Reading James M's
recent post about the significance of D&D III in his evolution as a gamer, I was struck by the parallels between his story and mine. In brief, the narrative runs something like this:
* I begin my RPG'ing career as what would now be called an "old-school" gamer. I never play (and to this day have never played) with the LBBs, but get caught up in the hobby in my teenage years with the 1979 Holmes box set and AD&D. I get out of playing AD&D in the late 80's right around the time 2e is released.
I actually have never played 2e. I have absolutely nothing against it, having never played it, but suffice to say that my baseline for understanding what D&D is (or "should" feel like for me) is based upon Holmes and 1e AD&D, i.e., skills do not exist in the game.
* After many years of playing other RPG systems including a completely homebrewed one, I return to playing D&D a few years ago, in the mid-2000s; the group I join is playing D&D 3.5, soon to become
Pathfinder. I tolerate 3.5 and it is great to be role-playing again, but I never feel "at home" in the system (more on this in a moment).
* D&D IV is released, and my 3.5 group, after sticking with
Pathfinder for a couple more months, switches to 4.0. I fucking hate it. I leave that group and begin to lay groundwork for my own campaign using
Labyrinth Lord.
As this mini-narrative makes clear, I am no great fan of 3.5 or 4e
for me personally, but let me state at the outset that I am NOT interested in instigating or perpetuating any kind of "Edition Wars." Ultimately this hobby is about having fun, and I am genuinely happy for those players (including my beloved ex-gaming group -- and I mean that "beloved" earnestly, they were a
great group of players) who are getting a kick out of
Pathfinder and D&D IV.
What I want to address, however, is the fact that
form matters. That is, it is not simply enough to have a good group of players or an awesome DM -- though those things obviously matter a lot. Yet the particular rules systems we choose to play with are every bit as important as the genre, setting, dice, and, yes, group chemistry in determining whether or not a given RPG'ing experience is
fun.
Perhaps I am a bit of an extremist here, but if so, it is how I am "hardwired" and I can't seem to do much about it. The truth is, even though I loved that 3.5 group, and was able to stomach playing in it for a couple years DESPITE my aversions to what felt like unnecessarily cumbersome rules, I NEVER LIKED THE 3.5 RULES, and that aspect of the experience, while not a deal-breaker, did somewhat diminish the fun for me. What I ended up doing was ignoring / refusing to acknowledge the rules that seemed pointless (i.e., almost everything to do with skills and feats) and charging on ahead as if they didn't matter. This mostly worked out, but there were many times when I simply wanted to be able to DO something, and would be reminded by other players that I had to roll against some feat or other, or that I couldn't do that thing (or at least hope to do it successfully) because I had no applicable skill. This was frustrating. And my general aversion to the 3.5 rules made me always feel like I was trying to move around underwater, that is, there was this big wall of rules that was making things happen sluggishly, in slow motion, again, diminishing the pacing and the fun (for me).
The less said about 4e the better, but my main point is that while I am sure that some DMs do an awesome job of making 4e feel more "old-school" than the (highly tactical and combat-oriented) style of play it seems to encourage,
the form still matters -- i.e., different rules sets make different styles of play easier or harder to achieve. The two evenings I played 4e -- albeit, possibly not with the world's
greatest DM -- I was utterly bored. Part of that may have been the
way that DM used 4e as a vehicle, but part of the blame indeed lies with the vehicle itself. I found little in the assumptions of 4e that excited my imagination or made me want to play it. On the other hand, when I crack open the
Labyrinth Lord Advanced Edition Companion, or leaf through the booklets in the
Swords and Wizardry White Box, I drool. The rules themselves suggest possibilities get my mind going, get me
jazzed to play the game.
I think one of the points of confusion that leads to "Edition Wars" is the tendency to conflate the
form and structure of the rules themselves with the corporation that produced them. A great many of the anti-4e posts I have read (with some vicarious glee I admit) end up boiling down (at least in part) to a condemnation of WotC, Hasbro, or some combination thereof. And while I confess myself to be a fan of fringe art, a supporter of grassroots creativity, and open to the idea of "sticking it to the man" etc., I truly have nothing against those companies
per se. Hell, like James M., I am immensely grateful to WotC for giving D&D a shot in the arm and especially for the innovation of the OGL that made
Labyrinth Lord et. al. possible. If Hasbro put out a game or rules system I liked,
I would buy and play it, just as I would refrain from buying or playing a shitty or mediocre product that happened to be released by an OSR publisher I love.
So this may ultimately boil down to taste, but my point is that
the rules really do matter -- they certainly matter more than corporate politics, and they may even matter more (or at least exert a profound influence upon) all the wonderful, ineffable stuff that contributes to the "feel" of a campaign: house rulings, campaign setting, player inclinations, party makeup, etc. The
rules provide the container for all that great, creative, spontaneous stuff -- they are the form that shapes the substance of our campaigns and our gaming experiences.
This is why I am a "rules-light" OSR loyalist, and will happily leave 4e and
Pathfinder to other types of gamers.