tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4143435314932633148.post9056483281098101226..comments2024-03-28T00:41:13.514-07:00Comments on B/X BLACKRAZOR: ConstraintJBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03263662621289630246noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4143435314932633148.post-8530668595561107442021-04-01T07:12:31.814-07:002021-04-01T07:12:31.814-07:00@ SteveG: Okay, several things to address here.
R...@ SteveG: Okay, several things to address here.<br /><br />RE Bullying, Rules Lawyering, Etc.<br /><br />I totally agree that these are generally player behaviors. That's exactly where I'm coming from. A GM who knows the rules of the game can fall back on those rules to defend him/herself from manipulators by citing authority. Things only get sticky for GMs who don't know or who are "loosey-goosey" with rules...in my experience.<br /><br />RE Novice GMs<br /><br />They certainly have to start somewhere. A multi-book RPH being run for veteran gamers may be biting off more than one can chew! There are far easier systems to start with...it's one of the reasons I always recommend the B/X set for starting DMs (and there are similar "rules light" systems for other genres). I have played in games run by novice and it can be extremely frustrating (and no, not very fun) to have a GM that doesn't know and/or doesn't follow the rules, especially one who doesn't want to take advice or listen to folks who know the game better (that's not "bullying" by the way...it's mentoring). My usual response to this even is to not return for a session #2, which (unfortunately) probably ain't helpful for the novices...but then, the novice should probably run a few basic games for other new-ish players before tackling something beyond their capabilities.<br /><br />RE DMing Styles<br /><br />I *am* a sports fan, but "sport" and "game" are two different things. Yes, both forms of entertainment have rules and are played with others. That's about the extent of it. Following rules doesn't make a game into a sport, and all joking aside, I don't see D&D as having "losers" (a player whose character dies can make a new PC and rejoin the game). There is success and failure in endeavors, but no one wins or loses...there is always another challenge to tackle.<br /><br />With regard to D&D (not necessarily other RPGs) my approach is very much "adversarial," my job is to use the rules of the game to provide a suitable challenge to the players I have. I *am* the opponent, but what the PCs "oppose" is not just monster encounters: it includes the whole of the setting (everything from the environment and adventure locale, to the economy and rule complexities of the game). Challenges can take the form of travel, or encumbrance, of dealing with scarce resources, or the town tax man...not just traps and monsters. Overcoming these challenges is the point of the game; for me, it IS the fun of the D&D game. And, when run correctly, it forces the players to cooperate with each other...*I* am the bad guy that the players must work together to overcome! No one should feel discriminated against, because they all become valuable members of the TEAM, even if their main contribution is taking a bullet at the right time for the rest of the party. Part of good DMing is helping players to see their own (and others') value to the table and pointing out how each aided in their accomplishments (if the players seems to have difficulty seeing this themselves).<br /><br />D&D...at least the "old" editions that I play...is absolutely a cooperative game, one where success and failure is measured by how the group as a whole did. I've had games where two-thirds of the PCs (3 out of 9 at the table) were wiped out, and despite accomplishing their objective they took it as a "loss." I've had games where ALL the PCs survived, having failed at their objective, that nevertheless felt like they "won" because of the way they struggled (together) and made it back (together).<br /><br />In the end, none of that really matters though. Do the players want to play again? Mine generally do.JBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03263662621289630246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4143435314932633148.post-85685582252914232422021-03-31T20:10:10.989-07:002021-03-31T20:10:10.989-07:00In my experience Bullying, manipulation and rules ...In my experience Bullying, manipulation and rules lawyering are not GM behaviours, they are player behaviours. So I don't see where you are coming from there.<br />Having the GM be know the most about the rules is never a given. GM's have to start somewhere and a novice GM may well know less about the rules than the players. Especially where the rules run to multiple volumes.<br />In there early days there were to common styles of GMing "The GM is the umpire" and "the GM is the opponent". DA was a strong proponent of the latter. <br />But regardless of that distinction I think that your definitions are tainted by the fact that you are a sports fan. You seem to regard games as solely competitive arenas with winners an losers. In that type of system rules are important because they stop the losers from feeling discriminated against. But that ignores the gamut of cooperative games where the whole group wins or looses in equal measure and no person think they are discriminated against. It also denies RPS as a form of play where people cooperate to have fun and winning and losing do not even enter into the equation. Steveghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07061412994661583425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4143435314932633148.post-85311352602447898572021-03-25T22:24:42.953-07:002021-03-25T22:24:42.953-07:00Mmm. I think rules should help insulate a DM from ...Mmm. I think rules should help insulate a DM from players that would bully, manipulate, or “rules lawyer” them.<br /><br />But that assumes the DM knows the rules at least as well as (if not better than) the players. There’s a reason I feel comfortable running B/X or AD&D...both are fairly “rules light.” I seriously doubt you’d ever catch me running a game of Champions! I see no reason for any GM to run a game beyond their capability (or willingness) to master.<br /><br />[shouldn’t a Game Master be a “master” of the rules of the game? To me, that’s what the term GM implies]<br /><br />I don’t know what you mean when you say “a hostile Dave Arneson style GM;” I don’t know enough about Arneson’s GMing style to even hazard a guess; did he simply make up rules on the fly? Without rhyme or reason? Or was it only a deviant version of the original fantasy war game? I can’t really make a judgment on your stated opinion without a little clarification.<br /><br />I will say that somewhere I’ve read (probably more than once) some version of the phrase “don’t let the rules get in the way of telling a good story.” That’s hogwash. Games are games, they have rules, even true “storytelling” games like the Once Upon A Time card game. THAT game doesn’t tell you to disregard the rules when building a story! Why should D&D allow you to do so?JBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03263662621289630246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4143435314932633148.post-54066468126824093452021-03-25T17:07:26.620-07:002021-03-25T17:07:26.620-07:00I just started playing with a new RPG group which ...I just started playing with a new RPG group which has has a style of play "the player who knows the most rules wins" 8(.<br />In my experience iron-bound rules are the players defence against a hostile Dave Arneson style GM. In more cooperative games you may choose have them but you don't need them.<br />Personally these days I prefer to use rules light systems because remembering reams of rules is no longer an option.Steveghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07061412994661583425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4143435314932633148.post-29807202118455251522021-03-24T23:38:01.396-07:002021-03-24T23:38:01.396-07:00Double Hand Axe Raistlin...im down with that.
