Thread: Questioning chirine ba kal - part II

Originally Posted by Greentongue

I think Trust in the GM goes a long way.
If you don't trust the GM to make impartial decisions off the cuff, you depend on the rules to provide that.
=

Dear God. If that's common in gaming, these days, I'm staying home - I can be painting and writing.

Look everything we see today, I was seeing back circa 1980 in my hometown in rural northwest PA. The difference is due to the Internet and other improvements in communications we know more about the hobby individually than the letter and forum page of Dragon magazine. And certain elements are more visible due to organized play and playing in public at game stores. As I recall D&D/AD&D tournaments held at Origins and Gencon were just as rules obsessed as anything ran today. The only time this is a problem when the needs of organized play get baked into the main rule book. And that only occurred with D&D 4e. D&D 5e is studiously avoiding this issue by relegating everything to a separate publications.

When I run stuff at a game store or convention I have no to little issues with getting players on board to the style that I been using since 1980. Occasionally there is one or players who playing style doesn't mesh. But by and large the players enjoy the older style of gaming I use when refereeing.

Originally Posted by chirine ba kal

Short answer: No.

Long answer: When the game is actually running, it's fun; the GM is actually very good. It's the long pauses in the game play for the number crunching; we're getting about fifteen minutes of game time in the hour, and while I can think of things to do at the FLGS while I'm waiting it seems like a not-good use of my very limited free time. An additional factor (for me, anyway) is that the d20 Blackmoor book has had a lot of Dave Arneson's Blackmoor 'edited out' / 'redacted' / 'left out', and a lot of the other published Blackmoor materials that the GM is using bear little to no relationship to the Blackmoor I gamed in with Dave - the separate 'Comeback Inn' booklet / module is a prime example of this, where the Inn is out in the country away from Blackmoor and it's in the heart of town in Dave's town maps. (Right across the street from my preferred hostel, The Dragon, actually.) If I knew nothing about Blackmoor and were only going by the d20 book, it'd probably be a good setting for gamers who like stats and mechanics. For somebody who played in the place with Dave as GM, it probably isn't.

Oh. Sorry to hear that, Uncle!
I knew you said "too much number-crunching", and "not enough Dave*", but I thought these were minor irritants. Obviously not the case, I know, but then you had mentioned the group was nice, and that was what mattered!
I'm sorry to hear it wasn't the case...

*Well, to be fair to the GM, you've played with Dave Arneson himself. I doubt anyone could come close to that amount of Dave Arneson without being him...

Originally Posted by chirine ba kal

Dear God. If that's common in gaming, these days, I'm staying home - I can be painting and writing.

Luckily, Uncle, it's hardly common, at least according to my experience.

Originally Posted by Greentongue

Isn't that the point of needing detailed rules for everything?

The flip side of "you can't do it unless it is in the rules and/or you have a feat/attribute for it".
=

No, it's not. I can get together with a GM I trust to be impartial, and we might play Legends of the Wulin...
OTOH, I can get to play with a GM I don't trust to be impartial, and, assuming I'm willing to play, we might play Risus. (Hey, at least the mechanics wouldn't require me to commit effort).
One wants detailed rules because one likes detail, or because the GM want wants a lot of pre-defined options.
That's it, and it has nothing to do with trusting the GM. No matter how detailed the rules are, they can't remove the decision-making from the GM's hands, so it's futile to even try.

Originally Posted by Greentongue

Isn't that the point of needing detailed rules for everything?

The flip side of "you can't do it unless it is in the rules and/or you have a feat/attribute for it".
=

Pretty much no.

The rules can't fix stupid, and the rules can't fix asshole.

And if you don't trust me, I don't want you at my table.

On a TOTALLY different subject, Chirine...

What's a good 'first book' to read on the English Civil War? I'm quite taken with "Cavaliers and Roundheads" after playing the last two years at GaryCon, and I want to learn both more about the period in general and also more about how to fight the armies well.

Damned Roundhead regiments are bigger! Not fair!

Originally Posted by Gronan of Simmerya

On a TOTALLY different subject, Chirine...

