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

[Spatula]

Previous editions were very rules-heavy but people don't remember that because most did away with the overly-specific bits (weapon vs AC mods, unarmed combat, etc.). But despite all the rules there were plenty of nebulous areas which a DM could use to take advantage of his players (or a player could use to take advantage of a DM). The letters page and Sage Advice column in old issues of Dragon magazine used to be filled with the stuff.

In 3E I don't see many rule arguements except when it comes to poorly-worded splatbook spells & PrCs. The core system itself is pretty clear-cut. If you're having an issue with rules-aggressive players as a DM (and you can't manage or replace them), consider restricting your next game to core rules only.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

Yep. Not only that, but we now have the internet, which fosters these discussions. I've seen plenty of rules discussions on 1e topics, especially when the rule is unclear.

Cheers!

I too think the the rise of popularity of the internet and the web is to blame. It's definitley increased the amount of petty arguments and trivial discussions on pretty much everything (gaming and non-gaming).

Ofc it also allows me to gather more information about how other people run their games (stylistically and houserules-wise)and have advice on how to handle any situation that arises in a game.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Far, far fewer arguments in 3.X. Weapon speeds, psionics (both easier, and easier to ignore than in 1e), and the godsawful unarmed combat system in 1e. The horribly unbalanced Kits and clerical Spheres in 2e. And let us not forget, the Complete Book of Elf Cheese.

I did see fewer, perhaps, in the Basic and Expert editions of D&D (as opposed to AD&D) but then again I did not play it all that much.

All in all, I will take 3.X and run with it.

The Auld Grump

 

[Mouseferatu]

To add something a little more useful to my prior post...

3E is more rules-intensive--and it is not.

(Gee, Ari, that was useful.)

Let me explain. 1st and 2nd edition were downright ponderous when it came to rules. Weapon speed factors. Modifiers to AC based on armor vs. type of weapon. Movement measured in inches, which might mean feet or it might mean yards. A separate system not merely for grappling, but all unarmed combat. And so on, and so forth.

Thing is, in all my years of playing, I never met anyone who used every rule in those games. Heck, I don't think I ever met anyone who knew all of them.

3E may or may not be any more rules-heavy, but it is more rules-integrated. People, IME, are less comfortable ignoring certain aspects of the rules, because doing so can have a ripple effect that you simply didn't see in older editions. This doesn't mean people can't ignore the rules; it just means they're less likely to, and that doing so requires more work.

So, while the game as written may not be any more rules-heavy than prior editions, the game as played often turns out that way.

 

[Glyfair]

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.

I disagree. I think if you look at early editions (especially AD&D) you'll see there were rules for much of what is covered in 3E. What is different is that 3E has a coherent set of rules. AD&D tended to create entire new systems to cover some things beginning with unarmed combat. It's tenfold if you include Dragon articles (a large part of the early articles being "new system for handling...).

In the old days there was a lot of on the fly rulings not because the system was more in tune to it, but rather there were so many rules no one used, liked or understood. Instead of using some of the unwieldly rules, gamers made up their own variations. This lead to often moving from one AD&D game to another and sometimes finding you were playing an almost completely different game based on the core system.

 

[Crothian]

The rules of the game do not cause more rules arguements

Places on the Internet like EN World do!!

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

We argued about the rules a hell of a lot back then, too.

Ken

 

[frankthedm]

The rules of the game do not cause more rules arguments

Places on the Internet like EN World do!!

Mostly it is that. But this edition’s rules are more mechanical, leading to more mechanical error, since WotC did not want "DM Discretion" costing them rulebook sales from bad players who should have been sent packing in the first place.

 

[babomb]

I haven't exactly done a double-blind study on the matter, and I first played D&D about a year before 3e came out. But anecdotally, yes, it does lend itself more to argument.

 

[satori01]

To add something a little more useful to my prior post...


Thing is, in all my years of playing, I never met anyone who used every rule in those games. Heck, I don't think I ever met anyone who knew all of them.


So, while the game as written may not be any more rules-heavy than prior editions, the game as played often turns out that way.

This is very, very true. As an aside we once did do a 1e campaign that used all of the combat rules, (1 in 6 hits was in the head, weapon speed, minimum space to use a weapon, weapon vs armor etc), it took forever to do a combat. It also yielded some strange results. For characters with high strength the best method was to use a Dagger for weapon speed and the extra attacks that weapon speed granted, and Field Plate Armor.

A Fighter with Field Plate Armor, armed with a dagger, could take out a village of 1st level commoners like that /snap fingers/