Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 valde002 Feb 13, 2015 14:15:26	Hi all, been thinking about this game. Started with the red box 1E basic, X,CM,M, etc. as well as  the first AD&D. Then went to college and had kids. Now back to 5E. It seems that since th basic rules seemed more like a game, it flowed. Any rules not invented at the time were given fair due, either rolled for at DM discretion or decided by DM and the final word was the DMs. Game flow was fast and simple. Now it seems that the evolution of D&D from the middle versions to the 5th edition have a ton of rules that to me make the D&D experience more like a simulation than a game. They do make perfect sense and are collected from years of putting the game to the test, so dont get me wrong. An example of this is the short and long rest. Works fine, but there seem to be lots of little details like this to hammer out that slow the game down, which make it seem more like a simulator than a game. What are your thoughts on this being a game or a simulator? I feel like I would like to dilute the rules alittle to keep it simple again, but would probably just be playing the BECMI again, lol.
#2 Coredump00 Feb 13, 2015 15:21:12	I think you are *really* glad  you missed 3E and 4E.....   5th is a lot more streamlined.     Even 1E had the Long rest, it was how PCs got their spells back.  While it does add some record keeping, it lets the designers give PCs abilities that may be unbalancing if you could do them at will. Plus the Short Rest keeps PCs from being able to "Nova" and do all their damage at one time.
#3 abs1nth Feb 13, 2015 15:57:37	5e is really not a simulation. The very mechanic you are mentioning is quite gamey. I think what's more the issue is that the game has gotten more complex than first edition, at least. However, this complexity really doesn't seem to me like it's particularly concerned with representing reality but much more with creating enjoyable game mechanics.
#4 Noon Feb 13, 2015 15:59:31	I'd say it's probably the other way around - your idea of flow is actually simulation. I mean, there's now water here to flow - what's flowing? The fiction of a world working smoothly is flowing - which, when it's most important to you, is a simulation focus.   Working out details means tactical details, which is game.
#5 Kayal Feb 13, 2015 20:46:32	Hmm. I'm don't think a fast and simple "flow" is usually associated with simulationism or gamism. It's sort of independent of those terms. After all, there are plenty of simple games and plenty of complex games, in both the simulationist and gamist catagories.   That being said, no version of D&D has ever really been simulationist. Not really. Although one might argue that classes enforce certian tropes of the genre (which is debatable), experience levels are about as gamist as you can get. And, while abstract hit points are truly genius, they might be the least "realistic" way to track injuries that's available.   Ultimately, an enjoyable RPG has to have good balance between simulationism or gamism. After all, verisimiltude and "flow" are both important to having fun.   Ahh, but I digress.   A large part of what made AD&D flow so well was the fact that most DMs ignored half the rules. (The 70's and 80's were the hayday of house-rules, if you will). Certianly, it wasn't the attack matrixes, or the individual saving throw tables, or the fact that every spell operated on a completely unique game mechanic. No, it was just the fact that most DM's were flying by the seats of their pants. And yes, it was great. So, if the OP wants to dilute the rules (and by "dilute the rules," I assume he/she means "run fast and loose with rules"), then I say go for it. Give it a try ... but I don't think 5e isn't really that complicated in the first place.   But that's just my two cents.
#6 Devils-Advocate Feb 13, 2015 21:47:43	Kayal wrote:
#7 Farmer42 Feb 14, 2015 0:46:50	Yeah, ye olde red box was a fair bit more streamlined.  5E falls somewhere between BECMI and AD&D in terms of RAW complexity.  And it's MUCH simpler than 3E and 4E.
#8 Vahnyu Feb 14, 2015 3:09:15	Complexity, or lack thereof, has nothing to do with whether something is more of a game, rather than a simulation.   D&D has always been a game of narrative simulation. And as with most ttrpgs, which side of the equation you fall depends heavierly on the group than the ttrpg itself(Though it may lend itself more particularly towards a certain playstyle).
#9 Vahnyu Feb 14, 2015 3:12:31	Devils-Advocate wrote:
#10 Kayal Feb 14, 2015 7:37:42	Haha. It's funny. When I initially typed that last response, I included a bit about narrativism ... but ultimnately decided to exclude it, so as to not confound the issue. Then, three of the four next responses mention it. Lol. Just my luck.
#11 bawylie Feb 14, 2015 8:05:48	NOPE!   Thats all waffle. The best way to understand the rule set is that it's like a console for which you design and play games tailored to specific interests.    You want something that closely adheres to a specific genre or model? The game will help you achieve that.    You want something more like a tabletop war game? The game will help you achieve that.    You want something mostly hands-off within which you can explore an emotional, character-centric narrative? The game will help you achieve that.    Its not inherently "a simulation" or "gamist" or any other waffle-term. It's a tool box to help you turn ideas into experiences. Once you grok this bit, the whole thing falls into place much more cleanly.
#12 kalil Feb 14, 2015 8:36:45	Mmm. Waffles. Now you have gone and made me hungry!
#13 Devils-Advocate Feb 14, 2015 11:24:34	Vahnyu wrote:
#14 Rastapopoulos Feb 14, 2015 12:10:29	valde002 wrote:
#15 Noon Feb 14, 2015 14:18:03	The only way a rule will help you resolve something in the narrative is if people at the table think you wont ditch rules.   Rules don't 'resolve' anything. Their application forfils player expectations. If they players had no expectations about rules, you wont resolve anything and are left with 'it happens...OK!?'
#16 DaveDash Feb 14, 2015 14:40:24	Strongly disagree that the rules are there to serve narrative and that's the only case. I much prefer the other way around, narrative serves the rules. I like playing the game, mastering the rules, and winning battles, not living out some DMs story at the expense of rules.
#17 bawylie Feb 14, 2015 17:54:17	How would the narrative serve the rules? That doesn't make sense.
(Reply to #16) Satyrn	DaveDash wrote:
#19 Noon Feb 14, 2015 18:22:09	bawylie wrote:
#20 Rastapopoulos Feb 14, 2015 19:07:53	DaveDash wrote:
(Reply to #20) DaveDash	Rastapopoulos wrote:
#22 bawylie Feb 14, 2015 22:51:26	Hang on.  "1d20 + 4 vs a DC of 15." That's the exciting bit? This isn't me being facetious - I really don't get your point.    Are you saying you prefer say, a tabletop wargame? Bloodbowl, warhammer, etc? And you want to play D&D in that way?
