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

[Crothian]

Well, feats and other stacking modifiers, the amount of prep time it takes to create a character or NPC in general; sometimes this is linked with irritation about the amount of page space occupied by statblocks.

The third is AoO's and/or the amount of time it takes to resolve a combat -- same objection, imo.

I would think that among the top 3 reasons people don't play D&D is becasue they don't like it. They don't like class based syatems. And they don't like fantasy games. I think your reasons are why D&D fans don't play it.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

I would think that among the top 3 reasons people don't play D&D is becasue they don't like it. They don't like class based syatems. And they don't like fantasy games. I think your reasons are why D&D fans don't play it.

Eh? I thought I was fairly clear that I was giving the reasons people don't play 3.x.

 

[Crothian]

Eh? I thought I was fairly clear that I was giving the reasons people don't play 3.x.

You were but you never said who those people are. My mom doesn't play, but not for any of your reasons. I think yopur reasons fit for why D&D fans don't play 3.5 not why people in general don't play it.

 

[mmadsen]

What is the core appeal of the game? The thing that people have fun doing, the cause of it's existence and it's reason for being and your reason for playing are.....what?

For me, the soul of D&D was always its sense of mystery. The game was about figuring out what was going on -- What are those things? What's behind that door? How do we get out of here? -- and finding clever solutions to life-and-death situations.

And how does the most recent edition/trends/design of the game violate that? How does what D&D is becoming/has become/became before pervert what you think this spirit and soul of D&D is?

The more concrete and specific the rules are, the more rules you need, and the more rules you have, the more the players and DM must consult the rules (before and during the game itself), etc.

Further, the more source material there is, the less room there is for mystery and creativity. It's harder, not easier, to run a campaign in a "nailed down" setting with many details.

Obviously, many people feel that D&D's trends now are beating and deflowering their precious game, but what would you rather have WotC publish? What new things would satisfy what you need?

The conflict is that we want a sense of mystery -- like when we first started playing the game -- but we simultaneously want all the answers. We're like children before Christmas, and we routinely ruin the surprise. Hardcore gamers are on a treadmill, studying all the rules, buying new supplements, digesting all their possibilities, then buying newer supplements, and so on.

 

[Thurbane]

Wow! People don't play 3.x because of the number of PrCs? I don't get it. I mean, I don't care much for PrCs but I also just disallow them, as is my perogative. Over a thousand, eh?

"We encourage you, as the DM, to tightly limit the prestige classes available in your campaign." DMG 3.5, p176

Doesn't sound plausible. I've played in Core Only - No PrCs campaign, and it worked like a charm. Why would anyone feel the need to buy everything from WotC?

Yes, except that a certain mindset of player will insist of their DM that if it's in an official WotC book, the DM must include it in his campaign as a player option. If the DM politely (or not so politely) declines, the players then throw a hissy fit and rant about what an unfair DM they have. You see posts about it here all the time, and even moreso on the WotC forums.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

You were but you never said who those people are. My mom doesn't play, but not for any of your reasons. I think yopur reasons fit for why D&D fans don't play 3.5 not why people in general don't play it.

Why, thank you for pointing out that possible confusion, Crothian!

 

[Crothian]

Yes, except that a certain mindset of player will insist of their DM that if it's in an official WotC book, the DM must include it in his campaign as a player option. If the DM politely (or not so politely) declines, the players then throw a hissy fit and rant about what an unfair DM they have. You see posts about it here all the time, and even moreso on the WotC forums.

That is why there are more players then DMs. DMs have an easier time of kicking out a player and replacing him then a Player has of replacing the DM.

 

[Numion]

Yes, except that a certain mindset of player will insist of their DM that if it's in an official WotC book, the DM must include it in his campaign as a player option. If the DM politely (or not so politely) declines, the players then throw a hissy fit and rant about what an unfair DM they have. You see posts about it here all the time, and even moreso on the WotC forums.

Maybe I have a faulty memory, but threads such as those are not something I see "here all the time". Sure, I see threads about players asking why their DM thinks something is overpowered or something like that. But I don't recall ever seeing a thread in which a player thinks the DM must allow everything from WotC. Couple of times I've seen hissy fits, but considering the traffic this site sees, it's no surprise. I might very well be wrong, though.

In any case, it seems to be such a minority that I have a hard time believing that to be the main reason people don't play D&D. If you go outside of D&D boards the reasons are altogether something else - hit points, levels, mandatory BAB progression, etc..

Add to this the fact that there's the rule 0 printed in the books.

 

[RFisher]

Compare to previous editions where the Players were specifically prevented from learning the rules of the game, and in which the DMG advised the DM to punish the Players' PCs if they read the DMG. Where large swaths of rules were contained in said DMG, and the Players had to rely on the DM knowing them in order for them to be enacted, unable to tell if the DM was ad hocing or if they were going by RAW.

Regardless of how you or I played, previous editions were definately less Player friendly as written.

Let me remind you that there were editions of the game prior to 2000 that did not have "Advanced" in their name. (^_^)

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.

Perhaps you've managed to capture why I don't prefer 3e, because I don't want to play the game you've just described.

They relied instead upon the people putting them together inventing fun themselves.

Even if I were to concede this point, I don't think it is a bad thing!

And since the quality of older editions was largely dependant upon how good of a DM you happened to land (because the rules themselves were unreliable)

My experience is that the quality of the DM matter just as much with any edition. I haven't witnessed 3e making anyone a better DM than they were with any other system.

Perhaps I am overstating the case a bit, but, then again, forcing players to consult the OED in order to play is perhaps not something that is a good idea. Take even something as simple as Somatic. When you're twelve years old, trying to figure out what the heck that meant was something of a task.

On the one hand, I can almost agree with this. My favorite edition of D&D did a pretty good job of explaining everything you needed to know without sending you to a dictionary or the library.

On the other hand, it sometimes seems ridiculous what they bother to provide glosses for. (In particular I'm thinking about B4 here.) An author should expect their readers to be able to use a dictionary.

Gygax's style may have been a bit of an extreme, but it's nothing that a 12yo with access to a dictionary & a library couldn't manage. (Heaven forbid a book actually encourage him to go to a parent or other respected adult to discuss the meaning of the words.)

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Gygax's style may have been a bit of an extreme, but it's nothing that a 12yo with access to a dictionary & a library couldn't manage. (Heaven forbid a book actually encourage him to go to a parent or other respected adult to discuss the meaning of the words.)

A bit of a digression, but using obscure words in really novel ways has its downsides.

I have run across more than one person recounting the humorous nature of their first encounter with a Lich.

DM: "...and across the room...is a Lich!"
Player: "Hmm. I walk over and search it."
DM: "Uh. It casts Finger of Death on you."
Player: "The lich?"
DM: "Yes! The Lich."
Player: "So the body is moving?"
DM: "It is a Lich! Yes."
Player: "And it is moving? What didn't you say that before?"
DM: "It is a Lich!"