When (most) game designers design a game, they are designing it to be played in a particular fashion with a particular goal. I could certainly take a game of Monopoly and add some rules for removing clothing every time you don't have money to pay some bill or other (creating, essentially, "Strip Monopoly"), but I am not using the game in the manner envisioned or intended by the designer.
And yet the game would work well for this particular form of entertainment. There always comes a time in the game of Monopoly when one person gets low on funds and hits someone's triple railroad or hotel and ends up having to demolish and mortgage their property to stay in the game. Having the option of 'mortgaging clothing' instead (and perhaps buying it back), could add a little pizzazz to the game table...with the right players.
When I sit down to run AD&D (or B/X or OD&D), my "goal" is "to run D&D." "I'm going to run D&D...do you want to play?" is pretty much how I put it to my potential players. They can screw around with it if they want, playing it in a way other than the game was intended, but their character will probably die (or not succeed) and they will have less fun. This isn't my problem (unless they're making the game "not fun" for the others at the table...in which case they will be asked to leave and not invited back to play in future sessions)...I told them what we were going to be doing.
This is the standard way of handling game play of ANY type. "Hey, we're going to play backgammon (a game I just showed my son a couple weeks ago." Or, hey, who wants to play Axis & Aliies, or Uno, or poker, or Tsuro, or whatever. Some people might need some instruction (if they've never played before) and after a round or two they can decide whether or not the game is for them. Maybe they'll keep playing ('cause that's what we're doing tonight), but they won't be interested in playing at a later time. That's okay. That's NORMAL.
At my home table, I have some "house rules." This is normal, too. Some people sit down to play Monopoly and add a $500 bill to the board and give it to whoever lands on "Free Parking." The goal of the game remains the same (make everyone else bankrupt) but it gives the game a twist. In my house, we have a house rule that for dice rolls of ANY dice-rolling game (RPG or not), the dice must be thrown and land in a box top, or they do not count. It prevents many different arguments and speeds game play.
D&D is a complex game, but it is comprehensible (even the Advanced version). While there are, at times, problems in the rule books with the proper delivery of information...and with edge cases that rarely crop up...it is still quite possible to "muddle through" and play the game as intended by its main designer: Gary Gygax. It does not require a degree in rocket science...Gygax held no college degrees...and my friends and I were able to play strict 1E even at the age of 11/12. We ran long campaigns, we had a blast, and we "muddled through" the rough parts. Without dropping alignment or psionics or spell books or astral random encounters or speed factor or ANY parts of the game. And without parental supervision.
The problem these days is that there is a shit-ton of IGNORANCE about what the game is, how it works and why it was designed the way it is. And so people make shit up. Or take their best guess. Or listen to people on the internet to take their cues for how the game is supposed to be played, despite most of those folks being ignorant themselves OR peddling something different to the ignorant.
And this is a problem that stems from the current publisher of the game. In my first paragraph I wrote: "When (most) game designers design a game, they are designing it to be played in a particular fashion with a particular goal." Wizards of the Coast is one of the exceptions; their "design goal" is to MAKE AS MUCH MONEY AS POSSIBLE by selling their game to AS MANY CUSTOMERS AS POSSIBLE. And their tactic for this is to design a game that is poorly designed and sticking text in it that says "you can do ANYTHING with this!" without really bothering to explain how...or explain much of much else.
5E was written to GAIN AND RETAIN MARKET SHARE. Period, end of story. WotC does not care what you do with it, so long as you purchase the books and put money in their corporate coffers. WotC doesn't care if it works or if it works well or if people fight about it on the internet (there's no such thing as bad publicity), just so long as people buy, Buy, BUY!
But that leads to ignorance, false assumptions, and false expectations. To the point that some folks (including you, but you are definitely not alone in this!) would suggest sitting down for a game session and setting goals, and defining themes, and dealing with all the mish-mash of dumb ideas people have in their head.