#23 ankiyavon Feb 14, 2015 23:02:32	bawylie wrote:
#24 Gnarl Feb 15, 2015 7:29:24	valde002 wrote:
#25 Kayal Feb 15, 2015 7:47:26	DaveDash wrote:
#26 ankiyavon Feb 15, 2015 12:24:01	Kayal wrote:
#27 Vahnyu Feb 15, 2015 12:25:40	Kayal wrote:
#28 Vahnyu Feb 15, 2015 12:27:02	ankiyavon wrote:
#29 Gnarl Feb 15, 2015 12:58:39	Kayal wrote:
#30 Bluenose Feb 15, 2015 13:11:37	Kayal wrote:
#31 Kayal Feb 15, 2015 15:02:17	ankiyavon wrote:
#32 Noon Feb 15, 2015 16:41:38	Kayal wrote:
#33 Kayal Feb 15, 2015 19:58:49	What context would that be? Your statement seemed to indicate that rules weren't used for resolution, but rather to "fulfill player expectations." It seems like a pretty straightfoward statement, but perhaps your "intent" wasn't clear to me. Feel free to explain what you meant.
#34 Kayal Feb 15, 2015 19:52:53	Bluenose wrote:
#35 Kayal Feb 15, 2015 19:53:22	Gnarl wrote:
#36 ankiyavon Feb 15, 2015 20:55:26	Kayal wrote:
#37 Noon Feb 15, 2015 21:35:26	Kayal wrote:
#38 bawylie Feb 15, 2015 21:39:30	What does "forfil" mean?
#39 Noon Feb 15, 2015 22:09:42	bawylie wrote:
#40 Shasarak Feb 15, 2015 22:27:47	Noon wrote:
#41 Wuzzard Feb 15, 2015 22:44:39	I prefer gamulation over simulame, but never to the level of power gamulation, that's why I always try to focus on narraconceptualism because it increases the versimulac which is the best part of a pear & breadsticks, slap & dash kind of game.
#42 Gnarl Feb 16, 2015 6:02:53	Kayal wrote:
#43 iserith Feb 16, 2015 6:55:07	Basic Rules, Page 2:   "The Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game is about storytelling in worlds of swords and sorcery."   "One player, however, takes on the role of the Dungeon Master (DM), the game’s lead storyteller and referee."   "The game has no real end; when one story or quest wraps up, another one can begin, creating an ongoing story called a campaign."   "Each monster defeated, each adventure completed, and each treasure recovered not only adds to the continuing story, but also earns the adventurers new capabilities."   "Together, the DM and the players create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils."   "The group might fail to complete an adventure successfully, but if everyone had a good time and created a memorable story, they all win."   Basic Rules, Page 3:   "Some worlds are dominated by one great story, like the War of the Lance that plays a central role in the Dragonlance setting."   Basic Rules, Page 4:   "The adventure is the heart of the game, a story with a beginning, a middle, and an end."   Basic Rules, Page 36:   "When another player character does something that really contributes to the story in a fun and interesting way, you can give up your inspiration to give that character inspiration."   DMG, Page 4:   "The DM creates a world for the other players to explore, and also creates and runs adventures that drive the story."   DMG, Page 26:   "Once you've identified what your campaign is about, let the players help tell the story by deciding how their characters are involved."   DMG, Page 71:   "The basic elements of good storytelling should guide you throughout this process, so your players experience the adventure as a story and not a disjointed series of encounters."   DMG, Page 72:   "Like every story, a typical adventure has a beginning, a middle, and an end."   "Remember that the characters are the heroes of the story."   DMG, Page 81:   "Encounters are the individual scenes in the larger story of your adventure."   And the DMG has a ton more references to story in it. I just picked out a few. While "story" is emergent, it isn't just a happy coincedence that one arises from game play. It's one of the flumphing points of the game, if you believe what the books have to say on the matter. (The other point being to have fun.) Creating an exciting, memorable story as a result of play is how you "win" at D&D. Logically, falling short of that means you lose. Story matters.
#44 Kayal Feb 16, 2015 8:27:14	ankiyavon wrote:
#45 Gatt Feb 16, 2015 16:18:57	iserith wrote:
#46 Shasarak Feb 16, 2015 16:23:30	Gatt wrote:
#47 iserith Feb 16, 2015 16:28:56	Gatt wrote:
#48 bawylie Feb 16, 2015 16:53:14	I don't think the extremes are germain to the discussion - nobody plays either without reference to the rules or without reference to some overarching series of events. We have stronger inclinations one way or the other, but frankly, this would be a Venn diagram with 80% shared space.
#49 Kayal Feb 16, 2015 16:54:14	Gatt wrote:
#50 Kayal Feb 16, 2015 16:55:22	bawylie wrote:
(Reply to #50) Reius	Kayal wrote:
#52 ankiyavon Feb 16, 2015 18:54:42	bawylie wrote:
#53 Noon Feb 16, 2015 19:21:07	Shasarak wrote:
#54 Noon Feb 16, 2015 19:17:36	Kayal wrote:
#55 Shasarak Feb 16, 2015 19:29:55	Noon wrote:
#56 Oriet Feb 17, 2015 8:17:01	You can't play 5th edition without having some story to it.  Even if you skip all naration there's still personality traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws tied in with inspiration, as well as the character's background which has a feature based in story.  Sure you can ignore an entire section of the character sheet, but doing so also changes the nature of the game.  Even then the actions chosen in combat give a narrative, even if a bland one if it's done without any narration.  5th edition embeds story elements into the rules and character sheets more than any other edition, which I personally like as it means even characters that have the same "build" can have concrete differences displayed prominently without having to rely on optional backstory notes.
