Magical Sailor Fuku

Nikkoulodeon wrote:You do pretty tame things, to me. Maybe that's just me, though. XD

that you've seen :o

and yet, within the rules, here I am, and they are

the past ^_^

though I was mostly talking about games

Xia wrote:

Nikkoulodeon wrote:You do pretty tame things, to me. Maybe that's just me, though. XD

that you've seen

I've seen everything. Don't blush, now.

Nikkoulodeon wrote:I've seen everything. Don't blush, now. :P

why do you think I'm always posing?

Because you're always feeling so blue? But, really, I don't recommend emulating me. 'Tis a sad thing to do.

I voted 0 because I firmly believe that the rules must be followed to the absolute letter and applied constantly with no bias, and that the only rule is that there are no rules.

I really want to read this thread, as it's of interest to me as a game designer. I should say, in my experience, fun is far more important than rules, if you want to put the two on a dichotomy.

I do think it's kind of strange to compare fun and rules though. Well designed rules are not supposed to get in the way of fun. The point of rules is to facilitate having fun, and they should be at odds as little as possible.

That said, when they butt heads, fun should ALWAYS triumph.

I just had to quit a D&D group because the DM didn't really understand this, and we kept getting into quarrels over rules...

In general, I don't like D&D 3, 3.5, or 4. They are far too mechanical and rules-centered for my taste.

My favorite system so far is GURPS, because of how organic it is. It really lets me get into my character, and it's not obvious what the right choices are in any scenario. D&D, to me, felt too much about how you rolled, rather than what you attempt to do, and to me, just rolling dice to try to beat the odds isn't fun... >_>

I think I have a lot of nods of agreement when I say that I play roleplaying for the roleplay part, and not the combat and skills part. I don't want to be the hero all the time (sometimes hero characters are fun, but for me, I'd rather play a character with weaknesses, with flaws). In fact, when my friend made a GURPS campaign, he gave us 200 points to build a character, and I didn't know what to do with 50 of them. I felt like my character was totally complete after 150 points, and that I didn't want to increase her skills any more because then she'd be too good at something, and I didn't want her to be an elite anything. I wanted her to be able to fail.

And when I fail, I have fun doing it! I love adapting to change!! I love it when I fail something but I can try something else, or even if I really fail, it makes the game really interesting! That's one thing I hate about D&D too, the consequences of any conflict are either you totally win, or you totally lose... The DM constantly has to fudge rolls so the players stay interested, and so that the story goes according to plan. I hate that... >_>

It sounds like you didn't have a good DM, then. I'm an experienced player, and I don't think I've ever had a DM fudge rolls in order to "maintain interest" or anything like that, and definitely not to try to "manage" the story. They've never had to. Characters can certainly have flaws- mine do- you're not automatically good at everything. And a well-developed character means you have plenty to do. Yes, there are hack-and-slash games that are all about mindless bashing. But the people I play with are strongly focused on back story and character development, and we can go whole sessions with nary a dice roll because we're so busy playing. A GM who has to try to "steer" the plot and make things work out a certain way is inflexible and not doing it right. GMs like that get a bad rap, in all honesty. Yes, they dangle plot hooks, but they need to be flexible enough to adapt to what the players choose to do, and not be like, "oh, they have to do this and this and this or my story is ruined!" I know people who have played with GMs like that, and they've all said how bad the experience was. But it's by no means universal. As for the dice thing- well, you can't roleplay out every single event. What about combat? The players aren't going to get up and physically fight the GM. Or skills your character has that you don't? Say you're playing a bard, but you can't play an instrument or sing a note. You can't simply roleplay their performance and get an accurate result if you don't share the skill set. There are times when random odds are what keep things realistic. Yes, it can be rule-heavy, but so long as you're not in a group with a rules lawyer (individuals I myself find annoying), you're all good. However, if you like rules-light games, you mught try the QUAGS system. Easy, fun, and highly adaptable.

My session was indeed facilitated by a bad DM... but that's not the only thing that bugs me about D&D, it's that... if you do stick to the rules, you do wind up with a rigid, mechanical game, with a strong focus on hack-and-slash combat.

