[EDITION WARZ] Selling Out D&D's Soul?

[Thurbane]

Dear lord man! You're forming oppinions about how people play based on what you read on the internet? The internet is frought with complainers, trolls, and angry angry people. Is someone more likely to make a post about a great gaming experience or a horrible gaming experience? The latter by a long shot. If you go by what you read on the internet, you get a very skewed version of reality.

The internet is a great place to get ideas for your own game, to debate interesting topics, and to joke around, but there are limits to the information provided on it. People are just more likely to rant than rave, and I don't think that behavior is limited to the internet either.

Unfortunately the internet is my only yardstick, as I don't have any "realtime" contact with other gaming groups. I agree though that it is not an ideal window into a "typical" gaming group.

Having said that, I still can't help but feel the "legalese" tone of the rules and the prevailing attitude that these rules must be observed to the letter of the law makes (some) players inherently distrust their DMs. Heave forbid if a DM were to fudge a roll in the interest of keeping a story flowing ("Railroading!!!") or to ignore a rule that would detract from a session ("RAW!!!"). I agree that the DM shouldnt be some haughty tyrant who dishes out illogcial rulings at will, but at the end of the day he is the guy putting the time and effort into creating a running a setting for the players to interract with. IMHO, this should earn him (at the very least) some respect from the players, and the right to make a final ruling, even if it steps outside the RAW on occasion.

 

[Thurbane]

Those are just a few snippits. No wonder no one used the RAW of 2e, it was bland, boring, insulted your intelligence, and illogical all at the same time...

You don't work at Fox News do you? Fair and balanced!

 

[Remathilis]

You don't work at Fox News do you? Fair and balanced!

Work for them? I think the quote could be used to explain THEM as well...

 

[Rhuvein]

There is no "soul of D&D". There is only how well or how poorly the owner of the game meets the needs of the audience. As the audience varies, so does opinion on this. "Soul of D&D" is just a rhetoric to try to sell your particular veiw as somehow more correct that anyone else's.

Ridiculous!

There certainly is a "soul" of this game. And I won't even mention which version has it. Those of us that feel it, know!

 

[I'm A Banana]

IMHO, this should earn him (at the very least) some respect from the players, and the right to make a final ruling, even if it steps outside the RAW on occasion.

With fairness, one of the most rewarding choices of 3e design, to me, has been the eradication of the myth of the infalliable DM. Before, the rules weren't very good, so the DM's rules were often better by a significant margin. Now, the rules are very good, so the DM's rules are often at least slightly worse.

Not always, and there are plenty of ways a good DM can change the rules for the good of the game, but 3e has some built-in "Idiot DM Switches" that can be set off. The DM is NOT always good, or even competent, and a poor DM (or even one with a simple soapbox or a bad understanding of playing a game) can ruin the game not just for themselves, but for 3-6 other people, too.

3e's desire to provide a baseline, to make the rules clear and sensible, and to give you no great reason to mistrust the rules in the books goes a long way toward making DMing not the "suffering for pleasure" that it is often depicted as. And I think that's a VERY good goal. No one should be forced to labor under a burden to enjoy a night of gaming, and the better the designers do their job, the less the DM will have to adjust and change...not that he can't, just that he doesn't have to unless he wants to.

This does empower players to see the flaws in a DM's plan as well, sometimes in ways a DM cannot see. Players should have vocal imput on the game they want to play in -- it's not just the DM's playground, it's the whole group's.

 

[Thurbane]

This does empower players to see the flaws in a DM's plan as well, sometimes in ways a DM cannot see. Players should have vocal imput on the game they want to play in -- it's not just the DM's playground, it's the whole group's.

Input? Yes.

Veto rights? No.

When I DM, if I have missed something and my players bring it to my attention, I will do a quick mental reasessment - if it doesn't disrupt the flow of the game greatly, I will generally concede the players point. If, however, I wish to stand by my earlier ruling, even if it isn't RAW, I would expect my players to accept it with good grace. I'm lucky enough that my group does do this. In turn, I extend the same courtesy as a player when someone else is DMing.