I don't have time for that, and I don't find ir necessary anyway. "We're going to play D&D tonight." Do we need to make characters? "Do you already have one?" No. "Okay then yep, unless you want to use one of these pre-gens I've got." Okay, um...how do I play? "You and the other players are adventurers in a fantasy world seeking fortune and glory. It is a dangerous world, but if you work in cooperation with your team, you should be able to survive...and maybe thrive. You've heard of this [cave/fortress/island/temple/etc.] that's nearby and that might have some treasure stashed inside...but it's likely to be guarded by ancient traps and fearsome beasts. Does that sound like something you want to play? I can explain the rules as we go along."
Everything else is icing on the cake.
NOW, having written all that, there are people who want to fight over what exactly IS "rules as written." And who get bent out of shape over those who go "off book." But there are house rules and then there are house rules. Most people can live with the $500 on Free Parking when playing Monopoly. A lot fewer people are going to be cool with "Strip Monopoly" because it changes the POINT of the game to...something else.
Removing the quest for treasure, giving players "death saves" (or plot immunity), leveling up PCs arbitrarily (i.e. by DM fiat), and half the information in the new 5E DMG? That's changing the POINT of D&D. Letting any demi-human play any class or achieve any level in your 1E game is changing the SUBSTANCE of the game.
Saying that assassins get to roll d8 for hit points instead of d6 ain't the same.
I believe we agree in the broad strokes (1) D&D is not an unknowable system of rules (2) Systems are designed with an intended experience in mind and (3) House Ruling to tweak some aspects of a system is fine and part of the hobby.
I even agree with the criticism that what I advocate for here is changing the point of some games. The point of Strategos was training actual military officers, the point of Strategos N was simulating Napoleonic warfare for a wargaming club. These are radically different ends, as different as Strip Monopoly is to Monopoly.
Where I disagree is in your framing. I am not advocating for a sit down session with you players to hammer out themes and goals. I am instead advocating for a return of the strong referee.
What I specifically desire is for those who want to referee games and run them actually have a vision for what their game is. This never needs the players approval prior. When I pitched the original Shallow Sea game, it was like this: "I am going to run a game of B/X. It will be in a setting that's in the Golden Age of Sail, so I've added gun rules and tweaked sailing a bit." There was no session zero kumbaya where I sought approval from my table on how to run my game. The players who weren't interested simply didn't play. I did, occasionally, listen to feedback from my players on how well the game was delivering on the experience that I promised, but most criticism was dismissed with prejudice. This can only happen if a referee knows the system in and out and knows what he wants.
Systems are tools. Mastery of tools means being able to use them in all appropriate situations, not just what it says on the box. If a referee intends to run a game about something and finds that a system gets most of the way there, but some rules get in the way, or are missing. To not use that system and instead attempt to generate an entirely bespoke system yourself is not going to be the wise choice in most cases. I want people to be confident enough in the their rules mastery to say "I want to do B/X with guns. Here is how I am doing guns." Without having to buy yet another B/X clone just to get gun rules. I want people off of the consumer mindset where every single possible game has to have a pre-existing system or you can simply never run it. It's a ludicrous mindset and it annoys me in the extreme.
To you other point about ignorance. That is a real issue, however I don't believe the existence of beginners (who a lot the ignorant are) or the willfully ignorant should preclude those of us who actually take the hobby seriously from discussing it. If that means some people might come along and think that I am saying "actually you can run anything in 5e if you just change enough rules" I'm okay with them being wrong.
No, when I talk about the “ignorance” issue, I’m not really talking about beginners. I’m talking about people who have learned the wrong thing, and continue to insist that there way of playing is fine and right.
To go back to my (rather lazy) analogy, it would be like sitting down to a game of Monopoly and wondering why people are wearing strip-able outfits. Um…what? And then having them a top (or whatever) at you instead of paying a bill. And then arguing with you that THiS is how Monopoly is supposed to be played. Or that “this is just fine, Monopoly can be whatever you want!”
No, you are wrong and ignorant.
But (again) w.r.t. D&D, this is the fault of the company. If the school system teaches children that our ancestors had to worry about being eaten by dinosaurs, is it the children’s fault for their shameful ignorance? No.
