Does 3E/3.5 dictate a certain style of play?

[molonel]

Doesn't mean it is playing the game by the rules. A lot of people playing the game bad doesn't make the bad way the correct way.

Yes, I can't imagine where I got the idea that someone with Detect Evil and Smite Evil might go around using those abilities on a regular basis.

 

[Crothian]

Yes, I can't imagine where I got the idea that someone with Detect Evil and Smite Evil might go around using those abilities on a regular basis.

Huh? I'm not questioning where you got that idea or that people play that way. I am questioning in the books that it says Paladins are allowed to go around killing anything that happens to detect as evil just because it detects as evil. I'm also saying that DMs allow players to get away with it because I guess this is the type of game they want. But as VirgilCaine skillfully pointed out, Paladins who do this should become fighters as they lose their abilities.

And if you want to discuss this more, please start a thread on it. This tangent has gone on long enough and people around here love Paladin threads.

 

[Bacris]

Semantics.

Except in a purely-text based mode of communication, semantics and connotations of the words used are absolutely critical. Dictate has a negative connotation, as it specifies lack of other options. Recommends has more of a neutral connotation. Default has a neutral connotation.

To specify that something dictates when it really recommends, even strongly or patronizingly recommends, gives a false statement. Hence why the original poster's question of does it dictate a specific playstyle was met with quite a few "no, but it does recommend a specific playstyle."

Regardless of campaign setting or story arcs or enemies, you still know largely what you are going to get in a RAW 3ed game

I've played in low-powered 3.5 games and Monty-Haul 3.5 games. Games with 6 encounters in a single game day and 1 encounter a day for six sessions straight. 3.x may expect a specific playstyle for its assumptions, but it also allows for alternate playstyles and even gives recommendations for alternate playstyles.

So perhaps dictate was the wrong word to use by the OP, or maybe it's what he meant, I don't know, but dismissing semantics in a pure-text discussion isn't necessarily the best course of action

Just IMO.

 

[molonel]

Huh? I'm not questioning where you got that idea or that people play that way. I am questioning in the books that it says Paladins are allowed to go around killing anything that happens to detect as evil just because it detects as evil. I'm also saying that DMs allow players to get away with it because I guess this is the type of game they want. But as VirgilCaine skillfully pointed out, Paladins who do this should become fighters as they lose their abilities.

And if you want to discuss this more, please start a thread on it. This tangent has gone on long enough and people around here love Paladin threads.

If it continues, I'll be happy to move it to another thread. The paladin's code is just vague enough that if your DM wants to be a putz about it, he can tighten the screws as much or as little as he pleases. Personally, I'd rather just remove an element from the game which - to me - is annoying and subtracts more than it adds to the game and replace it with something that creates more possibilities rather than eliminating them.

That's just my opinion.

 

[Garnfellow]

First, the facts, just so we're all in agreement.

Great post -- I strongly agree with just about everything you wrote here.

C) DM fiat applies just as strongly in 3e as in 1e. I'm curious as to why people attribute this magical quality of house rule-ability to 1e as opposed to 3e. If anything, at least 3e *says* that if the DM doesn't like something, he can change it (Rule 0, anyone?), whereas EGG has been known to mention that if you're playing 1e with house rules, you're not playing (A)D&D...

In addition, I find it much, much easier as a DM to evaluate new rules or crunchy bits in 3e because of the mechanical consistency throughout the system. I played around with a lot of variant rules back in 1st edition -- from "reputable sources" like Dragon or White Dwarf to kookier things like Arduin or fanzines. And I'll tell you, it usually felt like a complete crapshoot bringing some of that stuff into the game.

But with 3e? A lot less worries. Oh, there are plenty of broken things out there, but they're much easier to spot. For example, I am working on a conversion of an old BD&D module, and needed some 3.5e stats for a couple of monsters. A Google search turned up some fan-made conversions, which were quickly deemed Good Enough to Swipe. Before 3e, I would have been very, very reluctant to have just grabbed something like that off the internet.

 

[Psion]

C) DM fiat applies just as strongly in 3e as in 1e. I'm curious as to why people attribute this magical quality of house rule-ability to 1e as opposed to 3e.

Necessity is the mother of invention.

I learned to house rule when playing 1e (and 2e) precisely because I felt it needed it so much.

When I translated my 2e game to 3e, my house rule document dropped by a factor of about 10, from 50 to 5 pages.

 

[molonel]

When I translated my 2e game to 3e, my house rule document dropped by a factor of about 10, from 50 to 5 pages.

Ah yes, the infamous black 3-ring binder that was the staple of 2nd Edition games. I remember it well! I know part of what makes some people miss 2nd Edition was the great amount of retooling it required. The game became yours, in a personal sense. Sometimes it's hard to remember the problems with 2nd Edition because everyone worked so hard to smooth those out in houserules.

 

[BryonD]

Necessity is the mother of invention.

I learned to house rule when playing 1e (and 2e) precisely because I felt it needed it so much.

When I translated my 2e game to 3e, my house rule document dropped by a factor of about 10, from 50 to 5 pages.

Heh!!!

I agree with rulelawyer here.
But you also make a very good point!!

