|SteamPoweredKleenex - 2013-11-09 |
If the rules suck, that's what "house rules" are for. I know he's supposed to be a pedantic historian and all, but it's like he can't change something to make it more fun if it doesn't work for him. Only an autistic would rules-lawyer themselves into not enjoying a tabletop RPG.
Not to mention the parts he dislikes about the narrative (the old 10' by 10' room with an orc guarding a chest) are kind of the fault of the DM. Sure, you can use the pre-made adventures, but if you don't like the story, it's your own fault if you can't change what you dislike or can't come up with something better on your own.
Finally, construction doesn't have to make sense in a fantasy campaign because MAGIC. If a guy who can summon hordes of demons to work for him or enslave a kingdom wants to dig a dungeon that makes no sense, that's par for the course. Again, if it bugged him so much, why not use the layout of a real castle for your adventure?
When did D&D (or any RPG) stop being a framework for a game played for fun and became a hard-and-fast religious text?
I was always the DM among my friends, and they enjoyed my loose interpretation of rules and emphasis on character and story. Sometimes a guest player would come in and get extremely annoyed that I didn't know every stat table and that I allowed people to do essentially whatever they wanted. I believe those kinds of people make up the majority of people that continue to play role playing games. Also, people who grew up playing computer games on consoles are probably going to be used to pew pewing their way through one boring dungeon after the next.
If you're wargaming, you want absolutely defined rules. If you're storytelling, you want a sense of mutual collegiality. A lot of DMs don't make it precisely clear to their groups what style they intend to play, and thus factions and hurt feelings are likely.
Also, I tend to provide a very succinct list of things NOT allowed, so people don't get their hearts set on XP expenditures off in the distance and feel as if they are owed them when they get there. When I play World of Darkness, for instance, it's just easier to tell them exactly what books "exist", and then casually draw from the "non-existent" books and see their little heads spin when they think they know what I'm doing and I throw something at them they didn't expect.
Players are children.
|baleen - 2013-11-09 |
My favorite system was probably GURPS.
It's kind of silly to blame little old D&D for its primitive attempt at creating rules to define a way of inventing fantasy universes that people can play in. Navigating those rules was often the fun of it, and it loosened up a lot in the 2nd edition. It's like saying the Canterbury Tales didn't possess any of the fundamentals of a great thriller novel.
GURPS sells really well for another reason: Since the setting is so easy to adapt, almost every comic book and TV series that doesn't use a different system winds up as a GURPS book. People who don't even play RPGs will buy a splatbook based on their favorite comic/show because they can ignore the stat stuff and read the rest like a technical manual.
|memedumpster - 2013-11-09 |
+1 star for the cute cutout battle at the beginning!
|SteamPoweredKleenex - 2013-11-09 |
I wonder how he'd react to a video about early and even recent historical/archaeological work being rubbish. I mean, look at how everything was skewed to mesh with religion, how kings rewrote texts about previous rulers they hated, how dig sites were looted for swag instead of chronicling, and how much stuff people like Herodotus got completely wrong, etc.
Same thing, right?
He'd probably love it. I've been watching his videos almost non-stop since Lindybeige Week began, and one thing Ive noticed is that he's a pathological curmudgeon. It's all, this is wrong, that's a myth, read this in these books but the authors were all idiots so here's my view on how it actually went down. In fact, a good bulk of his material IS basically just him arguing that early and even recent historical/archaeological work is rubbish - one of his three videos on chainmail, for example, has him denying the validity of the modern ballistics tests that suggest chainmail was phased out because it proved ineffective against medieval arrows. Another one has him going off on casual Trojan War enthusiasts because he feels that modern observers miss what he considers to be the salient point about Achilles - that Achilles was not a "soldier", with a sense of duty and obligation towards his group, but rather a mercenary gloryhound looking for plunder, women, and fame, and that this was the norm for warriors of that era.
Actually, scratch that. He'd probably love it, AND THEN argue with it, because while archaeological work is rubbish, it's a different sort of rubbish than presented in this video etc etc etc
|Spoonybard - 2013-11-11 |
"It's probably ceremonial"
| Register or login To Post a Comment|