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

[Umbran]

It also depends on the a person's definition of "style of play".

Maybe. Or maybe it depends on what you consider "dictating".

To me, for rules to dictate a style of play, it would have to be very difficult for me to play otherwise. In my experience, most of the elements people point to when saying D&D calls for a certain style of play are pretty easily modified. The system is more open than most in that regard.

So, has a default style, sure. I'll even buy "encourages". But "dictates" is pretty strong.

 

[molonel]

Maybe. Or maybe it depends on what you consider "dictating".

To me, for rules to dictate a style of play, it would have to be very difficult for me to play otherwise. In my experience, most of the elements people point to when saying D&D calls for a certain style of play are pretty easily modified. The system is more open than most in that regard.

So, has a default style, sure. I'll even buy "encourages". But "dictates" is pretty strong.

QFT.

I don't like the paladin's Detect Evil ability. Never have in any addition. I call it the Beatdown Radar, because evidently it's okay to kill anything that registers as evil to the pally.

So in 3rd Edition, I changed it to a divine bonus to Sense Motive that scales with level. That way, it's still possible for an order of paladins to be infiltrated without everyone constantly wearing jewelry that protects them from detection spells.

Most of these problems have solutions, and fairly easy solutions at that.

"The game moves too fast!"

So cut XP awards in half. Or keep XP awards privvy only to the DM. Spellcasters tell you when they make items, and how much XP they spent, and you keep track of the total.

"Magic should be more rare!"

So don't use the standard wealth tables. Or remove item creation feats besides Brew Motion and Scribe Scroll from the game. Or do what we did in Ye Goode Olden Days, and hand out weapons and armor that seem custom-designed in particular treasure hoards.

 

[thedungeondelver]

Molonel, your opinions about me, about how I game, about why I game and about pretty much everything else vis a vis my gaming "life" are wholly wrong.

 

[buzz]

But "dictates" is pretty strong.

For an RPG to dictate, it'd need to come with an armed escort.

System Does Matter... but is 3.x really delivering a fundamentally different default experience than earlier editions, as-written? I don't think so. IMO, it does the core D&D experience, and does it very well (better, personally).

 

[Crothian]

I don't like the paladin's Detect Evil ability. Never have in any addition. I call it the Beatdown Radar, because evidently it's okay to kill anything that registers as evil to the pally.

That's not the game though, that's the person playing the Paladin.

 

[GlassJaw]

Maybe. Or maybe it depends on what you consider "dictating".

So, has a default style, sure. I'll even buy "encourages". But "dictates" is pretty strong.

Semantics.

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

 

[Umbran]

In my opinion, that is what you're doing.

Hey, I thought my prior warning about getting personal was pretty darned clear. The Rules warn against this kind of thing, for good reason.

The internet is not a medium fit for mind-reading. Nobody here is in a position to say what another person thinks. Doing so is, more often then not, dismissive, undervaluing the opinions of your fellow board members, and downright rude.

So, I don't want to see any more of it in here. Next person who does so may well find themselves on vacation. If you have a problem with that, please take it up with a moderator in e-mail. Our addresses are available in a post stickied to the top of the Meta Forum.

 

[Umbran]

Semantics.

You say that as if it were necessarily a bad thing. Without semantics, language would be impossible. Saying what we actually mean is important.

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

Yes. And that's a good thing. Having a clear baseline is a feature, not a flaw. Problems only arise when the GM cannot make reasonable alterations to the baseline with reasonable amounts of work - which would, to my mind, be crossing the line between "default behavior" and "dictated behavior". We, of course, then get into discussion what is "reasonable"

D&D is more flexible than most games, in this regard. It lays out the assumptions in easy-to-reach places. So I find it hard to see it as a major problem of the game. Try to do similar flexiblity within, say, a White Wolf game (with their nigh-inextricably entwined setting, rules, and assumptions of desired power levels), and you'll find yourself pulling your hair out.

 

[thedungeondelver]

D&D is more flexible than most games, in this regard. It lays out the assumptions in easy-to-reach places. So I find it hard to see it as a major problem of the game. Try to do similar flexiblity within, say, a White Wolf game (with their nigh-inextricably entwined setting, rules, and assumptions of desired power levels), and you'll find yourself pulling your hair out.

Quoted, as you kids say, for truth.

Trust me, I tried ... oh whaddyacallit... Exalted and thought to make some changes to it to make it a little more "me". Uh-uh, no way buddypal. Hands, meet hair. Hair, meet floor.

 

[Mark CMG]

You say that as if it were necessarily a bad thing. Without semantics, language would be impossible. Saying what we actually mean is important.

Self-parody?