I used to post these updates over on my own site (www.vanitygames.com), which started out as a totally D&D DM blog-centric site. I was attempting to support my spouse, who had some vague aspirations towards game design, so I got into D&D so my spouse’d have a cheerleader on the sidelines.
Well, that totally fell apart (both the marriage and the game design aspirations). I was left a little adrift after that, but time did what time does, and eventually I was able to focus on the things I really love (comics). Still, the urge to run D&D never left me, and I found that despite questionable motives for getting into the game, I really enjoyed it.
But according to some (my ex included) I enjoy it for all the wrong reasons. I can’t count on both hands and feet the number of times I’ve been told I’m doing it wrong.
I’ve never argued the point. It’s never bothered me that I’m doing it wrong. Normally the phrase “you’re doing it wrong” is meant to evoke shame, to correct behavior, to mold someone into the right way to perform or think or create. I won’t deny that I’m “doing D&D” differently, certainly non-traditionally, but I refuse to feel shame for what I do.
Although maybe I should. Both my ex and myself like to create things out of the rulesets for D&D, but here’s the key difference: if we liken D&D to a set of really awesome legos, with all the bits there to assemble some really interesting things, then it’s the ex that loves doing just that–putting all the pieces together in new and interesting ways. I am the malcontent who refuses to be satisfied by that.
I’m the person that takes the pile of legos and sees what happens when you throw it in the microwave. Which means I can see a person’s point when they tell me I’m doing it wrong–I’m breaking all their toys, adding in toys from different sets (mixing my legos and my action figures, my D&D and my FATE, etc etc). I’m constantly fiddling with the system, seeing what happens when you take pieces out, add extra bits in, mix up the editions, mix up the lore, and basically run amok amok AMOK with everything about it.
I’m a tinkerer at heart. In another era I’d’ve been in my garage with mechanical pieces strewn everywhere, a workbench full of well-loved tools and jars of screws, trying to build a better lawnmower. I just find it impossible to feel shame about that.
It can be argued that the second you deviate even one iota from the published ruleset, you’re no longer playing D&D. I’d argue against that mindset until the end of my days–it’s what I love best about the game, that it’s meant to be tinkered with, that the long, rich history of “splat books” and third party resources and mountains of community-created content speaks this DIY mentality. Personally, I believe that so long as you have a D&D character sheet in front of you and a d20 in your hand, you are pretty much playing D&D, no matter what other modifications your GM has made to the rules. That, I’m content with.
You sound sooooo much like me! Wayyyy back when I first started D&D, I kept wanting to muck with everything, and I did. My mind kept going on and on with the possibilities of worlds. What if this … and what if that … and what if the other … one of my favorite games that I ran took people from our era, and then transported them back in time into the world of Dragonlance (because I was in love with Dragonlance at the time).
Some people called me a ‘munchkin gamer’ and other not-so-nice things, but I just kept plugging on and everyone had a load of fun.
I remember reading in a sourcebook, I think it was a WoD sourcebook, (paraphrasing, now) that your game is yours to do with what you please. Digest the rules, understand them, then if you don’t like them or want to change them – do it! I looooved that. :)
I’m all but certain the only single time I’ve ever played a game of D&D “by the book” was one Lair Assault recently with @TheAngryDM from Twitter as the DM.
Rules are for conformists. Hell, the rules themselves include instructions to break them! (Rule 0)
My favorite way of playing D&D wrong is allowing players to buy/train for feats and skill increases while they aren’t adventuring. It fills in out of play game-time and makes the characters feel more real. This also lets them roleplay their characters better by explaining the difficulties and successes of their training.
Also, Freyda, our half-gnoll barbarian, is getting really good in her spin pottery class so I’d hate to make her give that up.
@Stacy well clearly I’m on the same page as you, but there are a surprising number of poeple who felt like I was violating every good childhood memory they had of the game ;)
@AlioTheFool And how did the game with Angry go?
@Paul Oooooh I actually never thought of that! I’ve given out feats as boons for particularly involved bits of roleplay, but letting the players integrate it into their characters is pretty cool!
I’ve hardly ever run D&D “as is”. My first 3E game was a prehistoric game with stone weapons. My favorite 4E game was a Celtic setting with tons of houserules. Honestly, the implied D&D setting doesn’t interest me much.
“You’re doing it wrong” drives me into nerd rage. It’s a frikkin fantasy game. Do what’s fun!
@Eodrid sure, but with five or six people at the table, who gets to decide what’s fun? Apparently my version of fun isn’t for everyone
Like you, I enjoy trying new things. I buy and read many rpgs with the intent of grabbing one rules to bring it into another game if appropriate.
If you claim to be playing D&D then you are playing D&D. There is no wrong way to do it.
As a group, you decide what you guys enjoy and that’s where it stands for your group. Everyone has an equal interest in having fun and deciding what’s fun for the group.
I love the Dragonmark concept out of Eberron. But I thought it was underpowered, especially if the entirety of the PC party was dragonmarked. So in my 3.5 campaign my players were assassins from House Tarkanan – I powered up the Dragonmark feats, gave them more abilities per day, and wrote more types of dragon’s blood that allowed the PCs to turn normal marks into aberrant marks and to create new houses from an aberrant mark.
