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

[BroccoliRage]

Beautiful, Frank. Just beautiful.

See, the player's aren't the ones who should be arguing the rules. The player's don't have a say in the ref's rulings. The 3e-raised kids that play in my AD&D game every week have to be reminded of this occasionally, as they think that they know everythign about the system that I do as DM, and they get mad when I don't allow access of the DMG to them. Sorry, that's how it is. There are no rules arguments because all of my rulings as DM are FINAL. No if's, and's, or but's. Perhaps this is written in the 3e DMG and PHB, but most of the players of the current edition who sit at my table seem very shocked when I'm not willing to discuss my rulings outside of an in-game justification. Yet, they keep returning, so I must be doing something right.

It's my world. The player is free to move about and interact with it in any way he wishes, but it is I and I alone who determines who it reacts and interacts with him. I'm postive that there are many 3e DM's who think and act the same way, but the kids who need to be reminded of this from time to time in my weekly group are those who learned RPG's from 3e.

I don't think any EDITION fosters rules arguments per se, I think DM's do. I have noticed a larger percentage of rules lawyers playing 3e, but I believe that is only because it is the most readily accessible edition. A breeding ground for rules arguments is not one of the flaws I find in 3e.

I do, however, think that a stronger emphasis on the DM as final arbiter should be stressed in the books. If anything like Frank's quote exists in the core rulebooks, I missed it. I haven't read the current edition's core books in about 3 or 4 years.

 

[Hussar]

The funny thing is, Rule 0 is STILL in the books in 3e. It's just that when you actually have rules that cover a given situation, it's usually a lot easier just to follow the rules.

Then again, some people enjoy playing "Mother May I". I do not.

 

[BroccoliRage]

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/

Seems kind of metagame-y to me. Of course, I don't use the weapons speeds.

I wasn't aware commoner was a class in AD&D

 

[Plane Sailing]

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.

A particularly salient point.

The integration of 3e also makes it less amenable to house ruling of whole systems, because of the knock-on effect. There was pretty much no knock-on effect in 1e, so it was relatively easy to rewrite magic systems, combat systems, critical hit systems and so on without dramatically affecting other aspects of the game (Just look at some of the APAs from the late 70s and early 80s for evidence of that!)

Cheers

 

[BroccoliRage]

The funny thing is, Rule 0 is STILL in the books in 3e. It's just that when you actually have rules that cover a given situation, it's usually a lot easier just to follow the rules.

Then again, some people enjoy playing "Mother May I". I do not.

Why not just write those rules? I did. It isn't hard. A DM needs good judgement, common sense, and impartiality. If you're literate and understand the system well enough to wield it effectively, it doesn't take anymore time than it takes to post on the internet, so a lack of available time isn't a viable argument.

Are DM-created rules and rulings somehow less valid than what publisher's view? Outside of a tournament's milieu, I mean.

I think you are misinterpreting the spirit of my post. I am not comparing editions anymore than anyone else in the post. I don't feel a system is a breeding ground for rules lawyering, I feel that non-commited DM's are.

 

[MerricB]

The integration of 3e also makes it less amenable to house ruling of whole systems, because of the knock-on effect. There was pretty much no knock-on effect in 1e...

I think this is one of the big myths about 1e. There were knock-on effects from all those systems. However, we weren't aware enough of game design to properly assess them.

Cheers!

 

[Storyteller01]

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?

I'm for the last option. It doesn't create the debates (we love conflict enough it create it ourselves ), it just provides more details to debate about.

 

[Hussar]

Why not just write those rules? I did. It isn't hard. A DM needs good judgement, common sense, and impartiality. If you're literate and understand the system well enough to wield it effectively, it doesn't take anymore time than it takes to post on the internet, so a lack of available time isn't a viable argument.

Are DM-created rules and rulings somehow less valid than what publisher's view? Outside of a tournament's milieu, I mean.

I think you are misinterpreting the spirit of my post. I am not comparing editions anymore than anyone else in the post. I don't feel a system is a breeding ground for rules lawyering, I feel that non-commited DM's are.

Actually, you snuck in there before I hit post. My post was directed at FranktheDM since it seems that people tend to think that 3e has somehow removed rule zero from the game. I should type quicker.

OTOH, I feel that a game that requires "committed" DM's is not one for me. I have neither the time, the patience nor the energy to write games. I play games, particularly D&D because I like to. I DM because I enjoy that too. I like running games. I don't like having to constantly come up with my own rulings because it places me as the DM far too much in the spotlight. I prefer to allow rules to remain as far in the background as possible. Every time I have to step up and answer rules questions, I have to wear my DM hat (I actually have one you know) and not wear whatever mask of whichever NPC I happen to be playing at the time.

Some people enjoy that. I do not. I play D&D to play, not to be a game designer. That's why I pay for books, so that other people can be game designers and let me get on with what I enjoy - creating and running adventures for my players.

To give an example of why I loathe rule 0 most of the time, look at the last OOTS strip comments (352?) about Durkon casting a control weather spell. People, note, that's plural, stated that the speed of sound is 1 mile per second. And, several posts in, no one had corrected them. The speed of sound is about 1/5 of a mile/second. Now, I've played in FAR too many games where DM's would rule that the speed of sound is 1 mile per second and NOTHING you could say would change their mind. I would much prefer to have the rules fixed and known by everyone at the table than play "mother may I" whenever I try to do something.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

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
​

i see the problem right here... em what? 1979? expired.... what? kindding kidding hehe

I am anti establishment, anti authority and I think the dm is equal to the players in all respects BUT, I think the dm does and always will get the final say (but not alwayse right), but lets face it, over the years I have met some old dms, and they tend to think that sit down and up was apart to the rules and tend to have short fuses for difference of opinions. That’s not someone I would want to game with. I feel dms get the idea that this lets them be condescending to the players. Being a dm doesn’t give rights to be a jerk. I have seen this first hand (also known as the god complex), but I think I need more experience with old dms, to see if this is a common trait or if I am just have bad luck finding dms from 1e. I would like to find a good example of a dm from 1e to see what that’s all about.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

It only appears there is more rules bickering, because we have an Internet now where people the world over can meet and rules bicker.

I don't believe there is more argument over rules in 3E -- there was plenty in the ol' 1E days. Heck, back then entire editions and a magazine were spawned to clarify rules points.