#57 Orethalion Feb 17, 2015 10:36:05	Gatt wrote:
#58 Orethalion Feb 17, 2015 10:38:29	iserith wrote:
#59 bawylie Feb 17, 2015 10:51:56	The very first paragraph in the basic rules is : "The Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game is about storytelling in worlds of swords and sorcery. It shares elements with childhood games of make-believe. Like those games, D&D is driven by imagination. It’s about picturing the towering castle beneath the stormy night sky and imagining how a fantasy adventurer might react to the challenges that scene presents. "   Then we get a sample of play. Followed by a statement of intent regarding the rules: "Unlike a game of make-believe, D&D gives structure to the stories, a way of determining the consequences of the adventurers’ action. Players roll dice to resolve whether their attacks hit or miss or whether their adventurers can scale a cliff, roll away from the strike of a magical lightning bolt, or pull off some other dangerous task. Anything is possible, but the dice make some outcomes more probable than others."   Now, we're not talking about randomly selected instances of the word "story." This isn't a pull-quote to support a point. This is the introductory statements on what the game is about. Shortly thereafter, we get treatment of the win conditions. (Have a good time, make memorable stories).    absent from the introduction? Any discussion of causality & simulacra. Any treatise on internal cohesion. Even the section on the "world" deals with the lore and story behind a campaign setting.    Of course, if that's important to you, you should pursue those interests. The game doesn't have to ratify your personal preference and you don't need to justify it to anyone but yourself. I'm not point these passages out to say "you're wrong & only my way is right." Im saying that the undergirding philosophy of this edition is grounded in the generation of myths & legends & experiences & tales. Not in a unified task resolution mechanic, nor in a tabletop war game experience. Again, you should still pursue those things as much as you desire to - but this game is designed to facilitate A) Story (myths, tales, etx, etx) and b) everything else.   And there's no reason that should upset anyone. The tools are there for you to pursue your goals as you choose. That is largely due to eschewing the philosophies of prior editions and the thinking on "agendas" as supplanted priorities of games.
#60 bawylie Feb 17, 2015 10:58:18	Another way to look at it is to see it in terms of negative influence. By prioritizing each group's individual experience, we are no longer "forced" (insofar as that term applies) into always using the task resolution mechanic for everything (and the clumsy take 10 or 20 solutions), nor are we "forced" to snap everything to grid and treat each minor skirmish as a 3 hr epic affair.    Instead, with experience & story at the forefront, and the Goals of Play set as personal experiences and emotions, you are free from prior constraints.   Meaning, you don't have to do it Bawylie's way. Or Orethalion's. You can do the best of both. Nobody is more right than anyone else Inherently. (Well, probably I am, but...) Instead, the best game, for your group, is the one most attentive to your group's Goals and purposes.
#61 iserith Feb 17, 2015 11:28:30	The Basic Rules, page 2, makes it clear what the two goals of play are: (1) Have a good time and (2) create an exciting, memorable story. To "win," you have to achieve both.   The skill of the players and DM and the kinds of decisions they make during play are what allow them to never have to choose between the two.
(Reply to #48) DaveDash	bawylie wrote:
#63 iserith Feb 17, 2015 12:51:26	DaveDash wrote:
(Reply to #62) Farmer42	DaveDash wrote:
#65 edwin_su Feb 17, 2015 13:00:42	Orethalion wrote:
#66 DemoMonkey Feb 17, 2015 13:08:19	If you have fun, the story will be memorable because the fun will make it so. Even if all you did that week was shop for potions and name all the hired crewmen on your ship variations on "Jack" and watch the dwarf and the dragonborn bicker.   Fun is a goal. Story is an emergent phenomenon. You "win" D&D  if you create the former, because the second is an inevitable byproduct. And you can certainly create the former with a strict and process oriented adherence to the rules.   It's not my personal preference, but it's certainly doable.
#67 Cyber-Dave Feb 17, 2015 15:12:10	Yea... I'm sorry, but if the text says that story is the goal, then story is the goal. Yes, fun is also the goal. You are, however, supposed to have the type of fun generated by producing stories. If you are not creating a story, you are not playing D&D. Or, perhaps, you are playing a failed game of D&D.
#68 ankiyavon Feb 17, 2015 16:02:33	Cyber-Dave wrote:
#69 Noon Feb 17, 2015 16:14:58	Yet we're told just having labels like chainmail or elf or sword, makes for story.   So can you even fail to produce story, ever?
#70 iserith Feb 17, 2015 16:30:58	One can't fail to produce a story by playing D&D.   What one can fail to produce is an exciting, memorable story. And that is one of the goals of play:   "Together, the DM and the players create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils. Sometimes an adventurer might come to a grisly end, torn apart by ferocious monsters or done in by a nefarious villain. Even so, the other adventurers can search for powerful magic to revive their fallen comrade, or the player might choose to create a new character to carry on. The group might fail to complete an adventure successfully, but if everyone had a good time and created a memorable story, they all win." - Basic Rules, page 2   Whether and how exciting and memorable the story you create ends up being is a factor of the kinds of decisions the players and DM make during play.
#71 Orethalion Feb 17, 2015 17:01:24	Cyber-Dave wrote:
(Reply to #71) bawylie	Orethalion wrote:
#73 Noon Feb 17, 2015 17:59:49	iserith wrote:
#74 Webster Feb 17, 2015 18:18:42	From my sig: Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best defined as the realism-simulation school and the other as the game school. AD&D is assuredly an adherent of the latter school. It does not stress any realism (in the author's opinon an absurd effort at best considering the topic!). It does little to attempt to simulate anything either. (AD&D) is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek the use of imagination and creativity.... In all cases, however, the reader should understand that AD&D is designed to be an amusing and diverting pastime, something which an fill a few hours or consume endless days, as the participants desire, but in no case something to be taken too seriously. For fun, excitement and captivating fantasy, AD&D is unsurpassed.As a realistic simulation of things from the realm of make-believe or even as a reflection of midieval or ancient warfare or culture or society, it can be deemed only a dismal failure. Readers who seek the later must search elsewhere. - Gary Gygax. 1e DMG.
#75 Karnos Feb 17, 2015 18:57:32	iserith wrote:
#76 Karnos Feb 17, 2015 18:59:39	Noon wrote:
#77 Cyber-Dave Feb 17, 2015 19:17:13	When one starts making claims that any string of events expressed in a linear model is a story, thus meaning that everything in life is a story, one starts to devalue the use of the term story. For a word to have meaning, one must be able to differentiate it from the mass of concepts that it is not. Of course, I am not saying that there is some binary antithetical which composes "not story." That sort of structural thinking crumbled long ago. Nevertheless, not everything is a story, or else the term story loses its usefulness.
