Sorry - I think the point was missed...

[Gentlegamer]

I believe that there are three kinds of people who interact with D&D:

1) People who play it

2) People who DM it

3) People who design content for it

You forgot:

4) People who market and spin it as the "one true system"

 

[Akrasia]

I believe most of us who use 3e in a simulationist vein hold no illusion that 3e serves a halfway serviceable tool for 'simulating reality'. Rather, what I believe those who GM in the same manner as I do is a world that functions on a level totally unlike our own, a world where the supernatural has a meaningful impact on day to day living, where good and evil are more than abstract principles, where potential is limitless and where mortal peril is a fact of life. In short we are trying to simulate a world where there is much wahoo. The level of detail and customization that 3e provides allows us to more fully immerse our players within that world. When we play the reality of this world takes a back seat.

Fair enough. (I never had that experience with the 3e rules myself, but I can understand why some people think that 3e satisfies this desideratum.)

 

[Akrasia]

Old news is no news
...
Player options, GM headaches
Dancey describes the emphasis on providing players with concrete options - "if I do this and this and this, I want to know exactly what the modifiers will be without depending on the GM." All well and good, as far as it goes. In theory it should make the GM's job easier - everything is spelled out. In practice however, that may not always be the case - the increase in complexity in front of the screen, for players who have to manage one character sheet, is compounded exponentially behind the screen for the poor GM. Some GMs make up their monster and NPC modifiers on the fly as a result, which to some degree negates any advantage that was gained by putting more control over modifiers in the players' hands in the first place - GM fiat is still alive and well, largely as a result of trying to give the players more control over the game. This is without recourse the usual, overt means of GMs hosing players - encounters that are too powerful, nerfing character abilities, and so on.

An inexperienced or overworked or 'power-mongering' GM has just as much ability to be a prick in the current iteration of the game as in the past - this is an illusory improvement.

S/he's called Game Master for a reason
...

Chicken or egg? Not in this case
...
Proposed for analysis: The game does not exist without the work of the GM - a system that makes the GMs job easier rather than harder is more likely to result in happier GMs and more and happier players than one that doesn't.

Rewarding rules-mastery, or adventure-mastery?
...

This was an excellent post, Shaman. I especially agree with the comments quoted above.

 

[Ace]

I'm not Ryan, but I'll toss in my worthless tuppence on this: I'd say that just as much as the new system traded in on the in-place network of D&D players, it itself contributed to the return of sales success to pre-1990 levels because of the so-called "Skaff Effect" which was accelerated by the creation of the OGL and the d20 STL. D&D definitely was languishing between 1990 and 1997, and if (despite edition) all other products ultimately drove D&D sales because it was still #1 despite languishing, then the OGL make the masses return to it over and over again, even quicker. If I'm quoting Charles Ryan correctly, last year was the best D&D year of sales ON RECORD (as in, ever.) Whether it's true is up to the sales figures to be believed, because TSR didn't keep as good a track of sales in the early years, but even if you don't take that as true, it restored the sales of the game as a whole to levels unseen in 15 or 20 years, easily.

Therefore, for as much as d20 would have succeeded or not, it and the OGL had as much effect on D&D as D&D had on it. Without it, it may not have gotten its foot in the door, but when it did, it added it's own draw to the picture.

These are excellent points. keep in mind though that the population of the US has increased nearly 50% since D&D was introduced. The real question I have is "What percent of people actually play and buy D&D Stuff on a regular basis" and "has the demographic significantly expanded since the 'peak' some 15 to 20 years ago" -- total sales only tell part of the story

 

[Psion]

(As an aside, I find it strange that some people think that D&D 3e does a good job in "simulating reality" -- but that is another matter.)

I thought we went over this ground last time we had the back-and-forth about fidelity and consistency. How quickly some forget.

 

[Andre]

A major tool one can use to create a feeling of magic, mystery, wonder, or tension is controlled information. If the players know all the rules, you cannot surprise them with anything. Players have a difficult time reducing an encounter with a monster into a collision of stat-blocks if they don't know what rules the monster follows in full. Ignorance keeps the players guessing, rather than calculating.

Agreed. In fact, I don't mean that they should know magic item and creature descriptions, just the rules of gameplay. Hiding the actual game rules from players can cause a couple problems, IMO.

First, many players also GM, so the idea that players shouldn't know all the rules isn't workable (certainly not in my group, where everyone takes a turn as GM). It also, IMO, can foster trust between players and the GM, as players will know that the GM is making a ruling based on the rules, not to "shaft" a particular player. I've lost count of the number of times I've fallen back on the rules to sooth the ruffled feathers of a player who felt picked on.

Second, 3.x is very detailed and complex. Though it does have a unifying mechanic, it has countless exceptions throughout the game rules. And some subsystems do not use the standard d20 + modifier mechanic. And many rules aren't used very often. It all adds up to a lot for one person to be expert in. Having players who know the rules takes some of the burden from the GM, who has enough to do during gameplay. Being able to say to a player "You just took two negative levels. Please look up the effects while I continue with another player" just makes my job easier. If the system was simpler, I'd be more inclined to hide some of these things - but it isn't.

That said, I have no problem using descriptions and leaving it up to the players/characters to figure things out. The first time I had an npc use death knell, the look on my players' faces was priceless (I basically described it like a corpse explosion, ala Diablo II). They had no idea what spell was just cast, but they knew the evil cleric needed to die! From a rules perspective, I didn't need them to know the spell, so they didn't. It really depends on how much extra burden it places on me, as GM, when hiding the rules.

Just my two cents. Other GM's will run their games differently, and as long as it works for their groups, that's fine by me.

 

[Akrasia]

I thought we went over this ground last time we had the back-and-forth about fidelity and consistency. How quickly some forget.

No I didn't forget (despite my efforts ). I acknowledged this in my reply to Campbell above.

 

[Spell]

Essentially, all I see here is DMs who are so full of themselves that they believe they never make mistakes or that their players are too dumb to notice the mistakes.

maybe you're playing for different reasons than i am. i play to have fun. i know i could make some unreasonable calls, i know my players could do the same, and i know we really don't care, as long as the plot goes on, everybody is happy with the way the sessions are run, and everybody thinks that those mistakes were made for inexperience.
if one of my players rejects one of my decisions with a logical explanation, and convinces me that what he's saying is (or could be) true, then i change my mind.
we're adult, aren't we?

on the other hand, if i wanted to have the perfect swordfight simulation i would play LARPs. that is was easier to handle, and way more realistic!

 

[fredramsey]

Essentially, all I see here is DMs who are so full of themselves that they believe they never make mistakes or that their players are too dumb to notice the mistakes.

Wow. I mean, wow.

I don't really know where to begin.

You know, I'm just going to let the above statement stand on its own. There's nothing I can point out that your statement doesn't already do. Anything more would be armchair psychology.

Wow.

:\

 

[TerraDave]

Mr. Dancey, thanks for the fascinating thread! Its always great to have the inside perspective, and I apreciate your willingness to discuss at such length.

Have you not experienced the phenomenon of people believing something must be true, even when it is not - even when some evidence in their own experience suggests it is not true?

But, we are not supposed to talk about politics or religion on the boards