Beware of rule-light editions

I know many people are thrilling with all the freedom D&D Next issue to the DM, and many people are hating it for the same reason. 


Myself, I sit with the "hate it" group, but not because I want CharOp to become the norm to the new edition. It's because rules-light systems tends to make two tables running the same game too much different from each other. This removes the sense of unity that playing under the same system brings to the community. 


When you have a set of rules to backup your playing histories, you give to the community a sense of "wow, I can do this in my table too, and my friends will see the awesome". Sure, many classic tales do not involve rules at all, like the dreaded gazeebo or the Head of Vecna. Also, it's not a coincidence that both histories are comical in nature. Jokes are easy to catch up. Sometimes they use special words, like spherical chickens, but if you know the jargon used, you laugh. 


This is kinda harder with heroic prowness. Sure, everyone know a tale about how a follower killed the dragon with a 1d4 dagger after the heroes weakened it, or how the DM allowed you to develop a booby trap using rope, syrup, caltrops, and a celestial dire badger to terminate an encounter defeating all the orcs when they tried to charge your group. But both histories lost they shine the instant someone asks "how you did it", and the answer is by sheer luck (dragon), or DM call out of the guidelines (non-standard trap). 


The problem is when you player start to stock with syrup, in the hope to use that trap everytime against every encounter. Then your previous rule become a precedent, and the player will be upset when you say to him "no, because I said so". If the situation is REALLY unique, the chance of it's appearing later to bite you in the back is lower, so, DM ruling is fine for it. If the situation is possible to be repeated at will, or at least once per session (lets say, the fighter asking to swing hard and hit 3 enemies at once with disadvantage against all), don't be mad when the player want to try it every time he faces that common situation. For these, rules are better than ruling. 


I talked to much. Just wanted to give this food for thought. 

[<()>]Proud Brazilian. Typos are free bonuses. 

I know many people are thrilling with all the freedom D&D Next issue to the DM, and many people are hating it for the same reason. 


Myself, I sit with the "hate it" group, but not because I want CharOp to become the norm to the new edition. It's because rules-light systems tends to make two tables running the same game too much different from each other. This removes the sense of unity that playing under the same system brings to the community. 


When you have a set of rules to backup your playing histories, you give to the community a sense of "wow, I can do this in my table too, and my friends will see the awesome". Sure, many classic tales do not involve rules at all, like the dreaded gazeebo or the Head of Vecna. Also, it's not a coincidence that both histories are comical in nature. Jokes are easy to catch up. Sometimes they use special words, like spherical chickens, but if you know the jargon used, you laugh. 


This is kinda harder with heroic prowness. Sure, everyone know a tale about how a follower killed the dragon with a 1d4 dagger after the heroes weakened it, or how the DM allowed you to develop a booby trap using rope, syrup, caltrops, and a celestial dire badger to terminate an encounter defeating all the orcs when they tried to charge your group. But both histories lost they shine the instant someone asks "how you did it", and the answer is by sheer luck (dragon), or DM call out of the guidelines (non-standard trap). 


The problem is when you player start to stock with syrup, in the hope to use that trap everytime against every encounter. Then your previous rule become a precedent, and the player will be upset when you say to him "no, because I said so". If the situation is REALLY unique, the chance of it's appearing later to bite you in the back is lower, so, DM ruling is fine for it. If the situation is possible to be repeated at will, or at least once per session (lets say, the fighter asking to swing hard and hit 3 enemies at once with disadvantage against all), don't be mad when the player want to try it every time he faces that common situation. For these, rules are better than ruling. 


I talked to much. Just wanted to give this food for thought. 


LOL. love your examples.
"We need to stock up on Syrup guys. Say who has the Celestial Badger, guys? We need him!"

Hmm, just realized.


Food for thought.


Syrup.


Were you hungry when you posted this?   
Speaking as a DM, I agree with you.  I don't like editions to be too rules light, because then I can't beat my players about the head in a perfectly fair and cheat-free manner.  

Or more accurately, they know that when I'm making **** up, I'm not liable to kill them.  When I'm playing by the book, the dice fall where they may.

However there are games like, say, Mouse Guard which have managed to capture me despite being entirely rules light.  More accurately, they're narrativist.  I don't think that's what D&D Next is going for though.
    I've removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.  You can review the Code of Conduct here www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...

Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
I prefer rules light, but I use the rules that are there.

My players trust me to be challenging but fair and consistant, so I don't have to worry about what version of dnd I am using.



