Does 3/3.5E cause more "rule arguments" than earlier editions?

[BSF]

V3.x fosters and rewards those who like to number crunch and reduces the game to counting squares and adding bonuses while becoming less and less about improvisation and creativity... yay so much fun. The game is becoming more and more like Miniature Wargaming and less like the game I grew up playing in 80s.

Anecdotally, I disagree pretty seriously. I have seen great improvisation and creativity in all versions of the game, and in several other games besides.

While I enjoyed my games in the '80s in general, I have more memories of better games in the '00s. Conversely, more of my games in the '80s were similar to wargames. Part of the issue is simply group and table dynamics. A good group with a good vibe around the table can make any number of games creative and enjoyable. But with a group I have played AD&D with and 3.X, I am enjoying the 3.X game much more than the AD&D game.

 

[BroccoliRage]

I do feel that the current edition is a little too much like miniature wargaming, and I'm not surprised by that at all. WOTC's biggest sellers for a long time were games like Mage Knight and Magic: The Gathering. They took tried and tested formulas and ran with them. That's good marketing and a good way to sell the game as new, you can't begrudge them that. It's a competitive market, and we live in capitalism. I preferred TSR's way of doing things, but when a business has rough times like they did and chooses to sell their rights to another company, you gotta hand it to the purchasing company when they breathe life back into it, regardless of your opinion of the product.

I don't think that the current edition is inferior for that, it's only due to preference that I don't play it. I don't want to learn a new fantasy system, though I don't have a problem sitting in on a game. I don't think a system can be blamed for the amount of rules lawyers attracted to it, because often that depends on the popularity and availibility of the system. D&D3e is the most widely played, mostly easily and readily availible table top rpg (go into a Walden Books, Borders, or other chain bookstore and you'll see), so of course you'll find more rules lawyers. That isn't a flaw in the system, just a sign of the times. 3e is the hottest table-top rpg, so it has more fans. More fans=more rules lawyers.

Some of the attitude may have changed, and the game is more standardized now than it ever was. Of course the guidelines have gone through a major overhaul, but I don't think that any edition of any game fosters rules lawyering any more than others. It lies solely in the attitudes of the players, a system/edition is only a group of formulas.

Regarding the side debate, I don't feel that DM who chooses to work within the rules as written is inferior to a DM who takes a more active role in disambiguation, arbitrition, or overhauling/omitting of rules. You can't be superior at something like role playing, it's too subjective a ground and without a standard outside opinions to measure from. I don't like to limit myself when unnneccescary, but other DM's may enjoy the challenge of working within someone else's rules, or need the framework.

 

[dorentir]

It's like arguing arithmetic: sure you can do that if you like, but in the end, right is (generally speaking) right, and that's that.

Whereas arguing about art, or something equally arbitrary. . . there's just so much more room for it.

But games like D&D have always been more about art than science. Back about 100 years ago a friend of mine was always convincing me to just try playing those Avalon Hill war games with him. He would always get frustrated with me and I would always get frustrated with the rules because I was always wanting to do things not covered in the rules. So for him it was a game of strategy where one could estimate that "my infranty has a movement rate of x and his cavalry has a movement rate of y so if they continue on their current vector I will get to point z before he does..." And I was always frustrating him by asking to do things not covered in the rules.
Q: "Can my cavalry dismount and dismantle part of the fence?"
A: "No."
Q: "Why not? Are they strapped into the saddle or something? I'm not having them build the brooklyn bridge -- I just want a couple of guys to take down some of this farmer's fence so the cannons can get rolled through there."
A: "The rules don't say you can dismantle the fence so you can't."

When we finally discovered D&D I never looked back. I loved the game because it was just so open ended... you could invent tactics not covered in the rules, generate a dice roll and go. So if my character wanted to try to pole vault over the moat with an awl pike, he could try to do it.

