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

[M.L. Martin]

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).

The question then becomes, how many people were using the sketchier and less consistent rules of earlier editions to play something divergent from the 'core D&D experience'? I think this may account for a lot of the dissatisfaction--3E is arguably the best D&D at being D&D, but as Edwards and others have pointed out, a lot of people using D&D weren't using it to play 'D&D' as such.

Matthew L. Martin

 

[Lanefan]

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.

You know, I really think you've stumbled onto something important here. Like it or hate it, the 0-1-2e game(s) you ran were yours and no-one else's in a way no other game could be, because with explicit encouragement by the designers you built it the way you thought it ought to work. And your black 3-ring binder (well, red, in my case) starkly symbolized that; never mind the "blue book" (players' binder, replaces much of the PH), or the 2 white binders for spells...

3e, no matter what you do to it, still feels like WotC's game...much as modified Monopoly still feels like Parker Bros.' game...there's much less of that sense of personal investment. And that's a key difference between the editions.

Lanefan

 

[BryonD]

The question then becomes, how many people were using the sketchier and less consistent rules of earlier editions to play something divergent from the 'core D&D experience'? I think this may account for a lot of the dissatisfaction--3E is arguably the best D&D at being D&D, but as Edwards and others have pointed out, a lot of people using D&D weren't using it to play 'D&D' as such.

Matthew L. Martin

There are (at least) two different types of house rules. Rules that "fix" something and rules that change the tone. Even without taking into account the vast availability to D20 fantasy alternates out there, I think many threads and polls here have shown that people do not hesitate to chnage the nature of their game when they want to.

But the binders are mostly gone because, looking at the gaming community overall, the amount of "want" in 3X is vastly less than the "need + want" of prior editions.

I certainly would disagree with any implication that 3E is any more demanding that the players stay to the "core experience". It allows as much change as any prior edition.

 

[BryonD]

You know, I really think you've stumbled onto something important here. Like it or hate it, the 0-1-2e game(s) you ran were yours and no-one else's in a way no other game could be, because with explicit encouragement by the designers you built it the way you thought it ought to work. And your black 3-ring binder (well, red, in my case) starkly symbolized that; never mind the "blue book" (players' binder, replaces much of the PH), or the 2 white binders for spells...

3e, no matter what you do to it, still feels like WotC's game...much as modified Monopoly still feels like Parker Bros.' game...there's much less of that sense of personal investment. And that's a key difference between the editions.

Lanefan

Why?
Or more to the point, why is that true for you and not for me?

I'll offer one possibility: I think in quite a large number of cases older versions became the DMs "own" purely because it was forced on them. In 3X the need is greatly reduced so the drive to change is equally reduced. But again, there is a difference between need and want. Now, it sounds like you WANT change but somehow find it unachievable. Which I don't understand.

 

[molonel]

You know, I really think you've stumbled onto something important here. Like it or hate it, the 0-1-2e game(s) you ran were yours and no-one else's in a way no other game could be, because with explicit encouragement by the designers you built it the way you thought it ought to work. And your black 3-ring binder (well, red, in my case) starkly symbolized that; never mind the "blue book" (players' binder, replaces much of the PH), or the 2 white binders for spells...3e, no matter what you do to it, still feels like WotC's game...much as modified Monopoly still feels like Parker Bros.' game...there's much less of that sense of personal investment. And that's a key difference between the editions.

And that's a fair criticism, in my opinion. I like the standardization, and I have enough experience from 1st and 2nd Edition that I can, and have, made 3rd Edition my own in that sense. I think what some people are forgetting is that the sort of personal investment we're talking about from previous edition was the work of playing it over and over and over again during the course of years. 3rd Edition hasn't actually been out that long, by comparison. But in the games I see, people are starting to invest themselves and decide on houserules. I'm starting to see more houserules in the games where I play, and more confident DMs with the experience to decide what they will allow, and what they won't. Third Edition is starting to mature as a game, because its players and DMs are maturing. Much as some people hate to admit it, the Complete Mage is a damn good book. Some folks would like to believe that all of the books coming out of WotC are crap, and shlock designed to make a profit. And some of them are. (Big shock, since 2nd Edition added new meaning to the phrase "rules bloat.") But the game itself is growing, and often growing better. Conan d20 is an incredible game, and some of the folks writing for it blow me away. Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed is an excellent and interesting game. 3rd Edition is maturing in many different forms, and in many ways, is a better game than 1st Edition ever aspired to be.

