D&D 3E: the Death of Imagination?

[GiantInThePlayground]

Here's what I expect from a good 3e DM:

1. Define the sandbox.
Tell us what rules & supplements you are allowing in the game. Define all House Rules beforehand.

2. Populate the sandbox.
Provide the setting and plot information. Write interesting EL appropriate encounters, both combat or roleplaying. Be prepared.

3. Let us play in the sandbox.
You play the NPCs and monsters, but let us define and develop our characters. Adjudicate the rules, don't break them (or even bend them too much).

In my opinion, a good 3e DM is simply another player in a game with rules and boundaries that everyone must abide by.

For that reason, 3e is the best RPG I have ever played, and I have even more fun running it than playing it.

This is pretty much how I choose to play. I've never been a fan of the "DM as absolute monarch" method of roleplaying, and unfortunately a lot of the responses to the original post involve tightening the DM's grip rather than adapting to a way of thinking where you don't mind a looser grip. Which is fine, I suppose, but I don't care too much for it.

I view the DM's absolute authority as kind of a "Break Glass in Case of Emergency" tool, not something that need assert itself at every session (much less on every rule interpretation). I like being surprised by players, or even beaten fair and square. I like 3E as it is precisely because it DOES take out the need for every rule to be colored by my personal opinion. I think of myself as only one of the 6 players at the table, and my opinions don't necessarily have to win every time. When things threaten to go out of control or skew off in a direction I think will ruin the game, then I grab the reins as necessary.

The poster who talked about the necessity for a "baseline normal" also was very much on target, I think. My players know that when things start to break the rules, something screwy must be going on. If I was in the habit of making arbitrary calls, they might just think, "Oh, well that must just be how Rich feels about that spell."

Of course, mind you that I think I've been blessed by players more interested in the game as a whole succeeding than they are in their personal victories. They don't argue the rules to try to dissuade me from something, and they don't use the rules as a way to get around the setting. Heck, they know they won't ever own more rulebooks than me or know the rules better than I do anyway. I've never had more fun DMing than with 3rd Ed, because I've never been so liberated. I prefer to spend my DMing time making up stories and not making up the laws of physics, and 3E lets me do that.

 

[Voneth]

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).

Yep, I saw something worse than that when 2e came out. I had one DM hate the "new" edition come out because he couldn't find the charts in the book anymore. The charts, people, the charts.

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...

I had one guy like that, he refused to read the books, and the had the nerve to tell me that I was wrong because "that's not the way my old GM did it." Then again that whole group was a nightmare. The Diablo computer game came out and the whole campaign collapsed because all of my players thought D was better than DnD. It was actualy a godsend to may sanity really.

 

[Cedric]

I've found that when I added a few limitations of my own into 3e, that I enjoyed it a good bit more as a GM.

1. No races that require ECL adjustments - without strict DM approval and thorough character backgrounds, which will still probably result in the answer being no.

2. Each character may only take one 10 level prestige class and one 5 level prestige class during the course of his adventuring career (ie, as long as it's a character in one of my games).

3. Basic rules are discussed and understood in the beginning. When disagreements arise, I make a decision on the outcome, the actual rules will be reviewed later and a decision made at that time for how to handle future incidents.

With those three simple guidelines in place...I've found that I greatly enjoy my experiences running 3e.

Cedric

 

[Bran Blackbyrd]

It's a poor workman that blames his tools.

I've played 2E and 3E, my imagination hasn't changed a bit. My horizons have, however, broadened.
I would suggest that anyone finding their imagination lacking broaden theirs as well. The rules have nothing to do with it.

I will say that the easier the rules are to follow, the more time I can spend using my imagination, rather than with my nose in the rulebook. In this respect, 3E is vastly superior to 2E and as such, much more conducive to imaginitive play.

 

[tieranwyl]

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...

The same thing happened to us when we first started playing 3E. I was playing a rogue so I went through the class information, and proceded to go through the AoO information to make a list of all the situations my rogue could get sneak attacks. I was an expert on sneak attacks because I was playing a rogue, but my DM wasn't. The DM said he didn't think the rogue should be able to get a sneak attack just because other characters hadn't acted yet (the flat-footed situation). We didn't debate long, but the DM just didn't like the rule. He allowd the rule to stand but he didn't like it. We also debated the flanking rules.

It was a campaign that we co-DMed. It was hard not to question rules interpretations at first by all of us. We thought it was necessary to get it right because we wanted to play by the rules.
So we questioned things as they came up in the middle of the adventure. It was hard to keep 2E expertise out of the interpretations and arguments. I know people claim 3E eveolved out of 2E, but the games are so different; you can't assume a rule must be a certain way based on a previous edition.

Anyway Lucius Foxhound, you seem like a reasonable player.

IMO it sounds like Tom just needs a break for a little while. Maybe the group should play something else for a month, or someone else could DM. [Tom, if you give 3E a break for awhile you will miss it and come back].

Too bad you had to kick a player out because he wouldn't read the rules.

 

[Tom Cashel]

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

Third place in the west, headed for the playoffs as defending Cup champions...not an "incredible" year? Sheesh. You don't know how good you got it. LET'S GO RANGERS!! The dream is still alive!

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.

This is so true! But rules arguments aren't the sole reason for my being disenchanted with 3E...I'm trying to figure out what I can do to get excited about it again.

Anyway Lucius Foxhound, you seem like a reasonable player.

IMO it sounds like Tom just needs a break for a little while. Maybe the group should play something else for a month, or someone else could DM. [Tom, if you give 3E a break for awhile you will miss it and come back].

