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

[Mark CMG]

I notice fewer debates but more vehement ones when they happen.

 

[BroccoliRage]

I'm guessing you mean the system you mean being D&D, not your particular style...or are you saying you haven't changed at all since you were 8?

To be honest, I haven't changed much in regard to how I run games as much as added to it. I liked Chaosium's SAN stat, yoink! Hackmaster's improvement of stats was a little fast for my taste, but every three levels allowing percentile roll could work. Yoink! Oooh, Dragonfist has a wuxia ability, yoink! B/X allows races to be played as classes, so I can use those as a basis for a race's natural tendencies, and have those who choose to class their elf as anything other than an elf be a sort of deviance, allowing almost any type of race/class combination that fits within the milieu, yoink! Bard Games' Arcanum has Andamen? Yoinkity yoink yoink!

Of course, I'm not an unbiased source. My games aren't quite as combat-heavy as they were in those heady years of boy-dom, but at the core I don't think my attitude has changed much. I started playing when I was 7 years old and ran my first games when I was eight. I had the benefit of a step-dad who allowed me to sit at the table with his pals on Saturday nights, and I learned from folks who had been playing for a long time. My AD&D experience has been lucky enough to be augmented by players with plenty of background.

I haven't kept a record of what all has changed in that time, so you're probably right. I'm sure some things have changed, but my basic style has remined the same from what I can tell.

[qoute]
Well, frankly if that works for you, that's great...but I'd never run a game where I didn't implicitly trust my players (who are my friends). Under 3.x, you rarely have to improvise so dramatically as you did under AD&D, for example. Using stat checks covered an awful lot when there was no system for skills, so often proficiencies were used as a 'best guess'. "Well, I was a blacksmith's son, so I should be able to repair my sword if I can use the forge."

In your example, you pull the numbers out of the air for what feels right. That's fine, but I prefer having some guidelines so I, as DM, can stay consistent. Consistency allows my players to rightfully gauge what they can and cannot do in the game world. 3.X offers use the balance check, which gives pretty darned good guidelines for the situation you described.

I just think it odd that the implication is that by having rules that detail some of these things, that somehow they remove the DM's authority. Those were never invested in the rules. I saw AD&D DMs who were routinely bullied by their players, and I've seen authoritarian 3.X DMs who won't yield on their personal house rules, regardless of how they jibe with the existing rules.

Of course, as often as not, these discussions seem to highlight how many people play with other gamers who they aren't friends with, which to me is part of the difference in viewpoint.[/QUOTE]

That's all well and good, but i don't understand what that has to do with me not liking endless debate interrupting games..

 

[Numion]

I let my players correct rules mistakes I make, all the time. If they correct my decision and the correction goes against them, I even award a little xp

 

[Allensh]

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. .

I recently ran 3.5 at our local gaming club. I will admit up front that I had not run the game in awhile and I own very little 3.5 beyond the core books. But I ran this game at the direct request of a friend of mine for he and two of his friends. One of those friends turned out to be one of the most annoying rules lawyers I have ever had in a game. we couldn't get through any session without at least one drawn out argument. Sometimes when I don't remember the specifics of a rule I make a ruling that seems consistent (and occasionally defalts to 3.0 which I knew better)and just want to get on with the game. Not with this guy; he would argue anything.

In the final session, one of the characters dove into a deep pool of water to retreive a magic item the characters needed to complete their mission. he was successful but before he could leave the water he was attacked by a beastie and reduced to negative hit points and dragged underwater. The player declared his character dead...and Mr. Rules Lawyer then started a 15 minute argument about this. he insisted that the character was not dead because he could hold his breath for a number of rounds equal to his CON blah blah blah. I ruled "He's unconscious. You don't hold your breath when you're unconscious" He went right on arguing with the PLAYER, not even looking at me, as though I had no right to make a ruling or anything. Gee, I'm only the DM...

Its not really the fault of the game, its the fault of the player. but I do think that because things are much more deliniated in 3.5, some players get the idea that the DM doesn't have the right to change things. I would have been much more firm about things (and actually did try) but our gaming club is hurting right now and I didn't want to drive away members. well, they left anyway so that was somewhat pointless.