 

[buzz]

The question then becomes, how many people were using the sketchier and less consistent rules of earlier editions to play something divergent from the 'core D&D experience'? I think this may account for a lot of the dissatisfaction--3E is arguably the best D&D at being D&D, but as Edwards and others have pointed out, a lot of people using D&D weren't using it to play 'D&D' as such.

Exactamundo, Mr. Martin. One thing that I've noticed on these boards is that the people I encounter who actually played older D&Ds by RAW tend to be pretty satisfied with 3e... or else don't see it as different enough to bother switching.

It's when I see people who talk wistfully of "sense of wonder" or other Sim- and Nar-drifted experiences that I see dissatisfaction. What I don't get is why these people don't just give all the cool RPGs that aren't D&D, and that fit their needs to a "T", a shot.

 

[buzz]

...because with explicit encouragement by the designers you built it the way you thought it ought to work.

BryonD beat me to it:

I think in quite a large number of cases older versions became the DMs "own" purely because it was forced on them.

Yup.

I don't remember any explicit encouragement. I remember dissatisfaction and a certain amount of frustration. And I don't think I'm alone; heck, Rolemaster began as a set of plug-ins for AD&D. There's a lesson there.

I don't feel that the 3e games I run are any less "my own" than the 1e I ran. If anything, the rules actually make sense to me now, which certainly engenders more affection for the game on my part.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

There are several problems with the ambition to have gaming novels be great works of art:

First, there is the limited availability of great artists. A genius like Shakespeare comes about maybe once a millenia. Even if you're generous and say that there has been a Shakespeare every century, what are the odds that this century's Shakespeare is going to be interested in gaming novels, or even novels at all. Maybe the next Shakespeare's medium is cinema or television. Or maybe computer games. (Tolstoy was more interesting in his self-appointed role as a prophet and champion of the peasant than in writing novels; had he been as interested in writing novels, his peasants and family might have been happier and the world enriched by more quality literature).

The truth is that 99% or more of the art that is created is lousy. It may be good enough to pass time with when it is published, but it won't stand the test of time and few people will mourn its passing. (Compare which of the 19th century novels people still think worth reading to the vast number that were produced, for instance, and you'll have an idea of what I mean. A lot more people wrote gothic stories novels than Mary Shelley and Edgar Allen Poe, but they're about the only ones who are better than our current crop of drek which is both easier to find, written in a more accessible language, and with a worldview that more closely approximates our own). If that's true of fiction (and writing) in general, why should we expect gaming fiction to be any different.

Another matter in this regard is that gaming novels are, almost by definition written in someone else's world with at least some of other peoples' characters. A lot of the better artists would rather write in worlds that are set up to more fully explore their themes and ideas than which are consistent with the latest sourcebook on the new edition of the game.

Now, if you fancy yourself a potentially great artist and have an interest in gaming fiction, you're welcome to try writing the intelligent and sophisticated gaming fiction that you want to see. But writing gaming fiction on assignment doesn't seem like the kind of situation calculated to produce great writing, so I'd expect significantly less than 1% of it to have any lasting value anyway.

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.

 

[MerricB]

You know, I really think you've stumbled onto something important here. Like it or hate it, the 0-1-2e game(s) you ran were yours and no-one else's in a way no other game could be, because with explicit encouragement by the designers you built it the way you thought it ought to work. And your black 3-ring binder (well, red, in my case) starkly symbolized that; never mind the "blue book" (players' binder, replaces much of the PH), or the 2 white binders for spells...

The trouble is... how typical was this? Lots of house rules has never been my scene. My games often rely on strong narrative elements and personal PC stories; not to mention memorable dungeons. So my binders (or more likely, head) would be full of NPCs, plot threads, kingdoms, villainies and the like, but new rules? Nope.

For me, D&D is about the adventures, not the system that enables them. Although the system is not unimportant, neither does having to modify it appeal to me.

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

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.

Welcome to the game aspect of D&D. It's been there since the beginning.

A major part of D&D is overcoming what the DM throws at you. You can play a fighter with a 9 strength and 18 intelligence if you want... but it won't be a good fighter. So, people don't do that unless the DM is running a game that is nearly only roleplaying - and is pretty far from what D&D is about.

Cheers!