This is something that has always occurred regardless of editions; but as I have stated many times now, I believe the "pseudo-legal document" phrasing of the current rules has made it easier for "rules lawyers" to raise an objection, and then refuse to back down using the almighty RAW as their bulwark. The "airtight" nature of the rules may well mean less overall disagreements, but they seem to approach the vehement nature of a courthouse brawl between opposing lawyers when they do occur.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Input? Yes.

Veto rights? No.

When I DM, if I have missed something and my players bring it to my attention, I will do a quick mental reasessment - if it doesn't disrupt the flow of the game greatly, I will generally concede the players point. If, however, I wish to stand by my earlier ruling, even if it isn't RAW, I would expect my players to accept it with good grace. I'm lucky enough that my group does do this. In turn, I extend the same courtesy as a player when someone else is DMing.

Perhaps I should offer a maxim. The players must accept the DM's ruling only so long as that ruling clearly makes the game more enjoyable for that group.

Now, in previous editions, the RAW was, as far as I can see, insufficient to make the game enjoyable for most groups, so the DM was forced to change the game frequently to make something that worked. The DM had a right, a responsibility, to make many judgements based on his whims and feelings...he had to, the rules themselves were poorly equipped to deal with the actual game.

In this edition, the RAW is quite sufficient and well-designed, so the DM does not need to change the game at all. In order to change the game now, he must offer an alternative that is well-thought-out, that has a clear purpose, and that won't upset a system that already works quite well as written. Players, educated by the manuals, are now equipped to see why, for instance, "balance between the classes and races" is a good thing. To upset that balance requires a justification. The DM has no right or responsibility to judge based on whims and feelings. Indeed, to do so now is to ignore all the work that had already been done to avoid having to do that.

When presented with a functional game (which is fairly new in this edition) the DM's style must change -- he's not kitbashing his homebrew, he's no longer making toys out of combs, he's taking a fully functioning GI Joe and giving him a LEGO arm.

 

[ThirdWizard]

This is something that has always occurred regardless of editions; but as I have stated many times now, I believe the "pseudo-legal document" phrasing of the current rules has made it easier for "rules lawyers" to raise an objection, and then refuse to back down using the almighty RAW as their bulwark.

I will go on record as saying that I have little tolerance for experienced DMs who refuse to learn the rules or who modify the rules in game inconsistantly. I expect a certain competance from the people I play with. If I find myself having to correct a DM over and over, I will simply not return to game with them. I have been like this since I started playing. I don't have to worry about that, though, because the people I play with actually care about playing by the rules.

Now, I'm not saying you fit into the categories I have described. And, I have no objection to playing fast and loose with, say, Cinematic Unisystem, but if you're going to play fast and loose, then why not play something like Buffy where that's actually encouraged by the game system? Why choose such a rules heavy system then disregard the heaviness when it suits you? This I do not understand.

I'm the guy who, in 2e memorized everything. Did you know that in 2e a dual weilder could subtract his dexterity from his two weapon fighting penalty? Once I made a PC two weapon fighter and the DM nearly had an anurism as I had to walk him through the rules for dual wielding. He thought it was rules-lawyering, and I was so annoyed by his lack of knowing the actual rules of the game that I nearly didn't play in the game. One man's rules lawyering is another man's day to day activity.

 

[Thurbane]

I will go on record as saying that I have little tolerance for experienced DMs who refuse to learn the rules or who modify the rules in game inconsistantly. I expect a certain competance from the people I play with. If I find myself having to correct a DM over and over, I will simply not return to game with them. I have been like this since I started playing. I don't have to worry about that, though, because the people I play with actually care about playing by the rules.

Now, I'm not saying you fit into the categories I have described. And, I have no objection to playing fast and loose with, say, Cinematic Unisystem, but if you're going to play fast and loose, then why not play something like Buffy where that's actually encouraged by the game system? Why choose such a rules heavy system then disregard the heaviness when it suits you? This I do not understand.

