An epiphany

[ThirdWizard]

not in my experience.

Why do you think it does?

If the players arn't allowed to know the rules, then the DM has more power.

 

[Henry]

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.

We never complained because we didn't know any better. I myself in my earlier years found that the rules did all that I asked of them -- however, I didn't ask a lot, as my playstyle was pretty direct and simplistic up until about 1990 or so. As I played further, I got tons of use out of the various Players Options books (except for Skills and Powers -- too unbalanced for me) because me and my players wanted more than "stock" fighters, paladins, wizards, specialist wizards, etc.

I don't see Sigil's post as "sour grapes", myself -- just an expalanation of how a lot of players DID see the older rules after more options were introduced mechanically.

If the players arn't allowed to know the rules, then the DM has more power.

I'd even go far as to say if there ARE NO RULES to know, only what the DM decides, then the DM has more power. There is such a thing as "too far" in either extreme, though. Too far one way, and the DM is basically writing a "choose your own adventure" book. Too far towards codification, and the DM almost might as well not be there, as a sufficiently advanced computer program can take over, and do a better job at it. (Computer Programs are already taking over character creation! ) Either way, you end up with less choice than what the happy medium brings you.

Here's a weird thought -- it's just like the political spectrum I learned back in junior high! Too far in one direction, and you still end up in the same place.

 

[diaglo]

...because me and my players wanted more than "stock" fighters, paladins, wizards, specialist wizards, etc.

never had anyone play a fighting man the same as any other fighting man. everyone played a unique character.

the power is in the group. the referee just interprets the rules. the players decide where they go, what they want to do, what they want to play...

rules as guidelines. so the player wants to play a homeless guy with a new look on life and become a paladin... say he rolled poorly and didn't qualify. that still didn't stop the player from doing all the things he wanted to do... and it made for a great quest or build later or whatever floated the player's boat.

i worked with my players. i made rulings. they came back for more. over and over and over again until we hammered out something that worked for the campaign

 

[Sundragon2012]

I think that increased codification is a good thing in some ways but not so good in others. When I look ad D&D now I see a system that is more integrated and tight and that leads to the DM having to do less on the spot rule arbitration. That can be good because then the DM is more free to concentrate on the setting, the adventure and the role-playing instead of attempting to fix gaps in the rules.

On the downside those who like rules lite are not going to find it in 3e but 2e wasn't rules light either really but just seemed that way because it was very easy to hack apart what you didn't want to use without causing serious repercussions. 2e had a lot of rules but I think they were easy to discard than 3e's rules.

About the DM thing. I have yet to see players more "powerful" in any 3e game than they were in 1e or 2e. If anything the codification and more exacting nature of the rules makes the rules-lawer pain in the ass player shut up sooner than ever. Because the rules-lawer isn't really about the rules, but the loopholes in the rules. Then add that to the RULE that the DMs word is LAW also known as Rule 0, the DM has total control of his game and best of all has to worry less about minutea and can more easily concentrate on the bigger picture.

Players should never be under the false assumption that they run the game, they don't. Any DM knows that the countless hours spent preparing and tweaking one's campaign makes pale in comparison the time any individual player puts in. Most don't even want the job of DMing.

The only time I had a player thinking he could "rebel" against my authority was in 2e when he wanted some game breaking BS character concept that not only didn't fit the setting but was designed to take advantage of loopholes in the rules making him more powerful by far than anyone else. I told him to forget about that character concept because of the reasons I enumerated and told him to think of something else. He didn't like it and actually stormed off.

The clown never returned and I thought "good riddance to bad rubbish". A DM who is fair and has mature players can wield his authority to make things better for everyone. The anarchy of allowing player's (and game designer's) merest whim to determine the shape of your setting is a recipe for frustration, difficulty, hard feelings and campaign dissolution. As long as a game needs someone to sit long hours crafting adventures and settings for the enjoyment of the players the DM will be in control. As long a game needs someone fair and knowledgable to make sure things run smoothly the DM will be in control. As long as a game needs someone above the petty rivalries and personality conflicts to arbitrate in favor of what's right and reasonable the DM will be in control.

Player control over anything other than their own characters is illusion. Its an illusion perpetuated by WoTC because they keep pumping out books of player orientated PrCs and nifty feats and powers. The marketing strategy is to make players buy more books. There are fewer DMs than players and marketing folks know this. DMs should keep in mind that this new philosophy of "player empowerment" is only partially based on empowering players and instead largely based on the ability for companies to make more money marketing to the larger segment of the gaming community, the players.

DMs, don't be deceived....YOU are the law in your world. You should be fair, non-arbitrary, reasonable, trustworthy and should have the best interest of your players and your campaign at heart but YOU are the LAW.


Chris

 

[Belen]

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.

You make this argument at the time, Curtis, and we always seem to be on the opposite side of the debate. I do get your dislike of the older editions though.

It is not that 3e gives a player any more power than previous editions. The rules are more straightforward and they give the appearance that you can do more with them, which is not the case. IME, even people who played earlier editions will only use the options spelled out for them in the rules such as trip, bull rush etc. There is not much originality coming from the players these days.

The real difference these days is that players used to come up with interesting actions to make combat more cinematic and then ran those actions by a GM who would determine if those actions were possible.

Under 3e, the players look to the rules to see if an action is possible, and upon not finding specific rules for it, they drop it.

For me, 3e is more about hidden limitations. You rarely see a fighter charge an opponent, and try to slide between their legs. What would that be...a tumble check? Fighters do not get tumble as a class skill. Then they have to worry about penalties because they are prone.