Lucius is a great player! (And a great friend, too!)

We have a break built in--due to the fact that none of our schedules match up in March, we'll be skipping our monthly game ans subbing in a one-shot of Mage: The Ascension. Plus, I'll have lots of time to read rules before the next game.

The best idea I've gotten from this thread is to focus more on the role-playing and hope the players follow. I'm considering Sigil's "no books at the table" advice too.

Lucius wrote me with a concern: what if he bases a whole plan of action on a spell (e.g Veil to disguise the party as drow), knowing that the spell will do X, Y, and Z. However, during play the DM only remembers that the spell does X and Y. Plan ruined!

All I can say is that I will try my best to know what your spells do. Nothing's stopping me from consulting rules during play (except my sincere desire not to). But I'll add: instead of basing your whole plan on the description of a spell--which is what you guys do all too often--I'd like to know, as DM, what else you're doing to make yourselves appear as drow. Anything else besides the spell? Here we get back to the original post...there isn't anything else, by the rules, that you can do to improve the effectiveness of that spell through role-playing.

Unless we decide that you can...

I can't promise that mistakes won't be made. But I can promise that the game will move more quickly, will be more exciting, and will be more fun for everyone.

 

[Lucius Foxhound]

Third place in the west, headed for the playoffs as defending Cup champions...not an "incredible" year? Sheesh. You don't know how good you got it. LET'S GO RANGERS!! The dream is still alive!

Uh, Tom... the dream is dead, I think.

Plus, I thought it's widely agreed that Rangers are BROKEN.

But I like the no books at the table rule (that was, except the PHB, right?). Truth is, I've always been rather shocked when some of our players whip out the FRCS or MoF or even the DMG! That's got to stop. And the PHB needs to be used for looking up spells and class abilities.

Personally, Tom, I think the problem is that we've got some truly freaky players in our group. One of them is on medication (and often forgets to take it), another looks an awful lot like Monte Cook, another insists that we call him "The Legend," and the last has a girlfriend who makes fun of him for playing D&D. Tom, let's nuke the group from orbit and start over again....

 

[WizarDru]

Some random thoughts, having read through the thread:

I can't speak to Tom's experience, but I can speak to mine. 3E lets me be as creative as AD&D did, but without the rules being part of my work. I can violate the rules when and where I wish, with regards to settings and other issues that are incidental to the primary game. I think that John Smallberries summed up the issue nicely.

I do not like the idea of the DM as adversary. That might work fine for a light-hearted game of Hackmaster, but for a good D&D game, it's nonsensical. In my group, all books are available, and rules get discussed...IF IT DOESN'T GET IN THE WAY OF GAMEPLAY. When in doubt, two rulings exist:

Ruling A or The 'On the Fly' ruling: A rules question comes up, and it's not a 'game-breaker'. There is some question on the exact nature of the rule: I scan the facts, make a judgement call and we move on. Players are encouraged to research the issue off-line or when they're not actively doing something, and the ruling in the future may be different...but the 'on the fly' ruling stands.

Ruling B or The 'Courtroom' ruling: A major issue centers around a ruling on how a spell operates, combat option works or something similarly important. Both the Players and I consult the appropriate references and compare notes. Players are encouraged to offer potential rulings, which are then compared against my interpetation. Some debate is invited, but ultimately, I make the final ruling, after which the floor is closed. Said ruling may be appealed later, but the interests of balance and verisimilitude tend to be served first. I've had players argue in their favor and against it, depending on the situation.

I don't see books like the DMG or MM as being my exclusive property. I know, as a player, that it's exciting to rifle through the magic item section, imaging having item x or y. That's part of the fun of the game. My players tend to avoid metagaming, but they also know that, thanks to 3Es templates, classed monsters, detailed item creation rules and other features, that metagaming tends not to be as rewarding as you might think. One need only look as far as Piratecat's story-hour to see how merely changing the physical description of a monster can baffle players' perceptions.

The game DOES become harder for some issues at later levels. I note that Tom mentions the infamous level 10 cutoff issue. The increasing power levels do present new challenges, and certain things will change. But as Piratecat has pointed out elsewhere, you merely need to change the challenges, and accept that high-level play rotates around different things than low-level play. Now having a party of 17th-19th level players, I can assure you that there are plenty of ways to baffle characters, present them with challenges and not have to go crazy in doing so.

Opening a dialogue with your players will certainly go a long way to addressing the issue. As Lucious pointed out, a large part of rules debating isn't to cause trouble, it's to understand how the rule works. In my group, when we encounter an unfamiliar rule, we usually stop to evaluate the rule and decide it's validity. Players want to know how something works, so they can accept it as what someone refered to as the 'base reality', I think it was. In essence, if sneak attack works differently than I thought it would, I need to know before I run up to the ogre and try to kill him before I make the mistake of attempting it.

Here's something I might recommend: Start over. Make new characters, using tighter controls and set the ground rules, using lessons learned from the last couple of years. You will find the game is much more under your control, if that's what you desire, and that both you and the players will feel more comfortable with a new situation with more established boundaries.

 

[Isida Kep'Tukari]

There's something that we do in my group to avoid turning the DM into a rules clerk.

We turn one of the players into a rules clerk! I am the official rules gopher for my group. I look up all rules that the DM would otherwise have to spend his time looking up, and all the DM has to do is make a simple yes or no judgement. This helps tremendously in keeping the DM making story and flavor decisions, rather than becoming a clerk.

Deligate, deligate, deligate!

 

[Harold Mayo]

I totally agree with Tom.