 

[CruelSummerLord]

So perhaps dictate was the wrong word to use by the OP, or maybe it's what he meant, I don't know, but dismissing semantics in a pure-text discussion isn't necessarily the best course of action

Just IMO.

When I wrote "dictate", I meant that the system required characters to have a higher number of magical items and powers to ensure reasonable chances for success on the part of the players. I had read elsewhere that 3E/3.5E relied heavily on magical equipment to balance out the different encounters, and that was the statement I was initially worrying about. So perhaps "dictate" was too strong a word; what I meant to say is that such a style of play lends itself more to play balance in the game than others, which is why I was wondering if people who enjoy lower-toned games can't really do that anymore playing by the new rules. From what I've seen, 3E does lend itself more to a certain style of play, and one that I don't necessarily agree with, but a skilled DM and players can often work things out, and there are alternatives for those who want them.

 

[CruelSummerLord]

To me, the new vs. old debate has less to do with soul, than freedom. The soul (or lack thereof) is driven by the players and GM and not the rules. There is a difference in the feel of freedom in the new rulesets. I know that one can ignore anything that is undesirable from any set of rules but, that's not the point. The newer rules seem to be driven by limitations rather than imagination. To illustrate the shift in mindset lets look at the evolution of gaming for a bit.

During the early days of RPG's, there were many situations the rules didn't cover. The GM and players were expected to fill those gaps with what worked for thier group. At this time video and computer games were quite primitive and couldn't simulate an RPG very well at all. As time went on, computer games gained popularity and made great strides in simulating RPG type play. Video games became heavily influenced by tabletop style RPGs. The games got good- real good, but they were (and still are) limited by the programmers code. There are no permissible actions that are not forssen ( and written) by the code writers.

I think we are seeing a shift of influence these days. For the first time we now have D&D players with lots of computer gaming experience coming to the tabletop for the first time. Because of this reverse influence of computer to tabletop we see the effects on the feel of the rulesets. Rules to cover every type of action, parameters set up to restrict the AI (DM) and generally contain the game to " inside the box".

This type of ruleset can easily be overcome by any group that wants to disregard what they don't want, but the feel remains. The popularity of the new rules is a strong indication that a lot of players are more comfortable with the " predefined parameters" style of rules because they got used to them electronically before ever trying tabletop play.

I do think that the "soul" of the player has changed and that this is being reflected in the mechanics of the game. I believe that the biggest difference between the old-school and newer players is our imaginative background. This is what affects the "soul" of our play.

Those players in the late 70s through the 90s took our imaginative background from literature, specifically sword and sorcery novels and fantasy. I can easily say that I have read well over several thousand books in the genre and have this deep well of fantasy background in my playing and DMing. D&D for us was a way to live out the fantasy stories that we read as children and adults and I do believe that our emphasis on the character background and roleplaying is a result of this environment.

I believe that a majority of the gamers today have a computer imaginative background, coming from games such as WOW, DOC, Everquest and such. The plots and stories in these games are poor substitutes to the wealth of drama included in literature and gives the game a more shallow feeling with emphasis on crunch instead of story. I wish that today's children would take the time to enjoy reading more instead of spending endless hours infront of the computer screen. There is a universe of ideas, plots and characters out there for you to discover. I think that you will find the investment well worth your time and will find that it lends depth and color to your gaming.

After reading comments like this in the 1,000 post-plus [Edition WARZ] thread, I think I've hit the crux of my annoyance-the trends that lead to min-maxing of multiclassing, feats and prestige classes, characters with bizarre combinations of templates and abilities with no rhyme or reason, and magic items being increasingly common among players. That's what drives me crazy-characters seem to be developed for their maximum effectiveness as killing machines, and magic items are less strange and wonderful objects than high-powered additions to the PC arsenal that can be used to blow the heads off the next monster that comes along.

This is not WotC's fault, nor is it a swing at 3E. WotC is a business, and it cannot be faulted for responding to market trends. If 3E reflects these changes in player tastes...well, what can WotC do if it doesn't want to go out of business? Other industries might be regulated for social or environnmental reasons-the gaming industry is not one of them, and the companies that are in the gaming business have to respond to what their customers want.

You can see this in quite a few of the role-playing novels that are based on games, too. FR novels are stereotyped for their morally flawless heroes, flash-bang special effects, and cliched plotlines-things that couldn't hold a candle to Tolkien, Moorcock, Shakespeare or Howard. I personally think D&D, regardless of edition, could be spun into a fascinating mythology of its own, one that could have a solid backing, and while it may not be able to match the myths of the masters, it could still be something far more than what seems to be a shallow trend today.

Same thing with gaming novels-who's to say they couldn't take their cues from Tolstoy or Shakespeare, and at least become more sophisticated and intelligent? This is more the writer talking than the gamer, but it's almost the same thing. While one may not rival the masters, they could still be well-done, couldn't they? That's one thing I love about D&D-the "mythology" that's sprung up around it, similar to the kind that springs up around the myths of the Greeks, the Norse, or any other real-life culture, or around the works of Howard, Lieber or even authors like J.K. Rowling and Brian Jacques, who have created their own myths with their own twists.

3E has its critics, and its defenders point out that you can overcome these deficiencies. It's a lot of the same thing, really.