In my experience, rules heavy invariably summons the powergamers and buildmongers. Even otherwise great players start to 'optimize' at the expense of actual roleplay.



Gee my charcater Clarkius Kentus was born on Krypton! yay Roleplay!
Speaking as a DM, I agree with you.  I don't like editions to be too rules light, because then I can't beat my players about the head in a perfectly fair and cheat-free manner.  

Or more accurately, they know that when I'm making **** up, I'm not liable to kill them.  When I'm playing by the book, the dice fall where they may.

However there are games like, say, Mouse Guard which have managed to capture me despite being entirely rules light.  More accurately, they're narrativist.  I don't think that's what D&D Next is going for though.


Maplealmond, I have to ask:

Are you me?  Because this isn't the first time you've posted my experiences exactly, and I'm starting to wonder.
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)

Maplealmond, I have to ask:

Are you me?  Because this isn't the first time you've posted my experiences exactly, and I'm starting to wonder.



Maaaybe?  Have you ever seen us in the same place?  No?  I thought so.

Thing about MouseGuard is that it establishes that you're rolling for a narrative outcome, not a realistic outcome.  I tell the player "So here's the deal, you need to get to another town in the storm, and that's a Pathfinder Ob 5" and they roll and they either get what they want, or I throw a complication, and there is an understanding about what we are rolling about.  We're rolling about the outcome.

So even in Mouse Guard, "rules lite" doesn't mean "DM decides."  If anything, a successful roll to the player gives them even more narrative control, and I still get to be surprised. 
I'm kinda curious where "DM decides" is coming from.

Is it because contests don't tell you how to deal with every possible encounter ever?

What if "Int" could be used to climb that mountain... intelligently. Doesn't matter how strong you are - or how agile you are - if you don't know how to look for weak spots, good depressions, use your rigging and whatever else is involved in climbing.

But that's a weakness of 5th Edition!

Actually... I see it as a weakness of any edition that says: "Climbing MUST be done via Strength." In fact - I know plenty of strong people that can't climb - and plenty of parkuor people who aren't strong, but can climb like monkeys.

Now a good DM can say: "Give me a good roleplay reason why you think you can use your best stat to achieve a goal."

And a player can reply: "I use my wisdom to percieve that the prevailing winds might blow us off the mountain and suggest to keep to the opposite side of the rock face."

2nd Player can say: "I use my dexterity to climb up, taking the advice of the wizard who's going to show me how to use the rigging we recently purchased."

3rd Player: "I use my Constitution to help others finish the climb - while I strain to keep my hold, help them, then continue climbing myself."

4th Player: "I use my Strength to make the climb and hold the rope at the top." 

And then EVERYONE gets to be awesome - for different reasons.

And... not only does this allow freedom to be creative... but it totally abolishes the concept that you can't teamwork in 5th Edition.

Now most events could be teamwork instead of just saying: "I'm strength based - I can't help in this diplomacy example."

====

Example of Strength in diplomacy:

Player: "I brag to the king of my feats of strength - when asked to prove it - I grab the two serving wenches that pass by and lift them into the air - one in each hand. This will impress the king and gain us favor with him."

Light hearted to be sure... but I'd be perfectly happy with it.

D&D Next seems like it might make me happy.

Skill Challenges without the needless bulk.
 

Myself, I sit with the "hate it" group, but not because I want CharOp to become the norm to the new edition. It's because rules-light systems tends to make two tables running the same game too much different from each other. This removes the sense of unity that playing under the same system brings to the community.



 
My question would be "So what?" It's not likely people from those two different tables would play with each other anyway. Plus, in the days of old, when you met someone else that played D&D, you'd share ideas on how you ran the game. And word of mouth would spread. I've heard at least two different versions of "Dagger mail", where a character "wears" so many daggers, it's in effect his armor. The sense that the game is ours to customize is what brings unity to the community.

This is kinda harder with heroic prowness. Sure, everyone know a tale about how a follower killed the dragon with a 1d4 dagger after the heroes weakened it, or how the DM allowed you to develop a booby trap using rope, syrup, caltrops, and a celestial dire badger to terminate an encounter defeating all the orcs when they tried to charge your group. But both histories lost they shine the instant someone asks "how you did it", and the answer is by sheer luck (dragon), or DM call out of the guidelines (non-standard trap). 



I've heard such stories, but never in all the gaming days did we ever just try to break it down exactly by what was rolled. Rules lawyering someone else's game after the fact is just... pointless.

