Does 3/3.5E cause more "rule arguments" than earlier editions?

[Hussar]

The argument wasn't about an animated skeleton; just a run-of-the-mill everyday collection of bones.

The problem occurs with the spell description: "You grant the semblance of life and intellect to a corpse....You can cast this spell on a corpse that has been deceased for any amount of time, but the body must be mostly intact to be able to respond. A damaged corpse may be able to give partial answers or partially correct answers, but it must at least have a mouth in order to speak at all."

Is a skeleton a corpse or part of a corpse? Is it reasonably intact? Does it have a mouth? The argument raged for many pages and many posts. The illusion of a fully comprehensive ruleset breaks down when you examine the parts, and if you don't have a means to resolve conflicts chosen ahead of time (DM, group consensus, whatever) you can run into problems.

Because I have a conflict resolution method spelled out for my table, I've never had these problems. However, that doesn't mean that others do not.


RC

Again, it's an internet discussion which will, by its very nature last for pages and pages. Around the table, such an issue, if it ever came up at all, would likely last about 15 seconds.

As DannyAlcatraz said, it's the internet that gives the perception of these debates raging. Around 99.9% of gaming tables, they never come up.

 

[Dracorat]

More rules bickering is a direct side result of more people being interested in said rules.

At least, that's how I see it.

 

[FireLance]

Because the person with the greatest responsility is the one who gets the stronger part of decision making. That's why parents trump teachers, the person who bought the blueberry muffins gets to eat the last one, and your parents can dock your allowance.

Since the DM runs the game, the DM gets to make the final decisions that affect the game. If not, it's not a question of equals, it would be the DM running the game within parameters set by the other players. The DM doesn't tell you how to play your character, you don't tell him how to intepret rules. That's fair.

I'm not disputing any of the above. What I am commenting on is the perception from some posters that a DM who decides to play by the rules as written is somehow not as good as one who reserves the right to change the rules. Using your example of the blueberry muffins, it's as if the person who brings them becomes less worthy of respect if he allows someone else to eat the last one instead of deciding to eat it himself.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Dannyalcatraz: Reading Hussar's mind since 05/23/2269!

 

[FireLance]

I can’t say for certain, but it almost seems like a DMs role has shifted from the arbiter in a world designed to be fun for all involved, and into basically just a CPU to facilitate the players interaction with rulebooks.

This is an example of what I'm talking about.

A DM who reserves the right to change the rules is "the arbiter in a world designed to be fun for all involved".

A DM who decides to play by the rules as written is "just a CPU to facilitate the players (sic) interaction with rulebooks".

 

[Thurbane]

This is an example of what I'm talking about.

A DM who reserves the right to change the rules is "the arbiter in a world designed to be fun for all involved".

A DM who decides to play by the rules as written is "just a CPU to facilitate the players (sic) interaction with rulebooks".

Um, OK, I may have lost the context here.

What exactly are those quotes an example of?

 

[FireLance]

Um, OK, I may have lost the context here.

What exactly are those quotes an example of?

The perception that DMs who reserve the right to change the rules in their game are somehow better than DMs who decide to run the game according to the rules as written.

 

[Thurbane]

The perception that DMs who reserve the right to change the rules in their game are somehow better than DMs who decide to run the game according to the rules as written.

Well, speaking for myself, that is not the case, in and of itself.

However, I do think one hallmark of a good DM is being able to "wing it" if required to step outside the rule set, for whatever reason.

Do I think that automatically using a house rule in place of an established rule is a good idea? No.

Do I think that if a DM determines that a house rule will make the game more enjoyable for the majority of participants, or help the game run more smoothly overall, implementing it is a good idea? Yes.










(sic)

 

[BroccoliRage]

Because the person with the greatest responsility is the one who gets the stronger part of decision making. That's why parents trump teachers, the person who bought the blueberry muffins gets to eat the last one, and your parents can dock your allowance.

Since the DM runs the game, the DM gets to make the final decisions that affect the game. If not, it's not a question of equals, it would be the DM running the game within parameters set by the other players. The DM doesn't tell you how to play your character, you don't tell him how to intepret rules. That's fair.

Damn right. I host the game, I buy the beer and snacks, I take on the responsibility of keeping track of a whole world, I respect the character as the domain of the player (barring in game occurences like magic), I take on the responsibility of arbiter and go through the trouble of reading the books through and through, I pay cash for the modules, I paid money for the 30 year library provided as reference, I took a year of my time to develope the best homebrew world I could, and the list goes on. And the only thing I ask is that the players will remember that my deliberations and rulings are final. That's not a big fee for a good game in a cozy basement with beer and snacks.

Also, I saw that an earlier post kept referring to "old DM's". I'm 24, I'm not old. There are some who just prefer older editions. We're not all stodgy old coots, you know.

 

[BSF]

A question for discussion: does the rules heavy nature of 3/3.5E lend itself to constant rules lawyering and bickering more so than earlier editions did?

It's my belief than 3/3.5E has tried to pin down a lot more things with specific rules than earlier editions, which often left things "up to the DMs discretion" without setting a concrete rule in place. For sure there were always bones of contention regarding rules in 1E & 2E, but I believe never to the degree of the current rule set.

Is it because 3/3.5E is so rules intensive by it's very nature that leads to these disputes?
Is it that gamers today are less trusting of their DMs to make fair decisions, and want everything to be "letter of the law"?
Is it because nowadays we are more used to electronic RPGs where everything is hard coded as YES or NO with no room for MAYBE?
Is it because the current ruleset puts more emphasis on grid based combat and less on roleplaying than earlier editions?
Do some people just enjoy debating rules for the sake of the debate itself?

I'll add that I'm not saying that more debate is neccessarily a bad thing, and also that despite initial reservations about 1 year ago I really do enjoy the current edition.

Thoughts?

Anecdotally, my experience is that 3.X has cleared up hours upon hours of table discussion regarding the rules. I remember so many wasted sessions in past years due to rules squabbling. One of the reasons I quit playing D&D actually. I have nowher near as many arguements about the rules anymore.

Admittedly, there has been a bit of a trade off with rules paralysis. Where players get so caught up in trying to maximize somethign within the ruleset that they have a difficult time making spontaneous decisions.