#78 iserith Feb 17, 2015 19:27:05	Karnos wrote:
#79 Karnos Feb 17, 2015 19:29:31	iserith wrote:
#80 iserith Feb 17, 2015 19:36:21	Karnos wrote:
#81 JohnLynch Feb 17, 2015 20:52:00	iserith wrote:
#82 Karnos Feb 17, 2015 21:07:07	iserith wrote:
(Reply to #82) DaveDash	Karnos you stole the thoughts out of my mind with that post. The awesome moments in 5e for me have been due to dice and mechanics, not story or imagination. The Bard finally making his Wisdom save against the mind flayer stun, saving the Paladin with cutting words, and then the Paladin critting the mins flayer and killing it. Pure awesome. All dictated by mechanics and lucky dice rolls. If the dice went the other way and they all died, SO BE IT. That's what is awesome about D&D for me, not knowing the DM fluffed the rules and created a scenario of his or her choosing based on feeling.
#84 Orethalion Feb 17, 2015 22:01:29	bawylie wrote:
#85 Orethalion Feb 17, 2015 22:06:45	JohnLynch wrote:
#86 JohnLynch Feb 17, 2015 22:13:33	Orethalion wrote:
#87 Badwords Feb 17, 2015 22:21:22	I don't usually come to the WotC forums because of what has happened in this thread... Anyways, I'll clear up this big, pointless argument right now; my statements are not open for discussion, I will not respond, and I do not care if you agree or disagree. 1) There are two types of people that play Dungeons and Dragons, Rifts, Iron Kingdoms, Mage, GURPS, etc... We have the roleplayers on one side, the 'roll-players' on the other; neither of them will ever agree on anything. The thing is, there are ALWAYS going to be those two types of people, and there's nothing either one of you can do about it.   2) I agree that D&D is about the story... the majority of the systems are focused mainly on narrative, and have a ruleset that will support it. I started with Pathfinder, I know how to optomize, I can 'math' a character up better than most, and I can 'play to win,' but D&D isn't about that; it's about having fun, and experiencing a story. I don't care how bad you want D&D to turn into WoW and have a Healer, Tank, DPS system... it isn't like that, and isn't meant to be. Aggro doesn't exist, it doesn't matter how fast you can pump out damage with your warlock-5/rogue-7/fighter-3/barbarian-2/bard-3 because the DM can have the ceiling collapse at any moment, or maybe the floor will give way and your "20d6 max falling damage" business won't save you from a story element. I don't care how you play the game... it's your game... that's the whole point. If you're the DM, it's up to you, that's the ONLY rule that matters; if you want your players to play through a night in an arena without any narrative, cool.... if you want to play through a narrative, awesome.... don't try argue about it though because there will ALWAYS be someone that disagrees.
(Reply to #70) grendel111111	iserith wrote:
#89 Noon Feb 18, 2015 0:00:42	Karnos wrote:
#90 bawylie Feb 18, 2015 1:03:18	I like this line of thought    A: "Here's a quote from the books directly saying what the game is all about." B: "You're a baby-eating one-true-wayist who thinks we're all having badwrongfun."   Nicely put, folks.    Now I enjoy the gambler's thrill (DaveDash talks about above) as much as anyone. But I also enjoy reminiscing about how awesome the game was & creating some quests and plots and experiences I feel my players will enjoy. Gambler's thrill is great but it only goes so far - and at some point, some drama needs to happen. Some point, players' decisions have to be more meaningful than the RNG allows. (I'm speaking for me here, which I shouldn't have to point out, but "B").    What we really ought to do is stop putting components of an RPG against each other. It's not game vs story. It's game AND story. It's not (as outlined above) Roleplayers vs Rollplayers nor beer and pretzels vs deep immersion. That's all forge waffle tribalism so you can feel justified in liking what you like.    Playing D&D and really getting into it will create memories and tales that last. We all have ten at least. Who cares how you create them as long as they're fun? Damn.
(Reply to #90) JohnLynch	bawylie wrote:
(Reply to #90) DaveDash	bawylie wrote:
(Reply to #3) crimfan07	abs1nth wrote:
(Reply to #7) crimfan07	Farmer42 wrote:
#95 Fake-Healer Feb 18, 2015 6:11:36	I just love how the OP starts a thread, pulls the pin and never responds back to 3 pages of conversation on the subject.....Troll post much?
(Reply to #82) SleepsInTraffic	Karnos wrote:
#97 iserith Feb 18, 2015 8:01:45	JohnLynch wrote:
#98 iserith Feb 18, 2015 8:02:58	bawylie wrote:
#99 iserith Feb 18, 2015 8:11:12	grendel111111 wrote:
#100 JohnLynch Feb 18, 2015 8:19:42	And anyone that doesn't win is therefore a loser. Your not being very subtle in this thread iserith.
#101 iserith Feb 18, 2015 8:26:49	JohnLynch wrote:
#102 bawylie Feb 18, 2015 8:40:18	Tell you what, I'll own up to some crap.    Ive run games that fell flat and failed. I've run games where I wasn't feelin it and wasted 2-4 hrs. I've "lost" D&D.    I try not to, but come on, pobody's nerfect.    Setting a goal, chasing a goal, these are important. Achieving one is sublime. Failing is crap. Forgiving yourself and others is divine. We all win, we all lose, we all rise to the occasion, we all fall short, we're all sinners, Saints, hippocrites, & true friends.    So, yeah, I'll definitely own my failures, pickup, dust off & go again. I've lost, I've won, I'll lose again, I'll win again.
#103 Kayal Feb 18, 2015 8:50:39	bawylie wrote:
#104 Vahnyu Feb 18, 2015 8:52:22	Kayal wrote:
(Reply to #101) grendel111111	iserith wrote:
(Reply to #104) grendel111111	Vahnyu wrote:
#107 Orethalion Feb 18, 2015 9:31:58	iserith wrote:
(Reply to #99) grendel111111	iserith wrote:
#109 HoboJustice Feb 18, 2015 9:52:36	JohnLynch wrote:
#110 iserith Feb 18, 2015 10:03:09	grendel111111 wrote:
#111 Devils-Advocate Feb 18, 2015 10:11:30	JohnLynch wrote:
#112 Kayal Feb 18, 2015 10:53:14	Vahnyu wrote:
(Reply to #110) grendel111111	iserith wrote:
#114 iserith Feb 18, 2015 11:00:37	grendel111111 wrote:
(Reply to #114) bawylie	iserith wrote:
(Reply to #114) grendel111111	iserith wrote:
#117 Bluenose Feb 18, 2015 11:30:10	Given that the "Philosophy behind Rulings and Rules"  is supposed to include a section on Rules as Interpreted explaining what the designers meant, I imagine the quesiton of whether they were trying for more Simulaiton or more Game will be answered rather quickly. Just see what is said there. If they answer based on precedent from some source, then it's Sim; if it's based on what makes the game work better, then it's Game.
