Wednesday, February 11, 2009

I Survived Con of the North

I didn't run anything. I only played one game.

Okay, let me clarify a bit: There's a guy from a local game store who runs a drop-in drop-out D&D 3.5 game at all the local cons. I first encountered this two years ago, at MarsCon. I started a bard (at first level, naturally) and by the time that con was over, he was 3rd.

Well, going into this con he was 4th; coming out, he just made 6th. But that was at 10:00 pm on Sunday.

(I later calculated that I spend 28 hours in the game this weekend. And 26 hours in the hotel NOT in the game...)

Overall, I had a good time. I had hoped to make 6th level, and I did.

But I did rediscover the thing that I don't like about 3.5 (and I hasten to add that this is not necessarily a problem with the rules as written, it's more a problem with me):

It brings out the rules lawyer in me.

Now, I was raised by a pack of wild rules lawyers, back in the early 80's when I got started playing AD&D. If there was a rule, somebody could quote it (I got really good at the rules for two weapon fighting...)

One of the rules I loved best was the one at the very end of the DMG, about how the DM is in charge of the game and should make it his own. We all discussed that, but rarely applied it. We pretty much played by the book.

But there were arguments about rules! Even back then, we argued. (I think that could be the appropriate collective noun for roleplayers. You have a pride of lions, and a murder of crows; well, you could easily have an argument of roleplayers...)

And this weekend, I found myself falling back on the old ways, of reading the rules whenever anybody didn't know exactly how something worked -- the problem is, then I'd want to beat the offending party over the head with the rule. Not very social, I know. And it wasn't even my game, so it really wasn't my place to do I tried not to.

But there was this one guy who really ticked me off. I got into a bad mood and it stayed through most of Monday. (But I'm feeling MUCH better, now!)

Anyway, that's my con report.


Sham aka Dave said...

28 hours! Nice!

I'd like to chime in on the AD&D rules lawyering madness. That was the scene here as well. We tried to strictly limit such disagreements during actual play, though. We'd talk about things like psionics, alignment and grappling outside of the games to no end.

But we did frown upon such gamus interruptus that halted the dice rolling.

Will Douglas said...

Yeah, I think 28 hours in three days is a new record for me.

Back in the day, we didn't expressly forbid such arguments during the game. It was sport for most of us. For some, though, it seemed like they had more fun arguing the rules than actually playing the game.

That's not the way I want to play the game, though, especially today.

kesher said... argument of roleplayers.

hhahhahahahaaaaaa. Okay. That cracked me up. Sad but true.

I was recently reminded by my friend Bill that the one time we tried to play 3e, maybe six months after it had come out, we actually engaged in a 20 min., somewhat heated argument over the definition of "neutral evil." Sigh. I'm happy to say, that was the last time I was involved in any such fiasco. I honestly don't think I could take it seriously anymore.

Glad you had fun anyway, coffee!

John said...

Play OD&D! I haven't looked at my rule books in months and you guys have said nothin'!

Will Douglas said...

Yeah, that's the thing about OD&D. I hardly look at my character sheet, let alone rules -- just pure gaming. Good times.

And Kesher, I really wish I could take credit for that "argument of gamers" thing, but I think I swiped it from someone, long long ago. Don't remember who, though.

kesher said...

Well, as far as I'm concerned, you get credit!