up game of GURPS with people I hadn't met before very often, even though when I layed out plans for designing my own system (when I though d20 was the only stuff out there), it pretty closely captured what GURPS is (of course in a much worse and less understandable way). But I can feel pretty confident how the game will go when I sit down at a DnD table.

This can, of course, have problems. If the DM doesn't want the game to go the way everyone expects, then he has suddenly broken an arbitrary pact set up by rules made by people none of them have ever met. And people can get upset about that.

Anyway, skipping to the end, I think that no matter what the game is, the DM's role is the same as the players' role: to try to make sure everyone has fun. How the DM goes about this is an agreement he/she and the players should come to before they start.

On the other hand, having lots and lots of very strict rules seems to appeal to the general perversity of the human spirit to want to take said rules and bend them into a pretzel.

One of my favorite games Hero System, is a real kludge job in many ways due to the fact that as a strating character it is possible to make someone who is undefeatable. And it is because of that, that the GM must put very strict guidelines into place before the game starts up, just to prevent such an occurrence.

Yet no one has ever had a problem with that when I run a game of Champions (the superhero game that uses the Hero system). So I have to wonder if the less rules there are, the less temptation there is to bend them into a pretzel and then grind the spirit of them into the dirt.

Aron Times
2008-09-02, 11:39 PM
Rules consistency is a good thing, if you play with more than one group. I play in three 4E games per week through MapTool, and it would probably drive me mad if each DM had his own set of extensive alterations to the core rules.

I generally do not play with DMs who do not explain the reasons behind their house rules. I do not enjoy jumping through hoops for arbitrary reasons.

The house rules that I use in my games are mostly based on speeding up the game. For example, I have my players roll both attack rolls and damage rolls at the same time to save time; if the attack hits, I apply the damage, and if it misses, I move on to the next character.

bosssmiley
2008-09-03, 04:26 AM
I'm sure the unrestricted use of High Gygaxian textwall on civilians constitutes a warcrime of some kind. :smallamused:

The first line of my sig. epitomises all that I have to contribute to this thread.

The DM/GM is there to make sure his mates have fun playing. If you fail in that fundamental task then your group won't be your group for long, and anything else you do as a DM/GM will be just shuffling the deckchairs on a sinking ship. The idea that we still need telling this an entire generation after the publication of D&D...(lost for words) :smalltongue:

SleepingOrange
2008-09-03, 07:27 AM
The paradigm changed when TSR was purchased by WotC (3rd edition).

I would disagree; I think that the prevalent tendency to vilify Wizards of the Coast if unfair. To wit:


Quote:
"Let's start with the biggest secret of all: the key to dungeon mastering (Don't tell anybody, okay?). The secret is that you're in charge. This is not the telling-everybody-what-to-do sort of in charge. Rather you get to decide how your player group is going to play the game, when and where the adventures take place, and what happens. You get to decide how the rules work, which rules to use, and how strictly to adhere to them. [T]hat kind of in charge."

This was present in the selfsame Third Edition books released after D&D was purchased by Wizards. While this was omitted in the 3.5 DMG, there still remains:


The DM defines the game. A good DM results in a good game. Since you control the pacing, and the types of adventures and encounters, the whole tenor of the game is in your hands.

Not as overt, perhaps, but it still says to me that the DM... well.. "defines the game."; it also has the virtue of being much more succinct that Gygax's florid and well written, but above all verbose, foreword.

The Fourth Edition books? Well, I'm still choosing to believe that they're not a real game, but, rather, an introduction to gaming; a gateway drug, if you will. Fourth edition is simple, easy to pick up, and fast-paced, like the Mario games we all started out playing. Pretty soon, newly fledged gamers will be moving on to Final Fantasy and Elder Scrolls.


On the other hand, having lots and lots of very strict rules seems to appeal to the general perversity of the human spirit to want to take said rules and bend them into a pretzel.

Just a quick note, this made me smile. Lawful Chaotic for the win.


Personally, I believe that the role of the GM (or DM, as I prefer) is to create a unique and deep world populated with believable characters and scenarios, that just happen to be elves and magical, respectively. I believe the role of the DM is to be part storyteller, part friend, part foe. I believe the role of the DM is to walk a knife's edge between fantasy and reality.

And, foremost, I believe the role of the DM is to decide how to do all this; this involves a lot of rule-bending, rule-breaking, rule-making, and rule-ignoring. I, personally, have made the rules as written sit up, beg, and play dead in every campaign I run. I generally tell my players what changes they need to know about; I often keep many secret and implement them with care and deceit.

How did I get to this philosophy though? When I first decided that I would get into the game, I ordered my first core set online. (This may undermine my credibility as a DM, but it was 3.5 Edition). I waited for it to arrive; when it did? I read all three books cover to cover, chuckling when they told me not to do so. I made notes about what I liked and didn't like, I learned every obscure combat maneuver, and I absorbed every trivial dice roll. I feel that to be a good DM, you have to break the rules well; to do that you need to know them first.

Of course, to be a great DM... Well, I'll let you know if I get there. Maybe it means never having looked at, much less touched, a book.



In conclusion, my apologies for the bloviating post; In my defense, I'm bored, can't sleep, and ridiculously opinionated.

Tormsskull
2008-09-03, 07:45 AM
I would disagree; I think that the prevalent tendency to vilify Wizards of the Coast if unfair.


From reading each edition since Basic, I can say I noticed a huge shift between 2e AD&D and 3e. 4e takes it even farther giving us the player roles "Powergamer. How to support a powergamer: Make sure they have plenty of magic items falling into their laps, because this will be fun for them!"

My players and I got a chuckle out of the 4e DM book, specifically where it said "Ask your players for a list of magic items that they would like to have, then put them in the adventure so that they get them."

If you play that way, no offense, but it is so opposed to the way I learned to play that it doesn't even feel like the same game.

SleepingOrange
2008-09-03, 08:08 AM
You seem not to have gleaned the point of my message; I suspect this is because I disagreed with you. I will succinctly rebut.


Personally, I believe that the role of the GM (or DM, as I prefer) is to create a unique and deep world populated with believable characters and scenarios, that just happen to be elves and magical, respectively. I believe the role of the DM is to be part storyteller, part friend, part foe. I believe the role of the DM is to walk a knife's edge between fantasy and reality.
First, I believe that this passage defines my DMing style as the antithesis of the kind of person that would pander to a powergamer; there is no room in my campaigns for characters whose stories and/or abilities don't make sense; there is barely room for combat.

As for Fourth Edition, I don't think I can articulate my opinion better than I did here:

The Fourth Edition books? Well, I'm still choosing to believe that they're not a real game, but, rather, an introduction to gaming[...]

All in all, I believe that, 4thEd aside, I don't think Wizards's acquisition of D&D changed the flavor of the game as much as others do, and I doubt you stand a chance of convincing me otherwise until you at least articulate what you felt was the "[...]huge shift between 2e AD&D and 3e."

nagora
2008-09-03, 08:08 AM
I would disagree; I think that the prevalent tendency to vilify Wizards of the Coast if unfair.
I think there was a major personnel change at Wizards between 3 and 3.5 and this is reflected in the text that was removed, I think. I don't think the skill levels of the designers went up much between the two releases, but I do think that something changed in the tenor of the system and it was not a good change. From then on, I have the impression of a company focused on squeezing cash out of kids' pockets with no real interest in gaming. In other words, back to the Blume/Williamson era philosophy of "gamers are not in our social class, they're just a source of income".

I think 3e's designers were inept, but I think 3.5 (and 4's) were generally uncaring. So, although 4e's designers were clearly much better at game design then 3's, by and large their design goals seem cold, cynical, and alien to me and what I want from an FRPG.

Tormsskull
2008-09-03, 08:21 AM
All in all, I believe that, 4thEd aside, I don't think Wizards's acquisition of D&D changed the flavor of the game as much as others do, and I doubt you stand a chance of convincing me otherwise until you at least articulate what you felt was the "[...]huge shift between 2e AD&D and 3e."

Yeah, that's why it is an opinion. Changing your mind is nearly impossible. I could suggest that you read the DMGs of previous editions and compare them to 3rd. Then you would be able to draw your own conclusions.

For my own reasons, they mostly lie in the DM's chair. In pre-3e there would be many mentions of "blah blah blah, but check with your DM". It was a given that everything was subject to DM approval. The rule of common sense applied. If something didn't make sense, the DM was more than allowed, he was required to change a rule/outcome so that it did.

3e (especially on WotC's website) really pandered to players. They drop a lot of the language that suggests/promotes a DM's ability to rule on the fly, adjust things as needed. In one particular "Ask the experts" or whatever they called their online advice piece, a player wrote in saying that his DM would not let him play a particular class because the DM thought it was overpowered.

The writer of the article's response was for the player to show the DM this book and that book and try to convince the DM that the class truly is balanced.

To me, that is horrible advice, and sets up a really bad player versus DM scenarion. "Sorry man, that's overpowered, I can't let that into the game." "But the guy on WotC's website said it isn't. Look at this, and this."


Though, I have to say I am curious, because you said:



How did I get to this philosophy though? When I first decided that I would get into the game, I ordered my first core set online. (This may undermine my credibility as a DM, but it was 3.5 Edition).


Unless I am misreading this, it would tell me that you have no experience with pre-3e DMGs. If that is the case, I'm wondering how you can gauge the level of difference between them?

nagora
2008-09-03, 08:26 AM
All in all, I believe that, 4thEd aside, I don't think Wizards's acquisition of D&D changed the flavor of the game as much as others do, and I doubt you stand a chance of convincing me otherwise until you at least articulate what you felt was the "[...]huge shift between 2e AD&D and 3e."

The jump between 2e and 3e is huge and consists of the MASSIVE alteration in character stats; the introduction of feats and a combat system that is incredibly complex - in part, to allow the use of those feats; as well as the expansion of the (really crap) skill system that had been introduced in 1e OA and core-ised in 2e. There are other changes, of course, but those radically changed the focus of the game.

There simply is no way to use a 3e module in 1e or vice-versa, while 1e and 2e modules could be run interchangably with almost no changes. If you don't see that 3e was a rebuild from the ground up rather than a revision then I can only assume that you've not looked at much pre-3e material.

SleepingOrange
2008-09-03, 08:42 AM
Unless I am misreading this, it would tell me that you have no experience with pre-3e DMGs. If that is the case, I'm wondering how you can gauge the level of difference between them?
I suspect you're not misunderstanding anything, merely drawing conclusions from incomplete data; just because I STARTED with 3.5 doesn't mean I never branched out. I have since played both First and Second Editions, somewhat frequently. I suspect that my heart will remain true to my 3.5 roots though.


3e (especially on WotC's website) really pandered to players.[...]In one particular "Ask the experts" or whatever they called their online advice piece, a player wrote in saying that his DM would not let him play a particular class because the DM thought it was overpowered.[...]To me, that is horrible advice[.][..]
Ah, you've got me there; my experiences come entirely from the books, rather than from the website. That is truly horrible advice, and anyone who would consider taking it is probably not the sort of person we want playing D&D anyway. *Insert haughty sniff here*


If you don't see that 3e was a rebuild from the ground up rather than a revision then I can only assume that you've not looked at much pre-3e material.
If the misunderstand implicit in this statement is the root of this little debate of ours, then I can end it now; I clearly see a large mechanical difference between First and Second Editions and 3.5. However, this thread and discussion are about flavor and a DM's role, not the rules and mechanics. If I didn't make that explicitly clear, I apologize; I assumed it could be inferred.

nagora
2008-09-03, 08:47 AM
If the misunderstand implicit in this statement is the root of this little debate of ours, then I can end it now; I clearly see a large mechanical difference between First and Second Editions and 3.5. However, this thread and discussion are about flavor and a DM's role, not the rules and mechanics. If I didn't make that explicitly clear, I apologize; I assumed it could be inferred.
Okay, but can you not see how dramatically increasing the number of rules which affect the players (eg, feats) can lead to an increased difficulty for the DM to houserule. Those extra rules carried with them, I believe, an implication of empowerment because they were all focused on the characters. Could this not be the reason many players became more fixated on playing by RAW? The "RAW or nothing" attitude is one that strikes to the centre of this discussion.

Tormsskull
2008-09-03, 08:54 AM
I have since played both First and Second Editions, somewhat frequently.


Have you had a chance to DM them, or read through the DMGs? If so, did you notice any differences in the language that is used? I can't pull specific passages ATM, but to me there is an overwhelming difference.



I suspect that my heart will remain true to my 3.5 roots though.


Which is completely understandable, and I am sure is a lot of the reason my heart lies with my Basic roots. Often times the first type of game in a genre that we play seems to be the 'right' way to play.

SleepingOrange
2008-09-03, 09:04 AM
@Tormsskull: Of course; I don't have the stones to dive into an argument I know nothing about: I just don't enjoy the taste of foot that much. I realize that earlier rulebooks were more insistent about DM discretion, but page real-estate is at more of a premium in later ones. The message still comes through to me; it may all be in how you read it.

@Nagora: Well, now it's all about interpretation, and we can't even come to one viable conclusion on texts that have been around for millennia, much less mere decades. The fact that you use the word 'implication' really sums up our disagreement; you see it one way and I see it another. As to the RAW or nothing argument... Well, when I DM my biggest house-rule is "Don't be a [feminine hygiene product]. Seriously guys.". I suspect that most sensible DMs try to assemble groups of players capable of following this rule, and it's not until the OTHER players start to show up that arguments about rules start to arise.