I'm the guy who, in 2e memorized everything. Did you know that in 2e a dual weilder could subtract his dexterity from his two weapon fighting penalty? Once I made a PC two weapon fighter and the DM nearly had an anurism as I had to walk him through the rules for dual wielding. He thought it was rules-lawyering, and I was so annoyed by his lack of knowing the actual rules of the game that I nearly didn't play in the game. One man's rules lawyering is another man's day to day activity.

Duly noted - in 1E and 2E I was exactly like you. The others in my group would never look up a book to check a rule, they'd just ask me instead.

I think perhaps we are talking about slightly different occurences though. I'm not necessarily talking about the DM making a major goof on the rules. I'm talking about the DM being free to step sideways of the RAW if it means the adventure, session or cmapaign might run better from his point of view.

To give a bit of an example, the RAW might state that spell X automatically overcomes spell Y. A player remebers this fact and calls the DMs attention to it a few rounds after it has happened. The DM weighs it up, and considers that trying to backtrack the combat 3 rounds and re-do all the action since then is simply too disruptive to make doing so worthwhile. He informs the player that in this instance, spell X failed to overcome spell Y. This can go one of two ways: A.) the player accepts the DMs ruling and the game continues or B.) the player gets indignant that the DM is "cheating" by negelcting the RAW. Speaking both as a DM and a player, I'd rather see it go down path A.

Another example - in my game, I don't allow the Withdraw action as it is written (I have posted about this several times), and I also make firing into melee more risky than just a -4 penalty. In this case I am fully aware of the RAW, I just happen to disagree with them. I let my players know about my rule changes up front, and they are free to discuss it with me. If they unanimously thought they were horrible ideas, I would revert to the RAW. As it happens, my players all (more or less) agree with my rule changes. Same when someone else DMs - I abide by their house rules, and let them have final ruling on disputes.

I am not promoting the ideal of a DM who bends and changes the rules at his whim to screw the players over. I'm talking about not letting the RAW get in the way of the flow of a session. I'd much rather risk putting someones nose out of joint until we can discuss it out of session than lose half of our session time bickering points of RAW back and forth. We play once a week for 2 to 5 hours, and every second of that time is precious to us.

I find it works well for my group. *shrugs* Maybe not for others, who can say...

 

[Thurbane]

Perhaps I should offer a maxim. The players must accept the DM's ruling only so long as that ruling clearly makes the game more enjoyable for that group.

Now, in previous editions, the RAW was, as far as I can see, insufficient to make the game enjoyable for most groups, so the DM was forced to change the game frequently to make something that worked. The DM had a right, a responsibility, to make many judgements based on his whims and feelings...he had to, the rules themselves were poorly equipped to deal with the actual game.

In this edition, the RAW is quite sufficient and well-designed, so the DM does not need to change the game at all. In order to change the game now, he must offer an alternative that is well-thought-out, that has a clear purpose, and that won't upset a system that already works quite well as written. Players, educated by the manuals, are now equipped to see why, for instance, "balance between the classes and races" is a good thing. To upset that balance requires a justification. The DM has no right or responsibility to judge based on whims and feelings. Indeed, to do so now is to ignore all the work that had already been done to avoid having to do that.

When presented with a functional game (which is fairly new in this edition) the DM's style must change -- he's not kitbashing his homebrew, he's no longer making toys out of combs, he's taking a fully functioning GI Joe and giving him a LEGO arm.

I agree with some of your general points (see my above post), but I strongly disagree that the RAW from ealier editions, especially 2E, were not enough to be enjoyable. May I ask if you've actually played any 1E or 2E AD&D? I use just about as many house rules and run into more-or-less the same number of rules conundrums in 3.5 as I did in 2E.

I also strongly disagree that the DM must accept the RAW simply because (in your opinion) they are so well written and designed. This hearkens back to an earlier point of mine: some of the newer generation of players (maybe not yourself specifically) seem to view DMs as little more than an inanimate "CPU" to allow them to interract with the rulebooks.

If you've never played in a game where the DM tweaks the rules and makes some changes, I genuinely feel sorry for you. Yes, you've been playing FDA approved D&D flavor gaming, but have missed a huge part of what makes RPGs great, IMHO...