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

[Hussar]

A good DM will certainly weigh player complaints and wishes in his mind, but still needs to be free to overrule these in the name of game flow when required.

See, that's the problem right there. You've hit it on the nub so to speak. A good DM. In other words, for 1e and 2e to be fun, you need a good DM. If you had a fair or a poor DM, you spent hours stumbling around trying to pound square pegs into round holes.

This is the point that was brought up earlier. With a significantly better ruleset, the DM doesn't HAVE to be good to have a good game. An average DM can run a decent game. Even a poor DM will run a half way playable game. In earlier editions, having a poor DM was akin to having acid poured into your ears. Add to that the fact that he was a roomate, made things just that much more fun.

 

[Thurbane]

See, that's the problem right there. You've hit it on the nub so to speak. A good DM. In other words, for 1e and 2e to be fun, you need a good DM. If you had a fair or a poor DM, you spent hours stumbling around trying to pound square pegs into round holes.

This is the point that was brought up earlier. With a significantly better ruleset, the DM doesn't HAVE to be good to have a good game. An average DM can run a decent game. Even a poor DM will run a half way playable game. In earlier editions, having a poor DM was akin to having acid poured into your ears. Add to that the fact that he was a roomate, made things just that much more fun.

I completely see your point, I simply don't agree with it.

I don't concur that 1E or 2E were inherently worse rulesets than 3E, or that they needed harder work or more experience to DM in a manner that would be enjoyable for player and DM alike...

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think something to remember here is many people, myself included, don't game with friends. Err, that came out wrong. What I mean is, the people I game with are just that - they're the people I see during game time. I don't particularly interact with any of them outside of the game. I'm thinking that RC is in a similar boat.

Point of clarification: The people I game with do include people I see in other contexts. Heck, they include my son.

What they do not include is anyone who both (1) joined simply to hang out with their friends, and (2) complains about the choices they make. See, my view is that we all be rather mature about the choices we are making, and accept the consequences of them. And, hey, if you'd rather do something else, you are welcome to do it. We can still hang out and eat pizza or whatever.

What I am making is a clear distinction between "DM" and "Babysitter".


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think, on ENWorld, heavy as it is with DMs and Old Skoolers, you're going to get biased results. I think WotC, with their small armada of market research, is perhaps a better barometer. The fact that they catered to those who don't use a published setting by giving them an effective baseline, I believe, speaks well to the point of there being a big demand for it.

Sure. Just remember that this market research doesn't determine what supplies the best game, merely the game that the most people will buy. In other words, market forces tend to deliver the lowest common denominator, not the highest possible achievement.

Mind you, I like the ruleset (with modifications), but I sure wouldn't use the "marketing survey" as a method of "proving" that it is a better game!

 

[Crothian]

This is the point that was brought up earlier. With a significantly better ruleset, the DM doesn't HAVE to be good to have a good game. An average DM can run a decent game. Even a poor DM will run a half way playable game. In earlier editions, having a poor DM was akin to having acid poured into your ears. Add to that the fact that he was a roomate, made things just that much more fun.

A poor DM does not run what I'll call a playiable game. An average DM will, but an average DM could in 1e as well. A DM needs to be good to run a good game because the ruleset is not everything in a game. A DM needs to do a lot more then deal with the rules.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Oh, indeed, people played the game. But they also spent time working worlds from the ground up and re-working rules into house rules and variouos things that were NOT playing the game.

3e better enables people to bypass a lot of that and get on with the playing itself.

Just like wooden trains were perfectly fine, but they wouldn't let you re-enact your favorite fighting robot cartoon quite as well as action figures.

With 1e, I had a short house rules document (about 1 page).

With 2e, I had a longer house rules document (about 60 pages).

With 3e, my house rules document is over 200 pages long....in fact, it replaces the PHB and part of the MM.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

A poor DM does not run what I'll call a playiable game. An average DM will, but an average DM could in 1e as well. A DM needs to be good to run a good game because the ruleset is not everything in a game. A DM needs to do a lot more then deal with the rules.