*Sigh*... There should be a one-syllable word that means "DM's Discretion" that we can trot out whenever such a player hassles us...

Wait, there is: "Duh.".

Charity
2008-09-03, 09:37 AM
Which is completely understandable, and I am sure is a lot of the reason my heart lies with my Basic roots. Often times the first type of game in a genre that we play seems to be the 'right' way to play.

I am clearly tumbleweed. I prefered 3rd ed to 1st and I prefer 4th ed to either.
Thing is I have played so many systems now that I find there is no 'right' way for me just different ways. I liked RQ, MERP/Rolemaster, Harn all of which are fantasy setting, all different (except merp and rolemaster) all fun.
I am always suprised how entrenched folk get to their edition of choice, not leveling that at any here abouts (just to be clear)

I see the role of game master as fundimentally unchanged throughout, I do think players may have changed a bit in their expectations or certainly from the anecdotal evidence I have garnered from the tubes.

arguskos
2008-09-03, 09:41 AM
@Tormsskull: Of course; I don't have the stones to dive into an argument I know nothing about: I just don't enjoy the taste of foot that much. I realize that earlier rulebooks were more insistent about DM discretion, but page real-estate is at more of a premium in later ones. The message still comes through to me; it may all be in how you read it.
Interestingly, I think that you may have dug down to the issue. You said earlier that this is a discussion about flavor and DM's role, not mechanics.

I'd argue that rather, one has to consider the entire package to make an informed judgment and form an enlightened opinion.

I'm with Tormsskull and Nagora here, in that I've seen and felt a shift in the player base during the conversion from AD&D to 3rd Edition. It's one of those very hard to put your finger on sort of feelings. However, my personal bet is that it has to do with the rule shift. In AD&D, the rules were... obtuse. They weren't well designed, the books weren't that well organized, and the system was unwieldy (note that I love AD&D, and say this the best possible way). When the game was "updated" to 3e, it basically was totally rewritten to be user-friendly and well-organized in the books. This made the game far more accessible to players, leading to what I term the "Books Are Supreme" syndrome.

For example, in AD&D, the rules seemingly contradicted each other in the core books, and were tough to slog through. Coupled with the focus on the DM being final arbiter, it was a good environment for players to just accept the DM being correct. In 3e, with it's easily accessible rules and it's reducing of the "DM=final voice" emphasis, created a new gaming paradigm.

This is mostly to blame on Wizards of the Coast, and it's mostly incidental. It certainly wasn't their outset, though it became their goal as 3e matured into 3.5. They were the ones that chose to change the ruleset and to reduce the emphasis on the DM's power to decide. That is something WoTC can never be forgiven for, IMO.

-argus

hamlet
2008-09-03, 09:49 AM
I'm sure the unrestricted use of High Gygaxian textwall on civilians constitutes a warcrime of some kind. :smallamused:



Sissy.:smalltongue:


Warning: Wall of text approaching. Venture forth at own risk.

I do not think that the DM's role or function is a rules reciter, as seems to be the concept of some of the 3.x gamers I met when I attempted to run such a game. That, I beleive (you'll see that phrase a lot through this post) reduces his role to something that a computer could perform better and at that point you might as well be playing Neverwinter Nights. It's also abusive of the person behind the shield since it essentially states that his only purpose is to recite the module and run the monsters for the players to kill. Otherwise, he can sit there and shut up.

I do not think that the DM's role or function is that of a rules interpreter either. Well, yes I do, but that is only a single aspect of his function. Again, it's reductionist and does not address the scope of his duties and, I think, pushes him into the role of simply a slightly more intuitive machine.

The DM's function is not JUST to ensure that everyone else at the table has fun, though it is probably the most onerous of his duties. I say onerous not because it's not rewarding, or it's a bad thing, but because it's probably his most difficult as "fun" is extremely subjective. Players have just as much obligation here, I think, to ensure that the game is fun for themselves, the other players, and the DM/GM as well. The GM isn't just "that guy who runs the monsters and lsits out the treasure we find," he's supposed to enjoy the game too.

I think that the DM's true function, and this is going to be a very esoteric statement, is to literally be the world. To create and then represent the campaign world in which the game takes place. To be the impartial arbiter of the vague uncertainties of chance. To extend the hand of benevolence or mercy when appropriate. To strike forth with malice when required. The DM is a role player too, and his character is more than just a person, or a group of people, or even an ecosystem: he is there to role play the game reality itself.

Wow, that sounds utterly pretentious I think, but I still stand by it to a certain extent.

Now, I'm about to move off track here a little, but stick with me, we'll get back to the point of departure before too long. I promise.

The move between OD&D (and I'm including BECMI and Rules Cyclopedia in this in the interest of simplicity) and AD&D (including 1e and 2e, but NOT the player's option books) was an interesting transmogrification. The original D&D set (though less so as Basic, Expert, Companion, etc. were released) was so open, so light that it was virtually not there. D&D was played so differently between groups that it effectively wasn't the same game twice over. In fact, you were all but required to alter, tailor, and morph it to suit your tastes in order to make it playable. This is likely because the original booklets assumed a prior knowledge of Chainmail and certain other games would be incorporated into the D&D booklets. Infamously, this was not the case as those of us who remember know that moving between groups was like learning the game all over again. When you were brought into a DM's game, that was exactly what it meant. You weren't brought into just his campaign, but his actual game since he had likely authored so much of the process that worked behind the scenes that it was his own entity at that point.

With AD&D, Gary Gygax began a push within the D&D game theory that moved inexoribly towards more codified and common . . . processes I suppose is an appropriate word. His intent, I believe without reading too much into the entire situation with Arneson, was to create in AD&D a basis for a more common experience. The common assertion I see is that it was intended for the common experience of tournament play which, I suppose, is accurate as far as it goes. What I think he did, though, was really to add all the assumed knowledge that was originally taken for granted. Now, when you entered a GM's game, it was effectively just his instance of AD&D, or his interpretation of it rather than the situation in OD&D where he was likely a 50% author of the entire thing.

It was expected at this point, I believe, that the DM would, for the most part, conform to the general outline presented in the three core books. Wherever you played AD&D, and under whomever, you were essentially assured that it would be common enough to what you had played before and what you had read in the books that you wouldn't be totaly lost.

And now, I get back to my point, as promised: I'm pretty sure that, over time, the inertia of opinion has swung a lot further than Gary Gygax ever intended it to, very strongly over into the realm that expected the DM to conform to the RAW rather than to interpret, adapt, and modify.

*waits patiently for the shouting and yelling to die down*

No, I'm not trying to start a flame war here, merely voicing my opinion. I base it on a number of things.

1) It is my experience with modern gamers that, for the most part, they expect the rules on the page to be implemented as exactly such, rules. Moreover, their game reality is more strongly governed by those rules than I feel mine ever was and when the DM deviates from those rules without advance notice or warning, it tends to break the game for them.

2) The continued practice of adding more and more specific rules, more and more comprehensive rules, and generally more rules at all, to the books is, in my opinion, an implicit statement by WOTC that they've essentially "freed" the DM of so many of those burdens and duties that he had before. The DM no longer really needs to define the reality of the world as the authors of the game have provided that reality via the rules, he need merely define its shape. The rules had become more complete, and so the need for the DM to make changes had become less prominant.

3) In reaction to or in accordance with the White Wolf famous tag line about there being no more orcs in 10 foot rooms guarding treasure chests for no reason and (perhaps moreso) the Dragonlance module revolution, it seems that the focus of the DM has shifted slightly away from being an impartial arbiter and adapter towards being a storyteller. The plot got introduced and the DM became its keeper, which is ironic because one of the strongest insults I can think of in the game is calling the DM a railroading storyteller plot DM.

4) This is much more subjective, but I think just as important. I think that the inspiration behind the games has shifted significantly. Where it used to be Anderson, Lieber, Howard, and the Lord of the Rings books, it's now become a lot more about cinematic inspiration, video games, and the Lord of the Rings movies and Anime. This is absolutely not the "4e=WOW" meme, merely a comment that the cultural and intellectual background has shifted. I don't know how many gamers who picked up D&D starting with 3.0 have actuall read Lieber and Anderson and Moorcock, but I think it likely that it is quite a few less than years ago.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am personally not a fan of Lieber or Howard, though I appreciate their work and its influence. I have also not read Anderson or Moorcock yet, but I'm getting to it.

Curiously, Lovecraft seems to be a common thread, though admittedly what each take away from it changes.

I think that this goes beyond D&D as well as certain games focus on certain things, but as a whole, the culture is changing around us and the new blood simply doesn't come from the same place that the Grognards do anymore.

AKA_Bait
2008-09-03, 09:49 AM
This was quite an interesting read. It does seem that some of the ethos has changed. Players reading the DMG being worthy of death is certianly not a concept that holds with my group, although I do know older players who have that notion.

I think part of the reason for the shift, is that the game simply became more popular. The more people play, the more the chance that any given gamer will be both a DM and a Player at the same time, or over their gaming career. The second excerpt notes this, where the first seems to assume that there is one DM in your gaming group and that's that. It's much more difficult to keep an absolute level of rules control over a game when other players at the table might very well know the book better than you do as DM, because they are also a DM in a different game.

I think another part is that, and this is where I'm about to get yelled at, greater rules transparancy is a good thing. It allows players to make characters that will be able to do what they want them to do and know that the did. It gives them some sense of idependence from the DM as far as their own creations, their characters, are concerned. Not needing to consult with the DM about how x would work but instead acting on the mutual assumption that the rules in the books will be how things function unless stated otherwise frees up DM time and allows the players to spend more fun and productive time on their own outside of session as well.


The "RAW or nothing" attitude is one that strikes to the centre of this discussion.

I honestly don't know anyone who actually has that attitude. I hold something that might be confused for it, which is "generally speaking, go with the RAW. If you are making changes to it, and the changes you are making would impact the mechanics the players are using, tell them first and give them a chance to object."

Tormsskull
2008-09-03, 09:57 AM
I am clearly tumbleweed.


Clearly. *insert Smirnov Vodka commercial here*



Thing is I have played so many systems now that I find there is no 'right' way for me just different ways.


Understandable, but there are probably preferences that you have that stem from your early days of playing. For example, is there anything that ruffles your feathers? If a player makes a Drizzit clone, does that make you yak? Or if a player makes a character based on wielding a 10-foot sword, do you silently (or not so silently) groan?

I mean, there HAS to be some things that stuck with you that you use as criterion for determining what is a 'good' game (good being subjective for what kind of game you like to play).



I am always suprised how entrenched folk get to their edition of choice, not leveling that at any here abouts (just to be clear)


You could level it at me fairly, for I am definitely biased towards pre-3e D&D (you're shocked, aren't you?)



I see the role of game master as fundimentally unchanged throughout, I do think players may have changed a bit in their expectations or certainly from the anecdotal evidence I have garnered from the tubes.

Through all those games? Maybe that's what you picked up from your first bit of playing then (perhaps by thinking that your first GM was the role-model GM)? I'd have to imagine that some of the games suggest the role of the GM differently than others.

Charity
2008-09-03, 09:59 AM
I think part of the reason for the shift, is that the game simply became more popular. The more people play, the more the chance that any given gamer will be both a DM and a Player at the same time, or over their gaming career. The second excerpt notes this, where the first seems to assume that there is one DM in your gaming group and that's that. It's much more difficult to keep an absolute level of rules control over a game when other players at the table might very well know the book better than you do as DM, because they are also a DM in a different game.


I don't think it is more popular now than 1e... *wanders off to dig up some figures* Also I don't know anybody throughout my entire RP lifetime that has not been both a player and a DM at some point.

Dausuul
2008-09-03, 10:07 AM
There simply is no way to use a 3e module in 1e or vice-versa, while 1e and 2e modules could be run interchangably with almost no changes. If you don't see that 3e was a rebuild from the ground up rather than a revision then I can only assume that you've not looked at much pre-3e material.

I wouldn't say 3E was a rebuild from the ground up. They replaced the core of the system but kept most of the "superstructure." Much of the stuff that was really horribly broken in 3E (e.g., save-or-die and save-or-lose spells) happened because the designers brought it over essentially unchanged from 2E.

4E, on the other hand, really is a rebuild from the ground up. Not only were there extensive revisions to the core - again - but the superstructure, which remained pretty much the same from 1E through 3E, was completely junked.

nagora
2008-09-03, 10:10 AM
I wouldn't say 3E was a rebuild from the ground up. They replaced the core of the system but kept most of the "superstructure."
There's a lot of completely new stuff relating to characters and characters are the core of any RPG.


Much of the stuff that was really horribly broken in 3E (e.g., save-or-die and save-or-lose spells) happened because the designers brought it over essentially unchanged from 2E.
Broken in transit, I think. Changes were made to things like saving throws and casters that threw the balance of many spells out even when the spell text remained unchanged.

Dausuul
2008-09-03, 10:15 AM
There's a lot of completely new stuff relating to characters and characters are the core of any RPG.


Broken in transit, I think. Changes were made to things like saving throws and casters that threw the balance of many spells out even when the spell text remained unchanged.