(Reply to #117) grendel111111	Bluenose wrote:
#119 Orethalion Feb 18, 2015 11:51:40	grendel111111 wrote:
#120 Gnollbane Feb 18, 2015 11:53:47	As many helpful people--some of whom are in this thread--have taught me, D&D's RAW will never be one size fits all, nor were they intended to be.   The rules for all editions were meant to be flexible, so your group can tailor them to your liking. In the end, the flow and fun factor of your game depends on your group, not the edition. Feel free to change, alter, or even leave out rules, as long as it helps everybody involved have as much fun as possible.   Concerning editions, however, I have have personally found 5th Edition to be the easiest to understand and most friendly towards newcomers.
#121 iserith Feb 18, 2015 12:02:20	grendel111111 wrote:
(Reply to #82) Gnollbane	Karnos wrote:
#123 Karnos Feb 18, 2015 12:31:44	iserith wrote:
#124 Gnollbane Feb 18, 2015 12:49:14	Iserith is just explaining that everyone's idea of what makes a fun game of D&D varies from person to person. Nobody's attacking you personally.
#125 iserith Feb 18, 2015 12:48:12	Karnos wrote:
#126 DaveDash Feb 18, 2015 12:58:46	Some people, myself included, don't care what the challenge in the basic rules say. That's just them trying to lure new players to give D&D a go vs playing their computer games, so they need to sell a point of difference. Meanwhile there are still hordes of 3e,4e, pathfinder, and heck AD&D players who are quite happily playing D&D in rules heavy systems and all have their own way of playing the game. For many, that means playing a game FIRST, then acting out some sort of fantasy SECOND. As long as it's SOME form of escapism, role or roll, it doesn't matter. There's no "are you up to the challenge" at all. I run a game that is very difficult and encourages metagaming, strategy, and tactical discussion in between rounds. I have players who love that, but we would NEVER start putting story > rules in that game, as it would ruin it. Some of those players also play in roleplay heavy story driven narrative games, which they also love. I tried playing in that game and absolutely HATED it.
#127 iserith Feb 18, 2015 13:09:40	DaveDash wrote:
#128 Gnarl Feb 18, 2015 13:28:08	iserith wrote:
(Reply to #127) grendel111111	iserith wrote:
#130 iserith Feb 18, 2015 14:32:08	Gnarl wrote:
#131 iserith Feb 18, 2015 14:40:48	grendel111111 wrote:
(Reply to #127) DaveDash	iserith wrote:
#133 iserith Feb 18, 2015 15:09:58	DaveDash wrote:
#134 DaveDash Feb 18, 2015 15:11:54	You don't understand because you have blinkers on.   This is an argument about whether or not the DM should throw away the rules in favour of a good story. That would kill my enjoyment of the game. Period. I feel so strongly about that, that I would rather play no D&D, than play D&D in that kind of environment.   You can fluff up my statements however you like, but that's the pure and simple fact.   Another pure and simple fact is there is no right or wrong way to play D&D, despite how the designers would or would not like you to play, or what they write in the basic rules introduction. The challenge is all in your head.
#135 Shasarak Feb 18, 2015 15:14:06	Karnos wrote:
#136 bawylie Feb 18, 2015 15:15:06	DaveDash wrote:
#137 iserith Feb 18, 2015 15:15:25	DaveDash wrote:
(Reply to #136) DaveDash	bawylie wrote:
(Reply to #137) DaveDash	iserith wrote:
#140 Orethalion Feb 18, 2015 15:25:25	bawylie wrote:
(Reply to #134) bawylie	DaveDash wrote:
#142 Noon Feb 18, 2015 15:29:44	Gnollbane wrote:
(Reply to #140) DaveDash	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #140) bawylie	Orethalion wrote:
#145 bawylie Feb 18, 2015 15:31:50	And I apparently stand corrected on this point.
#146 Gnollbane Feb 18, 2015 15:32:26	It's amusing when you say you hate creativity and always play by the rules and game mechanics when THE RULES AND GAME MECHANICS REQUIRE YOU TO BE CREATIVE. If you're not using your imagination, you aren't playing Dungeons and Dragons. What about situations that the rules can't account for? The DM has to improvise, and it was meant to be that way. It's literally impossible to play a fantasy tabletop sword-and-sorcery adventuring questing monster-filled extravaganza game without being creative. I agree that every group has a different idea of what fun is in a D&D adventure, but playing it without creativity is pretty close to a crime.
(Reply to #141) DaveDash	bawylie wrote:
#148 iserith Feb 18, 2015 15:36:32	I put forth that a DM never "ignores" rules.   Since bringing the rules of the game into play to resolve uncertainty is entirely at the discretion of the DM by the rules, then rules are never "ignored" because there is no obligation that the DM must bring rules into play for any given action in the game.
#149 bawylie Feb 18, 2015 15:39:21	It's not messing them to decide whether and when to apply a given rule or mechanic.    Calling for a check is a DM's prerogative.  Determining when setting succeeds or fails automatically or whether to leave it to the dice is what DM-ing is. Refereeing. Writing. And playing to find out what happens.    Youre right it's the DM's game, it's created cooperatively. But that doesn't bind the DM to run a game differently than they see fit as circumstances desires and Goals align.
(Reply to #148) DaveDash	iserith wrote:
(Reply to #149) DaveDash	bawylie wrote:
#152 bawylie Feb 18, 2015 15:47:47	Right - so if you want to jump longer or higher than the rules say is allowed, I ditch that and put it to a test. You might succeed, you might fail, would your character risk it? That's the narrative - who your character is, whether they take that risk. The jump rules directly prevent that drama unfolding - out they go.
#153 iserith Feb 18, 2015 15:50:44	DaveDash wrote:
(Reply to #152) DaveDash	bawylie wrote:
#155 Vahnyu Feb 18, 2015 15:56:48	Gnollbane wrote:
#156 Gnollbane Feb 18, 2015 16:02:23	So no other TRPGS have class systems? What's your point?
