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

[dorentir]

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

I wouldn't think so. But in my opinion there are mechanics in the game in 3e that feel contrary to what I consider "role playing." "Gather information?" I might roll it for an NPC who is off asking questions on behalf of the player just to speed things along but I'm going to want a player to describe who he goes to talk to, what questions he asks, etc., and modify based on the tactics employed by the player.
Having fewer rules doesn't turn it into a game of "mother may I" and having rules to cover every concievable situation won't solve rules arguments since the DC of evey task is, ultimately, set by the DM and modifiers are applied by the DM and if a player is hellbent upon having an argument he can take issue with those... if interactions between the players and the dm are marked with that sort of hostility is much more of a sign of a social problem at the game table --- and that doesn't seem exclusive to any edition of any game.

 

[balterkn]

Generally I've not had too many "core rule" debates in 3.5. Most of the rules issues have to do with how to customize characters to get to a specific, desired role-playing objective.

I'm one of the older version DMs (some 1e, mostly 2e and 3, now 3.5) mentioned above (although young 30's isn't really that old). My main issue in adjudicating is that:

1- Adjudicating sucks - meaning that if consensus cannot be reached, then a decision must be issued to continue play. This is the inherent problem with being a DM.

2 - Not all 3.X rules are as simple as "flip open the book and point" (my main bad example had to do with a tower shield - I adjudicated against a player in a way that I later determined was consistent with the core rules errata - much drama ensued including very bad conduct from people on both sides of the DM screen)

I've managed to avoid most rules debates through a "would you like this pulled on your PCs" debate. Most of the time, rules interpretations that are momentarily beneficial to the group are quickly abandonded if I indicate "what is good for the goose is good for the gander".

However, I do have faults (and most long term DMs probably have some faults, probably because to be a long-term DM one must have some faults to begin with )- one of my faults is that I can be heavy-handed and enforce rules interpretations because I believe the impact of the moment may yield a game that becomes unplayable in the long run. With the tower shield example, I prohibited 360 cover while moving through enemy formations. I had no desire to have every bad mook carry a tower shield so they could effortlessly walk past the PC fighters and slaughter the PC spellcasters. Regardless if errata supported that specific call, I don't think I would have much joy playing or DMing if a fighter screen for spellcasters could be so easily defeated. Fortunately for me, the errata supported the call in that instance.

IMNSHO - 3.x generally has fewer long duration rules debates, and the impact of those tend to be less than prior editions. The issue I find is that some players forget that the point is to create a game where every person (players and DMs) can have fun through effective playing of the game, and not have lawyer debates about exact wordings of rules.

 

[Presto2112]

It ain't the edition, bub. It's the Intarweb. People just argue on this dang thing. Accept it and move on.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It ain't the edition, bub. It's the Intarweb. People just argue on this dang thing. Accept it and move on.

No, we don't.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Hmmm, as an aside - for me the rules arguments have not been any more frequent, but when they happen they tend to be more quickly resolved. One of the joys of having a single core system to build from, as opposed to a mishmash of percentile, d20, and d6 to build from.

The Auld Grump

 

[greywulf]

Good food for thought, all.

I think there's something in D&D (all versions) that naturally brings out the anal retentive in some people. It's just how it is. I've played lots of different RPGs - some rules heavier, most lighter - and not had anywhere near the kind of problems I've had with D&D - even with the same players.

So yes, I'd say that the problem is with D&D itself.

An example might help: HERO system can be terrifically complex, especially when it comes to power creation, with all those Power Advantages and Limitations. In that game, I've GM'd a fair few characters with some form of Shape Shift ability, and never had a problem or rules query in either fantasy and superhero settings.

Over in D&D land, Polymorph, on the other hand................

I think partly it's a problem of D&D's history. Each version just inherits the FAQ of the older, and adds in some new questions of it's own.

But it's also because of the rules themselves. They're just far too open to abuse, and so players will try to min-max, and rules arguments flourish. Yes, the GM's ruling is law, but I know GMs themselves are the worst min-maxers! We always pick the coolest feats for the bad guys, and I'll bet there's not a single Big Villain out there with a DEX less than 16. So yes, we abuse the rules too, and work them in our favour.

IMC, the rules take a backseat when a game is live. We've played whole sessions without touching the books at all. That's how it should be, and when it happens, it's D&D at it's very best.

Which is very, very good indeed - for all it's faults.

As to whether this version is better than what's gone before - I'd say OD&D Rules Cyclopedia is still the single best set of D&D rules ever released. I never liked AD&D, and hated 2nd edition with a vengeance. I'd go out of my way not to play AD&D, simply because the rules were so <expletive> stupid, restrictive and poorly thought out. It was nothing more than a money-spinning travesty (fighting talk, I know).

But 3th Edition is better than OD&D Rules Cyclopedia in one important respect; it's much more open-ended, much more flexible and adaptable to many, many campaign settings and gaming styles. And that's why it's the rules system of choice for our gaming group.

 

[Aus_Snow]

All rhetoric aside (for a change of pace, perhaps ), I've actually had nearly no rules arguments when playing/running either AD&D 1e or D&D 3e. The same goes for other systems, other than a couple I first played when I was a young child - and that was pretty much the age thing.

Every so often, I realise again (and again) how lucky I seem to be, knowing the gamers I know IRL.