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

[thedungeondelver]

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,

Stop, stop, stop, stop, stop.

You're doing it again.

Intellectual dishonesty.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I am not promoting the ideal of a DM who bends and changes the rules at his whim to screw the players over.

I think I can agree with what you say. House Rules are great so long as they remain consistant and the Players are made aware of them before the game (so long as they directly relate to what the PCs would know about the world). I would just like to point out on this part that I would not promote bending or changing the rules on a whim to aid the players either!

I should also probably state that I really dislike rule changes that try to make things more "realistic" for follow "common sense." I have to quotation them because I rarely find them to be the case.

 

[thedungeondelver]

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.

QFT: the above is why we adherents to older versions of the rules look at 3.5 and say "That ain't D&D".

The game isn't about competing any more, it's about making sure nobody's feelings get hurt.

Tell me, if you had the opportunity to play chess with a master - or even just a ranked player - would you want one who always played in a subpar fashion? Or let you occasionally dictate moves, to wit "No no, don't move your queen there. You can put me in check-mate in eight moves if you do that. In fact, put your queen over here where I can grab it on my move with my bishop. Yeah. That's better."

I thoroughly expect you to come back with "Well I don't play chess" or "Well a ranked player would do this...", but, humor me.

D&D used to be about winning against the odds. Now it's about powerleveling, twinking, and making sure that nobody and nothing - including the DM - gets in the way. The rules are designed to that end. In my AD&D game, I put my party up against a red dragon. Hell, I had no idea if they'd win. Maybe they'd lose. Maybe - just maybe - they'd lose a lot of the party and have to retreat, have to come up with a way around the critter.

In YOUR D&D, that's not fair. A ... oh lord COLLOSAL WARFORGED DIRE ABYSSAL RED DRAGON ... is CR so-and-so, and in your world the players know that and can throw a little fit - out of game - when it shows up because hey they have the right to, right? Because now I'm not playing by the rules (using the CR system).

Fie on your D&D. Your D&D isn't fun for anybody. It's a set of manacles slapped on the creative, and training wheels that will NEVER EVER COME OFF for the noncreative, so they'll never learn how to be good DMs.

This is the last thing I'm going to say on the subject because it's become painfully clear that you guys Just Don't Get It(TM), and it's a quote from Mr. Gygax:

Well, if you don’t do that then younger Dungeon Masters will start out assisting the players, and then the game quickly becomes a bore…the best way, which I might have said better, is that you must at all times be disinterested in the players [winning]. When you’re playing various roles, you’re either going to be adversarial, neutral, or helpful when dealing with the players in whatever you’re representing. Nature, is of course quite disinterested in whether or not we live or die. And there’s the underlying feel that there should always be a rivalry between the game master and the players – he trying to fox them, and vice-versa, because that makes the game a lot more fun. Not an unfriendly rivalry as it were. A good game master should feel worse if a great character dies, because a game master gains a deal of greatness by association with good players!

Quote that for truth.

 

[FireLance]

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've played BD&D, 1E (including Unearthed Arcana) and 2E (including Skills and Powers and Spells and Magic). There have been things that bothered me about the rules back then (racial class restrictions and demihuman level limits were probably the biggest two), but I accepted them as quirks of the system. 3.xE removed many of the problems I had with previous editions. It wasn't that previous editions were bad - I had fun playing them or I wouldn't still be here. It's just that I find the 3.5e ruleset to be much better.

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.

Ah, but the fact that the RAW are so well written and designed (in my opinion, anyway) sets a high bar for DMs who want to introduce houserules. As a player, I'd like to know (preferably in advance) what are a DM's houserules and why he wants to introduce them. I would then be able to make an assessment (using my own knowledge of the rules) whether the DM's houserule is likely to improve my gaming experience. From personal experience, the last attempt to introduce major houserules into my gaming group (related to making magic less reliable) resulted in that person's exit from the group because our play styles simply did not match (nobody else really wanted to play in a post-apocalyptic low wealth unreliable magic campaign).

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...

It's probably fashionable on these boards to consider homebrewed games and houseruled systems to be somehow superior to WotC's RAW, and 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 RAW. (Weren't we discussing this earlier here?)

