No Second Edition Love?

[tx7321]

Ranes, its good to see 3.5 included that statement. I was talking about 3E (I don't have 3.5 so. :\ )

Perhaps such a statement exists someplace in 3E? Anyhow, there was a difference with 1E where house rules and official rules were frequently weaved together, and some official rules were optional, thus only the DM really new what was going on (making challanges less common in 1E). "Thats good to know, but this is how I'm doing it" was the mantra for many DMs (including Gygax himself).

 

[Ranes]

3.0 DMG p6, under Introduction: "You get to decide how the rules work, which rules to use, and how strictly to adhere to them."

 

[tx7321]

Sweet. I missed that. RangerREG was correct.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I gather a lot of people actually created speciality priests for their settings? My friends and I never bothered. We always used the generic cleric stats that were presented in the PHB, my personal reasoning being that it allowed for access to more spheres than specialty priests did. :|

I don't know about a lot of other people, but I thought that the specialty priest was the best part of the edition.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

RangerREG, good for you and your group, but what does that have to do with written rules. Imagine for a moment that 3E was your first experiance of an FRPG. How long would it have taken to figure out you all needed to agree the DM is the final say on the rules (whats used and how their interpreted). And even if your group was smart enough to do this, that doesn't mean others would be. Thats like saying you should automatically know you need to take $200 for passing go every turn even if its not written down in the rules.

BTW I like that "Rule 0". Has a ring to it.

Having read your post before you edited it, it seems that youre shifting the argument now that you've been proven in error.

The DM's guide plainly states on page 6:

When everyone gathers around the table to play the game, you’rein charge. That doesn’t mean you can tell people what to do outsidethe boundaries of the game, but it does mean that you’re thefinal arbiter of the rules within the game. Good players will alwaysrecognize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics,even superseding something in a rulebook. Good DMs knownot to change or overturn a published rule without a good, logicaljustification so that the players don’t rebel (more on that later).

Players new to RPG's arent expected to know everything out of the gate, to expect that is unrealistic at best. Most of the time with RPG's people either learn from experienced players or they learn as they go. Either way it still doesnt change the fact that the rules still state that the DM is the final arbiter of the rules in the most recent incarnation of D&D.

 

[tx7321]

Shin, I agree, RangerREG was right! What do you want a pint of blood?

Thats the first time after years of Edition Wars I've seen anyone post that sucker.

BTW when I change statements after posting them, its because I'm rereading them just after posting. I don't go back and change things in old posts once my opinion changes.
I should be using the "preview post" button to do this, but I hate taking that extra step.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Shin, I agree, RangerREG was right! What do you want a pint of blood?

Sorry didnt mean to pile on there.

On a separate note the one thing that I don't like about 3E has more to do with the people who play it than the rules. People (maybe just people here) seem to be grafted to the rules as written simply because the ruleset is so detailed. These people don't seem inclined to figure out things or resolve problems, when they arise, on thier own.

As someone who's played D&D from the red box set onward we were used to adjudicating things that werent covered in the text. It seems that the newer players and DM's lack this simple ability. Either that or they dont want to be bothered with any sort of adjudication that isnt directly covered in the rules. Also there's the constant griping about stuff being broken. Personally my problem with that concept is two fold: alot of the time people arent playtesting, theyre just looking at something and saying "It's broken".
The other problem is even if after use in play the rule/PrC etc is actually broken it's usually your call as a DM whether to not to use it and or fix it.

It just seems that alot of things that would just seem like common sense in terms of gaming and making your game run smoother gives way to whining, griping and attacks on WOTC, it's designers and people who actually like the d20 ruleset. No game or ruleset is perfect, not even C&C, not even True 20, not even 2E. I'm far from a rules tinkerer, but I know enough when I come across something that is a problem either too cut it or fix it. In my experience that's part of your job as a DM.

 

[Storm Raven]

"How do you jump in AD&D 1e?" Exactly. Outside of hitting and magic, there's alot of stuff left up in the air, and that (I think) was intentional. The DM has to figure this out, and thus you have a very fluid experiance. I think this adds to the "realism" of the game, as you have only a mild idea of your chances.

Except that in real life, most people have a pretty good idea of their chances of successfully jumping a particular distance or perform various other tasks. Usually a much better idea than they have using the "pull it out of my behind" system. A game that relies upon the "suspense" of not knowing one's chances to accomplish fairly mundane tasks is a badly flawed game.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Do they? Suppose Carl Lewis can jump 22 feet. Slap him in plate mail. I bet he has no clue how far he can jump. Jumping in plate mail doesn't come up in the practice arena very often.

 

[Storm Raven]

Not literally. All that means is that the DM is not questioned once the game starts.

I hope you don't mind if I laugh at that statement. In my experience, the DM is always questioned once the game starts, on all kinds of rules calls. No matter what edition of D&D you are playing. No matter what RPG you are playing, for that matter.