Is Lord of the Flies still required reading? Since I pulled up a chair at this virtual table I have noticed several arguments that all seem to be based around the idea that the game rules can or should be part of the social contract between players.
Lots of thoughts along the lines of “if its not in the rules the DM wont allow it.” Or “if that’s not in the rules then the DM will abuse it.”
Perhaps I am way off base, and I misunderstand these statements and arguments. But I don’t think so. I’m 95% sure that there is a large block of folks who feel that the D&D rules, if properly presented will help smooth relations between people at the table.
I guess this could even be a correct assumption, but it is not the effect that I have actually witnessed at the table. What I have seen is that a complex and bulky rule set will lead to misinterpretations and conflict about who is right.
When a rule set is bulked up to handle contingencies that are ultimately a matter to be decided outside of the game a couple of things happen: The rules become more difficult to use, there are more of them and they are more complicated. Also interactions that should be a friendly discussion between people turn into an intellectual battle of lawschoolian proportions.
Do you think that DDN rules are trying to smooth social relations at the game table? Should they? Are the arguments here not influencing that aspect of the rules?
I’m just curious and wanted to get some other input on the idea.
Thanks for your time.