#157 Orethalion Feb 18, 2015 16:02:44	iserith wrote:
#158 Orethalion Feb 18, 2015 16:05:40	DaveDash wrote:
#159 Vahnyu Feb 18, 2015 16:09:37	Gnollbane wrote:
#160 iserith Feb 18, 2015 16:41:37	DaveDash wrote:
#161 Shasarak Feb 18, 2015 16:50:51	Noon wrote:
(Reply to #150) grendel111111	DaveDash wrote:
#163 Gnarl Feb 18, 2015 17:21:25	iserith wrote:
#164 iserith Feb 18, 2015 17:26:12	grendel111111 wrote:
#165 Uchawi Feb 18, 2015 17:27:49	I prefer a game that is consistent in its simulation and then you can make it more or less abstract in reference to how much detail you want. But when the sub-systems or rules don't treat the simulation on an equal level, then both the game and simulation fall apart, and you get into all the versmilitude arguments for a given mechanic.
#166 Kayal Feb 18, 2015 17:33:21	DaveDash wrote:
#167 Gnarl Feb 18, 2015 17:29:27	DaveDash wrote:
(Reply to #164) grendel111111	iserith wrote:
(Reply to #167) DaveDash	Gnarl wrote:
#170 Gnarl Feb 18, 2015 17:56:30	DaveDash wrote:
(Reply to #170) DaveDash	Gnarl wrote:
#172 Gnollbane Feb 18, 2015 18:56:08	When people change the rules, it's usually not just to make the game unfair or too easy, assuming you have a competent DM and sensible players. It's to make sure everyone has fun at the table, which is, after all, the point of the game. I'm not as experienced as some of the people here but I can tell you that you're on the right track as long as everyone is using their imagination (it's part of the game, don't deny) and having fun.
#173 iserith Feb 18, 2015 19:01:29	Gnarl wrote:
#174 JohnLynch Feb 18, 2015 19:05:30	iserith wrote:
#175 iserith Feb 18, 2015 19:06:23	Gnarl wrote:
#176 iserith Feb 18, 2015 19:09:31	DaveDash wrote:
#177 iserith Feb 18, 2015 19:13:12	JohnLynch wrote:
#178 JohnLynch Feb 18, 2015 19:33:44	iserith wrote:
#179 iserith Feb 18, 2015 19:40:43	JohnLynch wrote:
#180 bawylie Feb 18, 2015 19:56:44	Seriously? "What does citing the source text of the game bring to a conversation about running the game?"   SMGDH
(Reply to #179) JohnLynch	iserith wrote:
#182 iserith Feb 18, 2015 20:25:29	JohnLynch wrote:
(Reply to #182) JohnLynch	iserith wrote:
#184 DaveDash Feb 18, 2015 20:44:08	I must say it's a bit ironic quoting fluff from the books on one hand as the "intent" in which the game is meant to be played, and then discarding the rules as mere tools on the other hand.
#185 iserith Feb 18, 2015 20:47:56	JohnLynch wrote:
#186 iserith Feb 18, 2015 20:51:22	DaveDash wrote:
#187 JohnLynch Feb 18, 2015 21:01:05	iserith wrote:
#188 iserith Feb 18, 2015 21:07:22	JohnLynch wrote:
#189 bawylie Feb 18, 2015 22:50:14	Alright - text from the book being apparently irrelevant to the conversation - I conclude all rules (being themselves a portion of that text) also irrelevant.    Theres, really, no real need to discuss their application nor the spirit from which they sprung. It's illegitimate (pointless at the least, if not outright harmful) to even bring it up.    I think that leaves us to emotional appeals, shouting, and ultimatums. Dibs on shouting. DIBS!
#190 JohnLynch Feb 18, 2015 22:57:48	bawylie wrote:
(Reply to #190) bawylie	JohnLynch wrote:
#192 JohnLynch Feb 18, 2015 23:17:14	bawylie wrote:
#193 Vahnyu Feb 19, 2015 0:37:15	JohnLynch wrote:
#194 Orethalion Feb 19, 2015 6:27:55	bawylie wrote:
#195 Gnarl Feb 19, 2015 7:26:17	iserith wrote:
(Reply to #194) bawylie	Orethalion wrote:
#197 iserith Feb 19, 2015 7:38:32	Gnarl wrote:
#198 bawylie Feb 19, 2015 7:39:43	@Gnarl    Adjudication & DCs are based on the players intent and approach to overcoming a problem, obstacle, or challenge.    in other words, unless the player says "I want to decapitate that guy" then the DM SHOULDNT be saying "if your next roll is a N then Blah blah."    What the DM has to do is determine the possibility of success or failure and find some way to generate an outcome. Auto yes, auto no, maybe if you critically hit. Maybe if you hit bc this guy's HP is low enough anyway. Etc.    I don't think anyone is advocating for a game in which the basic conversation is constantly changing.
#199 iserith Feb 19, 2015 7:46:42	bawylie wrote:
#200 Cyber-Dave Feb 19, 2015 7:51:07	bawylie wrote:
#201 Wuzzard Feb 19, 2015 7:51:16	Why does this debate remind me of the quantum ogre debate? Is it the part about not trusting your DM to do the right thing, or is it just because I like to say the words "quantum ogre"?
#202 Karnos Feb 19, 2015 8:19:36	There is an expression, "no offence, but..."   It's typically followed by something offensive, the idea being that by saying "no offense" you are removing any right to critize your offensive statement.   I really get that same vibe from a lot of posts in this thread.  Someone says they aren't trying to tell others how to play, and then proceeds to do exactly that.
#203 Orethalion Feb 19, 2015 8:22:34	bawylie wrote:
#204 bawylie Feb 19, 2015 8:28:23	Orethalion, Y you do dis?   Are you missing the part where goals are mutable to taste? Or do you really have a problem with "having a good time and creating a good memorable tale" as an objective to play?   BC basically all this means is "We're sitting down and playing this game because we want N". If N, then win. If NOT N, then lose.    Is that controversial? Wrong? It's not exactly a rule, however you slice it
#205 Kayal Feb 19, 2015 11:36:54	Orethalion wrote:
#206 iserith Feb 19, 2015 11:42:18	Thank you for taking the time to recap. Really though, it's just the same old crowd with the same old tired grievances based on willful misinterpretation that get trotted out from time to time to exactly nobody's surprise.
