3e players=consumers not creators

[satori01]

After reading the whinning about Demon power levels I was left with the burning question: Do people not understand the ease and realtive simplicity of powering up monsters in 3E?

So many threads here leave impressions that many campaigns have characters with Celestial Half dragon Were Donkey Ranger Deepwood Sniper characters in their parties, I would think some monster adjustment would be simple compared to DM'ing those characters.

The wonderous thing about 3E is one can realistically play 3e with a Celestial Half dragon Were Donkey Ranger Deepwood Sniper Character and still have a balanced non monty haul game,
porpotianality is very viable. This was not the case in 1e or 2e.

1e D&D eventually turned into a supplement feast, rules were provided by the company, Gygax admonished campaigns were all the rules were not used, claiming that if you didnt play by his rules you werent playing D&D.

2e was always a supplementfest, and this turned off many old players.

3e encouraged creativity right from the start. Rule 0 being the foundation, saying this is your game, so many of the game mechanics being transparent, and frankly waiting to after the core books were released to publish campaign settings so people if they wanted to play D&D had to make their own worlds or retrofit their old ones.

Dont be simple consumers, tinker, create, have fun.
Passive amussements are entertainment.
Fun is active and engaging.
Dont make D&D entertainment.

 

[diaglo]

the circle remains unbroken.

3ed is a supplement fest.

just ask any of the d20 publishers.

 

[Drew]

I agree with your point, although I will say that its nice when wizards does things EXACTLY as you would have done it so that you don't have to take the time to do the extra work. It doesn't happen often, but when it does its really cool to open a book and say "Yes. That's exactly how I would have done it."

That being said....

I want a Celestial Half dragon Were-Donkey Ranger Deepwood Sniper!

 

[Psion]

Okay, I know I was on the "the demons are alright" side of the house, but...

Just because someone wants something they can use does not mean that they are not creative. Au contraire. I like supplements that do things I am looking for because I am so busy creating other stuff.

That said, the whiners could power up the demons in the time that they took to bitch about it...

 

[The Serge]

Okay, I know I was on the "the demons are alright" side of the house, but...

Just because someone wants something they can use does not mean that they are not creative. Au contraire. I like supplements that do things I am looking for because I am so busy creating other stuff.

That said, the whiners could power up the demons in the time that they took to bitch about it...

Well, Psion, I have been "bitching" about it and I've made up my own arch-fiends as well in addition to templates, flavor text, and so on (I don't draw much anymore, so not too many illustrations). However, I think this issue could have been handled differently and that's part of the crux of my arguments.

As for creativity and such... Well, I think it depends. Some of the people on either side of the argument are very creative. I've received some nice compliments on my creations (including the archfiends), and U_K continues to receive comments and compliments on his CR system. I don't think debating an issue necessarily means that those involved are unaware of the ability to adjust matters to their liking. I think the debate is a reflection of people discussing something of interest to them... as consumers and as fans. No one is going to stop playing D&D because BoVD or any other supplement doesn't agree with their perspective entirely... at least I'm not. But, as a consumer, I think it's fine for me to present my perspective, challenge other people's perspectives, and have mine challenged in return.

Were-donkey?

 

[Steve Conan Trustrum]

Sheesh, if you think this is bad you should see the back-and-forth I'm having with a guy over on PEG's Weird War 2 list. He is bitching because PEG didn't include more details on guns, like rules for how they each react to elements such as rain, statistics on how loud they are, and details for how they are used. As he put it, to paraphrase, "not everyone who buys an rpg set in WWII is a gun nut and so the writer should include a page on how to use guns."

When I pointed out that he should do the research on such minutia himself (going so far as to even give him the keywords to punch into google) rather than waste space in an rpg book with this sort of data, he basically said that the rpg company is beholden to the consumer to teach the latter EVERYTHING they might need to know about the material covered in their games, including, as one of his examples, explaining just what the various parts of the guns are and how each is loaded. Talk about fostering GMs and players that are unable to think for themselves or apply common sense and imagination to a game ...

 

[Melan]

I would prefer to design adventures and cool campaign settings for my group, not monsters or rules. That simple.

 

[Henry]

I was commenting on a very similar premise in the Book of Vile Darkness review thread that you mention, although I would state it differently. In my view, there does seem to be a desire of increasing numbers of players over about the last decade (I could trace it sometime between 1988 and 1990 as a rough starting point) to be less inclined to "wing it" and more inclined to keep it verbatim as released books allow.

Perhaps this stems from the desire of game companies to sell their supplemental product that this behavior was encouraged? Perhaps the coming of Computer RPG's and Collectible card games influenced it? Perhaps even the emphasis on tournament play from that time onward fostered a feel to "keep the rules consistent?" I do not know.

What I do perceive is that many players will not alter a rule if it is from an official source like WotC, even if that rule causes them trouble. Even more complex, these same players will refuse to incorporate something unless it is officially from the producer of the Dungeons and Dragons game. I have seen some gamers on these very boards who enjoy use of The Psionics Handbook, or the Dungeon Master's guide, yet who would never dream of picking up a Malhavoc Press product for no other reason than it is not a WotC product, and is perceived to be substandard.