So, now I am running Castles and Crusades, which since it has less rules leaves me more room to BE the DM. I wouldn't be adverse to running 3.5 again, but if I do its going to be core rules ONLY unless I actually own it, and I am the DM which means I can do anything I want and there will be no arguing. I will try very hard to be very fair and run a good game and not abuse that power but i DO reserve that power. I will also make sure I am better prepared and take ssome time to know the rules better, but the rules are just guidelines anyway. the DM IS the rules.

Allen Shock

 

[Moon-Lancer]

Too bad I moved from there to Canada......

sigh.... true and noble raven crowking, our pure love was never ment to be. you as a dm.... i as a player.... we are just two diffrent people you and I..... and *sob* sorry i cant do this.... *runs away*



yeah thats too bad... maybe someday though.

 

[Allensh]

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

In my game, if you tried to argue with me about a rule just because you didn't like the rule and thought it should be changed you would get one of two responses:

1.) Take it up with the WOTC design team, not me

OR

2.) When you run a campaign, feel free to change any rules you want. In my game, this is how it works. Play or not, your choice.

That applies not only to the rules as written, but any house rules I might come up with (which, to be honest, I almost never do.)

EDIT: The above applies only during the game. After the game, or before the next session, I would be quite happy to discuss the rule and listen to your ideas. This does not mean that I WILL change the rules, but it does mean its not interfering with the game.

Allen

 

[Allensh]

The perception that DMs who reserve the right to change the rules in their game are somehow better than DMs who decide to run the game according to the rules as written.

My problem is not with DMS who run the rules as written. I actually do try to do this most of the time. It is easier, after all Sometimes I forget things and would rather not slow the game down looking something up. I want the freedom to make a ruling and get on with it. THAT seems to be what some players I have played with recently object to.

Allen

 

[xnrdcorex]

well in earlier editions you'd argue things involved with role-playing. things like "I should be able to do this," or "Can I do this because my characters like this!"

But in 3.x role-playing stuff is replaced by die rolls entirely so instead of argueing over what you can do, you end up argueing over what the skills and abilities you have allow you to do based on what is written in the book and how they cna be interpeted. So instead of "can I do this" it is now "I can do a because a is like b" and then other people say no, "a is more like c" ect ect

Someone earlier said the amount of argueing isn't changing only what its based on. that might be true. Of course it's allot more fun to discuss role-playing wise what someone cna do than what the skill jump and tumble will allow me to do if I roll a 4 with a +11 modifier and circumstance modifiers as well under duress.

that's how I see it. Personally I liked argueing role-playing stuff, I hate argueing rules.

 

[Maggan]

But in 3.x role-playing stuff is replaced by die rolls entirely

Not at my table. Or at any table I have played or watched someone playing D&D.

The amount of roleplaying available from 3e is the same as ever: you get back what you put into it.

/M

 

[WizarDru]

That's all well and good, but i don't understand what that has to do with me not liking endless debate interrupting games..

Well, I interperted your point with the dialogue to indicate that you thought that under earlier systems, the lack of rules allowed you to exert more control over how the game was run and minimized debate due to your players not being able to quote you chapter-and-verse, especially since the 3.X rules really didn't cover that many examples. My point was that the 3.X rules actually cover and infer quite a bit more than most people ever both to learn and that your example was quite adequately accounted for or at least intimated by the existing rules. 3.X sets a fairly standard baseline for quite a few things, and IME, that leads to far fewer actual arguments over the rules. When something appears that doesn't jibe with the existing infrastructure, it's usually pretty apparent pretty quickly. Things like categorizing abilities into EX, SU and SLA help to quantify design intent. Since much of the AD&D ruleset felt as if they were put together in a vacuum from the other parts of the system, rules arguments were much more common....as were many things like manuevers and movements. This isn't to say that it's necessarily more satisfying for some groups...the opposite may be true. However, this is highly dependent on the DM, whereas under 3E it is, IMHO, much less the case.

For my group, rules debates are handled quickly and efficiently. The DM is the final arbiter of what actually happens and what is in effect. Endless rule debates are a social construct that is in the DM and player's realm to control. As I pointed out with respect to Knights of the Dinner Table, rules lawyers have existed for a very long time...long enough to become an archetype. In fact, a large part of the humo of that strip is driven by exactly those kinds of issues (such as exploiting rules loopholes, metagaming and arguing with the DM over his calls and specific issues).