That's pretty much my point. The core systems changed, but spells, monsters, magic items, and so forth all remained more or less the same. Sometimes that resulted in breakage, as with spells and saving throws; in 2E, finger of death wasn't such a big deal because anything you fought at 14th level was very likely to make its saving throw, but in 3E it became broken because save DCs scaled with spell level.

hamlet
2008-09-03, 10:18 AM
This is an aside as well, an addendum to my last monolithic post:

I do not believe this divide in ideology has much of anything to do with chronology, essentially, merely the shift in focus.

There were always people who tended to focus more on one aspect as opposed to the other. There were always rules lawyers who smacked the DM around with his own book, but the main focus of the game has moved over slightly to that side of the equation for now.

They have always co-existed, though, and sometimes I think we may see a move back towards the sensibilities and ideals of AD&D and even back into OD&D at one point.

That's if the game survives that long. It's taken us 30 years to swing this far. It might take us 30 years to swing back.

Charity
2008-09-03, 10:20 AM
Understandable, but there are probably preferences that you have that stem from your early days of playing. For example, is there anything that ruffles your feathers?
Nah, the only things that tick me off (while playing/ruiningrunning games is the usual stuff that would tick anyone off
- folk whom never know what their doing and make everyone wait 10 minutes while they decide,
- folk whom engage in crazy levels of attention to detail insisting on more and more detailed explanations of the terrain/weather conditions/metal fatigue on the castle gates etc,
- Anyoneplayer whom hides their dice as they roll them/accidentally adds up their bonuses wrong/seems to have gathered more xp than their fellow adventurers etc



If a player makes a Drizzit clone, does that make you yak? Or if a player makes a character based on wielding a 10-foot sword, do you silently (or not so silently) groan?

I mean, there HAS to be some things that stuck with you that you use as criterion for determining what is a 'good' game (good being subjective for what kind of game you like to play).

All I ask is to live in interesting times, give the players enough rope and a fair wind. The only thing I find that really effects my experiance is the personel, I'd play pretty much anything with the right people, genuinely I playtested a boardgame at Gencon, and we had more fun and did far more IC roleplaying in that than we did playing the poorly run RPGs... it's all about da people.




You could level it at me fairly, for I am definitely biased towards pre-3e D&D (you're shocked, aren't you?)
The horror!


Through all those games? Maybe that's what you picked up from your first bit of playing then (perhaps by thinking that your first GM was the role-model GM)? I'd have to imagine that some of the games suggest the role of the GM differently than others.
Interestingly the first bit of RPGing I did was in the 3rd year of junior school my teacher at the time... Mrs Golding I believe her name was ran some very simple freeform with dice dungeon bashes for the kids whom finished their work first... she was a clever woman that one, the only teacher whom ever kept me quiet for a whole school day.

AKA_Bait
2008-09-03, 10:20 AM
I don't think it is more popular now than 1e... *wanders off to dig up some figures* Also I don't know anybody throughout my entire RP lifetime that has not been both a player and a DM at some point.

I'm interested to see those figures. I'd be surprised if it wasn't more popular now, if only because some (not all) of the social stigma that was initially associated with D&D seems to have decreased over the years.


Through all those games? Maybe that's what you picked up from your first bit of playing then (perhaps by thinking that your first GM was the role-model GM)? I'd have to imagine that some of the games suggest the role of the GM differently than others.

Perhaps I have similar issues. I very much prefer the newer systems (3.x - 4e) and the ethos of greater player control. That might be partially because the very first GM I had was in a 2e game and is pretty much the example of what I always try not to do as a GM. A reverse role model as it were.

SleepingOrange
2008-09-03, 10:27 AM
1) It is my experience with modern gamers that, for the most part, they expect the rules on the page to be implemented as exactly such, rules. Moreover, their game reality is more strongly governed by those rules than I feel mine ever was and when the DM deviates from those rules without advance notice or warning, it tends to break the game for them.
Quite frankly, you need to meet more gamers; better gamers; faster gamers; stronger... Well, better, anyway. I have never, both in my real-life and online exploits, met many such gamers. Get a better base.


2) The continued practice of adding more and more specific rules, more and more comprehensive rules, and generally more rules at all, to the books is, in my opinion, an implicit statement by WOTC that they've essentially "freed" the DM of so many of those burdens and duties that he had before. The DM no longer really needs to define the reality of the world as the authors of the game have provided that reality via the rules, he need merely define its shape. The rules had become more complete, and so the need for the DM to make changes had become less prominant.
[totally surprising]I disagree.[/totally surprising] I feel the addition of new supplements and rules are an aid to players rather than DMs; new feats and spells and classes and races are all just there to help those players who can't homebrew themselves, or don't have the time/energy/drive. Rather than rulebooks, I like to think of them as 'creativity supplements'. Let's face it: not everyone is as creative as some everyone else, and full enjoyment of this game shouldn't be restricted to those of us who are able to imagine better.


3) In reaction to or in accordance with the White Wolf famous tag line about there being no more orcs in 10 foot rooms guarding treasure chests for no reason and (perhaps moreso) the Dragonlance module revolution, it seems that the focus of the DM has shifted slightly away from being an impartial arbiter and adapter towards being a storyteller. The plot got introduced and the DM became its keeper, which is ironic because one of the strongest insults I can think of in the game is calling the DM a railroading storyteller plot DM.
I don't think that there's ever been a time when there was no storyline; judging from the stories told to me by my older gaming friends, the problem with us whippersnappers these days is that we're too mechanics-focused, and plot takes too much of a backseat.


4) This is much more subjective, but I think just as important. I think that the inspiration behind the games has shifted significantly. Where it used to be Anderson, Lieber, Howard, and the Lord of the Rings books, it's now become a lot more about cinematic inspiration, video games, and the Lord of the Rings movies and Anime. This is absolutely not the "4e=WOW" meme, merely a comment that the cultural and intellectual background has shifted. I don't know how many gamers who picked up D&D starting with 3.0 have actuall read Lieber and Anderson and Moorcock, but I think it likely that it is quite a few less than years ago.
This goes back to the 'less creative people' issue; personally, I would never do a campaign 'based' on anything. Then again, I write stories and imagine worlds in my spare time, so whatcha gonna do?


I think that this goes beyond D&D as well as certain games focus on certain things, but as a whole, the culture is changing around us and the new blood simply doesn't come from the same place that the Grognards do anymore.
Because no new player has ever played with or learned from an older one. We all started in vacuums.

Okay, that was ruder than it was supposed to be, but still. I think that gaming traditions are just as present as other kinds, and that the game will never truly deviate from its roots as long as there are people who still play the game.



Personally, I rarely ever "play" anymore; I just enjoy being DM too much. And I make sure that people playing with me know what kind of DM I'll be; the only time I've ever had issues with "rules lawyers" was with a complete noobert. In fact, it was his first time playing (it was 4thEd), and he wasn't quite comfortable with the rules yet, so he tried to stick to what he did know like a limpet. I broke him of that habit gently, but quickly, and he was much more comfortable playing since he didn't have to rely on his own half-knowledge as much. With the pressure off, he actually started learning the rules more quickly. This, too, is a duty of DMs no-one's really mentioned yet.

Charity
2008-09-03, 10:57 AM
I'm interested to see those figures. I'd be surprised if it wasn't more popular now, if only because some (not all) of the social stigma that was initially associated with D&D seems to have decreased over the years.

Well finding this sort of data is tricksome indeed.

I found this about the EGG


American inventor who helped create (1974) the world’s first role-playing fantasy game, Dungeons & Dragons (D&D), and ultimately paved the way for modern interactive video games online. The game’s soaring popularity led to D&D-themed video games, movies, and books, with sales reaching $29 million by 1985. The radical game used pencils and graph paper instead of a board, along with polygonic dice, and a Dungeon Master led players on their own imagined medieval fantasy adventures featuring a myriad of mythical beings and creatures. In 1971 Gygax introduced the game Chainmail, the predecessor of D&D, and in 1973 he cofounded the company Tactical Studies Rules (TSR), which produced the first edition of D&D the following year. After leaving TSR in 1985, Gygax continued to develop new fantasy games and novels.

I'd say this represents the peak 1985 remember to take into account inflation when you compare it to todays figures... which I can't find.
But $29,000,000 in 1985 is worth $63,330,653.80 at an annual inflation of 3.6% per annum which is what the Bank of England recons is right (http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/education/inflation/calculator/flash/index.htm)

Matthew
2008-09-03, 11:08 AM
I'm interested to see those figures. I'd be surprised if it wasn't more popular now, if only because some (not all) of the social stigma that was initially associated with D&D seems to have decreased over the years.

Nah, sales during the early eighties were insane. No "official" data has ever been released, but the RPG sales base is definitely smaller now than then. Here's an article from back on the cusp of the eighties:



DUNGEONS & DRAGONS®
WHAT IT IS AND WHERE IT IS GOING
by Gary Gygax

DUNGEONS & DRAGONS® pioneered role playing in the gaming hobby. It brought fantasy before hobbyists, and it set before them a game-form most had never heard of. Perhaps 150,000 persons now play D&D®, but it was by no means an instant success. 1,000 boxed sets, hand assembled and labled, took eleven months to sell, another 1,000 of the same took only five or six months to sell (and Tactical Studies Rules was thrilled). Finally a third printing of 2,000 sold in five months. So from January, 1974, to December, 1975, only 4,000 sets of the original version of the game were in circulation. (Of course, I have no way of knowing how many pirated copies of D&D were in existence, but some estimates place the figure at about 20% of the total sales, some as high as 50%. In any case 5,000 or 6,000 sets was certainly nothing to set the gaming world on fire, or was it?) Today the “Basic Set” sells 4,000 copies per month, and the sales graph is upwards.

A month has not gone by in the last two years when I haven’t been interviewed by one or more newspaper writers or independent journalists who want to know all about D&D. I have likewise been interviewed by radio and TV news media, generally for the same reason. At the risk of claiming too much for the game, I have lately taken to likening the whole to Aristotle’s POETICS, carrying the analogy to even more ridiculous heights by stating that each Dungeon Master uses the rules to become a playwrite (hopefully of Shakespearean stature), scripting only plot outlines however, and the players become the Thespians. Before incredulity slackens so as to allow the interviewer to become hostile, I hasten to add that the analogy applies only to the basic parts of the whole pastime, not to the actual merits of D&D, its DMs, or players. If you consider the game, the analogy is actually quite apt. DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is like none other in that it requires the game master to create part or all of a fantasy world. Players must then become personae in this place and interact with the other populace. This is, of course a tall order for all concerned — rules, DM, and players alike.

Relating a basic adventure, an episodic game session in the campaign, to a trip in an underground labyrinth does help the uninitiated to understand the simplest D&D fundamentals — discover an unknown area, move around in it by means of descriptive narration from the Dungeon Master, overcome whatever obstacles are there (traps, problems, monsters), and return with whatever has been gained during the course of the whole. The DM takes the part of everything in this fantasy world which is not operated by a player. While this should not mean it is then a game of DM versus the players, it does mean that DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is a co-operative game where players must interact successfully amongst themselves first, and non-hostile portions of the campaign milieu thereafter, in order to be successful. The Dungeon Master is incidentally against the players when he or she is operating that part of the “world” which is hostile, or potentially so, but in general the referee must be disinterested.

At about this point I am always asked: “Well, then, how do you win? who wins?!” The answer is, EVERYBODY — providing that the game is well run. The DM gets the satisfaction of testing his abilities against those of the players, the fun of taking the non-player parts, and the accolades of participants when a particularly well-done adventure or series has been completed. Players enjoy the challenges of each situation and have the prospect of continuing adventures and puzzles to confront them, each with his or her game persona. Thus all taking part in the campaign get something besides a momentary diversion. Winning no more applies to D&D than it does to real life. The successful DMs and players gain renown via their campaigns or their superior characters. To enthusiasts of the game it is far more satisfying than triumphing in a single game or whole series of games.

Simply stated, D&D is a multi-player game of fantasy role playing, where the rules give systems of resolution for common game occurrences, lists and explanations of things which are not actual (monsters, spells, magic items, etc.), systems for interaction, and suggestions as to how to put this into the campaign, i.e. create the milieu. Once begun, the campaign continues until the DM and/or all of the players decide it should end. As with any exercise in fantasy it requires suspension of disbelief. Those who find the game interesting will soon enough thereafter create their own sort of involvement and belief. But why is such a game (and similar fantasy role playing games, for that matter) so popular? What is its appeal!?

Our modern world has few, if any, frontiers. We can no longer escape to the frontier of the West, explore Darkest Africa, sail to the South Seas. Even Alaska and the Amazon Jungles will soon be lost as wild frontier areas. Furthermore, adventures are not generally possible anymore. The frontiers are receding into memories, modern communications make all of the world available to casual travellers, and the most backward places are becoming more and more civilized. Certainly it is still possible to go scuba diving, mountain climbing, auto racing, sky diving, and so on. These are expensive and risky for no real purpose in most cases. One can also have adventures as a criminal, or possibly as an agent of the government (if one is sufficiently qualified), but the former is distasteful to say the least, and the latter is most unlikely. Americans, with more leisure today than ever, crave entertainment. Some desire adventure and excitement. Obviously, various entertainment media are doing big business — TV, motion pictures, spectator sports, recreational vehicles, sporting goods, book publishers, and game manufacturers are all growing. “Escape fiction” sells better today than ever, and witness the success of the recent science fiction and fantasy films.

