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

[Thurbane]

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?

 

[pawsplay]

One previous DMG had rules for the damage lycanthropes take for changing in armor. So my thoughts are that the initial premise is not likely to be true in any useful, general sense.

 

[MerricB]

Do some people just enjoy debating rules for the sake of the debate itself?

Yep. Not only that, but we now have the internet, which fosters these discussions. I've seen plenty of rules discussions on 1e topics, especially when the rule is unclear.

Cheers!

 

[Thurbane]

One previous DMG had rules for the damage lycanthropes take for changing in armor. So my thoughts are that the initial premise is not likely to be true in any useful, general sense.

Hmm, I see your point, but as someone who has played every incarnation of D&D since about 1984, the current edition is defnitely more "rules based" (especially in combat and character generation) than earlier editions, IMHO. Perhaps I am just expressing it poorly.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Hmm, I see your point, but as someone who has played every incarnation of D&D since about 1984, the current edition is defnitely more "rules based" (especially in combat and character generation) than earlier editions, IMHO.

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.

 

[pawsplay]

Hmm, I see your point, but as someone who has played every incarnation of D&D since about 1984, the current edition is defnitely more "rules based" (especially in combat and character generation) than earlier editions, IMHO. Perhaps I am just expressing it poorly.

How so? Earlier editions had speed factors, class/race restrictions, alignment penalties that cost XP, "reaction tables" for monsters, percentile strength, dual and multiclassing, different damages for large opponents, AC versus damage type, % chance of a particular monster being a special advanced version, XP formulae (as opposed to CR estimations), % chance to learn spells, tithing rules, barbarian magical item restrictions, and so on and so on.

The current incarnation is more elegant, less ambiguous, better organized, more unified in design, and less laden down with nitpicking details.

So my opinion is essentially the opposite of yours. To me, 3e is a lean machine. Even with feat selection, character creation is often faster, especially for rogues (stupid racial skill modifier charts, and Dex affects what but not what again?).

 

[ZSutherland]

Is it that gamers today are less trusting of their DMs to make fair decisions, and want everything to be "letter of the law"?

I think there may be a grain of truth here. I think the current incarnation of D&D (and most current RPGs) tries to avoid the adversarial mode for DMs, and players get the notion that it's automatically a bad way to play. While a DM that's just out to screw the players is no fun regardless of the game, the DM (via his cleverly designed dungeon) vs the players (via their characters) was a fine way to play the game once upon a time. In fact, it still is, but the trend of moving away from that style of game has prompted mistrust of DMs in players. When I played as a kid, I'd have been just as miffed if the DM had given us some sort of lack-luster dungeon we could beat while half-asleep as I would have been if he'd given us a dungeon that was simply impossible at our level. Now you get the feeling from some players (who are promptly invited not to return to my game) that if the DM challenges the players overmuch, he's out to get them and is a bad DM. As such, they want the game to run by rules instead of DM judgement and fiat as much as possible, so the evil dungeonmaster can't "get them."

 

[Rl'Halsinor]

More? I'm not sure, but I've come to the conclusion that rules = rules bickering regardless of the incarnation.

 

[thosfsull]

Is it because 3/3.5E is so rules intensive by it's very nature that leads to these disputes?

From my view, it is the d20 system with all it's variant tricks and genres being tweaked that allows players to examine the other side and pontificate on how things could be better in theory. Example: Well, Arcana Evolved is so much more flexible in spellcasting with its laden spells and added templates.

Factor in the Interweb access of near infinite opinions being able to be examined and mulled over in one's mind too. Example: My group houseruled that this was weak, so we added this, that, and the other thing to make it OK.

Is it that gamers today are less trusting of their DMs to make fair decisions, and want everything to be "letter of the law"?

A lot of these books get erratted, plus complementry, auxillary, and conflicting additions only make disagreement more possible than before.

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?

With no wiggle room in the electronic corridor of the genre, things are more black and white. In tabletop playing, there are more gray areas to ponder over and improvise. Everyone wants to have interesting and viable options, but they don't know exactly how, when, or why to ask.

Is it because the current ruleset puts more emphasis on grid based combat and less on roleplaying than earlier editions?

Don't know for sure really. Though Minatures do act as perhaps a warm media, in the educational psych area, for those who need a wee bit more push in the imagination area, which in theory should attract more people to the game than straight pen and pencil stuff.

Do some people just enjoy debating rules for the sake of the debate itself?

People like to be an expert at something and both trusted and envied for their wisdom in some area. Challenging a game and keeping an open mind is better of an option for enjoyment for the majority. Everyone wants to tilt the playing field in some way to their advantage, some are just a wee bit intense in how steep that slope is or isn't.

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.

If you are decent in conflict resolution and dealing with problems in general, the few wrinkles you get can be ironed out quite well. If you lack in these essential life skills, well fun just out the window.

 

[Thurbane]

How so? Earlier editions had speed factors, class/race restrictions, alignment penalties that cost XP, "reaction tables" for monsters, percentile strength, dual and multiclassing, different damages for large opponents, AC versus damage type, % chance of a particular monster being a special advanced version, XP formulae (as opposed to CR estimations), % chance to learn spells, tithing rules, barbarian magical item restrictions, and so on and so on.

The current incarnation is more elegant, less ambiguous, better organized, more unified in design, and less laden down with nitpicking details.

So my opinion is essentially the opposite of yours. To me, 3e is a lean machine. Even with feat selection, character creation is often faster, especially for rogues (stupid racial skill modifier charts, and Dex affects what but not what again?).

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.

But anyway, I'm getting offtrack from my original purpose in this thread. Despite the fact I disagree with some of your assessments, I appreciate your input.