Most of my serious tweaking-the-neckbeards-and-grognards “doin it rong” breakage is of the form of powering up the PCs, *especially* in 4E. All that happens is the PCs win a little harder and you get to throw more challenging (so, more fun) combats at them. I’m not talking giving a level 2 paladin a holy avenger here, but action points, encounter powers, themes, anything that gives a small but noticeable boost is something that it’s possible will save the day, and then the player gets to fondly look back at that feature and NEVER FORGET ABOUT IT. And that’s kind of cool.
You know, I did the same thing! I didn’t play in Eberron, but I used the dragonmarks more like boons than feats–they ended up being plot rewards for some diplomancy mission and it was awesome. Whenever they players were concerned about power creep, I’d just shrug and tell them I can always make my numbers bigger.
I think it was impressed upon me by the 1st Edition rulebooks that you were supposed to tinker with the game and make it your own. I don’t think I’ve ever played D&D the “right” way. Although sometimes that gets me in trouble when I’m running organized play events like Encounters. But players keep coming back to my table, so I figure doing it wrong is right.
You sum it up best in the last paragraph, but I stand on the other side.
It is about Identity — when you identify something, it makes it an entity definable and recognizable. When you start changing things, then you change the identity of the thing.
Honestly, even 4e D&D doesn’t seem like D&D to me. I’m not saying that it might not be a fine game, but it’s not D&D to me. The race and class list from the PHB1 of 4e looks wrong to me. No bard, no druid, no barbarian, no sorcerer, no monk. They took out 5 base classes from 3e and replaced them with 2 classes that I’ve never seen before. Gnomes, not in the PHB1 but Dragonborn and Tieflings are?
As for the lego to D&D comparison, using legos to build things are still following legos rules. If you were truly changing the rules with legos, you’d be melting the plastic down and reforming conga-line figures or some such.
Rules aren’t for conformists. Rules get things done.
All that being said, you can play your game however you want, I don’t care, it’s your game, it’s just not MY game.
@Anarkeith nice. I think I made a comment earlier on twitter along the lines of “I may be doing it wrong, but that doesn’t mean I was wrong to do it.”
@Gulo interesting counter-point :) After a bunch of comments to the effect of “Yeah! Frak it up!” it’s nice to see someone actually defend the rules. And that’s totally fair about the huge difference between 4E and previous editions. I didn’t get into D&D UNTIL fourth edition, so maybe that’s part of why I feel justified in screwing around with it so much. It’s just so different to begin with.
Funny, after a long hiatus from dnd i hit up 3.5 in 2005 and it didnt feel like dnd to me. :)
@JayDot
I should say that I’m not a blind follower of rules, it’s just that there should be a good reason to change the rules if you’re going to change them.
In my experience, most changes of this nature are destructive instead of constructive. Such as melting down your legos to do something else with them. Why not leave the legos as they are and get plain plastic from a craft shop and melt that down to make something?
I played the unholy hell out of Dragon Age: Origins (150 hours, most sunk into my gay city elf; I loved the idea of a queer knife-ear saving all of Ferelden even though you hate me, you jerks). That’s a LOT of time. I’ve read the novels, enjoyed the crap out of the material.
I picked up the Dragon Age RPG* but the part that drove me around the bend were people on the forums saying “I never played the computer game ..” and then asking how to do stuff that would NEVER happen in the Dragon Age settings.
The reason WHY it bothered me is as I stated on the forums — yes, you CAN use this system to do that, but WHY? It’s not complete, it’s not universal, it’s not meant for that.
Instead, why not use FATE or OSRIC or some of the other rules-light games that are actually complete?
To me, it’s also a matter of using the right tool for the job.
@Gulo So funnily enough to me, another D&D blogger (one who hacks the system more than I do) tackled this subject too – http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2011/11/put-on-your-beret-light-gauloise-and.html (post is SFW, site sometimes isn’t), which kinda illustrated the difference in approach that we seem to have. He sums it up at the end–“So: A million rulesets that do one thing each, aimed at a million gaming groups, or one game that only works for one group but allows it to do a million different things.” I think I end up in the latter half of the camp–I’d rather cafeteria style cram all my favorite things onto one plate (the tactics of D&D, the character growth of FATE, the settings and tone of whitewolf games) and make it work, but it would only work for me and for that one group that wanted to play with all that.
For me, both are totally legitimate ways to approach gaming. Just so happens that I fall on the other side of things.
@Newbie I don’t know how much of the convo between me and @theangrydm you did or didn’t catch on twitter, but after listening to Scott’s theories on what “the feel” of D&D means (after he heard the same thing about 4e), I’m already working on a followup post talking about that, too :)
Considering that nobody plays even Monopoly RAW (I’m looking at you, Free Parking payday), no one should be told they’re “doing it wrong” if they’re having fun.
I think the important thing is that “we” tinker with D&D rather than “I”. What I mean, of course, is that D&D is played as a group. When it comes to defining what the game IS, then that’s a group decision between all the players, and not just the DM.
I know it’s semantics in some cases, but I always baulk when I hear the phrase, “MY house rules.” It should always be “OUR house rules.”
The rules themselves? Do what the hell you like with them (as a group). If you walk onto a soccer field in full battle armour, pick the ball up and strong arm your way into the opponents goal, you’re not gonna last long. If you (plural) decide that alignments suck – which they do – then bin them completely.
Unless it’s your players, when anyone tells you you’re doing D&D wrong, just shout, “DARK SUN” at them and leave them to their Sudoku puzzles.