The problem is when you player start to stock with syrup, in the hope to use that trap everytime against every encounter. Then your previous rule become a precedent, and the player will be upset when you say to him "no, because I said so".



Then they'll just have to do what we've always done and live with it. Too bad, it's just a game, move on with your life. I'm sure at least two of the DMGs covered such situations. The DM could get clever and have the monsters employ the same tactics. Removing the monster's ability to attack is awesome. Removing the character's ability to attack is not fun.

The most important DM rule is this: Be Fair.
Show
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.
 

Myself, I sit with the "hate it" group, but not because I want CharOp to become the norm to the new edition. It's because rules-light systems tends to make two tables running the same game too much different from each other. This removes the sense of unity that playing under the same system brings to the community.



 
My question would be "So what?" It's not likely people from those two different tables would play with each other anyway. Plus, in the days of old, when you met someone else that played D&D, you'd share ideas on how you ran the game. And word of mouth would spread. I've heard at least two different versions of "Dagger mail", where a character "wears" so many daggers, it's in effect his armor. The sense that the game is ours to customize is what brings unity to the community.

This is kinda harder with heroic prowness. Sure, everyone know a tale about how a follower killed the dragon with a 1d4 dagger after the heroes weakened it, or how the DM allowed you to develop a booby trap using rope, syrup, caltrops, and a celestial dire badger to terminate an encounter defeating all the orcs when they tried to charge your group. But both histories lost they shine the instant someone asks "how you did it", and the answer is by sheer luck (dragon), or DM call out of the guidelines (non-standard trap). 



I've heard such stories, but never in all the gaming days did we ever just try to break it down exactly by what was rolled. Rules lawyering someone else's game after the fact is just... pointless.

The problem is when you player start to stock with syrup, in the hope to use that trap everytime against every encounter. Then your previous rule become a precedent, and the player will be upset when you say to him "no, because I said so".



Then they'll just have to do what we've always done and live with it. Too bad, it's just a game, move on with your life. I'm sure at least two of the DMGs covered such situations. The DM could get clever and have the monsters employ the same tactics. Removing the monster's ability to attack is awesome. Removing the character's ability to attack is not fun.

The most important DM rule is this: Be Fair.

I've heard such stories, but never in all the gaming days did we ever just try to break it down exactly by what was rolled. Rules lawyering someone else's game after the fact is just... pointless.



I ran into folks pulling that kind of a stunt when swapping stories, a couple of times back in high school and early college.  They were almost universally scorned for it. 

The whole idea is to use the rules and your imagination to create a fun and engaging story--pulling it back from story into the realm of rules is just missing the point.
I'm kinda curious where "DM decides" is coming from.

Is it because contests don't tell you how to deal with every possible encounter ever?

What if "Int" could be used to climb that mountain... intelligently. Doesn't matter how strong you are - or how agile you are - if you don't know how to look for weak spots, good depressions, use your rigging and whatever else is involved in climbing.

But that's a weakness of 5th Edition!

Actually... I see it as a weakness of any edition that says: "Climbing MUST be done via Strength." In fact - I know plenty of strong people that can't climb - and plenty of parkuor people who aren't strong, but can climb like monkeys.

Now a good DM can say: "Give me a good roleplay reason why you think you can use your best stat to achieve a goal."

And a player can reply: "I use my wisdom to percieve that the prevailing winds might blow us off the mountain and suggest to keep to the opposite side of the rock face."

2nd Player can say: "I use my dexterity to climb up, taking the advice of the wizard who's going to show me how to use the rigging we recently purchased."

3rd Player: "I use my Constitution to help others finish the climb - while I strain to keep my hold, help them, then continue climbing myself."

4th Player: "I use my Strength to make the climb and hold the rope at the top." 

And then EVERYONE gets to be awesome - for different reasons.

And... not only does this allow freedom to be creative... but it totally abolishes the concept that you can't teamwork in 5th Edition.

Now most events could be teamwork instead of just saying: "I'm strength based - I can't help in this diplomacy example."

====

Example of Strength in diplomacy:

Player: "I brag to the king of my feats of strength - when asked to prove it - I grab the two serving wenches that pass by and lift them into the air - one in each hand. This will impress the king and gain us favor with him."

Light hearted to be sure... but I'd be perfectly happy with it.

D&D Next seems like it might make me happy.

Skill Challenges without the needless bulk.



I really, really, really like this post! You sir (or madam, it's rude to assume), win a +1 cookie. Like a normal cookie, only slightly better.

