(stares upward)

This isn't a gaming thing.  This is a human thing.  The "Everything not explicitly allowed is forbidden" / "Everything not explicitly forbidden is allowed" dichotomy's been in play since Ug the Caveman glared at a tribal elder, pointed at the cave wall, and demanded to know where it said he couldn't hunt an antelope instead of a mastodon.

IMHO, it's followed closely in the stupidity continuum by the "What do you mean it's possible to do things other than the way I've always done it?" / "What do you mean you persist in doing things your way instead of in my superior fashion?" split.

Someday I might become reconciled to the sheer bewilderment many people have that the way that their buddies have always gamed isn't the way that every other gamer on Earth has always played, but that might be a lost cause.

As a general rule of thumb, I incentivise the first time a player tries something more than I incentivise repeated attempts at the same thing.  Leaping off a cliff to stab someone is nifty the first time, it becomes boring the tenth time.  I openly tell players that repeated use of any particular stunt will be made harder to accomplish.

I also tend to prefer certain types of stunts over others.  Describing an attack in a fanciful way is meh.  Coming up with a plan is what I like.

Climbing on to a giant's back to go stabbity is not something I would give much incentive to try.  

An elaborate ruse to trick the giant into lobbing rocks at the giant's allies is something I would give much more incentive to try.

Quote from: Old One Eye;817402Climbing on to a giant's back to go stabbity is not something I would give much incentive to try.

I can see advantages to climbing onto the giant. From the giant's back you can reach the giant's neck which is probably more vulnerable than the giant's feet or knees. Or you might be able to use the giant's hair to swing or climb to where you can stab him in the eyes. Blinding giants is a tactic of long and legendary standing; also it would be pretty effective.

On the other hand, there is going to be a real risk that your character falls before getting to stab or gets thrown off the giant's back and sent flying through the air to hit the ground from a 50'-60' height. (I'm assuming this is an actual giant, not just some ogre with a pituitary disorder.) So both risk and reward.

I agree that using the same stunt over and over is boring and should have the potential for anticipation resulting in an effective defense and a counterstrike by the opponents.

Quote from: Bren;817410I agree that using the same stunt over and over is boring and should have the potential for anticipation resulting in an effective defense and a counterstrike by the opponents.

Unless you're running a campaign all about Giant Killers (à la Attack on Titan, which could be pretty badass).

Quote from: Ravenswing;817399
Someday I might become reconciled to the sheer bewilderment many people have that the way that their buddies have always gamed isn't the way that every other gamer on Earth has always played, but that might be a lost cause.

Trust me. Its a lost cause. Especially when we have people who will deliberately create a split to cause fraction. Just because. Not even because they dont like the thing they are ruining. But for the evulz.

Quote from: Old Geezer;817357"You can't HANDLE the sight of my fat naked hairy jiggling ass!"

Man, do you have that right!

That sounds like something impossible to "un-see"...

Quote from: Ravenswing;817399Someday I might become reconciled to the sheer bewilderment many people have that the way that their buddies have always gamed isn't the way that every other gamer on Earth has always played, but that might be a lost cause.[/COLOR]

I agree with you, but replace 'has' with 'should' and it seems to me that you have the premise of this website.

Quote from: soviet;817454I agree with you, but replace 'has' with 'should' and it seems to me that you have the premise of this website.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm just sharing my experiences and prefered playstyle. I'm not passing judgment on anyone else: just shooting the shit.

If I've come across as lecturing others or whatever, that ain't my intention.

In other words, I give zero fucks how other people play their elf games (edit: unless it's in a shared conversation ABOUT that topic).

Quote from: Old Geezer;817357"You can't HANDLE the sight of my fat naked hairy jiggling ass!"

Bring it! I've get extra SAN to burn!

Quote from: Greentongue;817013In my opinion the main stream players have the assumption that, you can only do what the rules allow. This causes the requirement for more and more rules to allow options.

What happened to the assumption that, you can do anything the rules don't prohibit?

or am I just Hanging With The Wrong Crowd?
=

I think folks find it easier to deal with the game versus the roleplaying. Especially when half of the explanations about roleplaying makes it the equivalent of writing a story or making a film.

If you view tabletop roleplaying as presenting an experience, a pen and paper virtual reality if you will. Then the need for rule is greatly reduced. It becomes a personal preference instead of a burning necessity. For example I like the detail of full on GURPS combat but I don't need it to run my Majestic Wilderlands the way I like. I enjoy using OD&D in the form of Swords & Wizardry and I enjoy using D&D 5e.

The RPGs I don't like are the ones where the rules allow for metagaming. Doing things as a player rather than as a character. I don't like a lot of the current emphasis on story, drama, and scenes. And the people using those rules cheat themselves out of the full potential of tabletop roleplaying to immerse you into another place and time.

Thanks for the viewpoints. I've seen a lot of changes over the years and I guess a lot depends if the people you are playing with think of it in terms of "Game" versus "Roleplaying".  
Some want to "Use a Character" and some want to "Be a Character".
=

Quote from: soviet;817454I agree with you, but replace 'has' with 'should' and it seems to me that you have the premise of this website.

A definite corollary, of course.

Quote from: Old Geezer;817119Only one place?

If I had a dollar for every time I bitched about the mindset of RPGS changing from "Everything not forbidden is permitted" to "everything not permitted is forbidden" I would be able to retire.

Yeah, well, you can't retire yet, because I discovered this article on Gnome Stew this morning. It was this quote that caught my eye:

"In the opening example, the player hadn't played D&D in quite some time and was coming at his choices from a very old-school perspective. The last time he had played regularly, if something wasn't explicitly stated in the rules, you simply couldn't do it." (Emphasis added.)

A very OLD-SCHOOL perspective.

Now, the writer is trying to tell everyone hey, it's OK to try something even if there's nothing on your character sheet or in the rule book that says you can. That's a good thing. But if even the fellow travelers believe that the game until recently was based on "Anything not in the rules is forbidden," all  of your efforts, and everything the OSR has said for the last several years, has been a complete waste of time. Nobody listened.

Quote from: Old Geezer;817293That's why I love the one minute combat round of OD&D.  All that stuff is in there, your die roll is merely to give the net effect at the end of a minute of singing and dancing.

Side note: Have you seen the thread on the OD&D forums where some people I otherwise respect are insisting that the LBBs do not say that the combat round lasts one minute?

Quote from: talysman;817810Side note: Have you seen the thread on the OD&D forums where some people I otherwise respect are insisting that the LBBs do not say that the combat round lasts one minute?

Page 8 of book 3? A movement turn takes 10 minutes.

QuoteThere are 10 rounds of combat per turn.

Quote from: Omega;817812Page 8 of book 3? A movement turn takes 10 minutes.

You'd have to read their convoluted reasoning,  but basically they say that doesn't say that a combat turn is 10 minutes, so 10 rounds per turn doesn't necessarily mean 1--minute rounds.

I don't agree, but I stopped arguing in those threads. It's an irreconcilable difference of opinion.