Absolutely.

 

[skinnydwarf]

<SNIP>

Older D&D is Exclusive: you are allowed only what I say. 3e is inclusive: unless you say otherwise, I can play X.
<SNIP>

I usually just say "You can use the core books + [other books I allow], anything else needs to go through me." Beyond some whiny players (who were whiny before 3e), I've never had a problem. But that's just my experience. I can see how the focus on "player choice" in the new rules can cramp a DM's style. But then, I like the player choice- dwarf wizards and all. So long as it's only choice from a few books.

 

[Hussar]

A poor DM does not run what I'll call a playiable game. An average DM will, but an average DM could in 1e as well. A DM needs to be good to run a good game because the ruleset is not everything in a game. A DM needs to do a lot more then deal with the rules.

I disagree. The rules in 3e will handhold you well enough that you can play a playable game, even if the DM isn't very good. It may not be a great game, it may be pure hack, but, it's still playable.

Take this as a f'instance. In the 2e PHB there is a section for playing priests of a specific mythos. It states right in that section that the DM and player will have to sit down and hammer out the class. Beyond that, not much guidance is given.

So, if I want to play a priest of Thor, I sit down with my DM and work it out. If the DM is good, then no problems. If the DM is bad, then I wind up with a workable character, a character that is overpowered or a character that is underpowered. The odds of me getting a workable character are that much smaller and the odds that either I'm going to overshadow everyone else's character because I'm Priestzilla, or that I'm going to be sitting in the corner not doing much are that much higher.

In 3e, we write "Cleric of Thor" on the character sheet, give him Strength and Weather domains and we're good to go. Good, bad or indifferent, the DM will most likely come to this conclusion. And, because we're working from a ruleset that is functionally balanced, we can know beforehand that my character will be viable and will not play havoc with someone's game.

And that's just pulling an example from the Player's Handbook. Never mind if I start tossing in Kits into the mix. Or the 1e Unearthed Arcana. Or start pulling goodies from Dragon. Howzabout a 1e bard? Make him a half elf and you get to bard PDQ. Maybe I "roll" really well and get psionics.

Because earlier rulesets had these huge campaign bombs that could really disrupt a campaign, the quality of the game hinged so heavily on DM ability.

I've been told time and time again that 3e takes power away from the DM and gives it to the rules. I agree with that. But, if that's true, then the abilities of the DM become somewhat less important (but not unimportant of course) to the quality of the game. Seems like a logical chain. DM has less direct impact on the characters due to the structure of the rules therefore the abilities of the DM have less impact on the game.

Yes, a DM needs to do a lot more than deal with the rules. But, if the rules are an issue, then the DM needs to deal with them. Thus the DM's abilities become more important. When the rules are less of an issue, then the DM doesn't need to deal with them and his abilities become less important.

Now, how much less is a matter of opinion. But, it will be less nonetheless.

 

[Justin Bacon]

With 1e, I had a short house rules document (about 1 page).

With 2e, I had a longer house rules document (about 60 pages).

With 3e, my house rules document is over 200 pages long....in fact, it replaces the PHB and part of the MM.

Wow. I'd love to see that. No, seriously, I'd love to see it. I don't suppose I could convince you to send it to me?

That being said, your experience is the exact inverse of my own: In previous editions, my houserules were extensive. My 3.0 houserules, OTOH, were about 3 pages long. My 3.5 houserules are about twice that length, partly through accumulation but also partly from fixing problems that the 3.5 revision created (Jump DCs, damage reduction, and cover bonuses).

Most importantly, however: If someone said, "I have a gun to your head. You can either choose to play D&D3x strictly by-the-book or you can choose not to play it at all." I would choose to play. If someone did the same thing with AD&D1 or AD&D2, I'd say "no, thank you" and walk away.