I agree that D&DN has the potential to make skill challenges not only fun, but fun for the whole group, as well as encouraging roleplay. I want to encourage the fighter to come up with good reasons as to why his strength might be useful in a social situation. I want to see agile characters who use their speed to climb just as well as strong characters who yank themselves up with pure muscle power.

Removing that strict "This skill = this ability check" structure will go a long way towards making many interesting character archetypes both playable and fun.
D&D Experience Level: Relatively new First Edition: 4th Known Editions: 4th, 3.5 --- Magic Experience Level: Fairly skilled First Expansion: 7th Edition Play Style: Very Casual
I prefer rules light, but I use the rules that are there.

My players trust me to be challenging but fair and consistant, so I don't have to worry about what version of dnd I am using.



In my experience, rules heavy invariably summons the powergamers and buildmongers. Even otherwise great players start to 'optimize' at the expense of actual roleplay.



Gee my charcater Clarkius Kentus was born on Krypton! yay Roleplay!



I like to do both, and if all builds are equal (but use different subsytems), it makes it way easier. Especially if I don't have to worry about DMs invalidating my character because they don't like a specific tactic...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
A game I play, Role Master, has skills modified by two or three different stats (depending on version).
So, for instance, if the stats associated with climbing happened to be Str/Int/Dex, then even if your character isn't very strong or agile, he still has his Int modifier to help him.

I see nothing wrong with having two or more stats modifying skills.
You can either add the bonuses together, or get an average. I've seen both ways (two different versions of RM).

Just sayin'...
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse."- John Stuart Mill “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”― William F. Buckley "The straw in your man is amazing."- Maxperson Original Hipster of the House of Trolls: I was hipster before hipster was cool Resident Hater Mini Hate Machine
Robin_Hoodlum,

I couldn't agree more.

Edition wars kill players,Dungeons and Dragons needs every player it can get.

Rules Light are not inheritly better and Rules Heavy is not automatically worse. They are just different.
Each has there own pitfalls and benefits.

Rules Light games provide freedom, smoothness, and an even spread of play;
but they require a constistent, educated, and fair GM.

Rules Heavy games provide consistency, education and fairness;
but they stifle freedom, smoothness and make evenly spreading the game around harder.

So I prefer a Rules Medium game.
A game that gives everyone 2 or 3 choices or options but leave 20 more options available via imagination.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

The new improvise (any Stat+mod) rules remind me of a classic scene I heard about in the old Paranoia days.. 

DM: Your friend is bleeding out on the floor.
Player1: Help me!
Player2: I perform First Aid on him.
DM: Do you have any medical skills? First Aid ? Surgery? 
Player2:  I default to "Chainsaw"
Player1: I know. I know . "your next clone activates.."

 

I know many people are thrilling with all the freedom D&D Next issue to the DM, and many people are hating it for the same reason. 


Myself, I sit with the "hate it" group, but not because I want CharOp to become the norm to the new edition. It's because rules-light systems tends to make two tables running the same game too much different from each other. This removes the sense of unity that playing under the same system brings to the community. 


When you have a set of rules to backup your playing histories, you give to the community a sense of "wow, I can do this in my table too, and my friends will see the awesome". Sure, many classic tales do not involve rules at all, like the dreaded gazeebo or the Head of Vecna. Also, it's not a coincidence that both histories are comical in nature. Jokes are easy to catch up. Sometimes they use special words, like spherical chickens, but if you know the jargon used, you laugh. 


This is kinda harder with heroic prowness. Sure, everyone know a tale about how a follower killed the dragon with a 1d4 dagger after the heroes weakened it, or how the DM allowed you to develop a booby trap using rope, syrup, caltrops, and a celestial dire badger to terminate an encounter defeating all the orcs when they tried to charge your group. But both histories lost they shine the instant someone asks "how you did it", and the answer is by sheer luck (dragon), or DM call out of the guidelines (non-standard trap). 


The problem is when you player start to stock with syrup, in the hope to use that trap everytime against every encounter. Then your previous rule become a precedent, and the player will be upset when you say to him "no, because I said so". If the situation is REALLY unique, the chance of it's appearing later to bite you in the back is lower, so, DM ruling is fine for it. If the situation is possible to be repeated at will, or at least once per session (lets say, the fighter asking to swing hard and hit 3 enemies at once with disadvantage against all), don't be mad when the player want to try it every time he faces that common situation. For these, rules are better than ruling. 


I talked to much. Just wanted to give this food for thought. 