Looking towards space and the future for new frontiers and adventure is logical. The universe has fascinated mankind since recorded history, and today it seems quite probable that within a few decades numbers of us will live off of the earth, and in a century or so we will travel to the stars. Perhaps there will be frontiers and adventure enough then for all who care to test their mettle. But it is no less surprising for us to look into the realms of fantasy for imagined adventure. Most literate people grow up on a diet of fairy tales, Walt Disney, and comic book superheroes. We somehow relate to stories of young princes going out into the world to seek their fortune, of knights rescuing maidens in distress and slaying dragons, of dealings with wicked magicians and evil witches. The myth of all peoples contain great stocks of such fantasy lore. If nothing else, the desire to believe in such seems to be innate in humanity. Whether or not there are parallel worlds or places where fantastic creatures actually live and magic works is not germane, for most of us are familiar with the concepts as if they were actual, and we have a desire to become involved, if only vicariously, amongst such heroic epics of magic and monsters. It is therefore scarcely surprising that a game which directly involves participants in a make-believe world of just such nature should prove popular; and had I reasoned out the enthusiasm it roused amongst the first few who played it, it would have been evident that D&D was destined to become a very popular game indeed. (Naturally, hindsight is usually a 20/20 proposition, and the fact is I wrote the game for a small audience of devoted miniatures players . . . )

If millions take to the fantasy world of J.R.R. Tolkien, and nearly as many follow the heroic feats of Conan, the market potential of a game system which provides participants with a pastime which creates play resembling these adventuresome worlds and their inhabitants is bounded only by its accessibility. Access has two prominent aspects; availability is the first; that is, are potential players informed of the fact that the game exists, and are they able to physically obtain it; and difficulty is the second, for if once obtained the game is so abstruse as to be able to be played only by persons with intelligence far above the norm, or if the game demands a volume of preliminary work which is prohibitive for the normal individual, this will be recognized and the offering shunned even if it is available. D&D failed on both counts, and still its following grew. Today we are putting D&D onto the track where it is envisioned it will have both maximum availability and minimum difficulty. This is best illustrated in the “Basic Set".

Well over two years ago we recognized that there was a need for an introductory form of the game. In 1977 the colorfully boxed “Basic Set” was published. It contained simplified, more clearly written rules, dungeon geomorphs, selections of monsters and treasures to place in these dungeons, and a set of polyhedra dice — in short all that a group of beginning players need to start play with relative ease. Later editions have cleaned up most of the flaws in the first, and the newest will do away with the geomorphs and list of monsters and treasures in favor of a complete basic module, so that difficulty will be reduced even further. This should broaden the game’s appeal to a base in the millions, and then the major factor becomes availability. Popular demand always increases availability, and D&D has been blessed by it's enthusiasts most generously in this regard. Coupled with the work being done by TSR to publicize and promote the game, the availability factor will also be maximized over the next few years. Finally, to maintain interest, a series of new and interesting modular dungeon and outdoor scenarios, as well as more playing aids, will be made available periodically. The number of D&D players should certainly continue to mushroom for several years.

Fanatical game hobbyists often express the opinion that DUNGEONS & DRAGONS will continue as an ever-expanding, always improving game system. TSR and I see it a bit differently. Currently D&D is moving in two directions. There is the “Original” game system and the new ADVANCED D&D® system. New participants can move from the “Basic Set” into either form without undue difficulty — especially as playing aid offerings become more numerous, and that is in process now. Americans have somehow come to equate change with improvement. Somehow the school of continuing evolution has conceived that D&D can go on in a state of flux, each new version “new and improved!” From a standpoint of sales, I beam broadly at the very thought of an unending string of new, improved, super, energized, versions of D&D being hyped to the loyal followers of the gaming hobby in general and role playing fantasy games in particular. As a game designer I do not agree, particularly as a gamer who began with chess. The original could benefit from a careful reorganization and expansion to clarify things, and this might be done at some future time. As all of the ADVANCED D&D system is not written yet, it is a bit early for prognostication, but I envision only minor expansions and some rules amending on a gradual, edition to edition, basis. When you have a fine product, it is time to let well enough alone. I do not believe that hobbyists and casual players should be continually barraged with new rules, new systems, and new drains on their purses. Certainly there will be changes, for the game is not perfect; but I do not believe the game is so imperfect as to require constant improvement.

Does this mean that D&D will be at a dead end when the last of AD&D® is published? Hardly! Modules and similar material will continue to be released so as to make the DM’s task easier and his or her campaign better. Quite frankly, the appeal of D&D rests principally upon the broad shoulders of the hard-working Dungeon Masters. The rules never need improvement if the DM is doing a proper job, but of course he or she can do so only if the rules are sufficient to allow this. With refined rules and modular additions, all aspects of a long lived and exciting campaign will unquestionably be there for the DM to employ. Will D&D dead end when its novelty dies? That is impossible to answer. It is my personal opinion that the game form is a classic which is of the same stamp as chess and MONOPOLY® ; time will be the judge. No doubt that there is a limit to the appeal of the game in any of its current forms. If tens of millions play a relatively simple, social sort of a game such as MONOPOLY, it is a sure thing that a far more difficult game such as D&D will have a much more limited audience. As the game cannot be simplified beyond a certain point, we look to another means of popularizing it.

DUNGEONS & DRAGONS can be played on a computer. Computers are most certainly a big aspect of the near future, particularly the home computer. Non-programmable computer games are already making big inroads into the toy and hobby market. They will grow still more, and soon programmable games will join this trend. D&D program cassettes plugged into a home computer would obviate the need for a DM or other players. Thus the labor of setting up a campaign or the necessity of having a fairly large group to play in it would be removed. The graphic display would be exciting, and the computer would slave away doing all of the record work and mechanics necessary to the game, giving nearly instantaneous results to the player or players. Computerization of D&D has many other benefits also, and such games would not destroy the human-run campaign but supplement game participation. This is the direction we hope to make available to D&D. Let’s see if my foresight is as keen as my hindsight.

All that being so, what is the purpose of this column, the reader may justifiably inquire? Well, as I make no claim to perfection, no such claim can be made for ADVANCED D&D or D&D for that matter. This column will cover controversial rules or systems, problem and so-called problem areas of D&D/AD&D, and consider new material as well. If the games are not to be continually changing and “evolving,” neither is it envisioned that they have reached such a state of perfection so as to become immutable. What appears herein is discussion which will sometimes lead to alteration, amendment, or expansion of one or the other system. Initially, what you read here will be direct from me, but all DMs — and players also — are invited to submit article material of high calibre. A glance at the introductory sections of all of the works comprising the D&D/AD&D systems will show that many individuals contributed to the designs. The list in the forthcoming DUNGEON MASTERS GUIDE is longer still. All of these individuals, and the audience at large, are cordially invited to submit their thoughts and opinions on pertinent matters. If I am not to be “the great god gygax,” a claim I have never made nor supported, there must be input which presents argumentation and systems which are meaningful alternatives to replace or augment existing rules and systems. This is not to say that anyone’s favorite variant, even if well-designed, is likely to become D&D/AD&D, but at worst reasons for why it is unacceptable will be given, and the possible results could be a major change in the game.
So here is your forum. Let us hope it becomes a useful and meaningful exchange!


According to Frank Mentzer, more than a million sets of basic were shifted before 1985, a result of getting a 'real' distributor.

JackShandy
2008-09-03, 11:12 AM
Also, this book contains essential rules that are not discussed in the Player's Handbook. Some of these rules the players will learn quickly during play—special combat situations, the costs of hiring NPCs, etc. Others, however, cover more esoteric or mysterious situations, such as the nature of artifacts and other magical items. This information is in the Dungeon Master Guide so the DM can control the players' (and hence the characters') access to certain bits of knowledge. In a fantasy world, as in this world, information is power. What the characters don't know can hurt them (or lead them on a merry chase to nowhere). While the players aren't your enemies, they aren't your allies, either, and you aren't obligated to give anything away for nothing. If characters go hunting wererats without doing any research beforehand, feel free to throw lots of curves their way. Reward those characters who take the time to do some checking.

I hadn't remembered this paragraph from the 2e DMG. It seems doomed to failure. If you have to control player's knowledge of wererats to control character knowledge, running a game more than once will be hard.


Reading all the excerpts, you can definetely see shifts. Some of them I think are positive, like acknowledging that you will probably be both a DM and a player at some point. Some I think are negative -- an admonition that the spirit of the game is more important than rules lawyering is something I strongly agree with.

However, I wonder how much the gaming community has actually changed. I can't speak to anything before 1990, but I remember lots of "Monty Hall" campaigns and people who wanted their characters to be ridiculously powerful.

Matthew
2008-09-03, 11:16 AM
However, I wonder how much the gaming community has actually changed. I can't speak to anything before 1990, but I remember lots of "Monty Hall" campaigns and people who wanted their characters to be ridiculously powerful.

This is a very good point. What people often forget is that D20 was wildly successful. Whatever my misgivings about D20 it was the game people wanted. Are people predisposed to evil? :smallbiggrin:

AKA_Bait
2008-09-03, 11:19 AM
Nah, sales during the early eighties were insane. No "official" data has ever been released, but the RPG sales base is definitely smaller now than then. Here's an article from back on the cusp of the eighties:


Huh. I stand corrected. That's very interesting. I had pretty much assumed that the hobby had grown in the past 20 years. It seems instead to have shrunk. I wonder if that explains some of the changes to a lighter ruleset in 4e.

nagora
2008-09-03, 11:21 AM
This is a very good point. What people often forget is that D20 was wildly successful. Whatever my misgivings about D20 it was the game people wanted. Are people predisposed to evil? :smallbiggrin:
Sadly, yes :(

hamlet
2008-09-03, 11:38 AM
Quite frankly, you need to meet more gamers; better gamers; faster gamers; stronger... Well, better, anyway. I have never, both in my real-life and online exploits, met many such gamers. Get a better base.

Hey, this is just my personal experience. It might simply be that gamers in NJ just stink in general, but since I know of any number of them whom I love to game with and are great players and all loathe 3.x, I kind of tend to think that there's something in the 3.x system that encourages this.

Again, this is entirely my opinion based on my experience. You want to move to NJ and run a 3.x or 4e game for me, then I'll play and give you another opinion.

It's very difficult to base my opinion on gamers I haven't met and just taking your word for it.



[totally surprising]I disagree.[/totally surprising] I feel the addition of new supplements and rules are an aid to players rather than DMs; new feats and spells and classes and races are all just there to help those players who can't homebrew themselves, or don't have the time/energy/drive. Rather than rulebooks, I like to think of them as 'creativity supplements'. Let's face it: not everyone is as creative as some everyone else, and full enjoyment of this game shouldn't be restricted to those of us who are able to imagine better.



Oh yes, supplements can be a great boon, and in fact, I have piles and piles of them sitting in my closet.

However, that's not what I was talking about really, though I think it is a symptom of the same thing.

I was talking, mostly, about the core books. My statement is that, within the core books, I think that the quantitiy and specificity of the rules has increased dramatically. I think, as well, that rules have begun to be conflated with individualization and creativity: how many times I have talked to people who claim that without specific rules effects, character individualization is meaningless. The same, I feel, goes for a lot of the DM's territory in that, rather than paragraphs of text that define the feel of the world, we get specified rules that change how the basics operate.

Of course, I'm not saying this is, perforce, a bad thing. Hell, Dark Sun just wouldn't be Dark Sun without some of those rules thrown into the mix and Dark Sun is one of my favorite settings.

However, it is a difference in style and taste that has come to dominate. Prestige classes are a prime example of this, I think. Many of them describe not just a different variation on the base class, they describe an actual group or society, but specify individual rules that now apply. This is relatively new as, previously, if you wanted to join such a society, you sought them out in game and dealt with it in game and there really weren't any rules that governed that.

Actually, now that I think on it a moment, I think the "Knight" base class and the "Leadership" feat are even better examples of what I'm trying to say. Why do I have to be a specific class in order to be a knight? Isn't it just easier and more preferable to say that knighthood is an honor and duty bestowed upon the character by a lord or ruler? What if my knights do not reflect the knight base class? Do I then have to go in and modify the rules of the knight class to make them fit? Wouldn't it be simpler to start that from scratch and define how knights fit into the world?

Why do I need a special feat in order to gain followers?* Can't I just go about and ask people if they'd like to come along and join me? Isn't it more rewarding for the DM to have an NPC approach a PC and, because he was so impressed with the PC's skill and self conduct, asked if he might attend the PC instead of getting that follower simply because I exercised a rule? A form of reward.

*Yes, I know there are followers rules in AD&D, but I generally disagree with them and heavily change or ignore them in my own campaigns. They're just not needed IMO.



I don't think that there's ever been a time when there was no storyline; judging from the stories told to me by my older gaming friends, the problem with us whippersnappers these days is that we're too mechanics-focused, and plot takes too much of a backseat.


I said plot, not storyline. I have no problem with a storyline that develops out of the actions of the players and grows up with them.

Plots, on the other hand, are generally pre-planned and, if the players venture away from it, the DM tends to get lost and is unsure what to do. Some of the most lauded adventures today are ones that are very heavily plotted, and are ones that I feel many of the "old guard" would very much dislike. Adding plot to adventures is one of these major changes I think.




