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

[Raven Crowking]

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.

Here is another maxim: The players must accept the DM's ruling only so long as they wish to continue playing in that DM's game.

That's the one I use, and it is remarkably effective.

RC

 

[Numion]

The DM roots for the players, but doesn't change the situation to ensure their survival.: The DM is not your adversary, although he controls the adversaries of your PCs. The DM is your friend. He wants you to do well. He has crafted situations in which, if you keep your wits about you and are not unlucky, you can do well. (If not, drop that game and get a new DM!) However, the DM is not your PCs' friend. If you do well, you have earned it. It was not a gift.

Let me repeat that: If you do well, you have earned it. It was not a gift.

Conversely, if you do poorly, that is your responsibility too.

Now, that "Soul of D&D" (or the IMHO version of it) can exist in any edition, including but not limited to the current one, and any edition that comes after or before. However, the only edition that I know really spelled it out clearly was 1st Ed AD&D. And I know, in real life, players who gained the idea from the 3e books that their fun and success was the DM's responsibility (since disabused of that notion).

Is this one of those '3E is too easy for the adventurers' tirades? I'll point out again, that in my experience, and in my groups experience, 3E is much harder than the previous editions. While the characters can be personalized more easily, the tools on the DMs side has grown much more.

The climatic fights are harder most of the time, the threat of death is closer and the things lurking in the dungeons are nastier.

This is just based on my experience. 3E is deadly, and does not coddle players. It might be difficult to see without playing with a competent DM that actually uses the EL guidelines. It might seem that the zillions of splatbooks make the PCs invincible - they've got all that stuff on their side. But still it's not the thousand splatbooks that go into the dungeon. It's just a few adventurers.

3E, as written and intended, is quite capable of giving them hell.

 

[WizarDru]

Yeah, I know I was being a bit facetious there. Good to know those quotes, because they say almost the same thing: "Don't give in to the players" - just for different reasons.

As was I, but one thing I suspect is that in many cases is that such delineation has at least a little to do with an individual gaming group's make up. I hand-waved rules under AD&D and Basic D&D. I did so under 3.0 and continue to do so under 3.5, when it makes sense to do so. Many times when I am suprised by the antagonistic tone of some DM/player relations, it's because I've always played with friends...and it's clear that many people don't.

I have yet to find a situation under 3.x that I didn't experience in whole or part under every previous edition of the game I've played. Rules discussions? Check. Improvisation? Check. House-Rules? Check. Rules Lawyers? Check. Power Gamers? Check. Drama Queens? Check.

FUN? DOUBLE-CHECK.

 

[Henry]

This is just based on my experience. 3E is deadly, and does not coddle players. It might be difficult to see without playing with a competent DM that actually uses the EL guidelines. It might seem that the zillions of splatbooks make the PCs invincible - they've got all that stuff on their side. But still it's not the thousand splatbooks that go into the dungeon. It's just a few adventurers.

3E, as written and intended, is quite capable of giving them hell.

In my experience, I just had 5 15th level PC's beat the living snot out of a Marilith demon (CR 17) fully spell-enhanced and a Deathshrieker (CR 15) and 3 CR 7 underlings with only two PCs wounded (one pretty badly, one minorly). A major encounter went kind of flat, because the PCs were decked out with the best that the Complete Splatbooks, the Spell Compendium, and all the Eberron books had to offer. I gotta get me some more challenging foes, because these guys haven't seen a challenge since they killed 12 hill giants, 3 cloud giants and a storm giant AT 13th LEVEL. They fight together well, and thanks to wounding and gravestrike spells, they can obliterate most opponents of their level without breaking a sweat.

Heck, if I threw a Balor at them, I'm not sure if they'll wither and die, or actually kill the thing. YEEK!

 

[Doug McCrae]

Here is another maxim: The players must accept the DM's ruling only so long as they wish to continue playing in that DM's game.

That's the one I use, and it is remarkably effective.

What if every single player in one of your games disagreed with one of your rulings? Would you kick them all? Of course not, you'd almost certainly cave.

When a GM tries to exert 'old school' authority it depends upon isolating the rebellious player or players. If he can't do that, he'll have to back down.

 

[Henry]

What if every single player in one of your games disagreed with one of your rulings? Would you kick them all? Of course not, you'd almost certainly cave.

The group instead just agrees not to play with that person as DM any more. It's self-evident to me that if most of the players disagree with you, you need to change it.

When a GM tries to exert 'old school' authority it depends upon isolating the rebellious player or players. If he can't do that, he'll have to back down.

DMs aren't drill sergeants or cult leaders, but this makes them sound like they are. A good one works for rulings that are fun for the most of the group. But the final authority in-game I've always asserted he or she wields is necessary to keep the group from bogging down in rules look-ups or rules debates. Not everyone remembers the text of Nezram's Ruby Ray from memory, nor the latest errata with how it works with Nestor's Impregnable Wizard Lock, so sometimes the DM has to say, "I'll rule it works like this, and we'll look it up later."

 

[Crothian]

What if every single player in one of your games disagreed with one of your rulings? Would you kick them all? Of course not, you'd almost certainly cave.

It depends on how seriously the arguements is going. I'll argue with my whole group with a smile on my face as long as everyone is having fun. It is just a game and we don't take it that seriously so I'll try to convince them to join me. But if you have some people who can't help but take any arguement like a personal attack you have to approach that differently.

 

[Numion]

In my experience, I just had 5 15th level PC's beat the living snot out of a Marilith demon (CR 17) fully spell-enhanced and a Deathshrieker (CR 15) and 3 CR 7 underlings with only two PCs wounded (one pretty badly, one minorly).

In 1E we killed Hera (the greek goddess) and Tiamat in the span of few days. At 10th level

 

[thedungeondelver]

First of all, let's avoid calling each other dishonest, or, in common parlance, "LYING."

Message from the Admin.


Now, my personal message:

KM is probably getting that from some of the statements he's seeing here, such as mine and other peoples' about how the game was almost ALWAYS modified by somebody's house rules. If the majority of people who played earlier editions changed the core rules, then it's a valid observation to make. Now, there were LOTS of people who probably played with no alterations whatsoever -- using weapon speeds, using weapon vs. armor type, using the grappling rules, using Staves of the Magi and ROds of Lordly Might, Decks of many things, using the initiative rules from 1E exactly as written, etc. -- but I really haven't seen them, and none of the people so far who have replied have said they did, either. Even if some did, it's still a minority compared to the many who did..

So let me see if I have this right: his statement and your statement, a whopping sample size of TWO negates the experiences of the four million people who actively played D&D at it's peak in the 80's?

Wow, such large groups you guys must run.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I never met anyone who played 1e as is. I pretty much bolted the basic D&D combat system onto it.