I'm sure a creative DM could find a way of turning a player's new-found "game-breaking" resource into a disadvantage.  To use one of your examples, suppose those syrup-hoarding adventurers started inadvertently attracting large swarms of sugar-loving insects (heck maybe even large insects) and they become unable to effectively rest from all the buzzing and bug-bites they get while trying to take an extended rest... POOF!!! Now they have an equally tough problem to deal with if they wish to keep their syrup-trap in play.  I'm of the opinion that savvy DMs should be able to deal with rule-breaking situations that might arise from a "rules-light" style of playing.  Please don't misunderstand, I like the idea of having written rules to rely on, but I tend to agree with the idea of having a rule-light core mechanic that is more flexable to allow the players to be more creative...
 Even otherwise great players start to 'optimize' at the expense of actual roleplay.



Optimization and roleplay have nothing to do with each other, and are not mutually exclusive.
 Even otherwise great players start to 'optimize' at the expense of actual roleplay.



Optimization and roleplay have nothing to do with each other, and are not mutually exclusive.



If you have 4 options and 1 is better then an optimizer first player will choose the best one every time.  The roleplayer first player will vary his choices to fit his character concept.

Ideally a game doesn't put those choices in front of the player but sadly it is incredibly hard to totally avoid these things from happening in an game even with that goal. 

This removes the sense of unity that playing under the same system brings to the community. 





Kinda like fighting in a war or being the victim of Stockholm syndrome.
http://collectingrealities.blogspot.co.nz/
 Even otherwise great players start to 'optimize' at the expense of actual roleplay.



Optimization and roleplay have nothing to do with each other, and are not mutually exclusive.



If you have 4 options and 1 is better then an optimizer first player will choose the best one every time.  The roleplayer first player will vary his choices to fit his character concept.

Ideally a game doesn't put those choices in front of the player but sadly it is incredibly hard to totally avoid these things from happening in an game even with that goal. 



That's why the DM needs to lay down the type of campaign he wants to play and if he wants an RP heavy campaign without a ton of super "builds" then he has to disincentivize the power-gamer. Maybe the powergamer doesn't have a desire to play in that particular game. Either way it is up to the DM.
"If it's not a conjuration, how did the wizard con·jure/ˈkänjər/Verb 1. Make (something) appear unexpectedly or seemingly from nowhere as if by magic. it?" -anon "Why don't you read fire·ball / fī(-ə)r-ˌbȯl/ and see if you can find the key word con.jure /'kən-ˈju̇r/ anywhere in it." -Maxperson
Learing how to play D&D is the first step in understanding how light rules systems work.     DM's who just say, "no because I told you so"  have yet to learn how to play D&D.      Likewise, players that are dumbfounded when the power cards are taken away should realy just go back to playing MtG or Wow.    
 



Myself, I sit with the "hate it" group, but not because I want CharOp to become the norm to the new edition. It's because rules-light systems tends to make two tables running the same game too much different from each other. This removes the sense of unity that playing under the same system brings to the community. 




House rules destroy communities?  Give me a break.  Must be why the community was so "weak" for about 20 years from the mid-70's to late 90's.  Oh wait there were millions of players nevermind.
It's because rules-light systems tends to make two tables running the same game too much different from each other. This removes the sense of unity that playing under the same system brings to the community.

Why is this a bad thing?

I can see it being an issue for living campaigns, but I honestly do not enjoy them ANYWHERE near as much as home games. WotC seems to have abandoned them in favour of "Encounters" and "Skirmishes" which to my mind looks like are best done with rules heavy, roleplaying lite games. Both of which can be done by saying "this game uses modules X, Y and Z."

By having rules lite with optional modules, gaming groups can customise the game to fit a style that best suits their group. Unity is not needed there. I would hate to see customisation abandoned in favour of unity.

With customisation you can have the game be as rules heavy as you want with very little effort. This maximises your enjoyment and allows everyone else to maximise their enjoyment. In a rules heavy game it takes a lot more effort for me to houserule stuff to make the rules simpler as it is easier to add to a game then it is to remove from it.
I've never seen it as a big deal if two games run different rules. Hell, in the 2nd edition days, that was the norm, and once everyone figured out 3E was broken beyond belief, you saw plenty of tables running houseruled 3E. And nobody really cared.

About all you're really limiting is people going fishing the CharOp boards for an uber build, and really I could care less about that. I'm happy if my PCs actually have to work a little to find the broken combos instead of ripping them off.
I think more rules are needed to keep all honesty and fairness on the table, especially during combats. You don't need less rules for more roleplay; that comes directly from the player himself.