As for the consumer mindset: I get your frustration. But sometimes a new game IS the best way to go about something even if the existing system is “already 80-90% there.” There are good reasons not to put guns into D&D, for example (I say this as someone who wrote and used and published gym rules as part of my Complete B/X Adventurer supplement). Systems designed to use guns have taken them into account (hopefully) with other areas of the game economy. ADDING rules is generally not as easy as removing them (though both types of tweak can have unexpected consequences).
Anyway.
I apologize for painting you with an inaccurate brush. I agree that all RPGs should have a strong GM (assuming they are the kind of RPG that uses a GM). I salute your advocacy in this. One thing that helps a GM be strong is the authority that the rules and instructional text vests in the GM. The further we stray from the game as designed, the more likely that GM authority will be questioned (“hey, you changed this, why not change THAT?”).
Sorry if this comment sounds combative. It’s meant to be corrective (which is VERY presumptive on my part, I admit). But I’ve been down some of the road you seem to be treading…that’s why I wanted to offer my two cents.
I don't believe you're being combative or even too presumptuous in offering correction. There is nuance to this topic. I've stated elsewhere (twitter) that I don't think this sort of tinkering is appropriate at all times. If you are playing in some form of organized play or in a public game, the you shouldn't be attempting to color too far outside of the lines. If you invite someone to your private table, that might be a different matter. To continue your example, I would be scandalized if I was invited to play Monopoly and it was Strip Monopoly instead. Were a lecherous friend invite me to play Strip Monopoly, me showing up and then complaining that "There's no rule for using my small clothes as a mortgage!" would be silly.
Again this is the root of the hobby. I don't think Dave Wesely consulted with anyone to make sure his Braunstein rules were codified somewhere else. I think he simply said "He fellas, I want to try something that's like Diplomacy before this next Napoleonic campaign. Show up at 8."
As for whether it's the right or wrong to play D&D, that issue is twofold because there's D&D the game, and then there's D&D the generic trademark for what should properly be termed ttrpgs. Most people (because humans are extremely imprecise in our langauge) mean something like "Table Top roleplaying can be whatever you want" but they say D&D. The ideas I am expousing here are for tabletop in general, not D&D as a system. A quipy way to say it would be "I am playing D&D wrong, because I'm playing TTRPGs right."
The root of the hobby is in attempting to invent new systems to run games. That root is very much still alive, otherwise we wouldn't so many new systems coming at all times. I just think it tends to be misdirected as "I need to publish these rules." When it should be "I need to run this game for my table and then abandon it for the next game (part of this too is lost with the dearth of the club model, look at the guys over at littlewarsTV on youtube to see a model of what I mean)."
I just want to say that my 2nd comment was done via phone and has some atrocious typos. My apologies.
The stuff in your final paragraph ("the root of the hobby..." etc.)...there is a LOT that goes into A) why people continue to invent games, B) why the market continues to 'support' (I use the term loosely) new game systems, and C) why people can't or won't (or shouldn't) simply "tweak" a known game system to get the game they REALLY want.
A lot of stuff. But now I am starting to feel like *I* am "arguing about the wrong thing," and that was not the point of my original comment. The point of my original comment is...well, what I wrote. To be a bit more clear:
1) If there are two sides yelling at each other (one saying the rules are sacrosanct and the other saying 'I can do what I damn well please')...if there ARE these two camps, I fall into neither, although I'm closer to the former because
2) in MOST cases (I've noted one exception), games are designed with a particular type/style/objective of game play in mind.
And people who are the side of 'I can do what I damn well please with the game I bought' are perfectly within their rights to do so. But they're no longer playing the game with the name on the front. They can argue all they want that their tractor is a car ("I bought it! If I want to drive it work and back, I'll damn well do so!") but calling it a car doesn't make it a car. That's idiotic.
Finally (last bit): there are a lot of idiotic people currently populating our hobby. But I don't blame them (particularly) for being idiots...that's on the company. But just because they're (mostly) blameless doesn't stop them from being idiots. And even if they are a "strong GM" with a "strong vision" of how they want to play...if they're not playing the game the way it's intended to be played, they're STILL an idiot...just an idiot with "strong (wrong) vision."
Hm.
