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

[ThirdWizard]

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?

And there's Improved Natural Attack, lances getting 1.5 Str in one hand, etc etc etc. But, really, these are rarities that could go either way. Get your ruling and move on, remember it from then on, and be consistant. Those might come up once every other session at best.

Sure, there are lots of debates on the Rule forum but not in my own game. We haven't had a debate in our group in about 6 months, and it was whether flame strike did lethal damage to trolls. Looking up the spell, we quickly discovered that half the damage is lethan and half is non-lethal.

It's not like groups are having hot arguments over how grappling works are they? Sure, I know lots of people don't have them memorized and might have to look it up, but that's quite different than trying to argue that you don't suffer an AoO during a grapple attempt!

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.

Surely no one is arguing that during a session? I would be horrified! If you want a House Rule, bring it up with the DM outside of the game, talk about it all you want. But, to argue on round 2 that you want to roll initiative again? I don't want to believe that anyone would do that.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

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!)

I think you are 200% wrong.

There have always been knock-on effects. You just got used to the fact that suffering ugly knock-on effects was the norm because the game was practically unplayable without the heavy hand of DM intervention.

The difference with 3e is that knock-on effects are relatively tame, fairly predictable, and out in the open.

Some people are uncomfortable with these issues being out in the open because it may spark a certain kind of discussion. Not sure why it is such a fearful thing.

BTW, my experience is that we have a lot fewer rules arguments in 3e just because so many things are so much more clear and an effective consensus about both the letter and spirit of the law is easier to achieve.

We have some discussions involving a rule that the player thinks should be changed, but we all understand that the burden is on the player to be highly persuasive, especially if he wants a spur of the moment "reinterpretation" of the RAW.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

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.

No. We have a discussion where the burden of providing persuasive evidence is clearly on the side who wants to change the rule.

If group maturity is inadequate to resolve that discussion quickly and easily, then I find it impossible to believe the individuals would be emotionally competent to play any earlier edition. Simple as that.

 

[Warbringer]

The same, but only because I', a RBD

I think its a combination of "players are equal to DM" in rules interpretation, rules written to attempt to cover all situations, and rules written outside of WoTC.

On the latter, WoTC is the master of making simple rules that become increasingly complex the more rules that are added; its called MtG. And, there were designers, judges and players that tested and broke rules, leading to "banned" cards all the time.

Haven't seen a rule banned in 3e yet (revisions aside).

On the former, I'm sorry, the DM is the "god" of his own personal little world at the game table. Of course, he has to be fair in his interpretation and adjudication of the rules or he’ll find himself alone at the table.

On the middle point, I like the attempt of clear rules to cover all the situations. I try to keep up, I fail. I don’t want to stop the storyline and look for rules (of course this happens). I want to roleplay, I don’t want to discuss the rules. If I screw up, we live with it and if a ruling was unfair to a player the universe will right itself (usually as a free action point/conviction). I then review the rules in downtime and try not to screw up the same way a gain.

Life goes on at the table, and everyone stays friends.

 

[Lanefan]

Surely no one is arguing that during a session? I would be horrified! If you want a House Rule, bring it up with the DM outside of the game, talk about it all you want. But, to argue on round 2 that you want to roll initiative again? I don't want to believe that anyone would do that.

When else would it get argued, given as that group of people pretty much only meets at the game? It wouldn't get argued on round 2, though...something like that would be decided long before it got to that point, and I'm using it only as an example.

Lanefan

 

[ThirdWizard]

When else would it get argued, given as that group of people pretty much only meets at the game? It wouldn't get argued on round 2, though...something like that would be decided long before it got to that point, and I'm using it only as an example.

If someone wants a House Rule in a game, then they should bring it up before the game begins, IMNSHO.

Besides, desiring a House Rule is quite different from arguing what a rule actually is.

 

[Lanefan]

We have a discussion where the burden of providing persuasive evidence is clearly on the side who wants to change the rule.

If group maturity is inadequate to resolve that discussion quickly and easily, then I find it impossible to believe the individuals would be emotionally competent to play any earlier edition. Simple as that.

We-ell, some of the same crew have been playing 1e since the early '80's...so I'll give them 1e competence as a free feat. But we still argue...

And your first point shows a big difference in the discussions from older editions to now: in old days, the discussion would be to *set* the rule, rather than change it...

Lanefan

 

[Raven Crowking]

And there's Improved Natural Attack, lances getting 1.5 Str in one hand, etc etc etc.

Which is the answer to your question, "What's to argue about in 3e?"

And, of course, the farther you go from the Core, the greater the potential number of etc etc etcs you might encounter.

But, really, these are rarities that could go either way. Get your ruling and move on, remember it from then on, and be consistant. Those might come up once every other session at best.

Which is now, and has always been (in any edition, and in any system) the best advice for dealing with rules questions. However, when I read the arguments about these rulings on EN World and elsewhere, I cannot help but notice that 90% of the problem in 3e is determining who gets to make the ruling.

Which is why I said "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."

I haven't seen a real rules debate in.......I can't remember when. I mean, look ups and reminders, yes, but no actual debate since.......Sorry. I can't remember any actual debates, certainly not of the kind that occur on the internet. Not in 3e, 2e, 1e, or the blue box. I can remember trying to decide what a "roper" looked like from the DMG before getting the MM, a very long time back, but that wasn't really a debate per se.


RC

 

[ruleslawyer]

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

Seconded.

Of all the player groups I have ever DM-ed, my current group is the most deferential, polite, and non-combative when it comes to rules issues. And we play a comparatively rules-heavy game (Iron Heroes with some D&D stuff added).

As a long-time (A)D&D player, I still have a hard time understanding how people think that more rules means more adjudication. I spend *far* less time discussing rules, tweaking rules, or arguing over rules interpretations than I ever did in 1e or 2e.

 

[Piratecat]

For our group, 3e has resulted in FAR fewer rules arguments. Even better, due to a unified resolution mechanic, we simply have to look fewer things up mid-game as well.