A GM, in 3e, can say no just as often as in previous editions. The difference is that a GM can use the rules to say no. He can assign standard penalties, or ask people to make a check, such as tumble, that they cannot make etc. The rules just make the DM seem like less than a bad guy.

I think we see a lot more cookie cutter games these days, in terms of how things play out, than we used too.

 

[Henry]

never had anyone play a fighting man the same as any other fighting man. everyone played a unique character.

the power is in the group. the referee just interprets the rules. the players decide where they go, what they want to do, what they want to play...

And your epiphany then and now, is a far cry from the lack of epiphany I had back then. I had numerous players TRYING to be "different" fighters and paladins, but I and the other DMs at the time kept hamstringing them back because "the rules wouldn't let them." I wasn't letting them. So in the end, many, many people didn't play "Rory the homeless man" or "Rory the shining knight" we played "THE PARTY fighter." "THE PARTY cleric." "THE party thief." The rules which weren't supposed to be a straight jacket, were a straight jacket.

You could say the same thing now. More options spelled out, more homogenous mechanics, more PrC's, more magic item properties, are supposed to give players more choice; what they CAN do, is also give a DM a headache without a lot of prep time. Again, the rules which aren't supposed to be a straight jacket, end up doing the same to a group of people. That's why it's good to still have Original D&D, or Castles & Crusades if you can't get it.

Vive le differance!

 

[Belen]

never had anyone play a fighting man the same as any other fighting man. everyone played a unique character.

Exactly. All of my characters in 2e were unique. My three favorite characters were bards. Each bard was different from the next, even though they had the exact same abilities.

Too many people look at a character and see their combat abilities. Thus, if you are looking at a character in that manner, then each character is identical. However, Ruff the Balrog slayer and Marcus, the legionairee can be too very different characters depending on how they are played, even if they have the same combat abilities.

In older editions, I used to hear people talk about their characters and what they accomplished, such a slaying the great fiend Papa Smurf!

Now, I hear people talk about their classes, feats or skills and how much damage they can do in a round etc. This bores me to death.

 

[Sundragon2012]

Too many people look at a character and see their combat abilities. Thus, if you are looking at a character in that manner, then each character is identical. However, Ruff the Balrog slayer and Marcus, the legionairee can be too very different characters depending on how they are played, even if they have the same combat abilities.

In older editions, I used to hear people talk about their characters and what they accomplished, such a slaying the great fiend Papa Smurf!

Now, I hear people talk about their classes, feats or skills and how much damage they can do in a round etc. This bores me to death.

I agree there 100%. I don't know if I would necessarily blame the edition of the game for this as a rules set but I would blame that on the way the game is presented. It seems to me that folks can't conceive of having unique individuals outside of their feats, skills and powers. In fact its common to see read, "Its not fair, your limiting the players by nerfing them if they don't have access to every goody they are supposed to." "My character's unique, look at the feats this one had compared to this one, blah, blah, blah."

Of course that handled properly and in context, their is nothing wrong with cool powers and items. Defining a character's quality and uniqueness by those things is a problem.

Funny, it used to be within the context of the "role playing" game that the character was defined and not merely by the powers shown on the stat sheet. My players had many unique and memorable characters without any special powers. Now some got special powers and cool items of course, but they were merely additions to a unique individual character and not defining. What the character did made him or her memorable, not their fancy sword or snazzy staff.

I am all in favor of the increased freedom of character creation in 3.5e but realize at the same time that those things aren't what make a character memorable, it was the adventures, the personality, the drama, the imagination of their creator that made them real.

My philosophy is this, if you want a game where its about constant, endlessly increasing power levels, endless cool new weapons and items and self-definition by those things, you are free to play Baldur's Gate, Planescape Torment, Demonstone, Everquest Online, etc. My games have steeper requirements in regards to what makes a player a unique hero than the junk they carry around.

Chris

 

[Henry]

In older editions, I used to hear people talk about their characters and what they accomplished, such a slaying the great fiend Papa Smurf!

Now, I hear people talk about their classes, feats or skills and how much damage they can do in a round etc. This bores me to death.

It's all in where you look. There was an article about this EXACT same thing in Dragon Magazine many years ago (back in 2nd edition, I believe) about how players should define their characters less by what their abilities and magical goodies were, and more by the personality of their character!

I may dig out my archive and go searching when I get home, because the opening has a fake conversion where a player is geeking out about his "35th level fighter / 40th level magic user who wielded a Holy Two-handed sword, rode a Great Wyrm Dragon and slew Thor..."

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

Now, I hear people talk about their classes, feats or skills and how much damage they can do in a round etc. This bores me to death.

It's nothing unique to 3rd edition. Players will talk numbers/power about any system I can think of. (OK, maybe not diceless storytelling games, but you get the point).

IME, players talk numbers about a system that their audience is familiar with. One they have a solid understanding of. So it'd generally be something they've all currently/recently playing. Most 2nd edition stories are now going to be about the cool time they killed 'Papa Smurf'. Mostly because they can't remember what bladesinger kits, moonblades or 18/97 strength scores did anyway... All that rules know how has been replaced by 3rd ed stuff.

I'd agree that it can get boring pretty quickly... although most RPGers I've met do it. At least a little bit. Not that I ever would of course.

Edit: To clarify it:

At the time, it's a cool story with a bunch of numbers. As time passes people forget the numbers and just remember the cool story.