D&D 3E: the Death of Imagination?

[Desdichado]

Red Planet, what are you doing posting all to the message boards on a Friday night, anyway? Me, my wife left me with the kids for a "girl's night out." So, the kids are eating some microwaved hot dogs right before bed. Fun, huh?

As much as I generally disagree with Tom on this issue, I have to admit, that a lot of the things he doesn't like were warning flags to me as well. Luckily I have a good group of gamers that I don't think would go along those lines right now, and I can easily prune the system to what I want. In fact, the campaigns I'm developing for my inevitable turn behind the screen here in a little bit bear only a vaguely passing resemblance to 3e out of the book.

But that's the beauty of d20 -- it's so easy to do that with all the stuff that's in print right now.

Oh, and go Red Wings. Not that this has been an incredible year for my boys in red...

 

[barsoomcore]

Red Planet, what are you doing posting all to the message boards on a Friday night, anyway?

Waiting for the Dev team to finish something up so my gang can get it ready to ship.

Oh, and go Red Wings. Not that this has been an incredible year for my boys in red...

That's sweet. No, really, that's so touching.

 

[Desdichado]

That's sweet. No, really, that's so touching.

Hey, c'mon! I even put color in my post! How much more devoted can you get than someone who goes out of their way to type in, what, about 20 extra characters like that?

 

[Guilt Puppy]

Re: Re: Perfect subject line...

25, assuming that it's clothed, and climbing someone draws an attack of opportunity.

Funny -- I was going to say exactly the same thing. (Although I'm considering touch AC + 10)

Regarding original troll: Agreed to a certain extent. The system is conducive to metagaming, and it's hard to DM for a group that expects to face challenging statblocks. And the more rules you have, and the more you know the rules, the less it seems like you're willing to explore what's not specified in the rules. Not every group is that way.

I don't DM because it's fun to adjudicate on the fly, although that is one of the responsibilities. I DM so that the players can entertain me, and so I can entertain them. I get less entertained when they're focused on the game mechanically, but if a group isn't doing that, the fact that their are mechanics for task resolution doesn't get in my way.

Anyway, if your group can't think new thoughts when there are rules in front of them, play a less-defined system. But d20 does not inhibit the imagination: It just doesn't force you to use it, either.

 

[Kai Lord]

Bla, bla, bla, if its really you against the players (which is ridiculous) Rule 0 is official and trumps anything the players bring to the table. So use that and let your "imagination" run wild...or rampant.

 

[Voneth]

Tom,

There is something to your post. For example, why do people need to know how every magic item is made? Magic items are now recipes, rather than objects of mystery and awe.

"The Lance of Sir Laurent? Oh, My wizard could make one just like it. Just an Item Creation Feat here, a few spells there, and presto!"

You must have been lucky. All of my 2e DMs never put any "mystery and awe" in their magic items, they were always hamming up the personalities of intellgent swords. And it always bugged me that NPCs could build floating cities and I couldn't. Of course a GM could also Rule 0 me on building them now.

 

[Remathilis]

25, assuming that it's clothed, and climbing someone draws an attack of opportunity

(sorry, everyone is doing it)

I just wanted to say that after the initial repsonse, this thread has been illuminating on lots of DM lore. Good job everyone.

Oh yeah, Go Wings!!!

 

[Desdichado]

Hey, another Ypsi guy! I actually live in Canton (not downtown) -- we oughta have a Southeast Michigan gameday sometime and meet all you folks face to face.

 

[Lucius Foxhound]

I've got a unique perspective on this ... I'm one of Tom's players.

I think the problem comes from the fact that Tom and I played 2E for years. There were no rules to look up because we knew them all! (what little 2E had, that is).

In our 3E game, we both had to reorient to the new rules... here's an example:

Early in our first 3E game, our party had two rogues in it. At one point both rogues were flanking a monster and both took sneak attack bonuses (utterly annihilating the creature). Tom insisted that two players can't get sneak atttack bonuses on one creature... and I agreed with him. We were thinking 2E, where only one rogue could backstab someone.

Well, the two players whipped out their PHBs and pointed out passages to Tom showing him how they could do it. After a 15-20 minute argument, Tom admitted they were right... but I could tell he was put off by the whole thing.

We know now that Tom should have stuck by his original ruling, even if it was "incorrect"... then, after the game, a player could point out the rules to him, and he might make a ruling that in the future, two rogues can get sneak attacks on one monster... or Tom could just say that no, that's not going to happen despite what the rules say. That's cool with me.

Personally, I'm not sure why Tom's so upset... he recently reread the PHB and DMG cover to cover... and last time we played we had no rules arguments whatsoever.

Ironically, we're had to kick out one of our players because he didn't know the rules at all and refused to read them! Oh, the irony, Tom... the irony...

 

[Quinn]

Imagination is a product of the DM and the players.