This goes back to the 'less creative people' issue; personally, I would never do a campaign 'based' on anything. Then again, I write stories and imagine worlds in my spare time, so whatcha gonna do?


I have no problem with a campaign "based" on anything, as long as that base is not "we're doing a campaign in this setting I found in this novel and you'll be re-enacting the story . . .

I actually like campaigns that are based on certain themes and ideas because often it adds another level of interest.




Because no new player has ever played with or learned from an older one. We all started in vacuums.

Okay, that was ruder than it was supposed to be, but still. I think that gaming traditions are just as present as other kinds, and that the game will never truly deviate from its roots as long as there are people who still play the game.


Ok, I think you misunderstand me.

My point was about common cultural ground outside of the game session itself. Today, it is probably less likely to find a group of gamers that are familiar with "Three Hearts Three Lions" and The Gods of the City than a group familiar with . . . uhm . . . well that's kind of hard on me since I tend to shy away from a lot of the modern things.

I guess the only way I can approach this is to ask if when you sit down with another group of gamers, do you talk about your memories of Jack Vance's Dying Earth stories, or do you talk about your memories of something else that's more modern?

Curiously, it seems that Monty Python is a universal thing among gamers.




Personally, I rarely ever "play" anymore; I just enjoy being DM too much. And I make sure that people playing with me know what kind of DM I'll be; the only time I've ever had issues with "rules lawyers" was with a complete noobert. In fact, it was his first time playing (it was 4thEd), and he wasn't quite comfortable with the rules yet, so he tried to stick to what he did know like a limpet. I broke him of that habit gently, but quickly, and he was much more comfortable playing since he didn't have to rely on his own half-knowledge as much. With the pressure off, he actually started learning the rules more quickly. This, too, is a duty of DMs no-one's really mentioned yet.

Hey, it's entirely a matter of taste, preference, and style. I'm not disparaging anything, merely trying to identify what I feel are cultural shifts within the game itself.

I think that those shifts - that they exist, not what they are - is readily apparant.

Matthew
2008-09-03, 11:38 AM
Huh. I stand corrected. That's very interesting. I had pretty much assumed that the hobby had grown in the past 20 years. It seems instead to have shrunk. I wonder if that explains some of the changes to a lighter ruleset in 4e.

If you think about it in terms of "crazes" it makes a lot of sense. Much like Pokemon and Magic the Gathering, Dungeons & Dragons enjoyed a period when it seemed everybody and his dog was playing. None of them will ever be as popular as they were during that "golden age", but the remaining player base is fairly stable, though actual numbers fluctuate over time.

Charity
2008-09-03, 11:42 AM
Nah, sales during the early eighties were insane. No "official" data has ever been released, but the RPG sales base is definitely smaller now than then. Here's an article from back on the cusp of the eighties:

According to Frank Mentzer, more than a million sets of basic were shifted before 1985, a result of getting a 'real' distributor.

See above, I doubt Britanica would lie to me...

Matthew
2008-09-03, 11:49 AM
See above, I doubt Britanica would lie to me...

Aye, I meant number of books shifted. There are some estimates over at the Acaeum (http://www.acaeum.com/). Wizards of the Coast wouldn't tell me when I asked them...

SleepingOrange
2008-09-03, 12:08 PM
It's very difficult to base my opinion on gamers I haven't met and just taking your word for it.
Of course not; that would be silly. I just think you would enjoy expanding your player base. You may wish to try the new inter webs you hear so much about.


I was talking, mostly, about the core books. My statement is that, within the core books, I think that the quantitiy and specificity of the rules has increased dramatically. I think, as well, that rules have begun to be conflated with individualization and creativity: how many times I have talked to people who claim that without specific rules effects, character individualization is meaningless. The same, I feel, goes for a lot of the DM's territory in that, rather than paragraphs of text that define the feel of the world, we get specified rules that change how the basics operate.
I think we're on different pages here; I was responding to you saying that "The DM no longer really needs to define the reality of the world as the authors of the game have provided that reality via the rules, he need merely define its shape."; is this to say you would prefer each DM essentially author his own system, or what? Please be clear on this, as I feel this issue is the most important.


However, it is a difference in style and taste that has come to dominate. Prestige classes are a prime example of this, I think.[...]
i think prestige classes are fine, taken in moderation; as long as you don't let your characters munchkin, they can add a great deal of depth to the character's personality; the ones that represent an orginization members are special; they represent not only membership in said organization, but special training available only to members.


Actually, now that I think on it a moment, I think the "Knight" base class and the "Leadership" feat are even better examples of what I'm trying to say. Don't get me wrong; I don't support every rule (re-read my first post in this thread). The knight class is stupid and the leadership feat is cheese; neither should be acceptable.


Plots, on the other hand, are generally pre-planned and, if the players venture away from it, the DM tends to get lost and is unsure what to do. Some of the most lauded adventures today are ones that are very heavily plotted, and are ones that I feel many of the "old guard" would very much dislike. Adding plot to adventures is one of these major changes I think.
Well, now we're arguing semantics; I was using 'plot' as a synonym for 'storyline'. Additionally, I suspect there is as great a proportion if ham-fisted DMs now as there was then, and I don't know what makes you think otherwise; please expound.




I have no problem with a campaign "based" on anything, as long as that base is not "we're doing a campaign in this setting I found in this novel and you'll be re-enacting the story . . .
I do, but that's just me. On the rare occasions I get to play, I prefer a DM's world to be wholly his own.


My point was about common cultural ground outside of the game session itself. Today, it is probably less likely to find a group of gamers that are familiar with "Three Hearts Three Lions" and The Gods of the City than a group familiar with . . . uhm . . . well that's kind of hard on me since I tend to shy away from a lot of the modern things.
Well, there's no way to argue that. Of course the culture is changing; that's what it does. However, I don't think it has as much effect as you believe it does, especially on the issue this thread was discussing.


Hey, it's entirely a matter of taste, preference, and style. I'm not disparaging anything, merely trying to identify what I feel are cultural shifts within the game itself.
That one wasn't even directed at you (hence the triple line break). I was just getting back on topic and mentioning an opinion of mine as well as a small anecdote.

hamlet
2008-09-03, 12:33 PM
Well, there's no way to argue that. Of course the culture is changing; that's what it does. However, I don't think it has as much effect as you believe it does, especially on the issue this thread was discussing.


I do think that common culture, or lack thereoff, is part of the core of this discussion.

Simply put, if your common culture is Jack Vance and Anderson, you expect different things from the game. If your common culture is Anime and video games, you expect something else.

Transitively, both viewpoints expect something else of their DM as well.

SleepingOrange
2008-09-03, 12:51 PM
Really? What it sounds like what you're saying boils down to is chaos theory applied to roleplaying:

When I was six I watched Power Rangers, so I always liked ninjas, so I wanted to be a ninja, which made me physically active, which made me physically fit, so I joined sports, and I became captain of the varsity football team, which led me to date the head cheerleader, so I met her mom, who introduced me to Terry Pratchett books, which I liked, so I went on some Terry Pratchett forums, where I saw an ad for Spam, and I decided to try it, and it was good, so I looked up how it's made, which made me learn more about wheat gluten, which helped me solve the mystery of why the villagers are getting sick in this campaign.

I wouldn't have come to this conclusion if I hadn't watched Power Rangers, and no-one else could have come to the same conclusion.

What you appear to be saying is that, based on our popular culture, our generation is incapable of having a game similar to that of the older generation, or that it's near impossible. And I just don't think things have changed enough in a couple of decades for that to be the case. What makes you think it has? Please, elaborate. I say this out of a genuine interest in your viewpoint.

hamlet
2008-09-03, 01:07 PM
What you appear to be saying is that, based on our popular culture, our generation is incapable of having a game similar to that of the older generation, or that it's near impossible. And I just don't think things have changed enough in a couple of decades for that to be the case. What makes you think it has?

No, I'm not saying that.

I am saying that the popular or other culture that you are exposed to as a child and that you seek out as an adult (or a teenager since I have to realize so many here are so young) strongly colors and affects what you look for in a game, what you seek in games (i.e., what you look for when you go out to purchase a book), and what you expect from the game and its processes.

For example, you like ninjas, so you expect your game to provide you with a way to play a ninja and a way for the DM to govern your play of ninjas.

How that relates to SPAM is entirely up to you.

I look for something else since I was exposed to a different culture. Specifically, Anime is "new and scary" to me and, for the most part, I simply don't like it and I loath that its sensibilities are creeping in everywhere, and so I tend to head for different games and different aspects of those games than you do. I also expect something else of my DM (though honestly, I think we agree more than we disagree).

Moreover, the same can be said of designers and the games they design. Gary Gygax looked for something specific out of his game design, and he got it. The currnt crop of designers are looking for something else, and got it. Thus, the two games that they designed, though superficially similar, I feel have significant differences in the underpinning assumptions and aims of the systems. AD&D and 4e are both aiming at different things, and thus, I think, the DM in each plays a slightly different role.

This is, to me, a blatant statement of the obvious, but it's something that needs to get adressed.




Please, elaborate. I say this out of a genuine interest in your viewpoint.

Wow, somebody's actually interested in my point of view. I must write this in my warm and fuzzy book . . .

SleepingOrange
2008-09-03, 01:19 PM
All right; your contention is that based on what they've been exposed to, people look for different things in a game. This is a reasonable viewpoint. However, I think you apply it too stringently; D&D is and always has been a largely euro-medieval, swords and sorcery pen-and-paper RPG. Even since its inception, this has remained constant, and the game has remained popular, even though many of its players aren't even as old as the game itself. I honestly think you perceive much more of a generational gap than exists. If things are so different now, why do people still play a game that's sp thematically similar?

Besides, anime isn't so much 'new and scary' so much as 'poorly drawn, animated, written, and contrived'.


Wow, somebody's actually interested in my point of view. I must write this in my warm and fuzzy book . . .
I merely mentioned this because at this point a lot of people would take this discussion as me just trying to mock or deride them, and I just didn't want it to peter out; there's no need to be unpleasant about it.

AKA_Bait
2008-09-03, 01:30 PM
All right; your contention is that based on what they've been exposed to, people look for different things in a game. This is a reasonable viewpoint. However, I think you apply it too stringently; D&D is and always has been a largely euro-medieval, swords and sorcery pen-and-paper RPG. Even since its inception, this has remained constant, and the game has remained popular, even though many of its players aren't even as old as the game itself. I honestly think you perceive much more of a generational gap than exists. If things are so different now, why do people still play a game that's sp thematically similar?


Well, that theme is only there in a very broad sense. You might say that something like The Dying Earth by Vance and The Color of Magic by Pratchett are thematically similar in that they both involve wizards but a games based on either one would feel very very different.

SleepingOrange
2008-09-03, 01:31 PM
Well, that theme is only there in a very broad sense.[...]

With that in mind, please explain what the major thematic differences between AD&D and Third on up are.

hamlet
2008-09-03, 01:32 PM
All right; your contention is that based on what they've been exposed to, people look for different things in a game. This is a reasonable viewpoint. However, I think you apply it too stringently; D&D is and always has been a largely euro-medieval, swords and sorcery pen-and-paper RPG. Even since its inception, this has remained constant, and the game has remained popular, even though many of its players aren't even as old as the game itself. I honestly think you perceive much more of a generational gap than exists. If things are so different now, why do people still play a game that's sp thematically similar?

I didn't say there was a large generational gap, or even a large gap in the first place. As I said above, I think that these two different expectations have always co-existed side by side, but that the focus has begun to shift towards one instead of the other.

The differences are, of course, very slight, and I often find myself sitting squarely in the middle of it. In that case, I'll use Nagora, if he's ok with it, as a brief example of some of the illustrative differences.

1) Some see a need for a comprehensive and useful skill system and decry any lack of it. Nagora sees absolutely no need for it and, indeed, thinks adding it was a crime against the game. I again, fall in the middle.

2) For some reason, WOTC has seen fit to throw at us dozens, maybe hundreds of minute variations on a theme in the form of base classes and prestige classes, all containing different rules and slightly altered processes. Nagora would, no doubt, say that such is folly and that all that is required is the base archetype of fighting man, magic user, praying man, and thieving man and that all variations are a matter of description and play. I fall, somewhat, in the middle, though closer to Nagora I think.

3) Some, in order to feel that their characters are unique, require feats, skills, and special classes and multi-classing. Nagora, and I, disagree.

4) Some see the need for specific rules for disarm, sundering, tripping, balancing, etc in order to make combat unique and interesting. Nagora, and I, disagree.

5) Some have actually stated that they see the rules as a way to be protected from the DM. Nagora effectively laughs at the idea of being "protected from the DM" and again, I fall somewhere in the middle here.

These are, really, a matter of play style. This is a matter of course and I see Matthew up ahead, ready with a bludgeon to club me for taking so long to get to the point of it.

However, I see that the systems of D&D each cater to a different style of play, and that the popularity of those systems indicates, among other things, a shift in the population of players and DM's and, neccessarily, their view on the role of the DM.



Besides, anime isn't so much 'new and scary' so much as 'poorly drawn, animated, written, and contrived'.

.

For the most part, I agree. However, I am ashamed to say that I've become addicted to Naruto (the book, not the television series). However, even that grates before too long.

