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

[coyote6]

I don't know, I remember more arguments about 1e rules than 3.xe rules.

People arguing that a DM's made up rule was dumb or made no sense, people suggesting new rules then arguing about those, etc.

 

[Treebore]

I've been lucky. We never had disruptive rules arguments. I played with lots of people due to being in the Navy AND living in a mililtary town with lots of millitary players. We discussed rules and came to a concensus on what to use and how they are to be interpreted. Then we played. Same thing with 3E. The only time I had any serious arguments was with the people who misunderstood the 3.0 AoO rules. Even after the errata. :\ That was ugly.

Besides, I/we always gamed with the understanding that it is the DM's game. If we didn't agree with their interpretation we were free to leave or stay and game. Most stayed and gamed.

If 3E, as a system, has any problems it is that the DM's control of the game has become ambiguous. I think that a certain paragraph in a certain DMG should still be in this editions DMG. In big bold print.

I think that may be the whole key to why I've quit 3E. I wasn't running "my" game anymore. It was WOTC's. Their ideas, their rules. I had to conform to it instead of being able to make it conform to my vision.

Anyways, the arguments were determined by the maturity of the people involved, not the rules set. I made sure I played with people who had the kind of maturity that facilitated game play. The ones who didn't have that maturity were invited to gain it, or leave.

 

[Vegepygmy]

I don't know, I remember more arguments about 1e rules than 3.xe rules.

People arguing that a DM's made up rule was dumb or made no sense, people suggesting new rules then arguing about those, etc.

Bingo. IME, there are a lot fewer rules arguments at the gaming table in 3.x than 1e. (I never played much 2e.)

Online, there's a tremendous amount of rules-arguing going on, but there can be no comparison because we didn't have the Internet back then. (Based on what I saw at gaming conventions back in the day, though, I imagine there would have been just as much.)

 

[Xyanthon]

I have to say that it has been my experience that there is no signifigant increase in arguements over the rules with the advent of 3.x over any of the previous incarnations of the game. The groups I've gamed with pretty much came to a consensus on the rules we'd use and how we'd use them. For instance, in the 1e days, we never used the weapons vs. armor or weapon speed (quite frankly at the time, I don't think we quite understood them) and with what I've played in 3.x it was much the same. Usually the DM would set the rules and that would be that. If we didn't like it, then we didn't have to play. In all reality, for me and the groups that I've played in, it's just a game. Sure there are rules but we always played to have fun and when the rules as written didn't accomodate that, then we'd change them or ditch them.

 

[MerricB]

Another factor is that there are just a bunch more products available for 3e than 1e.

Cheers!

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Bingo. IME, there are a lot fewer rules arguments at the gaming table in 3.x than 1e. (I never played much 2e.)

Online, there's a tremendous amount of rules-arguing going on, but there can be no comparison because we didn't have the Internet back then. (Based on what I saw at gaming conventions back in the day, though, I imagine there would have been just as much.)

Fair enough. The internet is not so much an 'information superhighway' as a communications highway. As a result we have a whole lot more monkeys in shouting range of eachother, and they all have loudspeakers.

The Auld Grump, poo flinging at its finest!

 

[Hussar]

I had FAR more game breakdowns due to rules arguements in 1e and 2e than I do in 3e. I honestly can't remember the last time I had to stop the game to discuss rules to be completely honest. I have had to stop and look stuff up, sure, but, actually try to figure out rules in game? IME, it hasn't happened in so long that I forget the last time.

IME, 3e rules discussions go like this:

Player 1: I do this.
Player 2: That's not the way that works.
Player 1: Yes it is.
Player 2: (Opens a book, points to a paragraph) No it isn't.
Player 1: Oh.

In earlier editions, there were no rules governing so many things that the rule arguements just went around in circles FOREVER.

 

[MerricB]

IME, 3e rules discussions go like this:

Player 1: I do this.
Player 2: That's not the way that works.
Player 1: Yes it is.
Player 2: (Opens a book, points to a paragraph) No it isn't.
Player 1: Oh.

In earlier editions, there were no rules governing so many things that the rule arguements just went around in circles FOREVER.

That's pretty much how I see it as well. Where 3e bogs down is when the rule *isn't* clearly described, but that hasn't been the case much at all.

Compare AD&D (1e) surprise and initiative rules. (Consider a 5th level monk needing a surprise roll against Bugbears and tell me how it works.)

Cheers!

 

[Aus_Snow]

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

No. FAR less.

When rules are actually there, there is much less opportunity for argument in the first place. When it's up to the (hopefully!) good judgement of the DM. . . well, that's subjective now, isn't it.

It's like arguing arithmetic: sure you can do that if you like, but in the end, right is (generally speaking) right, and that's that.

Whereas arguing about art, or something equally arbitrary. . . there's just so much more room for it.

 

[frankthedm]

If 3E, as a system, has any problems it is that the DM's control of the game has become ambiguous. I think that a certain paragraph in a certain DMG should still be in this editions DMG. In big bold print.

Ahem...

"It is the spirit of the game, not the letter of the rules, which is important. Never hold to the letter written, nor allow some barracks room lawyer to force quotations from the rule book upon you, if it goes against the obvious intent of the game. As you hew the line with respect to conformity to major systems and uniformity of play in general, also be certain the game is mastered by you and not by your players. Within the broad parameters given in the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Volumes, you are the creator and final arbiter."
- Advanced Dungeons & Dragons "Dungeon Masters Guide", 1979
​