I know what you mean about the skill rolls. It's not that I want more roleplaying to replace skill checks... Oh, you know what?! I figured it out, it's that this DM designs things with one solution in mind, and that's what I don't like. It's really frustrating when it comes down to just testing one focused skill and it feels like I'm not making any character choice in how to overcome the situation. Climbing checks for stuff you have to climb to progress, etc.

As for the fudging, I've fudged some bad rolls myself when I DM'd, and that's a lot better than totally screwing a player with a fatal roll, in my opinion, but... like I said, it seems to be that in D&D, failure usually means death, and nothing kills a campaign faster than people dying. That's also a problem with D&D that isn't so in GURPS; the line between incapacitated and dead is very thin. It's not too tough to suddenly get obliterated by a good thwack. GURPS has a pretty wide margin for incapacitation, which I really appreciate.

Well, the current edition of D&D allows people to choose whether a person is knocked out/incapacitated or killed when taken to zero hit points, and I know in past editions people have house-ruled the same thing. And there are players who are actually okay with their character being killed, so long as it doesn't happen in a stupid or unsatisfactory way. And you know what? My games adhere to the rules, and they're not cold, rigid machines inhibited by said rules. It's just knowing how to work within them to that makes the experience good. Some campaigns are more combat-oriented than others, yes. There are players who love nothing better than constant combat. I know one of the people I play with, even, gets antsy if we go a session or two without at least one fight. But not everyone is like that. So long as game play is enjoyable and it works with the plot, I'm not unduly concerned about how often they come up. And I know a lot of other people who feel the same way. Heck, I remember one time a couple years ago, when the female half of a group ended up spending most of a session roleplaying shopping for clothes. And no one got upset or antsy or tried to push things along, because it was a lot of fun- the characters and their interactions made it so. Like I said, it sounds like you just had a bad experience, and I'm sorry it gave you such an adverse opinion toward a game that, in the right hands, can be really fun and satisfying.

I should say I've played 3.5 under a lot of DM's, and 4 under about 3 DM's, and all of them - every single one - turned it into a dungeon-running hack-and-slash kind of game. I can see that the mechanics are pretty well designed for that too. And the class system is all about your role in combat... 4th even makes that REALLY obvious with their different class types like striker and whatnot.

I just really feel that other systems emphasize the parts of the tabletop experience that I like a lot more, and the mechanics feel more organic and well-oiled, than D&D.

Hehe, GURPS is a good TF system too

I guess, my main point is, in the right hands, D&D can be fun, but if those hands were using something besides D&D, it would be even better! I did play under a good DM for D&D 2nd Edition, and I really did have a very good time playing that, but I do see a big shift in the focus of the mechanics between 2nd and 3rd+ edition.

Well, TF doesn't happen in my games, and I don't go looking for it, so that's really a moot point for me. Yes, this current edition is more heavily combat-oriented, and in all honesty that's something of a problem I have with it. I play with people who make characters more social than fight-y, and they had a harder time converting over. I think it's just that this is a reflecting of the "hero's quest" nature of the game. It's very much epic fantasy, for the most part. Hence, that means battles. So fighting skills are really important, rules-wise, as you can't just roleplay out combat fairly. Sure, it sets up the hack-and-slash game possibility. But you don't have to play it that way. Like I said, my groups tend not to. I have one that has a stronger combat focus, but the others are just as much about plot and character, if not more so. I guess I'm just saying that I don't feel pigeonholed or restricted by it, that's all.

Have you tried other systems?

I've played:

D&D 2nd
D&D 3.5
D&D 4e
GURPS
Traveller
World of Darkness (Specifically, Mage)
Shadowrun 3rd

Of those, my favorites are GURPS and WoD. Shadowrun 3rd is probably my least favorite, mechanics-wise, because.... well, every time we tried playing it, it was broken. Really badly. Like, I nearly killed someone with my sleep spell, while my friend hit someone with his car going 50 mph and they got minor wounds.