Matthew
2008-09-03, 01:38 PM
With that in mind, please explain what the major thematic differences between AD&D and Third on up are.

The prevalence of spikes on body armour?

I don't think the themes are very different, though I do think D20 saw an increase in "D&D" as its own source material, rather than as an amalgamation of various types of pulp fiction. On the other hand, that has been going on far longer than the advent of 3e.

I would say there was a movement away from game mastery towards rule mastery. The character "build" perhaps more than anything typifies this change of emphasis.

averagejoe
2008-09-03, 01:39 PM
Why do I have to be a specific class in order to be a knight? Isn't it just easier and more preferable to say that knighthood is an honor and duty bestowed upon the character by a lord or ruler? What if my knights do not reflect the knight base class? Do I then have to go in and modify the rules of the knight class to make them fit? Wouldn't it be simpler to start that from scratch and define how knights fit into the world?

I believe this was always a problem with the thief class. Even after they started calling it a rogue people were still like, "Oh, a thief, time to disrupt the game with my kleptomania." Heck, even the fighter has this problem; does it imply that your primary role isn't to fight if you're, say, a paladin or a ranger? Can you not be a priest or other clergyman if you don't have levels in the cleric class? Would not a bard raised away from civilization be a barbarian? In general it's better to think of the names of classes as just that-names of classes-and think of them as separate from their role in life.

hamlet
2008-09-03, 01:42 PM
I believe this was always a problem with the thief class. Even after they started calling it a rogue people were still like, "Oh, a thief, time to disrupt the game with my kleptomania." Heck, even the fighter has this problem; does it imply that your primary role isn't to fight if you're, say, a paladin or a ranger? Can you not be a priest or other clergyman if you don't have levels in the cleric class? Would not a bard raised away from civilization be a barbarian? In general it's better to think of the names of classes as just that-names of classes-and think of them as separate from their role in life.

I think a lot of the issue comes from people misinterpreting the archetypes.

Yes, it says "thief" on it, but it doesn't mean that you have to steal everything not nailed down. It means that you favor stealth and skill over front on face to face combat.

As for the "barbarian" class, I could go on for a while about that . . .

SleepingOrange
2008-09-03, 01:44 PM
I would say there was a movement away from game mastery towards rule mastery. The character "build" perhaps more than anything typifies this change of emphasis.

What would make you say this? My experience contradicts this; yours apparently, does not. What have we experienced that's so different? I it merely because "build"ers are more vocal, or are they more prevalent? Are they a new phenomenon, or are they just the same people that have always been trying to do the same thing, and are merely better at it now because the increased standardization of the rules and availability of splatterbooks are at a high?

hamlet
2008-09-03, 01:47 PM
What would make you say this? My experience contradicts this; yours apparently, does not. What have we experienced that's so different? I it merely because "build"ers are more vocal, or are they more prevalent? Are they a new phenomenon, or are they just the same people that have always been trying to do the same thing, and are merely better at it now because the increased standardization of the rules and availability of splatterbooks are at a high?

Yes.:smallbiggrin:

AKA_Bait
2008-09-03, 01:48 PM
With that in mind, please explain what the major thematic differences between AD&D and Third on up are.

I haven't played enough of the earlier editions to speak to them with any kind of confidence.

However, for what I am familiar with, there is certianly a major thematic difference between third and fourth in the nature of magic in the system. A wizard cannot know a whole boodoggle of spells anymore, he is limited to a select few. Perpared casting in the case of Clerics is gone entirely and very much limited in the case of Wizards. Ritiuals, meaning magic that was before pretty much limited to casters and UMDers. The easy availablity of magical items to all classes is pretty much built into the system. There are more examples. As a conequence, 4e has a much different feel to me than 3.x did.

For the earlier systems, at least going by above, the difference may not have been thematic in the sense I'm using it above, but more thematic of the nature of play. It seems pretty clear from the earlier DMG's (and was certianly true of my own limited experience as well) that the DM was expected to have a heavier hand than in later systems.

averagejoe
2008-09-03, 01:50 PM
I think a lot of the issue comes from people misinterpreting the archetypes.

Yes, it says "thief" on it, but it doesn't mean that you have to steal everything not nailed down. It means that you favor stealth and skill over front on face to face combat.

As for the "barbarian" class, I could go on for a while about that . . .

Yes, but how is that not the same as having a knight class? If a knight class restricts all other classes from being knights, how does a thief class not restrict everyone else from stealing?

And, btw, I wasn't making a value judgment about the barbarian, or any other class, I was illustrating how class titles and personal descriptors are different.

Matthew
2008-09-03, 01:51 PM
What would make you say this? My experience contradicts this; yours apparently, does not. What have we experienced that's so different? I it merely because "build"ers are more vocal, or are they more prevalent? Are they a new phenomenon, or are they just the same people that have always been trying to do the same thing, and are merely better at it now because the increased standardization of the rules and availability of splatterbooks are at a high?

The desire to "build a character" is certainly not new, the capacity to do it to the degree it is now done is relatively new. The accusation levelled at AD&D in the wake of D20 was that there are not enough ways to "customise" your character. A third level fighter was essentially the same as any other third level fighter, in terms of rules. That was and is, quite true (though there were ways to customise, they were optional rules).

nagora
2008-09-03, 01:51 PM
What would make you say this? My experience contradicts this; yours apparently, does not. What have we experienced that's so different? I it merely because "build"ers are more vocal, or are they more prevalent? Are they a new phenomenon, or are they just the same people that have always been trying to do the same thing, and are merely better at it now because the increased standardization of the rules and availability of splatterbooks are at a high?
Well, in comparison to 1e, there must be more of them since there was basically no way to "build" a character in 1e unless the DM let you keep rolling until you got stats you were happy with.

From at least 3e onward, character builders (or optimisers) have had a lot of tools to work with, almost all of them added to the game specifically to allow that style of play. So I don't think there's anything radical or controversial in saying that such players are much more common now than they used to be.

valadil
2008-09-03, 01:52 PM
I think a lot of the issue comes from people misinterpreting the archetypes.


It's not just the classes that suffer from this. Alignment does too. I've seen way too many players act randomly because they wrote down "chaotic" in the alignment field. Orphanage burning is overrated among evil characters too.

I've always felt this is due to an error in terminology. Chaotic just isn't the right word. I've never figured out what is, though loner comes the closest. I'd rather have an alignment table that looks something like "selfish / altruistic and loner / societal." Only that makes it hard to have magical effects that deal with alignment.

hamlet
2008-09-03, 02:00 PM
Yes, but how is that not the same as having a knight class? If a knight class restricts all other classes from being knights, how does a thief class not restrict everyone else from stealing?

And, btw, I wasn't making a value judgment about the barbarian, or any other class, I was illustrating how class titles and personal descriptors are different.

What is a knight that it needs a separate class from any other? Is not knighthood and award and duty placed upon a favored retainer rather than a function of what they do? Are all knights the same in terms of ability and profession?

hamlet
2008-09-03, 02:03 PM
It's not just the classes that suffer from this. Alignment does too. I've seen way too many players act randomly because they wrote down "chaotic" in the alignment field. Orphanage burning is overrated among evil characters too.

I've always felt this is due to an error in terminology. Chaotic just isn't the right word. I've never figured out what is, though loner comes the closest. I'd rather have an alignment table that looks something like "selfish / altruistic and loner / societal." Only that makes it hard to have magical effects that deal with alignment.

Agreed, though I will say that Law and Chaos are both artifacts of the inspirational literature, specifically Anderson and Moorcock, so it's understandable how they got in there and stayed there.

arguskos
2008-09-03, 02:06 PM
For the earlier systems, at least going by above, the difference may not have been thematic in the sense I'm using it above, but more thematic of the nature of play. It seems pretty clear from the earlier DMG's (and was certianly true of my own limited experience as well) that the DM was expected to have a heavier hand than in later systems.
Having been raised on AD&D, I sorta disagree with the phrasing "heavier hand." It was more than the DM was understood to be the arbiter more than he is now. It's the rules mastery thing that was mentioned earlier. The DM no longer is the final arbiter, it's the rulebooks now, which is a shift from what it once was.

In my eyes, this is a bad thing, since I feel it cheapens the DM's role and reduces him to nothing more than a glorified accountant (apologies to accountants, like my mother :smallwink:). What's the point, when a computer can crunch the numbers better? Sure, the DM drives the plot (in theory), but you don't even need a DM for that, since the players are more than capable of making their own plots (and many groups do just that). With a computer and a set of rules, look, no need for the DM. It's not something I think of as a healthy outlook on the game, and it's one that I am seeing more and more players here in the States adopt. I think this is a product of many factors, which all bear discussion, but perhaps not here.

Apologies if these thoughts have already been stated. I'm insanely tired, and haven't read the previous 30 some-odd posts. Furthermore, apologies if my ramblings fail at making sense, I'm not a very good writer. :smallannoyed:

-argus

hamishspence
2008-09-03, 02:08 PM
One of the things that caught my attention in 2nd ed PHB was the statement that "Good and Evil are relative, can vary from place to place": 3rd ed has steered away from that.

averagejoe
2008-09-03, 02:09 PM
What is a knight that it needs a separate class from any other? Is not knighthood and award and duty placed upon a favored retainer rather than a function of what they do? Are all knights the same in terms of ability and profession?

What is a thief that it needs a separate class from any other? Is not thiefdom a shame placed upon people who have been caught stealing? Are all thieves the same in terms of ability and profession?

hamishspence
2008-09-03, 02:12 PM
Isn't "barbarian" a culture, not a class, with many people in it, not all of whom fly into a rage at the drop of a hat?

Matthew
2008-09-03, 02:12 PM
What is a thief that it needs a separate class from any other? Is not thiefdom a shame placed upon people who have been caught stealing? Are all thieves the same in terms of ability and profession?

Heh, heh. Many OD&D players do indeed hold that the Thief class was the beginning of the end. The Fighter and the Magician are the two foundations on which swords & sorcery adventure gaming are based. The cleric lies somewhere between them. Everytime a concept appears that better fills a role that the fighter previously did, the fighter loses a little bit of himself...



Isn't "barbarian" a culture, not a class, with many people in it, not all of whom fly into a rage at the drop of a hat?

Nah, it's what we call people with beards [if you get that, you possibly know too much about etymology]. Anywho, no, barbarian is the word we usually use to describe uncivilised peoples.

valadil
2008-09-03, 02:13 PM
Agreed, though I will say that Law and Chaos are both artifacts of the inspirational literature, specifically Anderson and Moorcock, so it's understandable how they got in there and stayed there.

I was unaware that those were the source. Good to know.

A thief is a skillmonkey while a fighter is a BABmonkey. I'm okay with them having a distinction, though I've never gotten why paladin, ranger, monk, and barbarian were unique classes. They also seem like viable low level prestige classes to build off a fighter to me.

Matthew
2008-09-03, 02:15 PM
A thief is a skillmonkey while a fighter is a BABmonkey. I'm okay with them having a distinction, though I've never gotten why paladin, ranger, monk, and barbarian were unique classes. They also seem like viable low level prestige classes to build off a fighter to me.

Once upon a time, that's exactly what the Paladin was. :smallbiggrin:

SleepingOrange
2008-09-03, 02:16 PM
From at least 3e onward, character builders (or optimisers) have had a lot of tools to work with, almost all of them added to the game specifically to allow that style of play.

There's really only one thing in this statement I take issue with: I think it would be more accurate to say that the additions and extras were added more for customization than optimization.


The DM no longer is the final arbiter, it's the rulebooks now, which is a shift from what it once was.

But they still are, at least in 3.x, which has been all I've been talking about really. 4th is... different. In any event, for evidence that the rulebooks agree with me, see my earlier quotes from the forewords. And, of course, because D&D is played with people rather than computers, they can and should choose to make the DM the final arbiter. The PHB and splatterbooks will not hurt you in your sleep if you disagree with them. Really.

Apologies to your mother, indeed.

hamishspence
2008-09-03, 02:18 PM
in non-advanced D&D there were Mystics, which were like Monks with thief skills. So maybe monk should have been built off thief rather than fighter.

But yes, rangers, barbarians, and paladins were fighter spin-offs in Unearthed Arcana original AD&D version. Paladin I think was variant cavalier, which was itself variant fighter.

Matthew
2008-09-03, 02:18 PM
There's really only one thing in this statement I take issue with: I think it would be more accurate to say that the additions and extras were added more for customization than optimization.

According to Monte Cook, the purpose was indeed rule mastery. They made more powerful and less powerful feats so players could feel good about figuring out which ones were best.

Charity
2008-09-03, 02:19 PM
Edit... fast thread moves fast...

Heh, heh. Many OD&D players do indeed hold that the Thief class was the beginning of the end. The Fighter and the Magician are the two foundations on which swords & sorcery adventure gaming are based. The cleric lies somewhere between them. Everytime a concept appears that better fills a role that the fighter previously did, the fighter loses a little bit of himself...

We exist in a culture of 'choice' Matt, each of us expects our unique snowflake whims to be fulfilled. If there were just 2 classes, there would be no hope of fullfilling everyones 'character vision' and likely lead to serious dissatisfaction.
Look at the outcry over 4e's 'lack of choice' it seems regardless of how false or weak a choice is our right to have it seems to be a increasing demand.


According to Monte Cook, the purpose was indeed rule mastery. They made more powerful and less powerful feats so players could feel good about figuring out which ones were best.