When (most) game designers design a game, they are designing it to be played in a particular fashion with a particular goal. I could certainly take a game of Monopoly and add some rules for removing clothing every time you don't have money to pay some bill or other (creating, essentially, "Strip Monopoly"), but I am not using the game in the manner envisioned or intended by the designer.
And yet the game would work well for this particular form of entertainment. There always comes a time in the game of Monopoly when one person gets low on funds and hits someone's triple railroad or hotel and ends up having to demolish and mortgage their property to stay in the game. Having the option of 'mortgaging clothing' instead (and perhaps buying it back), could add a little pizzazz to the game table...with the right players.
When I sit down to run AD&D (or B/X or OD&D), my "goal" is "to run D&D." "I'm going to run D&D...do you want to play?" is pretty much how I put it to my potential players. They can screw around with it if they want, playing it in a way other than the game was intended, but their character will probably die (or not succeed) and they will have less fun. This isn't my problem (unless they're making the game "not fun" for the others at the table...in which case they will be asked to leave and not invited back to play in future sessions)...I told them what we were going to be doing.
This is the standard way of handling game play of ANY type. "Hey, we're going to play backgammon (a game I just showed my son a couple weeks ago." Or, hey, who wants to play Axis & Aliies, or Uno, or poker, or Tsuro, or whatever. Some people might need some instruction (if they've never played before) and after a round or two they can decide whether or not the game is for them. Maybe they'll keep playing ('cause that's what we're doing tonight), but they won't be interested in playing at a later time. That's okay. That's NORMAL.
At my home table, I have some "house rules." This is normal, too. Some people sit down to play Monopoly and add a $500 bill to the board and give it to whoever lands on "Free Parking." The goal of the game remains the same (make everyone else bankrupt) but it gives the game a twist. In my house, we have a house rule that for dice rolls of ANY dice-rolling game (RPG or not), the dice must be thrown and land in a box top, or they do not count. It prevents many different arguments and speeds game play.
D&D is a complex game, but it is comprehensible (even the Advanced version). While there are, at times, problems in the rule books with the proper delivery of information...and with edge cases that rarely crop up...it is still quite possible to "muddle through" and play the game as intended by its main designer: Gary Gygax. It does not require a degree in rocket science...Gygax held no college degrees...and my friends and I were able to play strict 1E even at the age of 11/12. We ran long campaigns, we had a blast, and we "muddled through" the rough parts. Without dropping alignment or psionics or spell books or astral random encounters or speed factor or ANY parts of the game. And without parental supervision.
The problem these days is that there is a shit-ton of IGNORANCE about what the game is, how it works and why it was designed the way it is. And so people make shit up. Or take their best guess. Or listen to people on the internet to take their cues for how the game is supposed to be played, despite most of those folks being ignorant themselves OR peddling something different to the ignorant.
And this is a problem that stems from the current publisher of the game. In my first paragraph I wrote: "When (most) game designers design a game, they are designing it to be played in a particular fashion with a particular goal." Wizards of the Coast is one of the exceptions; their "design goal" is to MAKE AS MUCH MONEY AS POSSIBLE by selling their game to AS MANY CUSTOMERS AS POSSIBLE. And their tactic for this is to design a game that is poorly designed and sticking text in it that says "you can do ANYTHING with this!" without really bothering to explain how...or explain much of much else.
5E was written to GAIN AND RETAIN MARKET SHARE. Period, end of story. WotC does not care what you do with it, so long as you purchase the books and put money in their corporate coffers. WotC doesn't care if it works or if it works well or if people fight about it on the internet (there's no such thing as bad publicity), just so long as people buy, Buy, BUY!
But that leads to ignorance, false assumptions, and false expectations. To the point that some folks (including you, but you are definitely not alone in this!) would suggest sitting down for a game session and setting goals, and defining themes, and dealing with all the mish-mash of dumb ideas people have in their head.
