The flaw in both this and the strict-rule techniques is that role-playing game rules can’t *NOT* be tweaked. Follow:

Do I have to roll to get across this chasm?

How can you answer that without tweaking both the rule interpretation *and* the scene? Every situation where applying a rule or not applying it is an example of tweaking. The only alternative is to use the rules for every situation.

Cross the street? Gimme a agility roll. Look at the store? Gimme a observation roll. Settling in for the night? Gimme a outdoorsman roll.

Who plays this way?

Then what decides when to roll then? Is it the gamemaster? The player?

No. The social situation in which these real people get together and play. This also decides who gets to talk when and most often who’s idea is used in the game.

It was a real epiphany for me to realize that no amount of rules or advice will overcome the social situation shared by the participants. It changed the way I write for role-playing games.

Fang Langford

p.s. Who can’t seem to help himself today and is very sorry.

Laws’ Laws (especially 0) are a good read, but reread it! There’s more in there than you think.

Take for example the rule you cite: “Roleplaying games are entertainment; your goal as GM is to make your games as entertaining as possible for all participants.”

It actually also tells you that you have to make it fun for you! Always a compromise, huh?

The ‘discard any rules’ rule is contained in Laws’ rule 0; is it entertaining to run rules you don’t like?

At this point I think I need to reveal a secret I’ve kept (whether I wanted to or not) for a long time.

1) Fluff isn’t set until it’s said, and
2) It’s all fluff.

The seventh wave of orcs? Never existed if not mentioned. Wilderness trek? Not there if you say it was a road instead. Gandalf’s speech? The same.

Now here’s the hard part….

Learn to live without the ‘map’.

Really, you can do it. I did. I’ve given lots of explanations how to do it. What you do is erase the map from your mind, but keep the points of interest. Don’t even relate them geographically in your head. Just let them wait for the appropriate moment.

For example, the players set off on the adventure after a rough start and you want to go a little easier on them; save the point of interest in the midst of that trek for another time. The seventh wave of orcs? Hang onto it until either they are looking for trouble or when the adventure has gotten really intense. (Special Hint: Never let the intensity dampen) If Gandalf’s speech will bore anyone at the table, due something to them /during it/. (Someone can fill them in later.)

The biggest problem comes when the players ‘go the wrong way’. Not a problem. Since there is no geographic relationship, move the next point of interest right in the direction they are going. What’s that? The evil overlord’s castle can’t be in the plains they’re playing in? Make it a floating castle. (Who wouldn’t be drawn to a flying continent while travelling across the plains?)

Whew! Longer than I meant to be.

So sorry for the tone (and the length). I don’t know what to say.

Enjoy!

Fang Langford

I mean, much of 4e rose out of the fact that none of the designers were playing unmodified 3e anymore.

And since there will be a 4e OGL as well (they have stated this), it’s not like they could stop it if they wanted to.

So I think standard rules was what they were aiming at…. I’ve read somewhere that after having published Original D&D, that screamed for customization, it was too late to take it back.

I’m just not sure that Gygax was talking from his personal point of view or from his company’s policy.

The fact that 3e encouraged tinkering so much might be because the actual engine was available to all with minimal reverse engineering.

That and the tons and tons of material (good and bad) made available for it.

I don’t see why 4e would go a different path… 3.x was a financial success for many.

Yeah, the thing that I understand about that was that it was a highly balance . . . sensitive game. It was one of those styles where it required constant tweaking to get it feeling right. All games do require that kind of tweaking, but AD&D had so much inbuilt structure that it was hard to color outside the lines.

I wonder how 4E is going to follow along with how much 3.5E allowed that tinkering. Stuff like gestalt classes, and racial classes, etc.

You’re right, it’s not a GURPS book; I stand corrected

But back to your actual point, you are entirely right that it’s a very good book. It actually makes me realize why other player types go for games I have no affinity for.

Steve Jackson innovated in offering a truly genre neutral book on the art of GMing. It’s a pity they’re having such a hard time now and focusing almost exclusively on the Munchkin’ line it seems.

John:
“Really every group is going to modify things to fit their own style, because that is how they have fun, and seriously if you are having fun that trumps anything else”.

I plan on following this series with the same approach to Gygax’ DMG…. specifically because he advocates all kind of weird things…. some that have stood the test of time, others that didn’t. Like his stance against tinkering with the system… when the whole AD&D game is actually his own tinkering with his game…

I’d say it should be an essential part of any GM’s bookcase, definitely.

Ninja Dragons, eh? Hmmmmm…..