My complaint about 3e isn't rules lawyering --- I don't think 3e makes people rules lawyers, I think some people just play that way --- they want to use the rules to their advantage somehow. Not my cup o' tea but its the way some people have fun. I get tired of the massive amounts of info a DM needs to keep track of to run a campaign. Gone are the days when I could have a whole evening's adventure on 2-3 pages of looseleaf and 1-2 maps. Needing SO much information at my disposal just to run the game -- descriptions of feats scattered through 3 or more books for example really means we spend a lot more time resolving the mechanics. Used to be in 4 hours play we could make it through a dozen combats and still have had time for some other stuff as well. These days, 2 minor encounters or 1 larger encounter and a few other things and we are out of time. Granted, we didn't play 1e 100% rules as written...

 

[Hussar]

However, I do think one hallmark of a good DM is being able to "wing it" if required to step outside the rule set, for whatever reason.

See, that I do disagree with. Not the whole part, just the "whatever reason" bit. I have no problems, and I agree that its the sign of a good DM, with a DM who, when confronted with something not covered in the rules, can make it work. However, that "whatever reason" also includes, "I think my way is better, and if you don't, too bad", which annoys the heck out of me.

Maybe it's because at no point in my gaming career have I ever played with people who weren't also DM's. When I started gaming, we always sharred DMing responsibilities. In current days, three of my five players also DM their own games. This means that they are likely as well versed in the rules, if not moreso, than I am. I have absolutely no problems with turning to one of my players and saying, "I don't know if I'm doing this right, am I?"

BroccoliRage, no offense intended, but, if a DM told me that no matter what, regardless of anything in the rules, I was 100% not allowed to question his rulings, I wouldn't play. We all make mistakes. I rely on my players to catch mine.

 

[Vlad Le Démon]

I can't see how 3e leads to rules arguments unless you just don't read the rulebooks.

I think this is the key sentence.
The problem is not with D&D only...this is the same with any RPG...I noticed that fewer gamers know the rules...they don't read rules...I've seen some players who don't know how multiclassing works, who don't know what HD means, who don't know the How does it stacks ? rule...and so on...
When I read the WotC Optimisation Board, I found many builds that are wrong because of misread rule, prerequisites that are not respected....

Sometimes I'm asking myself if the world is filled with illiterates.

 

[Thurbane]

However, that "whatever reason" also includes, "I think my way is better, and if you don't, too bad", which annoys the heck out of me.

I can see your point, but I can honestly say with over 20 years of RPG experience, I haven't come accross that type of DM (GM) since the very early days at school, and that was only because he had a personal grudge against some of the players (me included).

I dunno, if I found myself in a situation where I couldn't enjoy a game because of a houserule, I'd talk with the DM one on one with no one else around and ask his reasoning behind his houserule. If, after the discussion, I still found the houserule to be a sticking point, I'd leave the game, that simple. I wouldn't lament about how things might be if he were more tractable.

To give an example, a good friend of mine (who I still play with years later) had a very complicated and elaborate house rule set for combat when he DM'd, which included weapon and armor damage and many other such minutae which I felt detracted from the game, rather than added to it. I spoke to him about it once, and he gave me his reasons for why he wanted to run his campaign that way. I could see all of his points, but didn't really agree with them. I asked if he'd reconsider, but he said that was the way he wanted to run things. I made a conscious decision to keep playing, and work past my initial reservations with his DMing style. I could have just as easily decided that it wasn't the type of game I wanted to play in and respectfully dropped out.

 

[BroccoliRage]

Hussar, I wouldn't be offended. I would tell you to not let the door hit ya on the way out.

