Not a lost art. But there has been from probably right after the start a fractioning of ideals between the purely hack-n-slashers, the political intriguers and the rounded out everythingers.

Not helped when some look at a system, see just rules for combat and they cannot imagine that the game doesnt have some equal rules for interaction.

I used my own book as an example whenever someone trots that out. The books rules are. Chargen & Combat. (I do not consider equipment and spell blocks to be rules) That was because all interaction was player driven. The only thing that needed hammered down was combat. I pointed out that I could have used the same rules for interaction. But that was the last thing on Earth I wanted to do as the game thrived on the player and NPC interplays.

I vote yes.

In the abdication of home games from public space, leaving predominantly to Organized Play, you are going to get a new batch of players trained on the most publicly prevalent voice.

Many voices are better. Contest everything.

This is nothing new: I started seeing the complaint in APAs as soon as AD&D came out.  There's always been a large faction who believe that anything not explicitly permitted in the rules is forbidden, just as there's always been a large faction who believe that anything not expressly forbidden by the rules is permitted.

I don't think there's any trend one way or another: for every new player who comes to tabletop used to the limited choices allowed by console games, there's a player who comes to tabletop used to the vast options available in LARPs.

Yeah, the still ongoing conversation over on RPGG is like that. The OP for the thread on Opportunity + Reach when suggested that improvising bows and lt crossbow for melee being a d4 and a heavy crossbow being possibly a d6. Could not see that as "the rules say ranged weapons only d4." when they do not quite say that.

And yet he complains because the rules say reach extends OA making it less usefull because it doesnt make sense to him. Then when pointed out that this is how pole arms really work - its denied. And round and round we go.

At the opposite end someone else was arguing that they could take a short rest at any time because the rules do not say they cannot. Same for long rest except with the added crevat that the only way to interrupt it is to stage a single combat an hour long because the rules dont say that a bunch of individual attacks over an hour count.

and so on ad nausium.

Another vote for the GOML camp.

Fuck the Player who cannot improvise while playing and fuck the GM who does not allow improvisation because it isn't covered by the rules.

Quote from: Ravenswing;815724
For every new player who comes to tabletop used to the limited choices allowed by console games, there's a player who comes to tabletop used to the vast options available in LARPs.

Maybe it's just my neck of the woods, but I'm really not sure I'd say those two sources of new players are equal. I'll go so far as to say that, as I see it, video game RPGs are the primary onramp for new tabletop players these days. It's certainly half of why I'm involved in the hobby (choose-your-own-adventure books being the other half).

As a result, a big part of my sales pitch to potential newbies is, "Unlike a video game, you can do anything your character could really do at any time."

I just wish more of them would realize that this is most useful OUTSIDE of combat rather than always trying to find the "I win every time" button in fights. :rolleyes:

And the reply. Improvisation and thinking dies just that little fraction more.

QuoteBefore common sense i like to have the fact from the rules.
You are quote right, but my quote is also right and specifik on range weapon and is damage and it say nothing about SOME range weapon, so you must read it as all. Also as you say, a heavy crossbow must be like a club. Club is 1d4.

If you whant to change that, please do but the rules are clear IMO.

What the heck is GOML?

Quote from: yojimbouk;815792What the heck is GOML?

Get Off My Lawn

Improvisation is certainly alive and well at my table.

Gaming back in the 80s through today, I have always come across both players and GMs who could not think beyond what is written on the character sheet and never have anything more interesting to contribute to the game beyond what is already written in the rules.  We have always called them seat warmers.  Pretty much a necessary evil to be able to continually game and a very large part of why I routinely GM rather than play.

No big deal.  Same today as it has always been, and not much different than me shuffling through a basketball game with my weak ball skills.

I had a gm who often grump 'play your character, not your character sheet!'

Of course, the problem is a lot of systems really discourage improving (like 3e).

I disagree that 3e made it any more or less difficult to do things like lure an iron golem into a pit trap or topple a statue to block off an exit.  I've never found the game system to have much to do with it.  Just whether the players want to try it and whether the DM wants to encourage it.

That wasn't my experience.

By making encounter design and balance explicit, and attempting to justify various actions, 3e discouraged doing 'undeclared maneuvers.'

Systems that cover less and systems that have open 'do stuff' rules, IMO, do better.

Ahh, OK.  The encounter math stuff is one playstyle for 3e.  I never used it.  Playstyle can definitely impact improvisation.  

If a party of 1st level PCs never encounters an iron golem, they will never need to come up with a plan to get past it.