I don't have time for that, and I don't find ir necessary anyway. "We're going to play D&D tonight." Do we need to make characters? "Do you already have one?" No. "Okay then yep, unless you want to use one of these pre-gens I've got." Okay, um...how do I play? "You and the other players are adventurers in a fantasy world seeking fortune and glory. It is a dangerous world, but if you work in cooperation with your team, you should be able to survive...and maybe thrive. You've heard of this [cave/fortress/island/temple/etc.] that's nearby and that might have some treasure stashed inside...but it's likely to be guarded by ancient traps and fearsome beasts. Does that sound like something you want to play? I can explain the rules as we go along."
Everything else is icing on the cake.
NOW, having written all that, there are people who want to fight over what exactly IS "rules as written." And who get bent out of shape over those who go "off book." But there are house rules and then there are house rules. Most people can live with the $500 on Free Parking when playing Monopoly. A lot fewer people are going to be cool with "Strip Monopoly" because it changes the POINT of the game to...something else.
Removing the quest for treasure, giving players "death saves" (or plot immunity), leveling up PCs arbitrarily (i.e. by DM fiat), and half the information in the new 5E DMG? That's changing the POINT of D&D. Letting any demi-human play any class or achieve any level in your 1E game is changing the SUBSTANCE of the game.
Saying that assassins get to roll d8 for hit points instead of d6 ain't the same.
I believe we agree in the broad strokes (1) D&D is not an unknowable system of rules (2) Systems are designed with an intended experience in mind and (3) House Ruling to tweak some aspects of a system is fine and part of the hobby.
I even agree with the criticism that what I advocate for here is changing the point of some games. The point of Strategos was training actual military officers, the point of Strategos N was simulating Napoleonic warfare for a wargaming club. These are radically different ends, as different as Strip Monopoly is to Monopoly.
Where I disagree is in your framing. I am not advocating for a sit down session with you players to hammer out themes and goals. I am instead advocating for a return of the strong referee.
What I specifically desire is for those who want to referee games and run them actually have a vision for what their game is. This never needs the players approval prior. When I pitched the original Shallow Sea game, it was like this: "I am going to run a game of B/X. It will be in a setting that's in the Golden Age of Sail, so I've added gun rules and tweaked sailing a bit." There was no session zero kumbaya where I sought approval from my table on how to run my game. The players who weren't interested simply didn't play. I did, occasionally, listen to feedback from my players on how well the game was delivering on the experience that I promised, but most criticism was dismissed with prejudice. This can only happen if a referee knows the system in and out and knows what he wants.
Systems are tools. Mastery of tools means being able to use them in all appropriate situations, not just what it says on the box. If a referee intends to run a game about something and finds that a system gets most of the way there, but some rules get in the way, or are missing. To not use that system and instead attempt to generate an entirely bespoke system yourself is not going to be the wise choice in most cases. I want people to be confident enough in the their rules mastery to say "I want to do B/X with guns. Here is how I am doing guns." Without having to buy yet another B/X clone just to get gun rules. I want people off of the consumer mindset where every single possible game has to have a pre-existing system or you can simply never run it. It's a ludicrous mindset and it annoys me in the extreme.
To you other point about ignorance. That is a real issue, however I don't believe the existence of beginners (who a lot the ignorant are) or the willfully ignorant should preclude those of us who actually take the hobby seriously from discussing it. If that means some people might come along and think that I am saying "actually you can run anything in 5e if you just change enough rules" I'm okay with them being wrong.
As always, good to hear from you JB!
No, when I talk about the “ignorance” issue, I’m not really talking about beginners. I’m talking about people who have learned the wrong thing, and continue to insist that there way of playing is fine and right.
To go back to my (rather lazy) analogy, it would be like sitting down to a game of Monopoly and wondering why people are wearing strip-able outfits. Um…what? And then having them a top (or whatever) at you instead of paying a bill. And then arguing with you that THiS is how Monopoly is supposed to be played. Or that “this is just fine, Monopoly can be whatever you want!”
No, you are wrong and ignorant.
But (again) w.r.t. D&D, this is the fault of the company. If the school system teaches children that our ancestors had to worry about being eaten by dinosaurs, is it the children’s fault for their shameful ignorance? No.
