An epiphany

[S'mon]

I think it was Monte said that 3e was about "taking the GM out of the equation". I think you're basically right, the 3e RAW are designed to eliminate or at least lessen the need for GM judgement and shift power to the players.

 

[swrushing]

3rd edition tends to place more control in the player's hands.

not in my experience.

Why do you think it does?

 

[Frostmarrow]

I think I've figured it out.

Old school feel is where the GM has more control over the game.

3rd edition tends to place more control in the player's hands.

This is my theory.

Discuss.

According to Robin D Laws you are right.

Robin's Laws of Good Gamemastering

 

[Whisper72]

Hmmm... I think the control part is somewhat flawed. Depends also a bit as to what you consider to be control over the game.

I think the main thing is the rules stuff. New school is rules heavy, old school is rules light. As a result, Old school is more free form, New School is more codified.

Neither better or worse, but to those who like freeform, the plethora of rules (yeah, yeah, I know they are all officially 'options') feel like a straitjacket, and is therefore disliked.

Those who like to see rules about things in stead of the whim of the DM like the newer rules better.

In the end, it means that the quality of the DM needed changes:

Old School: fairness and consistancy and creativity are required more
New School: knowledge, grasp and insight in the rules and arbitration are needed more.

Those who have had unfair, inconsistent or uncreative DM's (creativity here is not meant in terms of creating adventures, but in terms of making up rulings on the spot) in the past will have bad memories of old skool games, and see the new rules as a delivery from that evil.

those who had tons of fun with 'good' DM's in the past, did lots of fun freeform stuff, will now feel constrained and therefore hunker after the old rulesets...

Something like that...

 

[Numion]

I think it was Monte said that 3e was about "taking the GM out of the equation". I think you're basically right, the 3e RAW are designed to eliminate or at least lessen the need for GM judgement and shift power to the players.

I don't think it's about power. 3E indeed lessens the need for DM to make up rules on the spot, and some feel that this should be an essential part of DMing, and taking that away would somehow lessen the DMs power over the game. I disagree.

DM is still the single most important participant in the game. He needs to make less rules up on the spot, but he still controls everything else within the game, sans PCs. He can decide what the monsters do, he can adjust the details of the adventure, he can do whatever he pleases behind the scenes. The rules interface is clearer, so players have a better action-consequence knowledge in this edition. This holds the DM to a higher standard - do what you will, but play the same game the players are playing.

 

[Henry]

At its core, I believe der Kluge's theory is correct.

DM is still the single most important participant in the game. He needs to make less rules up on the spot, but he still controls everything else within the game, sans PCs...This holds the DM to a higher standard - do what you will, but play the same game the players are playing.

However, in my opinion this does, indeed, mean less control of the game. Just the fact that he does have fewer adjudications to make means he does have less authority over how the players interact with the world. Just like a Constitutional Monarch is less powerful than a Monarch, more codified rules mean there IS a standard, and standards mean less "wiggle room." With no standards established, the DM makes a ruling, and the players only have two opinions to go on (their own, and the DM's). With more codified rules, the players have three opinions to go on -- their's, the DM's, and the designers'.

Those who have had unfair, inconsistent or uncreative DM's (creativity here is not meant in terms of creating adventures, but in terms of making up rulings on the spot) in the past will have bad memories of old skool games, and see the new rules as a delivery from that evil.

those who had tons of fun with 'good' DM's in the past, did lots of fun freeform stuff, will now feel constrained and therefore hunker after the old rulesets...

Excellent summation - I agree.

It feels like the players have more control, but in reality they just have a greater understanding of the rules and more options. The amount of control players have always depends on the DM and not the system.

To me, this amounts to the DM having less control, no matter how it's worded. Just like a skilled lawyer has more control over the legal system because of his knowledge, and how a lawyer WITHOUT a legal code is almost powerless.

I don't think either situation (more ad-hoc control or less) is better, but either one needs a different set of skills to make work well, and the ones who have mastered one skill set aren't always going to be skilled with the other skill set...

 

[Jupp]

In the time since I started reading those discussions about old-school gaming or the "new way" of doing things I never did understand one thing:

Does it really matter which one of those styles you have as long as the group has fun playing through an adventure? Does it really matter if the rules are made up if they are consistent to the game and also used afterwards and everyone agreed to use them?

In fact, I am happier if I know that the DM will do the ruling for me, that's what he is there for, he oversees and judges the game. That gives me more time to concentrate on the storyline instead of studying (and knowing) the rules. This applies not only to older editions but to 3E as well. If the DM is good enough to give the players a good game experience it really does not matter if the rules are made up from time to time or not.

 

[diaglo]

Countertheory...

"Old school" feel is the assumption, "if it isn't explicitly mentioned as something your character can try, you can't try it."

"New school" feel is the assumption "if it isn't explicitly mentioned as something your character CAN'T try, you can try it."

Basically, old school feel is about limiting options (often with different resolution systems), which makes the game easier IMO for a GM in some respects... your players are basically choosing from a list of options, which you can pre-know.

New school thinking is about "you can do anything you want" and trying to come up with rules for every combination people can try. It's easier in that there are rules for things. Its harder in that as a GM, you have no idea what wild idea is coming out of left field.

Discuss.

--The Sigil

i'll just call Bullstuff on your theory.

Old school was all about openness. free use of whatever you wanted as long as the referee said okay.

new school is about having everything spoonfed to you. but still requires the referee to say okay.

Discuss.

 

[Henry]

i'll just call Bullstuff on your theory.

Old school was all about openness. free use of whatever you wanted as long as the referee said okay.

new school is about having everything spoonfed to you. but still requires the referee to say okay.

Discuss.

One thing, D -- in some play groups, "openness" was the same thing as saying, "sorry, can't do it."

In some groups, "being spoonfed" is the same thing as saying, "you have lots more options spelled out than you used to."

Not everyone had the skill at DM'ing that you and your group did, back then. To my 13-year old mind, the books had ALL the rules; there were no more, and to heck with you for suggesting there was more that could be customized or added. A DM experienced now, might take AD&D or OD&D and house-rule it DIRECTLY into something that would resemble 3E in characters made, playstyle assumed, and options given.

 

[Belen]

Not everyone had the skill at DM'ing that you and your group did, back then. To my 13-year old mind, the books had ALL the rules; there were no more, and to heck with you for suggesting there was more that could be customized or added. A DM experienced now, might take AD&D or OD&D and house-rule it DIRECTLY into something that would resemble 3E in characters made, playstyle assumed, and options given.

Funny thing is...I never encountered anyone who complained about "can't do it" groups until I started reading messageboards.

Not to mention that Diaglo is just responding to what appears to be a sour grapes post that really denigrates older editions of the game.