Your friendly neighborhood Revenant Minotaur Half-Blooded Dragonborn Fighter Hybrid Barbarian Multiclassing into Warlord

IMAGE(http://pwp.wizards.com/1223957875/Scorecards/Landscape.png)

Learing how to play D&D is the first step in understanding how light rules systems work.     DM's who just say, "no because I told you so"  have yet to learn how to play D&D.      Likewise, players that are dumbfounded when the power cards are taken away should realy just go back to playing MtG or Wow.    
 



You sir, are an elitist. Every one should be able to play. While I agree that DM's should not say "No, because I said so" the game should educate the DM and the Players to make that unnecessary.

*this is much nicer than my initial reaction.*

I know many people are thrilling with all the freedom D&D Next issue to the DM, and many people are hating it for the same reason. 


Myself, I sit with the "hate it" group, but not because I want CharOp to become the norm to the new edition. It's because rules-light systems tends to make two tables running the same game too much different from each other. This removes the sense of unity that playing under the same system brings to the community. 


When you have a set of rules to backup your playing histories, you give to the community a sense of "wow, I can do this in my table too, and my friends will see the awesome". Sure, many classic tales do not involve rules at all, like the dreaded gazeebo or the Head of Vecna. Also, it's not a coincidence that both histories are comical in nature. Jokes are easy to catch up. Sometimes they use special words, like spherical chickens, but if you know the jargon used, you laugh. 


This is kinda harder with heroic prowness. Sure, everyone know a tale about how a follower killed the dragon with a 1d4 dagger after the heroes weakened it, or how the DM allowed you to develop a booby trap using rope, syrup, caltrops, and a celestial dire badger to terminate an encounter defeating all the orcs when they tried to charge your group. But both histories lost they shine the instant someone asks "how you did it", and the answer is by sheer luck (dragon), or DM call out of the guidelines (non-standard trap). 


The problem is when you player start to stock with syrup, in the hope to use that trap everytime against every encounter. Then your previous rule become a precedent, and the player will be upset when you say to him "no, because I said so". If the situation is REALLY unique, the chance of it's appearing later to bite you in the back is lower, so, DM ruling is fine for it. If the situation is possible to be repeated at will, or at least once per session (lets say, the fighter asking to swing hard and hit 3 enemies at once with disadvantage against all), don't be mad when the player want to try it every time he faces that common situation. For these, rules are better than ruling. 


I talked to much. Just wanted to give this food for thought. 


I'm sure a creative DM could find a way of turning a player's new-found "game-breaking" resource into a disadvantage.  To use one of your examples, suppose those syrup-hoarding adventurers started inadvertently attracting large swarms of sugar-loving insects (heck maybe even large insects) and they become unable to effectively rest from all the buzzing and bug-bites they get while trying to take an extended rest... POOF!!! Now they have an equally tough problem to deal with if they wish to keep their syrup-trap in play.  I'm of the opinion that savvy DMs should be able to deal with rule-breaking situations that might arise from a "rules-light" style of playing.  Please don't misunderstand, I like the idea of having written rules to rely on, but I tend to agree with the idea of having a rule-light core mechanic that is more flexable to allow the players to be more creative...



Yes! I see it now, reward cleverness by invalidating what they did! perfect. From there we can invalidate wizard spells, and never give the rogue advantage! That just solved everything...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
 Even otherwise great players start to 'optimize' at the expense of actual roleplay.



Optimization and roleplay have nothing to do with each other, and are not mutually exclusive.



If you have 4 options and 1 is better then an optimizer first player will choose the best one every time.  The roleplayer first player will vary his choices to fit his character concept.

Ideally a game doesn't put those choices in front of the player but sadly it is incredibly hard to totally avoid these things from happening in an game even with that goal. 



In the past. However if everything is equal, it leaves it completely up to the player to choose what they want their character to be like and there is not pressure to optimize over role-play...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
 Even otherwise great players start to 'optimize' at the expense of actual roleplay.



Optimization and roleplay have nothing to do with each other, and are not mutually exclusive.



If you have 4 options and 1 is better then an optimizer first player will choose the best one every time.  The roleplayer first player will vary his choices to fit his character concept.

Ideally a game doesn't put those choices in front of the player but sadly it is incredibly hard to totally avoid these things from happening in an game even with that goal. 



That's why the DM needs to lay down the type of campaign he wants to play and if he wants an RP heavy campaign without a ton of super "builds" then he has to disincentivize the power-gamer. Maybe the powergamer doesn't have a desire to play in that particular game. Either way it is up to the DM.