#207 Cyber-Dave Feb 19, 2015 11:49:03	iserith wrote:
#208 Devils-Advocate Feb 19, 2015 12:42:41	I'm kind of astounded that we * (that is to say, we fans of D&D, and users of this forum in particular) *still* have to go to such great lengths to make it absolutely crystal clear that our opinions and play style preferences are our own, and no one else need abide by them if they don't enjoy them. Like everywhere else I go to discuss RPGs, that's just a given, it doesn't need to be expressly stated lest someone misinterpret and think you're trying to tell them how to run their games. Here it's used like a counterargument. "You didn't go out of your way to say it was ok if I disagree with you! That makes you a one-true-wayist, therefore your opinion is invalid!" I swear, we should have a name for this particular brand of logical fallacy.
(Reply to #205) DaveDash	Kayal wrote:
(Reply to #208) AaronOfBarbaria	Devils-Advocate wrote:
#211 iserith Feb 19, 2015 12:53:39	Devils-Advocate wrote:
#212 iserith Feb 19, 2015 12:57:18	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
(Reply to #212) AaronOfBarbaria	iserith wrote:
(Reply to #212) DaveDash	iserith wrote:
#215 ChrisCarlson Feb 19, 2015 13:10:32	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
#216 iserith Feb 19, 2015 13:23:42	DaveDash wrote:
(Reply to #216) bawylie	iserith wrote:
#218 iserith Feb 19, 2015 13:30:29	bawylie wrote:
#219 Noon Feb 19, 2015 14:29:22	Orethalion wrote:
#220 Cyber-Dave Feb 19, 2015 14:27:48	DaveDash wrote:
(Reply to #216) DaveDash	iserith wrote:
(Reply to #220) DaveDash	Cyber-Dave wrote:
#223 iserith Feb 19, 2015 14:31:54	DaveDash wrote:
#224 Cyber-Dave Feb 19, 2015 14:36:30	DaveDash wrote:
(Reply to #224) DaveDash	Cyber-Dave wrote:
#226 Wuzzard Feb 19, 2015 14:45:33	iserith wrote:
#227 DemoMonkey Feb 19, 2015 14:46:45	Nothing in the "Introduction" page is a rule. It is, at best, at most, a suggested guideline. A starting point, not an end point.
#228 Noon Feb 19, 2015 14:46:55	Cyber-Dave wrote:
#229 Cyber-Dave Feb 19, 2015 15:12:22	DaveDash wrote:
#230 iserith Feb 19, 2015 14:50:51	DaveDash wrote:
#231 iserith Feb 19, 2015 14:51:20	Wuzzard wrote:
#232 Cyber-Dave Feb 19, 2015 14:52:43	DaveDash wrote:
#233 Cyber-Dave Feb 19, 2015 14:54:14	DemoMonkey wrote:
#234 Cyber-Dave Feb 19, 2015 15:03:06	Noon wrote:
(Reply to #215) Gnollbane	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#236 Devils-Advocate Feb 19, 2015 16:01:39	Ok, can someone please explain to me, if you play D&D for some other purpose than to have fun and create exciting memories, what do you play to accomplish?
#237 Devils-Advocate Feb 19, 2015 16:02:50	Gnollbane wrote:
#238 Cyber-Dave Feb 19, 2015 16:06:37	Gnollbane wrote:
(Reply to #236) bawylie	Devils-Advocate wrote:
#240 Devils-Advocate Feb 19, 2015 16:47:40	bawylie wrote:
(Reply to #240) bawylie	Devils-Advocate wrote:
#242 Devils-Advocate Feb 19, 2015 16:57:15	bawylie wrote:
#243 ORC_Cricket Feb 19, 2015 17:08:57	We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.   You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct   Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.   Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.     Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
(Reply to #241) DaveDash	bawylie wrote:
(Reply to #242) bawylie	Devils-Advocate wrote:
#246 Devils-Advocate Feb 19, 2015 17:53:07	DaveDash wrote:
#247 Devils-Advocate Feb 19, 2015 17:55:44	bawylie wrote:
(Reply to #244) bawylie	DaveDash wrote:
#249 Tony_Vargas Feb 19, 2015 18:43:01	valde002 wrote:
#250 menakles Feb 20, 2015 3:09:45	Gnarl wrote:
#251 Kayal Feb 20, 2015 6:52:34	While agree that the earliest editions were more complex than people seem to remember, I think "rose-tinted glasses" is a bit of a simplification. As you said, there was a lot of "handwaving;" many DMs (perhaps even most) had a slew of houserules and simply ignored the rules they didn't like. But it was more than that, though; such things were more accepted (or even expected) among the D&D community ... which, in turn, allowed gaming groups to customize their experience, without feeling like they were doing something wrong. In the days of later editions, message board members frequently labeled such notions as "abominations" or "something other D&D." One of things I really like about 5e books is the inclusion of optional rules, which (IMO) paves the way for house rules are other "unofficial" customization options. Nobody has to agree with me, of course; but that's how I feel about it.
#252 Orethalion Feb 20, 2015 7:03:08	Devils-Advocate wrote:
#253 bawylie Feb 20, 2015 7:18:35	That's not anybody's assertion.    For a guy who's so ready to call out Strawman....
#254 Cyber-Dave Feb 20, 2015 8:00:46	Orethalion wrote:
#255 Devils-Advocate Feb 20, 2015 8:24:54	Orethalion wrote:
#256 ChrisCarlson Feb 20, 2015 8:27:46	The primary reason I'm playing iserith's Summer at the Lake game is to experience this "yes, and..." playstyle he professes. Am I also having fun and creating memorable stores? IMO, yes. But those are byproducts in this rare corner case situation for me.
#257 iserith Feb 20, 2015 8:48:51	Cyber-Dave wrote:
#258 Cyber-Dave Feb 20, 2015 9:12:17	iserith wrote:
#259 ORC_Harold Feb 20, 2015 9:11:48	I've removed content from this thread. Trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.   You can review the Code of Conduct here: company.wizards.com/conduct   Please remember to keep your posts polite, on topic and refrain from personal attacks. You are free to disagree with one another as long as it is done in a respectful manner.