That man makes me so cross...

SleepingOrange
2008-09-03, 02:20 PM
Then maybe you win right here and now. What is your source?

And yes, I do know too much about etymology. And entomology, but that's a story for another day.

EDIT: This was directed at Matthew. Stop ninjing me!

averagejoe
2008-09-03, 02:22 PM
A thief is a skillmonkey while a fighter is a BABmonkey. I'm okay with them having a distinction, though I've never gotten why paladin, ranger, monk, and barbarian were unique classes. They also seem like viable low level prestige classes to build off a fighter to me.

Well, they seem to be trying to give those classes their own identity, but I largely agree with you on this. I actually found that 3.5 went a bit too far in the direction of number of classes; however, at the same time, a lot of players appreciate variety of experience (I know I do) which is why kits and prestige classes and more base classes are always popular. The problem with that is there are only so many broad archetypal concepts from which to draw, and so you have to start calling them more specific things. It's a fine balancing act between keeping variety and not having every profession ever be described by a class.

hamlet
2008-09-03, 02:23 PM
What is a thief that it needs a separate class from any other? Is not thiefdom a shame placed upon people who have been caught stealing? Are all thieves the same in terms of ability and profession?

Or is "the thief" mis-named and should it be re-titled "the rogue" or "the skill man" or something else.

At some point, you have to boil things down to a certain level. I think keeping things to a core of about 4 main archetypes is about right. Any variation should be done in game.

I missed your second post on the issue. I agree, but in the end, I push for much more simplification, fewer minor variations on the same theme.

I don't need a knight class, but I do need a thief class. It's as simple as that.



There's really only one thing in this statement I take issue with: I think it would be more accurate to say that the additions and extras were added more for customization than optimization.

Except that, as Matthew noted, "optimisation" was one of the stated purposes of all the new choices, a reward for rules mastery. Optimisation seems to have co-opted custimization in many instances, so much so that there's actually a thread on this board right now discussing whether or not the Fighter in 3.x should be an NPC class.

Matthew
2008-09-03, 02:23 PM
Then maybe you win right here and now. What is your source?

It ain't about winning or losing, it's all how you play the game. :smallbiggrin:

Here you go: The Reason for Imbalance in D20 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79809)



We exist in a culture of 'choice' Matt, each of us expects our unique snowflake whims to be fulfilled. If there were just 2 classes, there would be no hope of fullfilling everyones 'character vision' and likely lead to serious dissatisfaction.
Look at the outcry over 4e's 'lack of choice' it seems regardless of how false or weak a choice is our right to have it seems to be a increasing demand.

Indeedy. Stupid modern world. Get off my lawn you damn kids!

Charity
2008-09-03, 02:25 PM
^ spoken like a true master of fogey-fu, i salute you Matthewsan


in non-advanced D&D there were Mystics, which were like Monks with thief skills. So maybe monk should have been built off thief rather than fighter.

But yes, rangers, barbarians, and paladins were fighter spin-offs in Unearthed Arcana original AD&D version. Paladin I think was variant cavalier, which was itself variant fighter.

Rangers and paladins were in the AD&D PHB, unearthed arcana changed paladins into a cavalier subclass, cavaliers being introduced in UA... and being hoplessly over powered.


Then maybe you win right here and now. What is your source?

And yes, I do know too much about etymology. And entomology, but that's a story for another day.

EDIT: This was directed at Matthew. Stop ninjing me!

Nyuk nyuk..
His source is the horses arse mouth

hamishspence
2008-09-03, 02:28 PM
yes, its been a while since I've read UA. Druids, I notice, were in non-advanced D&D: not basic or expert, but the Master set.

averagejoe
2008-09-03, 02:29 PM
Or is "the thief" mis-named and should it be re-titled "the rogue" or "the skill man" or something else.

At some point, you have to boil things down to a certain level. I think keeping things to a core of about 4 main archetypes is about right. Any variation should be done in game.

What is a rogue (skill man) that it needs a separate class from any other? Is not roguishness (skill manliness) descriptor placed on playfully mischievous people (people who are exceptionally skilled)? Are all rogues (skill men) the same in terms of ability and profession?

Look, I'm not saying that the knight is a good or necessary class, but it's silly to pick on it because you don't like the name. There's no reason you couldn't call it "heavy fighter" or "dragoon" (do they get mounted feats? I don't remember) or any other number of things.

Edit: Above I said "skillfully" when I meant "playfully"

arguskos
2008-09-03, 02:29 PM
But they still are, at least in 3.x, which has been all I've been talking about really. 4th is... different. In any event, for evidence that the rulebooks agree with me, see my earlier quotes from the forewords. And, of course, because D&D is played with people rather than computers, they can and should choose to make the DM the final arbiter. The PHB and splatterbooks will not hurt you in your sleep if you disagree with them. Really.
See, I agree with you, but my experience doesn't. I've had so many people (easily 50, I've kept track over the years) quote the rules at me (when I was DMing) and tell me I was wrong that I am a cynical person about it now. Given what I've had to deal with, can you blame me for being bitter about being a DM? And you want to know the ****ed part? I KEEP DOING IT. Why? Because I believe in the older thought processes of the game. I believe in what AD&D stood for, that the spirit of the game is what matters, not the letter of the laws. Of course, I am a bitter individual, so perhaps I should step away from the conversation. :smallannoyed:

Please note that my anger isn't directed at anyone in particular, just my experience with role-playing games in general.

-argus

EDIT:

Apologies to your mother, indeed.
Don't you talk about my momma like that! :smalltongue:

valadil
2008-09-03, 02:29 PM
... a lot of players appreciate variety of experience (I know I do) which is why kits and prestige classes and more base classes are always popular.

I like variety too, I just wish it could have been structured better. Like, starting at level 3 or 4 you get your first PrC, which is more of an archetypal thing than prestige. This is where fighters would become rangers, monks, pallys, barbs, swashbucklers, samurai, knights, etc. At 8-10 you join some sort of organization to take your character even farther. I'm not saying every character would have to go with that exact route, but a better delineation between classes, prestige classes, and something intermediate (maybe kits?) would have done wonders for 3rd ed.

AKA_Bait
2008-09-03, 02:33 PM
What's the point, when a computer can crunch the numbers better? Sure, the DM drives the plot (in theory), but you don't even need a DM for that, since the players are more than capable of making their own plots (and many groups do just that).

Well, this is I think a fundimentally different viewpoint on DMing than I have. For me, the best and most important part of DMing isn't being a rules arbitier but being the rest of the world the PCs are mucking about in. As a DM, I'm happy to let the rule book be the arbiter most of the time if it lets me spend more time playing Zarnak the Impaler and the Good King Bob.



According to Monte Cook, the purpose was indeed rule mastery. They made more powerful and less powerful feats so players could feel good about figuring out which ones were best.

True, but I for one think that Mr. Cook was full of horsedung in that article and trying to come up with an explanation for why the system is so unbalanced that didn't involve the answer "well, we just messed up."

SleepingOrange
2008-09-03, 02:33 PM
Here you go: The Reason for Imbalance in D20 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79809)

Well. That's depressing. I think it's much more viable and entertaining as a means of customization rather than optimization. Since D&D is in most circumstances a non-competitive game, optimization is unnecessary and irritating; it turns the game into a series of oneupsmanships and arguments.

*Sigh*

Well, even if it wasn't done with the best intentions, I still feel it added a lot to the game; just because it came from a flawed idea doesn't make it inherently flawed.

EDIT: AKA, that was my first reaction, but it didn't seem worth mentioning.

Matthew
2008-09-03, 02:36 PM
True, but I for one think that Mr. Cook was full of horsedung in that article and trying to come up with an explanation for why the system is so unbalanced that didn't involve the answer "well, we just messed up."

Certainly possible, but seriously Lion Totem Barbarian?! :smallbiggrin:



Well. That's depressing. I think it's much more viable and entertaining as a means of customization rather than optimization. Since D&D is in most circumstances a non-competitive game, optimization is unnecessary and irritating; it turns the game into a series of oneupsmanships and arguments.

The way I see it, if you want to custom make a character, you don't really need the sub game of structured character building, you can just talk it over with the game master. Of course, such an approach is not for everyone, so I certainly don't begrudge D20 D&D to the people who want it.

hamlet
2008-09-03, 02:37 PM
What is a rogue (skill man) that it needs a separate class from any other? Is not roguishness (skill manliness) descriptor placed on skillfully mischievous people (people who are exceptionally skilled)? Are all rogues (skill men) the same in terms of ability and profession?

Look, I'm not saying that the knight is a good or necessary class, but it's silly to pick on it because you don't like the name. There's no reason you couldn't call it "heavy fighter" or "dragoon" (do they get mounted feats? I don't remember) or any other number of things.

I pick on it because it takes what is, in pretty much every single realistic way, not a profession, but a position. This is something of a modern world versus antique world thing to me. It's the same thing as labeling all samurai under the "wields katana and likes honor" thing. Many Samurai were not warriors and were, in fact, women, functionaries of state.

It's pretty much the same problem I have with the bearded barbarian class. Why does "barbarian," a word that in English refers to "those persons outside of civilization" get defined in game as something closer to "berserker"? It's the implication that all barbarians are raging melee monsters.

arguskos
2008-09-03, 02:38 PM
Well, this is I think a fundimentally different viewpoint on DMing than I have. For me, the best and most important part of DMing isn't being a rules arbitier but being the rest of the world the PCs are mucking about in. As a DM, I'm happy to let the rule book be the arbiter most of the time if it lets me spend more time playing Zarnak the Impaler and the Good King Bob.
Honestly, I am in agreement with your thoughts about what DMing really means. The thing is, I don't see that as the prevailing opinion amongst the player base anymore. That's what I am saying, that my experience teaches me that people (in general) don't want that anymore, and that fact depresses me beyond words.

-argus

EDIT: Also, Monte Cook can fall in a hole and die in a fire for being part of that. I'll never respect his material ever again. :smallannoyed:

averagejoe
2008-09-03, 02:38 PM
It ain't about winning or losing, it's all how you play the game. :smallbiggrin:

Here you go: The Reason for Imbalance in D20 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79809)

Luckily nobody in my group (except me, but I usually DM, and if I'm not I don't feel the need to be super-optimal) actually feels that reward comes from rules mastery. Then again, I find that 99% of the problems in RPG's come not from the system, but the DM and player's unwillingness to be reasonable.


I pick on it because it takes what is, in pretty much every single realistic way, not a profession, but a position. This is something of a modern world versus antique world thing to me. It's the same thing as labeling all samurai under the "wields katana and likes honor" thing. Many Samurai were not warriors and were, in fact, women, functionaries of state.

It's pretty much the same problem I have with the bearded barbarian class. Why does "barbarian," a word that in English refers to "those persons outside of civilization" get defined in game as something closer to "berserker"? It's the implication that all barbarians are raging melee monsters.

So why does "rogue," a word in English which means, "one who is playfully mischievous" get defined in game as someone who is really good at stabbing people who can't fully react to them?

AKA_Bait
2008-09-03, 02:50 PM
So why does "rogue," a word in English which means, "one who is playfully mischievous" get defined in game as someone who is really good at stabbing people who can't fully react to them?

Well, because the word also means a "dishonest, knavish person;" and "An unprincipled, deceitful, and unreliable person; a scoundrel or rascal." (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rogue)

nagora
2008-09-03, 02:51 PM
Nah, it's what we call people with beards [if you get that, you possibly know too much about etymology]. Anywho, no, barbarian is the word we usually use to describe uncivilised peoples.
The origin I heard was that the ancient Greeks used the word to describe people who couldn't speak greek and just went "bar-bar-bar".

If a class summons up an image of a typical member in the player's mind then it's probably a good idea for a class. On the grounds, I think Barbarian, Knight, Thief, Druid, Wizard, and Fighter (perhaps Swordsman would be more evocative) all work well regardless whether the reference is really to a profession or a culture. Cleric is the weak one at least in the sense of a newbie having any idea what it entales on first hearing the term.

hamishspence
2008-09-03, 02:52 PM
Complete Scoundrel helped define the scoundrel as more than just a rogue. Maybe the term rogue is due a makeover, as the term Thief turned into rogue, so rogue turns into: who knows?

EDIT: for a while, the term Priest was used in 2nd ed. Maybe it should have survived past then?

Matthew
2008-09-03, 02:54 PM
The origin I heard was that the ancient Greeks used the word to describe people who couldn't speak greek and just went "bar-bar-bar".

That's the theory, and when the Romans adopted it, it became synonymous with beards, which is where our modern word "barber" fits in.

SleepingOrange
2008-09-03, 02:57 PM
As to priests, yes and no; it's a more well-known word, but it also refers specifically to a member of the Catholic faith, whose God is not well-known for granting spells.

hamlet
2008-09-03, 02:58 PM
As to priests, yes and no; it's a more well-known word, but it also refers specifically to a member of the Catholic faith, whose God is not well-known for granting spells.

Depends on who you ask.

Read Bede and you'll get a different viewpoint.

nagora
2008-09-03, 03:04 PM
Depends on who you ask.

Read Bede and you'll get a different viewpoint.

