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

[Crothian]

Try me.

Pop Quiz Hot shot!!

The players all disagree with your ruling : What do you do?

I rarely get to make Speed references!!

 

[diaglo]

Pop Quiz Hot shot!!

The players all disagree with your ruling : What do you do?

I rarely get to make Speed references!!

roll 2 six siders and check for the reaction score.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Pop Quiz Hot shot!!

The players all disagree with your ruling : What do you do?

I rarely get to make Speed references!!

More context is required to answer your question.

(1) I've made a genuine mistake and it is pointed out to me: The mistake is corrected, and the game moves on. At this point, I don't see any real disagreement or backing down required, on anyone's part.

(2) Something could be interpretted in more than one way, and the group disagrees with my interpretation, and it is relatively unimportant to me: "Okay, that seems reasonable," and the game moves on. At this point, I don't see any real disagreement or backing down required, on anyone's part.

(3) Something could be interpretted in more than one way, and the group disagrees with my interpretation, and it is relatively important to me: "Sorry, but this is the way it works in this world" and move on. At this point, I don't see any real disagreement or backing down required, on anyone's part.

(4) In the event of (3) above, the problem remains outstanding: "We can talk about this outside game time, but that's the way it is right here, right now." At this point, some backing down is required on the part of the players, and the issue can be deferred to later discussions. If need be, if I am convinced by the other side, I will do some ret-conning, but it is unlikely. Of course, in this event, I would have discovered that the problem was actually that I was mistaken, or that the ruling wasn't as important as I first thought.

(5) Both (3) and (4) fail to resolve a problem: After a second warning, if the problem continues, I pack up the game. Hasn't happened yet, but I once did have to give a second warning about a ruling-related issue (related to long-term concentration, specifically as relates to flying and riding a horse).

In no case have I ever removed a ruling I felt strongly about, or confident in, merely because any member (or all members) of a group felt otherwise. Of course, I've never actually run into much "all members of a group felt otherwise" but I'd rather get a new group than be told what I can and cannot do as DM. In fact, I'd rather not DM.

RC

 

[Crothian]

More context is required to answer your question.

I agree, it was a post in humor more then expecting a serious respons. Good response though!!

 

[Raven Crowking]

Thanks!

 

[Lanefan]

A few thoughts here:
*****
First off, to save QFT-ing a long post, I'll just say I agree with Raven's post #159 this thread; well said!
*****
I find myself in an odd position in this discussion. We're being told that 3.5 is as good as it gets, or at least as good as it's got so far...and for those as likes it, that's obviously a valid opinion. But, if I were to jump into this Brave New System, two things would have to happen: 1, I'd have to leave behind a 1e-based system it's taken 25 years to develop (between my own modifications and those of DM's before me) - yes, that's perhaps partly an ego thing, but hey... , and 2, unless I started making changes, some aspects of the game I quite like would be lost, and that to me is more significant. A few examples:

- potions, scrolls, and magic items that just do what they do, and aren't tied to any particular spell or creation method;
- some rather elegant mechanics dealing with coming back from the dead, system-shock, etc.;
- a simple undead-turning system;
- spells taking time to cast rather than resolving immediately;
etc.

Now, obviously any of these could be houseruled in, but by what I'm reading above 3.5e doesn't need houserules. And there's the Dreaded Knock On Effect to consider...
*****
Someone mentioned earlier about 1e classes not being balanced. One difference between 1e and 3e is that in 3e there seems to be a general expectation that the classes willbe played about evenly; in 1e there was a general expectation that about 40% of PC's would be Fighters, 30% Clerics, 20% Thieves, and 10% Wizards*...in other words, that the classes would not be played in the same amount. In the games our crew have played, with various class-race restrictions removed, it's worked out much closer to 40-20-20-20...but there's still a strong shift toward Fighters.

* = I might have Clerics and Thieves mixed up, but the 40-30-20-10 breakdown remains.

Lanefan

 

[darious777]

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.

Heh. Just this past week I had a player say that he wasn't going to take a feat out of a supplement because he didn't want me to use the same feat against the party.

 

[Raven Crowking]

First off, to save QFT-ing a long post, I'll just say I agree with Raven's post #159 this thread; well said!

Thank you.

- potions, scrolls, and magic items that just do what they do, and aren't tied to any particular spell or creation method;

I have some house rules that might help you with that. Email me at my hotmail account (see my sig).

RC

 

[thedungeondelver]

Well, I have participated in a many dozens of discussions on the general topic in various forums.

The number of people who have volunteered that they may have tried various particular rules, but did not usually use other 1e rules at all number in the hundreds. That includes Gary Gygax.

The number of people who have said they usually used all the rules reasonably closely to how they were written I could count on one hand.

Do you have better data?

You're the one who made the indefensible comment that people didn't have fun playing older editions of D&D. You come up with some data, sparky.

 

[Crothian]

Ya, those old house rules threads were always great especially when Gary and many other old timers would post in them. The threads are here in the general forum if anyone was interested enough to locate them.

Of course there are plenty of threads here and on RPG.net of people not havign fun with 1e. The game was not for everyone.