Yeah, unless of course the entire game is balanced, then the DM doesn't have to waste time and effort to do that...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Learing how to play D&D is the first step in understanding how light rules systems work.     DM's who just say, "no because I told you so"  have yet to learn how to play D&D.      Likewise, players that are dumbfounded when the power cards are taken away should realy just go back to playing MtG or Wow.    
 



Or you know, you could teach them how to play and give them a baseline for what is possible and have your monsters demonstrate how to do improv...

Man some people would throw their own players under the bus just to make a point...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
If you have 4 options and 1 is better then an optimizer first player will choose the best one every time.  The roleplayer first player will vary his choices to fit his character concept.


Just sadly, that's the common misconception about optimizers. They can, and will, at least a lot of them, choose the fitting powers to their concepts, just that they will do so with a far superior mechanical outcome than the ordinary player, who'll just suck in editions like 3.x ed because of the many trap or unviable combinations.
Here be dragons: IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/cydyvkj/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/c54g6ac/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/csw6fhj/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/cbxbgmp/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/cz7v5bd/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/ccg9eld/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/c8szhnn/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/cp68b5u/.gif)
56767308 wrote:
Sadly, I don't think this has anything to do with wanting Next to be a great game. It has to do with wanting Next to determine who won the Edition War. [...] For those of us who just want D&D Next to be a good game, this is getting to be a real drag.
57870548 wrote:
I think I figured it out. This program is a character builder, not a character builder. It teaches patience, empathy, and tolerance. All most excellent character traits.
If you have 4 options and 1 is better then an optimizer first player will choose the best one every time.  The roleplayer first player will vary his choices to fit his character concept.

Just sadly, that's the common misconception about optimizers. They can, and will, at least a lot of them, choose the fitting powers to their concepts, just that they will do so with a far superior mechanical outcome than the ordinary player, who'll just suck in editions like 3.x ed because of the many trap or unviable combinations.

I think the difference is because of the used definitions. In the 4e DMG there are two types of players defined that tend to gravitate towards optimalization: the thinker and the slayer. The first loves to pick a concept, and make it as effective as possible. That player will big a less optimal choice if it is a better fit for the concept, chances are it will be compensated at an other point. The slayer wants to be as strong as possible so that he can kill monsters without trouble. I have seen both type of players being called optimizers/powergamers, but that doing neither player justice.

Of course, in the end, few players fit 100% within one of the stereotypes and since roleplaying has to do with acting within character during play (more so than while designing a character) both can be great or bad roleplayers ;)


I know many people are thrilling with all the freedom D&D Next issue to the DM, and many people are hating it for the same reason. 




While I am currently in the "thrill" camp, I will say that I have one major problem with a rules-lite system; I have zero reason to spend money on it.

I understand that we've only scratched the surface and there are more rules and options coming down the pike.  I'm guessing Spells and Monsters is going to be the bulk of what we are paying for with a little bit of new themes thrown in.

At the moment though, the game feels very beer and pretzels to me.  That's not a bad thing; I enjoy beer and pretzels games.  I just tend not to spend more than a 10 dollar donation on them.
How and why are people throwing judgement on system that has not yet completely playtested?
After the complete playtest material has been given and tried should people make finalised statements as I have been reading. 

We are testing parts of system to help change for the better or improve.
Let them give us everything to try out before the "not buying/playing/etc.. it because" BS.

Some people talk like it is ready for the shelves and will be on sale tomorrow.

If you are not having fun; stop what you are doing and do something else.
How and why are people throwing judgement on system that has not yet completely playtested?
After the complete playtest material has been given and tried should people make finalised statements as I have been reading. 

We are testing parts of system to help change for the better or improve.
Let them give us everything to try out before the "not buying/playing/etc.. it because" BS.

Some people talk like it is ready for the shelves and will be on sale tomorrow.




Its supposed to be the "core" of the game that all modules stand upon to make a great game.

So far it is almost entirely DM fiat oriented.

Has vancian casting as core.

Has clerical (3.xE sorcerer) casting as core.

Has a gimped rogue class that sucks in combat.

Has a fighter class that "hits it" and "hits it" more...

I agree with most people, its a fun little game, but not worth any kind of money...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Different characters, different campaigns, different players, different DMs... no two games of D&D are the same, which is fantastic.  It's not like a video game level that can be analyzed and optimized so everyone in the world can overcome it in a similar way.