I don't suffer from a shortage of players, so if folks don't lke the way I play, I tell them maybe we can have a beer sometime over a movie, but I ain't changing a system that has worked for 16 years because they don't like it. My rulings are final, and I am not a tool the dice use to make decisions. I've met people who don't like my style of play, and I haven't cared one bit. Some folks claim I'm too rigid, and others have sang my praises from the rooftops. My take? I'm seasoned, is all. What is D&D? In addition to a strategy game, a role playing game, and an amusing pass time, it's an elaborate game of Bull Sith. Psychological warfare is part of the game, and one of the greatest weapons a DM has is Rule 0. You wouldn't remove your nuclear arsenal if you were a general in today's day and age, but you wouldn't abuse it either as it can kill everything off if you do.


Besides, questioning isn't my problem. Endless debate is.


I'll give you an example:

Player: I'd like to try sliding down the staircase hand-rail while drawing my sword. Is that possible?

Me: Well, we don't have written rules for that. Let's see, make two dexterity checks.

Player: Why not just one?

Me: It's a complex action, and one that takes balance and coordination. The first check is to slide down the railing, the next check is to see if you maintained your balance while drawing your weapon.

Player: (Succeeds first check, fails second check) Aw, man.

DM: Hmmm. Well you had your sword out, and you were falling to your side, with the railing acting as a fulcrum to your bodie's lever. Roll another dexterity check to see if you landed on your sword for damage.

Player: Okay. (Fails.) But wait. I would have tossed my sword away.

Me: (Thinks.) Hmmm. That's some pretty quick thinking for a 10 intelligence, especially when being caught up in the heat of battle and sliding down the hand railing. Roll an Intelligence check.

Player: (Fails again.) Damn it!

Me: Alright. You failed two checks, so I'm going to rule that you take 1d6 damage from falling on the blade of your sword. Hey, it would have been cool if the dice agreed with you.

Player: Alright. Damn. (drinks beer, lights cigarette, grins a little at his slight misfortune, rolls damage, moves on.)


Most folks lose graciously. It's part of being an adult. Part of being a DM is to dole out appropriate consequences, and I feel the example above (an actual occurence from one of my games) is an appropriate ruling. 1d6 is not crippling at medium levels, especially given the relative probability of rolling a 1. 1 damage? Oh, no, a paper cut. Are you really going to be so petty as to argue over that? The players in my game accept my rulings as final because they are adults, not overly attached to a concept written down on a peice of paper, and are willing to move on. If the player wanted to, he could have cracked open the UA or found a passage I had missed in the DMG, and I would take a look at it. IF the rule in the DMG was outside of core mechanics, I would think it over. IF it seemed better than my system for whatever reason, I would go with that. If it seemed needlessly ofuscated, obtuse, or just ridiculously complex for a simple balancing act gone wrong, I would dismiss it.


Now if the player continued to combat my decision, I'd tell him that my ruling was final. There is no further discussion, we're adults, his character is obviously going to live through this, and i feel the decision makes sense and keeps the game moving at an even clip. I've considered his stance, and I have rejected it on X grounds. He is welcome to try whatever he wants, do whatever he wants, be anything he wants. It's my job to figure out how the world reacts to all this, both when it comes to physics and social aspects. It has nothing to do with a player vs. DM mentality, it's me referreeing the game. He's welcome to play in a different game if he feels that strongly about it.

 

[Hussar]

I agree Thurbane. However, I feel that "like it or lump it" is a bit extreme. Maybe it's because I've never been in areas where there were large numbers of gamers, making jumping games a viable choice. Then again, I tend to play with friends, meaning that gaming night was also a night to get together with friends. If the game is no longer fun, then, well, hanging out with friends isn't going to be much fun either.

But, really, to me its a respect issue. I honestly trust and respect my players enough that I let them make the rulings fairly often. I ask and someone around the table is bound to know the answer. In return, when I don't ask, they don't bother double checking because they are fairly confident that I know what I'm talking about. In other words, it all comes down to mutual respect and responsibility.

To me, in heirarchical games where the DM's word is absolute law, then, any failing in the game is 100% his fault. In a game where the load is distributed between the DM and the players, then every gets to keep the game going. Besides that, I'm awfully lazy and can't be bothered learning every single rule. Thus, I get to spread the workload out and stay in the DM's chair.

