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

[pawsplay]

The current version of the game somewhat requires the participants to have a better knowledge of the rules, and rewards those who do.

I have a ready counter argument to this: unarmed combat. Two versions of D&D, two versions of AD&D, and a book on Combat and Tactics were not able to produce a rendition of unarmed combat and grappling understood by anyone.

Then there's the sometimes complicated interactions caused by items with extradimensional place...

Monsters and items countered by very specific combinations of spells...

AD&D 2e has an elaborate XP system it took a real jock to get the most out of...

 

[Mercule]

I believe that is true, in many respects.

I do not believe it has resulted in more rules arguments. I think it has just resulted in a change in the tenor of those arguments. I see no more "argument breaks" now than I used to; they've just changed in tone.

Erm... the mouse wins the thread.

Pretty much exactly my thoughts.

 

[Psion]

I can only recall having one rules argument under 3e. That's a MUUUUUUCH better track record than under 1e or 2e IME.

The rules are that much cleaner that if something differs from the rules, it's usually deliberate.

I think rules-integratedness helps rules arguments, not hurts. Before, you had different spells, magic items, and class abilities that might have been unclear as to how everything worked together because such things were handled on a case-by-case basis. In 3e, things like named modifiers removed the needs for so many explicit rulings (and resultant arguments and problems from lack of completeness of them) by creating an underlying consistency that makes how to handle a certain mechanic obvious.

I think some of you just have bad memories...

 

[Henry]

I can only recall having one rules argument under 3e. That's a MUUUUUUCH better track record than under 1e or 2e IME.

The rules are that much cleaner that if something differs from the rules, it's usually deliberate.

I think rules-integratedness helps rules arguments, not hurts. Before, you had different spells, magic items, and class abilities that might have been unclear as to how everything worked together because such things were handled on a case-by-case basis. In 3e, things like named modifiers removed the needs for so many explicit rulings (and resultant arguments and problems from lack of completeness of them) by creating an underlying consistency that makes how to handle a certain mechanic obvious.

I think some of you just have bad memories...

What about the knock-down dragouts that frequently occur in rules forums both here and at other sites? There's a heck of a lot of argument just because there ARE rules to cover a situation, and often they're not written in legalese (which I oppose quite strongly). There are in truth probably as many, but (1) they're now more clearly documented, thanks to the internet, and (2) as I noted before, they changed from "the DM's rule for this makes to sense," to "the DM's Interpretation of this makes no sense."

 

[Raven Crowking]

I wouldn't say that the advent of 3.X increased the number of rules arguments. IME, the number hasn't changed.

FireLance, there is no qualitative difference between DMs who massively house rule or those who do not.....though there might be a qualitative difference between the house rules and the original game rules. There is a line of thought, though, that says that the more a campaign is differentiated from other campaigns, and the more internally consistent, the better it is. Of course, even those who adhere to that line of thought don't generally want something so unique that they cannot intuit who is who and what is what, nor do they want it so internally self-consistent that micro-economics must be determined to walk from Village A to Village B.

Even those who house rule as massively as I do have to strive to maintain a balance. In my case, I house rule to add flavor, add options, and achieve a consistent world view -- all great goals whether you work from rules to world or from world to rules!

If anything, consistent rules mean less arguments....whether consistent RAW or consistent house rules. However, no set of rules is perfect (or can be, IMHO), and there are always going to be judgment calls. Making sure that everyone at the table knows up front how those calls are going to be handled (DM as final arbiter, group decision, whatever) makes rules arguments less likely....and a lot less hostile should they occur.

Which, again, is a great goal.

RC

 

[ThirdWizard]

What's to argue about in 3e? Seriously, you look up the rule, and you read it, and that will solve 90% of problems with how a rule works. There are the occasonal abberations where there's ambiguity, but in most of those cases, the group just needs to know how they're playing it.

I can't see how 3e leads to rules arguments unless you just don't read the rulebooks.

 

[Lanefan]

I think there's about the same *number* of arguments and discussions around the table now as before, but *what* is being discussed has changed.

In 1e days, particularly early on when we were still learning and tweaking the game, the discussions were very broad-based, often revolving around changing entire system blocks (e.g. spell points vs. slots, dropping ExP-for-treasure) to make it make more sense to us. Fine-tuning was usually left to the DM and unless something was blatantly nonsensical we'd just go with it. We're still doing this even today.

Now, in 3e days, the at-table discussions are much more fine-tuned. You can't change blocks of the system without causing a far greater knock-on effect (nice term for it, by the way) than earlier editions, so those discussions pretty much default to a non-starter unless you've a DM willing to redesign the game almost from the ground up. But arguments about picky interpretations of standing rules (AoO's, anyone?) have become more frequent, to fill the void. And there's lots more standing rules to argue about in 3e, and players know them better...and of course, want to use them to advantage. Also, despite rule 0 still being in the DMG in some form, there seems to be a stronger sense of "this is the way it is, period" in 3e than previous editions, leading to less flexibility in both player and DM stances.

The drastic-change discussions for 3e seem to have moved from the table to the internet, at least in my own experience. They're sometimes well-disguised as "what do we want in 4e" debates...

Lanefan

 

[Raven Crowking]

What's to argue about in 3e? Seriously, you look up the rule, and you read it, and that will solve 90% of problems with how a rule works. There are the occasonal abberations where there's ambiguity, but in most of those cases, the group just needs to know how they're playing it.

I can't see how 3e leads to rules arguments unless you just don't read the rulebooks.

One I remember quite well was "Can a skeleton talk if you cast speak with dead on it?" The DM ruled that the skeleton could answer, but only using non-verbal means. The players didn't like that ruling. The definition of "corpse" and the wording of the spell were picked apart to the nth degree. Want me to link you to the thread?

RC

 

[Lanefan]

I can't see how 3e leads to rules arguments unless you just don't read the rulebooks.

Unless you don't *agree* with the rulebooks because the rule or mechanic in question makes no sense. That's the root of most arguments through all editions: something doesn't make sense to someone even when read correctly as written, not because they don't understand the words or meaning, but because they simply don't agree with it. An example: 3e rules say clearly that initiative is rolled once on a d20 at combat start and that's it. I understand that. I also don't agree with it because it makes no common sense to me...so bingo, we have a rules debate.

Lanefan

 

[Psion]

What about the knock-down dragouts that frequently occur in rules forums both here and at other sites?

In part, I chalk that up to the internet. I never see these sorts of brawls evolve in meat space.

As far as it goes, many of the brawls evolved around new rules and add-ons in the forms of feats, spells, class abilities, new magic systems, etc., that change the rules in non-standardized ways. In otherwords, they are encountering problem that existed in 1e and 2e... it's just that these points have been moved out to the periphery, to the less standardized and less fundamental rules.

My point here isn't that rules arguments don't happen. Its that "integratedness and consistency" aren't the culprit. Quite the contrary, they aid the situation. The integrated nature means that many basic aspects of the game don't get argued about. What does get argued about are a few lingering trouble makers that exist precisely because we have failed to be fully consistent and integrated (hair-splitting on "attack actions" and "unarmed" vs. "natural" attacks come to mind.)