For me as a DM, and I don't think this is necessarily an argument for rules light but there's plenty of times my players don't know the rules! 

Sure a strict rules system has it's structure, but when the player tells me his character climbs the wall so he can jump down on the monsters back to attack it but really has no clue of the DCs (their chance to even do it) or the movement needed or even the number of actions this whole plan requires... as you break open the books and walk them through it eating up table time for them to get frustrated and just say, I go over and attack the monster again like I have all fight.

I like rules.  I like figuring out how to make that climb and leap work.  I wouldn't care if it took a couple rounds, if we are all having fun.  But not everyone likes all those rules. 
Different characters, different campaigns, different players, different DMs... no two games of D&D are the same, which is fantastic.  It's not like a video game level that can be analyzed and optimized so everyone in the world can overcome it in a similar way.

For me as a DM, and I don't think this is necessarily an argument for rules light but there's plenty of times my players don't know the rules! 

Sure a strict rules system has it's structure, but when the player tells me his character climbs the wall so he can jump down on the monsters back to attack it but really has no clue of the DCs (their chance to even do it) or the movement needed or even the number of actions this whole plan requires... as you break open the books and walk them through it eating up table time for them to get frustrated and just say, I go over and attack the monster again like I have all fight.

I like rules.  I like figuring out how to make that climb and leap work.  I wouldn't care if it took a couple rounds, if we are all having fun.  But not everyone likes all those rules. 



As opposed to the DM making  up an unbalanced rule on a moments notice (its like the lottery, it might be easy or might be hard). I'd take the 1 minute book work any day over that...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
This thread reminds me a Knight's of the Dinner Table strip, where a player that replaces Bob starts to question the way Dave acquired his Hackmaster +12 by arm-wrestling Odin (or was it Thor?).

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/23.jpg)

Different characters, different campaigns, different players, different DMs... no two games of D&D are the same, which is fantastic.  It's not like a video game level that can be analyzed and optimized so everyone in the world can overcome it in a similar way.

For me as a DM, and I don't think this is necessarily an argument for rules light but there's plenty of times my players don't know the rules! 

Sure a strict rules system has it's structure, but when the player tells me his character climbs the wall so he can jump down on the monsters back to attack it but really has no clue of the DCs (their chance to even do it) or the movement needed or even the number of actions this whole plan requires... as you break open the books and walk them through it eating up table time for them to get frustrated and just say, I go over and attack the monster again like I have all fight.

I like rules.  I like figuring out how to make that climb and leap work.  I wouldn't care if it took a couple rounds, if we are all having fun.  But not everyone likes all those rules. 



As opposed to the DM making  up an unbalanced rule on a moments notice (its like the lottery, it might be easy or might be hard). I'd take the 1 minute book work any day over that...

It's not an unbalanced rule on a moments notice, it's an ability check with a skill bonus if you have one. 

Poor argument, one could make the same argument for an unbalance rule written in PH4 that the rules lawyer argues must be obeyed.

Different characters, different campaigns, different players, different DMs... no two games of D&D are the same, which is fantastic.  It's not like a video game level that can be analyzed and optimized so everyone in the world can overcome it in a similar way.

For me as a DM, and I don't think this is necessarily an argument for rules light but there's plenty of times my players don't know the rules! 

Sure a strict rules system has it's structure, but when the player tells me his character climbs the wall so he can jump down on the monsters back to attack it but really has no clue of the DCs (their chance to even do it) or the movement needed or even the number of actions this whole plan requires... as you break open the books and walk them through it eating up table time for them to get frustrated and just say, I go over and attack the monster again like I have all fight.

I like rules.  I like figuring out how to make that climb and leap work.  I wouldn't care if it took a couple rounds, if we are all having fun.  But not everyone likes all those rules. 



As opposed to the DM making  up an unbalanced rule on a moments notice (its like the lottery, it might be easy or might be hard). I'd take the 1 minute book work any day over that...

It's not an unbalanced rule on a moments notice, it's an ability check with a skill bonus if you have one. 

Poor argument, one could make the same argument for an unbalance rule written in PH4 that the rules lawyer argues must be obeyed.




Go back and read the DM guide again. The DM is supposed to decide if its an auto-success, auto-failure, or if there's a reasonable chance of failure they are supposed to have you roll for it. So its entirely up to them to make up a "rule" like which ability score you have to use, whether you have advantage or disadvantage, and which DC to use "Is this easy, moderate, difficult, hard, or godlike? Hmmm, eenie meenie miney.... hard"...


"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.