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

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I notice fewer debates but more vehement ones when they happen.

Same here. Players tend to know the rules better (even though they're more complex, they make a lot more sense than 2e rules).

But excessive rules lawyering isn't really a game problem, it's a people problem.

 

[Raven Crowking]

sigh.... true and noble raven crowking, our pure love was never ment to be. you as a dm.... i as a player.... we are just two diffrent people you and I..... and *sob* sorry i cant do this.... *runs away*



yeah thats too bad... maybe someday though.

Maybe. Of course, I might just add to the list of condescending DMs you've known......

 

[RFisher]

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?

I was possibly as big a rules lawyer when playing oAD&D as there ever was.

I have managed to hold my rules lawyer side in check while playing 3e. Although, there is no doubt that it gave me a cornucopia of juicy temptation.

I think the attitude of the players is the key factor in the amount of rule lawyering that happens. When rules lawyering, though, I'd certainly prefer 3e to AD&D.

 

[Thurbane]

Its not really the fault of the game, its the fault of the player. but I do think that because things are much more deliniated in 3.5, some players get the idea that the DM doesn't have the right to change things. I would have been much more firm about things (and actually did try) but our gaming club is hurting right now and I didn't want to drive away members. well, they left anyway so that was somewhat pointless.

So, now I am running Castles and Crusades, which since it has less rules leaves me more room to BE the DM. I wouldn't be adverse to running 3.5 again, but if I do its going to be core rules ONLY unless I actually own it, and I am the DM which means I can do anything I want and there will be no arguing. I will try very hard to be very fair and run a good game and not abuse that power but i DO reserve that power. I will also make sure I am better prepared and take ssome time to know the rules better, but the rules are just guidelines anyway. the DM IS the rules.

My problem is not with DMS who run the rules as written. I actually do try to do this most of the time. It is easier, after all Sometimes I forget things and would rather not slow the game down looking something up. I want the freedom to make a ruling and get on with it. THAT seems to be what some players I have played with recently object to.

These two posts pretty much sum up my own opinion, and I think are worded better than what I was trying to get accross.

 

[scourger]

I've noticed plenty of rules arguments with d20 D&D, but there were plenty for the other editions over the 20 years prior, too. I think the problem is that the players I game with have a comparable amount of baggage (about 25 years) with D&D. We all have expectations about what the game is and isn't. When those expectations are not met, arguments ensue; often about the rules or rulings. Interestingly, those arguments almost all go away when we play another game--even another d20 game. The lesson for me as a DM is not to DM. I GM other games. It's just easier.

 

[Crothian]

Not at my table. Or at any table I have played or watched someone playing D&D.

The amount of roleplaying available from 3e is the same as ever: you get back what you put into it.

This is the way I see it. If the rules prevent someone from role playing then they were not really into the role playing to begin with.

 

[BroccoliRage]

Well, I interperted your point with the dialogue to indicate that you thought that under earlier systems, the lack of rules allowed you to exert more control over how the game was run and minimized debate due to your players not being able to quote you chapter-and-verse, especially since the 3.X rules really didn't cover that many examples. My point was that the 3.X rules actually cover and infer quite a bit more than most people ever both to learn and that your example was quite adequately accounted for or at least intimated by the existing rules. 3.X sets a fairly standard baseline for quite a few things, and IME, that leads to far fewer actual arguments over the rules. When something appears that doesn't jibe with the existing infrastructure, it's usually pretty apparent pretty quickly. Things like categorizing abilities into EX, SU and SLA help to quantify design intent. Since much of the AD&D ruleset felt as if they were put together in a vacuum from the other parts of the system, rules arguments were much more common....as were many things like manuevers and movements. This isn't to say that it's necessarily more satisfying for some groups...the opposite may be true. However, this is highly dependent on the DM, whereas under 3E it is, IMHO, much less the case.

For my group, rules debates are handled quickly and efficiently. The DM is the final arbiter of what actually happens and what is in effect. Endless rule debates are a social construct that is in the DM and player's realm to control. As I pointed out with respect to Knights of the Dinner Table, rules lawyers have existed for a very long time...long enough to become an archetype. In fact, a large part of the humo of that strip is driven by exactly those kinds of issues (such as exploiting rules loopholes, metagaming and arguing with the DM over his calls and specific issues).