Yes, gods were always much more generous "a long time ago". Funny that.

hamishspence
2008-09-03, 03:06 PM
yes, read novels and even in pre-AD eras, the term priest seems to be common use. Priest of Zeus, etc, etc.

hamlet
2008-09-03, 03:06 PM
Yes, gods were always much more generous "a long time ago". Funny that.

I must not get drawn into a theological debate here.
I must not get drawn into a theological debate here.
I must not get drawn into a theological debate here.
I must not get drawn into a theological debate here.
I must not get drawn into a theological debate here.
I must not get drawn into a theological debate here.
I must not get drawn into a theological debate here.
I must not get drawn into a theological debate here.


However, I've often toyed with the idea of removing the Cleric class (and all priestly derivatives of it) and seeing how the game played out. Essentially, the gods become so far removed that the concept of "divine magic" and "miracles" and etc become far more debatable.

nagora
2008-09-03, 03:07 PM
It's pretty much the same problem I have with the bearded barbarian class. Why does "barbarian," a word that in English refers to "those persons outside of civilization" get defined in game as something closer to "berserker"? It's the implication that all barbarians are raging melee monsters.
Because the English (Welsh, and Irish) tended to experience barbarians via the berserker melee nutter members.

hamlet
2008-09-03, 03:13 PM
Because the English (Welsh, and Irish) tended to experience barbarians via the berserker melee nutter members.

Yes, there is that. And the Anglophile in me wants to accept that.

But the nitpicking sociologist and historian in me says that I can't.

I think Merovech would be surprised to see his people and himself portrayed in that manner.

nagora
2008-09-03, 03:18 PM
Anybody seen the topic? I think I saw it around here recently...:smallbiggrin:

Xenogears
2008-09-03, 03:19 PM
Personally I have found that I will never be a DM. This is because A)I'd want to play a PC as well. Maybe the group is okay with it (okay I pretty much just play with two people and they would be surprised if the DM didn't also have a PC) but my problem would be when I had to be the final decision. Like when I asked on the questions thread if Maug Grafts were consturuct only. This was because (although I felt by the description that they could be applied to the fleshy races) I was hesitant to say so because it would be a benefit that pretty much only my character would gain. So if I was the DM I would hate to be asked to make the final decision. If I picked one way then I am removing a characters chance to customize their character. If I rule the other way then I am allowing that character to get a benefit that no one else has.

But obviously someone has to be the final decision. Especially when the Books aren't clear on the issue. That is why I am glad that my friend is always the DM. A DM being the final authority is important to the game. I just don't think that they should deviate from the books unless A) It is stated before the game begins or B) they have a REALLY good reason to. Someone finds a loophole that makes them so amazingly powerful that no one else matters. Alter the rules. But make sure to do it so that you don't completely nerf the guy. I think the Role of the DM is primarily to create the world. Then to settle disputes.

hamishspence
2008-09-03, 03:22 PM
Eberron moved the gods offstage, to the extent that no-one knows for certain if they exist or not, but kept divine magic.

hamlet
2008-09-03, 03:26 PM
Eberron moved the gods offstage, to the extent that no-one knows for certain if they exist or not, but kept divine magic.

Eberron also indulged in a magical orgy of sorts.

Not my style.

Jerthanis
2008-09-03, 06:53 PM
Maybe this comes from the fact that I started my D&D career with AD&D 2nd edition, and my RPing with the WEG Star Wars game which introduced the Gamemastering chapter with a strawman imperial officer shouting about how you had to follow all rules all the time, and then the book talking about what an idiot he is... but:

Is this thread trying to suggest that people need some holy passage in the books to tell them that no passage in the book is holy?

Because it doesn't matter what game I'm playing or running, if there's something I want to change, or if the DM rules some way that I know isn't in the books, the DM's word is law, and this remains the case even if the books declare outright that the DM is subject to the rules presented within, because as soon as you're talking about changing rules, no rules can be immune to change.

Now, the way I read the statement in 4th edition about magic items is this: 4th edition is trying to divorce itself as completely as it possibly can from the 3rd edition paradigm of a ubiquitous magic item economy. Unfortunately, DMs don't have prescient space brains capable of mind reading, so they can't anticipate the desires of the Players without discussing it with them.

I don't see "What magic items would you guys like to have?" "Oh, the Safewing amulet caught my eye..." is any different or any worse than, "What would you guys like out of the next story?" "Well, my character hates undead, so it'd be nice to have a run in with some of them..." Discussing the desires of the players is the best way to make a game they'll like. The players are well within their rights to say, "Surprise us!" when the DM asks, and the DM is free to say, "No" but I refuse to believe a DM asking for player input into the game is a bad thing.

Starbuck_II
2008-09-03, 07:03 PM
Discussing the desires of the players is the best way to make a game they'll like.
The players are well within their rights to say, "Surprise us!" when the DM asks, and the DM is free to say, "No" but I refuse to believe a DM asking for player input into the game is a bad thing.

Wouldn't that be a amusing situation?
DM: What kind of adventurer do you guys want?
Players: Surprise us.
DM: No, I will not!

Sorry, the idea was just really funny to not be told.

Matthew
2008-09-03, 07:04 PM
Is this thread trying to suggest that people need some holy passage in the books to tell them that no passage in the book is holy?

No, it is saying that it is interesting that explicit instructions not to adhere to the letter of the rules have been de-emphasised in rulebooks for an RPG that are most commonly the gateway into the larger hobby (and in recent years the company in question have sold almost nothing but rules, and plenty of them). Indeed, the "mess with our base classes at your own peril" statements in the DMG are also of interest in that regard. This thread is also suggesting that there may be a relationship between this development and the sorts of people who fly off the handle when they think the rules are not being adhered to or contest that the rules are incontrovenable, both online and at the tabletop.

On the other hand, it could be said that this thread is not really saying anything, merely being the vessel within which a discussion of the subject is contained. :smallbiggrin:

Jayabalard
2008-09-03, 07:11 PM
Well. That's depressing. I think it's much more viable and entertaining as a means of customization rather than optimization. If you're really after customization, you're much better off going with a point based system than a class based one.


As to priests, yes and no; it's a more well-known word, but it also refers specifically to a member of the Catholic faith, whose God is not well-known for granting spells.It's much more general than that, it's just happens that Anglican, Eastern Orthodox, or Roman Catholic use that term, and protestants disassociated themselves from it.

The term can also refer to metal reinforced overshoes.


Is this thread trying to suggest that people need some holy passage in the books to tell them that no passage in the book is holy?Some people do indeed seem to need that.

Jerthanis
2008-09-03, 07:37 PM
Wouldn't that be a amusing situation?
DM: What kind of adventurer do you guys want?
Players: Surprise us.
DM: No, I will not!

Sorry, the idea was just really funny to not be told.

Whoops! Parsing failure! I hope it's clear what I really meant, because that's too funny to go back and change now.


No, it is saying that it is interesting that explicit instructions not to adhere to the letter of the rules have been de-emphasised in rulebooks for an RPG that are most commonly the gateway into the larger hobby (and in recent years the company in question have sold almost nothing but rules, and plenty of them). Indeed, the "mess with our base classes at your own peril" statements in the DMG are also of interest in that regard. This thread is also suggesting that there may be a relationship between this development and the sorts of people who fly off the handle when they think the rules are not being adhered to or contest that the rules are incontrovenable, both online and at the tabletop.


I see. I guess I just see enough new players and DMs willing to play by ear who have only read DMGs post 3.5 and still have a strong sense of deference to the DM's ruling. It could be from our group's tendency to play all kinds of games, and that we all began with earlier editions that could be corrupting the data of my personal experience. It IS interesting to see the difference in typed format right in front of me.



Some people do indeed seem to need that.

Fair enough.

averagejoe
2008-09-03, 07:39 PM
Well, because the word also means a "dishonest, knavish person;" and "An unprincipled, deceitful, and unreliable person; a scoundrel or rascal." (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rogue)

I fail to see your point.

TheThan
2008-09-04, 02:58 AM
Ok just finished reading this thread. It’s a long read but a fascinating one.

To me the Dm is the director of the film. He doesn’t tell the actors (the player) how to act; he just provides the stage and the action for the actors to act upon. (Yes I know real directors tell their actors how to act, but now you’re just being nit picky and missing the point). He’s the person in charge of running the show. A better analogy is the ringmaster at a circus. He doesn’t perform the acts for the audience; instead he introduces them and points out to the circumstances of the performance to the audience.
That’s what a Dm means to me. Do I want rules to help me along with my direction? yes I do. However I admit that it’s not always necessary.

As Bosssmiley said



The rules serve the game; not vice-versa


This sums up my thoughts on the game rules quite nicely. The rules are not the world that surrounds the players. The Rules are tools that are used to construct the world around the players. I like having clear consistent rules to use in building my world. However those rules should be able to be adjusted to fit most sorts of campaign settings. The D20 rule set does this quite well, which is quite nice. It’s easy to go from one version of the basic rules to another because they all have common ground. I do not want rules that get in the way of storytelling or rules that bog down the flow of the game.

I dislike the idea of rules lawyers in general. Who are these people to tell me how to run my world and my campaign setting? Really I don’t go cry foul when they pull some sort of munchinked cheese out of 15 splatbooks, 2 magazines and 3 web pages. Yeah, I get annoyed sure, but they are free to do what they wish in their own games, just as I’m free to do what I wish to do in mine.

But if they show up to my gaming table with such a monstrosity, I would immediately say no, that sort of character doesn’t fit within the confines of my game and that he’s free to roll up a new more reasonable character. If he doesn’t want to, fine he can leave. Players are a dime a dozen. One thing I’ve noticed is that a lot of DMs have an “anything goes” policy, they let any splat book and resource into their games, this is just asking for trouble. I find it amazing that this happens. Just because you have access to these extra books doesn’t mean you have to use them all at once, or all the time. In my games I am the final decision-maker, I make the final call. If that call is wrong, I will correct myself at the appropriate time.

Mike_G
2008-09-06, 12:12 PM
I need to reply to this in two ways.

My personal feeling, and the way I've generally played, from Red Box up to 3.5, has been that the DM is the final arbiter, period. If the rules, or more often, a combination of rules from different sources combine to make something that trashes the experience of playing, the DM can and should overrule it. It doesn't matter that you can do something "by RAW" if allowing you to do that means that the campaign crashes to a halt and everybody's night is ruined. A DM needs to keep things flowing and, in theory, keep the fun rolling along.

As far as whether I have seen a change, well, sort of. I've seen a huge change on the internet, where the Sacred Word of RAW and the various fallacies and enshrined builds dominate every thread, but I've seen little or no difference in actual play.

In 1st Edition, we often had people want to play things that were poorly balanced, generally by magic items or the totally incompatible psionics rules or something out of a supplement. They often threw hissy fits when overruled, no better than the worst 3.x player when told that his Batman Wizard can't hide behind his invisible tower shield.

Now, it seems clear that the rulebooks no longer emphasize the role of the DM as final judge, and maybe people who started out ion 3.x don't feel the same as we grognards, but it is still there, in black and white.

Kalirren
2008-09-06, 03:09 PM
IMO the idea of the DM in D&D is a combination of several patterns that happen to be conflated in this RP style. I usually begin the analysis by positing that the gaming group's base state is with every participant having equal narrative power, and then certain patterns emerge as a function of the social contract. In particular:

The first relevant pattern arises when a gaming group agrees and decides to vest one participant, the GM, with specific narrative powers regarding the environment in which the other players' characters exist. This specifically includes the right to initiate situations and conflicts in what would typically be another player's narrative domain. So the GM can say that a PC's family member has been kidnapped, for example, and it (typically) spurs the movement of narrative. The GM then becomes chiefly responsible for providing direction and initiative to the campaign.

Another relevant pattern arises when a gaming group agrees that one participant, the Arbiter, will be chiefly and finally responsible for the interpretation of certain rules that are in use. Sometimes the Arbiter is in charge of the entire system in use; sometimes, only a little fraction of it, like the combat subsystem. If you look at the many groups where there's a ruleslawyer in the group who knows more than the DM does, you'll see the difference between the GM role and the Arbiter role. It's common for the DM, when asked to adjudicate, to throw the question to the Arbiter (e.g., "Hey, look this up for me, and tell me what you think.")

The third important pattern arises when a gaming group agrees that one participant, the Moderator, is chiefly responsible for making sure that every participant is still happy with the social contract of the game, and tweaks the contract to suit the individual tastes and needs of the group as it goes. This person is responsible for making sure that people have fun, and has to be concerned with details like organization of the game, the OOC style and tone of the game, the assignment of narrative power to players when and where they want to take intiative, getting feedback from the players after sessions, etc.

These patterns have overlap, yes, but are more independent than most D&D players are used to thinking of them. Most D&D DMs are GMs and Arbiters and Moderators, all three. They have some additional powers and responsibilities that go hand in hand. I think that most of the DM-tyranny out there is just DM's forgetting that they are fundamentally just another participant in the group, not above it in any way. Lots of GMs forget the Moderator role, especially, because they take the GMing position for granted once they're in that chair.

Interestingly enough, I think this model proides a neat perspective from which to evaluate "GMPCs". I think that for the GM to "play his own game" as just another participant in the same world is just fine. But when a GM starts abusing the enhanced narrative power in a way that favors or unduly showcases the GMPC, it strains the social contract that supports the Game-Mastery. I think that GMPCs are really only unequivocably bad when they outstrip the agency of other PCs.