Gu...Double Hand Axe Raistlin...im down with that. <br /><br />Guidance Councilor: with your stats you would make an excelent magic User<br /><br />R: cool whats it take<br /><br />GC: 8 years of school folowed by a test that could leave you physicaly amd emotionally damaged for life. Oh and then you might see people grow old and die as you talk to them.<br /><br />R: ohhh but then I am like super powerful?<br /><br />GC: well not a first you get one spell, but if you survive to 5th level you can cast fireball.<br /><br />R: wait survive is it dangerous? <br /><br />GC: well yeah you only get 1d4 HP and you cant wear armmor. Oh and if you break a rule the wizards union hunts you down and kills you. <br /><br />R: ummmm wow, so its important to level fast then.<br /><br />GC: yeah but you do need the most XP to level. <br /><br />R:ummm and smart people do this? Wow i guess that explains why Int and Wis are seperate stats. sevenbastardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11961009160456478009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4143435314932633148.post-80486549396519321512021-03-24T23:17:19.722-07:002021-03-24T23:17:19.722-07:00I win pretty often, actually.
; )
(yes, every ti...I win pretty often, actually. <br />; )<br /><br />(yes, every time. If you trade away cards to try NOT to get hearts, someone inevitably sticks you with an ace of hearts, king of spades, etc. Best just to go with it. It’s more fun anyway)<br /><br />Now Rummy 500 is a different matter. Still trying to suss out whether it’s better to play for points or for the rummy. And I’ve been at THAT game for decades without a clear cut answer.JBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03263662621289630246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4143435314932633148.post-33818866621300605282021-03-24T23:00:58.192-07:002021-03-24T23:00:58.192-07:00I was on board with everything you were saying unt...I was on board with everything you were saying until it came to hearts. <br /><br /><em>Every</em> time? Seriously?<br /><br />That's a good way to lose a whole lot of hearts.John Higginshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06522143715905888511noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4143435314932633148.post-36747975423355719942021-03-24T13:54:22.835-07:002021-03-24T13:54:22.835-07:00There is a reason I emphasized the phrase "at...There is a reason I emphasized the phrase "at the table" when I said rules must be iron-clad. I can assure you that once we sit down to play, the rules (whether By The Book or modified) are indeed "in charge," and they rule the DM as much as they rule the other players.<br /><br />I heartily disagree with your objection to me using the term "nonsense" for the nonsensical statement that rules are present to "keep the action moving." Encumbrance rules do not "keep the action moving;" it is quite a bit faster to simply ignore the system and allow PCs to carry whatever (or simply eyeball their inventory). Same goes for things like casting times, henchmen hiring, and unarmed combat. It is quite easy to "wing it" (or ignore it) and doing so definitely takes less time hemming-and-hawing than looking up the rule and performing the calculations. I've seen DMs do it all the time. "Just make a DEX check. Okay, you grab the guy." There's no need to consult past precedent or worry about consistency if the only ambition is maintaining the pace and flow of the session. <br /><br />Dick, you seem to be missing the point of what I'm saying, and the tone of your comment feels like that of a person whose sensibilities have been offended. If this is the case, then I'd prefer you to tell me which parts of my post you find personally offensive, rather than simply calling me out as a hypocrite. <br /><br />Unless it's the hypocrisy that sticks in your craw? If THAT's the case then, again, it would seem I haven't done a good enough job communicating my point.JBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03263662621289630246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4143435314932633148.post-9823504720938266702021-03-24T10:23:22.565-07:002021-03-24T10:23:22.565-07:00"How is a rule on encumbrance (as an example)..."How is a rule on encumbrance (as an example) used to "keep the action moving?" Nonsense."<br /><br />Nonsense yourself. Those rules "keep the action moving" by not requiring the DM to constantly decide on the fly how much a given PC can carry, whether they can lift a given object, how far they can run or how badly they climb when overloaded, etc. Whether they do the best possible job of that is up for debate, but pretending they don't speed things up compared to ruling everything case-by-case is just absurd.<br /><br />Moreover, you're delusional if you think you're sticking to the rules yourself. You openly admit you've tinkered with AD&D advancement system, which is the same as ignoring the rules the way 5e tells DMs to. The difference being that instead of increasing a player's enjoyment, you've increased your own. It doesn't what justification you use for that change, you are following that 5e advice you quoted from pg 4 and 235 letter and verse. You're making the rules serve you by twisting them to your tastes, because you are the boss. Congrats. You've taken WotC's advice to heart, even if you're too blind to see it. Dick McGeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14521293874696659063noreply@blogger.com