No, no, no, you misunderstand me! I've been arguing that no edition fosters rules arguments more than others. I mentioned that I prefer AD&D because I didn't want to confuse anyone. I feel that DM's who are unwilling to exert authority occasionally and players who are unwilling to accept a DM's authority is what leads to most rules bickering, which happens in all group from time to time. No edition is responsible for that, only players are. The example I provided was not to prove the superiority of a system, but to explain what I do when provided with a player's dissent. Just because I retain my rights as arbiter does not mean I will not hear a dissenter out. I listened to the fellows dissent, and came up with a justification. He stated a little late that he wanted to toss away his sword. I felt doubtful that his fighter would think that quickly, but i allowed a check anyway. Sure, it seemed like a typical player-move to get out of taking a little damage to me, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt, to avoid being unfair. It's a benevolent dictatorship. I kid, I kid.

My sole 3e criticism in this thread (if it can be called a criticism) is that I agree that the rules of the current edition (3e and 3.5 are indistinguishable to me, despite numerous explanations) feel more like miniature wargaming rules. In fact, I've been intrigued by the D&D Miniatures game because of this. I feel that WOTC would do quite well at designing a miniatures wargame, due to the success and apparent solidness of games like Mage Knight and Horror Clix. I didn't care for those games myself, but there is plenty of potential and WOTC doesn't seem to be at a loss for designers. If they came out with an even more indepth wargame, not as kiddie as Mage Knight, (sorry, Mage Knight fans, it feels like a cheesy kiddie game like M:tG to me) I would be all over it.


Like I said, my preference for AD&D lies solely on subjective grounds, not intellectual grounds. I've given up on "this edition/game is superior and this one pales in comparison" arguments, because that's way too subjective. Even if it's true

My main reason for preference to AD&D is my familiarity with it. I don't want to learn a whole new system because I don't need it. For Horror I have Call of Cthulhu, for fantasy I have AD&D, B/X D&D, Warhammer Fantasy, and all sorts of variants, for Sci Fi I have Gamma World, Star Frontiers, and Fringeworthy, and for westerns I have good ol' Boot Hill. Which can easily be modified for 30's pulp games (Indiana Jones style.) It's not due to a system flaw. You'd be hard-pressed to find a game system without flaws or some area of ambiguity.
I read the 3e core rulebooks some time ago, and I have quite a few 3e modules. I think Heroes of Horror is an excellent book with great tables, and I'm looking for the Heroes of Battle, as well as Heroes of Virtue and Heroes of Ruin. I don't hate 3e, I just don't prefer it. I don't find it to be worth the effort of learning a new system.

I like being able to exploit aspects of AD&D, and I appreciate the open-endedness of it, to be sure. I was already reminded that Rule 0 is in the 3e books as well, so I can't possibly hold that against 3e.

I tell you what for free, though. I have a pet peeve about the 3e books when reading them. I really can't stand all the use of she/her in place of he/him/his. Being intimidated by poltically correct types is no reason to alter proper usage of english. Using him to refer to someone generically is not an affront to feminism. But see, that's an authoring complaint, not a system complaint.

 

[WizarDru]

No, no, no, you misunderstand me! I've been arguing that no edition fosters rules arguments more than others. I mentioned that I prefer AD&D because I didn't want to confuse anyone. I feel that DM's who are unwilling to exert authority occasionally and players who are unwilling to accept a DM's authority is what leads to most rules bickering, which happens in all group from time to time. No edition is responsible for that, only players are.

Oh, well then we're in complete agreement, then.

Never mind.

 

[Arnwyn]

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?

IME - not even remotely. For us, 3.x runs like dream compared to every other edition.

Now, the prep time is brutal and painful in 3e, but the game itself? We never have rules disputes in 3.x, which is a huge difference compared to previous editions. The rules are spelled out a helluva lot more clearly with 3e, and we've had nothing to argue about. "Look it up, foo'!"

 

[Raven Crowking]

I was already reminded that Rule 0 is in the 3e books as well, so I can't possibly hold that against 3e.

If WotC promoted Rule 0 as prominently in 3.5 as it was in the 1e books (or even the 3.0 books) I would agree. But I do think that the idea of a final arbiter is weaker with every edition insofar as the books themselves go, and (crappy DMs that some of us have met notwithstanding) I think that is a disservice to the game.

Strong Rules + Agreed Upon Arbitration Method = Fewer Rules Arguments.

Before, arguments tended to stem from the ruleset. Now, arguments tend to stem from lack of an agreed-upon arbitration method. That arbitration method doesn't have to be the DM, but it should be in place before the game starts. I certainly hope that 4e combines the strengths of 1e and 3e in this regard.


RC