What's a good 'first book' to read on the English Civil War? I'm quite taken with "Cavaliers and Roundheads" after playing the last two years at GaryCon, and I want to learn both more about the period in general and also more about how to fight the armies well.

Damned Roundhead regiments are bigger! Not fair!

Glorious General,

If I can throw in my two cents worth? If you are looking for historical academic texts, then take a look at these three works.

1. This is the seminal work on the subject. Any serious scholarly discourse starts from this point. Four volumes and they are available online for free.

Gardiner, Samuel Rawson (1886�1901), History of the Great Civil War, 1642�1649: Volume I (1642�1644); Volume II (1644�1647); Volume III (1645�1647); Volume IV (1647�1649).

Links:
Vol I: https://archive.org/stream/historygr...e/n35/mode/2up

Vol II: https://archive.org/stream/historygr...ge/n4/mode/2up

Vol III: https://archive.org/stream/historygr...ge/n6/mode/2up

Vol IV: https://archive.org/stream/historygr...ge/n4/mode/2up

2. Essential Histories 58: The English Civil Wars 1642-1651, by Peter Guant, 2003.

As with most Osprey books this is a good, short, thumbnail sketch on the subject. There is quite a bit of space devoted to equipment, arms armour, etc, and the big battles such as Edgehill, Marston Moor and Naseby are covered in some detail.

Link:
https://www.amazon.com/Essential-His...ories+%2358%29


3. The English Civil Wars: 1640-1660, by Blair Worden, 2010.

This one's OK. It's a good starting point, from what I remember of it, and it has a very nice bibliography. I didn't read it cover-to-cover, but I found lots of useful tidbits in there

Link:
https://www.amazon.com/English-Civil...ET14F3DTZW51TQ


Of the three mentioned above, if you read only one of them, then I would go with Gaunt and have Gardiner as a reference if you want more details. Worden is good, but his biblio is where the real "value" lays, as it provides an excellent jump point for further reading.


Shemek

Originally Posted by Greentongue

Isn't that the point of needing detailed rules for everything?

The flip side of "you can't do it unless it is in the rules and/or you have a feat/attribute for it".
=

Oh. Takes me out, then.

Originally Posted by estar

Look everything we see today, I was seeing back circa 1980 in my hometown in rural northwest PA. The difference is due to the Internet and other improvements in communications we know more about the hobby individually than the letter and forum page of Dragon magazine. And certain elements are more visible due to organized play and playing in public at game stores. As I recall D&D/AD&D tournaments held at Origins and Gencon were just as rules obsessed as anything ran today. The only time this is a problem when the needs of organized play get baked into the main rule book. And that only occurred with D&D 4e. D&D 5e is studiously avoiding this issue by relegating everything to a separate publications.

When I run stuff at a game store or convention I have no to little issues with getting players on board to the style that I been using since 1980. Occasionally there is one or players who playing style doesn't mesh. But by and large the players enjoy the older style of gaming I use when refereeing.

Agreed! I have had the same good fortune that you have; it's my Internet experiences that have been pretty largely negative. My experiences back in the day were, I suspect, isolated and unique.

Originally Posted by AsenRG

Oh. Sorry to hear that, Uncle!
I knew you said "too much number-crunching", and "not enough Dave*", but I thought these were minor irritants. Obviously not the case, I know, but then you had mentioned the group was nice, and that was what mattered!
I'm sorry to hear it wasn't the case...

*Well, to be fair to the GM, you've played with Dave Arneson himself. I doubt anyone could come close to that amount of Dave Arneson without being him...

Luckily, Uncle, it's hardly common, at least according to my experience.



No, it's not. I can get together with a GM I trust to be impartial, and we might play Legends of the Wulin...
OTOH, I can get to play with a GM I don't trust to be impartial, and, assuming I'm willing to play, we might play Risus. (Hey, at least the mechanics wouldn't require me to commit effort).
One wants detailed rules because one likes detail, or because the GM want wants a lot of pre-defined options.
That's it, and it has nothing to do with trusting the GM. No matter how detailed the rules are, they can't remove the decision-making from the GM's hands, so it's futile to even try.

Agreed. I'm probably simply too old and set in my ways. Back to the paint, I suspect; the new 'Legends' Egyptians are due any day, now.