Fundamentally, I see the difference between RAW and houseruled games as the difference between food in a restaurant* and home-cooked food. It is possible to appreciate both. If your DM is good, then his houserules could even suit your group's playstyle better than anything that WotC can come up with. However, some DMs may be better off just using the RAW.

* I'm sure someone is bound to come along and compare WotC to a greasy fast-food joint. :\ Whatever.

 

[FireLance]

QFT: the above is why we adherents to older versions of the rules look at 3.5 and say "That ain't D&D".

The game isn't about competing any more, it's about making sure nobody's feelings get hurt.

Actually, I'd say that the game isn't about competing any more, it's about making sure that everyone has fun. Now, if your group enjoys a competitive game, that's fine. You can do that in 3.5e just as you could have done it in previous editions. I just think that it's sad that a more co-operative style of gaming gets labelled as "making sure nobody's feelings get hurt".

D&D used to be about winning against the odds. Now it's about powerleveling, twinking, and making sure that nobody and nothing - including the DM - gets in the way. The rules are designed to that end. In my AD&D game, I put my party up against a red dragon. Hell, I had no idea if they'd win. Maybe they'd lose. Maybe - just maybe - they'd lose a lot of the party and have to retreat, have to come up with a way around the critter.

You know, I posted this previously in another thread. Looks like a good time to bring it up again.

The underlying philosophy of previous versions of D&D appears to be "Let's see what happens". Players were routinely challenged with the unknown, e.g. new monsters with weird abilities, traps that trigger in response to seemingly innocuous actions, oddball effects that defy the known rules, etc. This encouraged caution on the part of the players. Neither the DMs nor the players had any pre-conceived ideas of how an encounter should go. This meant that players could overcome encounters through extreme luck, creativity, or fast-talking the DM into agreeing that whatever crazy scheme they came up with will work (this is often confused with creativity).

On the other hand, the underlying philosophy of 3e seems to be "This is what should happen." Players are given more avenues in the rules to acquire information - Knowledge checks to identify monsters and their abilities, Search checks to find traps, Spellcraft checks to learn about magical effects, etc. DMs, if not players, have a better idea of what individual encounters are supposed to do, whether the players have a good, fair or almost no reasonable chance of defeating it in a straight fight, and how the players are expected to overcome it (if at all). Players are expected to overcome challenges with their characters' abilities instead of their own creativity and persuasiveness. The net effect is to foster an attitude of increased confidence (or recklessness, YMMV) and propensity for action on the part of the players.​

In YOUR D&D, that's not fair. A ... oh lord COLLOSAL WARFORGED DIRE ABYSSAL RED DRAGON ... is CR so-and-so, and in your world the players know that and can throw a little fit - out of game - when it shows up because hey they have the right to, right? Because now I'm not playing by the rules (using the CR system).

Actually, I think the difference is that in previous editions, DMs would pit the party against a monster that is too tough for them to handle and see what happens. In 3e, the DM is expected to know what's going to happen (the PCs will probably lose) and know how to continue the game from there.

Fie on your D&D. Your D&D isn't fun for anybody. It's a set of manacles slapped on the creative, and training wheels that will NEVER EVER COME OFF for the noncreative, so they'll never learn how to be good DMs.

I don't suppose you'll believe me if I tell you that we are having fun, and we have managed to introduce the game to people who have gone on to become competent DMs, will you?

 

[Thurbane]

I've played BD&D, 1E (including Unearthed Arcana) and 2E (including Skills and Powers and Spells and Magic). There have been things that bothered me about the rules back then (racial class restrictions and demihuman level limits were probably the biggest two), but I accepted them as quirks of the system. 3.xE removed many of the problems I had with previous editions. It wasn't that previous editions were bad - I had fun playing them or I wouldn't still be here. It's just that I find the 3.5e ruleset to be much better.

Totally fair comments, which, in large part, I totally agree with.

Ah, but the fact that the RAW are so well written and designed (in my opinion, anyway) sets a high bar for DMs who want to introduce houserules. As a player, I'd like to know (preferably in advance) what are a DM's houserules and why he wants to introduce them. I would then be able to make an assessment (using my own knowledge of the rules) whether the DM's houserule is likely to improve my gaming experience. From personal experience, the last attempt to introduce major houserules into my gaming group (related to making magic less reliable) resulted in that person's exit from the group because our play styles simply did not match (nobody else really wanted to play in a post-apocalyptic low wealth unreliable magic campaign).

