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

[Garnfellow]

I find far, far fewer arguments about rules in my 3.X games. And I find it much, much easier to improvise a new rule in the 3.x environment.

Man, just thinking about some of those old 1e rules arguments makes me grind my teeth.

 

[Shieldhaven]

My players do generally have the good grace to wait until after a game session to trot out ideas for new systems or rulings for corner-cases that annoy us, or to argue for the reversal of an earlier ruling. But a willingness on the part of the players to consider introducing new bits into the game isn't new to this edition - it's just the kind of friends I have.

Back in 2e, for instance, we once spent something like four hours of a weekend-long marathon session trying to hash out rules for spending one or more of a character's attacks per round on parrying - a whole contested-attack-roll thing that was a hell of a lot harder to work with in the Bad Old Days of THAC0.

Haven

 

[Mishihari Lord]

Ah yes, the "divine right of DMs". I've asked the following question a few times before, but I have yet to receive a satisfactory answer.

Why do some people continue to view a DM who retains the right to change the rules of the game as superior to one who decides to accept the rules as written and work within them?

That's an easy one. It's because sometimes the rules don't produce the game you want.

 

[Henry]

There have always been rules arguments - to my mind, less so in the past because of said "divine right of GM's." (Not a good name for it, because anyone can be a GM, so it's no more a right than any public government office is.) Having the final person who can say, "here's how we're going to play it, and we can talk about it between sessions" is to me far more important than having a solidly "right" answer, which gets debated and drug up in mid-game.

In previous editions, the rules arguments weren't "the rules say this" so much as "that DM ruling doesn't make sense." however, the rules explicitly spelled out final arbiter status of the GM, solely for the sake of harmony during play time. When we played, we ALWAYS listened to people's arguments in between sessions and came to some kind of group consensus for sticky issues. In fact, we still do, and we stil keep "DM has final say" because we want quick answers more than right ones.

 

[Chiaroscuro23]

Interesting.

In our gaming group (half of which has been playing for about 20 years) we find that each combat round takes double or triple of what it used to back in 2E.

As a DM, I also find awarding XP to take me a lot longer with more consulting of tables and formulas than what it did in 2E as well.

Length of resolution time is not necessarily directly related to rules complexity. Particularly length of combat resolution. Consider the old World of Darkness. Combat rounds took forever despite the relative simplicity of the system, because you had to roll initiative, declare actions, resolve actions--attack rolls, dodge rolls, damage rolls, "soak" (DR) rolls, or use whatever appropriate magic power. Since it used a dice pool system, you had to roll a number of d10s and then count them up, which is faster than rolling a die pool then adding them, but slower than rolling a single die and adding (which is itself slower than rolling a single die against a flat value, like BRP does.)

Also check out
http://forum.rpg.net/showpost.php?p=6336502&postcount=63
http://forum.rpg.net/showpost.php?p=6337766&postcount=69

Similarly, games can have lots of rules in non-combat areas. Consider the hacking rules in Shadowrun games, the chargen rules in point buy games like GURPS and HERO, or specific subsets for magic, social, or other stuff.



Anyway, to answer the basic thrust of the thread: does having defined rules create rules arguments? A lot depends on the culture of the game. A GM could say ahead of time that his word is law, and a rule will only count if he wants--thereafter there are no rule arguments regardless of the number of rules. (There might also be no players, but that's another argument). Alternatively, he could say that the rules will be followed absolutely, most of the time, and so on. Does having clear answers that need to be looked up cause arguments more than having vague answers with multiple interpretations? IME, clear rules always yeild fewer arguments, given equal GM willingness to hear arguments.

-C.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Definately not. A written rule is less likely to cause bickering than the DM coming up with a new system for disarming an opponent every session.

Of course, the fact that its been 15 years or so since we played 1st/2nd edition non-stop might have some issue with that. Hopefully we've matured a tiny bit.

 

[FireLance]

That's an easy one. It's because sometimes the rules don't produce the game you want.

So why is a DM who needs to change the rules to get the game he wants superior to a DM who can work within the rules to get the game he wants?

 

[Odhanan]

And yes, we need to take a break to cool down a bit I have been talking with the DM and other players about that already.

Certainly does sound like it.

You were asking who could put up with making sense of the rules: I ran games with characters of high levels and never encountered the kind of arguments over arguments you're talking about. Really. I guess that's just a gaming style.

 

[painandgreed]

I would say no change. Even if they are easier to understand and apply to more situations, the main factor in arguements is the stuborness of the people involved, not the rules in question.

 

[pawsplay]

Ah yes, the "divine right of DMs". I've asked the following question a few times before, but I have yet to receive a satisfactory answer.

Why do some people continue to view a DM who retains the right to change the rules of the game as superior to one who decides to accept the rules as written and work within them?

Because the person with the greatest responsility is the one who gets the stronger part of decision making. That's why parents trump teachers, the person who bought the blueberry muffins gets to eat the last one, and your parents can dock your allowance.

Since the DM runs the game, the DM gets to make the final decisions that affect the game. If not, it's not a question of equals, it would be the DM running the game within parameters set by the other players. The DM doesn't tell you how to play your character, you don't tell him how to intepret rules. That's fair.