As for the consumer mindset: I get your frustration. But sometimes a new game IS the best way to go about something even if the existing system is “already 80-90% there.” There are good reasons not to put guns into D&D, for example (I say this as someone who wrote and used and published gym rules as part of my Complete B/X Adventurer supplement). Systems designed to use guns have taken them into account (hopefully) with other areas of the game economy. ADDING rules is generally not as easy as removing them (though both types of tweak can have unexpected consequences).
Anyway.
I apologize for painting you with an inaccurate brush. I agree that all RPGs should have a strong GM (assuming they are the kind of RPG that uses a GM). I salute your advocacy in this. One thing that helps a GM be strong is the authority that the rules and instructional text vests in the GM. The further we stray from the game as designed, the more likely that GM authority will be questioned (“hey, you changed this, why not change THAT?”).
Sorry if this comment sounds combative. It’s meant to be corrective (which is VERY presumptive on my part, I admit). But I’ve been down some of the road you seem to be treading…that’s why I wanted to offer my two cents.
Best.
I don't believe you're being combative or even too presumptuous in offering correction. There is nuance to this topic. I've stated elsewhere (twitter) that I don't think this sort of tinkering is appropriate at all times. If you are playing in some form of organized play or in a public game, the you shouldn't be attempting to color too far outside of the lines. If you invite someone to your private table, that might be a different matter. To continue your example, I would be scandalized if I was invited to play Monopoly and it was Strip Monopoly instead. Were a lecherous friend invite me to play Strip Monopoly, me showing up and then complaining that "There's no rule for using my small clothes as a mortgage!" would be silly.
Again this is the root of the hobby. I don't think Dave Wesely consulted with anyone to make sure his Braunstein rules were codified somewhere else. I think he simply said "He fellas, I want to try something that's like Diplomacy before this next Napoleonic campaign. Show up at 8."
As for whether it's the right or wrong to play D&D, that issue is twofold because there's D&D the game, and then there's D&D the generic trademark for what should properly be termed ttrpgs. Most people (because humans are extremely imprecise in our langauge) mean something like "Table Top roleplaying can be whatever you want" but they say D&D. The ideas I am expousing here are for tabletop in general, not D&D as a system. A quipy way to say it would be "I am playing D&D wrong, because I'm playing TTRPGs right."
The root of the hobby is in attempting to invent new systems to run games. That root is very much still alive, otherwise we wouldn't so many new systems coming at all times. I just think it tends to be misdirected as "I need to publish these rules." When it should be "I need to run this game for my table and then abandon it for the next game (part of this too is lost with the dearth of the club model, look at the guys over at littlewarsTV on youtube to see a model of what I mean)."
I just want to say that my 2nd comment was done via phone and has some atrocious typos. My apologies.
The stuff in your final paragraph ("the root of the hobby..." etc.)...there is a LOT that goes into A) why people continue to invent games, B) why the market continues to 'support' (I use the term loosely) new game systems, and C) why people can't or won't (or shouldn't) simply "tweak" a known game system to get the game they REALLY want.
A lot of stuff. But now I am starting to feel like *I* am "arguing about the wrong thing," and that was not the point of my original comment. The point of my original comment is...well, what I wrote. To be a bit more clear:
1) If there are two sides yelling at each other (one saying the rules are sacrosanct and the other saying 'I can do what I damn well please')...if there ARE these two camps, I fall into neither, although I'm closer to the former because
2) in MOST cases (I've noted one exception), games are designed with a particular type/style/objective of game play in mind.
And people who are the side of 'I can do what I damn well please with the game I bought' are perfectly within their rights to do so. But they're no longer playing the game with the name on the front. They can argue all they want that their tractor is a car ("I bought it! If I want to drive it work and back, I'll damn well do so!") but calling it a car doesn't make it a car. That's idiotic.
Finally (last bit): there are a lot of idiotic people currently populating our hobby. But I don't blame them (particularly) for being idiots...that's on the company. But just because they're (mostly) blameless doesn't stop them from being idiots. And even if they are a "strong GM" with a "strong vision" of how they want to play...if they're not playing the game the way it's intended to be played, they're STILL an idiot...just an idiot with "strong (wrong) vision."