Also agreed - I would never just srping houserules on my players, they are always clearly forewarned, and the rules made available for discussion. If there is a general consesus they are no good, they are dropped.

It's probably fashionable on these boards to consider homebrewed games and houseruled systems to be somehow superior to WotC's RAW, and 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 RAW. (Weren't we discussing this earlier here?)

Yes we were. I don't think that house rules ARE better than RAW, simply that they CAN be better (for my group) than RAW. I would never condemn a DM who follows only RAW and does not houserule; but I still stand by the fact that even if the ruleset is as long as the Encyclopedia Brittanica, a DM will on occasion be called to houserule, and that the ability to step outside the RAW when required is an asset to any DM. There hasn't been, is not, and never will be a "perfect" set of rules that cannot be tweaked to improve their performance (again, for a specific group of gamers), IMHO...

Fundamentally, I see the difference between RAW and houseruled games as the difference between food in a restaurant* and home-cooked food. It is possible to appreciate both. If your DM is good, then his houserules could even suit your group's playstyle better than anything that WotC can come up with. However, some DMs may be better off just using the RAW.

* I'm sure someone is bound to come along and compare WotC to a greasy fast-food joint. :\ Whatever.

Now this I totally agree with - my firm belief is that basically no two gaming groups out there enjoy exactly the same style of play.

 

[Thurbane]

Just as an aside, I don't feel that CR is the be all and end all of planning encounters, either. When we played 1E/2E, myself or whoever was DMing would rarely throw us up against something we had no chance of beating, or if he did we realised that it was time to flee or surrender.

The fact there was no balance in encounters in earlier editions simply because there was no CR/ECL is a myth IMHO. It merely relied on the DM to put a little more forethought into encounters, and for players to exercise a little more discression when outclassed - they either had to come up with more wily tactics, or be prepared to acknowledge a superior foe and deal accordingly.

Although I wouldn't put it in such harsh terms, this rings very true to me:

It's a set of manacles slapped on the creative, and training wheels that will NEVER EVER COME OFF for the noncreative, so they'll never learn how to be good DMs.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

J
The fact there was no balance in encounters in earlier editions simply because there was no CR/ECL is a myth IMHO. It merely relied on the DM to put a little more forethought into encounters, and for players to exercise a little more discression when outclassed - they either had to come up with more wily tactics, or be prepared to acknowledge a superior foe and deal accordingly.

It is a myth. But not in the way you are thinking.

The 3e DMG specifically recommends including a mixture of encounter difficulties, some of which are virtually guaranteed to generate PC deaths if handled in an overly unsubtle manner. (See the pages 49-50 of the 3.5 DMG.) The fact the CR is a coarse guide and not a precise value is added noise on the system. And page 50 talks about some factors that the DM should consider.

It sure looks like you believe in the 3e philosophy 100 per cent. You just didn't know it.

 

[MerricB]

It becomes clear upon analysis of actual play of 3e and the actual adventures produced for it, that the CR system in no way stops really easy or really hard encounters from occurring. There's even the example of the CR 10(12?) Roper in The Forge of Fury, an early 3e adventure for 3rd level PCs as a deliberate example of an encounter the PCs won't be able to defeat. Sons of Gruumsh contains three extremely difficult (APL+4/5) encounters.

(There may be groups that always run EL=APL encounters, but that's not recommended in the rulebooks, and such groups would also exist in AD&D).

Cheers!

 

[Aus_Snow]

It becomes clear upon analysis of actual play of 3e and the actual adventures produced for it, that the CR system in no way stops really easy or really hard encounters from occurring. There's even the example of the CR 10(12?) Roper in The Forge of Fury, an early 3e adventure for 3rd level PCs as a deliberate example of an encounter the PCs won't be able to defeat. Sons of Gruumsh contains three extremely difficult (APL+4/5) encounters.

(There may be groups that always run EL=APL encounters, but that's not recommended in the rulebooks, and such groups would also exist in AD&D).

Cheers!

Quoted for truth.

Oh, and yay! I can access the site again.