I really wonder if many of the people who complain about the massive headache of running 3.x haven't twigged on the idea of simply offloading as much of the workload as possible on the players. Make them 100% responsible for their characters - which includes knowing the rules for how their characters work. Sure, my group makes mistakes - we were allowing a 5 foot step in Great Cleave for a few sessions until someone caught it (wasn't me), which meant that the barbarian was having a bit too much fun for a while. Meh, we caught it and I doubt it really made that much of a difference overall.

However, if I forbade players from looking up various rules, then that rule would have stuck in my campaign. Over a longer period it could have led me to believe that Great Cleave is seriously broken. It wasn't broken, I just wasn't using it right.

 

[Vlad Le Démon]

I agree Thurbane. However, I feel that "like it or lump it" is a bit extreme. Maybe it's because I've never been in areas where there were large numbers of gamers, making jumping games a viable choice. Then again, I tend to play with friends, meaning that gaming night was also a night to get together with friends. If the game is no longer fun, then, well, hanging out with friends isn't going to be much fun either.

But, really, to me its a respect issue. I honestly trust and respect my players enough that I let them make the rulings fairly often. I ask and someone around the table is bound to know the answer. In return, when I don't ask, they don't bother double checking because they are fairly confident that I know what I'm talking about. In other words, it all comes down to mutual respect and responsibility.

To me, in heirarchical games where the DM's word is absolute law, then, any failing in the game is 100% his fault. In a game where the load is distributed between the DM and the players, then every gets to keep the game going. Besides that, I'm awfully lazy and can't be bothered learning every single rule. Thus, I get to spread the workload out and stay in the DM's chair.

I really wonder if many of the people who complain about the massive headache of running 3.x haven't twigged on the idea of simply offloading as much of the workload as possible on the players. Make them 100% responsible for their characters - which includes knowing the rules for how their characters work. Sure, my group makes mistakes - we were allowing a 5 foot step in Great Cleave for a few sessions until someone caught it (wasn't me), which meant that the barbarian was having a bit too much fun for a while. Meh, we caught it and I doubt it really made that much of a difference overall.

However, if I forbade players from looking up various rules, then that rule would have stuck in my campaign. Over a longer period it could have led me to believe that Great Cleave is seriously broken. It wasn't broken, I just wasn't using it right.

I agree with you...a week ago a friend said that he will run a monte cook's chtulhu game...
He asked "What is your character's profession ?"
I answered: "Private investigator"
He said "You cannot, this is not in the Lovecraftian Spirit"
Me: "This is authorized by the game, do you mean that the game is not Lovecraftian ?"
He said : "This is not the way I thought my campaign..."
Me: "I will go for a Archeologist..."
Him:"...ok..."
Me: "...named Ohio Smith..."
Him "...No...this name is stupid, I will choose your name and your background..."
Me: "...and you will play my character..."

Luckily for him I didn't name all his characters he have played in my previous (or other friends) games that have really ridiculous names...

 

[Raven Crowking]

Again, it's an internet discussion which will, by its very nature last for pages and pages. Around the table, such an issue, if it ever came up at all, would likely last about 15 seconds.

As DannyAlcatraz said, it's the internet that gives the perception of these debates raging. Around 99.9% of gaming tables, they never come up.

Because we become aware of something on the Internet, it does not follow that "Around 99.9% of gaming tables, they never come up."

I do concede, of course, that arguing on the Internet is more fun (often) than arguing in real life, so Internet arguments seem to last longer. OTOH, those rules questions nearly always come up as an adjunct to an argument that happened at someone's table (or all those posters are lying).

If you have a strong set of rules and an established means to arbitrate disputes, you shouldn't be having these sorts of problems. I am suggesting that groups who have these problems do so not because of the ruleset, but because they lack an established means to arbitrate disputes.