deaddmwalking wrote:That sounds like passion.
no it is obsession, which can be a very bad thing. so many people post-2000 are jsut obsessed with being able to sy they paly D&D, they try to enforce changes in the game so that they can play it & like it. well they didn't like it before, so why MUST they like it? because they are obsessed with saying they like it.
this is not a view held by only a few people, s you can see if on many forums, from that one person on the WotC forums to that pemerton, who has proven doesnt even paly D&D but always complains about it and says how much better many systems are over on ENWorld, to some people on here who need not be named that try to take the adventure game into a tool for telling mini-novellas.
there are major fundamental flaws in their thinking.
1. D&D must be made for them to like
2. they have to be able to like D&D
those are just two of the flaws that they fail to understand are obsessive compulsive as they continue to force both of them into existence.
they just cant comprehend that they are allowed to game a game they like, but they don't get to call it D&D just so they can say they are playing a game they like & that game is D&D.
in the case of the DM, it is worse because they have a hatred for the game that they "loved" so much because they played with bad players and blame the game for their DM not understanding the game, and their foundation of experiences rooted in those poor games and cannot look at the game for what it really is pre-wotc, simple and brilliant and ALL inclusive.
after al the talk from Mearls and people like him to try to pander to these people they really only need to understand the real FEEL of D&D, in order to know what "sacred cows" really exist that make D&D what it is.
1. the DM controls everything that isnt a PC, during play
2. the DM creates the world and ALL its inhabitants, including the PC in a sense as he can allow a race or not that will alter what is available, or add a new one, etc.
3. the player control his character during play and can TRY anything reasonable.
4. the DM sets up interaction points for the player to make choices to guide the story.
if ANY of these is broken it leads to a game that is NOT D&D, from the violation of rule 4 that is the transcaontinental railroad, to the PCs deciding what inhabits the next town over.
can you do either of those or anything in between?
5. the rules are only guidelines
yes, you can, but when you do you have veered off of the "core" of the toolkit which is D&D and attempted to make it you own. CONGRATS you are now playing D&D!
but it doesnt mean ANY of those changes should be put forth as the core of the game. but these people obsess over trying to change the core of the game so that it is no longer than and those no longer D&D for future editions.
nothing has every stopped them from finding like minded people (except maybe their aren't any people that agree with them?) and playing it their way of choice. sadly these people (rules not rulings) continue to try to force their way to play onto others because they are OBSESSED with either their method or playstyle or whatever that it MUST be the ONETRUWAY that EVERYONE MUST play the game, pretty much just so they cn say that they like the game called D&D.
in the case of a truly bad DM, the could have booted that person and played with one less. if that person owned the books, then mow some lawns and earn $20 to get your own copy? they (no, not me; i dont play bad games or with "bad" players) made the choice to play in the bd games, and only have themselves to blame, not the game, not someone else, not even the bad DM; only themselves for empowering the bad DM. they are the ones that gave the bad DM the power, not the rules, because they continued to play with them.
so now they want to remove #5 so that the RULES are GAME LAW, and people msut adhere to it so that they NEVER have the option of making a bad choice again. since they are incapable of leaving a bad game, they are trying to force others to play ONETRUEWAY in order to prevent these "rules not rulings" people from getting bad rulings made by those bad DMs that THEY continue to empower by allowing them to DM in the first place.
no game > bad game
i love playing D&D, but i won't play with just anyone, and you wouldnt see me playing "D&D with porn stars" because that isnt the type of person i would want to game with or spend time with. if that was my only choice. i would do without and wait until the proper group of people WAS found with similar minds of what they want out of the game. the "porn stars" and drunkards and druggies, can all have their games at their house, but NONE of them should influence the game design of those "sacred cows" so that the game is no longer D&D, an open gaming system that allows varying playstyles.
there are more "sacred cows" than those listed that dont get into silly "sacred calves" like the name of a monster such as "demons and devils", and those are in no particular order, but just some VERY important ones off the top of my head. and those people that want to change those things do NOT have compassion for the game, but rather disdain for it if they continue to try to force those things OUT of the game so it "serves" them. because the game already serves them in #5, and they can play however they want, so why is it that they (rules not rulings-ers) hate and despise #5 that allows them to play the game how they want?
I think that they understand that a DM can make a ruling that works, but they also recognize that relying on each individual DM to come up with a ruling that works well is a Herculean task.
and this is why it was said of being a DM the same as playing chess. it takes a few minutes to learn, but a lifetime to master. it isnt for everyone. apparently there ARE better games out there for people that have a problem with D&Ds DMing concept. also there are better games than say 3.x for DMing as the horror stories of it being a DMs worst nightmare and a players wet dream exists. you need LESS rules for the DM to have to be forced to follow and the players receptive of DM decisions and rulings. this thread has proven that some will NEVER accept a ruling made by anyone that was not already a RULE in the published book as they dont understand..
Most designers do not possess the analytical capability or the ability to clearly communicate the problem areas without a lot of prevarication that the Den, taken as a whole, does.
Gary fucked up.
Mentzer fucked up
"Zeb"/Winter fucked up
Tweet fucked up
Mearls fuccked up.
EVERY designer so far has fucked up, so why in the hell would you take their words (rules) as gospel? i am more willing to trust to an extent the designers that admit they are NOT all-knowing (Gary, Mentzer, "Zeb"/Winter) and possibly got some things wrong and state so in print as opposed to those that think they are gaming gods that can do no wrong (Tweet, Mearls). I will further trust the person running the game that speaks directly to me rather than giving canned responses to the masses behind some CSR wall to make the game work for me. If they fail, I know how to either leave, or just not return for the next time they try to play.
no game > bad game
you really have no other recourse than to make DMs good by poiting out the errors in mindsets during play. either this is be leaving a game with a bad DM that will not change, the DM quitting because he isnt interested in running a game like the players want, etc.
this all boils down to what i said probably a year ago, that the game isnt at fault for these group problems, but it is the problems of the groups themselves for lacking in social skills or just having too conflicting ideas. the group of people you play with is in no way shape or form the fault of the game design, only your own for choosing poor choices in people to play with either for their attitude, conflicts of interest, etc. but those obsessions are seen MANY time from MANY people like Frank, K, Fuchs, Maj (or was it Midnight V? one of the female posters...), etc on this forum in how they want to change the game fro EVERYONE, rather than just finding the right people to game with and saying "to hell with everyone else, im having fun my way with my group".
if they were passionate about the game so much, they would be playing it their way and enjoying it and not care how others play it, unlike the pemerton's. that is why i don't go into AS or ED or Shadowrun threads here, because i could give two shits less about how they are run or palyed. i dont have any interest in them positive or negative. the just dont exist as far as i am concerned. and as i said that before i will say thi again, i go into 3.x threads many times because they are unmarked and also to remind people other-times that there are things designers leave out, either from earlier editions or the designers own mind where they forgot to add a kernel of information they meant to share either because of just being too busy, they took it for granted everyone would know it (from play or past editions) or just to save page space in the book.
there is no need to make a thread on a forum to find a way to shutdown one persons preferred method of fun because it differs from your own. THAT is obsession, not passion. that obsessiveness i described earlier spawned this very thread.
it HAS spawned some interesting ideas, that maybe SOME people read, but most has just that fight, and to call it what it most closely is "schoolyard bullying" as it is pretty much just a school fight (old v new) where one person just wants to attack a group it doesnt like with no further purpose beyond that.
that is obsession, not passion, and it borders on psychotic!