#260 iserith Feb 20, 2015 9:17:53	Cyber-Dave wrote:
#261 Dougan_Axehammer Feb 20, 2015 9:47:01	DMs provide situation, players provide narrative.  The story is created as narrative and situation interact; it doesn't matter what kind of story is made, it still happens.  Whether it is fun and memorable is entirely subjective.   Of the examples already given, all are stories: the situations are different and the narrative changes, but they are all stories.  What was unfun or forgettable for some are fun and memorable for others (even the ones that involve "downtime".)   Now, I don't know about this "One True Way" business that everyone says iserith is being elitist about, but when you have "successful" games of D&D (or any other roleplaying game) the goals of fun and creating memorable stories simply happen.  "Unsuccessful" games (player favoritism, elitist powergaming, selfish roleplaying, rules lawyering, etc.) create stories that are unfun or forgettable.  I've been in a fair few "unsuccessful" games, and believe me when I tell you that I did not feel like I "won" those games.   EDIT:  When did the topic change?
#262 Cyber-Dave Feb 20, 2015 9:52:39	iserith wrote:
(Reply to #250) Gnarl	menakles wrote:
#264 Orethalion Feb 20, 2015 9:58:07	Devils-Advocate wrote:
#265 Orethalion Feb 20, 2015 10:00:28	iserith wrote:
#266 ChrisCarlson Feb 20, 2015 10:05:56	Orethalion wrote:
#267 iserith Feb 20, 2015 10:14:35	Cyber-Dave wrote:
#268 Kayal Feb 20, 2015 10:14:32	Orethalion wrote:
#269 Devils-Advocate Feb 20, 2015 10:23:08	Orethalion wrote:
#270 Cyber-Dave Feb 20, 2015 10:27:18	If I had to guess, a number of posts got deleted not because they were problem posts but because they were responding to what a moderator considered to be a problem post. If I had to guess, the mob of people attacking iserith for no reason ended up inspiring a heavy handed approach at removing any post which could be in any way interpreted as being offensive (with overall context and not just a single post being taken into account). While I lost one post too, honestly, if this helps put an end to the attacks being made against forum members with no real justification, I am cool with it. I think the mods are doing a good job myself. *shrug*
#271 iserith Feb 20, 2015 10:29:14	Devils-Advocate wrote:
#272 Cyber-Dave Feb 20, 2015 10:32:48	iserith wrote:
#273 Orethalion Feb 20, 2015 10:38:24	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#274 Kayal Feb 20, 2015 10:40:02	Not me. I want an explanation. Orc_Harold has private message disabled. So, I contacted customer service.
#275 iserith Feb 20, 2015 10:42:15	Cyber-Dave wrote:
#276 Orethalion Feb 20, 2015 10:42:26	Devils-Advocate wrote:
#277 ChrisCarlson Feb 20, 2015 10:44:25	Orethalion wrote:
#278 Devils-Advocate Feb 20, 2015 10:51:42	I'm just drawing from my experience with my gaming circles. In my old Vampire group, we always said that the real reason we played was for the stories we would swap after the game. Stories being the word we used for the exchange of anecdotes that would happen at the Denny's after each game, like "remember the time Michelle pulled three natural 1s in a row against some random mortal mook im a dice pool she was min-maxed in? That was hilarious!" and "oh you missed it, last week Tom's character and Mike's got into a straight-up shouting match and Tom was all 'I have killed gods!' And then Mike was like 'Then do it!' Just like his character to imply he's a God." Sometimes those "stories" were about the narrative, sometimes they were about mechanics, sometimes they were about things that happened out of character, but they were all exciting, they were all memorable, and we all agreed that we were ultimately playing just to create them. So when I read the Goals of Play, that's what it means to me.
#279 Orethalion Feb 20, 2015 11:00:48	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#280 Orethalion Feb 20, 2015 11:12:08	Devils-Advocate wrote:
#281 Devils-Advocate Feb 20, 2015 11:21:46	Orethalion wrote:
#282 Devils-Advocate Feb 20, 2015 11:27:04	Kayal wrote:
#283 Orethalion Feb 20, 2015 11:30:21	Devils-Advocate wrote:
#284 DaveDash Feb 20, 2015 12:30:15	In my arena combat example, we may be creating a story to some. You could look at that scenario and get a story out of it, but that certainly isn't the goal of play. It certainly isn't my goal to create a memorable and exciting story. The goals are to test the boundaries of the mechanics and learn every class/monster/item inside out for the purposes of system mastery. We are still playing D&D 5e, not the way the designers intended it, but we are definitely not playing 13th age or pathfinder, and in our case the mechanics are the primary focus of the game, not the narrative. The narrative is literally just a UI in order to interact with the mechanics.
#285 Kayal Feb 20, 2015 13:11:41	Devils-Advocate wrote:
#286 valde002 Feb 21, 2015 14:00:35	Wow this thread exploded...Not the original intent of it, though. Thanks for all the posts. Now I go through and sift through the posts and see what people think. This may take a while, but I do see some insights into my initial thoughts.
#287 valde002 Feb 21, 2015 14:25:16	Tony_Vargas wrote:
(Reply to #7) valde002	Farmer42 wrote:
(Reply to #288) Dougan_Axehammer	valde002 wrote:
#290 Rhenny Feb 21, 2015 15:25:20	Wow...I just read through this thread and caught up.  Crazy food for thought.   Bottom line is that people do have different criteria for what they believe is "fun", "rewarding", "interesting" and "genuine" which makes DMing/playing this game such a blast.     Also, to characterize Iserith's DMing as "extreme narrative" is really not fair at all.   Narrative and story telling become important in his games because he encourages players to add to the story.   He still uses the rules and the dice, and he describes a situation and lets his players react to the situation even as it changes.   When he calls for a roll, he often delineates the conditions of success and failure, which provides even more "rule based" framework for players to work with.     Rules and narrative work together, especially when the DM lets it happen by working somewhere in the middle between full out story telling (without dice) and using the dice all the time to determine every outcome.   Iserith is a self-professed balanced DM, and from the transcripts of the games it seems to be the case.     I have a feeling that there is a bell-curve of players/DMs and a great majority of them will have fun given a balanced approach to the game.   If you haven't read Iserith's transcripts, you should.  I've been playing and running games for over 30 years, and I am learning a lot from his DMing and from his players as well.   Keep up the good work.
(Reply to #288) Farmer42	valde002 wrote:
#292 iserith Feb 22, 2015 5:54:57	Rhenny wrote:
(Reply to #263) Tony_Vargas	Gnarl wrote:
#294 SirAntoine Apr 21, 2015 21:45:37	valde002 wrote:
#295 Noon Apr 22, 2015 1:45:51	valde002 wrote: