An Examination of Differences between Editions

[Hussar]

Woo

I don't even know where to begin. I read the first three entries and reply before going back to work and I get attacked by someone who clearly woke up on the wrong side of a die roll.

What seems to be funny is you make part of my arguement for me.

Anyway, you are not very civil, so I will not comment further to your replies.

Good stuff from the rest of you though

So, it's completely acceptable to make baseless and completely ignorant statements about the game with no factual information, but, when you get called on it, the other person is not very civil. Riiight.

RC - I don't know how much plainer they can make it. The first page of my Tome of Magic contains the same caveat - everything in the is book is subject to your DM's approval. I don't buy that many books, but, I'm fairly sure that that caveat appears elsewhere as well. I know for a fact it appears several times in Dragon magazine.

Other than putting it in 30 point type, what else can they do? Being pedantic and talking about how it's a secret (when that's obviously meant somewhat tongue in cheek) is not making your point very well.

They state it clearly in the DMG that the DM is in charge. They state it again in supplements. They state it multiple times in Dragon. How many times do they have to state it?

 

[Hussar]

Out of curiosity I went into some of my other books. In my 3e Oriental Adventures book, on page 6 under Character Creation Basics

0. Check with you Dungeon Master

Even more than usual, it is important to find out which of the many options presented in this book are a part of your DM's world. Find out if you'll be playing in the world of Rokugan or in a different setting and what classes, races and prestige classes your DM will allow.

Now, how's that for empowering your local DM? The default assumption is that it is important to ask your DM first. It's doubly important in this book.

Now, to be fair, my PHB2 did not have this caveat. It should. This should be in the introduction for every supplement, just to be able to say that the whole DM's are being held hostage thing is bogus.

At what point can we say that weak spineless DM's who cannot say no to their players is the problem and not the rules? The rules specifically empower DM's. It's not hidden anywhere. It's on the first page of many books that the DM is in charge. Heck, in the Oriental Adventures book, it actually IS in 30 point bold.

People point to the large number of books and say that this is a straight jacket for DM's. That's only true if DM's allow those books in their game. The rules are pretty clear that the DM should have final say over which books are being used in the game. A Dm being run roughshod by players is hardly new. How many extra classes and races came out of the pages of White Dwarf, Dungeon and Role Aids? How many of those were actually reasonably balanced for play? Many were and many weren't.

Again, it was totally up to the DM to determine what should go into the game. That has never changed in any edition.

 

[S'mon]

I think that whether you prefer a less comprehensive rules set that allows a DM more flexibility in making things up, or whether you prefer a more comprehensive rules set that a DM can just take and use depends very much on your strengths as a DM.

I personally find that the more comprehensive rules of 3.5e play to my strengths as a DM. I have a good memory, so I can remember even the more obscure rules (or at least, I can usually remember where to look and find them in a minute or less). I'm good at adaptation, so if there is something that is not quite covered by the rules, I can extrapolate from a similar rule based on my understanding of the 3e design philosophy. I'm good at combining existing structures in new ways (it's no accident that one of my favorite toys as a child, before I discovered D&D, was Lego), and a comprehensive rules set gives me lots of fiddly bits to play with. What I am bad at is coming up with stuff on the fly. If I had to do it several times per game session because I was using a less comprehensive rules set, I think the overall quality of my games will suffer.

This is a very good point. Personally I have a poor memory, but I am very good at improvisation/'coming up with stuff on the fly', as long as I don't have to worry too much about the 'crunch' (mechanics). I am best in "semi free kriegspiel" mode, with simple mechanics as a jumping off point for my own adjudication. So unfortunately 3e plays to my weaknesses (rules recall) and hampers my strengths (improvisation), ie I see now it's just not a very good system for me, whereas it clearly is a good system for some other GMs. C&C so far seems a better fit.

 

[S'mon]

So, it's completely acceptable to make baseless and completely ignorant statements about the game with no factual information, but, when you get called on it, the other person is not very civil. Riiight.

Right, Hussar - it's one thing to criticise the game, another thing to make ad hominem attacks on other posters. I respect you a lot Hussar, but I do think you are too ready to resort to ad hominem attacks on those who post disagreeing with your POV. You also are prone to make general sweeping statements with no real basis in empirical evidence, as you yourself have acknowledged re speed of levelling in 3e - when you actually did a survey here, you discovered that what everyone else had been telling you was in fact the case (that it takes 3-4 sessions to level, on average), and not just "an Internet myth", as you claimed. Mote and beam and all that.
Your posts are already of a high quality generally, but I do think they'd be even better if before posting you stopped more to consider whether the other person might have a point, and even if they don't, whether they are making a legitimate expression of their own opinion.

 

[Numion]

You also are prone to make general sweeping statements with no real basis in empirical evidence

This is true of majority of posts in these nostalgia threads (this current post of mine a case in point )

 

[S'mon]

This is true of majority of posts in these nostalgia threads (this current post of mine a case in point )

Yes - my point to Hussar was not "Don't make sweeping statements" but rather "Don't get angry with other people when they make sweeping statements" because you do it, too. Just like most of us.

 

[Hussar]

Oh, come on.

The game has become less about role-playing and more about the die roll or how much you can min/max a character.

Sadly, player's really have taken over the game. Another contributing factor is the sheer amount of crap that WOTC puts out.

It seems the buying guide on content of a D&D book is less about what is inside and more about the classes, feats and spells.

While I may have gone off on this one, how many times have we seen these same tired old garbage lines trotted out as if they are fact? Ad hominem? Gimme a break. When someone lines up this same garbage time and time again, whether the same person or just someone parroting the party line, it gets annoying. How are the above anything other than edition bashing?

We've been very good in this thread, for the most part, not to start up with the standard edition warz crap - 3e is a computer game, 3e empowers players and screws over DM's, 3e is too ((Insert vague allegation here)). Conversely, not too many have taken cheap shots at earlier editions as well.

I'm very curious as to what actual point DM Rocco is making here other than spouting off the same tired retreads that have been done to death. Please, stop beating that poor horse.

 

[BryonD]

While I may have gone off on this one, how many times have we seen these same tired old garbage lines trotted out as if they are fact?

The sad thing is that, I think, for some of these people these statements are fact FOR THEM and they simply are unable to see that the issue is internal.

I'm all for books with feats and spells and PClasses. I don't look for roleplaying between the covers of a book. I look for roleplaying between my own ears. The books are for providing a good model of what I make up myself. And for me 3X blows away the prior editions in achieving this goal. Heck, there were other game systems before 3E that handily beat prior D&D editions on this count.

If other people find themselves at a loss of power as DM in 3E then I am quite happy to find myself not held down by the same artificial limitations. I guess I'm just lucky.

 

[Raven Crowking]

RC - I don't know how much plainer they can make it.

If you care to crack any earlier edition, you will see examples.

I tend to think that 3.X has the least restrictive ruleset, and wish that the prose/fluff would be equally unrestrictive. And, yes, that said I do believe that WotC is getting much better in this regard overall.

IOW, I agree with you when you say

Now, to be fair, my PHB2 did not have this caveat. It should. This should be in the introduction for every supplement,

It is my understanding that it isn't in the 3.5 PHB either, though I'd be happy to learn I was wrong.


RC

 

[an_idol_mind]

In my experience, I've never seen any issues of DM control in any of the versions of D&D I've played. The DM is the guy running the game. You can disagree with him, but you can hardly hold him hostage -- there won't be a game if you don't let it be on his terms.

I think a lot of this DM control thing is a matter of play style and perception. Any edition I've run has always been the same in this regard; I don't have more control or less than I used to. Just because the rules are clearer and the PCs are now capable to broadening their standard archetypes doesn't mean I can't say what is and isn't allowed as a DM. I've even had cases of characters wanting to play a prestige class that I wouldn't allow. It wasn't a huge fight about how I'm restricting player choice; it boiled down to the player saying, "Okay, but I really like this concept. Can we tweak the class to make it fit into your game better?"

To each their own, I suppose.

That said, there has definitely been a change in the way supplements are presented between 2nd and 3rd edition. I used to want to work at TSR so I could produce some of the weirdly creative stuff they had in the 2nd edition days, like Dark Sun, Planescape, and Birthright. As I went through college and 3e came out, my desire to work in the gaming industry disappeared. The supplements shifted less toward stuff that was more a creative exercise than something you'd find in a regular campaign (i.e., Council of Wyrms) and more toward crunch and rules expansions to the core setting (i.e., the Complete books). The latter is better business, so I can't complain, but the former seemed much more fun to me as a writer.