The perspective is surprising to me, considering the subculture of tinkerers and hobbyists that made D&D popular back in the 1970's and 1980's. Gary Gygax at this time (gathering my perceptions from various articles in Dragon and the DMG) did want to keep the game strictures better under his control, but the culture of wargaming grognards, so used to tinkering with their war rules to build a better game, did not follow his lead that closely.

(Some have speculated that had Gary's fledgling TSR had the same clout as, say Avalon Hill, this might have been different, but such as not to be.)

Our hobby was founded by tinkerers and self-supplementers, and to see a subset of gamers who will accept nothing less than official product is a little confusing to this old-schooler.

 

[Psion]

I was commenting on a very similar premise in the Book of Vile Darkness review thread that you mention, although I would state it differently. In my view, there does seem to be a desire of increasing numbers of players over about the last decade (I could trace it sometime between 1988 and 1990 as a rough starting point) to be less inclined to "wing it" and more inclined to keep it verbatim as released books allow.

Perhaps this stems from the desire of game companies to sell their supplemental product that this behavior was encouraged? Perhaps the coming of Computer RPG's and Collectible card games influenced it? Perhaps even the emphasis on tournament play from that time onward fostered a feel to "keep the rules consistent?" I do not know.

If this mentality does indeed exist, I'll venture a guess where it comes from: the products are more worth trusting. I remember back in the 2e days, when S&P was capable of producing clerics that combined the best aspects of fighters and mages with a quicker advancement table, or how the splatbooks varied wildly in power.

Or back in 1e, when we had stats for drow PCs with no additional cost, or where you could play a powered up fighter that was better than fighters used to be just for having a bad attitude.

By way of comparison, 3e is a breath of fresh air, requiring much less ajudication and GM wrangling, IME. In prior editions, "rolling your own" and making adjustments was almost de rigeur. Not so much in 3e.

That said, I still maintain this is a sideline. You don't have to be "lazy" or "uncreative" to want stuff you can use "as is." It's that much more time that you could be working on something else.

 

[The Serge]

I was commenting on a very similar premise in the Book of Vile Darkness review thread that you mention, although I would state it differently. In my view, there does seem to be a desire of increasing numbers of players over about the last decade (I could trace it sometime between 1988 and 1990 as a rough starting point) to be less inclined to "wing it" and more inclined to keep it verbatim as released books allow.

Perhaps this stems from the desire of game companies to sell their supplemental product that this behavior was encouraged? Perhaps the coming of Computer RPG's and Collectible card games influenced it? Perhaps even the emphasis on tournament play from that time onward fostered a feel to "keep the rules consistent?" I do not know.

What I do perceive is that many players will not alter a rule if it is from an official source like WotC, even if that rule causes them trouble. Even more complex, these same players will refuse to incorporate something unless it is officially from the producer of the Dungeons and Dragons game. I have seen some gamers on these very boards who enjoy use of The Psionics Handbook, or the Dungeon Master's guide, yet who would never dream of picking up a Malhavoc Press product for no other reason than it is not a WotC product, and is perceived to be substandard.

Well, I think part of the reason is that there is so much out there and a good deal of it is substandard and/or of questionable balance.

I do not use most of the material out there in my games... although I buy most of it. The reason is because I've found a lot of the material to overblown and or repetitive. When I run my games, I make it clear that I use all official WotC material with a few adjustments and then provide a list to players detailing additional sources and what is allowable from those sources. For example, I use all the traps from Traps and Treachery, most if not all of the material from Malhavoc Press, and quite a few of the material from Bastion Press and Green Ronin Publishing. I pick and choose things from Sword and Sorcery. For the most part, this allows me to control the flow of materials that enter in my games and reduces the possibility of me being sideswiped later down the road by someone who has discovered something "broken" in one of the additional supplements.

The reason I rarely change material in official WotC stuff is because I discovered during the first few months that the core rules were pretty balanced and that by making an adjustment in one area, something else would inadvertantly be affected. Additionally, most of the questions we've had were answered in later errata and FAQs. Since these experiences, I only change things after careful consideration. (Some of the changes I made then eliminated were things like giving Paladins constant protection from evil, stacking of AC, specialty classes for Priests, not requiring Priests to prepare spells, etc.). On the other hand, I prefer unofficial material, like Cook's alternate Bard and Sorcerer, many of the magic items and monsters from Bastion Press and Green Ronin, and certain spells from Sword and Sorcery.

I think it's up to DMs and their Players to sit down and review what works and doesn't work for them in their own games. I also think boards like these help gamers hear about alternatives and options, as well as allow them to test the validity of their decisions. I don't think anything WotC does is necessarily infallible, but I do think that using the official material as a sounding board is essential if one decides to do something different. From there, creativity will allow gamers to make the right adjustments and decisions for their games. WotC, however, should be (and generally is) sensitive to concerns and ideas of their gamers, another benefit of these boards.