Kamikaze Midget, good post with #220.
Obviously, I disagree with the base assumption that earlier editions were cardboard toys in comparison to the current edition. OTOH, the current edition does quite a few things that the earlier ones didn't do well. IMHO, of course.
I don't believe that the relative prevelance of house rules are a weakness in a role-playing game. They help to make experiences unique....even in 3.X, a strong campaign will contain unique prestige classes, for example.
I would argue that the new ruleset is better, but that the old rulesets weren't bad. I would also argue that the new ruleset, given the same contextual text as the older rulesets (particularly 1e), would be a stronger (more fun) product. But I am sure others would disagree.
I would also say, from a DM perspective, that the new ruleset is more work. But the important question isn't just how much work are you doing, but also how much of that work can you re-use, and what are you getting in return for that work? The flexibility of the d20 System gives lots of reward for the extra work, so it is more than balanced out. Even if I would like some more shortcut-type products.
Kamikaze Midget said:
Similarly, those who have no knowledge of the "plays with friends" kind of mentality that 3e supports seem to prefer the older language when dealing with a DM's authority, marking the change in editions as a distancing from their norms. Those who don't want their friends leaving the room because they aren't having fun instead prefer the dynamic of players knowing what makes a good game and what doesn't.
This, however, I really disagree with.
As I said earlier, I started playing on Christmas in 1979 in Wisconsin, joined the U.S. Army in 1984 (where I ran games for different groups in Missouri, Indiana, Virginia, and Louisiana, both military and civilian), moved to California (where I ran games in Riverside and Santa Monica), and then moved to Toronto (where I ran games for different groups of players). I've run games for a lot of different players in 1e, 2e, and 3e. There's a lot of water under this bridge.
I have never veered from the buck stopping with the DM. I have never wanted for players, and I have never had fewer than half a dozen people who wanted in if a slot opened. And, may I say, the people that I play with are nearly always friends. They may not be friends when they first ask to play, but they end up that way.
Maybe it's just anecdotal evidence, but I believe that method works.
Players knowing what makes a good game, btw, is a good thing under any edition, and has nothing to do with the authority (or lack thereof) of the DM. All changing the language of the dynamic does, IMHO, is cause smart groups to spell out a conflict resolution mechanic ahead of time (be it DM authority, group vote, or whatever) so that in the case of a disagreement the game doesn't grind to a halt.
Oh, yeah, and it sells more books.
WotC wisely markets to players. Because there are more players than DMs, something that the players want is automatically going to sell more than something aimed at DMs. In order to make those sales, though, the players first have to be convinced that, should they buy this book, they will be able to use the content therein. If the players buy and use the book, it is nearly a sure thing that the DMs will also have to do the same. This is a profitable business model.
The problem, of course, is that if the DM has to read and agree to use the book first, you are going to sell a lot fewer books. However could WotC resolve this problem?
"Plays with friends" is the mentality behind almost every game ever made, rpg or not. Very few people go out to play Scrabble with their bitterest foes. The supposed change in mentality is, IMHO, as big a myth as that of houserules in 3.x causing complex balance problems that spin out of control.
